I think one of the smaller formats (with interchangeable lenses) will persist. Micro 4/3 has the obvious advantage of being significantly different from typical DSLRs. I do see JCO's point that FF dslrs aren't really any bigger than their APS-C counterparts. If the pcrcie of FF comes down far enough then they will take over. OTOH, $1500 vs. $800 might be a deal breaker for enough of the market. Micro 4/3 is much smaller, however, including the lenses, and I think here is a real market for that. Look at how well the E-P1 sold, given how expensive it is.
-----Original Message----- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 2:32 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: OT: Sony Releases A850 FF Camera for $2,000 Resolution. LPM. Register distance. Etc. Etc. There are good technical arguments both for and against full-frame. None of it makes any difference. Full-frame is about marketing, consumer needs (desires, really) and fashion. And Pentax can no more choose not to go full-frame than they could have chosen not to go digital. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
