Full frame is not going to die. It will probably never die until optical cameras are replaced with some other future "magical" technology. But I suspect it will not be "king of the hill" down the road. Sensor technology is changing. The five year old 4/3rds sensor designs are going to start being replaced this year. I was only hoping for a 25mp sensor, but now it appears it will be a 33mp new technology sensor. And there may be a 42mp in the further future. And Olympus has already stated that the pro lenses are good up to a 100mp sensor. Will a 33mp sensor make 4/3rds "king of the hill"? No. But take a look at what is changing in the market. I do not remember the brand, but the manufacturer's comment was that the body was small and light "like a 4/3rds body" while having a full frame sensor. The only remaining problem is now in the lens' sizes and weights.

The Sony FE 600 f4 GM OSS is 6.44" X 17.68", 6.7#, and $12,998. The Canon RF 600 f4 IS USM is 6.6" X 18.6", 6.8#, and $12,999. The Nikon 600 f4E AF-S Nikkor FL ED VR is 6.54" X 17", 8.4#, and $12,296.95. The Olympus ED 300 f4 IS Pro IS 3.64" X 8.94", 3.25#, and $2,749. These four lenses are all sharp 4.1° lenses. But which ones are the smallest, most handholdable, and the most affordable? Yes, there is a difference in depth of field between full frames and 4/3rds lenses. Even as expensive the Olympus lens is, most people cannot afford a 4.1° lens except for the Olympus lens. Can those full frame lenses be made half the size, half the weight, and still be a 300 f4 lens? No. But the APS-C could offer a system that would be smaller, lighter, and more affordable without losing all the sometimes desired narrow depth of field and high ISO of full frame. There are no 400 f4 APS-C lenses. The closest lenses are 300 f8 reflex lenses and a zoom that goes to 350. The market is wide open for Nikon's taking right now (or any smart thinking company). Plus, less material cost. The manufacturers could be offering all of us a system more powerful than 4/3rds yet not all the size, weight, and cost of full frame. My guess Nikon will miss this opportunity and Sony will not.

There will be less and less amateurs and enthusiasts that will be willing to save and/or spend $13K for a pro lens if and when there are cheaper alternatives. And the pro level sales alone will probably not totally support keeping a pro level lens' cost from going up further in cost. Further evidence of this is: one can buy any one of the full frame 600 f4 lenses now without much delay, but one has to wait "in line" for a new Olympus 150-400 f4.5 lens until sometime between July and December of next year to get one of the $7,500 lenses. This shows that the amateurs and enthusiasts, along with some pros, are willing to save and spend the money even in the light of more depth of field and more noise at higher ISO just to get those long telephoto lengths. They are not will to spend the extra $6K for a full frame lens with less reach. This is part of the reason that the "crown" will eventually move from full frame to APS-C. 4/3rds will benefit from better sensors, but they will not be made "king of the hill".

Full frame is not going to die. It will probably never die until optical cameras are replaced with some other future "magical" technology. But I suspect it will not be "king of the hill" down the road. Sensor technology is changing. The five year old 4/3rds sensor designs are going to start being replaced this year. I was only hoping for a 25mp sensor, but now it appears it will be a 33mp new technology sensor. And there may be a 42mp in the further future. And Olympus has already stated that the pro lenses are good up to a 100mp sensor. Will a 33mp sensor make 4/3rds "king of the hill"? No. But take a look at what is changing in the market. I do not remember the brand, but the manufacturer's comment was that the body was small and light "like a 4/3rds body" while having a full frame sensor. The only remaining problem is now in the lens' sizes and weights.

The Sony FE 600 f4 GM OSS is 6.44" X 17.68", 6.7#, and $12,998. The Canon RF 600 f4 IS USM is 6.6" X 18.6", 6.8#, and $12,999. The Nikon 600 f4E AF-S Nikkor FL ED VR is 6.54" X 17", 8.4#, and $12,296.95. The Olympus ED 300 f4 IS Pro IS 3.64" X 8.94", 3.25#, and $2,749. These four lenses are all sharp 4.1° lenses. But which ones are the smallest, most handholdable, and the most affordable? Yes, there is a difference in depth of field between full frames and 4/3rds lenses. Even as expensive the Olympus lens is, most people cannot afford a 4.1° lens except for the Olympus lens. Can those full frame lenses be made half the size, half the weight, and still be a 300 f4 lens? No. But the APS-C could offer a system that would be smaller, lighter, and more affordable without losing all the sometimes desired narrow depth of field and high ISO of full frame. There are no 400 f4 APS-C lenses. The closest lenses are 300 f8 reflex lenses and a zoom that goes to 350. The market is wide open for Nikon's taking right now (or any smart thinking company). Plus, less material cost. The manufacturers could be offering all of us a system more powerful than 4/3rds yet not all the size, weight, and cost of full frame. My guess Nikon will miss this opportunity and Sony will not.

There will be less and less amateurs and enthusiasts that will be willing to save and/or spend $13K for a pro lens if and when there are cheaper alternatives. And the pro level sales alone will probably not totally support keeping a pro level lens' cost from going up further in cost. Further evidence of this is: one can buy any one of the full frame 600 f4 lenses now without much delay, but one has to wait "in line" for a new Olympus 150-400 f4.5 lens until sometime between July and December of next year to get one of the $7,500 lenses. This shows that the amateurs and enthusiasts, along with some pros, are willing to save and spend the money even in the light of more depth of field and more noise at higher ISO just to get those long telephoto lengths. They are not will to spend the extra $6K for a full frame lens with less reach. This is part of the reason that the "crown" will eventually move from full frame to APS-C. 4/3rds will benefit from better sensors, but they will not be made "king of the hill".

Well, we agree that full frame isn't going away, but we totally disagree about most everything else you said, but I appreciate your POV.

You assume that the only reason for full frame is for long lenses like 600mm and that most people can't afford this so things will move smaller.

First, this is against the trend that we are already seeing - micro 4/3 is being developed less and less and so is APS-C.

But that aside, full frame is superior for many reasons beyond DOF on a 600mm lens. It is clearly a better format for event and portraiture as it has superior low light performance and shallower DOF at any given focal length and distance to subject - both very important for event and portraiture - low light performance is also better for landscape and the field of view of FF is better for both landscape and architecture photography - event as well.

As sensor technology advances, full frame will benefit from this as well and will always perform better than APS-C and Micro 4/3 - assuming the same sensor generation - this is physics and not a debate - simply a fact of physics.

Since there is little relative weight savings from APS-C once good lenses are being used - the size weight thing is a diminishing return and Micro 4/3 is just inferior.

Anyway, there will be FF and Medium format and cell phones - what happens to APS-C and Micro 4/3 is more vague - I guess time will only tell - personally for what I do APS-C is not great and Micro 4/3 is unacceptable.

Thanks for your opinion though - we are all entitled to what we think, and who knows maybe you are right, but I don't think so given the supporting premises that you gave.

Have a great day!

Folks, all the biggest technological and engineering advancements and the biggest development investments being made by camera makers today are in fullframe mirrorless cameras. That is just a fact. Some of that tech does trickle down to remaining high-end DSLRs, APS-C and micro 4/3rds cameras, just as some of the first IBIS system and 4k tech trickled up from micro 4/3rds to APS-C and fullframe.

But the bottom line is fullframe is where camera manufacturers showcase the best they have to offer in performance and innovation. Canon is hard at work on its 100mp sensor and Sony is hard at work on its 102mp sensor. Neither of those will be put into any APS-C camera. They are earmarked for new fullframe and possibly even medium format cameras being developed.

Great quality APS-C cameras still deserve their place in these camera makers' lineups, and they will continue to be developed and supported as long as their place in the camera market remains viable and profitable. And i think it will for many years to come.

But the reality is that the better low light, less noise, higher sensor resolution, better image quality, greater depth of field, faster fullframe frames per second, better autofocusing systems, true electronic shooting, higher video specs, and true hybrid still/ video capability advantages of fullframe are real.

And fullframe is where sales and better profits per unit in this shrinking overall camera market can be sustained. The sales trends and actual sales and profit figures support that conclusion.

Everything is changeable in business, but the major players are banking on putting their money and their best faces forward with their fullframe mirrorless gear offerings.

Cheers

Folks, all the biggest technological and engineering advancements and the biggest development investments being made by camera makers today are in fullframe mirrorless cameras. That is just a fact. Some of that tech does trickle down to remaining high-end DSLRs, APS-C and micro 4/3rds cameras, just as some of the first IBIS system and 4k tech trickled up from micro 4/3rds to APS-C and fullframe.

But the bottom line is fullframe is where camera manufacturers showcase the best they have to offer in performance and innovation. Canon is hard at work on its 100mp sensor and Sony is hard at work on its 102mp sensor. Neither of those will be put into any APS-C camera. They are earmarked for new fullframe and possibly even medium format cameras being developed.

Great quality APS-C cameras still deserve their place in these camera makers' lineups, and they will continue to be developed and supported as long as their place in the camera market remains viable and profitable. And i think it will for many years to come.

But the reality is that the better low light, less noise, higher sensor resolution, better image quality, greater depth of field, faster fullframe frames per second, better autofocusing systems, true electronic shooting, higher video specs, and true hybrid still/ video capability advantages of fullframe are real.

And fullframe is where sales and better profits per unit in this shrinking overall camera market can be sustained. The sales trends and actual sales and profit figures support that conclusion.

Everything is changeable in business, but the major players are banking on putting their money and their best faces forward with their fullframe mirrorless gear offerings.

Cheers

Folks, all the biggest technological and engineering advancements and the biggest development investments being made by camera makers today are in fullframe mirrorless cameras. That is just a fact. Some of that tech does trickle down to remaining high-end DSLRs, APS-C and micro 4/3rds cameras, just as some of the first IBIS system and 4k tech trickled up from micro 4/3rds to APS-C and fullframe.

But the bottom line is fullframe is where camera manufacturers showcase the best they have to offer in performance and innovation. Canon is hard at work on its 100mp sensor and Sony is hard at work on its 102mp sensor. Neither of those will be put into any APS-C camera. They are earmarked for new fullframe and possibly even medium format cameras being developed.

Great quality APS-C cameras still deserve their place in these camera makers' lineups, and they will continue to be developed and supported as long as their place in the camera market remains viable and profitable. And i think it will for many years to come.

But the reality is that the better low light, less noise, higher sensor resolution, better image quality, greater depth of field, faster fullframe frames per second, better autofocusing systems, true electronic shooting, higher video specs, and true hybrid still/ video capability advantages of fullframe are real.

And fullframe is where sales and better profits per unit in this shrinking overall camera market can be sustained. The sales trends and actual sales and profit figures support that conclusion.

Everything is changeable in business, but the major players are banking on putting their money and their best faces forward with their fullframe mirrorless gear offerings.

Cheers

Your decision made in frustration about the EOS system had a number of long-term impacts, some still occurring:

1) Canon took the #1 worldwide position from Nikon, a position they've held ever since the early 1990s after the 1987 EOS system release.

2) Nikon looked the other way when Sony arrived about 15 years ago, where Sony is now #2 worldwide and Nikon has dropped to #3.

3) In camera and lens sales, Canon's market position is bigger than both Sony and Nikon combined.

4) Canon FD lenses have a renewed interest, both for a vintage cinema (video) look and mounted to any mirrorless digital body for still photography where the body provides image stabilization and the camera's EVF lets you focus the lens manually better than any legacy SRL ever could. The camera manages the exposure, the photographer just needs to focus and shoot.

5) Canon redesigned their lens mount moving to their fully electronic approach based on EOS. After first ignoring auto-focus technology, Nikon spent several years with kludged together solutions mixing mechanical and electronic. And now in this mirrorless world, their much vaunted F-mount isn't fully upwardly compatible with their Z-mount, the 'hit' Canon took in 1987 and Nikon and their long-term customers now have to absorb when the chips are down for Nikon.

Interchangeable lens cameras are a luxury good. Everyone has a camera in their phone and phones are expensive. Professional photographers need interchangeable lens cameras. People with disposable incomes can also afford interchangeable lens cameras. The entire market size for interchangeable lens cameras is down 80% in just the 10+ years starting 2010. The history of companies with declining market shares in contracting markets is not a history of success nor even survival.

Yes, it’s not just sensor design that keeps improving, it’s also the sensor manufacturing process. One big reason crop sensor cameras proliferated early on is that it was a lot harder and more expensive to make larger sensors without flaws. The manufacturing process has improved such that full frame sensors can be manufactured much more cost effectively than before. Yes manufacturers will still make crop sensor cameras but you’ll only see a handful of native crop lenses, just as with DSLR’s. I have an Olympus E-M1X and it’s a great camera for the purposes I got it for, but my full frame Z7 is my go to for most things.

As sensor design and manufacturing progresses, the next thing you will see is more medium format mirrorless systems. Designs and patents have already been issued from some major players like Sony for curved medium format sensors. As you know curved sensors will solve the problem that all current flat sensors and current lenses have in bending the light going through the lens to equally reach all corners of that flat sensor. Curved sensors will allow much more compact medium format lenses with wide apertures and incredible corner-to-corner sharpness and resolution and no vignetting.

New Medium format cameras wont be for everyone due to initial price and body size, but already Fuji has shown they can shrink their newest medium format camera bodies down to nearly fullframe size . Camera makers looking for new market shares that the best smartphone cameras can't touch, are keen to push medium format tech and deliver an even higher level of image quality than the best current fullframe cameras. It is coming, giving us even more choices and options.

Cheers