With respect to full-frame DSLR and how physically large the bodies and lenses seem to have become, this raises an intriguing question for me:
Is the market set by equipment type, size, price and available features?
Or is the type, size, price and available features what set the market?
Because if there were something like FF Rebel (I use a Canon-positioned produce because it\'s what I know) I\'d use that in a heartbeat due to \"smaller body, bigger sensor\".
From having seen the rush by camera makers to put out really mature, smaller systems, it makes me wonder where the DSLR market will go. Clearly there\'s a size, feature set and price point that will hit the sweet spot in the market, and the few things I\'ve read about new Panasonics and Olympus cameras is that they are really getting to be excellent substitutions for a DSLR in many common cases.
But what\'s so hard about putting out a $1,400 full-frame Rebel-sized camera? It can\'t all be chalked up to \"lower yield, high sensor price\" can it? Surely there has to market calculation in it?
Because look at the accolades some of the other \"moderate sensor size, small body\" cameras like you cite are getting, and you can see that camera makers are tackling the engineering and marketing challenges with abandon. Is there a similar untapped market in a small form factor, FF sensor? The M9 suggests so.
Apologies if I\'m unjustly expanding upon the scope of your original post, it\'s just that I though about writing this out in part because some people really have such positive things to say about these new Olys, Panasonics, Sonys, etc. I sold my G11 after ended up frustrated but could be enticed again if the performance characteristics have advanced this much in a few scant years.
Aug 05, 2011 at 12:35 PM
Previous versions of sirimiri's message #9816021 « Switched entirely to Micro4/3 »
