10/3    Dear photo buffs. Now that full frame FX cameras are getting into
        the low $2000 range, and possibly much lower in a few years, do you
        think DX 1.3 1.5 1.6 smaller frame DSLR cameras will be obviated
        in the future? What is your prediction?
        \_ the race for megapixel is dead. Small frame DSLR is good enough
           and it'll be around for a very long time.
        \_ I don't see full-frame as really providing much value.  Canon
           in particular is highly dedicated to APS-C frame size, and
           gets results which make going any larger seem unnecessary.  -tom
           \_ Canon chose to never go back to full frame size. Their EF-S
              lenses do not physically fit into their full frame bodies.
              On the other hand, Nikon is waivering, undecided. Their DX
              lenses all fit into FX bodies, and their FX bodies recognize
              FX and crop accordingly. Canon=Republican, Nikon=Democrats
              (their lenses and bodies all get along). Canon is firm and
              takes better pictures. Nikon is queer and their indecisiveness
              make them look like pussies.
           \- it has implcations for noise, lens design and few other things,
              just as canon's decision to change the lens mount to a larger
              diameter.
              \_ The reality is that noise is becoming less and less of an
                 issue.  Even at ISO 1600 in low light my XSi displays
                 astonishingly little noise.  Sure, there are implications for
                 lens design, but 35mm is an arbitrary size and there doesn't
                 seem to be much marginal value in pegging digital to that
                 size, particularly for Canon whose lenses are aimed at APS-C.
                 If Nikon is costing more and not producing signficantly
                 better results with 35mm sensors, the invisible hand will
                 smack them down to size.  so to speak.  -tom
                 \- look for serious photographers, there are more issues.
                    (not suggesting i'm in that category)
                    quality at 1600 is certainly better than it used to be,
                    but i still dont like it, but different things work for
                    different people, when you get to "qualitative" stuff
                    like this. on the other hand there are plenty of technical
                    difference, e.g. the DoF performance when shooting
                    portraits with a 105/2.8 on 35mm vs APC. i think you would
                    need something like a 80/2.0 for similar effect. i assume
                    the yields will improve and he total fraction of cost in
                    the sensor will come down, and the real estate will be
                    good for high end cameras. but i agree for "regular"
                    photographers [i.e. people usually not to "focused" on
                    photographers [i.e. people usually not too "focused" on
                    DoF], things like weight and cost and some features like
                    IS trump extreme quality, MTF curves and corner cases.
                    BTW, there are definitely places i've taken my <$1000
                    camera body i would not take a multi-$k body [risk of
                    damage, theft etc] ... so in once sense i was able to
                    take better pix with a lighter, cheaper camera.