Who do you think will release a FF Camera body first

<p>For a long time I have wished for a mirrorless that could use my Leica lenses without a crop factor.<br>

Sure Leica has had these cameras , but their price to performance has been dismal.<br>

I know that Fuji and Sony could both do it for much less money and likely have better IQ<br>

features for both manual and electronic lenses.<br>

What do think will happen , when do you think it will happen, and is there a chance Canon who has its own mirrorless would be interested in selling cameras that could take a mix of Canon and legacy lenses like<br>

Nex now does?<br>

Also, if Full Frame dslr's sell for $2K then what would a less complicated mirrorless FF sell for?</p>

I wouldn't say that any of the current manufacturers are likely to release a full frame MILC. They're all already invested in

crop frame gear. If any would I would think it would be Sony. They've already got an E mount full frame video camera, so

at least you know it can be done and they've shown a bit of interest. Heck, if you really wanted you could get a NEX full

frame video camera and use it with an M mount adapter to shoot stills. I think it's got something similar to the sensor in

the A99 and can shoot 24 mp stills. Form factory's not the most portable though.

<p>Yeah, Sony is the obvious choice here. They already have a full-frame mirrorless fixed-lens camera, the RX-1, which sells for about $2800. They could produce a full-frame NEX if they wanted to, and I imagine sooner or later they will. Just don't expect it to be cheap.</p>

<p>I think Canon sees MILC as a low-end offering, sort of like a P&S but with better IQ and a choice of lenses. The fact that they don't offer an EVF gives an indication that they don't think of this market segment as a professional opportunity. Therefore they are unlikely to put out a full-frame MILC.</p>

<p>Fuji has no full-frame lenses currently for the X mount, and I don't know offhand if the X mount is wide enough to support full-frame. It seems unlikely to me that they would move in that direction, having established their current line as an APS-C-only system with no compatible full-frame lenses. Note that all the companies that have sold full-frame digital cameras (Canon, Nikon, Sony/Minolta, Leica, Kodak) designed them to work with full-frame legacy lenses that are still in production (Kodak's full-frame SLRs had Canon or Nikon lens mounts), while all the companies that completely dumped their old film-based systems (Olympus, Fuji, Ricoh) or never made film cameras (Panasonic, Samsung) have gone with APS-C or smaller sensors exclusively.</p>

<p>Nikon and Olympus can't and won't produce a full-frame mirrorless offering, at least not one that is compatible with their current MILC systems, which are clearly not designed to support full-frame. Pentax has shown no interest in full-frame digital even in their SLR line.</p>

<p>+ 1 on Sony<br>

The strongest candidate to release a FF mirrorless<br>

To make it success, they have to design the whole lens line-up. Should not be a bulky system, otherwise there is no point of using it.<br>

And of course, reasonable price..</p>

<p>Naturally Sony seems to be headed that way, and they have the Focus assist Peaking system<br>

that is a good replacement for the rangefinder VF, especially with the magnification option.</p>

<p>I just hope that they make it with something like 18mp, so that they get the best noise<br>

and high iso characteristics. I really don't know if even the legacy Leica lenses really<br>

need more MP than that to milk the resolution out of them. Remember all these legacy<br>

lenses were designed decades ago for film and 25-36mp is wishful thinking even for these<br>

lenses.<br>

Refurbished D600 is selling for $1600, that is the new price floor for FF.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here's a quick size comparison. The slide and the green rectangles are 36x24mm frames.</p>

<p>See how Sony made the E mount <em>big</em> - the mount ring is a lot bigger than it really needs to be to accommodate the APS-C frame. They were going for flexibility, even at the cost of the mount ring being larger than the camera - maybe because they were also going to use it as a video camera mount. They currently offer NEX video cameras in three frame sizes.</p>

<p>The Fuji mount ring is a lot smaller. I don't know if they could even get the larger sensor in there. Clearly they were only thinking of the smaller frame when they designed the mount. That seems the more typical approach - e.g., M4/3 camera makers have been using that same frame size for years, they don't care about 36x24mm as a goal. Their cameras do pretty well anyway. The Fujis certainly aren't lacking anything in imaging performance. If Sony were to do a 36x24 NEX in this form factor it would seem more consistent with their market strategy - make one of everything, we can do that, we're freakin' Sony. (Maybe then Samsung would do one because their market strategy is "make one of everything the biggest competitors make...")</p><div></div>

<p>Nice explaination, you showed that the green rectangle's corners don't fit within<br>

the Fuji mount. Fuji might be able to fit a 1.2x crop sensor like Canon used for<br>

a while. That would be much better than a 1.5x crop and maybe make it<br>

easier to get the most out of most lenses in the corners just by shaving a few<br>

mm off the extreme corners. As long as you can get superior saturation, and high<br>

Iso/low noise and dynamic range than offered by DX sensors and on par with<br>

FF sensors I don't see that there is anything sacred in keeping 35mm 3:2<br>

aspect ratio. In fact Nikon has 5:4 option on some high end cameras, and<br>

its about a 1.2x crop, and yeilds direct 8x10 print ratio without needing<br>

cropping.</p>

<p>Sony did a great job on making the NEX as small as can be. I haven't looked at the<br>

camera dimension comps but the X-E1 seems wider than the NEX because the mount<br>

is more centrally centered.<br>

I am saving my Leica lenses for just the idea of FF digital using small sized rangefinder<br>

lenses on a body that is also smaller than DSLR bodies. Now I am using a D7100<br>

and a Nex 5n. Since as you point out Sony has a lot of flexibility in their design.<br>

I expect that a FF Sony camera will have a DX mode that will allow you to<br>

mount DX lenses in that mode.<br>

I have M mount lenses in 15mm; 21mm; 25mm; 35mm; 50mm and 90mm.<br>

Since I have a kit ready, I think its very likely the price will be worth it<br>

to have a small lighter weight and smaller size without giving up anything but<br>

AF. Most of my subjects don't rely on AF and those that do I have the D7100.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Right now we know that the new Leica M is the first FF mirrorless digital camera. For better or worse, perched on top of it is a traditional RF set up. I believe that within five years everyone will have a FF camera on the market. In ten years FF mirrorless cameras will rule the market. </p>

<p>The X-E1 is definitely larger than the NEX-5n. The NEX body is tiny - if you chopped off the grip and the mount ring it would be the size of a pretty small digital point-and-shoot. That hand grip is just large enough for a battery to go in. The X-E1 is sized like a 35mm rangefinder.</p>

<p>I resisted going FF with the Nikons, I figured that high iso/noise, saturation, and dynamic<br>

range were good enough on the DX cameras now. I also figured that the difference in favor<br>

of FF could be offset using primes or zoom lenses that had faster basic max aperture made<br>

possible by the reduced DX frame size. If it were me the Nikon DX would only have 18mp<br>

since that pixel density would be close in resolution to the D800 FF density and would<br>

have less noise and better high iso, but Nikon continues to sell cameras on high Mega<br>

Pixel specs instead of optimal IQ characteristics.<br>

So, I see lots of room for a FF Sony mirrorless to have better IQ than DX Nikon, and equal<br>

or better IQ than 36mp FF Nikons because that pixel density is not warranted by<br>

the lenses available. I agree with you that the fact that you don't need a mirror up feature<br>

to get true stability favors mirrorless cameras, and savings in size and weight seems to<br>

be what consumers want. Going FF when a mirrorless comes along that also supports<br>

legacy lenses makes a lot of sense for anyone who actually likes to carry a complete kit in the field on hikes.</p>

<p>As stated it will most likely be Sony. At the risk of being lambasted for posting a rumor (Oh noes....a RUUUUMMAAAAARRRR!) sonyalpharumors.com has posted that they have received info from inside Sony saying that the FF NEX (NEX 9) will be out in early 2014. There is also indication that Sonys DSLT's will be going away in favor of FF mirrorless A mount cameras. The bodies will be similar to the current A99/A77 cameras but the removal of the SLT mirror will allow them to change up the camera somewhat. Sony appears poised to let the NEX line (APSC and FF) be its compact offering using the E mount while the A mount cameras (APSC and FF mirrorless) will be its more DSLR sized bigger lens offering. A very smart strategy I say.</p>

<p>Also as stated, it wont be cheap. I imagine somewhere around the 3k mark. Maybe less, if you remove the cost of the lens from the RX-1 and imagine a slightly larger NEX body with no lens. They may bring it in a little over 2k which is wishful thinking on my part. Heres hoping.</p>

<p>Canon and Nikon, in a very disappointing way, seems to have relegated MILCs to a second stage sideshow status. Which is unfortunate. I simply cannot believe that these once visionary companies believe that cranking out the same melted blob of black plastic year after year with incremental updates is what enthusiasts want and, more importantly, the way to profitability in the future. Especially after the release of such beautiful and powerful tools like the X pro 1, NEX 7 and 6, OMD and others.</p>

<p>Zenjitsuman, just curious but which Leica lenses do you have? If they are Leica R lenses then you can purchase a Metabones Speedbooter (Leica R moutn to either NEX or Fuji) and have your lenses full frame again as well as being 1 stop faster. Sounds like a gimmick I know, but it works. I have the C/Y Speedbooster for my NEX 7 and its amazing.</p>

<p>Of course if you have Leica Rangefinder lenses then there is no Speedbooster available for those.</p>

<p>Have you seen what a Fuji XE-1 with Zeiss lenses on it can do,image quality wise? Why would you need ff? And as someone already pointed out,the older lenses can't really do the best with a high res sensor-why do you think Leica redesigned the 50mm Summicron into an Apo-Asp version? And Leica will probably redesign the other lenses.</p>

<p>I too think that Sony is the obvious choice. There's the rather well known quote from a member of Sony's senior level management who stated that they already have the tooling and capability and that all they need is the appearance of demand. He was referring to the RX-1 obviously.</p>

<p>Me, I'm hoping that Sony decides to make a bold move though and release a hi-mp-count, feature-laden FF MILC at a substantially reduced price point -- say around $2000. I make this hopefully not hopeful statement because now both Canon and Nikon have FF DSLRs at this price point. So it seems obvious to me that Sony will want to position a MILC at this same price level just for competition's sake.</p>

<p>I also see a dark horse in Samsung. They've been looking for some respect and traction for a while now, and just haven't been able to get much, even though, by all accounts I've read, their current offerings are solid ones. But they're still relatively unknown in photography circles and they might be looking to shake things up, and what better way to do that than come out with a trend-setter before anyone else.</p>

<p>I also have a hunch -- and that's all it is -- about Pentax. Can't say why. It's just a hunch. But I'd keep an eye on them as well.</p>

<p>Nikon and Canon? Fuggetaboudit. It's like they've lost their nerve or something. I just don't understand it. Don't they realize that this market segment that they're desperately trying to hold onto will erode right out from underneath them if they don't move with the times?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sorry Zenjitsuman, I completely missed where you said you had M lenses. So the speedbooster wont work. Bummer.</p>

<p>Mark C, I don think I agree with that whole older lenses dont do the best with high res sensors. I shoot with old glass exclusively and I get wonderful results. Here is an example from a mid 70's Minolta MC Macro Rokkor X 50/3.5.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7133/7150213091_f8ce6fc726_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" /></p>

<p>"I have M mount lenses in 15mm; 21mm; 25mm; 35mm; 50mm and 90mm.<br />Since I have a kit ready, I think its very likely the price will be worth it<br />to have a small lighter weight and smaller size without giving up anything but<br />AF. Most of my subjects don't rely on AF and those that do I have the D7100."<br>

<br>

Nikon made a 36mp sensor for the D800, and many complain that to see the resolution]<br>

they need to use a tripod a lot. Also, they complain about slow continuous frame rate<br>

because the camera has to move very large files to the storage card.<br>

<br>

I have a new Nikon D7100, a great camera, except its weak area is the frame buffer size<br>

and 6fps burst rate.<br>

<br>

Since I have a Nex 5 that can shoot such fast bursts, I don't care or need a second camera<br>

that is so fast. I would advise Sony to come up with a 20mp that is not soft like the Nex 7,<br>

or less than stellar in low light. I would say Nikon got it wrong with the D7100 too, almost<br>

25mp is too much with todays tech on an APS-c. Better to have so little noise that<br>

3200 iso is crean and you don't need noise post processing. 20mp is plenty, just<br>

a couple years ago 12mp was the pro standard and files were almost noise free<br>

at 3200 iso.<br>

Also, since I have used Leica lenses, I don't buy into needing 36mp or anywhere near<br>

that for even the lenses I own, they were designed for film and we all know how big<br>

grain could get at high iso. We need a tool that gets the most out of photography<br>

not pixel peeping. I think for $2000 the Nex 9 body would be a hit for guys like me<br>

who have a whole slew of lenses ready to go. I also have a Canon 200 FD f4 for<br>

tele, nice and compact. All these lenses were 35mm film lenses.<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>Just to revise and extend my earlier comments: one thing I didn't mention was why I want an FF MILC. It's simple. I want an FF MILC because, like others here have mentioned, I have a large collection of excellent quality legacy glass that deserves to be used. And I want the focal lengths to work the way they were designed. I want my 24mm to give the expansive reach characteristic of a 24mm, rather than being mildly wide in APS-C, or even worse, a "normal" lens in u4/3. I want my 35mm to provide the feeling of stepping in to somebody else's personal space, rather than being a "normal" in APS-C or an impotent short telephoto with u4/3. But I do believe APS-C sized sensors have their place. When it comes to tele lenses, who doesn't like the extra reach that APS-C provides. My 200mm becomes a 320mm, my 300mm becomes a 480mm. My 500mm becomes an 800mm! All with no reduction in aperture values. Who doesn't like this? So the APS-C DSLRs will always have a useful place. But wide angles are just as important, and why should I have to buy special EF-S or DX lenses just so I can restore wide-angleness back to my photography? Plus, it's even worse if you're like me and and millions of others and you own Canon FD and FL lenses. Just to use them at all on a DSLR, you have no choice but to use adapters with corrective glass elements that don't work very well and which act as mild teleconverters, even further reducing any wide angle quality, or you have to have the lens's mounts changed, which can be both costly and destructive. So for us, the only real choice is a MILC. So, yeah, I want a Full-Frame MILC so I can shoot my old Canon glass and have its focal length appear unaltered. But it isn't just Canon FD/FL. Nikon F and M42 and Oly and Contax and even Leica R -- all these can be used with adapters on EOS DSLRs, and probably others, I dunno. But Canon FD/FL, Minolta SR, M39, and Leica M -- users of these lenses are left out in the cold. We <strong>deserve</strong> an FF option, and it shouldn't cost the equivalent of a couple of semesters of tuition at a state university just to own one.</p>

<p>Sony did their market research well before they began to design their NEX system. The focus peaking feature is obviously designed for users of manual focus lenses. So they had already figured out the fact that there are lots of us out there who would gladly use our old lenses on a digital body. So now they need to take things one step further and release that FF NEX 9. I just wish it was going to happen soon rather than next year at the earliest.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I hope that the Nex 9 has good IQ all across the whole frame with Leica lenses which<br>

since they are rangefinder type lenses with an acute angles they are the most challenging <br>

lenses to design a sensor for.</p>

<p>I think $2000 for the Nex 9 body only would be a fair price, that means $2300 with<br>

a FF kit zoom.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>one obvious flaw in this line of thinking is that NEX lenses are the weakest point of the Sony system. NEX is great for legacy glass users who use focus peaking but not so great if you're relying on OEM glass. it is not as easy to design a new line of glass in a new mount as some of you apparently think. and even if you do design it, the market has to be there to purchase it. i think Sony is studying carefully what happens with the Fuji X mount, which so far has delivered with excellent glass in a compact form factor.as soon as they release the X Pro 2/X-E2 with speedier AF, they are going to have a lot of momentum, much of it driven by the fact the IQ is so good, the costs fairly reasonable, and the form factor compact. the Sony RX1 is very expensive for a fixed-focal camera and has some curious engineering decisions, like auto-ISO implementation, which limit its effectiveness with pro users. so the question of who the camera is for and who's going to buy it, isn't just an afterthought. also, i'm not sure we need FF mirrorless; the sigma sd1 is essentially an APS-C-sized sensor with MF-like IQ, and the Fuji X series is also built around APS-C-sized sensors. FF lenses, obviously, are huge, especially pro-spec zooms. OTOH, the m 4/3 12-35, a 24-70 equivalent, is around the size of a typical DSLR kit lens. you cant make a 24-70 FF zoom with a small form factor, and there's not a whole lot of point in having a tiny camera body with a humongous lens, which defeats the purpose of a compact. so if we do see mirrorless FF ILCs, they will likely be paired with prime lenses.</p>

<p>Eric, it seems to me you've set up a series of straw mans. I don't think anybody is suggesting that NEX lenses are a weak point. If anything, there seems to be ample evidence of the opposite. Go to youtube and check out the several reviews on the NEX cameras and their lenses by TheDigitalDigest, such as this one:</p>

<p>

<p>The reviewer really likes the NEX lenses he reviews in this and other articles, especially the 24mm Zeiss prime. I will most likely be buying a NEX in the next month or so, and when I do, I will probably buy either the standard 18-55 kit lens or, if I can afford it, the newer 18-200 lens. And I'm sure I will use this lens a LOT, despite the fact that I have a lot of legacy glass that I will also use. A dedicated lens for the NEX just makes too much sense for the many grab-shot situations that will present themselves and things like family get-togethers, when dragging out the big bag of old primes isn't really necessary. Besides, the NEX has an oversized mount anyway, and the lenses being reviewed in the above link are all oversized looking for that small camera. So it just doesn't make sense to me to talk about FF glass looking too big for the camera, when the standard offering already look too big for it. I don't think most people who will be buying a FF NEX 9, or whatever it will be called, will be buying it for its compactness. They'll be buying it because it is FF and has a very short registration distance mostly. But one other reason they'll likely be buying it is, because of the elimination of the mirror, the NEX cameras are achieving blazingly fast frame rates that DSLRs can't touch. None of these reasons have anything to do with compactness, which is something that will appeal more to the neophyte-type amateurs anyway.</p>

 

<p>Some speculation here that Leica is on to something:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/23/leaca-teases-mini-m-for-11th-june-release</p>

<p>IMO, technically, it is not hard to build a FF mirror less camera, but as Eric asked it, who is this for? How much would it cost and what is the advantage over existing systems? They can't build something if they can't sell it. At this point, most of the people go to mirrorless b/c we like a more compact system that can deliver DSLR-like IQ. The NEX system tells us that although you can make the cameras really small, bigger sensors need bigger lenses so at the end there is not much saving in the size and bulk of the system and top end NEX primes are expensive. </p>

<p>Eventually the mirror in the DSLR will go away and eventually the live-view AF will be just as good as the AF in the DSLR for tracking. Right now, however, a FF mirror less is not too promising for the mass market. I like the idea of a compact FF mirrorless. SONY shows that this can be done nicely but it is too expensive for a lot of people.</p>

<p>I am not saying anything bad either about Sony lenses, with the folks they got from Konica/Minolta, and the help from Zeiss you can get viable inexpensive ones and Zeiss<br>

designed excellent lenses.<br>

But if you already own 6 M Leica lenses or lots of Olympus and Canon FD lenses, or other<br>

legacy lenses that we all seem to have from orphaned systems that is where we have<br>

the incentive to root for Sony or Fuji to find a new home for expensive glass.<br>

I differ in my opinion of the Sony RX-1, it is obviously the basis for our hopes to see<br>

a Nex 9 full frame digital interchangeable lens camera. Hopefully it will use the E mount<br>

rather than A mount so it can accomodate our manual legacy lenses.<br>

IMHO the RX-1 was a bold step by Sony, they knew it was not a money maker.<br>

And my view is that the RX-1 price wise isn't that bad a deal, remember your getting<br>

a nicely made lens included for the price, say that lens is worth $500, then the body<br>

is in line with FF prices for a body that is better constructed than a Nikon D600.<br>

If I can get a Nex 9 body only $2000 then I have 6 Leica mount lenses, and many<br>

Pentax, Nikon, Canon full frame lenses to fill my needs. And if Sony has something<br>

specific I need I am sure their lenses are good enough for my needs, and I wouldn't<br>

hesitate to buy one.</p>

<p>if you read dpreview's speculation, you may agree that it makes a lot of sense for Leica to do it first. They already have the sensor and a range of lenses made <em>by them</em>. All they have to do is to take out the RF stuff from the current camera body and replace it with a simpler and cheaper body with an EVF. If SONY goes first, where are the OEM lenses? It is unlikely they will do it just for people who own and still enjoy using MF lenses made by others. If they do not build a whole line of lenses, the body is not going to sell, and it is not trivial to build high quality FF lenses — they can barely keep up with the NEX system. </p>

<p>Solution Sony buys Leica who is struggling to sell $7,000 camera bodies that up until<br>

now didn't have IQ as good as much cheaper cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think anybody is suggesting that NEX lenses are a weak point. If anything, there seems to be ample evidence of the opposite.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you're not looking at their system objectively if that's what you're thinking. case in point: i'm holding the latest B&H catalog in my hands right now as i type this. looking at the e-mount lenses, i see six primes and seven zooms. that might seem like a decently filled-in roadmap until you take a deeper look and realize that <em>three of the zooms are variations of the 18-200, not a single zoom is 2.8., and anything longer than 55mm is 6.3 on the long end</em>. those are consumer specs, not pro specs.for working photojournalists, fast lenses are an important consideration.</p>

<p>so if i'm a pro looking to move to a more compact system as my primary one, it's not going to be NEX. even m 4/3 has 24-70 and 70-200/2.8 (equivalent) lenses available for it. i hear you saying, what about X-mount, their kit lens is slow too. well, sorta, it's 2.8-4 -- that's a 1/2 stop to a full stop faster than either of the E-mount kit lenses, and has been hailed as perhaps the sharpest kit lens ever. looking at the X-mount primes, not only have they been earning comparisons to Leica glass (!), but there are several fast options: a 35/1.4, a 23/1.4, a 56/1.4, an 18/2 and a 60/2.4. they've also announced a 72-200/4. OTOH, the fastest NEX lens is 1.8, there's no 85mm equivalent for portraits, and their one macro lens is only 45mm equivalent, not 90-100mm equiv., which would have been optimal.</p>

<p>all of which leads me to the conclusion that Fuji is targeting pro users and advanced enthusiasts, while Sony is looking more at the mass market. of course, NEX makes more sense if you're talking about using legacy glass with an adaptor, but my original point was that i was underwhelmed by the OEM lens selection for it. not to say i wouldn't consider a NEX camera--people i've seen who have them love them, especially for video--but in trying to choose between mirrorless options, X-mount is looking like the one to beat.</p>

<p>getting back on topic, i dont think it is a straw man argument to question who really needs a mirrorless FF ILC, or whether it even makes sense for anyone to make one. Keep in mind that the RX1 is more of a rich man's toy than a serious enthusiast camera, and the serious enthusiast market's preferred price point is $800-$1200, where there's a cluster of seriously competitive offerings, from the OM-D to the X-E 1 to the Coolpix A, to the x100/s, to the D7100, to the GR.</p>

<p>even if Sony designs such a camera around the A-mount, you're still looking at a size imbalance with zooms which kills the point of being compact in the first place. not only will the cost of such a camera be more expensive than other mirrorless options--$2500-$3000 seems likely--but the benefits of such a camera are debatable, especially considering how good IQ is with the current batch of mirrorless sensors. it sort of says something that Canon and Nikon have both introduced APS-C mirrorless cameras recently, at price points between $800 and $1100, but no one's in a hurry to give the $2800 RX1 any competition in its class.</p>

<p>furthermore, technically speaking, <em>Sony already has a FF mirrorless ILC</em>, the SLT-A99, which also sells for $2800. im sure its possible for Sony to give the RX2 an interchangable mount, i'm just not sure that there's a great deal of incentive for them to do so. and it's also unlikely that Canon or Nikon will follow suit with an RX1-like FF/fixed lens compact, since what they really want you to do is invest in their lenses. even more unlikely that we'll see a FF mirrorless ILC camera from either of them any time soon, since they already offer FF ILC cameras at the RX1's price point, all of which are selling better than the RX1.</p>

<p>please don't say i'm cynical for writing this, but i just dont see perfect storm-like conditions (price point/demand/filling a market void) which would bring this into existence in the near future. i could be wrong, but i dont think i am. if everyone was driving DeLoreans and Teslas, the "build it because you can" school of thought might hold more sway, but the fact is it's just not good business sense to design products which wont sell.</p>

<p>I don't care what you nay-sayers say and what reasons you have for saying it. Sooner or later, somebody is going to produce an affordable (meaning not Leica!) FF MILC. Frankly, at this point, I don't care who it is. Even if it were Samsung or Sigma or Panasonic, that's where I'll spend my money.</p>

<p>Obviously, I would prefer if it were Canon, Sony, or Fuji, but as many of you have so correctly pointed out, there is ample reason to suggest that there is little, if any, economic advantage for them to do so. Unless -- and here's the kicker -- unless one of these concerns is prescient enough to be looking 10 or 20 years down the road and realize that, sooner or later, an FF MILC will be a requirement, so they may as well start laying the groundwork for one now.</p>

<p>Yes, I believe that, sooner or later, an FF-sized sensor will be a requirement because of the current practice of cramming more and more pixels inside of a small area, which leads to greater noise and artifact issues. By enlarging the sensor area, you give the sensor more "elbow room," not only for further expansion but also to more successfully deal with the issues involved with too densely packed sensors. You also have more room for other sorts of developments, such as Sigma's Foveon and other types of technologies, some of which may still be in the imagining stages.</p>