On 25/08/2015 15:50, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 24 August 2015 17:14:36 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 25/08/2015 05:17, nospam wrote:
In article , David Taylor
wrote:

Who wants to sell half-frame if you can sell full-frame?

lots of companies, because the cameras can be manufactured for less and
sold for less.

Sony don't sell many full-frame cameras compared to Nikon and Canon,
while market share of FF vs APS-c and u4/3 must have increased
dramatically, Sony have poured billions in to their sensor division.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown, I'd guess that
interchangeable lens camera sensors aren't what's driving production
capacity increases, but phones, go-pro type devices, security cams, and
just about any other device that's going to be part of the "internet of
things" where some imaging function could be useful.

There's plenty of other makers for APS-c and smaller imaging sensors.
Nikon isn't tied to Sony, Canon and Samsung can make their own.
Doubtless the
cameras and lenses for full-frame will bring in more profit.

not necessarily.

And the
designs mostly already exist.

not really. the old designs are outdated. newer designs are *much*
better, the nikon 14-24mm being a good example.

For lower-price FF wide angle zooms, even a "budget" made in China
Nikkor 18-35 AF-s performs much better (resolution etc) than any
approximately equivalent field of view zoom on smaller APS-c or u4/3
formats.

No, Olympus lenses (especially when it comes to edge correction) walk all over the lower-end Nikon stuff. Olympus's 12-40mm f/2.8 is sharp to the edge, wide open. But, overall resolution goes of course to the 24-42mp sensors, FF or otherwise. But there is a difference between resolution and sharpness.

An Olympus 12-40 f2.8 isn't as wide (FOV equivalence 24-80mm vs 18-35)
as the example I gave, it's slower (f5.6 "equivalence" vs F3-4.5) and I
expect it would be thoroughly trounced in edge to edge and overall
"perceptual megapixels" resolution and "sharpness" on a 24/36mp Nikon
body. IIRC, DXO figure for that lens on a D800E/D810 body is about 28"P"
MP - nothing on 4/3 comes even close. It probably only costs half as
much too.
Of course the "system" matters, which is why u4/3 is so hobbled when it
comes to wide angle shooting for landscape, presuming that large
detailed prints are the intended output. Who cares what the Olympus
lens "might" be able to achieve when there's no way to achieve it.