As a Fuji shooter, I'm getting worried about Fuji's sensor supply...

[Telecaster]

The m43 has some nice telephoto options as long as very shallow DOF is not an what you need. For very long telephoto I can use the Sony RX10 iv, similar in DOF to your Panny.

About DOF at narrow fields of view: my attached photo in the above post is at 300mm & f/6.3. An "equivalent" aperture DOF-wise of ~f/12.5. Even so DOF is pretty shallow. The chipmunk's eye is in focus but very little else is. I've even used the 100–300mm at 200mm for portraits with darn good results. A kinda/sorta example at f/5.0 (wide open at that focal length) is attached. 

-Dave-

[BJL]

Fuji is the only one of those APS-C makers that would have much interest in pushing the limits of sensor capabilities (maybe Sony if they come out with a higher-end APS-C body and finally support it with lenses). Almost all of the rest get the vast majority of their APS-C volume from cameras that sell for under $600 with a lens or two. Their interest is in how cheap the sensor is, not how much DR it has.

Since even the cheapest of recent APS-C cameras seem to use the current best Sony sensor (the 24MP one), I am not persuaded that there is much in the way of "cheaper" vs "better" sensors at a given size. Size dominates the unit cost of sensor manufacturing, not features, which mostly come elsewhere in the camera, like with more powerful processing chips.  So I expect that sensor makers like Sony Semiconductor will make sensors of each size using their current best technology for photosite design and such. Second after price is unit volume, which heavily favors smaller formats, and if anything justifies putting more R&D effort into smaller but higher volume formats, and often working on a "trickle up" basis with new technologies. This is seen over the whole size spectrum, with the fastest innovation happening in phone-cameras and the slowest coming in the larger-than-35mm domain. For example 44x33mm is only now getting on-sensor PDAF, and AFAIK 54x40mm still does not have it yet. (And 35mm has been slower to get EVF's than the smaller formats!)

[BJL]

You can use that argument also for ASP-C, Sony manufacturers also mobile phone camera sensors with smaller pixels that will create a density higher that 24MP.

I think I did not express myself well. My only point about smaller photosites was that the sensor makers probably do have to go to the expense of designing different (smaller) photosites for the 24x16mm sensors than those designed for 36x24mm sensors, so pessimists might predict that they will stop bothering to do that. But I am very optimistic that sensor makers will have good reasons to design the best possible photosites of various smaller sizes (all the way down to one micron so far) and will then put them into good quality 24x16mm sensors that offer distinctly more telephoto reach from a given focal length than 36x24mm sensors offer.

One more note on resolution: Sony's 20MP 4/3" sensors have photosites that would give 34MP in 24x16mm and 77MP in 36x24mm — the lens size advantage of smaller ILC formats is not going away, and a wide array of smaller format ILC users like that advantage.

[rdonson]

One more note on resolution: Sony's 20MP 4/3" sensors have photosites that would give 34MP in 24x16mm and 77MP in 36x24mm — the lens size advantage of smaller ILC formats is not going away, and a wide array of smaller format ILC users like that advantage.

Amen, brother!!!! 

[DP]

I can't recall when we last saw a non-Fuji APS-C lens of note...

just recently: Sigma 56/1.4 for E & m43 mounts ( https://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/56mm-f1-4-dc-dn-c )

[DP]

just to point out that the perspective sometimes seen in this forum that "X" is the one sub-35mm ILC format with the best chance of survival is amazingly detached from the realities of the ILC camera market.

to that point Zeiss stopped bothering with smallest X-mount market after couple of touits and Sigma never bothered at all (while designing new APS-C lenses for m43 & E mounts)

[armand]

to that point Zeiss stopped bothering with smallest X-mount market after couple of touits and Sigma never bothered at all (while designing new APS-C lenses for m43 & E mounts)

For Sigma you should also mention that the Fuji mount is proprietary and that might be part of the problem, along with the smaller market. This for example would be the main reason why they didn't realease this 56mm lens for Fuji X when they did for E and m43, I'm sure it wouldn't have been that difficult. The smaller market it's not an indicator of survivability by itself.

As for Zeiss their lenses were more expensive without being any better than the native Fuji, no wonder they did not sell well. Even when they had huge sales I didn't think they were worth it.

[davidgp]

I think I did not express myself well. My only point about smaller photosites was that the sensor makers probably do have to go to the expense of designing different (smaller) photosites for the 24x16mm sensors than those designed for 36x24mm sensors, so pessimists might predict that they will stop bothering to do that. But I am very optimistic that sensor makers will have good reasons to design the best possible photosites of various smaller sizes (all the way down to one micron so far) and will then put them into good quality 24x16mm sensors that offer distinctly more telephoto reach from a given focal length than 36x24mm sensors offer.

One more note on resolution: Sony's 20MP 4/3" sensors have photosites that would give 34MP in 24x16mm and 77MP in 36x24mm — the lens size advantage of smaller ILC formats is not going away, and a wide array of smaller format ILC users like that advantage.

Yes, my fault, I misunderstood you before... I agree 100% with what you have just said.

[davidgp]

As for Zeiss their lenses were more expensive without being any better than the native Fuji, no wonder they did not sell well. Even when they had huge sales I didn't think they were worth it.

I think this is one of the strong points for Fuji. They have one of the most excellent line of lenses in their X-Mount system. High quality and expensive lenses, decent quality and cheaper lenses. It is difficult for a third party to enter there.

The market may be smaller than other offerings but I don't see Fuji stopping releasing new cameras or lenses, I think the X-Mount it is quite healthy right now.

[Chris Kern]

I think this is one of the strong points for Fuji. They have one of the most excellent line of lenses in their X-Mount system. High quality and expensive lenses, decent quality and cheaper lenses. It is difficult for a third party to enter there.

That's certainly what initially attracted me to Fuji.

I also like the company's systemic approach to the product line: the wide variety of lenses, announced well in advance in a frequently-updated roadmap; different styles of ILC bodies for each generation of capture technology; quick turnaround to fix firmware bugs and feature upgrades for older bodies through firmware updates.

Fuji continues to roll out new lenses at a fairly brisk pace, and to keep selling them I have no doubt the company will invest whatever engineering effort is necessary to keep their sensors state-of-the-market.

(I have a feeling the X-Trans pattern may turn out to be an evolutionary dead end, but that really won't make much of a difference to me as an end-user.  Or it may actually improve my experience as an end-user by simplifying post-processing of Fuji raw files.)