Thoughts about full frame

It's all much simpler to me. "The viewfinder". Sensor size = viewfinder size. I'm old and want a nice big view to look at, and yes I have wondered by they don't just put a curved glass/mirror to enlarge the view.

In my little scenario (which I don't think is too far fetched) I was talking about the new version of the 5D being available for $2500. So when someone uses the new version of the 20D they would often consider the possibility of future upgrades and EF-S lenses lack that future compatibility.

Really, if you are happy to have less resolution and don't want to spend too much, but don't want to rule out future uses - you could buy standard EF lenses for everything except ultra-wide. You could then sell the ultra-wide with the body if you do upgrade to FF.

Surely enlarging the view would also make it dimmer?

They could, but it would be darker.

I would say that what you really see at the moment you MAKE the picture is very important.
With my very first camera, about 45 year ago, I had to look at a very small viewer and guess a lot what I was getting into the fim.
Later on I upgraded to a Canon FTb and I was very pleased that I could see much more of the picture I was making.
Still later on, I got a Hasselblad 2000 FC and that real made me happy with that big screen were I really could see in detail wat I was photographing.
Then, at last, I got a SINAR-P and I shot millions of pictures with it in my advertising studio.
Now I'm retired of the photography bussiness, but I wish I could find a digital camera that didn't cost me a arm and a leg and that I could have the same pleasure and photographic quality I got used with the 4x5 inch Sinar.
Canon, please give us greater viewers, more photographic quality, and I will forget those horrible days I spent developing films in E-6 and C-41.
God bless you !!!

You didn't absolutely love every second you spent maintaining those 100.4 F water baths? I sure did. NOT! Not altogether sure that the 85 F E-4 was much better, either. At least with good old D23 and D76, we had some temp. options.

I think Michael Reichmann put it quite succicently when he stated:

"People need to bear in mind the reason that all manufacturers went to APS sized imaging chips in the first place. It wasn't because of any inherent advantage that the smaller sized chips offered, other than that they were significantly less expensive to manufacture. Add to this the ability to use a smaller shutter, smaller prism, and smaller mirror, and the financial advantages to the camera makers were cumulative. The advantages to the photographer were minimal, other than the one big benefit of getting affordable DSLRs"

I think, maybe eventually, the APS chip will be seen only in the ultra light DSLR, with the mainstream photographer opting for the heavier, full-frame body.

But it is difficult to predict what will happen though, given that the initial reason for the APS chip was purely cost saving, and now that reason is diminishing.

5 years ago the APS-size 3 MP D30 sold new for $3,200. Now sells used on KEH for less than $500.
Today's FF 12 MP 5D for the same price is an incredible leap in size and speed.
What makes this difficult is to realize that many of us have bought or used the D30, D60, 10D and 20D, and soon the 5D. Add all those new prices along with new vertical grips and new flashes (let alone new computers, new storage devices, etc.). Keeping up with current technology is extremely expensive. Don't get me wrong, I haven't shot film since I bought a P&S G3, and now with a 20D don't intend to.
At work I shoot a Phase One P25 on Hassie AF, not that we need the 22MP, but it's good to know that we got the 'best' image quality at the time (Phase has now announce a P45, 39MP back).
The thread of what is enough is valid. For me, I want FF but on a Rebel price. And with the way things have progressed, I think that might be right around the corner.

Me too. The 5D makes this prospect much more likely. I am much happier with my lens system bias to full frame use now.