Do you forsee full-frame sensors on advanced point&shoot cameras?

It's simple economics. They HAVE to keep the Advanced P&S cameras from properly competing with the DSLR's so until the DSLR make some huge advances then the P&S can't have a better sensor or no one would have reason to (except those that make their living in photography) buy a DSLR and there are a lot more non-pro DSLR owners out there than pros....a matter of progression yes?

I don't see it anytime soon. I have a few reasons for this. One is cost. Full frame sensors cost a lot of money. There just aren't that many people out there willing to pay for a full frame sensor on a point and shoot camera. The other reason and this is a big one is that the cameras would have to be much larger if you wanted any kind of zoom. The lens you mentioned above on a full frame camera is very large and heavy. The Canon 500mm F4 is 15 inches long and ways 8.5 pounds. Do you really want this on a point and shoot camera.

There may be in the near future a camera like the Sigma DP1 that will have a full frame sensor. This camera uses an APS-C sized sensor and has fixed focal length 28mm lens. No zoom is available.

Besides the cost of the ff sensor, as others have pointed out, the optics would also have to be redesigned (more cost).

Given the depth of p&s's it seems to me it would be extremely difficult to get a 3/4 inch thick body/lens combo to focus enough light on the sensor to make a worthwhile improvement.

I mean really, I have a few old 35mm point and shoots, my Pentax IQzoom 160 comes to mind, but just because it was "full frame" the pictures it took were no where near as good as my SLR.

So, if the G-10, has the ability to take shots like that, why bother going full frame?

I'm sure just like "Moores Law" on CPU's, engineers will continue to figure out how to jam more Mpxl's and better micro-lenses on smaller sensors for some time to come!

I do like some of the other answers though! Forward thinking!

It might make sense up front, but what's likely keeping manufactures from producing cameras with FF sensors is because they figure who would buy it; at least for the time being. Most people who would value having the small size of a point and shoot camera would not want to pay a few thousand dollars for it. And those who value having a FF sensor probably would not want to have or invest in a new much smaller camera body. Also considering such a camera would need, if it accepted it, a brand new line of specially designed lenses. Maybe in the future, but the price would have to come down drastically.

From my understanding, putting full-frame sensors would definitely reduce the limited telephoto capabilities of point-and-shoot cameras. I was reading PopPhotography and they were talking about full-frames. Because regular point-and-shoot cameras don't have full-frame sensors, if gives them a bigger crop factor, allowing them to effectively 'zoom in' farther rather then using a full-frame sensor and cropping and reducing resolution. If you have a fixed lens, I think that is a pretty good thing.

On the other hand they could always just increase the zoom on the camera, probably cost a heck of a lot more though.

There is one major reason for not using a FF sensor in a P&S camera - cost.

Even if FF becomes the standard sensor on future DSLR's (which I predict it will) thus driving the costs down, the cost compared to the sensor used in a P&S will still be prohibitive for the intended market.

You need to remember that the majority of people who buy a P&S are not overly concerned with picture quality. If they can distinguish Aunt Sally from Uncle Ralph they're happy.

I don't.

1. The larger sensors are significantly more expensive.

2. It defeats the idea of a point and shoot to have a large advanced sensor for a camera that most users would not use for serious work.

Most people don't understand the advantages of FF sensor. They only know numbers like MegaPixel. And to a point it is the manufacturers' fault for promoting that.

Even if they did create FF P&S, if they increase sales doesn't justify the added expense of production, then they would not continue to produce them.

===

I speak to lots of people about cameras, and most people (especially women and artist types) buy cameras based on how pretty the camera and color are (not how good the pictures are). And then complain later the pictures suck.

there are people who research info on DPreview. But for the most part I have to assume that is the exception.

good luck...

Why would that be necessary?

For a point and shoot camera to have a full framed sensor?

Wouldn't the point and shoot still have limitations since it's still a point and shoot camera after-all? I think that for the money that would cost you, it would be a better idea just to get a digital SLR.

I think that making a cheaper, lighter full framed digital SLR is a better idea, but what do i know?

Yes, on advanced point and shoot cameras.

As digital matures and gets even more competitive I see manufacturers abandoning any ties to old film formats, especially with cameras that have non-removable lenses. At some point digi P&S cameras will likely have sensors, in area, that are bigger than current 35mm digital cameras.

I look forward to cameras that have flexible sensors in them that you can bend for nifty effects. And cameras with huge wide sensors made especially for panoramics. Oh, yeah, and cameras with a light splitter to expose two sensors for true 3D playback in wearable "photo albums" for the eyes. Digital has just begun!!