>>3653596>Many people choose APS-C not as a gateway to fullframe, but on the merits of the formatEhhhhh.
Again, I don't doubt that those people exist. But I doubt they're a big enough market segment to be worth specifically catering to.
Just based on my own--admittedly anecdotal--experience, every single photographer I know either shoots with a full frame camera, *wants* a full frame camera, or shoots with a crop camera and doesn't really give a shit about professional lenses or really anything beyond the 18-55 kit except *maybe* the 55-200 kit tele.
> Smaller sizePro-level full frame and crop cameras are about the same size unless the whole system is built around the crop sensor, like 4/3 or Fuji.
Lenses aren't really that much different. Especially if you take into account the aperture difference--you can shoot f/4 on a full frame camera where you'd need to shoot f/2.8 on a crop camera to get the same depth of field and make up the difference in aperture with a stop of ISO for the same amount of sensor noise. An f/4 zoom for full frame is gonna be about the same size or smaller than an f/2.8 zoom for crop (see, for example, Nikon's 17-55/2.8 DX vs their 24-120 f/4 FX. The full frame lens even gives you extra reach).
>>3653631>And how on earth do you imagine full frame can ever be a fucking value leader when a new ff camera goes for $1600 or so while you can get the top of the line APS-C models for $1000 new.Well, first off, I'd point out that you can get a new FF camera for $1000 new. E.g., the Canon EOS RP, which is only $999 MSRP. If you go used, you can get full frame cameras for much cheaper than that, too.
But secondly, I'd point out that if the difference between a $1000 camera and a $1600 is that much of a dealbreaker for you, you're probably not going to be spending $1500 on a normal zoom, either, so the argument that Nikon should make pro-level lenses that only work on crop cameras to cater to your end of the market is somewhat fatuous.
