Why APS-C might make sense for manufacturers

[tbcass]

I'd like to see a $300-$500 FF basic camera ($500 max with lens included). And to keep costs down:

I believe it will be unlikely to have an FF camera at $500 even without lens included. Reason is the FF sensor cost vs APS/DX sensor cost.

From reading Thom Hogan's blog over the years, I remember reading FF sensors cost between $350-500 while the APS-c sensors cost significantly lesser (probably around $45-60).

Not true anymore. Most likely the cost of FF sensors has come way down since then so they aren't much more expensive than APS-C. The reason they were so much more expensive was that not many FF cameras were sold in those days. It's the economy of scale, the more of a product that is manufactured the cheaper per unit it costs. FF cameras now sell in much greater quantity. FF and APS-C sensors are close in price now and because there is little if any difference in the cost of the bodies there is little difference in manufacturing costs between them. Most people won't pay nearly as much for an APS-C camera as a FF camera which means profit margins on APS-C cameras will be very small. The result is camera companies have little incentive to sell APSC cameras.

 

[Bob A L]

Not me, if I didn't have plenty of apsc sensor cameras, I would pay more for apsc than FF because I have no desire for a FF. If I were to change formats it would be smaller sensor, not larger than apsc. But know that most here think that's crazy, but not for me.

 

[MarshallG]

I'd like to see a $300-$500 FF basic camera ($500 max with lens included). And to keep costs down:

I believe it will be unlikely to have an FF camera at $500 even without lens included. Reason is the FF sensor cost vs APS/DX sensor cost.

From reading Thom Hogan's blog over the years, I remember reading FF sensors cost between $350-500 while the APS-c sensors cost significantly lesser (probably around $45-60).

Not true anymore. Most likely the cost of FF sensors has come way down since then so they aren't much more expensive than APS-C. The reason they were so much more expensive was that not many FF cameras were sold in those days. It's the economy of scale, the more of a product that is manufactured the cheaper per unit it costs. FF cameras now sell in much greater quantity. FF and APS-C sensors are close in price now and because there is little if any difference in the cost of the bodies there is little difference in manufacturing costs between them. Most people won't pay nearly as much for an APS-C camera as a FF camera which means profit margins on APS-C cameras will be very small. The result is camera companies have little incentive to sell APSC cameras.

 

[FrancoD]

I'd like to see a $300-$500 FF basic camera ($500 max with lens included). And to keep costs down:

I believe it will be unlikely to have an FF camera at $500 even without lens included. Reason is the FF sensor cost vs APS/DX sensor cost.

From reading Thom Hogan's blog over the years, I remember reading FF sensors cost between $350-500 while the APS-c sensors cost significantly lesser (probably around $45-60).

Not true anymore. Most likely the cost of FF sensors has come way down since then so they aren't much more expensive than APS-C. The reason they were so much more expensive was that not many FF cameras were sold in those days. It's the economy of scale, the more of a product that is manufactured the cheaper per unit it costs. FF cameras now sell in much greater quantity. FF and APS-C sensors are close in price now and because there is little if any difference in the cost of the bodies there is little difference in manufacturing costs between them. Most people won't pay nearly as much for an APS-C camera as a FF camera which means profit margins on APS-C cameras will be very small. The result is camera companies have little incentive to sell APSC cameras.

That is a guess but in reality it may not be like that.

I don't know either but the extra cost was due mostly because of the higher failure rate.

The bigger the surface , the fewer "perfect" sensors you had on one wafer so the customer paid (of course) for all the unused ones.

That was even more of a problem with MF and that is why those MF sensors cost a lot more than the increase in size would suggest.

Something like this

 

[whoosh1]

I'd like to see a $300-$500 FF basic camera ($500 max with lens included). And to keep costs down:

I believe it will be unlikely to have an FF camera at $500 even without lens included. Reason is the FF sensor cost vs APS/DX sensor cost.

From reading Thom Hogan's blog over the years, I remember reading FF sensors cost between $350-500 while the APS-c sensors cost significantly lesser (probably around $45-60).

Not true anymore. Most likely the cost of FF sensors has come way down since then so they aren't much more expensive than APS-C. The reason they were so much more expensive was that not many FF cameras were sold in those days. It's the economy of scale, the more of a product that is manufactured the cheaper per unit it costs. FF cameras now sell in much greater quantity. FF and APS-C sensors are close in price now and because there is little if any difference in the cost of the bodies there is little difference in manufacturing costs between them. Most people won't pay nearly as much for an APS-C camera as a FF camera which means profit margins on APS-C cameras will be very small. The result is camera companies have little incentive to sell APSC cameras.

Yes and No. There are a number of factors which affect a sensor’s cost, but if you have two equivalent sensors, then the cost boils down to yielded cost per sq mm of wafer.

Let’s say the wafer is 12” and your cost is $10,000 per wafer. A full frame sensor is about 862 mm^2 and an APS-C (Canon) is 548 mm^2. Not only is 548 mm^2 a smaller portion of that $10,000 wafer, but you can probably utilize a higher percentage of the round wafer because of its smaller size. And then there are yield defects: In any fabrication, a minuscule dust spec or other extremely minute error can cause a defect on the wafer. Let’s say you average 3 flaws per wafer. If every die (chip) on the wafer is 2 mm^2, you throw away three 2mm^2 dies. But if each die is 862 mm^2, then you discard three if those very large image sensors. There’s no way around that.

So there is always an inherent cost advantage to smaller sensors, assuming roughlg equal volume. Sorry; maybe this was too complicated; I’ve worked with this for decades so I’m not sure how it sounds to an outsider.

Exactly.

 

[whoosh1]

I'd like to see a $300-$500 FF basic camera ($500 max with lens included). And to keep costs down:

I believe it will be unlikely to have an FF camera at $500 even without lens included. Reason is the FF sensor cost vs APS/DX sensor cost.

From reading Thom Hogan's blog over the years, I remember reading FF sensors cost between $350-500 while the APS-c sensors cost significantly lesser (probably around $45-60).

Not true anymore. Most likely the cost of FF sensors has come way down since then so they aren't much more expensive than APS-C. The reason they were so much more expensive was that not many FF cameras were sold in those days. It's the economy of scale, the more of a product that is manufactured the cheaper per unit it costs. FF cameras now sell in much greater quantity. FF and APS-C sensors are close in price now and because there is little if any difference in the cost of the bodies there is little difference in manufacturing costs between them. Most people won't pay nearly as much for an APS-C camera as a FF camera which means profit margins on APS-C cameras will be very small. The result is camera companies have little incentive to sell APSC cameras.

That is a guess but in reality it may not be like that.

I don't know either but the extra cost was due mostly because of the higher failure rate.

Right.

The bigger the surface , the fewer "perfect" sensors you had on one wafer so the customer paid (of course) for all the unused ones.

That was even more of a problem with MF and that is why those MF sensors cost a lot more than the increase in size would suggest.

Something like this

Yes.

 

[tbcass]

Not me, if I didn't have plenty of apsc sensor cameras, I would pay more for apsc than FF because I have no desire for a FF. If I were to change formats it would be smaller sensor, not larger than apsc. But know that most here think that's crazy, but not for me.

You are the exception to the rule. The point I was making referred to the buying public as a whole. You are no more than a minute blip when it comes to total sales. APS-C is in a bit of no man's land. It lacks the IQ potential of FF while being less portable than M43. When I upgraded to FF I gained a, for me, significant improvement in IQ in a form factor not much larger and heavier than APS-C. So, for me, it made no sense so I sold the camera.

 

[tbcass]

So there is always an inherent cost advantage to smaller sensors, assuming roughlg equal volume. Sorry; maybe this was too complicated; I’ve worked with this for decades so I’m not sure how it sounds to an outsider.

It's not complicated at all. In fact, the concept is quite simple and I acknowledged that a FF sensor costs more to produce than an APS-C sensor. Improvements in manufacturing processes have improved wafer yield and brought the cost of all sensors down to the point that the material cost of the sensor is not the main cost of a camera anymore. The wafer yield of an APS-C sensor should be about 50% greater resulting in a FF sensor costing 50% more to produce. If the hypothetical cost of an APS-C sensor is $100 then a FF sensor would cost $150. If you still don't believe me all you have to do is look at the cost of comparable APS-C cameras vs FF cameras. FF cameras aren't a lot more expensive anymore, at least not as much as they used to be. I suspect that most of the extra cost that does exist is due to a greater profit margin. The popularity of FF cameras is directly attributable to the fact that people are willing to pay a little more for the improved IQ of a FF camera.

--
Tom

 

[tbcass]

I'd like to see a $300-$500 FF basic camera ($500 max with lens included). And to keep costs down:

I believe it will be unlikely to have an FF camera at $500 even without lens included. Reason is the FF sensor cost vs APS/DX sensor cost.

From reading Thom Hogan's blog over the years, I remember reading FF sensors cost between $350-500 while the APS-c sensors cost significantly lesser (probably around $45-60).

Not true anymore. Most likely the cost of FF sensors has come way down since then so they aren't much more expensive than APS-C. The reason they were so much more expensive was that not many FF cameras were sold in those days. It's the economy of scale, the more of a product that is manufactured the cheaper per unit it costs. FF cameras now sell in much greater quantity. FF and APS-C sensors are close in price now and because there is little if any difference in the cost of the bodies there is little difference in manufacturing costs between them. Most people won't pay nearly as much for an APS-C camera as a FF camera which means profit margins on APS-C cameras will be very small. The result is camera companies have little incentive to sell APSC cameras.

That is a guess but in reality it may not be like that.

I don't know either but the extra cost was due mostly because of the higher failure rate.

The bigger the surface , the fewer "perfect" sensors you had on one wafer so the customer paid (of course) for all the unused ones.

That was even more of a problem with MF and that is why those MF sensors cost a lot more than the increase in size would suggest.

Something like this

Improved manufacturing has brought the failure rate down for all sensors. I suspect that's a big reason why FF cameras have gotten so much cheaper. The fact that FF cameras have come down in price is a fact that you cannot deny.

--
Tom

 

[57even]

I'd like to see a $300-$500 FF basic camera ($500 max with lens included). And to keep costs down:

I believe it will be unlikely to have an FF camera at $500 even without lens included. Reason is the FF sensor cost vs APS/DX sensor cost.

From reading Thom Hogan's blog over the years, I remember reading FF sensors cost between $350-500 while the APS-c sensors cost significantly lesser (probably around $45-60).

Not true anymore. Most likely the cost of FF sensors has come way down since then so they aren't much more expensive than APS-C. The reason they were so much more expensive was that not many FF cameras were sold in those days. It's the economy of scale, the more of a product that is manufactured the cheaper per unit it costs. FF cameras now sell in much greater quantity. FF and APS-C sensors are close in price now and because there is little if any difference in the cost of the bodies there is little difference in manufacturing costs between them. Most people won't pay nearly as much for an APS-C camera as a FF camera which means profit margins on APS-C cameras will be very small. The result is camera companies have little incentive to sell APSC cameras.

Yes and No. There are a number of factors which affect a sensor’s cost, but if you have two equivalent sensors, then the cost boils down to yielded cost per sq mm of wafer.

Let’s say the wafer is 12” and your cost is $10,000 per wafer. A full frame sensor is about 862 mm^2 and an APS-C (Canon) is 548 mm^2. Not only is 548 mm^2 a smaller portion of that $10,000 wafer, but you can probably utilize a higher percentage of the round wafer because of its smaller size. And then there are yield defects: In any fabrication, a minuscule dust spec or other extremely minute error can cause a defect on the wafer. Let’s say you average 3 flaws per wafer. If every die (chip) on the wafer is 2 mm^2, you throw away three 2mm^2 dies. But if each die is 862 mm^2, then you discard three if those very large image sensors. There’s no way around that.

So there is always an inherent cost advantage to smaller sensors, assuming roughlg equal volume. Sorry; maybe this was too complicated; I’ve worked with this for decades so I’m not sure how it sounds to an outsider.

While this is true in the literal sense, the unit cost also depends on total volume and utilisation. A fab that is not 100% utilised is a pretty big overhead.

Also, with BSI full-frame, and 3-layer BSI with DRAM, the complexity of the process is considerably higher.

So, if you order a big batch of a common middle of the road sensor, it will be a lot cheaper than a small batch of a bleeding edge sensor like the one in the Sony A1/Nikon Z9.

That said, if you are comparing APS-C and FF utilising the same process (a lot of APS-C sensors are just smaller versions of FF sensors) then your equation still applies.

 

[MarshallG]

Not me, if I didn't have plenty of apsc sensor cameras, I would pay more for apsc than FF because I have no desire for a FF. If I were to change formats it would be smaller sensor, not larger than apsc. But know that most here think that's crazy, but not for me.

You are the exception to the rule. The point I was making referred to the buying public as a whole. You are no more than a minute blip when it comes to total sales. APS-C is in a bit of no man's land. It lacks the IQ potential of FF while being less portable than M43. When I upgraded to FF I gained a, for me, significant improvement in IQ in a form factor not much larger and heavier than APS-C. So, for me, it made no sense so I sold the camera.

 

[MarshallG]

I'd like to see a $300-$500 FF basic camera ($500 max with lens included). And to keep costs down:

I believe it will be unlikely to have an FF camera at $500 even without lens included. Reason is the FF sensor cost vs APS/DX sensor cost.

From reading Thom Hogan's blog over the years, I remember reading FF sensors cost between $350-500 while the APS-c sensors cost significantly lesser (probably around $45-60).

Not true anymore. Most likely the cost of FF sensors has come way down since then so they aren't much more expensive than APS-C. The reason they were so much more expensive was that not many FF cameras were sold in those days. It's the economy of scale, the more of a product that is manufactured the cheaper per unit it costs. FF cameras now sell in much greater quantity. FF and APS-C sensors are close in price now and because there is little if any difference in the cost of the bodies there is little difference in manufacturing costs between them. Most people won't pay nearly as much for an APS-C camera as a FF camera which means profit margins on APS-C cameras will be very small. The result is camera companies have little incentive to sell APSC cameras.

Yes and No. There are a number of factors which affect a sensor’s cost, but if you have two equivalent sensors, then the cost boils down to yielded cost per sq mm of wafer.

Let’s say the wafer is 12” and your cost is $10,000 per wafer. A full frame sensor is about 862 mm^2 and an APS-C (Canon) is 548 mm^2. Not only is 548 mm^2 a smaller portion of that $10,000 wafer, but you can probably utilize a higher percentage of the round wafer because of its smaller size. And then there are yield defects: In any fabrication, a minuscule dust spec or other extremely minute error can cause a defect on the wafer. Let’s say you average 3 flaws per wafer. If every die (chip) on the wafer is 2 mm^2, you throw away three 2mm^2 dies. But if each die is 862 mm^2, then you discard three if those very large image sensors. There’s no way around that.

So there is always an inherent cost advantage to smaller sensors, assuming roughlg equal volume. Sorry; maybe this was too complicated; I’ve worked with this for decades so I’m not sure how it sounds to an outsider.

While this is true in the literal sense, the unit cost also depends on total volume and utilisation. A fab that is not 100% utilised is a pretty big overhead.

Also, with BSI full-frame, and 3-layer BSI with DRAM, the complexity of the process is considerably higher.

So, if you order a big batch of a common middle of the road sensor, it will be a lot cheaper than a small batch of a bleeding edge sensor like the one in the Sony A1/Nikon Z9.

That said, if you are comparing APS-C and FF utilising the same process (a lot of APS-C sensors are just smaller versions of FF sensors) then your equation still applies.

 

[MarshallG]

So there is always an inherent cost advantage to smaller sensors, assuming roughlg equal volume. Sorry; maybe this was too complicated; I’ve worked with this for decades so I’m not sure how it sounds to an outsider.

It's not complicated at all. In fact, the concept is quite simple and I acknowledged that a FF sensor costs more to produce than an APS-C sensor. Improvements in manufacturing processes have improved wafer yield and brought the cost of all sensors down to the point that the material cost of the sensor is not the main cost of a camera anymore. The wafer yield of an APS-C sensor should be about 50% greater resulting in a FF sensor costing 50% more to produce. If the hypothetical cost of an APS-C sensor is $100 then a FF sensor would cost $150. If you still don't believe me all you have to do is look at the cost of comparable APS-C cameras vs FF cameras. FF cameras aren't a lot more expensive anymore, at least not as much as they used to be. I suspect that most of the extra cost that does exist is due to a greater profit margin. The popularity of FF cameras is directly attributable to the fact that people are willing to pay a little more for the improved IQ of a FF camera.

 

[tbcass]

Not me, if I didn't have plenty of apsc sensor cameras, I would pay more for apsc than FF because I have no desire for a FF. If I were to change formats it would be smaller sensor, not larger than apsc. But know that most here think that's crazy, but not for me.

You are the exception to the rule. The point I was making referred to the buying public as a whole. You are no more than a minute blip when it comes to total sales. APS-C is in a bit of no man's land. It lacks the IQ potential of FF while being less portable than M43. When I upgraded to FF I gained a, for me, significant improvement in IQ in a form factor not much larger and heavier than APS-C. So, for me, it made no sense so I sold the camera.

I didn’t mind the added weight of the FF camera, but the lenses!! Yikes!
I love the shallow DoF I can get with a FF camera, though. And it’s better in low light. Still, Tom, APS-C outsells FF several times over.

I suspect that much to most of that is due to Canon selling cheap APS-C cameras with outdated sensors. Canon drives the low-end market these days.

 

[57even]

I'd like to see a $300-$500 FF basic camera ($500 max with lens included). And to keep costs down:

I believe it will be unlikely to have an FF camera at $500 even without lens included. Reason is the FF sensor cost vs APS/DX sensor cost.

From reading Thom Hogan's blog over the years, I remember reading FF sensors cost between $350-500 while the APS-c sensors cost significantly lesser (probably around $45-60).

Not true anymore. Most likely the cost of FF sensors has come way down since then so they aren't much more expensive than APS-C. The reason they were so much more expensive was that not many FF cameras were sold in those days. It's the economy of scale, the more of a product that is manufactured the cheaper per unit it costs. FF cameras now sell in much greater quantity. FF and APS-C sensors are close in price now and because there is little if any difference in the cost of the bodies there is little difference in manufacturing costs between them. Most people won't pay nearly as much for an APS-C camera as a FF camera which means profit margins on APS-C cameras will be very small. The result is camera companies have little incentive to sell APSC cameras.

Yes and No. There are a number of factors which affect a sensor’s cost, but if you have two equivalent sensors, then the cost boils down to yielded cost per sq mm of wafer.

Let’s say the wafer is 12” and your cost is $10,000 per wafer. A full frame sensor is about 862 mm^2 and an APS-C (Canon) is 548 mm^2. Not only is 548 mm^2 a smaller portion of that $10,000 wafer, but you can probably utilize a higher percentage of the round wafer because of its smaller size. And then there are yield defects: In any fabrication, a minuscule dust spec or other extremely minute error can cause a defect on the wafer. Let’s say you average 3 flaws per wafer. If every die (chip) on the wafer is 2 mm^2, you throw away three 2mm^2 dies. But if each die is 862 mm^2, then you discard three if those very large image sensors. There’s no way around that.

So there is always an inherent cost advantage to smaller sensors, assuming roughlg equal volume. Sorry; maybe this was too complicated; I’ve worked with this for decades so I’m not sure how it sounds to an outsider.

While this is true in the literal sense, the unit cost also depends on total volume and utilisation. A fab that is not 100% utilised is a pretty big overhead.

Also, with BSI full-frame, and 3-layer BSI with DRAM, the complexity of the process is considerably higher.

So, if you order a big batch of a common middle of the road sensor, it will be a lot cheaper than a small batch of a bleeding edge sensor like the one in the Sony A1/Nikon Z9.

That said, if you are comparing APS-C and FF utilising the same process (a lot of APS-C sensors are just smaller versions of FF sensors) then your equation still applies.

Seriously? You are trying to correct me by repeating what I already said in the very first sentence of my post. That’s impolite.

You didn't explicitly say any of that.

Nor am I correcting you. Yield cost is a major factor, if you assume you are using the same architecture and the same process on the same fab in equal volumes.

But that is a lot of 'ifs' when you think about it. I was just pointing them out.

 

[WongRQ]

Predictions, that large manufacturers will abandon the APS-C format and concentrate purely on FF seem to appear regularly throughout the internet. For example, when Sony recently announced its manufacturing problems, a lot of people in the comments seemed to equate that with the abandoning of APS-C. Similarly, the recent DPReview TV episode on forecasts for 2022 predicts the demise of M-mount and expects a super-cheap FF camera from Canon instead, while also stating that Nikon's APS-C on Z-mount "will stick around for a while", just because they are invested in it:

I never really understood the logic behind such pessimism, when historically APS-C massively outsold FF. The best argument that I have recently seen stated that as manufacturing FF sensors/cameras got cheaper, investing in APS-C makes no sense for the manufacturers:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65837717

I will argue that what such predictions completely miss is a very important factor and that is the need for efficient market segmentation. With most businesses it's necessary to differentiate products for customers willing to purchase at different price points. I'll give a simple example - let's say we have customers which are not willing to pay more than $1000 for a camera, but there are also others who can pay $2000. The manufacturers obviously need two products at two price points, one to sell something for the budget-conscious customers and a premium one that the second group could choose. Now the crucial point here is:

A camera for $1000 must be seen as good enough by customers who won't pay more than that, but not good enough by those who are willing to pay more.

The second point is important, otherwise the richer customers would simply opt for the cheaper product, which would effectively be a lost sale. What I want to argue is that the sensor format is a very good differentiator, which is hard to replace by something else. First, sensor size difference is easy to understand and market (as a potential for better image quality). But there is another factor and that is the connected lens system. A limited, but fairly complete budget system of lenses may be easily seen as good enough by the first group, but not good enough by the second. A smaller sensor can also allow a good differentiation based on the size of the camera and lenses. So while a small system based around a Canon M6ii, Sony A6400 or Nikon Z50 might be easily percieved as a good enough all-around system by a beginner or a budget conscious hobbyist, it will typically not be sufficient for a working professional or serious enthusiast.

Could this easy segmentation be simply replaced by a budget FF camera? Such a camera would need to be sufficiently differentiated by different means than sensor size and lenses, in other words crippled. But this crippling can't be crippling just for crippling's sake, it must efficiently implement the premise above - the result must be acceptable for customers on low budget, but unattractive to those willing to pay more. And I don't think it's that easy.

Let's have a look at what we had for cheap FF recently - Sony typically sells its old cameras at the low end (e.g. A7II), while Canon (RP) and Nikon (Z5) released new models, but reusing older technology to cripple the products in some areas (video, AF, burst speeds). Now I think it's easy to see that these cameras might not be deemed sufficient for a significant proportion of customers (e.g. for shooting video or moving subjects), but still good enough for some of those willing to invest more, e.g. even an outdated A7II could be seen as good enough for a landscape shooter, who only needs it as a platform for his lenses. A Z5 is clearly almost as good as a Z6 for a lot of people. In summary, i don't see how cameras like these at even lower prices can efficiently replace the budget APS-C systems we have now without losing a lot of sales from potential customers (both types).

Now I don't have any idea what will the manufacturer really do, maybe I am completely wrong. It might be that the number of customers on budget is so low now, that it does not make sense to develop dedicated products for them. But I doubt it, while the consumers clearly left with their smartphones, I still don't see how all people more seriously interested in photography/videography could have rich budgets. And the lens systems are essentially done (though Canon is in a bad place with its RF-M dichotomy). In any case, I will be happy to hear any critique or opinions.

Well written and I totally agree!

Especially for wildlife, a good APS-C Camera will give you more reach and the rest of the cost can go to good autofocus and frame rate.

I am still waiting for the RF version of the EOS 7D

 

[tbcass]

Especially for wildlife, a good APS-C Camera will give you more reach and the rest of the cost can go to good autofocus and frame rate.

I am still waiting for the RF version of the EOS 7D

As FF sensors get more and more resolution that last advantage is disappearing. For example, a FF camera with a 61mp sensor has 25mp in APS-C mode. I contend that if that is your goal M43 is a better alternative than APS-C.

 

[57even]

Especially for wildlife, a good APS-C Camera will give you more reach and the rest of the cost can go to good autofocus and frame rate.

I am still waiting for the RF version of the EOS 7D

As FF sensors get more and more resolution that last advantage is disappearing. For example, a FF camera with a 61mp sensor has 25mp in APS-C mode. I contend that if that is your goal M43 is a better alternative than APS-C.

Except that 61 MP cameras cost considerably more and have lower frame rates.

If you only shoot wildlife, what's the point?

 

[roby17269]

Not me, if I didn't have plenty of apsc sensor cameras, I would pay more for apsc than FF because I have no desire for a FF. If I were to change formats it would be smaller sensor, not larger than apsc. But know that most here think that's crazy, but not for me.

You are the exception to the rule. The point I was making referred to the buying public as a whole. You are no more than a minute blip when it comes to total sales. APS-C is in a bit of no man's land. It lacks the IQ potential of FF while being less portable than M43. When I upgraded to FF I gained a, for me, significant improvement in IQ in a form factor not much larger and heavier than APS-C. So, for me, it made no sense so I sold the camera.

I didn’t mind the added weight of the FF camera, but the lenses!! Yikes!
I love the shallow DoF I can get with a FF camera, though. And it’s better in low light. Still, Tom, APS-C outsells FF several times over.

Even if that's still true, what also matters is how bigger a profit a manufacturer makes by selling 1 FF camera vs selling 1 APS camera. The difference may very well compensate for the smaller number of sales.

Also consider that:

• buyers of FF bodies are probably more inclined to buy additional lenses
• buyers of expensive bodies are probably "stickier", meaning less inclined to fall "prey" of the smartphone temptation
• manufacturers are limited in how much they can build and distribute due to current supply chain issues, therefore they will prioritize building what brings in the highest profit

So I believe right now manufacturers are chasing the FF crowd more than other types of clients. This may very well change when the pandemic-induced supply chain issues will abate, I do not have any credible prediction data in that sense. But chasing the upper end of the market is a well-known dynamic in shrinking markets (see hi-fi sound equipment and others).

 

[kolyy]

Not me, if I didn't have plenty of apsc sensor cameras, I would pay more for apsc than FF because I have no desire for a FF. If I were to change formats it would be smaller sensor, not larger than apsc. But know that most here think that's crazy, but not for me.

You are the exception to the rule. The point I was making referred to the buying public as a whole. You are no more than a minute blip when it comes to total sales. APS-C is in a bit of no man's land. It lacks the IQ potential of FF while being less portable than M43. When I upgraded to FF I gained a, for me, significant improvement in IQ in a form factor not much larger and heavier than APS-C. So, for me, it made no sense so I sold the camera.

One could also claim that APS-C is the best compromise, not giving up much in IQ from FF, but gaining most of the portability advantage of M43. And in fact, when I take a look at the current state of the systems, this is much closer to truth. I am actually unable to detect any portability advantage of M43, quite the opposite. The up-to-date bodies are larger for M43, while APS-C has not lost its focus on smaller and lighter that much. And as for the lenses, I don't see much difference in small primes or compact zooms, but I see an advantage for APS-C with brighter options in both cases. And even for long telephoto I don't see much of a difference, especially if one takes into account that M43 is capped at 20MPx.

So can you give me an example of a setup you had in mind?