...
Fuji has 2 formats almost 2 stops apart.
And Panny appears to be entering FF, again with 2 stops apart.
I wondered about this many times. Whenever I was tempted to buy a FF camera, I was convinced that the difference above my D7200 is not that much.
Similarly, whenever I like an MFT camera, it was not so much behind D7200.
Realistically, I think I will go to FF sooner than later. When the time comes to replace D7200, it will be with a M43.
If Panasonic announces something before I buy a Nikon FF, then I'll have M43 and FF options in Panasonic.
This confusion about the future and ignoring smaller format is probably holding off lot of potential buyers like me. I have spent about $6K over the past 6 years. If there were DX lenses I wanted then it could have been double that amount. That may be nothing in overall Nikon revenue, but, if there are a million such people around the world then that would be bad for Nikon
Yes, we'll see what they actually do. I think this is what they should do.
There are (at least) three key aspects that are getting increasingly important as differentiators: size, price, and processing. Meanwhile, phones are often getting better & better, both from physical sensor readout, and from software processing perspectives. Because smaller sensors shine in this arena. We'll see affordable global shutters first on smaller sensors, just like we've previously seen BSI, stacked sensors, on-sensor PDAF, IBIS--and even cameras themselves--on smaller sensors first.
And for most consumers FF is often overkill, as is APS-C. These formats tend to be slower to adopt this newer technology, because they're relatively large.
The one "complete" (or close) APS-C system I see is with Fuji, and it's borderline expensive for many people. You'll often hear complaints on the lens pricing, even though the lenses are sharp & fast. But the they're too sharp and too fast for most people--they don't want to pay for these aspects.
I think the winning formula will be the one that reduces sales friction & offers clear differentiation, at a time when phones are becoming more competitive. And for me, two formats 1-stop apart doesn't cut it. Because they'll just end up crippling the features in the cameras, and speed & quality in the lenses to get them to the affordable range.
Other than phones, the cameras that sell most cost about $500, and the lenses that sell most cost under $500. APS-C sensors & image circles put significant constraints on what one can fit in for those prices. Nikon should be trading image circle for other features, like speed, autofocus, AI, video, wifi, etc. Package that stuff in a cheaper-than-APS-C system, and Nikon's got a winner to beat Canon, Fuji, and Sony--with an easy opening for legacy glass, which now includes all of those DX shooters who want to go mirrorless on a budget.
It is easily conceivable that Nikon could create a quarter-frame camera for well under $500 (body only) that has IBIS, 4K, wifi, fully articulating screen, fast autofocus, and all the other bells & whistles. It will do beautiful portraits when paired with a cheap ($200 or less) 50mm F/1.8 lens. But in APS-C? Less believable in the near term at this price point.
