Frustrated over lens selection

Franz304 wrote:

mmartel wrote:

No, I won't argue that APS-C offers lighter, cheaper and faster lenses than FF equivalents. When they're equivalent, they're almost always the same cost and just as heavy — if not costlier and heavier due to being more rare/exotic/specialty products and using more premium build materials.

There's an advantage in terms of size of weight, at least if you compare fuji's f1.4 primes to nikon Z S primes, which I would consider by all practical purposes equivalent. Of course, if you go long teles you will lose any gain, but in the more standard focal range there is still a significant benefit to APS-C.
Anyway I agree with you that Nikon could try to at least make a distinction between the DX and FX line by making the first more travel friendly (slow compact zooms and a bunch of compact primes) and leaving to the second the best optical quality (at the expense of size and weight).

If we compare the latest lenses, Fuji ones are smaller but not that much. They are mainly shorter and their weight is quite comparable:

XF 23 mm f/1,4 R LM WR -> 67x78 mm, 375 g

XF 33 mm f/1,4 R LM WR -> 67x74 mm, 360 g

XF 56 mm f/1,2 R WR -> 79x76 mm, 445 g

Z 35 mm f/1.8 S -> 73x86 mm, 370 g

Z 50 mm f/1.8 S -> 76x87 mm, 415 g

Z 85 mm f/1.8 S -> 75x99 mm, 470 g

But all these Fuji lenses are more expensive than Nikon options. And at least in my local prices, quite noticeably with current discounts for Nikon gear.