[BigMackCam]

Yes, and I suspect they always will be for two reasons:

1. A chip maker can make over twice as many APS-C sensors on a given wafer as FF sensors and probably with better yield. FF sensors will always be much more expensive. (Moore's Law only makes chips cheaper if you can make a smaller chip.)

2. To maximize both revenues and profits, it's best to offer "low-end" and "high-end" products. The high-end earns a premium and pays for R&D whilst the low-end drives volume . APS-C vs. FF is a good way to segment low from high-end.

Agreed. I just hope the manufacturers don't forsake us APS-C fans that still want a semi-pro-quality camera... That, to me, is an area at potential risk. As model ranges are consolidated and optimised, I can possibly see APS-C offerings being limited to entry level and mid-range, with full-frame being the only "flagship"-quality products on offer...

[jenrick]

They only see its size. It is more that they might wonder what they are really paying for if the hired photographer turns up with a camera that looks to them no different from their own at home, or from those that some of the guests are toting.

Several years before I got into photography, and back when digital point and shoots were still the option for "casual" photography, my brother in law got married. A relative of the bride is a rather well known NYC theater director (as in Broadway), and she pulled some favors and had a wedding photographer from NYC come up to Alaska to do the wedding. He showed up with what to my untrained at the time eye, looked exactly like my digital point and shoot, and I wondered what made him so special. Not gonna lie, the photos from the wedding were amazing. After looking up his website, he starts at $10K for weddings (and you pay travel and room and board for destination weddings). I to this day don't have a clue what he shot the wedding on, but it always makes me think twice when I see someone with a "casual" camera wandering around.

I think that with most (well in excess of 95%) of all photos viewed on mobile devices there isn't much incentive for the "casual" consumer to go FF. It's sort of like newspaper photography back in the day, I don't recall exactly what I read, but supposedly something like anything over 3 MP was useless as they didn't print in a resolution high enough for it to matter. Very few people when swiping through IG/FB/etc are stopping to zoom in on a photo, they are glancing and going. Sort of like when you flipped through 4x6's when you picked up your 35mm film.

For certain applications like advertising, high end digital rendering, etc, I can see there being a push for FF, same with digital medium format. However I think we're well past the point where the "average" photo viewer can't tell, and doesn't care about sensor size and resolution.