Originally posted by Class A
Eventually, any company just offering APS-C models will have a hard time to survive because competitors will be able to offer better image quality for comparable (or better prices), if you include the glass in the cost calculation.
What on Earth are you talking about? It's interesting how slightly cheaper FF bodies make people lose their marbles and rational perspective on things:
- Nikon's FF 70-210mm/2.8 is $2400
- Pentax's APS-C 50-135/2.8 is $1400 (its highest price)
That is saving of $1000 dollars, on just one lens. Those are two lenses equivalent ONLY in angles they cover, but in everything else, from portability and weight and handling and price, the 50-135/2.8 is the clear winner.
There *IS* a place for APS-C, despite what anxious daddies think about the FF. The APS-C is the fulfilment of promise what digital promised long ago — that one can achieve a great quality of image at an affordable price, at a smaller size, and with uncompromised quality that goes with it. To match that same level of quality, benefits and price, an FF system will always be compromised.
A good FF DSLR will never cost same as the good APS-C DSLR, it will always be more expensive no matter what. It is more likely that a castrated, entry level FFs will cost as much as the best of APS-Cs. So at any given time, one can save considerably and gain considerably more by staying with a good APS-C system.
But if it's your vanity at stake here, and you must show off with an FF DSLR, then we're talking about a totally different problem altogether and you're twisting the physical facts to satisfy your cognitive dissonance.