Originally posted by mecrox I love wacky ideas and anyway plenty of folks could say right now that the ideal combo for all occasions is 645 and an APS-C systems. Why FF? Who knows.
FF sensors do offer a noticeable bump in image quality, without much of a burden increase in either price or weight if you buy the right lenses and bodies.
In other words, sure a Nikon D810 and a Tamron 15-30 2.8 weigh as much as a cinder block, but a Nikon D750 and a Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 weigh about the same as a Nikon D7200 and Rokinon 10mm f/2.8. A medium format system cannot claim that level of portability or affordability.
Some others have also touched on one of the things that Nikon guru Thom Hogan has written about many times: sensors don't cost that much. I mean sure, they're a significant portion of the cost of making a camera, but as a percentage of the final MSRP of the camera, it's probably far less than most of us would guess.
Which is why I say, just take the price of the K-3 II and add about $1000. That's all there is to it. Yes, they'll have to contend with lower sales volumes than Canon or Nikon's competing full-frame bodies, and even lower sales volumes than their own APS-C flagship. But ~$1000 is still more than enough to make up for any of that.
Keep in mind I know nothing about economics, marketing, and manufacturing, hahaha...