[jstevewhite]

Breaking it down, using Nikon:

85mm f/1.4 (or 1.8): No 55mm f/1 (but there is a MF 55 f/1.2! My beloved Cosina!)
50mm f/1.4D (or even my 1.8G): no 35 f/1.0 (or 35 f/1.2) on aps-c
35mm f/1.4G (or even the 1.8G, which I shoot on FF): no 24 f/.09 (or 24 f/1.2) on aps-c
24mm f/1.4G (or even 2.8D): no 16mm f/.09 (or 16mm f/1.8) on aps-c
20mm f/2.8D: no 13mm f/1.8 on aps-c
14mm f/2.8D: no 9mm f/1.8 on aps-c (but this is getting extreme)

(& if you're willing to shoot MF, there's not a 35mm to match the 50mm f/1.2)

If you want to just approximate the DOF capability at the same FOV, you can with some combos, but the FF to aps-c matchup greatly favors FF in price (and lens size!) in those cases:

tiny $110 50mm f/1.8D on FF vs. huge $1750 35mm f/1.4G on aps-c
tiny $199 35mm f/1.8G on FF vs. huge $2000 24mm f/1.4G on aps-c

One example approximation at the longer end: (this single lens/body combo was instrumental in my D700 purchase)

$500 180 f/2.8 AF-N vs $1400 135 f/2 or $1000 105 f/2 on aps-c

Had to clarify a couple of things. The prices you're talking about have little to do with cost of manufacture.

How much is a *new* Nikon AF 180mm f2.8 ED-IF AF Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras? $995. The Nikon AF 105 f2.0? $1100; I think that difference can be easily explained in units sold, as 180 f2.8s are much more common than 105 f2s, and if you let them reduce the image circle to 30mm instead of 43mm, they could easily match or drop below the price of the equivalent 180mm f2.8. Surely you can see that it costs more money (and glass, all things being equal) to cover 43mm than to cover 30mm, all things being equal? You can see it in action with large format lenses, very easily. A 250mm 5.6 that covers 4x5 is half the price of one that covers 8x10.

The 50mm 1.8 is a commodity lens benefiting from economy of scale, and most research and design was done long ago. Still, the 30mm F1.4 Sigma is $450, even though it's a completely new design. You can sell FF lenses to both FF and APS-c, but DX lenses only to APS-c users.

[jsherman999]

jsherman999 is intent on completely wrecking by bank account with good logic here.

Conventional wisdom is that we should be spending money on lenses rather than bodies, but actually it looks like spending on a FF body means significant savings in lenses <200mm. So for budgets over $3k it does seem as though FF is cheaper < 200mm FL.

It can be surprisingly economical - but there are LBA pitfalls to avoid.

One thing you should never do is open a thread with "Nikon 200mm f/2" in the title. That lens was created by Satan himself.

(I did a ton of research on lens options, tried a bunch of stuff before I jumped in the water. It really doesn't need to cost as much as some folks think to get some really good stuff.)


.

[jsherman999]

Surely you can see that it costs more money (and glass, all things being equal) to cover 43mm than to cover 30mm, all things being equal? You can see it in action with large format lenses, very easily. A 250mm 5.6 that covers 4x5 is half the price of one that covers 8x10.

The difference in image circles between that 4x5 and 8x10 is much larger than the difference between the aps-c and FF image circles.

The actual savings are not anywhere near what you're suggesting, and not enough to support the creation of a small-enough, optically viable 30mm f/1.0 lens for aps-c for your $1600. It simply would have been done by now, and would have sold like you wouldn't believe - to aps-c shooters. There is (AFAIK) no f/1.0 lens for aps-c or FF currently available as a consumer product. That magic 30 would burn down the house.

Consider this: more than half of the supposed aps-c-only DA lenses work just fine on film, according to Falk's great summary thread. If there was such a huge manufacturing savings to be had, don't you think Pentax would have been extremely careful to reduce those elements down to the bare minimum to cover only that aps-c circle?


.

[jstevewhite]

I'll let Marc address what he meant, but there is a misconception out there that FF only gives advantages like that at the extremely wide end.... I see that you were addressing the aperture range argument there, on second reading.

FF *does* only extend farther to the low DOF end. Again, lens limitations, though; Most lenses stop at f22, so you can't stop down another 1.3 stops. Yes, you can switch to the same lens the APS-c is using and crop to maintain FOV, but now you have to have TWO lenses, or just an APS-c sized crop. How is that an 'advantage'? Sure, you can say, "What if I don't give a crap about matching that FOV?" But that sword cuts both ways.

Basically that lack of lens availability for a format makes it a defacto format limitation, especially when it becomes technically impossible to design certain lenses for a given format that would have a reasonable combination of size/price/IQ.

That claim is on the table but currently unsupported.

Sigma, for example, sells a lot of telephoto lenses to aps-c shooters for more than $1600. Nikon has had great success selling a pedestrian 17-55 2.8 to aps-c shooters for $1500 a pop.

You don't think that Sigma could sell an unheard-of-before, stunning 30mm f/1.0 for $1600 if they wanted to? It would probably be sold out everywhere for months after introduction.

Such designs are not unheard of. There are PILES of lenses of less than 1.0 maximum aperture (by less, I mean lower f-number) used for TV.

I think you're misunderstanding Sigma's profit centers. If their manufacturing-to-sales line is anything like other manufacturing businesses, they make as much (or more) on the 75-300 as they do on the big ticket zooms. You have to carry a full line; the 80/20 rule applies to everyone: 80% of your profits come from 20% of your stock. And that 80% *isn't* coming from the top lenses unless you're Zeiss or Leitz, where every lens is the "top lens".

If Sigma (or anyone) could make a 30mm f/1.0 for aps-c that was smaller than a canned ham, had corners that wasn't like looking through a clown-tunnel, and cost $1600 - it would have happened by now.

Sigma is a business concern. If their marketing and sales people don't think they can make money on it, it won't happen, no matter how much you might like it. And I bet if every one of us photo geeks on all of these boards bought one it wouldn't be enough to make the tooling up of that line profitable, because they wouldn't be selling to any pros - because pros use FF, amiright?

We sold 10 regular primes for every fast prime we sold, and we sold 50 short slow zooms for every f2.8 zoom we sold. I doubt those numbers have changed significantly in favor of fast ones.

I think you challenged someone to prove that it couldn't be done - isn't the onus on you to prove that it could? Sigma and everyone else is waiting to hear about it, I think.
.

No, actually I was told it cost MORE to make 'em, and I said that's counter to everything I've ever read about lens design, and counter to observable data (like the fact that the 17-50 nikkor 2.8 DX lens is ~$1500, and the 24-80 2.8 FX lens is ~$1900). I merely asked him to provide support for his claim.

For my part, I can point you to things like TV lenses that are less than a thousand dollars @ 25mm f0.85. Some people have already gotten them working on micro 4/3. They aren't as big as a truck, and they don't vignette radically, because they only have to support a 1" image circle. Some less.

Your argument is that because Sigma doesn't sell a 30mm f1.0, it must take more, bigger glass and cost much more money to *reduce the image circle the lens covers*? Does that sound reasonable?

[jstevewhite]

The difference in image circles between that 4x5 and 8x10 is much larger than the difference between the aps-c and FF image circles.

Indeed! Not a whole lot of difference between ff and aps-c, really.

The actual savings are not anywhere near what you're suggesting, and not enough to support the creation of a small-enough, optically viable 30mm f/1.0 lens for aps-c for your $1600. It simply would have been done by now, and would have sold like you wouldn't believe - to aps-c shooters. There is (AFAIK) no f/1.0 lens for aps-c or FF currently available as a consumer product. That magic 30 would burn down the house.

Dude, you can *say* that, but absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Just because YOU believe it would burn down the house doesn't mean ANY company's marketing department believes it would, and that's what really counts. Canon used to make a 50mm 1.0. I bet they didn't stop making it because it was selling TOO well; what's your bet?

Consider this: more than half of the supposed aps-c-only DA lenses work just fine on film, according to Falk's great summary thread. If there was such a huge manufacturing savings to be had, don't you think Pentax would have been extremely careful to reduce those elements down to the bare minimum to cover only that aps-c circle?
.

Are you under the impression that the FF lenses simply "black out" the circle outside the 43mm diagonal of 24x36mm?

Not if it meant a redesign of an existing lens. They'd just reduce the testing circle to reduce cost. It costs a lot to bring a "new" lens to market, and a lot of it is optimizing and testing. Have you looked at the DALtds and compared the size of their glass to FF equivalents? Many of those APS-c lenses that "work just fine" require you to stop down a stop to get rid of the funhouse vignetting. Many of them have poor lens performance outside the APS-c image circle. And which are more expensive? The FA limiteds, or the DA limiteds? They've got the same all-metal construction; they just have a shit-tonne less glass in 'em.

That sigma 30mm f1.4 "works fine" on FF, too, but its performance in the corners is already ass on APS-c; what's it gonna be like on FF?

[Marc Sabatella]

Indeed, and never made that claim. Sorry if somehow it sounded like it. The point is that, for a given FOV, there are two DOF scales, one for FF, one for APS-c, and they're offset; the FF DOF doesn't extend beyond the APS-c range in both directions, as has been asserted.

Still, in practice, as I keep saying, way more photographers care about the FF advantage at the wide aperture end - and the APS-C advantage at the small aperture end is still debatable, given we haven't really figured out the whole story about the DOF, hyperfocal distance, and diffraction.

You're once again depending on the limitations of available lenses, not anything inherent to the format.

Not really. It's not just an accident that no one makes a 35/1 for APS-C, for example. Putting a smaller minimum aperture on a lens is trivial; making one with a larger maximum aperture is a big deal. Not sure what gives you the idea that this isn't true. If it weren't, surely there would be at least existence proof by now.

The required COC changes as a function of size and viewing distance. It's not a set value. The general guideline is "an acceptably sharp print at 8x10 inches, viewed from about 15 inches away" or some near variation of that number, and makes an assumption about the discernment of the human eye being trained upon that print.

I'm quite aware of that. I was simply going with the value you chose, which is typical.

f22 is not as bad as you make it out.

Maybe not, but you miss the point. Even if f/22 makes an acceptable print, it may in fact be *less* sharp than one made at f/16. Meaning stopping down to get more DOF was counterproductive.

No, it wasn't glossed over. On at least two occasions I said "But FF can always change lenses and crop." (meaning to get the same FOV and DOF).

True, but no one really picked up on that, which is what I meant in saying it was glossed over. You said if offhand like it didn't completely shoot down your entire argument, but in fact, it does.

But on the other one, the APS-c can always open up a stop and a third, right? Oh, wait, there's no 35mm f1.0 for K-5s, is there? But guess what? There's no FULL FRAME PENTAX to put the 50mm f1.4 on! (if lens limitations are fair game, then so are camera bodies, no?)

Surely you're not claiming that there is some sort of technical barrier to creating an FF body? There are plenty of existence proofs that it is perfectly possible. Yet no existence proofs of the feasibility of a 35/1 for APS-C.

This whole line of reasoning is pointless - we're trying to establish what the tradeoffs would be *if* Pentax were to produce an FF camera. So saying that they haven't done so yet can hardly be used as an argument against them doing so in the future!

Stitching is simple and can produce resolutions (and DOF) that you can't make on a FF camera without stitching yourself. Notice I didn't say *trivial*; but with the right software and half an hour's practice, it's simple.

As simple as you might find it, it's still at least 1000 times more complex an operation than cropping.

Photography happens in the real world. The assertion is often made that FF is superior to APS-c, but this is literally only true if all else is equal - and it's not. Not at all.

True, but this observation doesn't help your case, because it's the real world that prevents the 35/1 from becoming available; it's the real world in which diffraction is an issue; etc. Whereas the real world doesn't prevent Pentax from making an FF camera.

The K-5 outperforms and out-resolves most of the last generation of FF, and the ones it doesn't out-resolve it out-DRs. Not saying it's superior, I'm just saying that by any reasonable measure the K-5 is *in the hunt* as far as IQ goes, FF or no.

Absolutely. But there's still that DOF issue at the wide aperture end that is and will remain more important to most photographers than any still-as-yet-unproven advantage to APS-C at the small aperture end.

Larger sensor sites means lower noise, and this is one of the talking points of FF proponents.

No, it isn't. This is what I called "largely a myth" earlier. Yes, for a while, people believed that pixel size was a big factor in noise, but that idea has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

This is the origin of the myth that megapixels don't matter, as there is a min/max beyond which adding pixels decreases detail by increasing noise.

True, that is also a myth, as it is a direct corollary of the previous myth.

However, all else being equal, lower noise==greater available dynamic range (provided your sensor records enough bits to capture it). So the amazing D3s still has higher dynamic range and better high-iso performance than the K-5; but the 5DmkII does *not*. You can, as has been pointed out, resample and mix pixels to recover dynamic range, but then your effective pixel count drops. To add one stop by resampling, you have to cut your resolution by 30% or so. And AFAIK, you can't recover more than the base DR of your sensor that way, anyway.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about hre. You still seem to be going on the erroneous assumption that smaller pixels means more noise. It just isn't true, though, which as far as I can tell invalidates this entire paragraph.

And as to "Who compares different formats at the same focal length?" I have the answer. People who shoot high magnification. Dangerous or skittish wildlife (higher pixel density wins) and Macro (same thing)

I don't see why just because you're shooting wildlife you;d choose to compare different FOV's. If it doesn't make sense for portraits, why does it for wildlife? Perhaps because a longer lens might have less resolution than the shorter one, so you're thinking you might be better off shooting the smaller lens and cropping that using a longer lens? While it's true longer lenses tend to have less resolution than shorter ones, it's rarely to such an extreme that you're actually better off shooting the shorter lens and cropping.

I'm arguing against the misguided idea that it's reasonable to assert that "Full frame is objectively better!" without first answering the question "For what?"

I agree, so I'll answer: it's better for what the vast majority of photographers care about, and worse only in certain relatively uncommon corner cases - maybe, if your math pans out - that are then *trivially* worked around by cropping.

[jsherman999]

FF *does* only extend farther to the low DOF end. Again, lens limitations, though; Most lenses stop at f22, so you can't stop down another 1.3 stops. Yes, you can switch to the same lens the APS-c is using and crop to maintain FOV, but now you have to have TWO lenses, or just an APS-c sized crop. How is that an 'advantage'? Sure, you can say, "What if I don't give a crap about matching that FOV?" But that sword cuts both ways.

You were discussing the aperture range and focal distance issue, I misread focal distance for focal length and thought it was another concept being discussed.

However, regarding that, I think one point Marc tried to make repeatedly was that the number of folks needing to stop down to f/22 was absolutely dwarfed by the number who want to open up wider than, say f/2.8, so it's not accurate to say that these advantages at the extremes balance each other out.

I think you're misunderstanding Sigma's profit centers. If their manufacturing-to-sales line is anything like other manufacturing businesses, they make as much (or more) on the 75-300 as they do on the big ticket zooms. You have to carry a full line; the 80/20 rule applies to everyone: 80% of your profits come from 20% of your stock. And that 80% *isn't* coming from the top lenses unless you're Zeiss or Leitz, where every lens is the "top lens".

Sure, but a $1600 lens wouldn't even really be one of their biggest-ticket items. They have primes from $4000 to $9000, $5000 zooms, etc. Check out the dpreview D300 forum - lots of Sigma super-lenses being shot there.

I doubt they'd have any trouble unloading that f/1.0 30mm.

Sigma is a business concern. If their marketing and sales people don't think they can make money on it, it won't happen, no matter how much you might like it. And I bet if every one of us photo geeks on all of these boards bought one it wouldn't be enough to make the tooling up of that line profitable, because they wouldn't be selling to any pros - because pros use FF, amiright?

Again, Nikon has no problem selling a $1500 f/2.8 zoom, aps-c only.

Your argument is that because Sigma doesn't sell a 30mm f1.0, it must take more, bigger glass and cost much more money to *reduce the image circle the lens covers*? Does that sound reasonable?

No - my argument is that it's very hard to make a relatively-economical 30mm f/1.0 lens that would cover the aps-c image circle. There's a huge difference optically between f/1.4 and f/1.0.


.

[RXrenesis8]

I'm pretty sure the maximum aperture of a lens is in part limited by it's flange focal length.

Which is why you see CCTV lenses go down to apertures like f0.8 and make it seem like it's not even a thing, and why APS-C lenses can't be any faster than their full-frame brethren, they both share the full-frame's flange focal distance distance of 42mm (K mount).

You want faster lenses on an APS-C sensor? You'll have to change the mount first.

[jsherman999]

Many of those APS-c lenses that "work just fine" require you to stop down a stop to get rid of the funhouse vignetting.

You're dancing now, Steve Have you read the thread? No vignetting on film to speak of in the lenses we're talking about, in fact less vignetting than that Sigma 30 1.4 on aps-c in some cases.

Pentax must be bleeding money there - all that potential savings wasted!

.

[Rondec]

I think the discussion has degenerated quite a bit. Prices for Nikon, Pentax, and Sigma lenses all differ considerably, but not because of the format they are for, but because of (a)investment in the lens with r and d as well as materials (b)perceived cache that comes with a given lens (c)the number of units they expect to sell, and (d)the price that Nikon/Pentax/Sigma believes they can get for that lens. The last one is the hardest to quantify. Nikon seems to believe that if they slap their name on a product, they can get fifty percent more for it.

APS-C specific lenses should do better. There are a whole lot more APS-C cameras sold than full frame cameras. The problem is that there are very few high end APS-C lenses released by companies other than Pentax. If Nikon released an 85mm f1.4 that was for crop sensor, it would tend to decrease sales of the full frame lens and it would definitely cost less to make (and be smaller than the current 85mm f1.4 (how much, I can't say).

So, we have an artificial environment in which camera companies don't release crop specific lenses, specifically because they want to push photographers to buy 35mm sensored cameras and also because they don't want to steal sales of their existing 35mm lenses.

Pentax is significantly smaller with regard to lens sales and so of course, they keep their prices relatively high with regard to their lenses. However, currently the DA * 16-50 f2.8 costs 780 new, while the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 costs 1600 dollars new. That is a big difference in cost and I guarantee that Nikon sells more of their lens than Pentax sells of theirs.

I will say again that depth of field is a red herring. It is meaningless in the majority of photographs. Important things are composition, lighting, sharpness, subject. As far as the camera itself goes, I would far rather have a smaller camera that I actually take with me, even if it has a little more depth of field, than a very large camera/lens package that is awesome, but I leave at home because it is to cumbersome to have along.

There is a reason why professional photogs who shoot full frame in their work have a second system (Olympus, Pentax, Panasonic) for their personal life. Even they don't enjoy the size factor that is afforded by a D3. Could it be smaller? Sure, but only if Pentax or Olympus would decide to make one. Currently, Nikon/Canon are like the American auto makers - pre 1970s, where they think that bigger implies quality and so, all of their top cameras are huge.

[jsherman999]

I think the discussion has degenerated quite a bit.

Indeed.

So, we have an artificial environment in which camera companies don't release crop specific lenses, specifically because they want to push photographers to buy 35mm sensored cameras and also because they don't want to steal sales of their existing 35mm lenses.

Which is why I gave Sigma as a primary example. They don't have a FF body they would cannabilize with extreme aps-c lens offerings like an affordable 30mm f/1.0 lens.

I will say again that depth of field is a red herring. It is meaningless in the majority of photographs. Important things are composition, lighting, sharpness, subject.

All those attributes come in to play, they are not mutually exclusive (they work in tandem, in the same image, with DOF control,) and to say one or the other attribute is less important is a subjective statement. It depends on the scenario. Anyway, we're talking (or we were talking) about the math behind the DOF control issue - whether or not that additional control is important to anyone is completely up to them. But we shouldn't misrepresnet what the numbers actually mean, or say/imply things like "1.3 stops should not matter to anyone!". Remember that evil wizard who's waiting to change your 77 1.8 into a 77 2.8, he likes to teach lessons.

As far as the camera itself goes, I would far rather have a smaller camera that I actually take with me, even if it has a little more depth of field, than a very large camera/lens package that is awesome, but I leave at home because it is to cumbersome to have along.

That's why I love and will continue to shoot aps-c. But the D700 + the smaller primes really isn;t that much larger than a several aps-c combos I shoot.

Anyway, this is also why I've been hammering for three years now for a smallish DSLR FF body - preferably from Pentax. But I'll take it from anyone.

There is a reason why professional photogs who shoot full frame in their work have a second system (Olympus, Pentax, Panasonic) for their personal life. Even they don't enjoy the size factor that is afforded by a D3.

Beleive it or not, some actually do prefer that size - they hang in the d3 forums and occasionally will admit to it.

There are always tradeoffs. Size is one you have to (currently) be willing to give on if you want to shoot FF, plain and simple.

But I maintain that if half the folks who use it as a reason to not consider FF spent a week shooting my D700 + 20 2.8, 50 1.8, 85 1.8 and 180 2.8, they might cross 'size' off the negatives list, at least for more applications. D700 really hits an acceptable size compromise (for some).

Could it be smaller? Sure, but only if Pentax or Olympus would decide to make one. Currently, Nikon/Canon are like the American auto makers - pre 1970s, where they think that bigger implies quality and so, all of their top cameras are huge.

There is truth to the 'bigger must be better, so I'll pay more for it!" motivation. Things like the X100 may be a harbinger of an attitude shift.



.

[jstevewhite]

I'm pretty sure the maximum aperture of a lens is in part limited by it's flange focal length.

Which is why you see CCTV lenses go down to apertures like f0.8 and make it seem like it's not even a thing, and why APS-C lenses can't be any faster than their full-frame brethren, they both share the full-frame's flange focal distance distance of 42mm (K mount).

You want faster lenses on an APS-C sensor? You'll have to change the mount first.

I believe this is at least partly correct, and might be a solid rebuttal of that portion of my argument. Since nearly everything below ~45mm or so has to be retrofocal, it might not be possible to make a 35mm 1.0 without, as you say, changing the mount.

[Rondec]

Indeed.



Which is why I gave Sigma as a primary example. They don't have a FF body they would cannabilize with extreme aps-c lens offerings like an affordable 30mm f/1.0 lens.




All those attributes come in to play, they are not mutually exclusive (they work in tandem, in the same image, with DOF control,) and to say one or the other attribute is less important is a subjective statement. It depends on the scenario. Anyway, we're talking (or we were talking) about the math behind the DOF control issue - whether or not that additional control is important to anyone is completely up to them. But we shouldn't misrepresnet what the numbers actually mean, or say/imply things like "1.3 stops should not matter to anyone!". Remember that evil wizard who's waiting to change your 77 1.8 into a 77 2.8, he likes to teach lessons.




That's why I love and will continue to shoot aps-c. But the D700 + the smaller primes really isn;t that much larger than a several aps-c combos I shoot.

Anyway, this is also why I've been hammering for three years now for a smallish DSLR FF body - preferably from Pentax. But I'll take it from anyone.




Beleive it or not, some actually do prefer that size - they hang in the d3 forums and occasionally will admit to it.

There are always tradeoffs. Size is one you have to (currently) be willing to give on if you want to shoot FF, plain and simple.

But I maintain that if half the folks who use it as a reason to not consider FF spent a week shooting my D700 + 20 2.8, 50 1.8, 85 1.8 and 180 2.8, they might cross 'size' off the negatives list, at least for more applications. D700 really hits an acceptable size compromise (for some).



There is truth to the 'bigger must be better, so I'll pay more for it!" motivation. Things like the X100 may be a harbinger of an attitude shift.



.

Since Sigma makes lenses for other company's cameras, they want to cover as many formats as possible and so they tend to emulate Nikon/Canon offerings. Hence the fact that even their current 50-150 offering is the same size as the 70-200.
Edit: In particular, Sigma now makes lenses that they sell for over a grand. Those lenses have to be able to be mounted on the high end bodies from the "big 2."

Size issue is clearly on the side of small with regard to the general population. People generally comment that my K7 with 16-50 f2.8 lens is huge (while I think of it as relatively small). People in general want something as close to pocketable as possible, while maintaining decent image quality (I thought about making up some statistics to back this statement up, but I decided against it).

I just don't really see people clamoring for less of depth of field (pan to riots in streets of New York). What they want is some of the functionality of full frame bodies coming to APS-C. Which sells more, the D7000 or the D700? It says a little bit about what people want, which body they decide to purchase.

[jsherman999]

I just don't really see people clamoring for less of depth of field (pan to riots in streets of New York). What they want is some of the functionality of full frame bodies coming to APS-C.

No, not many are clamoring for 'less DOF'.

What someone may start to appreciate, assuming they're not a complete neophyte and have become accustomed to what the industry can and does deliver, would be some mixture of: Better high ISO performance, faster AF lock, more DOF control, better viewfinder, more DR, more accurate colors, better metering, size, and then options like video, flash/tethering, etc.

All of those things would be ordered differently and weighted differently by different people. Right now aps-c delivers a couple of those things really well, and the rest of them well-enough. There are offerings in FF that deliver most of them very well, some exceptionally well, and the rest well-enough.

If FF addressed the size/cost issue, or mitigated it some more, we wouldn't have many threads like this.


.

[jsherman999]

Which sells more, the D7000 or the D700? It says a little bit about what people want, which body they decide to purchase.

I think affordability is the biggest factor there, not feature set and not even size.


.