[photoptimist]

Everything you say is true. I do think as well, that Canon and Nikon and Sony would like to sell photographers the most expensive camera that they would be willing to buy. That usually means trying to get them into full frame cameras if possible.

But to the initial question, APS-C is here for a long time (no one can say forever about anything tech related).

Good points.

I'd modify the goal slightly to say that they want to sell the most profitable camera (not the most expensive camera) that photographers would be willing to buy. Camera makers would rather sell a $1000 camera that cost $500 to make ($500 total gross profit) than sell a $1100 camera that cost $700 to make (only $400 total gross profit). That pushes camera makers to look to cut costs on design and components (e.g., substitute an APS-C sensor for an FF one). Moreover, camera makers want to ensure that photographers who might be willing to buy a $2000 camera don't buy the $1000 camera. That pushes camera makers to look to create a very strong differentiation between camera on the price spectrum (e.g., only offer FF sensors on the high-end and only offer APS-C sensors on the low-end).

The goal is also weighted by volume. Camera makers with big marketing budgets and heavy retail presence need to keep unit sales high or it all falls apart. High-volume sales of lower-priced products for people that refuse to spend $$$$ on a camera help cover R&D, marketing, and retail costs.

[Rondec]

Good points.

I'd modify the goal slightly to say that they want to sell the most profitable camera (not the most expensive camera) that photographers would be willing to buy. Camera makers would rather sell a $1000 camera that cost $500 to make ($500 total gross profit) than sell a $1100 camera that cost $700 to make (only $400 total gross profit). That pushes camera makers to look to cut costs on design and components (e.g., substitute an APS-C sensor for an FF one). Moreover, camera makers want to ensure that photographers who might be willing to buy a $2000 camera don't buy the $1000 camera. That pushes camera makers to look to create a very strong differentiation between camera on the price spectrum (e.g., only offer FF sensors on the high-end and only offer APS-C sensors on the low-end).

The goal is also weighted by volume. Camera makers with big marketing budgets and heavy retail presence need to keep unit sales high or it all falls apart. High-volume sales of lower-priced products for people that refuse to spend $$$$ on a camera help cover R&D, marketing, and retail costs.

I think over time Nikon has tried to be sure that there weren't many APS-C versions of full frame lenses. There are plenty of people who would have been happy for a 50-135 f2.8 with fast auto focus to combine with a D500. But from Nikon's stand point, it was better to sell them a 70-200 and hope that as time went by they would decide to get a full frame camera to mount it on.

[ffking]

APS-C is in too camps really - people who want cheaper, lighter cameras, and people ho want to get extra reach out of FF telephotos and macro lenses (without losing definition or fps or buffer size) - seems to methat's enough people to keep cropped sensors in business for quite a while - and Sony is a business - they'll keep on making APS-C sensors as long as it's profitable.

[TomB_tx]

As FF volume increases (and smaller sensor models drop?), cost difference to make the bodies will shrink. Cost to make, stock, and sell the different lines can also be significant, but marketing factors will decide what to keep making.
From a customer standpoint the cost of the body isn’t as important as the cost of the lenses, as most buy several lenses. Lenses to cover FF are more difficult to make to equal performance, and are larger and heavier. However, an FF body can be made to go crop mode for non-FF lenses, while an APSC body can’t use a FF FOV. One main reason I wanted a FF body for my old film Pentax lenses was so my 20mm would cover the FOV I wanted.

[photoptimist]

I think over time Nikon has tried to be sure that there weren't many APS-C versions of full frame lenses. There are plenty of people who would have been happy for a 50-135 f2.8 with fast auto focus to combine with a D500. But from Nikon's stand point, it was better to sell them a 70-200 and hope that as time went by they would decide to get a full frame camera to mount it on.

That's quite likely true and is consistent with a market segmentation strategy that defines the low-end versus high-end with APS-C versus FF. Nikon may be reluctant to offer "pro" lenses for what they want to be a "sub-pro" camera.

But Nikon is not totally in control of the market, not even the market for Nikon lenses. There's always the option of third party 50-135 f/2.8 lenses from Sigma and Tokina. There's also Fuji who has every reason to offer a fast, high quality portrait-range zooms and other "pro" level lenses for APS-C.

And Nikon can't afford to abandon APS-C without ceding a bunch of marketshare to camera makers addressing the larger numbers of photographers who want an ILC but are only willing to pay say $500 for the kit.