sdai said:
I tend to agree with you ... jlw, but, with FF:
1) you don't have to spend extra cash for DX or
2) you don't have to buy a 15 distagon just to cover a 20 FOV
3) you have better control over DoF ...
Preferences aside, the Nikon D100 and D70 seem to have sold extremely well, the professional D-series cameras seem to have sold well, and there seems to be a lot of interest in the D200. (You may have noticed in the recent round of financial news releases that Nikon is one of the few digital camera makers that's been making money.)
I think Nikon would have to interpret this as the marketplace telling them that sensor size is not a deal-killer for most buyers, and that what they care about the most is the capability of the total package.
At least by keeping the sensor size constant, they make life easier for people who use more than one Nikon DSLR, or who are moving from one model to another.
The people who do care about an FF sensor already have one strong choice, Canon, and it makes a lot of sense for Nikon NOT to get into an expensive "bidding war" for this comparatively small segment of the marketplace.
I suspect that the digital RF marketplace -- IF it ever turns into a marketplace, with more than one available camera model -- would behave similarly. If you were to research this, as I'd guess the camera companies have, I think you'd find that potential buyers are a lot more price-sensitive than they are sensor-size-sensitive; in other words, there might be a fair number of people who'd prefer a camera with a 35mm-size sensor, but ONLY if it weren't significantly more expensive than one with a DX-size sensor. As long as 35mm-size sensors continue to cost more, a less-expensive camera with a DX-size sensor is a safer marketing bet.
