[onion2k]

Making the sensor smaller and cheaper also enables larger sensors at the equivalent cost and form factor of a current sensor though, which would change photos (if you think higher output resolution is a change to an image). The benefit doesn't have to be taken as making things cheaper.

[Kye]

Full-frame at APS-C prices would be great. It would lose one of the perks of APS-C: crop factor. Getting 450mm out of a 70-300mm lens is nice.

edit: since it's apparently not clear and I'm getting downvoted for sharing how this benefits a harmless personal preference, I will emphasize that I'm speaking to my needs. The 70-300 lens is what I use, not some abstract construct meant to represent all purposes.

The crop factor is generally a perk for people who shoot at the ranges I shoot at even if it comes with compromises for other needs.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

Crop factor is only an advantage for APS-C cameras where the pixel density is higher than the comparable FF camera. That's not always true, eg I have a Sony a7Riv, which has 26MP in crop mode (more than APS-C cameras).

The "croppability" of the image is not really a function of the sensor size, it's a function of pixel density. APS-C cameras used to have higher pixel density than FF cameras, but that hasn't been universally true recently.

[e40]

Or where you are willing to sacrifice pixels to get the longer length.

[cschep]

Isn't this usually thought of as a disadvantage? E.g. You have to buy more glass ($$) to get smaller mm equivalents?

[Kye]

I am only speaking for my use cases. Nikon crop sensors can use DX lenses, and those are always cheaper for more or less the same reach and features.

[booi]

this is essentially zoom though as you're not using the full output of the lens

[Kye]

That's okay. I usually shoot things that are further away. Other people will have different needs. Only speaking for myself.