ST1100 said:
i don't know what the majority will choose, but i believe the pros still want full frame. There are some laws of physics you cannot get around, and some serious advantages of a larger sensor than cannot glossed over, among them thinner DOF, larger enlargements and existing quality lenses in the pro's inventory all optimised for a FF.
i wouldn't buy and carry a 70-200/2.8 to use it at 300/2.8 *IF* a full frame was available. If Nikon's niche is still the pros (as compared to Canon, who targets the mass market), they'd better work on that FF.
The pros want full frame because... of the quality and the angle of capture, at a reasonable price, right?
Yes, there are some laws of physics but then, like everything else, it is a matter of compromise. Enlargement till what size? Why not use medium format if there is real need for it? Sigh, it is the photograph and not equipment. There is a thread in the pro digital forum in DPReview, where a
Canon pro user had his photos printed using his 1D, on Vogue, Wallpaper! So why not a 8-11MP be used?
As for lenses "all optimised for a FF", it is just an excuse not to make the adjustment.
As for the FF thing by Nikon, I can say that there is nothing mythical about a FF despite what some thinks that it will automagically confer them with the skill to take a great photo. Nikon, if they really want to, can come out with something in 6-9 months, but the cost will be prohibitive.
Like life, camera and photography are a matter of compromises.
Look at the price of the package of a D2X + Dx lens (or lenses). Then see the advantages vs the disadvantage of a 1.5x FLM vs FF.
YOU may not take the 300mm equivalent on a 70-200mm lens but I can bet many would.