If there's ever been a position in the camera world where the majority of the Japanese companies keep their butts clenched, it's APS-C. That really boils down to a simple thought: in order to provide lower priced entry products they need the cost savings implicit in APS-C, but they really don't want those lower priced products to compete with the higher end and higher margin products they make.
Almost by definition, even a top APS-C camera, such as the Canon R7, needs to not be good enough that almost everyone would forgo the full frame models, such as the Canon R6 Mark II. One way Canon and Nikon have kept their APS-C and full frame offerings apart is via lenses. I started commenting about that over fifteen years ago, and even created a shorthand for my criticism ("buzz, buzz", which was me acting like an annoying fly in the face of the Japanese executives making said decisions).
Even Sony is now part of that APS-C versus full frame separation action. Back when Sony was throwing things at walls and buying trinkets trying to figure out how to break the Canikon duopoly, Sony concentrated much of that effort on what originally was NEX, and now is the A6### lineup, both APS-C. Early on, Sony was making new lenses for these APS-C cameras. Today, not so much. About the time the second generation full frame Alphas got traction, Sony shifted to basically the same formula Canikon had established: restrict APS-C lens develop.
One thing that's a little different now is the entrance of the Chinese. Nikon, for example, makes five DX (APS-C) lenses for their crop sensor Z System cameras. China already makes 33 autofocus lenses for DX in the Z-mount. While those are currently all primes, many of them are better than Nikon's one lone prime for DX.
Which brings me to a slight sidebar: what's really not supported by the now Canikony triopoly are fast APS-C zooms. In particular an f/2.8 mid-range zoom (16-50mm) or telephoto zoom (50-150mm). Sigma and Tamron have been left this opportunity, but neither of them fill it quite correctly. Moreover, what does exist doesn't make it to the Z-mount, and it took awhile for Canon to acquiesce to anything third-party appearing in the RF-S mount.
If I'm a Chinese optics company and looking to really spread my wings, I'd be targeting:
- 12-24mm f/2.8 IS (18-36mm equivalent)
- 16-50mm f/2.8 IS (24-75mm equivalent)
- 50-140mm f/2.8 IS (75-210mm equivalent)
And I'd be doing that for Canon RF-S, Fujifilm XF, Nikon Z, Sony E, and even the L mount. For bonus points, I'd also consider f/4 versions as well as trying to come up with compact, light f/2 zoom of some sort.
Why include the L mount? Because it would be the easiest way for the Chinese companies to sneak into selling cameras, as well as lenses. Keep all those APS-C lenses on the compact, light, and less expensive side, and the Japanese camera companies would suddenly have an issue.
For example, the Nikon Z50II is a remarkably good camera at a remarkably good price, but hampered in its full usability by lens choice. I've watched a number of people in the past month decide to not get a Z50II and opt for a Zf or Z6III instead simply because of lens choices. That, of course, is exactly what Nikon wants to happen with informed and experienced buyers: pay more for the perceived pixel count, dynamic range, and lens benefits of full frame. That's a "safer" choice for serious users in Nikon-speak.
There's a tenet I used to use in Silicon Valley when I was in charge of products: don't be afraid to compete with yourself. In fact, I'd go further: if you're not competing with yourself from time to time, you're probably getting lazy and vulnerable to being disrupted by someone else. That, by the way, is exactly what took Nikon down from being a strong #2 in the camera market to being a weak #3.
When the Chinese come for cameras, Japan is going to find out that they didn't build enough customer loyalty at all levels to protect themselves. It will likely start with APS-C, but don't be surprised if that then quickly expands to full frame. (Technically, since DJI owns Hasselblad, the Chinese already have a foot in the Medium Format door.)
_________________
Bonus: I actually started forming this article based upon the question of why there is no 50-150mm f/2.8 lens formulated for APS-C (outside of Fujifilm's 50-140mm f/2.8). But the answer to that was relatively simple: once you're out past portrait focal lengths, classic lens design doesn't offer much size/weight advantage for restricting to the APS-C image circle. The length of a telephoto lens is going to be something at or above the maximum focal length. For instance, the Fujifilm 50-140mm is 176mm in length. Canon's full frame 70-200mm f/2.8L IS actually collapses for travel to 146mm, and isn't much heavier. Moreover, the difference between 50mm and 70mm typically isn't seen as significant as the difference between 140mm and 200mm to someone buying such a lens, so the full frame 70-200mm starts to look like a viable lens for an APS-C camera. Thus, Canikony already had something they could point to for an APS-C user and didn't see it necessary to build a similar telephoto zoom lens for just APS-C (though the full frame version was higher priced than it could have been for APS-C).
