APS sensor, Si', APS film, No. Why?

An excellent question, Mr. Burke!

¿Por qué? El costo. As full frame digital sensors are becoming more affordable, the love of APS-C sensors is declining -- at least from what I can tell.

In my case it was simple - since photography is strictly a hobby for me (and I don't plan to change that) I could not justify to myself the cost of a full-frame dSLR, even though I had a whole bunch of usable lenses. Those Pentax and Nikon lenses work just fine on the APS-C bodies for my purposes. Wide angle was a bit of an annoyance at first, but nothing that could not be solved by throwing some money at the problem. Less money, I might add, than what a full-frame digital would have cost. And, I get the benefit of the "crop factor" with my longer lenses. I should mention, too, that I rarely print, mostly just post on my blog, but the few shots I have printed seem fine.

There is a technical reason that common film just doesn't have the same acuity and resolution as a modern digital sensor.So while APS-C sensors can easily match 35mm film quality, APS-C film is one level below that. Launched in a period when 35mm cameras were abundant, despite all marketing, APS-C film just didn't inspire enough to break out of the P&S bracket

There was no real reason for APS film. It required new processing equipment (it wasn't compatible with existing color minilabs), and there were lots of cheap, pocketable 35mm cameras on the market already. So who exactly was supposed to benefit from APS? It was a pain all the way around. The amazing thing is not that it died out so quickly, but that it was ever introduced in the first place.

APS-C digital, on the other hand, provides a significant cost savings (therefore lower camera prices) because with a smaller sensor, you can fit more of them onto a single silicon wafer, and the presence of a bad spot on the wafer reduces the yield by a smaller percentage.

I have a crop sensor camera and I like it but a full frame sensor would be nice. However I do not want a larger camera and I do not want to spend excessively on a camera. So for me the crop sensor is where I am at in price range and physical size. That new Fuji Pro 1 looks real nice to me but the price is still to much considering I would have to start all over again with lenses. But I am still thinking about it. It's good to wait a year on new models and let others spend their money and take the risks.

A pertinent question. I remember reading an old article in this site a few years ago praising APS as being the testbed for future digital camera technology. I was selling cameras in a department store at the start of the last century. Our buyers were not photographers. They were not even amateur enthusiasts. We sold cameras to people who wanted something that would take wonderful and happy snaps. We sold a lot of Minolta Vectis, Pentax and Olympus cameras. We used to sell more APS than 35mm until around 2003 when digital point and shoots at 3MP were the norm and had started to outsell the 35mm.

Totally different.
With APS film you got to use smaller film, but the film itself was the same as the film you could get for your existing system, only smaller. Now you're going to have to buy into a completely new system to use less film but it will cost more per roll. Oh yeah, because it's APS and it's special no more roll your own or develop at home. Everything has to be done by a technician. This is better, and you can pay more for it.
With digital you get a completely different technology from the film camera that you had in your hand. Instant review, instant this, instant that. But you can still use the same lenses (provided you bought the same brand name), so the investment will only be the body..... for now. Oh and there isn't any full frame digital cameras to choose from because they don't make those and the guy at the store might even let slip that they may never be able too. Oh yeah and because it's digital you don't need to let anyone else touch, charge you for, or even see it if you don't want. You can even print at home.

For you to look at it today, yeah there's full frame digital or film, aps digital or film, but they are/were introduced in completely different ways and met different needs. And frankly the APS needs were a smaller subset, not bigger like digital met.

APS , poor thing was doomed at birth. Originally conceived as a great leap forward in film technology, geared toward amateurs. In truth there was never any need for anyone to shoot this film. Thirty five millimeter films featured more types of emulsions anyway.
And then of course within 4 years of it's 1996 intro. Digital came along, and APS died on the vine.

Mais, non. Sarah to

the love of APS-C sensors is declining

It's becoming more and more appreciated that it is simply a different format, from my vantage point high atop the St. Louis Arch. ;)

But it is certainly right that the original reason for APS-C format in digital was that it was difficult and expensive to make full 24x36mm sensors. It had nothing at all to do with the film format, except that when people were casting around for something to call the smaller format, voila, they rediscovered APS dimensions were close enough for government work.