3 lbs, just a little bit lighter than the 70-200/2.8 of the same era. You may want to have a look then - their APS-C lens system is in shambles. And their "flagship" A6500 is nowhere near in performance where the current A7/A9 are. Even Sony can't support that many systems at once - when the A7 Series took hold and off, that's what they focused on. E-mount APS-C got neglected, as did the entire A-mount line (which Sony should (and probably will) drop any day now. There already is one in form of the 24-85 VR. Just slightly crappier performance than the (crappy) 24-120. Even crappier than the D600/D610 - might as well make it a mirrorless then. A low-price, low-end FX camera that would go with which lenses exactly? A $1,000 28-300? Or a $500 24-85? Or should Nikon come out with a whole new set of slow, variable aperture 28-xxx zooms that duplicate the plentiful 18-xxx DX zooms? If people aren't buying a $750 FX 20/1.8 to fit their sub-$1200 DX body what makes you think they would buy one for a sub-$1200 FX body that's heavily compromised to begin with to reach that price point? In addition - all what Ilkka said above. Nikon is definitely struggling at this point - they need to come out with mirrorless in both DX and FX form, in addition to all the lenses they need to produce for those. That alone will tax their production capacities to the limit for years to come. They just covered the high-end in both DX and FX with the D500, D850, and D5 and also released a neither-here-nor-there D7500. As I already mentioned before, I believe D3xxx and D5xxx are already dead; there might be a D750 successor next year or they may not be. I fully expect that any effort Nikon will make from now on to move people to FX will be in the mirrorless realm, and the same is going to happen in the low-end DX market; they most certainly will not introduce a low-end FX camera body that would force them to come up with a set of cheap lenses for it. And since they have not so far, they will not introduce any DX primes; those will hopefully eventually surface for their mirrorless. I could be wrong but I doubt that Nikon will continue to bank on DSLRs only. Even this thread shows that many want small and light - and that's where a DSLR system will always be at a disadvantage. Throw in the still less than stellar (or even sufficient) AF performance during live view and video, and there's hardly an argument to be made to choose a Nikon DSLR over a mirrorless. I don't know much about the Nikon 1 cameras - but it appears that Nikon had some good AF performance in them (even on-sensor) PDAF. The decision to "protect" their low-end DX market by choosing the CX format ultimately proved fatal for the Nikon 1 Series (and doomed it from the get go). Just imagine had Nikon poured all that development energy and money into an APS-C-based mirrorless system and had not been afraid to cannibalize their DSLR sales a bit? Only one of the many mistakes Nikon made over the last, let's say five or six years.