Naaa its APS-C
Two things keep me with FF...
1. Although I try not to I just can't stop myself looking closely and liking the goodness
2. I can use cheap old film era lenses at their intended field of view
If I wasn't interested in 2 and could stop myself doing 1 I'd probably be happy with APS-C or in my case MFT.
For example I used my MFT Panny GX80 recently in low light at ISO 6,400 to 10,000 and after only minimal effort in CS5 and Nik Filters the whole pictures are fine, maybe not 2m wide print on a gallery wall fine but fine for my use and everyone who's seen the pictures is happy with them but they would be as they're not obsessive pixel peepers, like me.
I think that for many people who are honest in their estimation of what they really need anything from a 1" and up is very possibly going to be good enough image quality wise and the rest is down to spec and availability of options, speed of operation, handling and the aesthetics of the kit and the look of the final picture. But then there's what we want.
Another example, for reasons I needn't go into I ended up processing my own wedding pictures and creating my own album on Jessops site. The pictures were from the photographers 5DII, a couple from my FF Sony A7, a couple from my MFT Panny GX7 and a couple of smartphone pictures from family members. The printed album looks fine and none of the pictures jump out as being technically bad.
Personally I think for most people format wars are very probably over and it's only at the extremes of ISO and picture size or when cropping or viewing very closely that differences emerge for obsessive forum types like us
I suppose if we throw DoF into the equation some would argue that only FF will do but even here I think that APS-C and even MFT are probably adequate.
Sorry for the long winded intrusion.
Carry on...