This discussion is extremely valuable.... Here's why...
Wide angle/ real estate, architecture aside, for birders, wildlifers, portraits and most sports, would you rather have a 24mp APSc or a 34mp FF?
On image replication, IQ, and optical engineering POVs, the ultimate solution is a very HQ FF lens on an APSc sensor. Corners cropped and 24mp in the "golden zone-APSc" is better mathematically than near a 40mp FF...
It underscores the amount of marketing hype. One must admit there is a wavelength concern on spectral compression, but it is nowhere as visibly perceivable or mathematically important due to human limitations.
Hence, a K3 with HQ glass ( F*, FA*, DA*, 50mm F1.4, etal) will be the "deadliest" (visual impact for the "target shooters) as opposed to FF where you loose on the pixel density/area, cost & speed of in-camera onboard processing, as opposed to a FF Canon, Nikon (or even K?FF when it comes out).
I have been squirreling FA*s and F*s for years waiting for FF DSLR, but my gut tells me that after owning a K?x? DSLR when it comes out and using it 6 mos in the field, I'll buy another K3x(whatever APSC) and smile all the same. I'll dump half of the FA*s, keep the important ones.. Hint... (DON'T underestimate the walk-arounds of the old 18-250DA, the 18-135WR, or the 55-300WR. and the 135-380 (or whatever) if executed well and WR, will be a game changer)...
And THE NISI LR, Bresson, Kaeseman and HD filters (eh to HD2 warranty) also help one to exploit the technologies.
Last edited by GlassJunkie; 02-08-2014 at 06:58 AM.