[eddie1960]

Yes, a good photographer can achieve top notch results with almost any camera, even an iPhone's camera for example. But as what you've said, there's the limitation. So the photographer may have to seek better option to achieve what one really wanted especially if it's a paid job.

which was my point. If the job(s) are going to pay enough a tog will buy the tool needed. If the ROI isn't high enough he may rent the needed tool. If an item is a constant need they may buy it, though if the price is high enough odds are good they will lease it and perhaps buy it out at lease end or move on to a lease on the newer model so the cost of ownership is spread over fully deductible time frames. I know a couple of guys who rent the bodies for their jobs as primarily freelance journalists (albeit guys who were once staff togs and have gone out on their own). at lease end they look at the new model if it is out. If the residual buyout is lower than what they can sell it for they buy it and sell it on. If the new model is not on the horizon and the residual is too high, or the number of actuations is too high they will lease a new one of the same camera because they need reliability above all. Almost every full time Pro I know who does journalistic work has gone to a FF camera (though they may also have an apsc body as a back up). The D800 has got a couple of artists I know to move up where they would rent the D3 for a week in the past for projects
It always boils down to whether or not the cost is justified when it is a business decision. the opposite is true for enthusiasts who frequently buy well beyond their needs (and abilities in many cases) because they want the "best". every time i am in a tourist rich environment when i travel i see those guys with a 5d2 and a 70-200 2.8 who are shooting in green mode, even worse the guys with 2 5d2 one with the 70-200 2.8 and the other with the 24-70 2.8 grips on both, sometimes flashes on both, and still in green mode - If I had that gear it would only go out like that when i was shooting events where things are moving fast. when i travel it would be a body and a couple of smaller primes to cover my need and maybe a flash in the bag. No grip no huge zooms and 1 body (not far off the way i use my Pentax kit actually) Leica's are no different, but you don't see them as often
If I was making money off this Full time as opposed to when i feel like pursuing it I would probably have moved to nikon by now and kep a small pentax kit for vacation. Since I don't I work with the tools I have which are good enough most of the time. when they aren't I rent

[richard balonglong]

And if it was a macro shot and you desired more DoF?

Then just stop down your aperture, or if you want your aperture at its widest then just move back away a little bit and just crop it out like 1.5x in post process.
By the way, the stuff toy shot that I've shared through Flickr is not mine, I just shared it for someone who's asking. And nice macro shot!
And FYI, I don't have a FF dslr yet. I only have aps-c dslrs and a 35mm film slrs. Full frames are not for everyone, but still many photographers are in need for FF, as for others also where an FF is not enough for them that's why they seek bigger like the medium formats.

We know FF users have this whole thing going on about controlling depth of field. The point being, for most of us it's irrelevant.

Are you sure about that "most of us it's irrelevant"?

[richard balonglong]

And sometimes that better option will be APS-c. Sometimes it will be FF, sometimes it will be MF. You pays your money and you takes your pick.

Yup, exactly... Not all photographers do need a FF for their photography. Some may not even need an aps-c and a micro 4/3 is enough for them.

[richard balonglong]

every time i am in a tourist rich environment when i travel i see those guys with a 5d2 and a 70-200 2.8 who are shooting in green mode, even worse the guys with 2 5d2 one with the 70-200 2.8 and the other with the 24-70 2.8 grips on both, sometimes flashes on both, and still in green mode

Yeah, I see a lot of them too here in our place. In a wedding where I made a contract with some time ago, I too saw someone, but Nikon, with two D700 with grips, 70-200mm v2 and 24-70mm, one with an SB900. But, man, he don't know how to use it and kept on asking me on how to get a proper exposures inside the church and reception.
Anyway, full frames are not for everyone. But still, a lot of photographers needed (some just wanted it) the advantages of a full frame.

[redrockcoulee]

Ah, that is a good question. Here's an answer to that with this link:
85mm on FF vs 50mm on APS-C

That is much more useful in making the point IMHO. The other example shows little other than this is how an image could be cropped.

When I first started in photography and I guess with my medium and large format gear it just did not have that razor thin DOF anyways as none of the lenses are/were super fast or if they were they were unafordable. Although portraits with the 150 and the 10mm extension tube give me all that I need on the Hasselblad. Those shooting medium format digital do not seem to be as adament that they need full frame for depth of field. I am still of the opinion that there are great advantages of each format as well as disadvantages to each of them as well. The compromise of each format seems forgotten.

Thanks for the link, it is not that I do not understand the DOF issue it is I really do not like examples that seem designed to win a point as opposed to illustrate and illuminate,

[richard balonglong]

That is much more useful in making the point IMHO. The other example shows little other than this is how an image could be cropped.

When I first started in photography and I guess with my medium and large format gear it just did not have that razor thin DOF anyways as none of the lenses are/were super fast or if they were they were unafordable. Although portraits with the 150 and the 10mm extension tube give me all that I need on the Hasselblad. Those shooting medium format digital do not seem to be as adament that they need full frame for depth of field. I am still of the opinion that there are great advantages of each format as well as disadvantages to each of them as well. The compromise of each format seems forgotten.

Thanks for the link, it is not that I do not understand the DOF issue it is I really do not like examples that seem designed to win a point as opposed to illustrate and illuminate,

Ah, true... But the purpose of this thread was only to explain the difference between the two formats. Still a lot of photographers don't get why there are various formats, others don't get why is the majority of working/paid photographers preffer FF. the examlples here are to illustrate how DOF control differ from the two formats, not to something "praise" full frame format...

[Unsinkable II]

(I didn't say pro because many self styled pros are not good photographers and there are some absolutely amazing amateurs)

I couldn't agree more.

[richard balonglong]

I couldn't agree more.

+2 on that... Here in our place, I meet a lot of them, self styled "pros" but ain't good in photography, and also a lot of amateurs who really are good...