[paulusje]

There's a few technical challenges of APS-C that neither skills nor talent can overcome:

• Lower inherent noise of FF
• Shallower depth-of-field inherent with FF.
• FF is less demanding or in need of premium glass due to it's lower pixel density for the same number of megapickles(!).
• Possibility of producing larger prints with FF due to greater number of megapickles for the same pixel density compared to APS-C.

As an example, the 36mp FF Nikon D800 actually has a slightly *lower* pixel density than a Pentax K5.
Conversely, if the increased pixel density of the 24mp Pentax K3 still produces good image quality, that same density in FF would yield 56mp....think about the cropping latitude that would give you.

Will FF make any of us a better photographer overnight? Of course not.....but it certainly opens up more possibilities.

Terry

+1

My Pentax-K 50mm ƒ1.4 has been giving me much better results on my Canon 1dsmkII than on the K-5, especially when used wide open.

Reasons are (as described by Terry):
- Lower pixel density, resulting in less CA and more sharpness across the frame. Or: the lens is behaving the way it was meant to behave when they made it back in the day.
- And the shallower depth of field plus the wider field of view helps me make better full body shots (better subject isolation while I can stand relatively close to the subject)

All good things, it's just a shame that there's no Pentax DSLR that can do this (yet).

I'm not saying that FF is better than APS-C, just that there are situations that justify my use of Canikon bodies :{)

Best wishes everybody for the new year!

[ElJamoquio]

Will FF make any of us a better photographer overnight? Of course not.....but it certainly opens up more possibilities.

For me, it was cheaper and more versatile for the pictures I wanted to take. Case Closed. The fact that it's sharper, has better colors, and has a better viewfinder are just welcome bonuses.