Originally posted by ghelary And another myth propagated... In the early 2000, Kodak released some full frame sensors (and a camera Kodak Pro DCS-14n) that were so shitty that it was a massive failure. At the same time Canon and Nikon started to release APSC cameras that were massively of higher "IQ".
Your argumentation is really flawed, I don't have any opinion about the Canon 5D vs Pentax K5 debate, which is pointless in my opinion, but as much as you don't take in account the "flavor" of the pictures (due to the shalower DOF, FOV and aperture equal) I don't see why an APSC camera of 2010 wouldn't be able to compete in "performance" with a camera released in 2005.
Especially that "performance" parameter is not really defined.
It was the case at the very beginning of the cheap digital era. It isn't such an imporant case due to general sensor technology progress. But there were no lenses one, the best optical schemes for fixed focal were achieved in 1970-1980s, almost no progress here since then.
Nikon guys tried to persuade everyone their APS-C aren't any worse than canon FF for a long time. Did they succeeded? Obviously no. They could to fake their fanboys, but not consumers who see how big was the difference.
As for me, I find both canon nikon primes to be shitty, I don't like rangefinders, I don't want to cut my LTDs. So I stay with Pentax stuff until mirrorless FF, where I can mount my lenses easily. But I stopped buying everything from modern Pentax which is just trashy compared to old stuff + shitty quality.