Originally posted by ElJamoquio 1) There's no reason a FF body has to be appreciably larger than a APS-C.
That's true, and the D600 is an important step in getting FF cameras to a more reasonable size. However, $2,100 is still a lot of money for a camera, particularly when very capable APS-C and m43 cameras can be bought for a third to a quarter that price.
Originally posted by ElJamoquio Equivalent FF zooms cost less than APS-C zooms. Check out the new Nikon. 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 = APS-C 15-55 f/2.2-2.9. $600.
I find this equivalency argument to be specious on a number of levels. Most people do not think of equivalency in terms of DOF, but only in FOV and aperture. For most photographers, the Panasonic 12-35/2.8 is "equivalent" to the Canikon 24-70/2.8s, even though there's more than two stops difference in DOF. Furthermore, even when lenses are "equivalent" in DOF and FOV, this does not mean they're equivalent in quality. The Nikon 24-85 may be (roughly) equivalent to the DA* 16-50/2.8, but are these lenses really "equivalent" in terms of the images they produce? I doubt it. There's a lot more to image quality than mere numerical resolution and DOF.
But even if they were equivalent, so what? Why would anyone move to FF for equivalency? Isn't FF supposed to be "better"? Isn't that the whole point of FF, the better IQ? I wouldn't buy a $2,000+ camera only to skimp on the glass.
Depending on one's shooting style, accessing the greater potential quality of FF sensors can be prohibitively costly. I don't do narrow DOF stuff at normal or wide angle FOVs, so the advantage that FF has in that respect is irrelevant to me (as it is to many other photographers). So the only advantage of FF for me is the added resolution. However I'm already getting stunning resolution at 18 x 12 print sizes from my K-5. At 18 x 12, you wouldn't be able to visually perceive the difference in resolution between the K-5 and any camera with any camera with a larger sensor and more MP. So the primary
raison d'etre of the D800 is to make large prints. How large I can't say, as I've never seen any prints from that camera. Would you be able to perceive a difference in 16 x 24 prints? Probably not. But even if you could, even printing at 16 x 24 would lead to substantially greater costs. I can print and frame (in a glass, matted frame) an 18 x 12 print for under $25. A 16 x 24 easily costs me over $100. Now this is just one instance of many in which an FF that would actually bring about
perceivable gains in quality raises costs. Larger sensors tend to lead to larger glass; larger glass leads to larger filters; larger filters cost more. Larger MP files require more expensive computing hardware and greater storage costs. So attempts to argue that FF doesn't necessarily cost more than APS-C are misleading, particularly for those of us who are not true believers in the religion of narrow DOF.