[Class A]

But there arent really any technical reasons for FF DSLRs in modern days except for extremely niche uses.

That's not true.

A larger sensor has several advantages. We know this from film formats (where "FF" was initially regarded as "too small for professionals").
Of course even micro 4/3 is enough for most people but there is no denying that you can get better IQ from FF.

[Trickortreat]

Absolutely not, it is very visibly noisier on the APS-C image, because of the smaller pixel pitch. The colour tonality also takes a beating; the darker greys get mushed to black faster on the D7500.

Push the RAWs trough a denoising software. JPEG engine of D7200 is more basic than in D750. And even on SOOC JPEGs i cant see it "very visibly noisier". Id call that slight and not worth the price difference. Put those 2 photos in front of a customers and hell see no difference at all. Besides, i see darker greys going to black faster on D750 on this photo than on D7200. Human eye is not trained for small scale sharpness or small objects but for visible strong patterns, colors and big shapes.

---------- Post added 10-02-19 at 11:32 AM ----------

That's not true.

A larger sensor has several advantages. We know this from film formats (where "FF" was initially regarded as "too small for professionals").
Of course even micro 4/3 is enough for most people but there is no denying that you can get better IQ from FF.

What can a FF do significantly better than crop?

[Sandy Hancock]

Can we go back to discussing the new camera? My patience is wearing thin.

[Dan Rentea]

1. AF can be made equal
2. FPS can be made equal
3. metering can be made equal
4. lens focal lengths and light gathering can be made equal
5. high ISO difference is so small that isnt really relevan
6. how much thin DOF do you need? A 85 1.8 on crop is borderline usable
7. there were billboard size prints made with D1, i dont think much more resolution is needed anyway.

Slight advantages of FF are really extreme niche. General use photography is better suited with crop.

If you make all the above equal, I'm pretty sure the price, weight and size will become similar to full frames. Look at 1Dx/D5 vs. 7D Mark II/D500. All the tech inside those 2 full frame flagships makes the difference in real life shooting conditions.

Yes, you can print a bilboard with a 12mp camera. But you can't make a 60" high quality print with a 12mp camera or with a crop camera. Sensor size also counts when you print large and you want quality.

Regarding DOF, as much as I can. That's why I shoot with fast primes like 85mm f1.4 or 135mm f2. Not to mention if I want to separate the background... I remember a pro sport photographer who was asked why he shoot at 400mm and f2.8 when he is shooting sport. His answer was simple and with arguments:

- I need fast shutter speeds and shooting at f2.8 means that I can keep ISO between 2000 and 6400
- I'm hired to shoot the athlets, not the adverts around the arenas. At f2.8 the adds are blurred and the subject is isolated

High ISO when you shoot at 3200 ISO and above is not marginal in terms of quality of the files between full frame and APS-C. The difference in noise and colors are quite visible.

[Trickortreat]

I was asked to not talk about FF and crop differences, by moderators so ill just stop even i have further comparisons about the topic
So lets talk about new APS-C camera, shall we

[Dan Rentea]

The new camera will be...well, a new camera. All we know is what is visible: it will have a joystick, a third dial on top, a fixed screen... Other than that we don't know and the more people add wishes regarding the specs, the higher the expectations of some will be and I suspect that the negative comments about the new camera will come from the ones with high expectations who will not buy or touch the camera and will comment on this forum based on DPreviews and the entire cancan youtube reviewers.

[Serkevan]

The new camera will be what it will be. It most certainly won't be a downgrade from the KP/K-3 and that already means it will be more camera than what most people need. Now for the wants... different story

[Rondec]

1. AF can be made equal
2. FPS can be made equal
3. metering can be made equal
4. lens focal lengths and light gathering can be made equal
5. high ISO difference is so small that isnt really relevan
6. how much thin DOF do you need? A 85 1.8 on crop is borderline usable
7. there were billboard size prints made with D1, i dont think much more resolution is needed anyway.

Slight advantages of FF are really extreme niche. General use photography is better suited with crop.

If you can't see the difference between the two formats then you've saved a bunch of money.

At this point APS-C is "good enough" for many people -- probably better than most people need. APS-C actually tends to have an advantage with regard to frame rates and tends to have more depth of field for similar framing. I'm not sure about your earlier post about the D750. The D750 was released in 2014, but it was based on the sensor in the D600 which came out in 2012 -- pretty old by today's standards. D810 is probably a better comparison and it shows about a stop distance through the range.

If you look at it, you will see about a stop difference with regard to noise and dynamic range between APS-C and full frame sensors of similar generation. This isn't huge, but it really does make a difference if you are shooting dark venues and need iso 12K to freeze performers or if you shoot landscapes at sunrise and want to be able to capture nice tonality in both the sky and the foreground without taking multiple images.

As far as thin DOF goes, the issue tends to be finding equivalent focal lengths. DOF with an 85mm on APS-C is going to be thin, even stopped down, but if you use a 50-ish mm lens on your APS-C camera to limit working distance and emulate you 85mm portrait prime on full frame, you find that it is a lot harder to get that narrow depth of field that you are wanting. And many 50mm lenses need to be stopped down a bit to get sharp, meaning you will struggle a bit more if narrow depth of field is your goal.

On the wide angle side, there are a lot faster lenses available for full frame camera than for APS-C. This can make a big difference when shooting the night sky and is why folks who do much astro photography gravitate to full frame.

To me, there is a big difference tonality between the formats -- bigger yet between a K-1 and a 645z (which I can't afford). It shows clearly in images I have viewed here and on Flickr, even at web sizes. APS-C images just feel "pushed" a lot quicker. For many images it isn't a big deal and I said before, APS-C is probably more than enough for most photographers. I could get by with it, but there is a reason why I prefer my K-1 to my K3 in most situations.

[Kunzite]

If you can't see the difference between the two formats then you've saved a bunch of money.

Ha ha, that should be a mic drop.

I guess APS-C is at a similar sweet spot the 135 format film was, few decades ago: good enough, convenient, affordable.
With a DSLR like this upcoming Pentax, mechanical issues will also make it faster in terms of FPS (compared to any reasonable K-1 replacement).

[Trickortreat]

I guess APS-C is at a similar sweet spot the 135 format film was, few decades ago: good enough, convenient, affordable.

My line of thinking exactly.

[Class A]

What can a FF do significantly better than crop?

Everything else being the same, you get better dynamic range (bit more than a stop), better sharpness (less enlargement required), for the same DOF you work with lenses nearer their optimal performance (fast lenses for small formats are hard to do and expensive as a result). You have more enlargement potential, the AF system does not need to be as precise for the same sharpness. I'm sure I'm forgetting some things as this is just off the top of my head.

One more advantages, of course, is the availability of certain lenses. You rarely find APS-C zooms that are as fast as f/2.8 zooms on FF. The Sigma 18-35/1.8 is a notable exception.

You can argue that none of the above is "significant", at the end of the day, there is just a 1.17 stop equivalent difference between the formats. For some, it is worth it, though.

EDIT: Typed and posted this before I saw the hint about sticking to the topic. I hope I don't have to delete this one, now that I typed it up.
@Trickortreat You can always post a link to a different (new) thread where such things could be discussed without annoying others.

[kiwi_jono]

Its a good looking camera and I like the LV, Movie, Viewfinder selector. Can't wait to see what the blank button does!

[Kunzite]

My line of thinking exactly.

But that doesn't mean the larger formats don't have significant advantages.

APS-C for extra speed, FF for extra image quality. Those would be the roles of the new APS-C flagship, and the K-1's replacement.

[Trickortreat]

@Trickortreat You can always post a link to a different (new) thread where such things could be discussed without annoying others.

Maybe one day, but for now we covered a lot of the topic

[richandfleur]

Can we go back to discussing the new camera? My patience is wearing thin.

There’s a new competition based on post numbers 😂