Originally posted by Class A 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.
Oh, despite sticking to the topic, one word here:
looking at a picture you have taken with the APS-C and a comparable one with FF you might not see much difference in 90% of cases. But with the larger formfactor for the sensor you can expand your possibilities, and circumstances that are at the edge for APS-C might give you still a solid result. I would sum it up like this: FF is for those occasions where you reach the limits with APS-C earlier. This might never be the case for some, or significant for others (documentation of Art, dimly lighted interieurs of churches etc...). But naturally here 645 would be even better.
This reflects also my personal choice, KP for my everyday photography, in my job D810 and sometimes Hasselblad digital MF.
Last edited by MMVIII; 10-02-2019 at 06:33 AM.