Originally posted by yorik Unfortunately, much of this stuff is like the joke about those in a helicopter lost in the fog near the Microsoft building. They don't know where they are due to the fog so they put out a sign for the people in the building saying "where are we?". The reply from the MIcrosoft people is; "you are in a helicopter". Correct information but useless.
This article treat (among other things) cameras as DOF measuring devices (only wide open). I don't know anyone who use cameras this way. Nor do I know why different formats should have similar DOF characteristics in the first place when it is the format size to begin with that makes DOF characteristics different!
FF is not near any sweetspot at all as the sweetspot for DSLR sales is below $1000 and high quality lenses for FF are often beyond what the general consumer is willing to pay (particularly if you want that VERY thin DOF). Sweetspot is proven by the sales; APS has 95% of the market. Who cares about cost per "image quality particle" (my invention)?
It is not relevant to compare digital sensors to computer processors; the former do not follow Morres law and while extra computer power is constantly needed to keep up with newer software, image quality beyong a certain limit is certainly optional and of little interest unless you print very large.
However, FF, particularly the D800, is great compromise if you want better image quality than what APS can provide but can't afford or don't want MF digital and don't mind spending the bucks....