Quote: there have been multiple folks who have posted that they are happier going the other direction.
Actually they said they are going to be happier, we've had lots of posts explaining how that has worked out for quite a few people. Everything is cool until they realize, for the most part, full frame is bigger, bulkier and not as pleasant over all any experience. On the other hand you have to cut them some slack with the pictures. Ansel Adams said if you get one good picture a month you're doing well. We can't expect people to get an FF , then both learn the system and produce good work, while they still remember there's a Pentax forum.
Originally posted by FrankC Just wondering though, does anyone here think that they could look at a great picture of theirs and honestly say that it would not have been better had you used a FF camera? And of course when I say "better" I mean on a technical side and not necessarily artistically.
I get no joy in producing "technical" photography. An image taking with a cell phone used appropriately is just as pleasing as an image taken with an large format camera. Especially if I have to be 8 inches away from the canvas to see the difference, or if the difference is imperceptible. So the image might be technically better, but who cares? You can print 300 DPI, but from 18 inches away, you can't see 300 DPI, and it demonstrably makes no difference if it's printed at 150 dpi or 300 DPI. Maybe one in ten people can even see that.
Technical overkill is way more likely than a lack of resolution on modern cameras.
So then the question becomes, are you willing to pay for way more capacity than you need, given the possibility you may never use it.