Originally posted by infoomatic This is a wrong calculation: given the at least one stop better noise handling of FF systems, one should choose the Nikon 80-400 f4.5-5.6 VR (the Pentax 60-250/4 is a 90-375/6 in FF terms) which is cheaper than the Pentax 60-250. Furthermore, the Nikon AF 24-85mm 2.8-4.0D on FF is more like the Pentax 16-50 on APS-C, and the Nikon is again about 1/4 cheaper than the Pentax. Also, to the Pentax 50-138/2.8 there is the Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm 4.0G ED which is the same price. And: you can definitely not compare the Sigma UW-Zoom to Nikons, the image quality the latter delivers cannot be compared to the Sigma, its completely a different league.
When you take the Sigma 14-24/4.5-5.6 DGII instead of the Nikon, then here you pay 5039 € for the Nikon FF system and 4929 for the Pentax APS-C system...
And the Emporer is wearing new cloths. The spin never ends.
Constant ƒ-stop glass is always more expensive than variable ƒ stop glass. Comparing constant f-stop glass to variable ƒ stop glass is just ignorant. And don't even pretend like you didn't know that.
I've never said you can't spin a good argument, all the FF advocates can, but, not on an APS-c shooters terms. They all make their arguments based on "facts" that APS-c shooters have found to be personally irrelevant. From an APS-c shooter's perspective, FF has little to offer, for a lot more money.
Here are the test charts shot at base ISO, in "not in your mom's basement " conditions, over at Imaging Resources, comparing a D7100 to a D610 and a 6D.
They pretty much refute everything you just said, at least for some of us. SO while your assertions may be true for some, for others they are false and misleading.
By the way, the main difference between the FF and APS-c images in these examples, would be the FF images are not as sharp, due to narrower DoF. If you want everything in focus, the APS-c image is better.