Originally posted by Rondec Yes, but at this point, the majority of digital users have used only APS-C or smaller formats and for them the 35mm "equivalency" is meaningless. I know it is for me. I shot film for awhile, but I didn't own a bunch of lenses -- just a 28 to 80 and a 50mm f1.4. When I think of lens length versus field of view, APS-C is what I think of. And a lot of photographers are like me.
Nothing wrong with that.
In fact the equivalency thing has bit me when shooting with the 645 - I'd get too narrow a DOF using the 75/2.8 (I don't know nor care to compute the APS-C or 35mm equivalency... save it would be a fast normal) close up. 2.8 would be progressively more forgiving (for the same subject size) in 35mm and APS-C. Clearly there are many areas where a smaller size frame have advantages and larger size ones have disadvantages. Apart from this negative to DOF, I've mentioned portability, affordability, and speed of operation as some other variables, as are viewfinder size, availability of legacy lenses, or any special need lens one may covet.
Now, my mind doesn't work the way it used to, so I'm at a loss why the OP article claims the resolution/equipment whoring advantage it seems to? Does it really prove that under sane and equivalent conditions there's something better about FF?