Darn ou Rondec, I ignore this guy, and you post his nonsense.
Quote: It is just as easy to get as much of the subject in focus using a larger format, simply by stopping down one more stop.
But, since the maximum sharpness for lenses is usually somewhere north of ƒ5.6, aAPS-c and FF, stopping down from ƒ11 ti ƒ 16 is going to cost you resolution. So no, it's not simple, and yes, there is a cost to using FF,
Quote: It is true that there is currently no FF camera that gives you as much (digital zoom) enlargement as a 24MP APS-C camera, but it is also true that the APS-C format is rather "resolution hungry" as a smaller part of the image is enlarged to the same size as an FF image, thus establishing higher requirements regarding lens sharpness and AF accuracy.
As has been point ed out by some testers, the resolution of poorer lenses can increase by as much a 60% while better lenses tend to increase by under 20%, when going from a D7000 to a D7100. It would seem that lower resolution lenses receive more of a boost from 24 MP than better ones do. Theoretcial speculation about what should be isn't matched by corresponding field tests as far as I know. But it sounds nice in theory.
Quote: Once you take the different enlargement factors into account, some IQ concerns are seen in a different light. For instance, the myth that FF corners are weak has been dispelled by falconeye. Since FF requires less enlargement the aberrations in the FF corners are less visible than you probably expect.
What if I didn't expect anything?
Quote: BTW, there are further advantages to FF which have been discussed at length elsewhere. It is tiring to see FF proponents being reduced to "shallow DOF" aficionados time and again.
There are further advantages to APS-c which have been discussed elsewhere. It gets tiring to see FF advocates portraying themselves as the be all and end all of knowledge when addressing APS_c shooters.
Quote: You don't have to give up any extra DOF when switching to FF. Just stop down a stop more.
Already addressed. You give up resolution, not DoF.
Quote: It is true that you won't get f/32 (the equivalent of f/22 on APS-C) on an FF camera because many lenses do not stop down further than f/22, but they don't for good reason: Already at f/22 you get so much blur through diffraction that IQ suffers badly. Effective resolution drops down to ~2MP. Such high f-stops don't make sense on these format sizes. If you need the DOF, either get a view camera or perform focus stacking. Stopping down to f/32 is not a good solution.
Stopping down to ƒ32 on FF is not a good idea. Stopping down to ƒ22 on APS-c sometimes is. Once again your love and mis-understanding of equivalence trips you up.
Unless Rondec or someone else quotes you I won't see your response, sorry, just couldn't resist. I feel like I'm sniping from a blind.