Originally posted by cali92rs I often shoot at ISO6400 and sometime 12800 because, surprisingly, there are a lot of venues where flash is not permitted (think weddings, churches, recitals etc), or there is no where to bounce the flash, or I didn't want to give the impression that I am a "pro" etc etc.
In fact, i don't consider myself pushing the envelope at all, you can hit ISO 6400 quite easily @ f2.8 in dim environments (not even very dark).
And IMHO, it is pretty easy to see the noise difference between FF and APS-C at these ISOs at reasonable sizes.
NO one is saying there aren't instances where it's to your advantage to use a Full Frame, and there are definitely instances where it's to your advantage to use an APS-c camera. Providing scenarios where one is better than the other is useful, because someone else might be in the same position as you and benefit from your experience. But, an unknown person just asking APS-c or FF without understanding what they shoot, I would definitely start recommending APS-c and move on to FF if needed, just because despite what folks will try and say, you can get an APS-c starter kit with kit (K-50, K30, KS-1) and 55-200 for half the cost of any FF body. I expect that the guys who will benefit from FF will be the guys who actually know bit about what they need and will understand how to take advantage of it, and they probably won't even be asking for advice. They'll know what they want.
Or as I've always said FF for narrow DOF and low light.
APS-c for magnification and wider Depth of Field.
For 90% of the average guys pictures, it doesn't matter.
I'm not sure how many beginning photographers are going to be shooting in situations that favour an FF format camera. Most of us don't buy a $600 kit and go out and try and shoot weddings.