Originally posted by normhead TO me, there is one real advantage to an FF camera, and that is if you shoot for narrow DoF and APS-c and MF are not good enough for you.... but that's a judgement call, not a scientific deliberation. It makes no sense to go FF unless you shoot fast lenses wide open and that is a critical part of your workflow. If you shoot ƒ 8 on an FF, you can shoot ƒ5.6 on APS-c with almost exactly comparable results. Use the one stop faster to bump the ISO and there goes your noise and low light advantage. If you shoot ƒ1.2 on FF, there is nothing you can do to match that on APS-c. To me, that's the FF advantage. With current K-3 images, comparing them to D810 images, the FF and APs-c images are close enough, the picture is made by the skill of the photographer, not the format. The one exception to that being formal portraits and landscapes, where at least IMHO you always go to the largest format possible. That would be a 645, but if you don't have the bucks, going FF is a good compromise.
f1.2 on full frame and apsc is exactly the same.
Really people.
The DoF is exactly the same. Put the same lens on both, shoot from the same distance. DoF will be identical.
---------- Post added 31-03-15 at 20:20 ----------
Originally posted by Adam Two words: image quality
which should be pretty much identical.
Or why do more and more 'pros' use m4/3 as their walk around cameras?
And when I go to a photographer for a nice portrait (or wedding group shot), those won't use a 'full frame' camera.
They use their good old view cameras, with a digital back.