Originally posted by krsto FF is not a holy grail. If I were to choose between FF 36 MPx and, say, APS-H 4:3 with K-3 pixel density (so also 36 MPx) I would most likely choose the latter one. If it was significantly cheaper and smaller I would definitely choose it (it would fit almost all or simply *all* of APS-C lenses without SR due to more square resembling ratio). It's just a wish, anyway...
And even APS-C has its obvious pros, i.e. price, size, ...and it works with FF lenses whilst otherwise is usually a bad idea.
Damien Lovegrove shoots Fuji 16mp's... and has stated that 16mp's is all he needs. He said most people that worry about mp's, you can see it in their work, they are more worried about their kit than their photos and it shows. (Paraphrased.)
I only mention him because 99.9% of the people lusting after a FF or medium format Pentax will never shoot work anywhere near his level. He's got me re-thinking a lot of what I took for granted. Prophotonut.com
He also says lens quality is more important than number of Mp's. And a lot of other things. He kinda is the antidote to forum stupidity. (Not this forum, forums in general...
)
As a lot of you know I've been toying with FF's and other stuff for the past few months as I gear up for a busy professional year ahead, the first in quite a few. Damien's work and opinions and my own experience have me completely committed to APS-c. And my preference for the Pentax DSLR's has me trying to emulate a Fuji kit with Pentax lens choices. I have a Fuji kit as well, but the proof will be in the shooting this year.
The important take away for me, though, is it's not a FF vs. APS-c fight. FF already lost... It's a mirrorless vs. DSLR fight in APS-c and it's really just a question if the Pentax lens selection can work with the gauntlet that the fast Fuji primes have thrown down.