Originally posted by Qwntm So clearly FF is about 30-40% better at shallow depth of field shots, on paper. I have been a professional photographer for over 30 years, I'd be hard pressed to take 2 photographs that could actually show anyone these differences.
I've not know from a quantified standpoint what the difference is, but I'll take your word for it here. Thanks for doing the math, and sharing.
There are many reasons to buy a FF camera, depth of field superiority really just isn't one of them in my opinion and I think the math and practical application back me up. If you can't see the difference, who cares?
In tests where the difference is highlighted, I believe I can see the (rather small) difference. My belief is that I'm not really concerned about those rather small differences, so the FF on that basis really does not add value, for me at least. My conclusion is similar to yours. That said, however, the photos I've seen taken by the K-1 look really, really, good, so there may be other good reasons for the FF. For most of my photos, I'm generally trying to achieve more DOF, not less, so this thin DOF thing that so many here are so crazy-in-love-with is mostly contrary to what I'm trying for.
As a side note, many are considering if they should step up to the FF camera. I must be the only contrarian around here as I'm asking whether I could support a step down to a smaller sensor.
Thanks again for your contributions.