Originally posted by mcgregni The comparison of a "junk" vs "quality" musical instrument, and equating that to aps-c vs FF, is very misleading in this context ....
Sorry, but I didn't mean to infer junk vs. quality in the context of APS-C vs. FF. I was referring to entry-level* cameras vs. advanced level. *And entry level cameras are not "junk" these days...but entry level music instruments usually are....so maybe just a bad analogy on my part.
If the OP said they wanted to shoot wildlife, sports, or needed something lighter and compact, then APS-C makes a lot of sense. But then, I think she would've found options with Canon. The OP mentions landscapes and portraits, and although you certainly can take excellent landscapes and portraits with an APS-C sensor, if she has the budget for FF, then it makes more sense.
The exception to me is if her budget was more limited, then spending more on lenses and less on the camera would be advised.
Personally, once I went to medium format, it was hard to accept FF quality, although to most viewers, an APS-C sensor would be fine. This also comes down to how much cropping, screen vs. print vs. size of enlargement, etc. In my experience, at least the FF gives me the most options to build on, and with the K-2 around the corner, the K-1 prices are only going to get more affordable.