Originally posted by dosdan The article was not intended to argue that FF is better or worse than APS-C.
If you want very thin DOF (moreso than you can get now with a 50/F1.4 on APS-C), or want better LL performance and are prepared to accept the DOF & FOV changes compared to APS-C, go for FF.
"...If you want very thin DOF (moreso than you can get now with a 50/F1.4 on APS-C)..."
"...are prepared to accept the DOF & FOV changes compared to APS-C,.."
Dan, these are not neutral statements in my view. They contain a subtext and suggest that there's little to be gained by more DOF control at equivalent FOV, and that you need to be 'prepared to accept' some vague drawback in a FOV/DOF combination.
In reality - in everyday shooting - these work out to be useful things for the photographer. You can always stop down to match the aps-c DOF, thus marching (or sometimes still beating) the ISO performance. You can't always go the other way.
Giving the f/1.4 lens example suggests that you gain an advantage most people wouldn't care about - shooting with less DOF than f/1.4 would bring. This is a common example given in apsc-only circles and it misrepresents the situation a bit.
A good common example would use an f/2.8 zoom, or even 200mm f/2.8, for example. A 28-75 f/2.8 becomes equivalent to (on aps-c) an 18-50 f/1.8 zoom with regards to FOV/DOF. This can be an advantage in a lot of situations. Also, a 200mm f/2.8 'becomes' a 135mm f/1.8 prime - a very fun/useful tool for midrange telephoto. You aren't
required to shoot it wide-open, but you have the option, and stopping down to f/4 to mimic the same DOF you'd have at f/2.8 on aps-c gives you that extra bit of sharpness and contrast most primes reach at f/4 while still retaining that smaller DOF. An ordinary 50mm f/1.8 'becomes' an extraordinary 35mm f/1.2, a common 35 f/2 becomes a nearly-impossible 24mm f/1.3, etc, etc.
I don't know if it's necessary to give a lot of practical examples in this article, but the text of the article takes (IMO) a slightly misleading course. To make the article more useful to the general reader it should represent or allude to the typical shooting situations we find ourselves in.
Quote: Just don't move to FF thinking that it is as simple as "bigger sensor = less noise = better picture".
A broad generalization, but as far as generalizations go... somewhat true, all things considered.
.