Quote: You have 100% control of DoF with either format.
Hardly, because of the various factors involved in lens design etc, in practical terms, you have a wider range of Dof, on FF cameras. An FF wide open with your fastest lens on it has narrower DoF than a smaller sensor. But you can stop it down to give you 6 feet to infinity as good as any smaller sensor is likely to be. MF would be narrower but you can't practically get as fast glass. So in the real world, not the theoretical world where lenses can be made any size, MF and FF are about equal, but with FF having 1.2 lenses available and most MF lenses being 2.8, even for the faster one..the difference is caused by lens size an availability, not theoretical attributes. If you consider control an attribute, FF gives you a little more range expressed as a ratio than MF or any smaller sensor.
If narrow DoF is your goal it's kind of a sweet spot in digital. That makes it sound like everyone should rush out and by an FF. But the fact is a competent photographer will produce the results he want with the equipment he buys. FF may have a small advantage in getting narrow, but I've seen way more botched shots where someone thought they were doing something cool and went way to narrow, because they could, than I have great images that depended on narrow DoF by a factor of about 1000 to 1. Narrow DoF is not for people who don't have a very keen sense of artistic vision. These guys who think they can just go for the narrowest and it will be special, are caught up in the technical, because technically they are special, but most of them are junk aesthetically, and from an artistic stand point may have been better shot a stop or two wider.
Last edited by normhead; 03-01-2016 at 10:25 AM.