>>4185645>A 40+mp full frame camera can smash pretty much every crop competitor in the clean images using the whole frame department.Well that goes without saying anon, when using the whole frame there's simply no equivalent.
>Only the Fujifilm X-T5/X-H2 can get close to that at high ISOs applying common sense editing (denoise, resize) but based sonikanon would still wipe the floor with it at low ISOs and produce more detailed images at full size.X-tranny introduces a myriad of other issues despite the 40MP resolution. You'd get closer results comparing Canon 32.5MP models to 30-35MP full frame.
>The advantages of midrange full frame scameras and micro four thirds are more limited. Just sharper results, wider FOVs, "the low light king" thing is kind of a myth if you have a worse camera like that, ESPECIALLY any canon DSLR. They suck shit in low light.The low light king myth stems from it being easier to get lenses with larger physical apertures for them for any given framing. It's not that midrange ones are scameras, it's that the advantages come from the lens. There's simply no match in lesser sizes for a full frame camera shooting a 50/1.4 which isn't even an exotic lens.
>>4185646>Full frame can make lenses that are worse on APS-C appear better.Not for the same framing.
>Purpose built crop lenses can make major concessions in vignetting and corner/edge sharpness to achieve better results in the center that are up to the pixel pitch (you don't want "technical sharpness" where it's computed to resolve more detail but it looks kind of blurry and shit), and usually end up smaller after the design process.The concessions to vignetting are mostly done to save materials, if you want max sharpness you'll usually end up using a full frame lens. L series and similar.
>You should use lenses actually made for your camera.This is retarded fujislug kool aid, don't drink it. Pic related will get better results than anything made for it.
