>>4106725Mostly weddings, but also family / couples / boudoir. Shoot probably 75% of paid work on APS-C, 20% on GFX, 5% on FF.
The price argument for aps-c used to make sense, but hasn't for years. Size and weight with FF often isn't any bigger if you compare "equivalent" lenses. I still see FF as the most well rounded, but I don't think the differences in real world shooting are anywhere near as large as people like to make them out to be.
Outside of shooting f1.4 (or faster) primes wide open, and f2.8 zooms, you can get basically the same look with APS-C and an equivalent lens.
You get the same DoF, same FoV, and even similar noise levels. With FF, I shot mostly at f2-2.8 because f1.4 was often too narrow, and I'm long past the phase of going for maximum bokeh, so I almost never feel like I'm losing out on FF + f1.4. Picrel is some tele equiv (75-85mm) on gfx, ff, and 2 aps-c. The differences in DR rarely come up for me either. I've even done paid work on 1" sensor ILC cameras years ago. I also do a lot more video / hybrid work now, where smaller sensors are much more common.
I value a lot of other things in the cameras I use more-so than sensor size. In a vacuum bigger is better, but I'm absolutely willing to step down in sensor size if it means I see gains elsewhere.
