>>3444671>Crop is a false economy.No it isn't.
"False economy" implies that it's cheaper at first but then you have to end up spending more money later. You don't. You can just buy a crop system and stay with a crop system and it's fine. I think what you mean is "Crop isn't a good value".
>Full frame has twice as good low light performance as it has twice as large a sensor."Twice as good low light performance" is, as I've explained many times, a misleading way to phrase that. Also, not necessarily true even in the way that you mean it.
With any camera system, you have to balance your aperture against the depth of field you need, and crop gives you an extra stop's worth of DoF. I.e., whereas I might need to shoot f/4 on full frame to get my subject in focus, I could shoot f/2.8 on crop for the same depth of field, so that balances out the ISO advantage of the full frame body. Now, granted, if you're shooting something where extreme shallow DoF is fine, full frame wins, but those situations are outliers.
>Full frame gives you much more options for bokeh, and gives smoother bokeh."Much more" meaning "one". Full frame can get one more stop's worth of bokeh than crop. f/0.95 on a crop sensor is still insanely, generally-unusably shallow depth of field. It's a little *more* shallow on full frame, but you rarely need DoF that shallow.
>a cheaper lens will appear sharperWhen pixel peeping sure, but it's not really an issue in practice. Especially with most photos these days being posted at web resolutions, you'd never notice a difference between a full frame sensor and a crop. Even in a print, unless you're looking at it under a magnifying glass, you're unlikely to see a difference.
