>>3769839>FF elitismRead my post and tell me if I seem to be elitist to you.
>And honestly, what are these uses where FF gain of performance is really needed? Sport photography, Wildlife and thats all?There are two major concerns that I've addressed with gear in the last 6 years: Sharpness at wide apertures and high dynamic range.
Mainly in full-body portraits, sharpness at large apertures was important to me, so that a loosely framed image could be cropped into detail. People want to be able to crop and edit a shot. Even I crop a lot to stay focused on the scene, conversation and expression and be able to ignore technicalities. More modern and dedicated lenses were my key to this concern.
On the second point, being often unable to choose the time of day, I usually shoot in the open shade. Shadow reduces my problems with partial shadowing, narrowed eyes, differently exposed persons. The open shadow benefits the expression, is good for people's eyes and face to shine. I.e. depending on the direction I have a bright, clipping background. Sometimes this background gives context, should be part of the shot. Meanwhile a modern camera body allows me to recover 2 stops of underexposure without touching the limit.
Now that both attributes benefit from larger image formats, I fail to answer whether a particular or recent aps-c camera means no limitation for such demanding shots. To my excuse that's not in discussion for me as my existing system I'm happy with is full frame, for years, with early pro bodies, which in the closer past just happened to be full frame. It'd already be nonsense to switch away.
Further, in daily life I enjoy my phone and a 1" p&s; I haven't used aps-c for some time because of their size. Although this handy gear is or was on the expensive side, I find it difficult to label it suited for me: I often reach the limits of how freely I make use the ISO, how quickly I can reach the camera settings, how quickly and in purpose I get a situation shot.
