>>3771043FF is good, but APS-C is more than good enough for most people an a lot cheaper as well as more compact in many cases.
In some applications APS-C doesn't just match FF, it even outperforms it.
The purpose and budget determine what kind of sensor size is best:
>FFPortrait/shallow depth of field
Ultra low light
Ultra wide angle (allthough for APS-C mirrorless and Canon APS-C DSLR you have decent ultrawides)
Super high resolution
>APS-CTele/supertele
Wide depth of field
Size/weight-critical applications
Astrophotography (can be adapted to most telescopes in prime focus or with barlow-lens)
In the end, a camera is a tool for the photographer.
If the tool can do the job, it's a good tool for the job.
An APS-C sensor camera can do pretty much everything a FF camera can do these days, but a FF camera is a lot more bulky.
Not much in therms of the body, but in therms of the glass.
>>3771289>>3771326>It's actually a shame how there are no good cheap lenses for wide angle shooting on actual cameras.Since the advent of the EF-S 10-18 mm I wouldn't say going wide is an issue for Canon APS-C DSLRs anymore.
>>3771693I don't see much of a point in even shorter focal lengths.
At that point you might as well look into 360° actioncams...
