>>4145882FF gives you more options, but yeah, for a lot of situations it's not that big of a difference.
For the same dof and fov, you end about the same anyways. Some of
>>4145447 these were even taken with a 1" ILC camera.
I'm sure a part of it is the access to cheap new FF cameras. When I started, cheapest FF was +$2k used, and I literally shot film to save money. Even as long as a decade ago though, there have been relatively cheap FF models, and even like 7 years ago you could get a D750 new for around $1k, so it's not a new phenomena.
The "nicer" aps-c bodies (7DII, D500, etc) were also as bad a value proposition at the time as say an X-T3, but only the later really gets hate. I came from D2h/D300 before moving to FF, and spent many years in camera retail, so the nicer aps-c mirrorless has always seemed about right in pricing. But if sensor size is a big priority, then there are tons of equally affordable FF options nowadays.
FF can be nice if adapting a lot as you retain the fl without the use of a speedbooster, which is honestly one of my biggest perks for FF.
I honestly prioritize so many other things over sensor size though, and for IQ, aps-c really is a non-issue for me. Definitely better than the FF gear I used a decade ago, but still marginally behind contemporary FF cameras. I wish people cared as much about the impact of the lenses they use, as they do about sensor size. You almost never hear about lens color, or even anything about lenses outside of fl, aperture, and lab tested sharpness, or "3d".
