The following is a public service announcement from gerenm.net, and Zack Arias: For those of you who have been under a rock, there are different sizes of image sensors. Who knew? And there are bitter battles fought over which is the best. Fortunately, Zack Arias offers this highly rational explanation of the difference, and puts the whole issue in perspective as only Zack can.
And when you're done watching that, head over to his "new" web site, dedpxl.com. It'll do you good.
Some of you probably remember back two camera switches ago, when I was debating the move to Sony, and thought I was going to stick with Canon and go full-frame. More of you probably remember my moving to Sony and choosing to buy mostly full-frame-compatible lenses from Minolta Maxxum days. But as Zack points out, the difference between APS-C and full-frame today is negligible. Or, as he puts it, neg-li-ji-bull. What's important is the person operating the machine who's job it is to see and make the creative decision.
Yes, I've made several changes in gear since making the move to digital -- first Nikon, then Canon, then Sony, and finally, to Fujifilm. Every one of those cameras has been an APS-C sensor. I've only every complained about image quality from my early Nikon D70s camera (Nikons are much better now!). But, I've never truly missed anything about a full 35mm negative, with the possible exception of reasonably-priced wide-angle lenses. Bokeh and shallow depth-of-field has never been an issue for me with APS-C. I got used to that very quickly, and moved on.
At the time that I was most seriously considering the possibility of shooting full-frame, there were some real differences in high-ISO noise control. But really, those days are gone. Nowadays, unless you're really pushing it, an APS-C sensor does just as well as full-frame.
So, kids, save your money! Buy that crop-sensor DSLR or mirrorless camera with reckless abandon, secure in the knowledge that you're really not missing anything besides bulk and high costs by doing it.