How really is FX better....

cptobvious wrote:

For me, full-frame is not unequivocally better than crop (I shoot both). Yes, you get the shallower DOF, more 'natural' FOV with most prime lenses, and lower noise at higher ISO. But crop setups have the potential to be much smaller and lighter which helps for travel (This may not apply to the OP since he shoots with a D200 and mostly FX lenses). For wide angle landscape shots stopped down and tripod-mounted, sensor size makes little difference IMO.

I think the marketing machines by Canon/Nikon/Sony lead you to believe there is this whole new world once you get into full frame but that's simply not the case. If you look at user galleries on the web for the D600 for example, you'll see a lot of close-up pictures of inanimate objects or photos taken in very dim light to show off the user's newfound capabilities with his/her D600, but those photos get boring after a while.

Once you focus back on composition and lighting to take good pictures, the abilities of the camera to have thinner DOF or super-high ISOs lessen in importance. Some of the best pictures I've seen lately were taken by pro photographers on their Olympus OM-D, which has a sensor smaller than your D200. The sensor of the OM-D, although smaller, has DR and noise levels comparable or better than APS-C DSLRs from a few years back. The real benefit is the freedom of taking your camera everywhere. I know more often than not I'll leave my heavier equipment at home for casual outings and just take my NEX. It's a pain lugging around a DSLR and heavy glass on vacations as well.

Of course, nothing is going to replace a FF DSLR if you need it for its capabilities. But outside of shooting portraits or in very dark places, I think crop can mostly get you there in a smaller package.