Why are we all complaining???

This is turning really interesting...

Wildkat's first assertion is that we shouldn't complaint too much as we have already enough with  today's cameras  compared to film cameras from the 1980's.

And his rationality is that a good photographer can create great  images with any camera. Nobody discusses it, as it seems we all agree that is the photographer behind the camera who create images.

But I feel a kind of "in congruent"  standards from the OP as he bashes the 4/3 sensors because they don't deliver as much as the APS-C sensors. But then he gets  into a different mood   when comparing APS-C to FF sensors. Suddenly what makes APS-C better than 4/3 doesn't work when comparing the real and evident gap between  APS-C and FF.

APS-C can be better than 4/3 but FF can't be better than APS-C

I believe there is a valid  reason why a D800E cost $3,200 or a canon 5D Mark III cost 3,500 (body only). It's not only AF capabilities, or low light performance, or even DOF control. The difference is mostly the cost of the sensors that allow every bit of light getting captured by each larger photosite, which  gives the Fulll Frames the performance you can't get from an APS-C. Borrowing an statement from the Economics science  we can say: "it's the sensor......." Of course, the FF from Canon and Nikon also exhibit distinct and most advanced features: different AF processing engines and technologies, dual compact cards, weather resistance, metal bodies, more complex flash management systems . They are way more complex and advanced machines than any APS-C and  hence, they are more advanced and complete tools. The fact that some people may not be able to use  FF to their full potential doesn't make them less desirable.

Of course, advanced tools in the hands of non-qualified people are useless. This is also common sense and we can't agree more on this.

And you opinion that cameras don't make the light better can be qualified as a fallacious reasoning...  You are right about i: , cameras can't make the light better. But better cameras can help capture the light better....

It looks like   you started a discussion that seemed interesting at the beginning but we are lost here as you are trying to defend some arguments using what in philosophy is called fallacious arguments.

"An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not originate in improper logical form. Arguments committing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious. An error that stems from a poor logical form is sometimes called formal fallacyor simply an invalid argument." (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy) One example is that you discredit the use of full frames because cameras can't make light better. this is a classic example of a fallacy. Of course, cameras can't make light better!

The good thing from this thread is I got a new example of fallacious reasoning to discuss with my philosophy group. This will become a classic: "cameras can't make the light better" hence -according to your logic-  we shouldn't buy better cameras