For the first time since starting to post here, you presented some reasonable ideas. And you are right that FF is not for everyone. Just like MF and LF were not for everyone. But I am here with the news, a well done 4X5 will blow the water out of a well done 110 instamatic, APS or 35mm shot. It really is about image capture area for many things. Not all, but many.
So while smaller sensors do capture fine images, the fact is, a larger one will capture finer images still. It is in the wave nature (diffraction) and particle nature (shot noise) of digital photography. Some people LOVE noise in an image thinking that it gives an "organic" feel. Personally, I really dislike it and did so with film as well. I NEVER strove to accentuate grain EVER. I hated it then and I hated it now.
So, for my style of photography, what I like and what I like to do, FF is advantageous. I have never had that "One that got away" look. The "gear" has always performed and been more than adequate for skill level.
Steven
In fact after receiving an angry response from Canon DSLR guys, by
suggesting that full frame is not the way to go, I am laying out
some points here to be considered.
That is because you were. "No one needs FF." That was the limit of your post.
It is true to say that different photographer have different needs,
BING BING BING BING. We have a winner.
1: Smaller CCDS's are cheaper to produce giving much higher value
for money factor to users.
Non issue for many. Sad but true. Sorry it is for you. Remember that Blads were never cheap but people bought the heck out of them.
2: A smaller sensor reduces the focal length allowing smaller
bigger zooms, that are also faster. Common is th 36-432mm super
They also bring into the picture poor control of DOF, diffraction and shot noise. All highly undesirable features.
3: Manufacturing costs are lower giving much needed value to the
sector, as well as a mini SLR size.
blah blah blah. This is your only real point. It is cheaper. BFD.
4: Technology is still improving, and history has smashed the myth
that bigger is always better. Expect cleaner small size CCD's that
are higher resolution and better performing in the future.
Just think what the FF and larger sensors will do. YUM!!!!
5: Improved depth of field. No need to worry so much about stopping
the fastest speed.
Serious downside. It is not improved it is diminished control. Different thing.
Image noise is a concern to many who tout that full frame
eliminates it almost.
Yep. Look at the D2X and 1Ds Mk II at 1600 or 3200. D2X is literally unusable IMO. It really is ugly at high ISO. Looks great at ISO 100-200 and OK at 400-800.
The problem with heading back to a full frame sensor is that the
nice big ultra expensive lenses come back with a vengeance! Great
for some but pretty impractical in the super compact era. A 300mm
Key point. Great for some. Read up on that wave nature of light thing grass-hopper. Learn something. I agree that it is not for everyone. But for some, it will have dramatic impact improvements.
fast full frame lens is expensive, huge, and heavy. Great if you
like that, but its not the ideal partner for grabbing those once in
a lifetime moments.
There are few "fast" small frames even available. No f0.5 or f1.0 lenses. When they do that, you may have a point.
Secondly I think the companies are not 100% with canon on their
thinking on this. Olympus and Nikon are not so convinced. I believe
Sony sure is. They are going BIGGER. So are the MF guys.
that the advantages of the smaller sensors outweighs the problems.
What problems. The times I used FF, I experienced NONE!!!.
The lighter smaller lenses are a break from the past of the big
35mm jobs, and thats a good thing.
But they are also MUCH MUCH slower.
Image noise is far too overstated too. Yes maybe you dont get any
This is where you are 100% wrong IMO. Shot noise is understated IMO.
noise much from a full frame sensor, but do you want that? I have
YES!!!!!
no problems with a little bit of noise, in fact I remember that
"grain" was something that many desired with traditional 35mm film,
But not all. In fact only some. There is a reason why LF stayed very healthy in the film era.
Of course they say that they get a better image quality, yeah. But
not that much. And the full frame guys would argue that a sensor
But very noticeable.
Be content that you saved yourself £1000's buy not going full
frame! The advantages are so far reaching, that the DSLR is in for
You really hate FF. Or do you just hate Canon? Again, Read a bit on Maxwell and understand WHY some people want larger image sensors. There are real and tangible benefits to many.
a tough time in the long run. Remember how big plates were used at
the dawn of photography? Well they went down to 35mm, because the
quality improved. They were dismissed as poor quality at the time.
It would seem logiical that the same could happen to CCD's in the
future.
In the future, Yes. Now, No. In the meantime live in the present and take advantage of the tools in the present.
Its easy to fall into the hype of some companies, and your credit
Like DX. Now that was/is Hype. Sounds like you fell for it hook line and sinker
that counts far more. Running down the super tech path may be fun,
but it costs you a heap in the long run. What makes a great picture
is not a super expensive full frame DSLR, but a good photographer.
Do you actually read this stuff that you write? So why can't a photographer use a FF camera and get a BETTER image. It really is that simple. It is a choice thing.
Steven
--
---
New and Updated!!!
Summer 2005:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_summer_2005
Redwoods:
http://upload.pbase.com/edit_gallery/snoyes/redwoodsworkshop 
