Digital Home Thoughts: Full Frame Advantage?

"If you just want to make great photos of things that matter, don't worry about this baloney and get whatever you find convenient. I use my D40 and its kit lens or my 18-200mm VR 90% of the time for my photos that matter. In the few rare cases that something will sit around and wait for me, I'll pull out my klunky Canon 5D or 4x5" view camera. I haven't had my 4x5" fired up in over a year, but I use my D40 daily, and even when my D3 arrives, I expect that I'll still use the D40 most of the time. The D40 is easier and more fun since it's so light. The only way to see any of these pixel differences is when you've already got a flawless shot, and then only when printed really big and you're looking too closely. Don't start counting pixels until you can make the right pixels. I was an idiot and wasted my first 15-20 years of shooting worrying about the wrong things, like resolution instead of color. This is why I so strongly caution you not to get caught up in this foolishness. This article, like many of mine, deals with minor technical issues."

Maybe I should have titled this post "More Expensive Cameras Take Better Pictures" because I find that full frame is usually only available for a premium, no matter what category of cameras you are considering. There is no doubt, in my mind at least, that the Canon 5D's of the world take better pictures, even with inferior supporting hardware. But it is nice to read this article that lays out why and with arguments for both sides. Of course, this doesn't mean that we should rush to throw out our non-full frame cameras but it is worth remembering that lenses are very expensive and you may want to go with a slightly cheaper setup but invest more in the body.