RandyMN wrote in post #12021686
Yes, both are fully capable... Any one wish to trade my 50D for a 5D MKII? I definitely see superiority and I'd love to work with two FF so my back-up is as capable as my 5D ff.
Eventually I will have a second FF body. And I do recall those times when 35 mm was considered crappy fomat... and back then I also invested into a medium format. And it wasn't that 35 mm wasn't fully capable... but medium format was definitely an improvement for weddings with it's larger size negative to handle higher film speeds with less grain.
It is what it is!
(Not talking specifically to RandyMN...)
Superiority in what? High ISO noise? Yes, FF tends to be better. But like I said, each format has their pros and cons. People seem to define ONE feature as THE DEFINING FEATURE THAT IMPLIES SUPERIORITY. Cleaner high ISO does not automatically make it superior, nor does the ability to shoot at 24mm at F/1.4.
Using the same logic, I could say that the higher pixel density of crops can pick up more detail in small, distant objects, so therefore, CROPS ARE SUPERIOR. But I know that logic is flawed, so I don't make the statement. Yet people automatically call FF superior because of the few things it does better. Yet if a crop shooter does the same thing, they get flamed.
How about dynamic range? 35mm FF is CLEARLY INFERIOR in dynamic range compared to the latest MF phase one backs. If a MF shooter said 35mm "Full frame" is totally inferior, I'm sure a billion 35mm shooters would say things like "I don't want to carry bigger lenses, I don't want to pay the big price premium, I want a higher FPS shooting capability for my dollar, etc... Guess what? These are the exact same things people can say about APS-C compared to FF. Yet does that make 35mm automatically inferior to medium fomat? Hell no. I'll say it again... IT'S NOT SUPERIOR, IT'S JUST DIFFERENT!
And different people have different needs, though the attitude seems to be like, "superior people have superior needs".