Frodge wrote in post #16265937
This is why I feel bad for newcomers on this forum that just bought their new rebels looking for some advice.
Agreed that it's a real fallacy for anyone on a budget who isn't a professional. It is *way* cheaper to get decent glass for crop, nevermind the price differential for the body itself. As someone else mentioned, in many cases, no one will ever know the difference if not printing large or shooting in extreme low light conditions.
The T4i/T3i can be had for around $500. Pair it with something like a 15-85 and 70-200 f/4L, and you've got IQ that's more than sufficient for most hobbyists' needs at under $1500.
Seriously, the Rebel series are more than sufficient for most people's needs if they aren't shooting a lot of action. I shot them for eight years, and know a professional in my photographic specialty who did the same for even longer and made a living off it. A Rebel is literally 1/3 the cost of the cheapest current-gen FF body you can get.
An entry-level FF system will run you on the order of $3000. And even then, you're probably going to be looking at overall weaker lens resolution across the frame. Getting edge-to-edge sharp glass for FF on Canon is *seriously* frustrating if you don't have a huge budget and/or aren't willing to go with all primes. I don't know why some people in this thread are acting like FF magically makes a lot of EF lenses better, because IMO more often than not, it's the exact opposite. Many lenses are relatively strong near the center, but fall apart at the edges. The crop factor makes the weak areas "disappear," so to speak.
Of course, don't take all this to mean I think FF isn't worth it. I'm an FF owner, after all. If you *need* high ISO frequently, it's certainly worth it. (For example, I enjoy doing nightscapes and milky way shots, and FF absolutely stomps crop in that area -- there's simply no way to compensate for the vastly superior performance at ISO 3200+ unless you have like an f/1.2 lens for your crop). If you want to print large, it's worth it. If you shoot a lot of landscapes that get pushed hard in PP, the cleaner RAW files can be worthwhile even at low ISO.
But if you mainly do a lot of "walkaround"/street/travel photography, shoot your kids/pets, etc., then you really shouldn't feel obligated to move up. The difference in results probably won't feel like what you'd expect for the investment.