I don’t get it.
The argument for or against one or the other. Full frame or crop sensor. It’s like Canon vs. Nikon. Or Apple vs. PC. Or even digital vs. film. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Ok, I get the digital vs. film. It’s digital.
Each has it’s merits and each has it’s problems. Personally, I like the crop sensor. Why? Because I like the extra “reach” that the 1.5 crop factor on the Nikon D300 gives me. I like the way a 70-200mm lens acts like a 105-300. I like the way that a 1:1 macro 105mm lens becomes more than 1:1. (At least I think it does.) And I think that the ability to use a Sigma 10-20mm wide angle lens that is designed for a crop factor sensor is nice. And when a lens made for a full frame sensor is used on a crop factor sensor, the image quality goes up because the smaller sensor is in the “sweet spot” of the lens.
Ok, there are probably some problems. A crop factor sensor can’t go as wide as a full frame sensor and it probably is more susceptible to digital noise because of the smaller pixel size. Obviously, a wide angle lens isn’t as wide as wide as it is on a full frame camera. I don’t mind that. I don’t use wide angle very much and would rather get the advantage of the long reach at the other end. And of course the crop sensor lacks the “cool” factor that owning a new full frame camera has.
While I like and want a crop frame senor in my camera, I understand the advantages of the full frame; less noise, wide angle lenses are wide angle, and the newest equipment factor kicks in. But I LOVE and WANT my crop factor sensor.
There is a reason, need, and place for both. I am tired of hearing about one being better than the other. If the system you have works for you, USE IT!!