On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 16:10:33 -0400, wrote:

Seems to me that FF is all about connectng back to the old 35 mm film
format, and very little else, since smaller sensors with the same
pixcel count in conjunction with shorter lenses could do the same
thing, BUT smaller and lighter. What part have I got wrong ?

FF is about getting a REAL digital camera, instead of a compromised
cropped version of the real thing. That is the thinking of a lot of
folks.

I keep seeing folks asking what FF camera they should buy, and what L
lenses. These are people who don't know much about photography. But
they do know that FF is what they need, and L lenses.

Ten years ago there was validity to this line of thinking. In the
meantime, things have changed a LOT.

But photographers are conservative thinkers. We remember and cherish
the ideas of decades ago. We still talk about UV filters! We have
clung to the unfortunate 3:2 aspect ratio of photos, which goes back
almost a century to the convenient doubling of the movie format, which
was 18x24mm or 4:3. People still use tripods to prove they are
photographers.

But things change. In particular, sensors have improved. Pro results
are possible now from tiny sensors, including phone cameras.

It is true that bigger sensors show less noise and are capable of more
DR. But it is also true that nobody can tell the difference between
pics taken by big or small sensors, in most cases.

Fine, if you are light-stressed or have special needs like extreme
selective focus, get a 35mm-format camera. You should probably also
have one of those if doing pro wedding photography, because as a pro,
you don't want a guest to have a bigger camera than you. It's a status
thing.

But from a practical point of view, in almost all cases a smaller
sensor like APS-C or m4/3 will give results that are indistinguishable
from 35mm or even MF, but will cost much less and weigh a lot less
too.

By the way, most people don't know what DR is, but they know they want
it.