[frank]

APS-C has actually some VERY good UWA lenses available. Like the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM and the Sigma 8-16mm DC. They have less barrel distortion too, than the FF UWA lenses. So, choosing APS-C because of UWA actually makes more sense. 

 

I am not sure if my argument is correct: For landscpae photography people usually want to get images that are sharp from center to corner and hence have higher demand on resolution (both local and global). If you consider the same pixel size then a FF sensor can diliver more than twice resolutions than a DX. Yes in the market there are only a few FF cameras that have substantial more sensor resolutions than DX cameras, e.g. the Nikon D800(E) (and Sony A7r? don't remember exactly). But for the same total resolution a FF camera has a large pixel size than the corresponding DX so at least in principle can deliver better IQ at a pixel level (lower noise, e.g.).

 

Yes I know that DX cameras can also diliver good lanscape photos with good lenses (of course FF camera also need good lenses), But on the global resolution and/or noise control side, FF wins I thinks.

 

By the way, you mean more blur... Bokeh is about how OOF parts look (quality), not how blurry they are (quantity).  B)

 

Yes. Probably I should say "shallower DoF".