[genotypewriter]

[quote name='AAC7man' timestamp='1286649993' post='3559']

High ISO noise, dynamic range, and feature set are eating into FF territory

[/quote]

I guess you've been hanging out at dpreview a bit too often <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> There's no APS-C that can match the high ISOs of a recent FF camera. For example, even the 550D, which has one of the best APS-C sensors, can barely touch the high ISO performance of the original 1Ds... and that took how long? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />





[quote name='AAC7man' timestamp='1286649993' post='3559']

- and crop cameras already have lower weight, cheaper/lighter lenses (for similar functions) - and lower cost, of course.

[/quote]

Umm 5D2's lighter than the 7D <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Even if the numbers were the other way around, would that make a difference in the way you're going to carry/use the camera? No. They're all chunky... unless of course, you're talking about EVIL cameras with APS-C sensors.



Also people compare lenses in all the wrong ways. First, the cheaper/lighter lenses available for smaller formats also produce inferior image quality than what you get with FF lenses + FF bodies. It's not difficult to get better resolution when the digitising area is 2.6 times the area of APS-C... so FF lenses that are 2.6x worse than a particular APS-C lens will still produce the same quality on FF. Now think about the last time anyone used a APS-C-only lens on a crop camera because it was better than a FF lens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Also this allows people to use a much wider range of interesting (cheaper, inferior by FF standards but better than the best APS-C) lenses to produce unique images. And let's say the APS-C lenses still had IQ that was as good (which they most often don't), the lenses are still not equivalent. For example there's no lens equivalent to a 24-70 2.8 or a 70-200 2.8 on a FF because that would be a mythical 16-45 f/1.8 or a 44-125 f/1.8 lens on APS-C. Btw, try explaining that to the FourThirds crowd ;D





[quote name='AAC7man' timestamp='1286654175' post='3561']

My prime interest is dynamic range



I'm starting to take good high ISO as a 'given' in any recent body

[/quote]

They go hand in hand. You can't have good dynamic range without low noise. There's no such thing as detail in the shadows with a lot of noise. Noise destroys detail after all.





[quote name='AAC7man' timestamp='1286654175' post='3561']

I guess I'm creating a problem for myself as I'm trying to see 2 years ahead.

[/quote]

Like I said, the most active sensor developer in the DSLR photography business took [url="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos1ds.asp"]almost 8 years[/url] to match the ISO performance of their first FF DSLR with an APS-C (go to DXOMark and get the graphs and see for yourself). So I don't see how far they'll go in the next two years. And don't forget... like Popo said, FF development isn't standing still either. The low-noise game is on in the FF sector than in the APS-C market, with Nikon pushing with D3/D3s/D700, etc. with lots of clever noise reduction in the pipeline itself.