That's right.... bash Canon for trying to make an inexpensive compact camera and not using a full frame sensor....
Do you realize what using a full frame sensor means...... it means that you need full frame sized lenses... remember the silly looking picture of the EOS-M mounted onto the 800/5.6 just after it was released.. that's the direction you head with full frame sensors.... large and expensive.
Let's all sing the praises of the FF sensor. They are better than APS-C... that's a fact and not debateable... but why not continue this discussion on to it's logical conclusion and skip past medium format sensors and go straight to large format sensors.... a large format sensor could be made that would anahilate the specs of any FF sensor. Ok, the camera and lens(s) would be insanely large, heavy, and expensive, and only the photo elite could use it or afford it, but the pictures would be better.... I used to carry around a 8x10 with glass plates....did that mean that every other film camera was a piece of S___? of course not! Same logic holds with sensor sizes.
The reason for APS-C (and smaller) sensors is to make cameras of a size and cost that will appeal to the masses. It is a cost and ergonomics thing at the expense of image quality. A lens that covers an APS-C circle is smaller, lighter, and less expensive to manufacture than a FF lens. The vast bulk of people will never understand why you would pay $500 for a lens.... and $5,000 for a lens is unthinkable. these are the same people that buy hundreds of rebels and point/shoots for every "pro" camera sold.... these are the people that are paying for the R/D to keep new inovations coming, these are the people that are paying to keep the lights on at the Canon factory.
Next time you want to start a rant about something, think before you type.....
Good post with some excellent points. I would go a little further though: film technology was much more mature and improvements much more incremental. Thus, there were much larger differences between image quality in various formats. Digital has narrowed those differences significantly. A properly exposed and processed APS-C image can easily be printed at sizes that would have been unthinkable with 35mm film of the same ISO.
So, while bigger may always be better, it isn't that
much better and the differences are often noticeable only when pushing the envelope.
Finally, this "full frame or nothing" mentality reveals a mindset that puts superficial appearance over true quality of the images. There is no more influential and significant photographic work of the past 60-70 years than Robert Frank's "The Americans." Many of the images were grainy and the focus was certainly not razor sharp, yet the images changed the course of photography and continue to inspire and influence photographers nearly sixty years later.
If your main objective in photography is to produce a picture with no visible noise when enlarged to the size of a billboard, 40 stops of dynamic range and a millimeter of depth of field, you're missing the point of photography.