I still contend tha5 once reduced to output size it’s going to be real hard to tell the difference…no matter whether it is M43, dx, fx, or higher…for the majority of people. We see too much emphasis overall on max IQ and while there are differences, the final output obscures a lot of differences…and except for the ‘mine needs to be best’ idea…for amateurs not making money at this the difference in IQ is overcome by the myriad of other factors…and that when viewed as output few people can tell the difference between an6 of the formats for a good shot. When doing PP…yeah, one can see minor differences, but the output process hides most/all of those and to be fair people aren’t going to look at a shot with nice framing, pose, and PP and say…that sucks, woulda been better with a full frame body and an exotic prI r. Better is always…always…the enemy of good enough.
There is truth in what you say and i applaud this.
I mean my friend she uses a D850 on a 28-300 only and sells out her exhibitions doing creative nature, moody landscapes and street scapes.
My other friend and i were doing a couple of sunrise shoot in challenging weather on Norfolk Island, me with my D850 Schneider filters, heavy tripod, he used a D810 16-35 no filters just shot raw with bracketing, but he was also a graphic designer and could make anything look spectacular just through post processing, he just uses the one camera one lens for everything nothing else, now he has years of experience in PS LR and is a highly qualified computer genius, you name it he could do it, won gold internationally so many competitions and due to a lack of challenge he has given up photography.
Now he uses his IPHONE 14. He says as long as he can shoot RAW he is happy, his previous camera was a D2H where he won most of the gold awards with.
That said he did comment that my files had better clarity, more dynamism and dynamic range, straight out of camera, something that is also massively apparent when shooting with a 100 or 150 mp MF camera versus a D2H, D810, D850, you see i don't like post processing much at all and normally i shoot JPEG Fine 98% of the time except for scapes etc.
I can crop the MF 2 or 3 times more than a 35mm camera.
All said and done, i can do a shoot with a D300 and D800 is there a difference we know the answer.
My friend using the D850 on the 28-300 says she can notice a huge difference when using her D4s on the 28-300 when processing or cropping...........in perfect light or with full flash the gap is so close until again you crop heavily.
Now here is a consideration, if a camera and lens due to conditions uses or needs a lot more iso, for the iso to be effective simply put it needs to throw out some DYNAMIC range !
Cropped sensors have much poorer iso tolerance mostly due to the pixel size, the larger the actual pixel pitch size the more light therefore more colour - dynamic range the more the ISO increasing can be tolerated, that's why low light sports action camera keep the pixel density lower to accommodate larger pixels as well as tollerate speed, Simple.
T
his defines a difference in tools, the more pixels the better the micro contrast and definition. Do a land scape with the 100 MF camera you may not wont to use anything else thereafter.
So the bottom line is their all just tools, some hammers push a nail in with 2 blows others with 6, their all just tools and each has it benefits, its what works for you and makes you happy.
But yes given good light the gap between different tools does narrow unless ISO starts to really climb.
Myself i am happy using a D850, Z9, DF, D3X, D4s, D6, on any lens i just act adapt accordingly, the key asset here is the glass and you.
Why a DF of all things, FWIW firstly its fun, mint, lots of actuation's left, not worth selling for what i can get for it, great travel camera, slows me down, love using it on a manual Ziess 50mm 1.4, ISO performance is really really good. Its only a 16mp sensor, great large pixel pitch that sucks in so much light.
Only an opinion