No, that's not a typo in the title Question is simple: what do you think about the full-frame versus x1.3/x1.5 sensors debate in DSLR. I prefer the Nikon sized x1.5 and know that some here prefer full-frame. So let's chew over this a bit and figure out that nobody's wrong. I'll start. I prefer x1.5 because: * I don't really see the point of a 24x36 mm sized sensor in the first place (IIRC it was originally designed to accomodate Kodak's slide mounting machine) * I makes for easier to design/smaller/cheaper lenses - especially at the lower focal lengths * you win quite a few mm for your telephoto w/o the use of teleconverters (a 300 f/2.8 magically "becomes" a 450 f/2.8) * they're way cheaper * you can stack insane amounts of filters on full-frame lenses w/o fear of vignetting; and, you can use full-frame lenses at full aperture with less vignetting * you can get greater reproduction ratios with macro lenses. Of course full-frame does have some advantages: * you don't loose your wide-angle lenses (but see point 2 above) * you potentially have less noisy sensors (bigger "pixels" = more light per "pixel" = less noise). What do you all think/like/prefer and why?