How mature is mirrorless technology?

Full-frame beats crop. Full stop, end of. For other reasons than pure megapixels. Bokeh, for one. There's a greater leap in the "look" of full-frame versus APS than there is in going from full-frame to a 44x33mm sensor.

 

Bokeh is an attribute of the lens, not sensor. I'm not sure what this " "greater leap in the "look" of full-frame versus APS" is, either.

 

The biggest complaint most have over aps-c is the change in depth of field for the same field of view. I shot 4x5 film, 2-1/4, 35mm, and when the dslr came out, I shot DX. I could care less about depth of field and related f stops. For me, the most concerning factor about aps-c is the DR and high iso performance. This used to be because of how many photosites are crammed into a given area and aps-c was often a terrible performer over 800iso. Not so today with some Sony and Fuji cameras. The latest Adobe ACR version sure has improved with it's treatment of xtrans sensors as well.

 

Yes, some full-frame cameras may beat some aps-c cameras. My D810 walks all over my Sony RX100, for instance. But my D3s sure gets spanked by my Fuji x-t2. Apples and oranges.

"

Bokeh is an attribute of the lens, not sensor." - Not entirely. There's about a stop difference in DoF between APS and FX for the same field of view and magnification. Meaning you have to work at f/1.4 on APS to get the same look as f/2 on full-frame.<p>

F/1.4 lenses are heavier, more expensive and generally show more LOCA wide.open than an f/2 lens. So yes, it's the lens that shows inferior bokeh, but having to use a wider lens is entirely a consequence of sensor size. And just because you don't give a fig about depth-of-field doesn't mean nobody else does.<p><br>

FWIW, I too have used film in all formats from 5"x4" downwards - well, 20"x16" if you count using a Littlejohn copy camera. Depth-of-field tables don't tell the entire story. The blur circle before and after the subject varies in size at a greater rate as format (and focal length) increases. DoF tables only look at a narrow section up to the limit set by whatever circle-of-confusion is chosen.

My simple experience of using Medium Format and 35mm film cameras for some 33 years and now with the introduction of a D-Cam XT-1 APS-C, is simply where I was operating at F11 to squeeze DOF for landscape work, I now use F8 with the same success with the XT-1. I have yet to include fast lenses that Fuji offers to express the appearance of so called Bokeh, but it seems I'm not hell bent on Bokeh anyway, although Fuji's 56mm 1.2 and their 1.4 lenses fill the bill, I'm looking at their new F2 equivalents, the 23mm F2 and the awaited 50mm F2. I've seen examples of what the 23mm F2 can do regarding the isolation of a subject, IE, Bokeh and it does well also.

" Bokeh is an attribute of the lens, not sensor." - Not entirely.

Entirely, since it is a term used to describe the quality of the OOF rendering of a lens, not its quantity (which is DOF); bokeh has nothing to do with the size of the sensor. Unfortunately, it is nowadays often used as if the two terms were interchangeable, which they are not (an image is described as having great bokeh when the correct term would be "shallow DOF"). But what to expect, even DOF is often used to describe images where the background is so far away that its "blurriness" is entirely determined by the size of the lens aperture.