Although there are brief moments that I long for a full frame Canon or Pentax (mainly just to use my best Canon and Pentax primes as originally intended), I'm actually pretty happy using good APS-C sensors. Why? Because after a couple of months of shooting cameras with both Sony full frame and Sony APS-C sensors I found that in both online galleries and in prints up to 24 x 36 inches (the largest I ever print) I absolutely CANNOT see the difference in images shot with a full-frame sensor and an APS-C sensor. I shot this with a Sony A99 at ISO 1600: I shot this with the Sony NEX-6 at ISO 1600: Both these images look fantastic as 24 x 36 prints and the A99 print actually looks "a little grainier" because of the way I lit the subject compared to the way I lit the model in the NEX-6 image. Even at ISO 6400 (the highest I ever go) I cannot see obvious differences between the full frame and APS-C images in web galleries or in prints. Sure, If I "pixel peep" at extreme magnification on my 27-inch monitor I can see some (mostly SUBTLE) differences in my real life shots (I don't shoot test charts), but why does pixel peeping matter since no one (except for us crazies in photography forums) ever look at images in that way? At least for now, APS-C technology is holding its own quite well against full frame ... and even with the prices coming down on full-frame cameras the APS-C cameras are MUCH less expensive.