As a photographer who spends a fair amount of time in forums and as someone who is a gear head (always looking for the best gear for my personal and professional needs) I can understand the desire to see laboratory-like side-by-side images taken with exacting precision for direct comparisons, but that's not my point.
This post was largely about what I've found currently works for me (particularly after messing with the latest FF Sony sensors and the latest APS-C Sony sensors).
As I said previously, if you "pixel peep" full size images from a FF camera and an APS-C camera you WILL see a difference. If you shoot above ISO 6400 (or horribly underexpose a shot and push the exposure like mad in Photoshop) you WILL see a difference.
However, no one (other than me or people in photography forums) ever pixel peep my images at extreme magnification. Likewise, I don't personally shoot at insane ISOs -- even though the A99 is cleaner than the NEX-6 above ISO 6400 I
personally thought the A99 images above ISO 6400 were too noisy and didn't like them, so
for me and my needs the A99 images were still unusable above ISO 6400 even if they were better). I also don't try to push an exposure 2+ stops in Photoshop.
There is NOTHING wrong with anyone choosing to shoot with a FF camera. I own cameras with micro 4/3, APS-C and FF sensors, my colleagues own both APS-C and FF cameras. My point is 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" and
for my purposes "at least for now, APS-C technology is holding its own quite well against full frame."
I guess that's why I titled the thread "Why
I don't care about full frame any more" instead of "Why no one should care about full frame any more."