>The role of the camera is generally overrated, however there are certain characteristics that you only get with expensive full frame cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark III he appears to be using
The "shallow DOF" can be achieved with a longer lens on a crop-factor camera. And most landscape pictures (such as those) use the hyperfocal distance anyway.
A "expensive full frame" camera will have better "low noise" but marginally so compared to a APS C or even 4/3rds camera with the latest (4-5 years) generation of sensors. We're simply above the point of having new cameras really give anything beyond marginal returns in ISO utility (not because they don't get better ISO, but because so much sensitivity is useless for most kinds of photography, including most of landscape work (plus, it affects color rendition). In any case, in all the history of film photography, all known celebrated photographs seldom straiyed outside something like 800-1600 ISO. Not sure why we need 6400+ today, except for pissing contents and/or stalking).
Now, while most of the points are real, they are all marginal returns, and depend so much upon the conditions at the shoot and the skill of the photographer that they might as well not matter at all.
I'd go as far as to say that a $300 APS-C used well will be able to take just as good photos as any $5K full frame (yeah, it might lose a couple of stops of DOF, just use a faster lens on it), and even an expensive lens on the latter wont make that much of a different at any normal print size (at least up to A3).
Not sure why we need 6400+ today, except for pissing contents and/or stalking).
I agree with your overall point - and I've pretty much abandoned my APS-C camera, using my M43 camera almost exclusively.
However, there is a good reason for better high-ISO performance. It allows for tradeoffs in other areas. It means we can hand-hold in darker lighting or at higher focal lengths or smaller lighting than anyone could before. The ability to take a sharp photo while out on a hike when I didn't want to lug a tripod is valuable.
The "shallow DOF" can be achieved with a longer lens on a crop-factor camera. And most landscape pictures (such as those) use the hyperfocal distance anyway.
A "expensive full frame" camera will have better "low noise" but marginally so compared to a APS C or even 4/3rds camera with the latest (4-5 years) generation of sensors. We're simply above the point of having new cameras really give anything beyond marginal returns in ISO utility (not because they don't get better ISO, but because so much sensitivity is useless for most kinds of photography, including most of landscape work (plus, it affects color rendition). In any case, in all the history of film photography, all known celebrated photographs seldom straiyed outside something like 800-1600 ISO. Not sure why we need 6400+ today, except for pissing contents and/or stalking).
Now, while most of the points are real, they are all marginal returns, and depend so much upon the conditions at the shoot and the skill of the photographer that they might as well not matter at all.
I'd go as far as to say that a $300 APS-C used well will be able to take just as good photos as any $5K full frame (yeah, it might lose a couple of stops of DOF, just use a faster lens on it), and even an expensive lens on the latter wont make that much of a different at any normal print size (at least up to A3).