And it might no be a myth if they would develop the ISO and Dynamic range,
Whatever makes you think that usable ISO is not increasing, or that dynamic range is not increasing? To the best of my knowledge, both get better with every generation of sensors, full-frame as well as APS-C and so on.
instead of packing more pixels on the sensors, not to mention we are years away from a pleasing camera dimension with a full frame sensor.
I don't even know what you mean by a 'pleasing camera dimension'. What?
Mo Pixels is Betta... Sorry, that story is getting old.
I've certainly said no such thing.
If that's all you think the so-called 'full frame' sensor offers, then you are woefully ignorant about the physics and economics of photography.
A larger sensor gives the opportunity to place larger sensors on the imaging surface, which results in less 'noise' that has to be processed out. This also has had the pleasant effect of increasing those things you seem to feel full-frame sensors do not have, including higher effective ISO and dynamic range.
A larger sensor, like larger film sizes, gives better control over depth-of-field effects.
A full-frame sensor can take advantage of the existing plethora of excellent lenses originally developed for 35mm film cameras at their intended focal lengths (rather than the doubling effect of 2x crop on four-thirds sensors), as well as taking advantage of the huge amount of research already done for lens design and optimization done for lenses made for this format.
In terms of digital image sensors, all else being equal, larger equals better, as it does in the film world. A lower percentage of enlargement to reach a common printing size, such as 8x10 or 11x14 will tend to look better - hence the superiority of medium format to 35mm format film for billboards, etc.
Smaller sensors have their place, and they continue to get better, so eventually some of the inbuilt disadvantages to smaller sensors will no doubt disappear. However, the advantages of a larger sensor over a smaller one in terms of DOF will remain, it's just physics.
So I do not know what this 'myth of full-frame' is. No myth, just facts.
And as usual - I do not harbor any ill-will towards smaller sensors, and I do not see this as an 'us versus them' battle - but as always, some do. If they like rangefinders, then SLRs suck. If they like film, then digital sucks. If they like the four-thirds standard, then all other sizes suck - and so on. Isms are what sucks, my friend. Get over yourself.
