Full Frame or....

[cauzimme]

I don't regret buying a D610, I love my camera, but again I might not do the same photography as you, I mostly shoot indoor in small rooms and sometimes with natural light, so I really needed a FX, I was at a point where I couldn't do what I was looking to do because of my camera, now I can play with DoF, shoot in high iso and also don't be stress about the space of my shoot location, which is simply amazing... I still love my d300 and my d90 they are older camera, but they work fine as well. I mostly use them for personnal use, street, tourist photos... I start seeing my cameras limitations when I start being more ''work'' focus, before that, I didn't really needed a full frame as was only doing photo recreatively.

 

[desertrattm2r12]

My head hurts. Part of my brain sneers at less-than-full-frame formats. If you like wide wide angles you will be hampered by a format that makes your lenses look 50 percent longer. Another part of my alleged brain likes the fact that the smaller stuff is cheaper. I think I have one APS lens for my small sensor Nikon DSLR and I use a dozen full frame lenses with it. I have lenses from 19 to 500mm for the Nikon.
Digital camera bodies are fireflies, they won't last forever. And today's "x number" MP standard will be yesterday's news shortly. I wouldn't agonize about the difference. If you can afford a full frame, go for it.

 

[astroNikon]

Since you are coming from film cameras I think the nikon d7x00 and FF bodies would make more sense in the form of controls than the d5x00 and d3x00 bodies.

I shot some film back in the day (though I was lousy at it) and then the d70 for a bit. I tried a d5100 once but the menu driven system drove me absolutely nuts. I help some friends from time to time that are the d3x00 and d5x00 menu driven and I have never been able to adjust to it.

in recent years I started with a d7000 DX and moved to a d600 FX, which was very similar.
I love the Full Frame and would recommend it over any DX camera if you plan on doing anything low light, indoors and just want the most flexibility right away. <== You'll find many ppl here would disagree with that thus YMMV.

I kept my d7000 as backup for a long time but never used it so I ended up selling it. I liked it, the body is a little smaller than the d600 and actually fit in my backpack top pocket whereas the d600 did not. I use the extra OEM battery grip for both cameras too.

My lenses are not the most recent snazzy high-cost lens either. When I bought the d7000, other than a kit lens, I bought AF-D screw drive focus lenses. Nikon still makes some, though very specific ones. Most are AF-S with the miniature motor in the lens. But AF-D gives you much lower cost and pro glass but without all the recent coatings.

 

[dannylightning]

here is my opinion, i do not know all that much about some of the full frames, been quite a while since i have read anything about any of them except for the D750 but ill throw my opinion out there.

D3300, your average joe will love it, some serious photographers will love it, it will get the job done....... .D5300 great camera most people would be happy with for a long time. a really serious photographer may be happy with for a long time, maybe not..... D7200 best rated crop sensor camera on the market. slightly better IQ and colors than the others IMO, much better features than the other like a built in focus motor, weather sealed, faster shutter speed when using a flash, more buttons and dials, its basically a crop sensor camera with a pro style body, i dont really see my self needing anything better than the D7200, reat camera, i had the D5300 and i think upgrading to the D7200 was a very good choice for me.
since i shoot mainly wild life i like the extra 1.5X reach i get with the crop sensor body, gets me a little closer to the animals.

D610 takes great photos, nice entry level full frame camera..... D750 a newer camera, awesome in low light and extremely good with video, said to be good for any type of shooting you want to do, D810, awesome camera, huge mega pixels, excellent images come out of this camera, some seem to say its best for a studio/land scape camera and not good at every thing.

D7200 or the D750 are the two cameras i would look at.

you can use a full frame lens on a DX camera so you are not stuck only using DX lenses if you get a DX camera..

you can use a DX lens on a full frame but you have to put the full frame cameras in DX mode and you loose megapixels.

its probably smart to try and buy mostly full frame lenses if you end up with a DX camera just encase you switch to full frame some day. ill probably never buy a full frame i feel i get excellent quality images out of my D7200, a good lens is going to make more of a difference for image quality than the camera body you are using will....

 

[cherylynne1]

Whenever this question came up on another forum (APS-C vs Full Frame or m4/3s vs. APS-C) one person would always link to GuessTheFormat

If you can't tell the difference in the photos at least 75% of the time, you won't get the full benefits from the more expensive camera.

 

[DB_Cro]

I don't regret buying a D610, I love my camera, but again I might not do the same photography as you, I mostly shoot indoor in small rooms and sometimes with natural light, so I really needed a FX, I was at a point where I couldn't do what I was looking to do because of my camera, now I can play with DoF, shoot in high iso and also don't be stress about the space of my shoot location, which is simply amazing... I still love my d300 and my d90 they are older camera, but they work fine as well. I mostly use them for personnal use, street, tourist photos... I start seeing my cameras limitations when I start being more ''work'' focus, before that, I didn't really needed a full frame as was only doing photo recreatively.

Same here, while it was a hobby I worked around the limitations, but now, working daily as a
photographer, some thing are just impossible to capture without proper equipment. Unfortunately
I still can't afford FF.. I invested in glass first tho.

 

[DB_Cro]

My head hurts. Part of my brain sneers at less-than-full-frame formats. If you like wide wide angles you will be hampered by a format that makes your lenses look 50 percent longer.

This is fixable by a single 10-20 (or so) lens, which are cheap (relatively) on the aps-c side of things.

Big zooms, on the other hand on FF are not (above 200mm), and using a 70-200 on aps-c works
as 300mm (or more).. so.. yeah, reach on FF is a lot more expesive to "fix" then wide is on aps-c.

The only thing bothering me is that I could probably live with only 2 lenses on FF for 99% of my
shooting, and I need 3 on the aps-c.

 

[Ysarex]

I'm not going to make a specific recommendation but since we share some things in common I'm going to tell you about me and maybe raise some other questions for you to consider.

Our commonalities:
1. I've got a few years on you in terms of photo experience. 1975 is about when I took my first job in the industry. Since then I've made my living in one form or another in photography.
2. I'm retired now.

Fast forward to the 5 years before I retired (2009). One of my life-long goals had always been to carry a camera with me at all times. During the film era I tried that rather unsuccessfully with a number of small cameras like folding rangefinders. Basically it was too much trouble. Now in the 2000s I'm trying that again buying small digital pocket cameras -- things like Sony WS or Panasonic L whatever cameras. Tiny sensors but shirt pocket size. So I finally manage with these little cameras to meet that goal of always carrying a camera. Trouble was I couldn't tolerate the cameras for very long. Some of them could take really high quality photos but they were all uncontrollable in one way or another and would eventually p*ss me off and one of my nephews would get a slightly used camera and I'd buy another one. This went on until I compromised on the camera size and got what they call an enthusiast compact -- Samsung EX-1. The critical differences were 1. Full manual exposure control. 2. Manual focus override. 3. Saves raw files. No shirt pocket but it fit in a jacket pocket and otherwise hangs easily from a wrist strap. Now I carry a Samsung EX-2.

In the meantime I'm slowly but surely selling off all the film cameras and my main digital camera is a Canon 5DmkII with some L glass. So I was shooting FF. Gary and I have much in common. I love retirement (only semi-retired as I still do some part-time work). Lots of really positive changes with retirement; some planned and some not. One not planned change was how quickly I stopped using the 5D. I take more photos now that I'm retired than ever before. I now have a camera that goes with me everywhere and I get out and walk a lot taking photos almost daily and I really enjoy it. That 5D was big and it was heavy and it was expensive and it just didn't fit with a walk to the grocery store. When I did something with more "photographic" potential like a hike in the forest I'd bring the 5D but leave it in the trunk and wind up using the EX-2. Eventually the 5D wound up in the closet. My wife would find it every couple of months and say, "Hey what camera is this?" Then she'd say, "What did this thing cost?"

So two years ago after the 5D had spent a couple years unused in the closet I decided it had to go. Could I live with just the EX-2? In fact I had been, but I also occasionally felt it's limitations. So I decided to look for a more modest alternative to the 5D hoping I'd find something that I would in fact use. Like Gary I settled on Fuji X. Derrel nailed the reason: If you shop for a camera before you've shopped for your lenses you're doing it backwards. I had decided to downsize to APSC because one of the biggest reasons I had stopped using the 5D was size and weight.

With the Fuji I cut the size and weight by more than half. Everything I'd read about the Fuji glass was true. Apart from the most exacting low-light situations my Fuji produces results equivalent to (frankly better) than the 5D (ten year old tech). I don't miss FF at all and I do at least use the Fuji now. I carry it on walks sometimes and when I do something with more "photographic" potential I take the Fuji and use it.

But here's the kicker: If you asked me what's my main camera I'd answer the EX-2. If you forced me to choose only one I'd choose the EX-2. I'm also looking forward. I want to keep taking photos. We're retired now. How are your knees? My EX-2 has a fully articulated LCD. I can take low angle (right to the ground) photos by just bending over -- I can still bend, but it has to be a truly awesome sight to get me down on the ground anymore. I'm not going to get more flexible in the years to come; neither are you. Here's a photo from earlier this week when I walked to the bank:

I wouldn't have taken that photo with my Fuji because I would have had to get down on the ground and I wouldn't have carried the 5D to the bank. (How about that: flowers in bloom in December in St. Louis!) The camera is two or three inches off the ground. The EX-2 articulated screen let me do that without physically getting down on the ground and then having to get back up. ;-) It's just a photo of a pansy -- nothing very special, but I enjoyed taking the photo and taking photos nearly every day is an important part of my retired life. When I stop taking photos......

IQ concerns: I can pull an 11x14 print from that above photo that you can't tell apart from the same shot FF. That's not comparing APSC with FF: the EX-2 sensor is half the size of a postage stamp. The EX-2 can't do low light. It's in trouble above ISO 400. But I've got the Fuji for that. FF is still better but not by much.

Enjoy your retirement and never stop taking photos.

Joe

 

[astroNikon]

I'm not going to make a specific recommendation but since we share some things in common I'm going to tell you about me and maybe raise some other questions for you to consider.

Our commonalities:
1. I've got a few years on you in terms of photo experience. 1975 is about when I took my first job in the industry. Since then I've made my living in one form or another in photography.
2. I'm retired now.

Fast forward to the 5 years before I retired (2009). One of my life-long goals had always been to carry a camera with me at all times. During the film era I tried that rather unsuccessfully with a number of small cameras like folding rangefinders. Basically it was too much trouble. Now in the 2000s I'm trying that again buying small digital pocket cameras -- things like Sony WS or Panasonic L whatever cameras. Tiny sensors but shirt pocket size. So I finally manage with these little cameras to meet that goal of always carrying a camera. Trouble was I couldn't tolerate the cameras for very long. Some of them could take really high quality photos but they were all uncontrollable in one way or another and would eventually p*ss me off and one of my nephews would get a slightly used camera and I'd buy another one. This went on until I compromised on the camera size and got what they call an enthusiast compact -- Samsung EX-1. The critical differences were 1. Full manual exposure control. 2. Manual focus override. 3. Saves raw files. No shirt pocket but it fit in a jacket pocket and otherwise hangs easily from a wrist strap. Now I carry a Samsung EX-2.

In the meantime I'm slowly but surely selling off all the film cameras and my main digital camera is a Canon 5DmkII with some L glass. So I was shooting FF. Gary and I have much in common. I love retirement (only semi-retired as I still do some part-time work). Lots of really positive changes with retirement; some planned and some not. One not planned change was how quickly I stopped using the 5D. I take more photos now that I'm retired than ever before. I now have a camera that goes with me everywhere and I get out and walk a lot taking photos almost daily and I really enjoy it. That 5D was big and it was heavy and it was expensive and it just didn't fit with a walk to the grocery store. When I did something with more "photographic" potential like a hike in the forest I'd bring the 5D but leave it in the trunk and wind up using the EX-2. Eventually the 5D wound up in the closet. My wife would find it every couple of months and say, "Hey what camera is this?" Then she'd say, "What did this thing cost?"

So two years ago after the 5D had spent a couple years unused in the closet I decided it had to go. Could I live with just the EX-2? In fact I had been, but I also occasionally felt it's limitations. So I decided to look for a more modest alternative to the 5D hoping I'd find something that I would in fact use. Like Gary I settled on Fuji X. Derrel nailed the reason: If you shop for a camera before you've shopped for your lenses you're doing it backwards. I had decided to downsize to APSC because one of the biggest reasons I had stopped using the 5D was size and weight.

With the Fuji I cut the size and weight by more than half. Everything I'd read about the Fuji glass was true. Apart from the most exacting low-light situations my Fuji produces results equivalent to (frankly better) than the 5D (ten year old tech). I don't miss FF at all and I do at least use the Fuji now. I carry it on walks sometimes and when I do something with more "photographic" potential I take the Fuji and use it.

But here's the kicker: If you asked me what's my main camera I'd answer the EX-2. If you forced me to choose only one I'd choose the EX-2. I'm also looking forward. I want to keep taking photos. We're retired now. How are your knees? My EX-2 has a fully articulated LCD. I can take low angle (right to the ground) photos by just bending over -- I can still bend, but it has to be a truly awesome sight to get me down on the ground anymore. I'm not going to get more flexible in the years to come; neither are you. Here's a photo from earlier this week when I walked to the bank:

View attachment 113071


I wouldn't have taken that photo with my Fuji because I would have had to get down on the ground and I wouldn't have carried the 5D to the bank. (How about that: flowers in bloom in December in St. Louis!) The camera is two or three inches off the ground. The EX-2 articulated screen let me do that without physically getting down on the ground and then having to get back up. ;-) It's just a photo of a pansy -- nothing very special, but I enjoyed taking the photo and taking photos nearly every day is an important part of my retired life. When I stop taking photos......

IQ concerns: I can pull an 11x14 print from that above photo that you can't tell apart from the same shot FF. That's not comparing APSC with FF: the EX-2 sensor is half the size of a postage stamp. The EX-2 can't do low light. It's in trouble above ISO 400. But I've got the Fuji for that. FF is still better but not by much.

Enjoy your retirement and never stop taking photos.

Joe

I've also done somewhat the same.
I carry with me all the time a Nikon P7800. Fits in the jacket pocket (not pants like the junk L20 did) and allows full manual control if needed, albeit not as easily as my DSLR. It also supports all the Nikon flash stuff. Flippy screen, bright EVF. It's not bad at all to have on the pocket. Though it's light hungry and I've had to adjust to it wanting a slower shutter without add'l flash.
It's a fun camera to carry around.

 

[jbylake]

What if you get all FF gear and end up wanting medium format?

Ha..ha..ha.. there's always one joker in the pile...

Thanks again, all for the input. I've read some of the older FF vs. APC threads. Some of the info is outdated a bit, some replies not as diversified as this one. Again, I have until January to think it through. If I haven't decided by New Years, I'll come back to this thread again and again.
J.

 

[goodguy]

Few fact to consider

Pro FX

Better at low light
Better for wider shots
Much bigger variety of lenses
Bragging rights (might be important for some)

Con FX

More expensive then DX (in most cases)
Bigger and heavier lenses
Usually more expensive lenses

 

[astroNikon]

Few fact to consider

Bigger and heavier lenses
Usually more expensive lenses

ONLY if you buy the latest and greatest.

My FX AF-D 18-35 is a small, compact and a light 370g lens.

 

[sashbar]

What I'm saying is that for most hobbyists ... there isn't a need to go full frame. I suggest you purchase the best APS-C camera you can afford. There is nothing wrong with refurbished. Your dollar will go further and the lenses are less expensive. ... But lenses are a different matter.

I agree with Gary, and that is what I have been saying for a long time: these days most hobbyists do not need a FF camera. What Derrel says about the lenses is important though: Canon/Nikon APS-C lenses are mostly slow consumer grade, good, and some very good but nothing really exiting.

You have to be an extremely talented photographer to be able to "outgrow" a higher end modern APS-C camera, but you may get a bit frustrated with the choice of APS-C lenses. You may find yourself looking at their big and heavy excellent FF glass, and that is exactly what Canikon want. You buy some FF glass and then ask yourself "why not upgrading to a FF body now?".

That is why the aforementioned FUJI X system with its exiting line of top quality lenses is so attractive in the long run. I do similar photography to Gary, and to me the difference between X-T1 and a FF camera is maybe 1 - 1.5 stop in low light, that starts to be noticeable after ISO 3200. Up to 3200 I see no meaningful difference. The lenses make more difference when it come to a visual, artistic and creative impact.

Do not ignore FUJI just because it is a niche system compared to the two main brands, have a close look at it, I think with your film cameras experience you would feel at home with FUJI, in many ways it feels more traditional, even though it is a more modern technology compared to DSLR.

 

[Solarflare]

Well, if full manual operation is an option, the cheapest intro for Nikon full frame is Nikon D700 with the "good old" manual focus lenses (Nikon AI and AI-S). Shouldnt have any issues with image quality either.

My main issue with Nikon DX is not camera quality. Its lens choices. Okay, there is the 35mm f1.8, and the 55-200mm f4.5-5.6 VR isnt intolerably bad eiher, but then ... ?


I rate existing systems like this:

1. Nikon FX - It gets down to taste really if Nikon or Canon should be first spot. Nikon has a larger / cheaper used market with many old manual lenses, uses the best sensors on the planet and offers the superior flash system, and isnt too far behind Canon in other fields (neither is Canon too far behind Nikon).

2. Canon EF - Overall I would say Canon offers superior ergonomics (one hand operation, C1-C<n> quick access modes, etc), compareable in lens quality but superior in special lens choices (for example the Tilt/Shift lenses have less CA issues than their Nikon counterparts, or that 65mm 1:1 - 5:1 macro lens is unknown for Nikon, and Canon unlike Nikon offers an affordable high quality APS-C wide zoom, the EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS).

3. Fuji X - The only APS-C system that I would really consider. Thats because their lens selection is awesome and AFAICS they arent bad otherwise, either.

4. Olympus/Panasonic Micro Four Thirds: Tons of lenses, tons of good lenses, cameras are top as well. The big archilles heel though is the small sensor.

 

[Gary A.]

jbylake-

You have some time, use it. Use it to venture into some camera stores armed with a few cards and take some snaps with various cameras, various lenses and various ISO's. The grass is always greener ... What is important in photography is that you shoot. Apparently, with Nikon, the APS-C lenses are not of pro caliber ... So not much advantage of getting a smaller, less expensive, camera ... But the front half is huge (by comparison) and terribly expensive for lenses that are giving you 50% more of which you cannot use. For me, and for my expectations, if I were to go Nikon, the best value ... What makes the most sense is FF.

Then there is this little pirate ship somewhere out there call Fuji. Fuji upsets the status quo ... The apple cart. Fuji cameras are small ... MFT small. Fuji's IQ is high, FF high and all of my Fujinon FX lenses are at a minimum, equal to my Canon 'L' lenses at a fraction of the cost and size.

Many argue that a gripped XT1 with a 50-140 f/2.8 is a big heavy camera ... And it is. But is significantly smaller and lighter than my 1D w/ 70-200 f/2.8 L. Saturday night I attended a Christmas concert. It was held inside a church with chamber music. From an upfront pew, I and my mirrorless XT1 w/ 50-140 snapped away throughout the entire performance, and nobody complained. It was just click, click, click ... Softer than the keys in your pocket.