NEW Canon 80D

[coastalconn]

+1, because of the cropping my 200 2.8 becomes over 300 2.8, and I need that often for events I shoot.
Even with unlimited funds, I'd still go buy the 7D markII tomorrow because I NEED that for most of my work.

I'd get a FF camera too because that's better suitable for some of it, but if I had to choose one, hi-end crop
(regardless of brand, D7200 is good enough for me already) body is what I'd buy, especially on the Nikon
side with the amazing D500.

I was thinking about this thread this morning as I was photographing my favorite hawk eating a duck. I took this with my lowly 7dm2. It is cropped to 2791x3855 or about 10.7 MP. If I had a D610 the image would only be about 2000x2750 or about 5.5 MP. If I went to print at 200 DPI The 7dm2 would give me a 19x16 vs 14x10. So as I said earlier, I don't want or need a full frame camera..
George Jr with Ruddy Duck 3_13 1 by Kristofer Rowe, on Flickr

 

[DB_Cro]

Amazing shot and a great point.

Also:

 

[Derrel]

For telephoto work, or close-ups, meaning shooting small physical areas of the world or fairly close-in three-dimensional objects, it seems to me that the sweetest spot for image quality and for achieving a good amount of depth of field per angle of view is...APS-C...the smaller sensor size means that for a specific picture height, like say a 0.6 meter high, tight shot of say a red fox or a coyote, that the most advantageous camera format for DOF and for high-resolution is...a smaller-than-FF size sensor, so you can get that tight framing AND have a little extra DOF to cover focus errors and to get a few extra inches into crisp, clear focus...at longer distances, APS-C does NOT give the strong subject/background separation that APS-C does, the NFL Football Game type look, with one running back or receiver with the football, and then the background totally,totally de-focused and wayyyy blurred out, but has a bit more-recognizable background.

IN-STUDIO is where APS-C really falls down for people work...with the actual physical sizes of muslin backdrops, and the 9-foot-wide size of seamless paper, APS-C makes it so that group photos, horizontal photos, bring the photographer down into the 30,33,34,35 mm focal length range a lot, same on "tall" or Full-length portraits; inside an average room, or a typical photo studio type place, the smaller APS-C sensor has one really UGLY quality: it gives TOO MUCH depth of field, and the backgrounds all look quite a bit more in-focus than with FX or larger formats...the f/7.1 or so f/stop most studio flashes will deliver, and the f/7.1 to f/11 f/stop you actually will REQUIRE to get say a 2-deep family group into focus means that the focus band that extends BEHIND the subject is amply deep to bring the background into recognizable focus....you can literally SEE wrinkles in a seamless, or literally see the muslin's texture, and so on if photos were made with an APS-C or m4/3 camera.

High-end street and candid shooters understand that the deeeeeep DOF that m4/3 delivers is a huge advantage when they want to get that deep DOF, everything in-focus look from across a table and all the way to the back of a cafe. For that matter, the iPhone and Galaxy with almost infinite, hyperfocal DOF from 3 feet to Infinity are fabulous tools for getting EVERYTHING in crisp focus, even with their 3.5mm focal length lenses wide-open at f/2.5.

Once an APS-C camera gets to about 6 meter focusing distance, the DOF increase line graphed out drives upward incredibly rapidly. With something like an 85mm lens at 6 meters, APS-C can barely make the background un-recognizable. With a shorter lens, like say 50mm, at 6 meters, the backgrounds will be exceptionally "recognizable" and it is virtually impossible to blow-out the background. Some shooters want MORE depth of field, others want MINIMAL depth of field, and in different situations, more is better, and in others, less DOF is better.

The way the two formats work is quite different, depending on the angle of view used, meaning mostly the focal length: at the wider angles of view, APS-C and m4/3 make it possible to get fairly deep depth of field, which can be an advantage for documenting reality, but not so advantageous if you want to "separate" people from their surroundings though shallow DOF. I think APS-C sucks for studio type work. Just too much in-focus when the field of view indoors is even seven feet across or 7 feet tall...

But slap on a 300, 400, or 500 or any of those with its 1.4x converter, and that extra DOF with that "TIGHT" field-of view angle....damn...what's a negative for moderate magnification angles of view at 6-40 feet becomes a major, major BONUS for birds, animals, motocross, track and field, soccer, ocean and coastal shooting at long ranges, being able to get hyperfocal Depth of field with a 135mm lens in real situations,etc..

 

[donny1963]

Really?? that's your thinking? ok i'll take the shittier APS-C camera for $1200.00 even tho i could have a much better full frame camera..
Yeah ok.. Ok, so lets say some one who is in the market for a canon Camera but doesn't want full frame.

Yup, that is really my thinking, but what do I know, I only photograph birds. Let's see, when I still shot Nikon I had a D7100 and a D800 and guess what, as much as I loved the D800, I sold it because it offered no advantages to me over a D7100. I have also shot with a D600/D610, sorry to say crop sensors are better for me. Oh and a D3s, D7200, D300 D7200, etc

Ok so you buy the 70D for half the price and your getting basically the same camera the only difference is the 80D has 4 more Megapixels and better AF performance, oh goody ....
Maybe at the time some one might not want the full frame camera but if he / she really gets into photography and enjoys it and wants to take it a step further they would need to upgrade to a full frame sensor, which again is going to cost money, Why not pay the $1200.00 and get a full frame sensor even tho your not going to take advantage if it right away you will want to later on.
It's not a smart way to spend your money buying the Canon 80D, when you can get a full frame sensor Camera, period.

The smart move to take your photography forward would be better glass. You are also comparing an end of life product which was essentially announced in Sept 2012, granted they slapped that "10" on there a year later, but essentially the same camera. The 80D hasn't even been tested yet and Canon has moved to a new chip with ADC which could possibly increase DR very close to that of Nikon.

first off 4 more megapixels is not going to justify paying $600.00 more for the camera for 4 more megapixels is not going to be that much of a difference.
Many People believe image quality is all about megapixels but that is not true, at all....
You shouldn’t ignore megapixel counts entirely, Many people confuse high megapixel counts with indicators of how good a camera’s image quality will be, but in reality it’s simply a measure of how large you can view, resize, or print an image without seeing a noticeable decrease in resolution. Megapixels translate to image size, not image quality..
The sensor in a DLSR is the equivalent of what used to be film in a 35mm camera. The senor is exposed to the available light when you click your shutter speed.
It and other components capture and store this data. Because it's the sensor that's capturing and storing your images, this is the most important spec you'll want to consider.

I personally could care less about MP. If the sensor was the most important thing, no one would be shooting Canon any longer as Nikon/Sony sensors smoke Canon. Personally I only see the camera as a tool that is part of a system. Things like lens selection, build quality, AF, ergonomics and speed have to all be looked at equally, in my humble opinion.

The Nikon D610 is the larger full frame sensor, the Canon 80D is the smaller cropped sensor. which means the Nikon D610 will always produce better image quality then the Canon 80D

Not if the D610 misses your subject.

While smaller sensors struggle with capturing enough light, larger sensors are able to accommodate lower light situations.
Another advantage is having better control of depth of field.
With a larger sensor, you can more readily render an out-of-focus background behind your subject. APS-C sensors, however,
have one common disadvantage, and that's crop factor. Crop factor refers to how a lens is magnified when attached to APS-C-based cameras.
For example, if you use a 28mm lens, it would be magnified to look like a 45mm lens. In other words,
subjects are zoomed in a little bit more. While this isn't such a big deal, you should be aware of it,
especially if you're a landscape photographer who takes a lot of wide images.
While a good 28mm lens would look wide enough on a 35mm film or full frame camera,
it might be insufficient on a DSLR with an APS-C sensor.
where the Nikon D610 is the same exact megapixels as the Canon 80D, the Nikon will still produce higher quality images, because the sensor is almost twice the size.
But not quite

You have done very good here spewing the Nikon mantra of you must shoot full frame. The questions you should really be asking is how dare Nikon release a $2000 D500 when you can but a D750 for less, or even a D610 for half the price. Or perhaps why is Canon releasing the 80D at the same price as the 7DM2? Personally I think the crop factor is an advantage. So just remember before you stand up on that soap box, not everyone shoots the same way as you. Maybe some people can't afford full frame lenses so crop works better for them. Maybe people like me have a 500 F4 and don't want to slap an extender on it so you can get the same field of view as crop camera. Peace

the reason why the crop sensor is working or seems to work better for you is because when you use a crop sensor vs full frame your getting more close up telephoto but if you get a lens that zooms closer you will get what your looking for and with better quality

 

[DB_Cro]

Really?? that's your thinking? ok i'll take the shittier APS-C camera for $1200.00 even tho i could have a much better full frame camera..
Yeah ok.. Ok, so lets say some one who is in the market for a canon Camera but doesn't want full frame.

Yup, that is really my thinking, but what do I know, I only photograph birds. Let's see, when I still shot Nikon I had a D7100 and a D800 and guess what, as much as I loved the D800, I sold it because it offered no advantages to me over a D7100. I have also shot with a D600/D610, sorry to say crop sensors are better for me. Oh and a D3s, D7200, D300 D7200, etc

Ok so you buy the 70D for half the price and your getting basically the same camera the only difference is the 80D has 4 more Megapixels and better AF performance, oh goody ....
Maybe at the time some one might not want the full frame camera but if he / she really gets into photography and enjoys it and wants to take it a step further they would need to upgrade to a full frame sensor, which again is going to cost money, Why not pay the $1200.00 and get a full frame sensor even tho your not going to take advantage if it right away you will want to later on.
It's not a smart way to spend your money buying the Canon 80D, when you can get a full frame sensor Camera, period.

The smart move to take your photography forward would be better glass. You are also comparing an end of life product which was essentially announced in Sept 2012, granted they slapped that "10" on there a year later, but essentially the same camera. The 80D hasn't even been tested yet and Canon has moved to a new chip with ADC which could possibly increase DR very close to that of Nikon.

first off 4 more megapixels is not going to justify paying $600.00 more for the camera for 4 more megapixels is not going to be that much of a difference.
Many People believe image quality is all about megapixels but that is not true, at all....
You shouldn’t ignore megapixel counts entirely, Many people confuse high megapixel counts with indicators of how good a camera’s image quality will be, but in reality it’s simply a measure of how large you can view, resize, or print an image without seeing a noticeable decrease in resolution. Megapixels translate to image size, not image quality..
The sensor in a DLSR is the equivalent of what used to be film in a 35mm camera. The senor is exposed to the available light when you click your shutter speed.
It and other components capture and store this data. Because it's the sensor that's capturing and storing your images, this is the most important spec you'll want to consider.

I personally could care less about MP. If the sensor was the most important thing, no one would be shooting Canon any longer as Nikon/Sony sensors smoke Canon. Personally I only see the camera as a tool that is part of a system. Things like lens selection, build quality, AF, ergonomics and speed have to all be looked at equally, in my humble opinion.

The Nikon D610 is the larger full frame sensor, the Canon 80D is the smaller cropped sensor. which means the Nikon D610 will always produce better image quality then the Canon 80D

Not if the D610 misses your subject.

While smaller sensors struggle with capturing enough light, larger sensors are able to accommodate lower light situations.
Another advantage is having better control of depth of field.
With a larger sensor, you can more readily render an out-of-focus background behind your subject. APS-C sensors, however,
have one common disadvantage, and that's crop factor. Crop factor refers to how a lens is magnified when attached to APS-C-based cameras.
For example, if you use a 28mm lens, it would be magnified to look like a 45mm lens. In other words,
subjects are zoomed in a little bit more. While this isn't such a big deal, you should be aware of it,
especially if you're a landscape photographer who takes a lot of wide images.
While a good 28mm lens would look wide enough on a 35mm film or full frame camera,
it might be insufficient on a DSLR with an APS-C sensor.
where the Nikon D610 is the same exact megapixels as the Canon 80D, the Nikon will still produce higher quality images, because the sensor is almost twice the size.
But not quite

You have done very good here spewing the Nikon mantra of you must shoot full frame. The questions you should really be asking is how dare Nikon release a $2000 D500 when you can but a D750 for less, or even a D610 for half the price. Or perhaps why is Canon releasing the 80D at the same price as the 7DM2? Personally I think the crop factor is an advantage. So just remember before you stand up on that soap box, not everyone shoots the same way as you. Maybe some people can't afford full frame lenses so crop works better for them. Maybe people like me have a 500 F4 and don't want to slap an extender on it so you can get the same field of view as crop camera. Peace

the reason why the crop sensor is working or seems to work better for you is because when you use a crop sensor vs full frame your getting more close up telephoto but if you get a lens that zooms closer you will get what your looking for and with better quality

We're all aware that FF is better if you can fill a frame with your subject without cropping.
It was mentioned by a few of us.

There's a big difference in price beween a 70-200 (which is over 300mm on 1.6x crop) and a 300 prime or a 400 prime (even a F/5.6).

 

[donny1963]

Really?? that's your thinking? ok i'll take the shittier APS-C camera for $1200.00 even tho i could have a much better full frame camera..
Yeah ok.. Ok, so lets say some one who is in the market for a canon Camera but doesn't want full frame.

Yup, that is really my thinking, but what do I know, I only photograph birds. Let's see, when I still shot Nikon I had a D7100 and a D800 and guess what, as much as I loved the D800, I sold it because it offered no advantages to me over a D7100. I have also shot with a D600/D610, sorry to say crop sensors are better for me. Oh and a D3s, D7200, D300 D7200, etc

Ok so you buy the 70D for half the price and your getting basically the same camera the only difference is the 80D has 4 more Megapixels and better AF performance, oh goody ....
Maybe at the time some one might not want the full frame camera but if he / she really gets into photography and enjoys it and wants to take it a step further they would need to upgrade to a full frame sensor, which again is going to cost money, Why not pay the $1200.00 and get a full frame sensor even tho your not going to take advantage if it right away you will want to later on.
It's not a smart way to spend your money buying the Canon 80D, when you can get a full frame sensor Camera, period.

The smart move to take your photography forward would be better glass. You are also comparing an end of life product which was essentially announced in Sept 2012, granted they slapped that "10" on there a year later, but essentially the same camera. The 80D hasn't even been tested yet and Canon has moved to a new chip with ADC which could possibly increase DR very close to that of Nikon.

first off 4 more megapixels is not going to justify paying $600.00 more for the camera for 4 more megapixels is not going to be that much of a difference.
Many People believe image quality is all about megapixels but that is not true, at all....
You shouldn’t ignore megapixel counts entirely, Many people confuse high megapixel counts with indicators of how good a camera’s image quality will be, but in reality it’s simply a measure of how large you can view, resize, or print an image without seeing a noticeable decrease in resolution. Megapixels translate to image size, not image quality..
The sensor in a DLSR is the equivalent of what used to be film in a 35mm camera. The senor is exposed to the available light when you click your shutter speed.
It and other components capture and store this data. Because it's the sensor that's capturing and storing your images, this is the most important spec you'll want to consider.

I personally could care less about MP. If the sensor was the most important thing, no one would be shooting Canon any longer as Nikon/Sony sensors smoke Canon. Personally I only see the camera as a tool that is part of a system. Things like lens selection, build quality, AF, ergonomics and speed have to all be looked at equally, in my humble opinion.

The Nikon D610 is the larger full frame sensor, the Canon 80D is the smaller cropped sensor. which means the Nikon D610 will always produce better image quality then the Canon 80D

Not if the D610 misses your subject.

While smaller sensors struggle with capturing enough light, larger sensors are able to accommodate lower light situations.
Another advantage is having better control of depth of field.
With a larger sensor, you can more readily render an out-of-focus background behind your subject. APS-C sensors, however,
have one common disadvantage, and that's crop factor. Crop factor refers to how a lens is magnified when attached to APS-C-based cameras.
For example, if you use a 28mm lens, it would be magnified to look like a 45mm lens. In other words,
subjects are zoomed in a little bit more. While this isn't such a big deal, you should be aware of it,
especially if you're a landscape photographer who takes a lot of wide images.
While a good 28mm lens would look wide enough on a 35mm film or full frame camera,
it might be insufficient on a DSLR with an APS-C sensor.
where the Nikon D610 is the same exact megapixels as the Canon 80D, the Nikon will still produce higher quality images, because the sensor is almost twice the size.
But not quite

You have done very good here spewing the Nikon mantra of you must shoot full frame. The questions you should really be asking is how dare Nikon release a $2000 D500 when you can but a D750 for less, or even a D610 for half the price. Or perhaps why is Canon releasing the 80D at the same price as the 7DM2? Personally I think the crop factor is an advantage. So just remember before you stand up on that soap box, not everyone shoots the same way as you. Maybe some people can't afford full frame lenses so crop works better for them. Maybe people like me have a 500 F4 and don't want to slap an extender on it so you can get the same field of view as crop camera. Peace

the reason why the crop sensor is working or seems to work better for you is because when you use a crop sensor vs full frame your getting more close up telephoto but if you get a lens that zooms closer you will get what your looking for and with better quality

We're all aware that FF is better if you can fill a frame with your subject without cropping.
It was mentioned by a few of us.

There's a big difference in price beween a 70-200 (which is over 300mm on 1.6x crop) and a 300 prime or a 400 prime (even a F/5.6).

if every one is aware, then why would any one argue the fact of it?
my point was the canon 80D vs the Nikon D610 they are around the same price and my point was your better off getting the Nikon D610 for the money the D610 can do everything the Canon 80D can + more and better.. with the exception to video..

 

[DB_Cro]

I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

Anyways, I have $2000 in Canon lenses, buying the Nikon for me would be a lot more expensive for me now.

And again, I'd rather have a higher end crop body that gives me better AF, more FPS and other stuff
that makes sure I don't miss a shot shooting stuff that can't be missed and repeated, and also, again, my 200mm
lens is over 300mm on the crop body which is enough reach for me while 200mm on FF wouldn't be and I'd have
to crop.

And again, sport, wildlife, bird shooters etc.. can't you see it from the other perspective?
All of us shooting APS-C KNOW what full frame does better, and it's NOT better for everything and everyone.

I'd gladly use a D610 when shooting portraits, I KNOW that it'll do better then any APS-C, but I rarely do that,
my job is every other kind of fast paced events where I'd benefit more from D7200 or D500 then D610 or D750.

Watch the Z. Arias video that I posted if you haven't.

EDIT: Someone shooting medium format could say the same things about FF that you're saying about APS-C.

Why aren't you using medium format?

 

[coastalconn]

Really?? that's your thinking? ok i'll take the shittier APS-C camera for $1200.00 even tho i could have a much better full frame camera..
Yeah ok.. Ok, so lets say some one who is in the market for a canon Camera but doesn't want full frame.

Yup, that is really my thinking, but what do I know, I only photograph birds. Let's see, when I still shot Nikon I had a D7100 and a D800 and guess what, as much as I loved the D800, I sold it because it offered no advantages to me over a D7100. I have also shot with a D600/D610, sorry to say crop sensors are better for me. Oh and a D3s, D7200, D300 D7200, etc

Ok so you buy the 70D for half the price and your getting basically the same camera the only difference is the 80D has 4 more Megapixels and better AF performance, oh goody ....
Maybe time some one might not want the full frame camera but if he / she really gets into photography and enjoys it and wants to take it a step further they would need to upgrade to a full frame sensor, which again is going to cost money, Why not pay the $1200.00 and get a full frame sensor even tho your not going to take advantage if it right away you will want to later on.
It's not a smart way to spend your money buying the Canon 80D, when you can get a full frame sensor Camera, period.

The smart move to take your photography forward would be better glass. You are also comparing an end of life product which was essentially announced in Sept 2012, granted they slapped that "10" on there a year later, but essentially the same camera. The 80D hasn't even been tested yet and Canon has moved to a new chip with ADC which could possibly increase DR very close to that of Nikon.

first off 4 more megapixels is not going to justify paying $600.00 more for the camera for 4 more megapixels is not going to be that much of a difference.
Many People believe image quality is all about megapixels but that is not true, at all....
You shouldn’t ignore megapixel counts entirely, Many people confuse high megapixel counts with indicators of how good a camera’s image quality will be, but in reality it’s simply a measure of how large you can view, resize, or print an image without seeing a noticeable decrease in resolution. Megapixels translate to image size, not image quality..
The sensor in a DLSR is the equivalent of what used to be film in a 35mm camera. The senor is exposed to the available light when you click your shutter speed.
It and other components capture and store this data. Because it's the sensor that's capturing and storing your images, this is the most important spec you'll want to consider.

I personally could care less about MP. If the sensor was the most important thing, no one would be shooting Canon any longer as Nikon/Sony sensors smoke Canon. Personally I only see the camera as a tool that is part of a system. Things like lens selection, build quality, AF, ergonomics and speed have to all be looked at equally, in my humble opinion.

The Nikon D610 is the larger full frame sensor, the Canon 80D is the smaller cropped sensor. which means the Nikon D610 will always produce better image quality then the Canon 80D

Not if the D610 misses your subject.

While smaller sensors struggle with capturing enough light, larger sensors are able to accommodate lower light situations.
Another advantage is having better control of depth of field.
With a larger sensor, you can more readily render an out-of-focus background behind your subject. APS-C sensors, however,
have one common disadvantage, and that's crop factor. Crop factor refers to how a lens is magnified when attached to APS-C-based cameras.
For example, if you use a 28mm lens, it would be magnified to look like a 45mm lens. In other words,
subjects are zoomed in a little bit more. While this isn't such a big deal, you should be aware of it,
especially if you're a landscape photographer who takes a lot of wide images.
While a good 28mm lens would look wide enough on a 35mm film or full frame camera,
it might be insufficient on a DSLR with an APS-C sensor.
where the Nikon D610 is the same exact megapixels as the Canon 80D, the Nikon will still produce higher quality images, because the sensor is almost twice the size.
But not quite

You have done very good here spewing the Nikon mantra of you must shoot full frame. The questions you should really be asking is how dare Nikon release a $2000 D500 when you can but a D750 for less, or even a D610 for half the price. Or perhaps why is Canon releasing the 80D at the same price as the 7DM2? Personally I think the crop factor is an advantage. So just remember before you stand up on that soap box, not everyone shoots the same way as you. Maybe some people can't afford full frame lenses so crop works better for them. Maybe people like me have a 500 F4 and don't want to slap an extender on it so you can get the same field of view as crop camera. Peace

the reason why the crop sensor is working or seems to work better for you is because when you use a crop sensor vs full frame your getting more close up telephoto but if you get a lens that zooms closer you will get what your looking for and with better quality

In case you missed it I have a 500 F4, there is no zoom. If I had a full frame then I would either need a 1.4x extender and then there would be no advantage as I would loose 1 stop of ISO, have slightly slower AF and a slight reduction in image quality.. The other option is an 800 F5.6 which I shot for a month and again I loose 1 stop of light and at 10# it is just front heavy enough that I didn't enjoy shooting with it..

I'm getting everything I want image quality wise by the way, not sure what your reference was to? And also thinking about it further by saying "just get a lens that zooms in closer" we are on completely different levels.. Best of luck with your full frame mission you are on..

 

[DarkShadow]

After Looking through the viewfinder with 600mm on a FF vs crop body, the crop wins all day long for wildlife or sports for the perceived FOV reach. As good as crop sensors have gotten with low noise and image quality its not a huge difference. I think its when you need to maximize the shallow DOF and wide angle lenses or shoot at ridiculously high ISO in low light the FF pulls out In front. One thing for sure is that both formats can produce crappy images and outstanding images depending on who is driving.

I see both formats as tools, you by the right tool for the job.

 

[DB_Cro]

I see both formats as tools, you by the right tool for the job.

..and this is what a lot of people don't understand.

They use a APS-C body with the 18-55 kit lens for a year, then buy a FF body with a few high-end lenses and are blown
away by the difference even if they have no idea what they're doing. Obvious conclusion is - APS-C sux. D'oh.

 

[Braineack]

if every one is aware, then why would any one argue the fact of it?
my point was the canon 80D vs the Nikon D610 they are around the same price and my point was your better off getting the Nikon D610 for the money the D610 can do everything the Canon 80D can + more and better.. with the exception to video..

I'd rather have a D500 over a D610 if I was shooting sports/wildlife.

I'd rather have the D610 for almost every other situation.

 

[donny1963]

I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

Anyways, I have $2000 in Canon lenses, buying the Nikon for me would be a lot more expensive for me now.

And again, I'd rather have a higher end crop body that gives me better AF, more FPS and other stuff
that makes sure I don't miss a shot shooting stuff that can't be missed and repeated, and also, again, my 200mm
lens is over 300mm on the crop body which is enough reach for me while 200mm on FF wouldn't be and I'd have
to crop.

And again, sport, wildlife, bird shooters etc.. can't you see it from the other perspective?
All of us shooting APS-C KNOW what full frame does better, and it's NOT better for everything and everyone.

I'd gladly use a D610 when shooting portraits, I KNOW that it'll do better then any APS-C, but I rarely do that,
my job is every other kind of fast paced events where I'd benefit more from D7200 or D500 then D610 or D750.

Watch the Z. Arias video that I posted if you haven't.

EDIT: Someone shooting medium format could say the same things about FF that you're saying about APS-C.

Why aren't you using medium format?

Well I was stating the Nikon d610 because I'm a Nikon guy I have the Nikon D810 that I got cheaply but you could get a cannon 6D thats full frame and onlt $1200.00 or so that would be better for you

 

[donny1963]

if every one is aware, then why would any one argue the fact of it?
my point was the canon 80D vs the Nikon D610 they are around the same price and my point was your better off getting the Nikon D610 for the money the D610 can do everything the Canon 80D can + more and better.. with the exception to video..

I'd rather have a D500 over a D610 if I was shooting sports/wildlife.

I'd rather have the D610 for almost every other situation.

I have the d610 for back up i shoot portraits and landscape the d610 is wonderfull for landscape.. but I love my D810 that camera is phenomenal

 

[DB_Cro]

I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

Anyways, I have $2000 in Canon lenses, buying the Nikon for me would be a lot more expensive for me now.

And again, I'd rather have a higher end crop body that gives me better AF, more FPS and other stuff
that makes sure I don't miss a shot shooting stuff that can't be missed and repeated, and also, again, my 200mm
lens is over 300mm on the crop body which is enough reach for me while 200mm on FF wouldn't be and I'd have
to crop.

And again, sport, wildlife, bird shooters etc.. can't you see it from the other perspective?
All of us shooting APS-C KNOW what full frame does better, and it's NOT better for everything and everyone.

I'd gladly use a D610 when shooting portraits, I KNOW that it'll do better then any APS-C, but I rarely do that,
my job is every other kind of fast paced events where I'd benefit more from D7200 or D500 then D610 or D750.

Watch the Z. Arias video that I posted if you haven't.

EDIT: Someone shooting medium format could say the same things about FF that you're saying about APS-C.

Why aren't you using medium format?

Well I was stating the Nikon d610 because I'm a Nikon guy I have the Nikon D810 that I got cheaply but you could get a cannon 6D thats full frame and onlt $1200.00 or so that would be better for you

No, it wouldn't be better for me, 7D markII would be better for me.
Are you reading what people are writing?
Do you not understand it?

 

[donny1963]

I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

Anyways, I have $2000 in Canon lenses, buying the Nikon for me would be a lot more expensive for me now.

And again, I'd rather have a higher end crop body that gives me better AF, more FPS and other stuff
that makes sure I don't miss a shot shooting stuff that can't be missed and repeated, and also, again, my 200mm
lens is over 300mm on the crop body which is enough reach for me while 200mm on FF wouldn't be and I'd have
to crop.

And again, sport, wildlife, bird shooters etc.. can't you see it from the other perspective?
All of us shooting APS-C KNOW what full frame does better, and it's NOT better for everything and everyone.

I'd gladly use a D610 when shooting portraits, I KNOW that it'll do better then any APS-C, but I rarely do that,
my job is every other kind of fast paced events where I'd benefit more from D7200 or D500 then D610 or D750.

Watch the Z. Arias video that I posted if you haven't.

EDIT: Someone shooting medium format could say the same things about FF that you're saying about APS-C.

Why aren't you using medium format?

Well I was stating the Nikon d610 because I'm a Nikon guy I have the Nikon D810 that I got cheaply but you could get a cannon 6D thats full frame and onlt $1200.00 or so that would be better for you

No, it wouldn't be better for me, 7D markII would be better for me.
Are you reading what people are writing?
Do you not understand it?

No i missed. That.. I was just talking in terms of pricing.. The 7d tho would be more money i think