Gbrinton Loc: New Cumberland, PA

I started with a D3100 ... Then to a D5200 ... D7100. Then decided nothing else but a FF would do because of wide angle and bokeh. Of course no one could've talked me out of this decision. I ended up with a D610 and several expensive lenses and dedicated flashes. I'm glad I made the jump and would probably do it again, however ... Sold all the Nikon equipment and bought an Olympus EP-5 (½ sensor) and all the requisite lenses. For three years now I'm very happy with that choice, however ... I still have an Olympus OM-2n (of course FF) I bought in 1980. For a couple hundred dollars I bought about every Zuiko lenses made for that camera (at KEH). Then ... The bug had hit and I bought a Leica M6 with a 35mm lens. The two film cameras easily make up for any moments I want to shoot FF. All this for far less than my Nikon investment. This is only my story. If you have the money, make the jump. If there's a money issue, I don't think you'll miss much unless you're a very dedicated enthusiast. Good luck ... Gary

international architect Loc: Venice FL

Switched to to D610 last year and have never looked back! GO FOR IT!

russraman Loc: New York City

Two years ago I upgraded from a Nikon D7000 to a full-frame Nikon Df and the improvement in photo quality -- and my interest in photography -- was exponential. Not only was I mesmerized by the physical appearance of the Df as well as the camera's mechanics, but the overall build and quality feel of the Df was night and day compared to the D7000. I also appreciated the Df's smaller size and unique "retro" design compared to Nikon's other "serious amateur" or "pro" cameras, which makes carrying it around even with heavy pro Nikkor FX lenses fun and pleasurable, with rewarding results. Of course, to capitalize on the Df's full-frame capabilities I sold all of my previous DX lenses and started building a collection of FX lenses, which was both fun and expensive. Over the past few months I started adding a number of older Nikkor "D" series of primes and zooms -- many discontinued and some dating back to the early 1990's -- with mainly metal casings that are generally built sturdier than Nikon's current "G" lens series. For me, the results have been exceptionally pleasing, and the passion I once had for photography when I was a college student in the 1970's has been reignited.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Yup, definitely worth it.
--Bob

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

There are two or three things that would make a full frame upgrade worthwhile:

How large to you print? If you print larger than 16x20", you would likely notice a difference with full frame. More fine detail in your images. But if you don't print that large, you'll see less benefit from the FF camera. 8x10s or 11x14s... maybe even 13x19s from a newer APS-C model would be hard to tell apart from same size prints from images made with a full frame model.

How low light do you shoot? How high ISO do you want to be able to use? Since you have D200 now, I'm guessing you don't do much low light, high ISO shooting. Full frame cameras are excellent for low noise images... which allows using higher ISOs. However, even modern APS-C models would be miles ahead of your D200 in this respect. All modern DSLRs use CMOS sensors. Your D200 was the last Nikon to use a CCD... which was far less capable at higher ISOs. A friend who I shot a jot of jobs with was shooting with a pair of D200, while I was using couple Canon 30D. The D200 were far more "pro-grade" cameras, yet her ISO 800 images weren't as usable as my ISO 1600. Her higher ISO images needed strong noise reduction, which robbed them of a lot of fine detail. The difference was CMOS in my Canon (who've used that type sensor in all their DSLRs since 2000) versus CCD in her Nikon. She dumped both her D200 the minute D300 came available, one of the first Nikon models to adopt CMOS sensors!

Do you shoot with particularly large or particularly small apertures a lot, looking for either very shallow or very great depth of field? Actually, depth of field doesn't change with sensor format alone. Using the same lens at the same aperture and same distance, you get exactly the same DoF with either an FX or a DX camera. However, DoF does change with focal length and distance (as well as aperture). And, in order to frame a subject the same way with an FX camera you need to use either a longer focal length or move closer to your subject, or a little of both... which will result in shallower DoF. Conversely, because any finished image is enlarged less, FX images are less prone to an optical effect called "diffraction" at small apertures, which robs images of fine detail. So, either with large apertures seeking shallow DoF or small images looking for greater DoF, an FX camera can be a little bit better choice. At both extremes, it's approx. one stop worth of difference.

Today's D500, D7000 series, D5000 series and even D3000 series models all are "DX" models that use CMOS and are far more high ISO capable than your D200. They also are mostly 24MP, more than double the resolution of your camera. So you'd see significant improvements with any of them... and wouldn't need to change lenses if you already have some DX. A lot has changed in the 10+ years since your D200 was manufactured!

This isn't to say that the FX Nikon aren't darned nice. They certainly are!

But, they are pricier. And, you're right, lens upgrades to match an FX camera also can be a major expense.

Most of the FX cameras offer a "DX Mode" and can use any DX lenses that you have now.... But you'll see a major decrease in image resolution doing that. In DX mode a 24MP FX camera will only produce 9MP images. 36MP FX cameras hold up a little better, making about 15MP DX images. These might match or beat your D200.. But, even with the 36MP FX camera, in DX mode you'd have been ahead with a 24MP or 21MP DX camera instead.

"Full frame" is massively over-hyped on discussion forums. Most people really don't need it or ever get full value from it. If you're making 8x10s and sharing your images online at Internet sizes and resolutions, only you would ever see the difference, while viewing your images at ridiculous magnifications on your computer screen. Too often, people view and evaluate images at "100%" on their computer monitors. Now, a 24MP image at 100% on a modern computer flat screen monitor is roughly equivalent to a five foot wide print! Are you planning to make a lot of 40x60" prints? If so, FX might be practical for you! Most people would be better backing off to 25 or 33%, to judge sharpness, focus accuracy and image detail.... magnification levels that are more applicable to the final, planned use of the image. Sure, zoom in to 100% or even higher for careful retouching and such.... but back off for a more realistic evaluation of your images!

Personally I shoot Canon gear, not Nikon. But I have both APS-C and FF cameras. When I go to a job I take four APS-C and one FF body. I shoot mostly with two of the APS-C, the other two are backups, just in case. Often the FF doesn't get used at all. I find I use the crop cameras about 10X as much and I've upgraded them twice in the past 6 or 7 years, while still using the same 21MP FF camera. Modern APS-C cameras are more than adequate for most purposes.... and make possible using smaller, lighter, less expensive lenses.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

What holds true for printing is also applicable to cropping. Many over look this but I bet more images are cropped severely than printed very large.

btbg

Just upgraded from a D300 and D300s to a D5 and a D500. Yes the full frame is worth the money. Whether it is worth the money or not to you though depends on what you are planning on doing with your photography.

You don't necessarily have to buy a bunch of new lenses right away. At least with the D5 it just switches automatically to a DX format if you have a lens that was designed for a crop sensor camera. Every lens Nikon currently makes works on the camera.

If you are trying to keep from spending huge amounts of money I would look at both the D800, full frame, and the D500, crop sensor. Both do much better in low light than your D200. d800 heavier build. D500 lots of new bells and whistles. Just depends on what you are planning on doing with your camera which will suit your needs best.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

True...

But, which are you going to need to crop more severely? The FX image or the DX image?

While it is also true that the larger pixel sites of full frame cameras capture more fine detail than the more crowded, smaller pixel sites of a crop sensor camera... The cropper still "gives more reach" or offers "free 1.5X or 1.6X teleconverter" effect (i.e., longer reach without penalty of loss of light due to a teleconverter). More "pixels on target" with a distant subject, with the crop camera.

We tested this a while back (not my images so I can't share them here, even if I could find them on another forum). We put the same lens on a 21MP full frame camera and an 18MP APS-C camera and shot the same subject from the same distance. Great care was taken with both sets of images... tripod sitting on a concrete slab, remote release, mirror lockup, careful Live View focusing, etc.

Then the FF images were cropped down to exactly match the framing of the full-size APS-C sensor images. And, between the two, the APS-C sensor images always won, hands down.

It wasn't as if the crop sensor offered a true 1.6X teleconverter effect. On a pixel by pixel basis, the full frame camera's large pixel sites rendered better detail and sharpness. Probably in part this was due to a weaker anti-alias filter that was possible on the FF camera, too. This partly offsets the "more pixels on target" argument for the crop sensor camera. The APS-C images were full size at 18MP, while only about 8MP remained after cropping the 21MP images of the FF camera. The net effect in image quality was that using the crop camera was like having a 1.25X or 1.3X teleconverter, except with no loss of image quality to added optics and no loss of light and need to change exposure.

OTOH, if you are looking at "croppability" in general, where both images are being cropped regardless of format, the FF image will hold up better than a cropped APS-C image.

I'm just sayin'.... you're less likely to need/want to crop a DX image, since it's already been "cropped" in-camera.

A couple other considerations.... FF cameras also often have slower frame rates and scan buffer fewer images at a time, which might effect fast-shooting situations. They also often have slower flash/strobe syncs, which might effect anyone using lighting.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

As far as weight goes, if you expect the comfort of a limo ride, expect a heavier vehicle.
I found FF opened up a new facet of photography for me. The "need" is arguable when compared to APS-C or M4/3 formats. FF frame expands opportunity, it does not insure IQ. Love the APS-C for sports, prefer the FF for portraits, but either will do both. In some cases it is a matter of efficiency, preference, or requirements for a particular shoot. You get to decide which is the beauty of all of the systems offered.
I use FF, APS-C in both DSLR and Mirrorless and like em'all.

rusbowden Loc: Lowell MA

I've got the Canon 6D and love it. To address the common objection about weight, which never really bothers me, the 40mm pancake lens is a relatively inexpensive beauty, has very little weight to it, and is completely unobtrusive. The results are raw shots that lend themselves to all sorts of effects and compositions in the editing process. The lens is great for landscape, then perfect for up close, but then there's the indoor, lowlight that I was playing with last night with a shot from Coloma CA, which I have attached.

The camera can do more than I can do, which is important. It's the reason people buy Corvettes. The car can go faster and do more than the driver.

(Download)

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

Okay! Finally I meet some body as you have the same thinking of the Df, I don't have G but D lenses and other non-AI, AIs lenses. I started with the Nikon FTn in 1970. After switching to digital in 2004, got the D200 and now Df, and will adding some primes.

planepics Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs

I would eventually like to go FF myself at some point. Two of my three lenses are FF capable anyways. I want an a99, but I might consider an a77ii until I build up my checking account. What I really want is better low-light performance (church pics) and a high fps rate (for airshows and feathered BIF). I think the first thing I'll get is a 'G' lens of one kind or another or a 150-600. I don't know about an a7 variant...I'd have to get two different adapters in addition to the camera.

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

I went to FX a couple of months ago, worth it to me? hell yes, cost effective probably not, but I'm indulging myself I like quality tools as a mechanic and a very serious amateur photographer.
While the I/Q of my D7100's is very high The FX's are much more detailed , plus the weather sealing of the D800 and D810 is great.
The D810 will probably be the last camera I purchase.
Better bokeh? I have never had a problem, in this i believe it's the photographer and lens not the camera.
I am not impressed but a persons tools, but by what they do with the tools they have!!!!!

Lagoonguy Loc: New Smyrna Beach, FL

You are about to experience a very enjoyable, rewarding and expensive adventure. I loved my D7000 & 18-200 lens and then then D7100 & 18-300, 35 dx and a great Tokina 12-28 dx lens that made a great travel kit. The pictures were amazing to me. Then the the call of full frame got me and I was addicted. The quality of full frame glass and FX cameras expands your possibilities for low light & better bokeh and the landscape shots are just beautiful. I still have all of my equipment and use all of it. The cost was 3 times more for my full frame gear over the DX and it was indeed worth it to me but I still like the weight of the DX gear and the crop bonus for length. However, at times I can't tell which set up I'm looking at when viewing our travel photos. Now we're about to travel to Italy for five weeks and I have all this gear on the floor trying to decide what to take with me and the DX gear is looking real good. Whatever I end up taking I will wish I had something I had to leave at home. Sometimes you can have too much of a good thing. Good luck!

Al Bruton

It comes down to individual choice. I have always shot DX cameras both topside and underwater. Including a lot of pro sports and wildlife. I know what area the camera sees and does not see and can make mental adjustments in framing. For years the D300 was my work horse and a great camera. I have now switched to the D500 which is the advanced answer to the D300. It is sharp, very fast, a ton of added features and still a DX camera. I just got back from over a month shooting wildlife (polar bears, walrus, etc) and scenic in Norway and the reults from my D500 were great. I can afford the D5, but can't justify it's cost for what I get. Rather used the extra money on lenses because there are so many new and great lenses out there. I do use the added battery grip because I like the feel, which I used on all my D300's. But the choice is still yours.