jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

Rey happy with my D500. My wife is happy with her a6000 and my son gets amazing video and pictures with his a6500.

I’m a Sony Broadcast camera dealer. Love Sony. a7iii is on my list. As a Sony dealer for Video I can get a pretty good deal on Sony gear. Canon (I sell their broadcast lenses and video camera) sucks at employee discount. Cheaper to buy their gear for me at BH. LOL

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

I think the D850 is the best DSLR available today. I suspect you won't see a significant update to the D750, unless it is mirrorless.

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

Have you considered a mirrorless camera such as the Sony A7Riii or A7iii? Either one with the 24-105mm f4 lens is a good option for general photography. The biggest advantage of a mirrorless camera is that you don't have to check the image after you make it before you know if you set the exposure properly--you can see the exposure on the screen or in the EVF (With histogram) before your take the shot.

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

The original question is so wide-open that one does not know where to begin answering it. But here's a start......image quality will be determined by the LENS and focusing, not by the camera body, assuming exposure settings are okay. If you will be doing huge magnification enlargements then megapixel count could become a factor. For landscape work, I'd think maybe the magnification percentages to get to 16x20 would be lower than if you were cropping a small part of the image to blow up to 16x20. Still, how many megapixels you "need" could come from experienced landscape shooters.
A high-priced camera does not give you "better" images than a lower-priced one. What different models offer is different little features, most of which may be of no consequence to you.

wrangler5 Loc: Missouri

This.

I switched from 30+ years with Nikon film to Nikon digital in 2002, when only DX sensors were available. I kept my three 2.8 lenses (covering 17-200mm) from the film cameras and used 'em on the D100, then D70 and finally D7000, but always missed the fast wide angle. So a few years ago I found a used D600 at a good price (on which Nikon had replaced the troublesome shutter) and found wide angle happiness. But I never felt I was under-pixeled with the DX cameras, and while I may theoretically be able to crop an FX image more than a DX, that wasn't a factor in the real world (for me.) And the bottom line is that if I hadn't already had a bag full of FX lenses I never would have considered moving to an FX body AND new FX lenses - I would just have considered new DX bodies if I thought I needed their new features, and probably would have bought or upgraded a few DX lenses.

Keep in mind also that 20x30 images are meant to be viewed at longer distances than 8x10 (am I dating myself there?) so "image quality" probably does not need not to be off the charts for you to produce terrific images. Have you tried making images that big from your DX files? If you have, and feel they're missing "something," be sure first that you can't find the missing ingredient with better processing techniques before trying to buy it with more/newer pixels in a sensor. (Maybe even try renting better glass, if that's a potential shortcoming of your current kit - a weekend's, or even a week's lens rental will probably be less than the sales tax on a new FX body, let alone all the new lenses, and if that's all it takes to get the results you're now missing you'll be buckets of money ahead.)

I say this in part because of (and perhaps to justify) my recent discovery of the joys of micro 4/3 equipment, to which I am in the process of transitioning. The (comparatively) little cameras and even smaller lenses are giving me more than enough quality for the images I want to print, with a MUCH smaller and lighter bag of gear to carry around all the time. I realize that I'm giving up the superior low-noise characteristics of the D600's sensor in VERY low light situations, and the superb Nikon multi-unit flash controls built into their better cameras (if only I could afford all the Speedlights needed to take full advantage of it.) But it's a tradeoff that's worth it *to me*, for the images I make.

YMMV, of course. So back to the question ToBoldlyGo posed - what are you looking for that makes you want to change? And is FX the only - or even the best - way to get it?

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

A Nikon guy/gal is going to recommend Nikon and a Canon guy/gal is going to recommend Canon and so on with all the others. You are going to have to make up your own mind. What helped me make up my mind was that I knew someone that was shooting with a Canon camera and figured I could get help figuring out how to change and use the menu settings if I knew someone with the same or similar camera. This might help you too. Or, since you've already got a handle on how the menus work on your Nikons, maybe you shouldn't switch to a different brand but stick with what you know. Simply put, all camera manufactures are vying for your business and they make different models that do compare closely. The way I look at it is that since I shoot raw, every image I take is going to need a little bit of processing especially some sharpening and some color post. So all the cameras are going to compare extremely close to one another after a little post processing. There might be a little more differences if you shoot jpg and depend solely on the camera to get it right SOOC. In that case, you might want to keep on comparing and reading reviews.

gwilliams6

Actually the quality and performance of the image sensor, inside the camera body, is a major factor in determining the image quality of your photo,along with the quality of your lens and the proper settings you set for exposure, focus. etc. More expensive cameras often have better and more advanced camera image sensors.

Modern camera image sensors have evolved to great heights allowing us to make great photos in lower light and at higher ISOs than ever before. Modern higher megapixel camera image sensors and modern lenses allow us to resolve and capture images at 24,36,42,45 and 50+ megapixels, giving us ultimate resolution that allows us to crop and lose very little quality

gwilliams6

I actually have both these mirrorless cameras and they are excellent in image quality, ease of use and features that allow me to easily make great photos under all conditions and with all subjects. They aren't the only excellent cameras available today, but they are two of the VERY best in the world. I have that excellent and versatile Sony 24-105mm f4 lens and it is the lens I use the most on these cameras (out of the nine Sony and Sigma lenses I have from 10mm-600mm).

For the money these two cameras offer great value and amazing features and performance. Mirrorless has many features,including EVF, EYE-AF and loads more,that DSLRs just cant ever physically have. Every time I shoot I love taking advantage of these mirrorless features for my professional and personal photography.

Tony Northrup, in discussing the upcoming Canon and Nikon fullframe mirrorless cameras, highlights some of the key advantages of the best mirrorless cameras over DSLRs. BTW Tony is not on the payroll of any camera brand, and he uses them all and reviews them all, good and bad. He and wife Chelsea are shooters and make their money from their work, their books, and tutorials,DVDs , lectures and workshops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1IyIE2gAL4

Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon

You have not mentioned Sony. Are you stuck on the camera being a DLSR? Otherwise Sony should absolutely be a considered possibility. Since you are willing to start from scratch, you should take a serious look at mirrorless...

Selene03

As usual, everyone here is replying with THEIR favorite camera, which may or may not work well for you. I have used most of those mentioned here (both the Canon/Nikons you mention and the Sony a7iii--limited experience), and believe that they are all excellent cameras that will give you high IQ photos. From my own perspective, it really comes down to what will work best for you. If it is at all possible, is there a store nearby where you could fiddle with the cameras some. My inclination would be to say if you like using the Nikon system, the Nikons are great cameras. I think you would be impressed by the D750. My own preference is for Canon cameras, but it is purely a personal thing in that I can get pretty much any of them to produce good photos for me, especially with the right lenses, and I do like the choice and quality Canon offers. My current most used camera is the 5d mk iv, but I really enjoyed the 6D and love the IQ of my 5DSr. If I were starting out new, I think I would get the D850, but I have to remind myself that I could have stayed with Nikon, but decided I liked the way Canons worked better. Still, I see the D850 as combining the best of the 5d mk iv and the 5dsr in a single camera that does even more than the two of them put together. I recently bought the a7iii for various reasons including all the hoopla about how everything is going to be mirrorless in the future. It's not the easiest to use camera I have picked up in my life, but I think it will produce good results once I get to know it better. In short, they are all good. They all have their strengths and weaknesses and I can't really tell you what will work best for you.

gwilliams6

Fair enough. As a longtime pro Nikon and Canon SLR and DSLR shooter, who now shoots with Sony FF mirrorless, for me there is no longer a fair comparison between any DSLR and the fullframe mirrorless system. There is nothing I miss about my DSLR cameras, and I loved them when that was the best around. And there is no subject or situation that now I cant handle easier,faster and better with my mirrorless gear. Anyone coming from DSLRs may have a small learning curve with mirrorless, but once you get it, you will be thrilled as you embrace the mirrorless tech that helps you better create your art.

Nikon and Canon get it now, and they are willing to cannibalize some of their top pro DSLR sales and proceed to concentrate on new pro mirrorless models going forward. They won't abandon their DSLR fans, but they know which way the interest and market is going for both pros and amateurs. They know they need to catch up to Sony.

As far as the Sony A7III goes, mine has been put through the ringer by me over the past few weeks, and it has met every challenge and more with flying colors. The hype is reality with this camera. When I am back at my personal computer I will post a couple of recently made A7III shots from the Caribbean Island of St. Martin. Cheers

Naptown Gaijin

I have been shooting, mostly amateur, but have also sold some work, for the past 55 years. Brownie Box, Argus C3, Minox B, Pentax K1000, Olympus, Canon A-1, Canon T-90, Lumix TZ-4, Lumix FZ-200, and some others. Just bought a Lumix GX-9 with 24-70 f2,8 and 85mm f1.2 lenses (35mm equivalent focal lengths). I do surveillance photography (day and night). I need light weight and fast lenses. I was initially going to buy a Nikon 750, and rented one with a few lenses. WAY TOO HEAVY!! I really like the Micro 4/3s Lumix GX-9, BUT, if I was going to buy a full frame, I would go with the Sony A7III. The A7III and GX-9 are both highly capable.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

Best post thus far throughout 3 pages. You can tell by my signature line what I shoot, and I'm thrilled with my new Canon 5D Mk IV. This paired with my Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 DI VC G2 blows the socks off my Canon 24-105L IS USM II in my opinion for sharpness. Attached is a picture of a tractor I took last week with the Canon 5D Mk IV & the Tamron 24-70 G2. Please download and magnify to see 'Made in USA Int' under the Farmall logo .

(Download)

mudduck

I have a Nikon and Sony A7rII and use both, the one thing you must admit though, there's a myriad of lens choices and price levels for the Nikon system

CO

The autofocus on mirrorless cameras has improved. I've shot with Sony mirrorless. I can't stand electronic viewfinders. It's like watching a cartoon on a really small television. Optical viewfinders have better clarity. An optical viewfinder doesn't have the limited resolution of an electronic viewfinder.