Dave Sr Loc: Nazareth, Pennsylvania

I went from full frame (D800) to M4/3 (olympus em1) because I do a lot of hiking and the camera body and a couple lenses are much much lighter. Also, I rarely print larger than 11x14 inches and the Oly does wonderfully at that enlargement. I recently printed a panorama from the Oly at 18x30 inches and it is perfectly sharp! The only advantage to the full frame, for me, is the ability for a greater crop.

pahtspix

"bkyser" has brought up some excellent points, However he references an 80" print for a D700 as a 24mpxl camera, whereas the D7000, while a great camera, has but 16pmpxl's..A small point, but worth mentioning..I'm just curious as to how far back from that 80" print must one be to fully recognise the individuals?
Yes..I understand how they can make "billboards" from cellphone pix...

OllieFCR

Reach is also an issue for wildlife and bird photography. Although that, again, gets into price. A 400 mm lens with a cropped sensor is a lot cheaper than a 600mm on a full frame.

gwilliams6

I have both a Sony A6500 (APS-C) and a Sony A7R3 (full frame). The difference is 24 megapixels (APS-C) vs 42 megapixels (Full frame). The APS-C costs much less and makes great photos, but the Full-frame has greater dynamic range and can make images that will blow up/or crop with less image quality loss. If I could only afford the A6500 it could take great photos for a lifetime, but I am also a professional shooter and for most of my client work I use the full-frame to give them the absolute best final images that could hold up to being poster-sized. Cheers, use what you can afford. There are great APS-C cameras out there that will satisfy most folks still and video needs.

For example, the newest Fuji X-H1 has all the features of the best full-frame cameras and more, but has APS-C sensor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO18zQFsx-sSo ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw3K0Bp2D74. No longer do APS-C take a back seat to the still and video features of a full-frame camera. Buy the best you can afford and be happy. Image quality of the best APS-C cameras is excellent.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

If you crop an image on the A7R3 to an APS-C size, the resultant image is what, about 18 or so mp's?

Boris Ekner Loc: From Sweden, living in Guatemala

1. Price
2. You can still do as Jim Stascavage did:

gwilliams6

No if you put a APS-C lens on the full frame A7R3 ,the camera defaults to 18 megapixel capture. The camera is figuring the APS-C lens can't resolve at 42 megapixels. But if you just crop a 42 megapixel A7R3 shot to the 1.5x crop of an APS-C you still have 42 megapixel resolution and dynamic range, just enlarged.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

It is a D7000 with 16 mp. I went back and corrected that. You can be within 2 feet, and it is still sharp and not all pixelated with jagged corners on the diagonals. It would take being 2 inches from it to really see anything like that. If someone is going to be that close, they deserve to see individual pixels.

The key is that you're not going to get a super sharp image without using good practice......tripod, mirror up, etc. Viewing distance is important, but this is going in a waiting area of a medical center, and people will be up close.

I had images on the sides of busses that were done with a 6mp D70, and yes, if you were 2' from that, you could see the pixilation. I think between technology in printing digital pictures, and labs automatically "uprezing" images, and better glass than I had in those days, and much better technology in those 16mp, being worried how large you can print with a crop sensor vs the mega-megapixel cameras isn't as big of a deal.

In my own home, I have several 24x36 up to 40x60 images, all shot on D-70 and D-200 cameras, I've also sold portraits up to that large. Neither I, or anyone who has ever purchased one, has ever complained that I shouldn't have printed anything over an 8x10 because I didn't have enough MP.

gwilliams6

lsimpkins Loc: SE Pennsylvania

When I migrated from film to digital, I decided I wanted to stay in the same system so that i could use my existing lenses and other Pentax accessories. At the time Pentax did not have a FF option. If they did, it probably would have been out of my price range.
Now that Pentax does have an excellent FF camera, and I can easily afford to buy one, I am staying with their crop sensor camera for two reasons - reach as mentioned by others, and size/weight of the combined body and lens. Most of my photos are taken during travel away from home and I appreciate any weight savings.
Even cropped, I have no issue with IQ in larger prints (13x19"), however I do see the benefit of FF in better high ISO noise performance.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

$ is certainly a big part of it. Both camera and lenses for it can be less money. There's also larger selection of lenses for crop, since they can use both full frame and crop only designs. Lenses also can be smaller and lighter... and the cameras can be faster operating. Plus the image quality of an APS-C camera is all most people actually need... Especially with recent generations, the smaller sensor format cameras more than fulfill many purposes.

twillsol Loc: St. Louis, MO

Me too! I like the crop factor of my D500.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

#1 reason - price

ICN3S Loc: Cave Junction, OR

Cost and that crop value when taking wildlife and sports at a distance. It's amazing what a 200-500 lens does on a Nikon D500!

Elmo Loc: Texas

Interesting point of view. If you take it literally, though, and there IS a tomorrow, you may be sorry for your profligacy yesterday.