Ron SS Loc: Silver Spring, MD

Is it worth the higher camera cost and new full frame lens investment.
Is it worth it depends on what you really need.
Bokeh is from a fast lens with a good multi-blade diaphragm. Wider view is from a wider angle - larger sensor, i.e., full frame - OR shorter focal length lens. So if bokeh and wide angle are your primary needs, a couple lenses should do you, rather than a more costly new camera and new lenses for it.
Having said that, I have gone to full frame for the improved sensitivity (higher usable ISO) and faster autofocus.
Resolution is a 'separate' factor as there is a tradeoff between high resolution and sensitivity. The more pixels, the smaller they each are for any size sensor. That is where full frame gains as it is a larger sensor. For same size pixels, more pixels and higher resolution; For same number of pixels, larger pixels and higher sensitivity.

A camera is a box with a sensor (and a lot of processing smarts). The image quality depends on the lens.
If bokeh and wide view are your needs, and your current camera provides you with sufficient sensitivity, resolution and handling capability, I advise investing in appropriate lenses.

Jim Bob

Hmm. Not sure this image would convince me to go full frame.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Full Frame ..Is it worth it ?

No unless you plan print over 11x14.

Yes if you are of those who need to recompose after the initial capture.

Honestly? If 'you crave' getting a full frame DSLR, nothing can convince you otherwise so... YOUR choice.

If you are not using raw already maybe you should start before spending $$$ as using anything else is a waste when shooting with a FX camera. Why deprive yourself of an incredible potential in order to produce run off the mill captures using JPG???

-------------

All the arguments 'improved whatever' are meaningless in my opinion.

The camera choice (High sensor density - D8##) vs (Low sensor density - D#) is a $$$ decision more than anything else. The 'improved image' is quality is at best marginal - my opinion here.

As to using a DX lens in a FX camera? That is pure BS. It makes no sense to use a DX lens with FX camera. The reverse is not true as by purchasing FX lenses when you have a DX camera allows you to invest toward the future. You must understand that for any capture that requires a wide angle you must use a DX lens.

The 'Bokeh' reference refers to the circles of diffusion. DX lenses are usually simpler mechanically than FX lenses but in no case justify the cost of updating to an FX camera as a FX lens is usable on a DX camera so... Another non nonsensical argumentation.

Ron SS Loc: Silver Spring, MD

Yes, a DX lens will work on a full frame camera, but the image quality really falls off beyond what corresponds to the smaller sensor area it was designed for.
On the other hand, a full frame lens on a cropped sensor camera gives improved quality as it is only being used for its center area image, which is almost always its best corrected optical zone.
Bottom line, for better quality photos with a DX lens on an FX camera (Nikon terminology), crop the final image around the central area.
Some cameras such as the Nikon D750, allow you to select your crop factor in camera. Using a DX lens at 1.5 crop is then using only the sensor area corresponding to the smaller 'DX' area of the sensor that the DX lens was designed for.

Back to the initial question: What are the performance features and capabilities desired? Really need?
Going to full frame may achieve them, but there may be less expensive approaches, including different lenses.

Ron SS Loc: Silver Spring, MD

While it makes no sense to use a DX lens on an FX camera - for optimum quality - and investing in FX lenses is the way to go to not limit future camera upgrade usage, that is fine assuming less limiting resources.
If you are upgrading bit by bit on a budget and really need full frame camera capabilities, using already owned DX lenses - being fully aware of their limitations - is a reasonable game plan. Not preferable, but reasonable depending on financial realities.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

As many have said, it depends upon what you want to do with the photos. If you never print larger than 9X14, you don't need a full frame. If you shoot action of any kind you don.t need full frame. But if you want FF take a serious look at the Pentax K-1. probably the best value in a FF. Same sensor as the D800. All the bells and whistles of a pro level camera at a crop sensor price.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

Yes, I bought a full frame and for me it was well worth it. I wish it had a higher ISO.

Bill_de Loc: US

IMHO, if you have been happy with the D200 results you are obviously happy with the lenses you have. If you go to FF you will be paying to replace those lenses with more expensive ones. As for wide angle if you need it, there are DX lenses that will give you the equivalent of very wide lenses on a FF.

Before they announced the D500, I bought a D4s for the high shutter speed. I already had a good collection of FF lenses from my film days. Then came the D500 and it is my go to camera. Although I still use the D4s on occasion, had I known the D500 was coming I would have saved a lot of money.

You of course have to make the final decision, and have to decide if the advantage to you are worth the $$$. To freshen things up for yourself, maybe a D500 or D7200 and a new lens will keep you happy for a long while.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

--

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

I think the main reasons to get into full frame are: if you are committed wide angle shooter or/and shooting a lot in low light.
I didn’t think about FF but when I walked into local photo store and saw D700 (low shutter clicks and good price) I bought it and have been using it for a few weeks now. I didn’t switch to FF but added it to my D7000. In a good light I don’t see a difference but indoors, in low light it is much better.
Overall I like D700 a lot. I know it’s old but still a great camera.
FF lenses: 50mm 1.8D AF very good lens, only $100.
For tele-old 70-210 f/4-5.6 AF D, it’s push-pull type zoom, very sharp, could be under $100
Another one - 35-70 f/2.8D, around $250-300. I don’t have it but I know it’s very good.
It could be all you need, depends on what you shoot. So, you don’t have to spend big $$$ on lenses to start. There are a lot of old lenses that are very good (AF-D), if you don’t mind manual focus the choice is even greater.
As for D200, I would keep it. You won’t get much for it. It has CCD sensor and gives very nice colors. I don’t have it anymore and miss it sometimes.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

It all depends on your photography. Actually, I get great photos from my D7000, Nikon 28-300 and Tamron 10-24. I also have a D800 ($3000) which necessitated purchasing some of the exotic Nikon lenses, which are great (24-70mm f2.8, $1800, 70-200mm f2.8, $2000), and I'm also looking for something with more length. So....you decide. BTW, the 28-300mm still works great on the D800. My suggestion, if you really don't know that you need a full frame camera....stick to a crop camera. I know some great shooters who use nothing but crop cameras. One great thing about them, too. The field of view from lenses on crop sensor cameras can also be of great assistance in the field. I was able to shoot my grandson's b'day pool party with the 28-300 on the D7000 and shoot all around the pool with no problem. It gave me field of view up to 450mm. It's an excellent lens. Other UHH users, including D800 users, have a lot of good things to say about this lens. Alternatives to a full frame lens would be the D7200 or the D500.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Nope. You lose 55% of the full frame "sensser" when you shoot in crop mode. Other than that, there is no set number that applies to all DX lenses. E.g. a Tokina DX 11-16 mm lens will give full coverage on an FX sensor when zoomed out to 16mm.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Yup. The D500 is so sweet I forget I'm shooting with a cropped sensor.

Ron SS Loc: Silver Spring, MD

One aspect not yet mentioned in the full / crop discussion is the larger size and greater weight of full frame cameras, compounded by lens size and weight (for equivalent focal length). Especially for us 'more mature' photographers and two camera shooters on a long shoot, this is a very significant factor. A worn out photographer is not a good photographer.
That is another reason for calling a D500 sweet.

I miss my full frame film SLRs. They were much smaller and lighter than DSLRs. With their micro-prism focusing screens, they really were fast and sweet.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I've had a few full frame cameras (many L lenses to go with them), several entry level cameras, and many mirrorless cameras (and matching expensive lenses to match them), and I can clue you in on the ONE thing that I learned while divesting myself of many many thousands of dollars of gear (probably in excess of $15,000 or more)


Wanna know what it is?


Ready?


If you what to be content in photography the secret is: shoot and appreciate what you have.



That's it.


Trust me when I say that Full frame won't change anything. If you are getting nagging feelings of unhappiness now, in a year you will do the same. The size of the sensor won't change that.


Unfortunately, there are so many folks afflicted with full-frame-itis that you will have no shortage of them urging you to drain your wallet.


My advice? Shoot, don't buy. If you MUST spend money, spend it on experiences, not gear.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I have never shot anything else but full frame, but I don't see were you would gain a wider view. you can get just as wide with FX lenses, but it is a lot easier to get closer to your subjects, because of the crop factor. A better bokeh is largely dependent on the lenses you use (even though you will have a more shallow DOF on your hands. With all the cost involved, I would think it is not worth it, unless your work will profit largely from it!