tdekany Loc: Oregon

BOKEH!

PVR8 Loc: Raleigh, NC

My first dslr was a D200. I sold it after I got a D7000. I never liked shooting with the d7000 as much as I did with the D200. I ended up buying another D200 as a back up to the D7000. I actually found myself grabbing the D200 more often than the D7000. Since I'm just a hobbyist, I got everything I needed in terms of IQ. I recently let go of my D200 again when I moved into a D7100. I'm missing the D200 already but I like the D7100 a lot. I do want to have a back up camera besides my Coolpix p&s so I may end up with another D200. If you do go to FF don't give up your D200. It's a great camera. You might get all of the IQ you're looking for by getting some good glass rather than spending a bundle on a ff and ff lenses.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I've used 4x5, long roll full frame unperforated 70mm, "split" 70mm, four different formats of 46mm long roll unperforated, two formats of 35mm long roll unperforated, full frame 135 perforated 35mm, half frame 35mm, 120/220 roll film in 6x4.5 cm, 6x6 cm, 6x7 cm, 6x9 cm, and 6x17 cm formats, plus disc, 110, 126, 127, 620, and 616 roll films, full frame digital, DX digital, APS-C digital, Micro Four-Thirds digital, several P&S and cell phone formats...

They're all REALLY full frame when used with lenses designed exclusively for them. But we only call 24x36mm a full frame format these days. There are several larger medium format sensors, but they represent a tiny fraction of today's market.

MOST 35mm "size 135" perforated film cameras made 24x36 mm images. But full frame 24x36 mm sensors were initially unattainable at affordable prices when digital imaging was first developed. And because 35mm SLR designs were modified to make the first digital bodies, the DREAM was that we would some day get back to the standard "full" 24x36 mm frame, so our old film lenses would behave as we were used to.

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

You can buy anything you think will work. It is your money. You haven't posted many shots, so it is hard to tell if it would make a difference in your images. From what I can see, just save your money and keep practicing with the camera you have now. I don't think the camera is going to make the difference. You have to get bettr at capturing the images still.
Good luck.

blackest Loc: Ireland

There are 2 ways to go full frame, digital and film and film is the cheaper option. If you are shooting aps-c already and want to transition to full frame you can take a smaller step financially by buying a film body often they pretty much come for free with a lens that you can use with your digital body.

For example if you use canon then an EOS film body could be something to consider I bought an EOS 600 for about 35 euro it supports the EF lenses natively it can also use M42 lenses using the same converter with focus confirmation that you would use with an M42 lens on an aps-c canon body. I love manual prime lenses and they work today as good as they ever did 40 or 50 years ago if not better. Nikon and Pentax have similar opportunities.

Now you have the options of shooting crop or full frame (reasonably cheaply). You will need to think a bit more before pressing the shutter with a film camera but that will help your development as a photographer. It is now up to you to save towards getting the full frame dslr that you want but in the meantime you should be enjoying using what you have.

At least now you can buy full frame lenses now and use them on both your digital slr and your film SLR.

londonfire Loc: NY to NC

Going with film for FF sounds like an interesting deviation but in reality today our computers are as much a part of our workflow as the camera itself. If you shoot film you can't easily put those images on the screen for comparison or even making them a part of your library. Yes, I know it's possible to scan the negatives and upload them but realistically how many are going to do that? I loved film myself in it's day but it's a bit like trying to put a pager back in service today.

blackest Loc: Ireland

That depends on the individual but if you are getting your films processed, it is also possible to get them scanned professionally at the same time, Probably the best time. Your pictures can drop through your mailbox along with the digital files. I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't download them from a good processor.

Doing it yourself can be practical, my preference is to use a macro lens and photograph the back lit negative and process the raw file. Sometimes that's the same lens i used on my film camera. You can of course use a flatbed scanner which can probably do 24 exposures in 6 passes.

2nefoto

I began with D70, then D 90, then D200, then 300, followed by D7000 before moving to D700 and now D750.
Prior to the move to digital, I used Nikon N90s
24mm, 60mm macro, 35-70 (2.8), 80-200 (2.8) all Nikkor comprises the lenses I used with my film. I also have a 18-70dx (3.5-5.6) also Nikkor.
The move from DX to FX was very noticeable by my principle magazine client. Fortunately, the move to FX returned my lenses to full usage thus no new lenses cost.
In the end, it's what you need or want.
As others have suggested, rent an FX, shoot a few frames, look them over, you decide.

PVR8 Loc: Raleigh, NC

Ditto!

londonfire Loc: NY to NC

Hi, blackest. I hope things are well on your side of the ocean.
As I said, I know it's possible to get film images on to the computer but I would think a poll on here would indicate most would take the digital way out. Your system sounds interesting and something I probably could get into in an earlier life. Right now that scanning time is dedicated to changing the oil, cleaning the gutters and pets to the vet. If I can get a half hour downstairs on Lightroom without being summoned I consider that a good day. In fact I'm getting that call right now...

whitewolfowner

Every bodies talking about scanning their negatives into the computer, a waste unless you are archiving them; all you did was turned them digital anyways, so why shoot color negative film?. When I'm talking using film and a darkroom; I'm referring to B & W; developing the film myself (it will be so much better than if sent off to be done some lousy off adjusted batch processor with some crappy developer) and printing the photos on paper in the darkroom. Color in a darkroom has and always will be boring and time consuming; that I'd still do digitally. And maybe a roll of E-6 slide film sometimes too. They ticked off the photo world when they took my kodachrome away!!!

blackest Loc: Ireland

It's up to the individual to figure out what they want to do with film, it can be color it can be black & white. How you process it is a personal choice. There is even the cathanol process which can be used with black & white film but also with monochromatic color ( you get a negative which is in shades of brown).

You can choose what you want to put into film, I personally have 4 SLR bodies 1 has been with me for years my k1000 the other 3 came with lenses I bought for digital use. I don't have any darkroom equipment but I can do my own scanning. People have their own reasons for choosing film. They may prefer the characteristics of a particular film and the look that full frame gives.

The op started with the question full frame is it worth it, well for digital that is a substantial investment, for me and film it's very much less. Film may be a bit of a relic for most people but it's interesting and fun. It's a bit like steam trains if you had to travel by train and you had the choice between a steam train and a regular locomotive, which would you take?
Most of the pro's may have given up with film but as an amateur you can choose to use it or not, and why not it is your interest. How much time and money you want to put into it is up to you.

whitewolfowner

Your right; I'm just stating a fact and that to shoot film and then turn it into digital make very little sense; might as well shoot digital form the beginning.

blackest Loc: Ireland

There are creative opportunities with film that can not be simulated with digital camera's. You might well ask why are movie producers choosing to use film? That you can use film and convert it to digital practically. The analog to digital process will produce a different result to just using digital. Just using an SLR cracks the door open on a whole range of other film possibilities. Larger formats maybe.

There is the practical side too, I haven't got $2000 for a Pentax k1 :)

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-405244-2.html#6808487 is an interesting comment worth thinking about, he clearly enjoys what he does with film.