GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Just buy a D5 strap and black out the "00" on the D500 body.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

And there are compact full-frame bodies...like the D610.

I do not notice any difference handling my D810 (FX) vs. my D300 and D300s (DX) when same lenses are mounted.

There are some DX only lenses available that are smaller and lighter, but they are also not of the same build quality as the best of the heavier FX lenses. Some of the recent ones are quite sharp, though.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

And it's a real babe magnet!

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

The dimensions for my APS-C 7DII and my full frame 5DIV are practically identical. The 5DIV is about one tenth of an inch larger in each of the 3 dimensions. As far as weight, there is less then 1 oz difference between the two, with the 5DIV being the lighter of the two. My previous full frame, a 6D, was slightly smaller and several ounces lighter. The lenses are the biggest difference in size and weight, but a good many people use ff lenses on crop bodies anyway, so, that puts a big hole in that claim, as far as I am concerned.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

There is an urban legend that states that more megapixels is better if you are making large prints. Apple may not have gotten the memo when they ran their ad campaign for iPhone 5, 6 and 7 - where they used 8 and 12 mp images from their phones to create billboard-sized images to extol the quality of their phones' cameras. So much for that legend.

This is the more accurate information regarding megapixels and print sizing:

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

When you make a print from a larger sensor compared to a cropped sensor camera, you have to magnify the original image 50% more. to get to the same print size. So an 8x12 has a diagonal of 36.6 cm. A full frame sensor has a diagonal of 4.32. The magnification factor of a full frame sensor to get to that 8x12 print, assuming no cropping, is roughly 8.5x. But an APS-C sensor with a 1.5 crop factor has a diagonal of 2.82, so to get to that 8x12 you have to magnify the image 13x. Along with that you magnify focus softness, chromatic aberrations, noise, and other image flaws by 50% over the larger sensor. The end result is that all things being equal, which they are not, the crop sensor camera cannot produce the same level of image quality. No one seems to understand this.

Another urban legend is the matter of increased "reach" when you use a crop camera. when you compare the output from an 11.5 mp image from a D800 (in DX mode) to the same image using a 12 mp DX camera like a D300, using the same lens with the image centered in the viewfinder, you will be hard pressed to tell the difference. This is not a great comparison since there are some "generational" differences where sensor and processor technology is older and noisier in the D300, but assuming decent light, there will be nothing that would make one any better than the other.

If you compare a 20 or 24 mp APS-C camera then the detail capture is likely better due to the smaller pixels and greater pixel density, but the noise will be worse. I shoot birds and wildlife, and image quality on a D800 is noticeably superior to any crop camera, and I've tried the D500 and D7200. Not a fan of either. They are great cameras, but not for the way I use a camera.

I would rather have a 36mp full frame sensor when using a 600mm lens where the subject is less likely to fill the frame, than a very tight composition with the same lens on a crop sensor, with little to no margin of error.

Main advantage of full frame - better image quality, especially when printed or projected. If discussing high mp cameras then a greater ability to crop and still maintain image quality when using sharp lenses. If looking at low mp cameras like a D3S or D700 at 12 mp, the giant pixels provide exceptionally good light gathering and even though these are old cameras, they still provide outstanding high ISO, low light performance, compared to current cameras. Lenses for full frame cameras cost more, but are usually better in build quality, sharpness, color rendition, light transmission, dust and moisture sealing etc - worth every penny. Full frame camera bodies tend to be bigger, and if you have large hands, they will feel more comfortable.

Oh, and one last thing - crop sensor cameras, using the same lens at the same distance, will have LESS depth of field than full frame cameras. The full frame camera will have roughly 50% greater DoF, front to back. What befuddles everyone is that the comparison where crop cameras are believed to have more DoF is not made with the same focal length at the same distance, but rather the same "composition" or size of the subject in the frame, which necessitates the camera being moved back from the subject which in turn results in greater DoF when using a crop camera. If you have any doubts, consult your favorite online DoF caculator.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htm
http://www.outsight.com/hyperfocal.html
http://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm

They are all consistent.

The disadvantages of full frame are not related to image quality - full frame cameras and lenses and filters are usually bigger and heavier and more expensive, and they are often noisier. They can be more intrusive in certain situations when a small quiet camera is an advantage.

And Zach Arias is a funny guy, for sure.

The same discussion was brought up when Olympus Yashica (they had the Samurai DSLR), Rollie 35, Alpa and other camera mfgrs made half-frame cameras in the 50s and 60s - they had lower image quality, and as a result, were not taken very seriously by the professional community.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Or get a Leica red spot for your P&S.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

I bought Lotus seatbelt pads and Lotus key fob for my daughter for Christmas one year.
She drives a Toyota.
Lotus used a Toyota engine in some models, so it not totally irrelevant.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Just as a note...my D810 is a lot quieter than the almost new D300s I traded for recently. So in my experience the noise argument does not hold any water.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Quiter than the D800 too.
Picked up the D800 the other day by accident and thought it had a problem.
You can feel it fire as well.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It's definitely quieter than the D800, but my D3S was loud, as was my D700.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

No doubt, my D810 is my go to camera. That being said, I absolutely love my D500.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

For most people, absolutely NO advantage.
When you start to experience the shortcomings of crop, you'll be ready to move on to FF.
Until those disadvantages show up, even though FF has advantages, you won't experience them.
SS

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

Not much difference these days. If you can get the picture sharp and nail the exposure you can blow up the pictures from either type of camera to pretty much any size you want. Technique not gear.

Bill_de Loc: US

That is true starting with an entry level point and shoot all the way up to whatever is "the best" camera available at any point in time. I stopped by a neighbor's house today to show her how to use her new Nikon B500. She is hosting a neighborhood get together tomorrow and wants to take pictures. That $250 camera will do more and produce higher quality pictures than she will ever need. After going through the basics we went into her yard where she shot her roses and her grandson. She was absolutely thrilled. For sending to people to view on their tablets, smart phones or eFrames, the quality is all it needs to be. I was impressed with all the features, although most will never be used.


--

ricardo7 Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile

That's not true at all.