Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

No questions.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Not from what I see. The D800 has a lot more detail--and it's not close

splitwindow Loc: Grapevine TX

The D800 is clearly sharper with less noise, more detail. The difference between FX AND DX really shows up in poor light. That's my experience. I can get great photos with my D700 that my D300 can not touch. Maybe the D500 can, someone with D500 experience vs FX will have to address that.

splitwindow Loc: Grapevine TX

No questions here. The D800 is clearly more detailed with less noise.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

I did say what I meant, and your example is an illustration of it. But I was only considering the use of the same FF lens on each camera, with cropping the one taken on the FF to the same view as the one from the APS-C camera. And I was not sure exactly how the pixel count in each final image would play out! I do know that cropping will decrease the pixels in the FF, just not how much.

While you are correct that either type of lens at a 300mm focal length on the APS-C camera will give the same angle of view, using a different lens on each camera does not maintain the verity of the comparison. The basic premise of the comparison is how the FF lens will affect the photo on the different cameras. Using different lenses to duplicate the effect confuses the issue! [Plus, there isn't a 450mm lens, definitely not in a Nikon lens...]

The result of the comparison when using a FF 300mm focal length on each camera, the APS-C camera will give you the 300mm image but cropped in camera [the 1.5x crop factor] so the subject covers pretty much the whole sensor. The FF camera will also give you the 300mm image but not cropped in camera, which means you have to crop it to make the comparison, thereby losing some pixels.

therwol Loc: USA

If you're talking about Nikon bodies, D7xxx and d500 have focusing motors in the body and allow you to use older AF lenses that lack a focusing motor. (AF or AF-D) Some of those lenses are still in production and are quite good, and some that are not still made are quite good. Some don't match the standards of the newer G lenses, so you have to do some research. Anyway, those are DX cameras. The motors do make them a bit heavier than the cheaper D5xxx and D3xxx cameras.
All of the full frame cameras have the focusing motors in the bodies.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

That "more modern" is an important phrase. The K-5 is several generations older than the K-1. The KP, which is essentially the same generation as the K-1, puts 24MP pixels on the subject compared to the 16MP provided by the K-1 in crop mode.

therwol Loc: USA

Where do you stop? Medium format digital cameras tend to cost tens of thousands of dollars and the lenses are enormously expensive as well. The cameras are not as portable. As far as I'm concerned, someone who makes a living doing studio work might want to invest in a much larger format, but otherwise, the size, cost would be prohibitive for most. If you want to talk about a medium format film camera, which you could buy used for a song, that's a different story, but they you're dealing with the inconvenience and expense of shooting film and probably having to scan it later to do much with it, and once you scan film, you lose something, no matter how good the scanner.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

As is true with any format, that depends of which brand you look at
According to B&H web-site, right now you can get
Mamiya for $6000
Fuji for $6500
Pentax for $7000

Meanwhile Canon 1DXii costs $6000.

And everything said comparing FF to APS-C is also true comparing MF to FF.

Edia Loc: Central New Jersey

FF is better for landscapes and portraits and not as good for sports and wildlife photography when compared to APS-C.

therwol Loc: USA

I stand corrected on price. I guess I was thinking Hasselblad. It's still a chunk of change for a larger, heavier package with larger and heavier lenses. I'm already selective when I think of taking my D810 out for a stroll. It depends on where I'm going and how long I'm going to have to lug around the camera and maybe a couple of lenses.

The average consumer doesn't need the top of the line ($$$) Canon or Nikon SLR and spend that kind of money for a full frame, highly capable FF camera. Something like the D810 will beat the pants off of the D5 for sheer image quality, but the D5 will beat the pants off of the D810 when a high frame rate is necessary, especially when challenged by low light (sports, photojournalism.) You buy what you need.

As to the original question, it also depends on your expectations and what you're going to do with your photos. It really makes sense to rent both types of cameras and do what they call BDA in the military. Look at the pictures from both and see if you got the results you wanted.

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

Bill, clean your glasses and look at the enlarged downloaded images. It isn't even close. And the D500 was taken at a closer distance. There is no contest. Don't judge by the large thumbnail image, they will look, as you describe, pretty equal. To use an old saying, "The devil is in the details."

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

Thanks Toni!

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

It would but the distance with the 300mm was a bit closer. I've since forgotten the details but it might have been over 30 ft with the 600mm and just over 22 ft with the 300mm.

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

That is exactly the point I have been trying to make. And a big part of shooting small birds is making substantial crops. The D800 image clearly shows the barbs and barbules in the feathers. The amount of noise destroys that detail in the D500 image. But the other point is that viewing distance can make the results equal. At a distance, perhaps 4 ft, and with both images displayed full screen, you are not likely to see much of a difference. But if you hit the + to increase the view to 1:1, then it is pretty obvious which one is clearly better.

Either way, I don't like the D500 for birds or wildlife. Most of the time I am shooting in deep woods with very little light at the beginning or end of the day. I'd have to use ISO 1600 or even 3200, which would be a challenge for any crop sensor camera, and just a walk in the park for a full frame.

This is a hand held pano, taken inside the dimly lit Jameson Distillery in Dublin, Ireland. D800, 45mm F2.8 PC-E, ISO 6400, F4 and 1/40 sec. As you can see the noise is there but not obtrusive, and fine detail is nicely recorded.

(Download)