SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Mike, welcome to the Hog!!!
BTW, no need to go away or apologize, this thing is about to take on a life of it's own....., so you might as well have a seat and watch the feeding frenzy!!!!
Only a tiny drop of blood in the water will do it!!!
SS

repleo Loc: Boston

Just about EVERY modern camera is capable of taking great pictures under a wide range of circumstances in the right hands. The type and model only becomes relevant when you need to push the envelope. That might mean bigger prints, lower light, faster action, longer reach, lighter weight, bigger hands, longer battery, more weatherproofing, more money etc etc etc. If you are a beginner, gets a beginners camera. The important thing is to learn how to use it to its full capabilities. When your skills exceed the capabilities of your gear - step up to the next level.

How do you know when you are at the limit of your cameras capabilities? Go on Flickr and filter results for your gear. If you can honestly say your results are as good as theirs you are due an upgrade.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Flickr is really great IMHO for comparing EVERYTHING before making decisions... Looking at the different " Color Science " each OEM uses and doing comparisons can be as important as overall sharpness and resolution. compare Fuji to Canon as an example of diff. looks. Actually I am trying to justify getting into the X System just for that reason. Fuji tones have a real passion about them..... Ouch, and my avatar is an Olympus.

therwol Loc: USA

I don't own a D500, but I keep reading about the low light/high ISO performance. I'm curious to know from anyone owning a D500 and either a D750 or D8xx what there experience is with both in low light. I'll leave out the D5. I think everyone knows where that stands in the scheme of things.

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

When I went to a FF camera (Canon 6D) I was amazed at what I consider better quality images, and the low-light abilities are amazing - something this camera is famous for. I have really decent photos taken with an ISO of 12,600!

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

What you say is mostly correct and properly processed no one could tell the difference in image quality. Each has advantages over the other and depending on what you shoot one could be better than the other.

I use both and if I had to choose just one it would be FF.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

I started my interchangeable lens "35" mm digital photography with a Nikon D70s (DX as that was all that was made at the time due to the cost of making sensors), I then got a Nikon D7100 (DX) to allow me to give the D70s to the wife. The one and only real issue with shooting in DX is normal to wide angle. If you are shooting at 50mm for "normal" on a DX it is equivalent (roughly) to a 75mm lens due to the crop factor (roughly 1.5 multiplier). If you want to actually have the equivalent of a 35mm FF image, you must go to a 24mm DX lens. Now, on the other end, a DX format appears to work for you. A 300mm lens gives you the rough equivalent of a 400 mm telephoto lens. So, I now have my Nikon D7100 crop sensor and a Nikon D610 Full Frame. best of both worlds. AND, I ONLY purchase Full Frame lenses as they fit both.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Interesting thing about crop camera's is that they can put more EFFECTIVE PIXELS on a subject at a distance than full frame with the same focal length lens. The result is a sharper image than can be obtained from a full frame.
That said, I love wides, so for me, I own both a full frame and a crop. For landscapes I love a wide zoom, so it is my D810 with 16-24 f4 or my 14-24, on the other hand, for wildlife I shoot with my D500 with 200-500 lens attached. I have both worlds covered.

Martys Loc: Lubec, Maine

I shoot on a full frame FX sensor (D800E) and often switch back and forth to my DX image size on that sensor while shooting to attain closer cropping.
In the viewfinder I always fill my frame,....with subject image cropped content to assure max quality.

For the occasional times I require closer proximity on the fly,.... (especially with a mid range or a 500mm lens) it has worked quite well for the type work I do.
As I said,.....I am shooting on a steady tripod and have had no problem.

I know it's unorthodox but it works wonderfully when I need it in my work flow and either do not have a longer focal length,...or do not have time to switch lenses rather than loose a shot I am after.



To investigate the same principle using a DX camera (D7100) I also applied the same principle as a study to see what quality images and results I could attain. I used the smallest image size cropping on the DX sensor and captured surprisingly excellent results on that steady tripod.

I also use this within my normal shooting using all my other lenses,....is sure a neat time saver producing excellent sharp images when attention to steady tripod technique is adhered to.

Has saved my bacon on particular captures,....rather than walking away with nothing many times.

I like experimenting and pushing certain limits as an exercise in learning.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

"If this has been discussed before I apologize but I am new to photography and it seems to me that crop sensor cameras give you more bang for your buck. Assuming the crop sensor dslr has reasonable high resolution i.e. 24mp. With a crop sensor camera the cost of the lenses is less because of the 1.5 increase in magnification and the camera is also less money. I assume the image quality is somewhat better with full frame cameras but unless you are making very large prints will the results really be that apparent?"

Since you are new to photography I would like to clarify for you some of the terms and statements you have mentioned in your post. "Reasonable resolution" is not necessarily lots of pixels. If "reasonable resolution" is seen in a 20x30 inches print then a camera with 12 megapixels has reasonable resolution assuming you are using a good optic. I had an old Nikon D2H with 4.1 Mp. and going to those sizes was a breeze although my usual enlargements are made at 12x18 inches.

The cost of lenses for cropped cameras is in many cases cheaper but not because of the digital factor that has nothing to do with price. Case in point is the old 17-55 f2.8 Nikon lens that had a premium price.
The price of some "full frame" cameras is not that much compared with cameras with a cropped sensor. The D610 is now considered an old FX camera but its original price was not ridiculously high.
I shoot with a Nikon D7000 and a D610. My eyes, when using good optics, cannot tell the difference in the quality of the images between those two cameras.

The cropped sensor excels when it comes to action and wildlife because with tele lenses like the 80-400 VR it is possible to have the view of a 600mm lens when shooting at 400mm and that is a tremendous advantage in wildlife photography. With the "full frame" body it is necessary to buy the 600mm lens which is considerably more expensive. There are different photographic opportunities to apply the use of both lenses. For portraits I feel more comfortable with the D610 although to blur the background in outdoor portraits it can be easily done with a cropped sensor if the lens has a large aperture like f1.4 or 1.8.

Using wide angles used to be a serious problem with the cropped sensor till Nikon and Tokina introduced the 12-24 f4 wide angle lens and today there are many more choices available.
If you ask me I use my D7000 more often than the D610.

armymsg

My exact thoughts when I read that he was sorry!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

FF is far superior in every possible way. Only people who are ignorant or poor buy crop sensor cameras. On the other hand, crop sensor cameras are more reasonably priced and take excellent pictures. From a short distance, you can't tell one from the other by appearance, and the photos could also be indistinguishable. Switching from crop to FF is not going to be a life-changer, but you will get a higher price, larger size, and more weight.

Please disregard my first two sentences.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Because so many people go into attack mode and tell the poster to use the Search feature.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Jerry, you forget the D-500, heavier and larger than all but the D-8xx FF cameras, and more expensive than the D750.

I love mine, but bargain price, and low weight aren't 2 things I would attribute to it.

danersmiff

Adorama is having a sale, and this is really affordable, high bang for the buck. (396.95 for the kit)

https://www.adorama.com/inkd3400ka.html?EmailPrice=T

for an extra 100, the same kit will come with a 70- 300 lens... (496.95 for the kit)

https://www.adorama.com/inkd3400k2a.html?EmailPrice=T