jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

OK, all of you proponents of the advantages of full frame sensors, please explain why the following photo is deficient relative to your favorite full frame system:

https://diglloyd.com/blog/2018/images/2018-0429-_DGL0603-f2_8.jpg@auto.html?dglyAS&dglySz=2304x1728&dglyD=-C-Y_Nqc9znT1iphweyS5e7Aqt8n4HPNh_Orc_3WBLsB9CsuZyxCRSvDuTkpDFrQQ2ZjlmUpaJFFOP8tG3LxL7FbLQN8sDS37ixOIb5fhZ6jtIA-1Djm_yHy-YkGjh6ZCLieFssU5UJt21FO6FXGtB3A-QxvI5UTNjcMCOk15gl9iFSMPFg-i0QLrPH9TA9R2bI25G7taGbMS20SEjws4qAcuWMP6eMJtMnFrYMDgOSAgwYYKHLnssjyLnldi_xfGBdDX4OZrw-VNiYFhgoNAg==

Boris77

No.
BUT......
If you can go to a large camera store and pick up the cameras you are considering, and then try out similar cameras not on your list, you are much more likely to get a camera that you like to use. At this point of development the camera features and design of operation are more important than image size, from Micro 4/3s up.
Boris

therwol Loc: USA

Having read most or all of the posts to this point, I've only seen a few references to depth of field. Let's say you take a picture on a crop sensor camera with a 35mm lens, and the same on a full frame camera with a 50mm lens. You get essentially the same picture with one important difference. The picture taken on the crop sensor will have greater depth of field at the same aperture because the focal length is shorter. I could give other examples.

This issue makes it easier to get shallow depth of field with a full frame camera if you want it. It can be problematic when taking a picture of a 3 dimensional scene at close range, such as a shot of a group of people sitting around a table. If you want everyone to be in focus, you might be better off using a phone to take the picture. (The focal length of the lens is very small.)

Anyway, this sometimes drives me crazy with my Nikon D810, having to crank up the ISO to be able to use a very small f/stop in the situation described above, and if I go above about 3200, I can see the detrimental effect on my pictures when I examine them closely. Some creative use of flash could compensate, but not if you're just taking quick pictures and don't have time to set something up. Also, you can't use something like focus stacking when your subjects are moving.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

As far as I'm concerned, if 2 cameras have the same Mega-pixels, and one is a crop frame and one a full frame, the crop frame puts more pixels on a subject than a full frame using the same focal length lens. To me, that is more reach. If I crop the image of a full frame that much, I loose more than half its pixels.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

Care to elaborate?

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Better waterproofing, generally higher all metal build quality. I think these are pretty generally conceded. The improvement on the Dxxx dual sensor bodies (Don't know the Canon equivalent series) is even less.

Note that I shoot crop (Nikon APS), and am not advocating for this. If I were a working pro, I might give FF more consideration, but at this point, I'm not, I'm just an advanced amateur. I don't HAVE to shoot in bad weather conditions, and I don't want to pay 2x to 3x the price for added ruggedization and a minimal improvement in image quality, focused on the low EV values.

JMHO...

Andy

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

Is a D500 not built to the same or higher standard many of Nikon's full frame cameras though? You got me on the 850 though, I hear that's almost all metal.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Yup. That's what I was referring to. Not worth the investment, IMHO, when I can buy an APS, and have enough left over to buy another for the same $$$. That's me as a non-pro speaking there....

Andy

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

I see. So comparing top end like for like, yes you're right. It should be noted though that the top end cameras are not better in every area. As a wildlife camera, the D500 does shoot more FPS. Worth considering alongside build quality. To be honest though, Nikon are not known for shoddy builds, so comparisons should only go so far.

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

I haven't checked for other replies but here's my experience with the D500. First I have to say it's now my favorite and most used camera, the other frequently used ones being my D7100, and D750. Despite what you may have read, the low light performance of the D500 is typical of modern crop sensor DSLRs. In the range where discerning photographers actually make pictures, say ISO 100 -ISO 3200, it is in NO WAY comparable to a modern full frame camera such as a D750. The D750 has much less noise. The D500 is only slightly better than the D7100; I have never even noticed a difference. I shoot RAW. If noise reduction is required I do it with Topaz DeNoise 6, which is a good, but maybe not the best piece of software for this purpose. When I shoot above ISO 200 and crop severely with the D500 I see noise, and plenty of it. Mostly from reading other folks accounts, I do believe that Nikon has incorporated more aggressive noise reduction in the D500 Jpegs than their previous cameras. This is particularly true at the higher ISOs, where you may have gathered from what I said previously, I don't very often shoot. But what noise reduction in camera can do, post processing software can also do. In low light situations, if I have a choice, I go for my D750.

gwilliams6

Here is one 2018 test showing both Sony A7RIII and Sony A7III near 15 stops of dynamic range: FROM DPREVIEW
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3389926460/sony-a7-iii-dynamic-range-and-high-iso-improve-over-its-predecessor

Here is another earlier 2017 test showing both Nikon D850 and Sony A7RIII near 15 stops of dynamic range: FROM DPREVIEW
https://www.dpreview.com/news/4302149407/sony-a7r-iii-dynamic-range-improved-nearly-matches-chart-topping-nikon-d850

gwilliams6

If you shot the same scene with a fullframe camera and compared the shots side by side you would see the difference. This shot standing alone makes NO argument whatsoever. Nice photo, but without a comparison shot it makes no valid statement to support your argument. Just about any camera can make a pretty photo, but without the same shot with a fullframe camera (same time, same exposure et all) AND same post processing, no side by side examination and comparison can be made here. Cheers

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Understood - as I said, testing methods differ and produce different results (but I will review the articles you mentioned). When testing/evaluating DR, the top end I’d pretty easy to define, it’s the low end, which is bounded by noise, where the difference in methods shows. ie: is the bottom end of the DR where some very small portion of pixels is output, or is it where noise becomes intrusive, and if the latter, then how much noise defines the bottom end of the range? In the end, it’s all about noise, since the DR of the output devices we view the photos on ãll have a DR WELL below 15 bits.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Yes and mirrorless sensor is even smaller on the 4/3rds ones I believe.

I prefer the 35mm sensor and the APS-C sensor I wouldn’t want to go any smaller.

BebuLamar

I prefer DSLR and I have Nikon lenses for my 35mm SLR so I went for Nikon FX camera. Now if I do not care whether it's mirrorless or DSLR and I don't have Nikon lenses I would go for the Fuji X series. The M43 are nice too. I wouldn't go for either Nikon or Canon APS-C DSLR.