mdpathjp

I would be interested in the so called desirability of full frame cameras; they are bigger, heavier and cost more as do the lens. Is it printing? My Nikon D7200 makes beautiful 16x20 prints. I just don't understand why photographers seem biased toward this format.

BebuLamar

In general the bigger the sensor the better quality of the image but that's in general. You must compare 2 specific cameras to determine which is better. Larger sensor may have more pixels and if the larger sensor has the same number of pixels it would give lower noise images. The larger the sensor the more expensive the camera and the camera is bigger and heavier. The better quality can be seen both on screen and in prints. The larger sensor would also give shallower depth of field when taking images with the same angle of view and same aperture. This may be a desirable or undesirable characteristic depending what you want.
If you are happy with your camera there is no need to worry about what others think.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

Maybe because most of the pro and expert enthusiasts mostly all use FF. For me the extra real state in the frame really helps adding negative space and a larger canvas. I shots with a Sony a a6300 cropped frame with a 16. 70 Zeiss lens and love the format for grab and go. But my a7s II FF I use for high end video and creative stills. It might help to look at a google chart that compares the cropping of a number of cameras. Good luck.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

"Generally" speaking, FF sensors provide less "noise", giving usually somewhat better IQ, Higher Dynamic Range which definitely equates to better IQ, better Low Light performance, no need for conversion to 35mm speak, and more control over DOF because you have to get closer to the subject (no crop-factor again). There is (so far) more "super wides" available for FF, but that, of course, will change.

mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

Let's get a few more pokes in at this daadhorse.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It costs more... has snob appeal for some.

It performs about one f/stop better in low light than APS-C (there’s less noise, better color) and nearly two stops better than Micro 4/3.

Manufacturers can cram more sensor sites on the imaging chip. This allows bigger prints, tighter cropping, or some of each.

You use a longer lens to get the same field of view at the same distance from a subject. This creates shallower depth of field at the same aperture.

These qualities may, or may not, appeal to you. FF gear is bigger and heavier than APS-C, and MUCH bigger and heavier than Micro 4/3. It is generally more expensive.

There is nothing wrong with any format, so long as it serves its purpose for your needs. Get what makes sense.

Most Photo Labs will tell you that <5% of prints sold are larger than 11x14. Over 90% of images are bound for Internet sharing sites (Facebook, Instagram, etc.). Few of us spend much of our time photographing in dark places.

That said, if you want room to crop, or if you make LARGE landscape images, or if you photograph scenes that will be printed huge and examined from a foot away, full frame gear becomes desirable.

Banjobob1023

I just got back from Africa and shot 1700 photos with a combination of a Nikon Full Frame D750 and a Cropped Frame D500. Each camera has its unique advantages. I’ve made a photo book and printed several images on canvas to pretty large sizes. My non-professional eyes can’t tell the difference. If you like your camera, keep it and don’t worry about the hype.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

This is great advice. Concentrating on knowledge, techniques, experience, and practice is usually more productive than throwing money atd gear.

There comes a point when you truly need something, but it may be larger OR smaller... or just different.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Pay attention to this post. It's great advice.

We made the deliberate decision to choose the Nikon crop DX system and have been very happy with it. Our reasoning was that we could both afford to carry our own lenses and bodies, and to budget for body upgrades going forward, neither of us are getting any younger, and carrying the full assortment of stuff we like to shoot with gets harder and harder with each new creak of the bones, and finally, that we could afford higher quality lenses in the DX format than in FF. We love our photography, but ultimately it comes down to using your funds in the wisest way for your needs. I'd rather plan a vacation trip to an interesting place than plan to upgrade to a lens costing well into four figures.

If I shoot something really special in low light, I will have to spend some time doing noise removal. I don't print anything even moderately cropped larger than 16x20, so I have more than enough megapixels to go around. And photo snobbery has no appeal to me.

Just our reasons to stick with the DX format - but burk's advice is sound on the reasons you might want to go larger.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Thanks. Folks often get sucked into "format wars," assuming bigger is always better. That's not true. The question is, "What format suits my most frequent needs?" For me, on a daily basis, it's Micro 4/3.

My daily driving car is a Prius. I rent a truck or van for that 0.1% of the time when I need to haul more than will fit in the car. Some of my neighbors own big, behemoth trucks and SUVs. I think some of them have small (ahem!) appendages. I KNOW they have ridiculous loan or lease payments.

When/if I need a full frame body and lens for a project, I'll rent them. I don't like to major on the minor!

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

It always comes down to the right tool for the job at hand. Some jobs may even require larger than full frame (medium format or view camera of 5X7 or larger). Most photographers can work with anywhere from FF to 4/3rds. But for a lot of us, it comes down to cost versus image output. I still have my Hasselblad in case my Olympus 4/3rds won't do. I still only expect to get it out when I want to shoot B&W for my own pleasure. If I really would need a FF, I'm with Bill in that I will rent it.

hawleyrw Loc: Dayton, OH

I had wanted FF for years for only 2 reasons: lower light (since I rarely shoot with flash) and finally getting the right focal length using my lenses. I enjoy the wider capability using the same lenses I was using before without the 1.6x difference.

oldgrayowl

Why are you being so unprofessional? Person asks a question. So what if it has been asked many times beforehand? HE/SHE hasn't asked it.
If you don't like the question, don't respond to it.

Who knows, perhaps someone new has a different perspective on the question?.

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

For uncropped images, a bigger sensor is magnified less than a crop sensor, which usually has a positive impact.

Image quality differences are most notable on small prit's viewed up close. It's not about making big prints. With as little as 8 mp you can make entire wall-sized murals. This link busts some misconceptions about print resulution and print size.

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

Until recently, only the full frame lenses were "fast" ie., larger maximum apertures.

Because of shrines losses due to diffraction, the full frame sensor has the least negative impact when using smaller apertures. One can use a full frame camera at F11 and still be able to record extremely fine detail, while the APS-C camera will start to lose fine detail at F8 and the M4/3 at F5.6.

For studio, landscape and architectural/real estate photography, you can get a variety of lenses that offer tilt and shift. While you can use them on APS-C cameras, the focal lengths that these are available in are really optimized for full frame.

Build quality is usually better on full frame cameras and lenses, but as the industry consolidates on smaller cameras and the public demands better quality, there are more options.

These are very broad generalizations. I use both full frame and a very good bridge camera with a 1" sensor.

Don't believe the myths that you need more mega pixels to make larger prints, or that you can't make a giant print from a tiny sensor. Just take a look around, and you'll see Apple bilboards that show images taken with their iPhones, and they look great.

BebuLamar

I wouldn't say that the OP should go to FF if he is happy with his camera. I only use FF because my film cameras were FF. I want to keep things the same.