d2b2 Loc: Catonsville, Maryland, USA

Because I have thousands of dollars invested in DX lenses. Most of what I do is bird/animal photography. I do sometimes think about buying an FX camera with one, perhaps two prime lenses, solely for landscape photos, and the next time I have $6k or $7k to play with, I just may do that.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

"There is still support and lenses" Yes, there is and there will be.
In the first place, although the prices of DX cameras have been going up they are still cheaper than a FX camera. Noise used to be an issue with DX bodies but new cameras are leaving that in the past.
Wide angle photography was a nightmare with DX at one time, no more valid. Depth of field is better with FX (controlling background) but it can also be done with DX and lenses with large maximum apertures or teles.
DX excels for wildlife and most action photography because of the "digital factor."
Quality wise, using the same lens, I seriously question if you will see the difference in your files.

skywolf

Having shot both, I don't see that much of a difference between the two. I have a Nikon D7100 as my primary camera and have produced images as good as a full frame. Both have their good points and their bad points. But when it comes down to it, it's the photographer who makes the picture. The best camera is the one that becomes an extension of you.

Rloren

" My father used to tell me, "Some of the world's greatest photographs were taken with a cardboard box (pinhole camera)." This is true. Pulitzers have been won with photos taken with $20 plastic cameras. Point-and-shoot disposables have captured exquisite beauty."

I found this quote in an article. I am very much a "newby." I bought the Nikon D3300, first DSLR to get started. Had good ratings.
Not that expensive. Bought it right before Winter (cold)...haven't used it much yet, but the photo's I have taken look pretty good..

photonutt1970

Well I think in all reality that its is just the price point but most people are starting to realize that full frame isn't that much more but the lens prices run about the same , I myself shoot with a Nikon D7100 and the only reason I didn't go full frame(although I did buy the camera 4 years ago) it was a price issue

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

Even more, in its early days and even until their popularity passed, 35mm cameras (called FF today) were not meant to produce photographs of great image quality with respect to noise, resolution, or dynamic range, but offered great precision and the ability to take a decent camera to places and capture scenes that would be less practical with larger cameras. It was the tool of photojournalists, technicians, amateur photographers, artists who did not necessarily care about the things many are obsessed with today, i.e. noise, resolution, or dynamic range, but just found it an invaluable and incredibly versatile tool. Today's DX cameras are far more capable than yesterday's 35mm machines, at least for those who don't always have to have the look and feel of real film. The form factors of the 35mm SLR and rangefinder were very ergonomic and had a lot to do with that portability and speed. Partly for that reason, that aspect of the SLR and to some extent the rangefinder has been carried forth into the digital versions. From my perspective, the only advantage to FX over DX that I can see is at the upper end of IQ (where 35mm never came close to reaching even compared to some P/S cameras) and with the ability to have a shallower depth-of-field in a similar sized camera comparing the two sizes. Of course, some people who insist on the best all the times will probably find the very top models in the FX arena, but that's not necessarily anything to do with actual photography but more with a love of technology. There are also some professionals who strive to squeeze every advantage out of what they or their employer can afford. But those two groups are relatively small in number. In short, today's DX cameras can take amazing pictures that were out of reach or very, very difficult to pull off with 35mm. So why DX today? If you don't need the shallowest DOF or have to have the very best in the traditional SLR form factor, DX essentially does it all and apparently well enough for photographers aren't ashamed to admit their sensor might be smaller than others.

What we call "full frame" today is a relative term. Remember, 35mm was actually the smallest most professionals would even touch and was considered compact. Was the term "full frame" ever commonly used in the film days to refer to 35mm unless perhaps comparing with the relatively uncommon half-frame cameras? So I agree with Bill_de. Why do people today bother with a tiny 24x36mm sensor when you can shoot 6x7cm or larger? Probably for the same reason people like DX and why others actually use even smaller cameras.

repleo Loc: Boston

According to Fuji Rumors, the Medium Format GFX 50S and a bundle lens will cost around $8,000 when it’s launched in early 2017. That's pretty competitive with a decent FF system. Will Sony be far behind?

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

Put a lot of miles on my old 7D...it was a very good camera and I nearly wore it out. I can't imagine going back now after acquiring the MK3 and now the MK4 and going FF. Applications like Bird and sport photography bring credibility to any argument on a crop sensor but you do get what you pay for after that. Just try to explain FF to someone that is convinced a crop sensor is a smarter purchase and will be as good...I usually smile and acknowledge because that's a nice thing to do...

leftj Loc: Texas

Oh my! I shouldn't have purchased my crop sensor camera because it identifies me as a second class citizen without the ability to understand the superiority of a full frame camera. I'm so embarrassed now that I don't even want to be seen in public with my camera.

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

Same reasons for M4/3 - weight, cost, size - and given that most images end up on social media, very little difference in image quality for most pictures. That being said, I made the move to full frame in 2012, and never looked back. Everything is better, but especially low light performance, and of course, shallow depth of field.

Pilot 6 Loc: Eugene, OR

For Size, weight and cost--throughout each system. And, except for the genii among us, acceptable degradation
in the DX.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Fuji said under 10k body only, but you maybe right and Fuji is going to come it at a really low price.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Funny that you ask as I once thought the very same thing. When the D3 came out I was happy to go back to the world I had more comfort with - not having to figure in crop factors when selecting lenses. A couple of cameras later, D5 & D810 and Nikon releases the D500. As a sports photographer, I quickly found the D810 useless for sports -- great camera, not made with sports action shots in mind and wouldn't trade it for the world. Enter the D500 as my sports backup. I could but three for the price of another D5 and to boot I got my long sought after point-n-shoot with all the bells and whistles. Take the D500, no battery pack and something like a 20, 35 or 50mm very lite lens - voila! Happy as a clam with the little brother of the D5! Happy Holidays!

Joexx

There are cameras with either formats that will give you great pictures, and it is an individual choice what is best for you, and I see many good suggestions and comments in the responses to this question. DX sensor and camera technology has become so good that I suspect for most people, they will not notice the difference.
Two additional "pros" for the FF. I may have missed it, but these may not have been mentioned. Since the FF sensor is larger, it will gather more light. (think, putting a bigger bucket out in a rain shower). Therefore, it should perform better in a low light situation.This is assuming that the electronics etc are similar. In other words, don't compare a 6 year old FF with a new DX, as the new DX will probably out perform the older FF. The second comment is that much of the discussion (DX vs FF) discusses the difference in "image magnification" ( really crop factor - see below). At the lower end of the lens focal length area, there is the opposite effect. With a DX sensor, you will lose some of your wide angle ( due to the crop factor). This means that a 20 mm lens on a DX will give you an angle of view like a 30mm lens on a FF. If you want a 20mm angle of view on a DX, you will need (about) a 13mm lens. This wider angle lens will have more issues with image quality & probably be more expensive. (although most DX lenses should be less expensive than FF lenses)

I do not mean any disrespect by this, but your statement that: "when using a 600mm lens on a DX body, it will give you an effective reach of 900mm" is a very common misconception when comparing cameras with different size sensors.

Many people have been confused and think that a DX body will make a 600mm lens have the magnification of a 900mm lens. This is NOT the case. Focal length DOES NOT CHANGE. With the smaller sensor (DX), you are capturing a smaller part of the image being viewed (AKA "crop factor" or angle of view). If when printing (or viewing) the photo, you increase the size up to the same size as the image when viewed with a larger sensor (FF), you will have a "magnified" image. But, this is a DIGITAL MAGNIFICATION not an optical magnification.
In no way does a dx sensor make a 600mm lens like a 900mm lens.
Here is a pretty good article by Ken Rockwell. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/crop-factor.htm

leftj Loc: Texas

Either way it is still a magnification which is all anyone is saying.