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

If you upgrade and don't mind switching to the dark side, the Nikon D810 is CURRENTLY the most advanced DSLR full frame on the market.

dhowland

I'm glad I got my Pentax K1. It has the advantage of taking my vintage K mount lenses and the glorious 77mm prime that I already had. I was told it wasn't necessary because I do mostly portraits and street (it's great for landscapes), but my portraits are better now. Definitely heavier but what a camera! It feels like home.

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

I have a 70D and a 6D. The 70D is gathering dust I am sorry to say. The 6D provides spectacular photos, even when the required ISO is 12,800! You need the EF lenses, so if you do not have any EF lenses you will need to buy some!

StanRP Loc: Ontario Canada

Well, you have already given two reasons:

1) "it will cost you a bunch more money "
2) " a heavier set of equipment to schlep around. "

Question: re: "deliver better results in many situations". Many? With today's Digital cameras, IMHO the 'many' has shrunk to just a few. e.g.

DEPTH OF FIELD: This is dependant on the lens aperture and focal length - not the size of the sensor.
All the 'better depth of field' claims do not apply as they are based on using the same lens aperture with focal length changed to get the same size image

NOISE: In the past, for high ISO - especially High-ISO/low light conditions, the FF sensors had a significant advantage, however today it is marginal. Some of the newer cameras have lower noise than the FF of a few years ago.

Coming back to:

1) "it will cost you a bunch more money". True - however 'value for money' is still debatable.


2) " a heavier set of equipment to schlep around. ". For me, a disadvantage: Even taking the camera and one lens - for me, the weight of a FF would be a downgrade as I am a senior (in my 80's) and a FF would spend most of it's time at home as it is too heavy to take with me when I go out for a walk in the park or lakeshore. The lighter camera is also better for taking "Hand-Held" photo's.

John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK

Let me know what you do and how you get on. I'm thinking of doing the same with a 60D. But I think the 60D is a little worse on autofocus than the 70D and subsequent models. That's my excuse anyway.

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

Agree. Except for sports and wildlife which I still use the 70D outdoor in good light for the AF, reach and FPS. Otherwise, the 6D images are STILL the best $value/IQ ratio in the DSLR world even 6yrs since its release. The rest of the camera features are stone-age by todays performance standard but the center point focus in low light and overall IQ is all you need if you want simply great picture quality for low cost in a entry level FF.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

It all depends on your needs. If you need a full frame camera the answer is yes.

StanRP Loc: Ontario Canada

Hi John,

Both Canon and Nikon are good cameras - I stick to Nikon because my son does and we can share lens.
I changed from the Nikon D7100, that is a good camera, to get away from too many menu's. The D500 has buttons and simpler controls to change ISO/Aperture/Shutter etc. Even at low light, the auto-focus is fast. As I have mentioned - I go for regular walks at our lakeshore park (Doctors orders). The squirrels do not hang around long enough to set up using a menu:
I had considered the D850 - yes, it is a FF but the body weight is within ounces of the D500 and running in Crop mode has close to the same sensor Meg and I could go walkabout using my Crop size lens. The disadvantage for me is that the D850 does not have as good a High ISO as the D500. Taking hand-held with high ISO lets me have a faster shutter speed.

e.g. these taken at the Toronto (Ont) aquarium at ISO 10,000.

(Download)

anotherview Loc: California

Yes and no. Yes, if you feel the images from your 70D seem inadequate in some way. No, if the 70D images seem adequate.

It is a growth thing. As your camera skills improve, you will notice more things in relation to your photography.
A need will then develop for something else besides what you have, whether hardware or software.

Before then, however, you could simply rent, say, a Canon 6D (or 6DII), to try it out, to see if its performance and results sway you away from the 70D.

Good luck.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

No. Don't.

Have fun shooting what you have. Do NOT get caught up in the "next piece of gear" syndrome. It's a dead end.

Run, run away fast...hug your SD card and be happy.

I just saved you $3,500.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

If you like the 6D II then buy it if you can but don't think for a minute it alone will make you a better photographer.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Of the few Canon pro photographers I have met. They all said they started out with a crop sensor DSLR. And as they progressed in their skills, they upgraded to full frame. One said he sold all of his Canon crop sensor gear, and his first full frame camera was a 5D Mark 2. He now owns a 5D Mark 4, when I saw him two months ago at an annual event we both attend. I show up to that event, as an amateur, with my Nikon DX. Full frame photography can be a bit expensive. Regardless of Brand. Good luck on your upgrade.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

John, you're the only one that can make that decision. I'd suggest doing some research on the comparisons of full frame vs. part frame. I'm sure you'll find, like the rest of us that went full frame right off, there are advantages. The drawback is that switching will also require purchasing lenses that are made to cover the full frame.
--Bob

lamontcranston

Just for amusement, read this article on what you will (or will not) gain by going to full-frame.

https://www.dpreview.com/videos/0851604943/video-full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-portrait-shootout

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Along with Bob's comment, I'd suggest too that you assess the status of your computer equipment. How much disk space do you have assuming you shoot raw and even larger files will be generated? Does your computer have the RAM and processor needed to open and process several large files at the same time? Do you have a large monitor that is color calibrated? What processing tools do you use, are they professional-level consistent with a professional-grade camera?

Your question, as stated, fails to demonstrate that you've done any analysis of the ancillary consequences of making such a change.