Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Yeah, but aren’t there some not so good lens options for FF. I know about the FF bodies...but it’s more the lenses.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

But you are not switching.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

No...this was more of a curiosity post. If I were to ever go back I just want to see what the current option is. I’d still like to see if there is a Sony option.

Joe Blow

Your call, but try reading this first.
https://digital-photography-school.com/photography-equipment-comparisons-entry-level-versus-high-end-gear/

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Please, I asked that this not turn into a discussion on ff vs crop.

I’ve seen a Nikon option, what would be a canon or Sony option?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I have always used Nikon, so I would look at the D850 first. That has gotten great reviews. As for lenses, they are mostly primes, but the Nikon 24-70mm would replace the 12-40mm. Even buying new lenses, you should be able to stay within your budget. If you look at Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma, you can keep costs down.

Wanderer2 Loc: Colorado Rocky Mountains

Pentax K-1
Pentax DA* 300
Pentax D FA* 70-200
Pentax D FA 24-70
Pentax D FA 15-30

The best answer would include consideration of what type of shooting the kit is going to be used for. I wouldn't suggest the K-1 for anyone shooting a lot of video for example.

I haven't priced this but I think it would be well under $8K. I doubt there would be anything better for landscapes, for example, at anywhere near the price.

A very thought provoking thread - enjoyed it.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The Sony A99II may come closest especially when you consider the excellent 1.1-2X Clear Image Zoom added to whatever lens you are using but the high speed tele lens selection is lacking. The Sony A9 has a larger more modern tele lens selection in E-mounts ( think Sigma 1.4 and 1.8 lenses with their adapter or a few of the Zeiss options ) but @24 MP, is lacking somewhat with cropping and using the CIZ. The A7RIII @42MP might be the ticket tho !

Oddly, K. Rockwell has not seen fit to do a full blown review on the A99II ! ?

..

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

I was watching a NFL photographer comparing his A9 and the A7riii...while he liked the faster FPS and CAFon the A9 he missed the extra cropping capabilities on the A7riii.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Thx...I tend to forget about Pentax...shame on me.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

I know there are some questionable sony lenses, which ones would pair up with the A7Riii to give me a similar FOV on the wide to mid tele range comparing with my current lenses...so perhaps just 14-400range...if more is needed I'd just crop using CIZ or crop the giant 42mp files.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Simple solution... Use a higher ISO instead. Full frame should be able to do two or three stops higher ISO than micro 4/3 without any image noise problems.

Depth of field may be a bigger concern (and it doesn't actually change when the sensor format is different... but appears to do so because you'll either need longer focal lengths w/FF or will need to move closer with the same focal length... or a bit of both.)

Cdouthitt, you've already done the focal length conversions... So all you need to do is pick a brand and start shopping. (Why should we pick your gear for you?)

Canon and Nikon will give you the largest selection of FF bodies and lenses to use on them.

I'd recommend a lower cost camera with a better selection of lenses... For example:

Canon 6D Mark II (26MP, $1900) or Nikon D750 (24MP, $1800)
for comparison: Canon 5D Mark IV (30MP, $3300), Nikon D810 (36MP, $2800).

Canon 100-400mm II f/4.5-5.6 ($2000) with Canon 1.4X III ($429) or Kenko 1.4X Pro-300 ($140).
or Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 ($1400) or Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 ($2300) with Nikon 1.4X III ($500, check compatibility) or Kenko 1.4X Pro-300 ($140).

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II ($1950) or Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS USM ($1400 w/tripod mounting ring).
or Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 FL VR ($2800) or Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 ($1565 w/tripod mounting ring).

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II ($1750) or Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS ($900)
or Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 ($1800, non-VR) or Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 VR ($2400)

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 III ($2000) or Canon 16-35mm f/4 IS ($1000) or Canon 11-24mm f/4 ($2700)
or Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 ($1950) or Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 VR ($1100) or Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 ($1900)

I'll leave it to you to choose among those what will "fit" your budget. Regardless, you'll be carrying around a lot bigger and heavier kit of gear.

There are various third party options, too. I'll leave it to you to explore those and how they compare with OEM lenses on the cameras (which may assure the best performance).

With the exception of the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 FL, the Nikkor telephotos mentioned do not use fluorite. All the Canon telephotos mentioned do use fluorite, which helps with sharpness and reducing chromatic aberrations. Nikon has recently converted many of their telephoto primes to use fluorite (designated by "FL"), but so far only their 70-200 and new 180-400mm f/4 1.4X zooms use it. Canon's used it in most of their telephoto primes and zooms for several decades.

With the wide angle zooms, in particular... f/2.8 or faster is rarely needed by most users. You probably already know, that type lens is more commonly stopped down for maximum depth of field. You can save $, size and weight opting for an f/4 instead. OTOH, if you do much night photography or are a photojournalist, you may want the f/2.8.

Note that the Canon 11-24mm and Nikkor 14-24mm ultrawides both have a protruding (convex) front elements that preclude using a standard filter on them. There are special filter holders available for them, but they add bulk and cost.

Finally, for telephoto work, you might want to consider complementing the FF camera with an APS-C model. Available from both Canon and Nikon, there are various 20, 21 and 24MP APS-C that give you the "effect" of a 1.5X or 1.6X teleconverter, without need for a teleconverter. The cost of some APS-C models isn't very much more than the cost of OEM 1.4X teleconverters.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

I heard you, but look at the quality and focus speed available.

Bob Boner

I recommend Canon. I have 2 full-frame Canon bodies and 2 crop frame. Most of my landscape images are made with the 5Ds r, and most of the wildlife images are with the 7dII. The lenses I use most are the 11--24 and the 600. The 24--70 II f/2.8 also gets a lot of use. The 100--400 II gets a lot of use. I also use the 70--200 f/4 a good bit. I think these lenses are excellent.

Wanderer2 Loc: Colorado Rocky Mountains

Don't feel bad, it's fairly pervasive these days, given the Ricoh/Pentax tiny market share. Given the quality of their products I do think they do deserve more recognition though.