camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Stay with what you have. You will not see a significant difference switching unless you buy professional lenses for your FX body and even so your technique will dictate how good your images are....regardless of camera.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

I have full frame and cropped. I believe FF if you can afford it and what you shoot and what your expections
are the way to go. Full frame will cost a lot of money if you upgrade. And upgrade does not mean that what
you have will not serve you.
I started a long time ago with the Nikon D300, D700, D800 and early FF film cameras and the real estate, light gathering
and asethetics are worth the FX full frame format. But you will need at least a couple of quality lens. They are expensive.

I found myself in the quality video world and stills with the DSLR's a few years ago. I switched to Sony mirrorless
because Sony sensors and cameras in the DSLR format could be used for high end video.

I think It is and economic and how far you want to take your image making decision. Their is nothing wrong staying
with what you have. Good luck.

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

The Nikon D750 is one of the best "out of the box" camera's on the market, hands down. And, like you said, it is currently on sale. I would buy new cause they are throwing in a free vertical grip right now.
Adorama is offering an additional kit at no cost.
https://www.adorama.com/inkd750g.html
B&H is offering the same price but without the extra STUFF.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082599-REG/nikon_d750_dslr_camera_body.html?sts=pi

I have two pieces of advice for you, buy the D750 and from now on buy quality full frame NIKON lenses only.
And, just to let you know, like I said, the D750 is a great camera at a current record low price, this camera will serve you well for years to come, it is a low light wonder.
BUT, Nikon will be replacing the D750 soon, but that replacement will cost you a lot more and probably not be a break through camera as much as the D750 was.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

I agree.. I have both a FF (Nikon D610) and two DX (crop sensors Nikon D7000 and D7100). I love the Crop sensors with my long lenses as it (seems) to give me a longer reach.. Yes, I know that I can put the FF into crop sensor mode, but then, I may forget to take it out again. With the two, I can put a wide to 50mm on the Full Frame for wide and portrait work and put the long lenses on the DX for telephoto work. This gives me the best of both worlds.. and IF I NEED TO, I can always put one of my long lenses on the FF camera. Ohh and the D7000, D7100 and the D610 all use the same battery so I only have to carry one size. And yes I have 6 batteries and a car dc to ac power converter so that I can charge the batteries while driving (Important NOTE!!: Don't try to charge the batteries while parked with the car engine off. You may end up trying to find someone to jump start your car for you). However, the battery charger and ac converter work well for shooting with a drive between locations. Also, since my charger is AC (and I travel with 2), I can plug it in at the hotel/motel/restaurant when needed. I have 3 chargers and carry 2 on trips. When at home, I can charge 3 batteries at a time. By the way, I am probably going to purchase 3 more batteries just for insurance.

JennT Loc: South Central PA

D500 will astonish you!

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

I love the D500. Look for deals—at this time of year you might find a free grip included with the body.

abraham.losa Loc: Miami FL

Hello,I have a D7200 for a year now and just two days ago I bought the 750 and now I disagree with everybody that says that it’s almost unnoticeable the difference,it is noticeable and a lot,yesterday I went to Miami’s downtown to do some test with the 750 and when I transfer the images to my pc and open them in photoshop I was amazed by the difference ,super clean images even at iso 2200,with the D7200 at iso 400 the noise is noticeable ,with iso 2200 in the D750 the images were cleaner than the D7200 at iso 400,I used the same lens on both,so there’s no difference there,if you don’t post process your images you’ll not see any difference,but when it comes to that it does make a big difference,

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

It depends what you do with your final product. If you only display your pictures on your computer, an iPod or a phone, it won't make much difference. If you print large prints, it can make a big difference.

First of all, DX lenses work on Nikon FX cameras. On a 32 Mp camera such as my D800, a DX lens produces approximately an 18-20 Mp image. In comparison to my old D90, a 12 Mp camera, that is a noticeable improvement. Consider that the larger sensor with more resolution (Mp) will allow you to make larger enlargements without loss of image quality. Additionally, the larger higher Mp sensor will allow you to make tighter crops in post production without major quality loss. My goto lens is a Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 VR FX lens. Because of the combination of the D800's sensor size and high Mp count, I also use it as a telephoto lens. I find that I can crop an image taken at 70mm to the equivalent of a 200mm plus lens and produce an acceptable 16" x 20" print. Although I also have a slower 70-300mm FX lens, I hardly ever carry it because I consider it extra baggage. Although you may not choose to spend the money for an f2.8 zoom lens, the principle holds true regardless of the lens.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

The 16-28mm is the FX equivalent.

Chris Hayes

Having taken the leap from DX to FX, i have a couple of questions for the OP. What are you unhappy about in your current DX set up. It all depends on what you like to do with it, and where you plan on taking it. The DX is more economic to buy and feed lens. It has the extra reach of the crop factor for telephoto work, and takes some very useable pictures. FX is more expensive to buy and feed lens. It has far superior Low light and noise capabilities, the sensors are just better from my perspective. You will spend a lot on glass, but generally the glass is superior in quality if you stay name brand. The FF is heavier, both bodies and especially glass. Did i say it's more expensive.
Now i use exclusively FF, because in my opinion and for what i take pictures of, i get superior results.
An option for you would be to upgrade to the D500, its the best DX camera out there in Nikon world, from all i have seen and read. But remember the old adage still holds true, spend on the glass before the camera, but in your case your camera is getting a little long in the tooth.
As a side note the Tokina 11-16, does an excellent job on a FF camera as long as you only use it at 16mm. It makes a great wide angle lens. I would not suggest buying one for a FF, but as you have it already keep it and use it as a 16mm only lens, its sharp and takes very nice shots. It is a little heavy though.

Chris

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

I use a D5500 with a Sigma 10-20 lens. I do architectural and interiors photography for architects, designers and contractors and get paid for it.
So why do I need expensive gear to do the same thing.

doclrb

And, the D500 offers a virtually identical focusing system as the top end D5.

doclrb

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Actually, a FF in crop mode loses so many pixels, it is much worse than using the DX camera with the same lens. The main advantage of FF of similar pixel count is the better low light performance. If you go for the IQ of a much higher pixel FF body, you lose that low light advantage but gain the IQ. But the IQ improvement is mostly noticeable in images with high density detail such as landscapes ans in large blow-ups.

The disadvantage of FF is the bigger size, weight, cost, fewer choices in lenses, and making your DX lenses almost useless. While I am not immune to GAS attacks (I just bought Tamrom 150-600 G2 and Tokina 11-20 Pro f/2.8 zoom lenses), I have yet to get a FF hunger attack.

Chris Hayes

Just to give my perspective on the above comments.
The degree of pixel loss when you use a DX lens on a FF camera depends on your camera. The D850 in crop mode is almost the same as a D500 sees. Now i Do Not suggest using DX lens on FF, as a general rule DX belong on DX bodies.
You don't loose the low light advantage on a FF camera, that remains.
There are no fewer choices in Lens with a FF, FF lens have been around for so many years longer than DX, you will be able to find an almost unlimited set of FF lens choices.
GAS is a curse and a blessing. Who doesn't like buying new stuff.
Look hard at what you take pictures of, how frequently, and to what degree is ultimate sharpness, low light performance, low noise, reach etc important to you.
DX cameras can and do take some great photographs. There is a reason the ultimate professional cameras are all FF.

Chris

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

You stated that you're happy with the 24MP images from your D7100, which suggests to me that you'd see little gain getting a 24MP D750. The FX format would really only be productive for you if you regularly make large prints from your images... bigger than 13x19". Then you'd see some difference. Or, if you shoot in low light conditions frequently the high ISO performance of the camera also might be better.

But otherwise, you'd probably be better off getting "better glass" for your D7100, rather than sinking your money into an FX camera.

A previous response is correct.... You actually only have one FX lens: your 50mm. The others are DX designs.

I know the Tokina 11-16mm can be used on FX at 16mm end of it's range without much vignetting. But it can't be zoomed any wider than that on FX without some significant losses around the edges. However, I don't know if that's possible on a D750.... does it automatically switch to DX mode when a DX lens is detected? If so, is it possible to manually override and force the camera to treat the lens as if it were FX (allowing any vignetting to occur)?

While it's possible to use DX lenses on an FX Nikon camera, the D750 in DX mode is reduced to less than 10MP camera, which is sort of like shooting yourself in the foot or wasting your money buying an FX camera. You'd really need to plan on getting FX lenses for use on the FX camera, for it to be worth your while.

For what you like to shoot, an FX camera can work great (but so can a DX camera, if you aren't making large prints from your images). The "cost" of an FX "upgrade" is a lot more than just the cost of the camera. You'd need to plan on getting FX lenses, which are necessarily bigger, heavier... and more expensive. A truly wide zoom such as a 14-24mm, 15-30mm, 16-35mm or 17-35mm will cost you $550 to $1950. A "standard" range or "walk-around" zoom such as 24-70mm, 24-120mm etc. will cost between $500 and $2200.

IMO it would be a waste to use an "all-in-one" zoom like that 16-300mm on an FX camera. They're available, sure... But lenses of that type always compromise in some ways and if you're going to the expense of upgrading to FX for image quality potential, it would be sort of self-defeating to use an all-in-one zoom on the camera. "All in one" zooms are all about convenience... one lens that does most of what you need, albeit not particularly well, but minimizes what you need to haul around and how often you need to change lenses. Still, if you really want one, there are 28-300mm available for $600 to $875.

But 300mm won't give you the "reach" on FX that you currently enjoy with it on your D7100 or D200. If you use that end of the zoom very much (for architecture & landscapes?) and need similar reach with a lens on an FX camera, you'll need to budget for a 400mm to 500mm... zoom or prime... costing between $700 to up and over $10,000. One of the more affordable and good performing zooms is the Nikkor 200-500mm for about $1400. Just be prepared for its size and 5 lb. weight. Most lenses with this kind of reach will be relatively hefty, but are fitted with a mounting ring for use with a tripod or monopod (yet another expensive, if you don't already have one).

For most people, FX is not necessary. A relatively recent DX format camera can more than meet their needs. I bet some folks enamored with "full frame goodness" are actually the only person to ever see the image quality they're getting, while viewing their images hugely magnified on their computer monitors. By the time they resize them for actual use... a moderate size print or online display.... all that "goodness" has been nullified and no one else ever sees it!

Quality lenses often can do much more for images, anyway. Might be a better place to spend your money. But only you can say and it depends upon what you will be doing with your images.