Bipod

I totally agree: there is no "one size fits all" -- no single format can meet everyone's needs.

What the linked article glosses over is that "full-frame" is in fact minature format. And the
largest single-sensor digital cameras are in fact medium format, not "full frame".

Yes, a Pekingese is larger than a chihuahua, but that doesn't make it a "full sized" dog.
If suddenly these "fashion accessory" pooches are what consumers want -- and celebrities are
seen carrying them around -- fine. But that doesn't change what they are: minatures dogs.
They don't make good police dogs or sled dogs.

And FF is miniature format -- all corporate propaganda and advertising notwithstanding.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Goofy....but just how NEW can he be to photography?

TonyBot

Like many others here, I have both FF (35mm size) and "crop" sensor cameras. With the advances in sensor technology and processing engines, I can get excellent 24x36s out of an APSc, and a really good 16x20 out of a highly cropped APSc image. (Do I have a preference? Yup - the FF viewfinder is soooo much nicer.) Technique makes a great difference. Good glass certainly helps, but even the "kit" lenses are much better than ever. Both are capable of taking good, even great, pictures. Let your wallet decide and just start shooting!

Bernu

I use the Canon M6 camera, which is a APS-C. I have images enlarged to 16 x 20 inches and they are tack sharp with very smooth tonality. Highly recommended camera. With an adapter ring you can use Canon full frame lenses on the M6 body. Recently picked up a mint Canon 300mm EF lens. Nice combination...

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

My little "Fashion accessory" will leap up and grab your nads for that!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

I’ve made many 16x20 prints from APS format images. To me, the FF benefits are mostly in low light images.

Andy

Pistnbroke Loc: UK

Until a while ago we used DX (D7100) and D810 FX at weddings and you could not tell the difference in the finished selection of prints

potica69

This may answer your question right from the start:

"For email, social site use, Web display, and even slide shows (we don't use slide projectors any more, we use HD video outputs), you're not going to see a difference between DX and FX, so buy what you can afford. Hmm. That would raise DX sales and lower FX sales if Nikon made that marketing message, and the profit margins on FX are higher, so any guesses as to why they don't trumpet this message? ;~)"

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-2013-news/april-2013-nikon-newsviews/dx-versus-fx-again.html

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

Really? Profit margins on the FX camera's are higher than on DX bodies. Please give me some examples of this. I am assuming you are a Nikon Authorized Dealer and have this information on hand. Please share.

E4Mafia Loc: Knoxville, TN

Cropped senors have both an advantage and disadvantages compared to ff sensors.
Cropped vs. Ff
1. Weight less
2. Cost less
3. More zoom range
4. Less wide angle range (can be costly)
5. Cropped sensor glass can be used on ff sensor bodies but not vice versa
6. Less foot print for light to be recieved

The biggest downfalls with cropped sensor bodies is:
1. If you want 35mm images then youll need to purchase a 20mm lense (20×1.6=32mm) or 24mm lense (24×1.6=38mm) to get with in range of a 35mm. But this is true with ALL cropped sensor glass. At 300mm you get 480mm FOR FREE. Great for wildlife and sports shots. Try buying glass at that length and youll go broke.
When your ready to move up to ff sensor bodies, take the lense with you but you lose the advantage you had before.

2. When you tire of losing all that light and want exactly what you need, say wide angle, then youll be happy you went ff. Bc a 35mm prime glass for cropped sensored bodies roughly cost less than $150usd. But its really 45mm bc its cropped. So now you gotta buy a 20mm glass to get close to 35mm and now that cost roughly $750usd.

Im not persuading against aps-c cameras because their great for certain uses, but lack greatly at others.
It all depends on your needs.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

The gap has been closing in that regard due to better sensor design and DSP noise processing in camera....of course it's still a gap (and FF sensors have advanced similarly) but a smaller one than used to be 10 years ago (hence the bad rep for crop sensors). The D7200 also has excellent noise control for a DX camera. For a photographer who shoots almost any genre (or wants that ultimate flexibility) having both types in their arsenal will provide a best of all worlds scenario. FF prices have come down to a reasonable level in the last 5 years or so too....I think we will see some serious price competition in the FF mirrorless arena this year, and as well DSLR prices will be pushed down too as demand drops.

Pistnbroke Loc: UK

We do find for the darker venues ie 13th century churches that the FX has the edge

1963mca

To me, my full frame camera is my RB-67 Pro S 6cm x 7cm camera (still in use). In this context my 35mm camera is much smaller in sensor/film format.

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

That may also be backed up in low light ISO DX0 Marks. It rates the top 7 nikon camera's. The only DX camera, the D500 comes in last following the D5, D4s, Df, D850, D750, and D810. In that order.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Is that it? I’ve got 24 x 36 images (and larger) from my m4/3 gear.