jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Go for it.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I take your point, and I think which method results in the highest resolution and lowest noise shot depends on the individual cameras. For example, cropping a 50MP FF image may result in a similar resolution to shooting with a 24 MP crop body (for the same lens and subject distance). On the other hand, if the FF is 30 MP, then the crop body may have higher resolution, but possibly more noise at high ISOs. I’d be interested in hearing some real-world examples as this has been debated several times on the forum.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I agree entirely about the advantages higher useable ISO values with FF. I've taken useable pictures at ISO 25-50K with my 6D2 in extreme low light conditions where flash was a no-no.

A. T.

So good to hear from those who really enjoy this super fine and very expensive hobby. I just became hooked a few months ago and have spent upwards of $12000.00 on equipment and shoot DX (D500). The lenses are what's stupidly expensive. I'm super happy with my D500; however, it would be nice to have the D850 as a compliment.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

You make a good point. On a 24MP FF camera using a DX image area crop will give an image roughly equal to a 10MP FF (The Nikon D3 is 12MP). Still good enough though for an 8X12 print and plenty good enough for the web

John O.

I know of some professionals who travel the world and got rid of their full frame cameras in favor of now micro 4/3rds. They claim they get the depth of field they need and resolution. Plus, they are published in many magazines and books.

I have an APSC size sensor and have no reason to consider going up to full frame. Today's technology makes the so called full frame advantage a myth.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

You currently have 24MP D5500 with Tamron 18-400mm DX lens... equivalent to approx. 28mm to 600mm range on FX.

D5500 weighs 420 grams, 18-400mm weighs 705 grams... total weight about 1125 grams (40 ounces or 2.5 lb.)

The 24MP D750 weighs 840 grams and the 28-300mm Nikkor DX lens weighs about 800 grams... total weight 1640 grams (58 ounces or 3.625 lb.)

Frankly, for sports and wildlife, the DX camera and lens are a better option unless you are prepared to invest some serious money into some more powerful FX lenses and are willing to haul them around. You should keep it for those purposes.

For scenic shots, the D750 would be nice to have, but I'd recommend instead fitting it with the Nikkor 24-120mm FX lens that's often sold with it in kit. That lens would be a good choice for much scenic photography and weighs 710 grams, so the combo will end up weighing 1550 grams (55 ounces or 3.44 lb.) The D750 in kit with 24-120mm is currently being offered for $1800, which is around $1300 off the usual selling price (the lens alone typically sells for about $1100). I also see B&H has used D750 with 24-120mm kits starting around $1500.

An FX "sports/wildlife" lens for use on the D750 such as the Nikkor 200-500mm is much bigger and heavier at about 2400 grams (over 5 lb.) for the lens alone, not to mention it's cost of about $1400 (on sale, which is a real bargain, BTW). Other options such as the Tamron 150-600mm "G2" and Sigma 150-600mm "C" are similar size and cost. More advanced lenses such as Sigma 150-600mm "Sport" and 120-300mm f/2.8 "Sport" with 2X teleconverter are $2000 to $3500 for the lens alone, not to mention much greater weight.

I would only recommend getting the D750 for the scenic photos if you're able to keep the D5500 for other purposes and are ready to deal with hauling around the additional gear.

Otherwise, you might look into better lenses for use on your D5500. Those might be the easiest route to "better images". Unless you make really big prints from your images.... upwards of 13x19"... you aren't going to see much difference between the FX camera and the DX camera. Do you make large prints?

Personally I use both APS-C and full frame cameras. About 90% of my shooting is sports or wildlife and nearly all of that is done with the crop sensor cameras. I use the full frame for portraits, macro and some scenic shots.

gtheodore Loc: Fort Collins CO

I agree with rmalarz on the 28-300. If it's good enough for Jay Maisel who IMHO is the Godfather of street photography, it's good enough for me.

k2edm Loc: FN32AD

let me toss this in........the cameras today are so good that buying any but the bottom line, is just a waste of money.... well, almost...I have canon "L" lenses, but I had been better putting the bux into a trip to take fotos..

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The 28-300 on a full frame is a lot of wasted potential ! If you want better picture quality you need better lenses to start with ! For me, a FF only makes sense if you are doing pro landscape work - in other words SELLING large prints.

..

User ID

`


Having both lenses, I find them about equal for
sharpness. Only reason the 24-120 gets more
use is the 28-300 is usually too big. I was NOT
expecting the 28-300 to be so good, 10X zoom
is not usually great. Since it was a freebie I did
acquire it with low expectations ... not as if I'd
researched it and lusted after it ... and what a
sooprize ! It's a really fine lens. I actually paid
money for the 24-120, so that should prejudice
me toward it, but the only reason I use it is cuz
it's less of a load ... and yes that extra 4mm is
good too, but not a major necessity.

Acoarst the other possibility is that it's actually
quite 2nd rate but I happen to be one of those
Great Photographers whom you've observed to
be wringing the impossible out of the 28-300.
I'm OK with that explanation as well :-)

.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

OR making more money easier ....

nikonuser750 Loc: Monroe, LA

Well I do love my D750 for many of the reasons mentioned. I love the low light ability of this camera. I just don't understand why so many put down FF. As for the weight is that really a concern for you? I l'll be 69 in a month and it's never been an issue for me. I carry me camera bag too with way too much stuff just in case I might need something. As for the 28-300 I can't advise as I've never used one. However, I can say that I'm very pleased with my 24-120 that came with the camera. I also have a 70-300mm that I also like. My advice is get what you want and can afford or regret not having done so. Personally I only buy Nikkor lenses. I've tried the others and was very unhappy. Also, don't forget, Nikon refurbished can save you money. Even B&H, Adorama, KEH and a few other reputable dealers have some great deals on used and refurbished equipment.

Best of luck with whatever you decide. Be sure to let us know.

A. T.

Absolutely, I just ordered the 200-500 5.6 from KEH in excellent + condition for $1079.00.