I hope not. The cost of FX is more than the cost of the camera body. If you get good FX lenses to match the quality of the full frame sensors in the D610, D750, or D810, you will find the cost of your FX system is 3 to 5 times the cost of a DX system.

I would welcome any constructive advice regarding my choice between the Nikon D810 and the Sony A7R. I am moving up from a Nikon D5300, so I will need to buy new lenses in either case. I shoot mostly nature, landscape, and architecture. I don't shoot sports or action. I don't expect to shoot in rain or snow. Lenses available from Sony for the A7R satisfy my current needs without an adaptor, except for a wide angle and macro lenses. I can use an Sony NEX wide angle lens without an adaptor (it provides 12-16mm focal length on the A7R) and am willing to wait for a macro lens to be released. The quality of the Sony lenses appears to be very good and the 55mm lens is outstanding. I usually use manual focus, and the focus peaking option in the A7R seems like it would be very useful. I also like the lower weight and cost of the A7R. Have I considered everything, or have I failed to consider other important factors.

You can use DxOMark to check lens performance. When you do so, you need to check them on the same camera to avoid performance differences attributable to the camera sensor. I checked both lenses on the DxOMark. DxOMark no longer lists the D7000 (16 MP) as options for lens comparisons their online database, so I looked at the performance of the Nikon and Tamron lenses on the D7100 (24 MP) which was close to the D7000 in sensor performance. The performance of the Nikon and Tamron lenses was nearly identical. I also checked the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8. It had significant chromatic aberration at all focal lengths and apertures, so I think the Nikon or Tamron lenses would be better choices. I would not hesitate to chose the Tamron lens.

They both weigh about 3 1/3 lbs. the Tamron lens is about 2oz lighter.

I use the data available on DxOMark.com for my camera with my specific lenses to find the limits on f-stop that will provide good results for each of my lenses. I also use DxOMark to research lenses I am considering buying. The smallest aperture you can shoot at is highly lens-dependent.

It isn't clear which of the three 24-14 lenses available for the Nikon D7100 you are considering:

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED ($1,889.95, DxOMark Score = 14)
Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD Nikon ($1,299, DxOMark Score = 21)
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM Nikon ($799, DxOMark Score = 18)

I use the DxOMark web site to check quality of any lens I am considering purchasing. The score above is the mean of the scores throughout the lens focal length range and is for the lens on the D7100 camera.

Notice that cost doesn't correlate with quality.

Size and weight are the main advantages of the mirror less camera over a DLSR with equivalent sensor size. Full frame mirrorless cameras are just now becoming available, but there are more options for mirrorless cameras with smaller sensors--the smaller the sensor, the more options.

I have been seriously looking at the Sony A7R (FF Mirrorless) and the Nikon D810 (FF DSLR). In comparing them I've found that it is a mistake to consider the camera without also considering lenses available, their cost, and the performance of each specific lens on the camera. The tradeoff is not easy. Low weight and smaller size is really important to me, but I haven't decided which to buy yet.

But, of course, the type or quality of the camera isn't the most important factor in taking great pictures. The best pictures I have ever taken were with $70 film camera in the early 1960's--because I was in the right place at the right time and the light was perfect.

90% of the comments about this Consumer Reports test are based on assumptions about the test made by people who haven't read the article. Sad that so many fools felt obliged to expose themselves on UHH.

I have the Sony RX100 III. It is a fantastic camera. I take it anywhere. It is so light, I can hold it steady to much lower shutter speeds than I can my D5300. Color is very accurate. 24mm-70mm lens (f/1.8-2.8). Check it out in any camera store.

I got my RX100 III when it was first released. The images quality matches the image quality I get of my Nikon D5300. I usually use A or M modes. If I am planning to take a lot of photos, I use the Nikon. But the Sony is in my pocket most of the time so I get great shots that are unplanned. I don't understand all of the Sony RX100 III menu options--the manual does not do a good job of explaining the use of the menu options--but that hasn't kept me from getting good photos.

The circles represent an object being photographed. The rectangles represent the sensor recording the object. The full frame sensor is larger, and has a wider field of view for the same focal length lens. This means that for the same focal length lens at the same distance, a full frame sensor will capture the subject with the same resolution as a 1.5 crop sensor only if the full frame sensor has 50% more pixels.

I have done this. If you have a large number of photos to copy, photographing them is much faster than scanning, and the quality is also higher. All you need is a tripod, a digital camera with a display screen (to preview the image), and good light. Post processing can improve the quality and remove defects. Scanning at high resolution is very, very slow.

Nikon has a great lens simulator:
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/index.htm

You can plug in your camera body model (DX D5000 Series), select a DX zoom lens with a range that includes both 35mm and 50mm, and move the slider between 35mm and 50mm.