quote=BFS I am fairly new to photography, less than a year. I hear that full frame cameras give a sharper and more clear photo than crop cameras, because of more pixels.

1. This is incorrect: FF sensors generally have less noise and can go to a higher ISO. However with the newer cameras, this is much less a factor. My Sony a6300 is essentially noiseless up to 6400 and only minor noise and correctable to 12800. There are a few other differences. This is not because of more pixels (Most FF cameras have 24mpxls just like most DX cameras) but because each pixel is larger and can carry more information.

My questions are. If you shoot a photo both with full frame and a crop camera (since the D500 is said to be the D5 in full frame cameras lets use those two cameras) with the same lens and crop the full frame photo to DX size is there a difference in photo quality?

2. Yes. You will likely lose quality with the cropped FF camera. But why would you do that? After spending twice as much for the FF, why would you then crop the image that much?

Is there still more pixels and a sharper photo with full frame?

3. Again, not more pixels, but more information in the larger pixel.

Also my Nikon D5300 has a photo size of 4000X6000. If you crop a full frame photo to that same size is the full frame photo the same cropping? Would this give you the same photo with full as crop?

4. Same answer as 1.

My chance of ever selling a large photo is, small or next to none, so crop cameras give the print photos I need for myself. I am thinking of upgrading to a better camera sometime in the future but thinking lenses for now. I don't want to by DX lens if I should move to FX for a camera upgrade later.

What I now have is the Nikon D5300 with a Tamron 18-270 lens which is on my camera most of the time with a DX 35 mm in my bag. I would like to move into wildlife/birds and thinking of buying a Nikon 200-500 lens, a FX lens I know. I am also thinking of trying the Nikon 16-80 DX lens for my walk around lens. Hoping to get a little better photo than the Tamron gives. What are your thoughts on that change?

5. Rent each one and try it. That's the only good answer. Each person's usage will be different. My friend has a Tamron 18-270, gets excellent photos. Buy the 200-500, but no reason to dump the tamron. On the other hand, the Nikon lens is a good one.

I know a lot of question in one post but would like and hope you all can give me some great answers.

Thank you in advance.

I just mounted a show with 20 photographs, all taken with DX size sensors (Nikon D7000, D7100 and Sony a6000) Most are only 11x14, but several are 12x18 and one is 16x24. Without a magnifying glass you can't tell the difference--and probably not then either. My aps-c cameras have made many images printed to 20x30. At 40x60, it begins to become questionable. LOL

Don't let the marketing people get you to spend money. Your D5300 is a great camera. Read Ken Rockwell's review. http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5300.htm . Rockwell has the best practical user advice I have seen and over the years he has never steered me wrong. He used to shoot jpeg which is not good for those of us who do post processing with RAW. But more recently Rockwell has moved to RAW.

Spend the time and money to learn to use the D5300. Buy David Busch's book on the D5300. While I generally prefer Darrell Young, I can't find that he has one on that camera. Oh. . . and avoid the "Dummies" book. It is a piece of crap.