Upgrade to Full Frame?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Dave Heaton 10 Mar 2017
I'm sure this has been done loads on here but I'm going to ask anyway.
I'm currently using a Nikon D7200 with a Nikkor 24-70 f2.8. I'm thinking about upgrading to a full frame body. Is it worth it? I take mostly landscape and climbing/action shots. I print some of my photos but mostly just share on the internet.
Any advice would be gratefully received.

Dave
 rallymania 10 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Heaton:

i guess the obvious first question would be... what will full frame do for you that you aren't getting from your aps-c?



OP Dave Heaton 10 Mar 2017
In reply to rallymania:

Good question. I suppose I'm looking for better low light capability and the ability to capture more of the scene when taking landscape photos.
 kevin stephens 10 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Heaton:

that's an expensive good quality FF lens, but the range isn't very useful for APS-C

Either sell the camera and buy a FF body, or sell the lens and buy replacement lens(s) more suited to APS-C.

Either option would be a big improvement

With modern APS-C cameras I think the benefits of FF are over stated
 john1963 10 Mar 2017
In reply to kevin stephens:
For ultimate IQ especially for landscape s.I still think FF is still the way to go,the gap has definitely narrowed but a large sensor will always have advantages over a smaller one.
Nothing has changed medium format was superior to 35mm and so on.
If a Fuji x-pro 2 was the same price and size of a Nikon d810 most people would still choose the Nikon.
If you can afford the expense of FF I'd go for it.
Post edited at 14:01
 Marek 10 Mar 2017
In reply to kevin stephens:

> With modern APS-C cameras I think the benefits of FF are over stated...

Agreed. Particularly if you're going to resize most pictures for monitor display (my assumption based on Internet reference). Do you use a tripod for landscapes?

OP Dave Heaton 10 Mar 2017
In reply to Marek:

Yes I do usually unless it's an impromptu landscape photo while I'm out climbing.
 malk 10 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Heaton:
'downgrade' to oly e-m5 II + 12-40 2.8
Post edited at 15:01
 kevin stephens 10 Mar 2017
In reply to Marek: with a good quality prime lens (e.g. Pentax limited) on 20mp aps-c I get much better resolution on an a3+ print than I used to get on 35mm film with a top end scanner

 kevin stephens 10 Mar 2017
In reply to Marek:

> Agreed. Do you use a tripod for landscapes?

Ive been thinking of getting one, but not sure of the benefits, in camera shake reduction helps a lot
 Marek 10 Mar 2017
In reply to kevin stephens:

> Ive been thinking of getting one, but not sure of the benefits, in camera shake reduction helps a lot

With reference to the original post, using a tripod means you can use a low ISO in poor light. Which may be useful if you think your low-light performance may be limited by your APS-C sensor.
 john1963 10 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Heaton:

That's an unusual lens for a 7200, did you buy them together.
OP Dave Heaton 10 Mar 2017
In reply to john1963:

No, I wanted a better lens and was considering going full frame when it came up second hand for cheap, so I grabbed it.
 jethro kiernan 10 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Heaton:

I am having exactly the same dilemma/same cameras, what I have noticed is nikon is focusing (excuse the pun) on producing its better lenses on full frame at the moment so in the longer term full frame is the way to go.
Having said that results from the D7200 are great if you have the right glass on it.
If you wanted wider than the 24-70 which i assume you would for landscapes you would really want the 16-35mm for a full frame rather than the Nikon 10-24mm AF-S Nikkor f/3.5-4.5G DX ED which is a less robust model. also you will not get the benefit of most of the new sigma art lenses coming out.
I also use the olympus omd 5 for a compact carry around
 John2 10 Mar 2017
In reply to jethro kiernan:

There are two main differences between full frame cameras and those of smaller format: for a given adjusted focal length the full frame will allow you to create a shallower depth of field, and the larger photoreceptors for a given pixel count will allow you to reveal more detail in the shadows.
 The Lemming 10 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Heaton:

> I'm thinking about upgrading to a full frame body. Is it worth it?

I had the same First World dilemma last year when I wanted to upgrade my Nikon D5000 plus 4 lenses.

In the end I went in the opposite direction and went micro four thirds because of all the advantages that that system offered. I got a lighter camera, excellent small lenses, images as good as full-frame cameras and video quality that a full-frame camera can only dream of.

dSLR cameras days are numbered, so why not invest in the newer technology of micro four thirds or similar cameras?

Not necessarily a troll/flame tongue in cheek quip.

 kevin stephens 10 Mar 2017
In reply to John2:

Some other main differences. FF bodies are bigger, heavier and a lot more expensive for similar IQ. FF lenses are a lot bigger and heavier and more expensive too

Some similarities: resolution and image quality on an A3+ print for pictures taken in normal lighting conditions with good quality lenses
 John2 10 Mar 2017
In reply to kevin stephens:

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out areas in which larger sensors of the same generation are better than smaller ones.
 Brian 10 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Heaton: Go FF, you won't be dissapointed - with your 24-70 buy either D750 or D810
 AlanLittle 10 Mar 2017
In reply to kevin stephens:

> with a good quality prime lens (e.g. Pentax limited) on 20mp aps-c I get much better resolution on an a3+ print than I used to get on 35mm film with a top end scanner

Makes sense. Anything from about 4,000 dpi upwards was just taking bigger pictures of the film grain, even on super fine grained films like Pan-F. So taking that as a high estimate for the effective resolution of 35mm film, 4,000 dpi equates to about 24 megapixels as an absolute top limit, in reality with most films probably quite a bit less.
OP Dave Heaton 10 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Heaton:

Thanks for all the replies everyone. I'm still not 100% certain but it's definitely helped.
 SouthernSteve 11 Mar 2017
In reply to Brian:

> Go FF, you won't be dissapointed - with your 24-70 buy either D750 or D810

I agree with that lens which is great a FF Nikon will do a great job, with the caveat that if you want any telephoto lenses they are going to be expensive. I am using a D500 and D800 at work and ergonomically I prefer the D500 which has much faster focus acquisition and with multiple flashes in controlled conditions gives great results unless you need to massively crop.
 jim robertson 20 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Heaton:

I have moved back over to full frame recently with a D800. I say back because that is exactly what film cameras were/are. I generally take landscapes and much prefer manual focus for this and as I still use an F2 as well I have several pre AF prime Nikkors that produce terrific results on the D800. I regularly print up to A1and above and can say that for the first time since I started shooting digital, I am now achieving print quality which is at least as sharp as medium format film when printed to that size. The important thing you haven't to lose sight of is how you will be viewing your images. If you are only printing to A3 occassionally and otherwise viewing on a screen then I don't see the move to full frame bringing anything extra to your photography. For me the decision was straightforward. I had lenses designed for the format and I wanted large prints.
 jethro kiernan 20 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Heaton:

Nikon D800E and 16-35mm for sale near me, soooo tempted

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...