Should I go full frame?

Roll out the newbie jokes!  I just signed up here.  

Moderators, I'm not sure where to post this question, so if this isn't the right place, feel free to move it.  I got started in photography a few years ago.  I have a Nikon D7500 right now and have been spending time working on pano's.  I'm not great, but I've learned a lot.  

I read a few boards and see many of you talking about your full frame cameras, and this got me thinking should I make the jump to full frame.  Honestly the D7500 works just fine for me.  No issues, however being new compared to many of you, I know there is plenty I don't know.  So if full frame will unknowing to me, unlock new opportunities, I would want to know.  

When did you move to full frame?  

If your happy with your camera and lenses, stick with them.   With Nikon, most of the high quality (not always the most expensive though) glass is FF.  You can use FF on crop sensor bodoes though, your angle of view and effective aperture will change though.  Unless there's a need or want, crop sensors are fine.  Fuji has a nice line up of crop sensor camera and lenses.  (Although Fuji does lack hardcore wildlife glass.)

I'd seriously think about if you need FF before selling your crop sensor body and lenses.  If you're happy with them, that's all that really counts.

Edit: I stared on FF with a D700 a couple of years ago, f you're curious 

Panos? Then either will do and your D7500 is quite well
featured to tackle the task.

Aside from being an obvious pick for beginners, what are the reasons others would want a crop sensor camera over full frame?

I was going to keep my D7500 and just get another body.  A full frame one. 

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are saying here:  "Edit: I stared on FF with a D700 a couple of years ago, f you're curious "

Chase Audate wrote: just get another body.  A full frame one. 

Two bodies of the same format will go, IMO
but don't go with two formats!

I think some of the major reasons to move to FF are mainly

• Greater dynamic range
• Better high ISO performance
• Shallow DOF (more bokeh)

If you find you are bumping against any of those walls, then it may be time to consider a FF sensor.  The first issue of needing greater dynamic range can be addressed in many situations by shooting bracketed exposures.    Better high ISO performance is key for very low light shots.  And portrait guys need the DOF flexibility that a larger sensor and lens combination will offer.

Speaking strictly of gear, as  the four vignettes  touches on, a good quality lens will make big improvements before a larger sensor.

On other notes, I found that the biggest leaps in improvement in my personal photography have come from practice and learning.   I still have quite a way to go but, this has had a much greater impact to the quality of my photography than gear has.   I personally shoot M43, which has a smaller sensor than your rig.   I do run into limitations from time to time but, I'm not quite sure I'm ready to move to a more costly and physically larger/weightier system.   there are many benefits to shooting a crop sensor camera as well.

Don't forget that full frame has different phase detection arrangement/points, which affect AF performance as well as light capabilities. 

Full size sensors are really good for wildlife (Can't use a crop with telephotos, I don't think), fast moving subjects, and macro.  If I were going in to portrait, I would have went with the 24mp. With Sony, the A7III actually has slightly better low light/ISO performance than the A7rIII. It's not much, but I have noticed it. It's a result of the above, if I remember correctly. I use a flash for most of my macro, so no big deal. AF performance was my top priority in relation to mirrorless, and the a9 is just too far out of reach for my wallet. 

Chase Audate wrote: Aside from being an obvious pick for beginners, what are the reasons others would want a crop sensor camera over full frame?

I was going to keep my D7500 and just get another body.  A full frame one. 

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are saying here:  "Edit: I stared on FF with a D700 a couple of years ago, f you're curious "

I think that was "I started on a full frame body with a D700 a couple of years ago, if you're curious." Gotta learn to fill in the blanks.

It's not a matter of wanting a crop frame over a full frame (other than the price of glass) it's, "why would I want a full frame over a crop?"  And the answer is, maybe you don't. Full frame sensors help with things like shallow DoF, shooting in low light situations, wider angle of view for a given lens. If you're shooting landscapes, you probably don't hit any of those points.

And doing multi-shot panoramas will give you more pixels than a single image from any full frame sensor.

So: you don't need a different body, based upon the information provided.

Troponin wrote: Don't forget that full frame has different phase detection arrangement/points, which affect AF performance as well as light capabilities. 

Full size sensors are really good for wildlife (Can't use a crop with telephotos, I don't think), fast moving subjects, and macro.  If I were going in to portrait, I would have went with the 24mp. With Sony, the A7III actually has slightly better low light/ISO performance than the A7rIII. It's not much, but I have noticed it. It's a result of the above, if I remember correctly. I use a flash for most of my macro, so no big deal. AF performance was my top priority in relation to mirrorless, and the a9 is just too far out of reach for my wallet. 

N.B. The term "telephoto" means the focal length is longer than the physical lens. There's no reason one can't use a telephoto lens on any camera, much less a crop sensor.

Having had a Nikon D5100, I an assure you that a long lens works just fine on an APS-C body.

For Nikon, AF performance is tied to the body + lens. I don't know that you can make a blanket statement that "this is always going to be better." I could be wrong.

The plus with some smaller sensors is the greater pixel density. Combined with a long lens, one can capture plenty of detail. With the direction the newer full frame sensors are going, however, there' less advantage to the smaller sensors in this area (in terms of APS-C vs. 35mm full).

Troponin wrote: Don't forget that full frame has different phase detection arrangement/points, which affect AF performance as well as light capabilities. 

Full size sensors are really good for wildlife (Can't use a crop with telephotos, I don't think), fast moving subjects, and macro.  If I were going in to portrait, I would have went with the 24mp. With Sony, the A7III actually has slightly better low light/ISO performance than the A7rIII. It's not much, but I have noticed it. It's a result of the above, if I remember correctly. I use a flash for most of my macro, so no big deal. AF performance was my top priority in relation to mirrorless, and the a9 is just too far out of reach for my wallet. 

Actually many wildlife photographers prefer crop sensor cameras for sports, action and wildlife. The full frame has an advantage in low light but the crop sensor has an advantage in angle of view for wildlife. 

Not sure why you thought telephoto lenses can't be used on crop sensor cameras. Telephoto has nothing to do with compatibility. In my opinion I think the work better on crop sensor cameras since they only use the sweet part (center) of the glass. 

Chase Audate wrote: Roll out the newbie jokes!  I just signed up here.  

Moderators, I'm not sure where to post this question, so if this isn't the right place, feel free to move it.  I got started in photography a few years ago.  I have a Nikon D7500 right now and have been spending time working on pano's.  I'm not great, but I've learned a lot.  

I read a few boards and see many of you talking about your full frame cameras, and this got me thinking should I make the jump to full frame.  Honestly the D7500 works just fine for me.  No issues, however being new compared to many of you, I know there is plenty I don't know.  So if full frame will unknowing to me, unlock new opportunities, I would want to know.  

When did you move to full frame?  

I will say this and not trying to be a smart azz. If you don't know what your missing by having a full frame for the type of images you make, then you don't need one. If you need full frame you will know why your camera is failing you and your requirements. 

Shadowfixer1 wrote: I will say this and not trying to be a smart azz. If you don't know what your missing by having a full frame for the type of images you make, then you don't need one. If you need full frame you will know why your camera is failing you and your requirements. 

Actually, this.

Shadowfixer1 wrote:

Troponin wrote: Don't forget that full frame has different phase detection arrangement/points, which affect AF performance as well as light capabilities. 

Full size sensors are really good for wildlife (Can't use a crop with telephotos, I don't think), fast moving subjects, and macro.  If I were going in to portrait, I would have went with the 24mp. With Sony, the A7III actually has slightly better low light/ISO performance than the A7rIII. It's not much, but I have noticed it. It's a result of the above, if I remember correctly. I use a flash for most of my macro, so no big deal. AF performance was my top priority in relation to mirrorless, and the a9 is just too far out of reach for my wallet. 

Actually many wildlife photographers prefer crop sensor cameras for sports, action and wildlife. The full frame has an advantage in low light but the crop sensor has an advantage in angle of view for wildlife. 

Not sure why you thought telephoto lenses can't be used on crop sensor cameras. Telephoto has nothing to do with compatibility. In my opinion I think the work better on crop sensor cameras since they only use the sweet part (center) of the glass. 

I tried to edit my post, but it was timed out. I meant full frame telephoto lenses are out with a crop sensor, but then it might not have been relevant. 

Troponin wrote:

Shadowfixer1 wrote:

Troponin wrote: Don't forget that full frame has different phase detection arrangement/points, which affect AF performance as well as light capabilities. 

Full size sensors are really good for wildlife (Can't use a crop with telephotos, I don't think), fast moving subjects, and macro.  If I were going in to portrait, I would have went with the 24mp. With Sony, the A7III actually has slightly better low light/ISO performance than the A7rIII. It's not much, but I have noticed it. It's a result of the above, if I remember correctly. I use a flash for most of my macro, so no big deal. AF performance was my top priority in relation to mirrorless, and the a9 is just too far out of reach for my wallet. 

Actually many wildlife photographers prefer crop sensor cameras for sports, action and wildlife. The full frame has an advantage in low light but the crop sensor has an advantage in angle of view for wildlife. 

Not sure why you thought telephoto lenses can't be used on crop sensor cameras. Telephoto has nothing to do with compatibility. In my opinion I think the work better on crop sensor cameras since they only use the sweet part (center) of the glass. 

I tried to edit my post, but it was timed out. I meant full frame telephoto lenses are out with a crop sensor, but then it might not have been relevant. 

I'm not sure what you are trying to say but if you are saying crop sensor cameras can't use full frame telephoto lenses, that is completely wrong. I used to use a Nikon full frame 80-400 lens on my m43 camera. The size of the sensor doesn't matter as long as it is the same or a smaller format than the lens is made for. The issue is when trying to use crop lenses on larger formats. I may be misunderstanding what you are saying and if I am I apologize.

I basically misspoke and tried to delete/edit the post when I realized I had. The edit option times out, unfortunately.