Is a full frame really worth it?

Since I got my Nikon D7000 camera 6 years ago I’ve used it almost everyday. That is a lot of shutter clicks, 148,558 to be exact. So it looks like I will be in the market for a new camera soon as the D7000 is only factory tested to 150,000 clicks. My dilemma is should I go full frame, or stick with my cropped frame. I keep asking myself, is a full frame camera really worth it?

The investment in glass is steep. Only you can decide whether or not it is worth it to you.
I'd do a Google search and find some pros and cons and weigh them.

Personally going FF to my 6D was an amazing leap for my skill set but that being said I shoot with my 7D2 quite a bit.

Hrm,

Are you asking this question? Or are you just sharing your blog?

Based on looking at your blog article, I think you answered your own question. And to me, it looks like the answer is no, full frame is not really doing anything better for what you're doing, other than the slightly different angle of view.

Very best,

Shutter life is a statistic, like MTBF ratings on harddrives. You could possibly be able to get 250000 shutter clicks out of the shutter, if not 1 Million

Not the D7000, but a Nikon of the same family
https://olegkikin.com/​shutterlife/nikon_d500​0.htm
https://olegkikin.com/​shutterlife/nikon_d300​0.htm


'Worth it' is relative...if you almost never go beyond 13 x 19" enlargements, you might not see a real difference between same-generation DX vs. FX size body.

https://www.dpreview.c​om …-myth-of-the-upgrade-path

http://www.outdoorphot​oacademy.com/is-full-frame-worth-it/

https://www.digitalpho​tomentor.com …e-full-frame-camera-body/

https://www.slrlounge.​com …op-vs-full-frame-cameras/

I really wondered about the shutter life. There are some other things with it that make it look quite used. Rubber is coming off at points, the wheel is getting harder to turn, that kind of stuff. But I expect it will keep on kicking on for a while. The thing is though, I can't quite afford to have it pack out on a shoot. I think it will make a great backup camera in my kit.

I use canon and to be honest I could pick up either my full frame or crop and both will do the job. The full frame just excels for landscape and shallow DOF photos, but the crop is way more versatile, I only use full frame lenses on it and a Tamron. I pick the crop camera over the full frame way more these days. At least I know if one has an issue the other will do fine

For me the most advantage full fram is when I shoot iso 6400 and above, otherwise crop doing fine specially with Tele lens when you need mor reach. So in the end it depends what the most you use camera for or just pick up both like me and be done.

I use a FF (Canon 6D) for a few years now, and the biggest difference for me is the wide angle (less than 16mm) as well as the MUCH better low ISO performance.
If you don't shoot at high ISO, don't need to go very wide and use tele most of the time, don't need the shallower DOG of open aperture lenses - stick with crop.

FF - big lens investment, much bigger lens investment than the body itself.
If you go FF and have the budget to go big - go for the 810 because of DR, shutter life, etc.

If you are shooting middling focal lengths, middling apertures, and middling light levels then there isn't going to be much difference between Nikon's FX and DX formats.

Here are the things that would make a 35mm format dSLR a good choice:

1) Shooting wide and fast, like 24mm and f/1.4 on FF. In general there are no very wide and very fast lens options for DX.
2) If you really need shallow DOF for whatever you are shooting.
3) Very low light, as a larger sensor from any given generation of cameras will be about 1 stop better.

One other thing that draws me to using a 35mm format (in my case Canon EOS) is how the lenses match up on the wide end. I like to use a 24-70/2.8 zoom. Both Canon and Nikon have somewhat similar options for the sub-frame cameras, but they tend to be 17-XX zooms which are not quite as wide, and f/2.8 on the smaller format is not the same for either low light or DOF. I also find a 70-200/2.8 to be great on 35mm format, but too long for what I want to shoot on the sub-frame formats.

It's a decision that one must make for oneself after fully answering the question: "Is it really needed?". For me, it would be if I wanted to make a major commitment to landscape photography, portraiture in narrow confines, or billboard photos that you could walk up to and make out a blade of grass. Although if I wanted to do the last one, a Phase I or Hasselblad would be a better choice. The wrong questions, of course, are "Is it time to go the the next level?" Or "How to become a better photographer." That first is naive. The second is best answered by the obvious: become a better photographer through study and experience.

JeffreyG wrote in post #18069431
If you are shooting middling focal lengths, middling apertures, and middling light levels then there isn't going to be much difference between Nikon's FX and DX formats.

Here are the things that would make a 35mm format dSLR a good choice:

1) Shooting wide and fast, like 24mm and f/1.4 on FF. In general there are no very wide and very fast lens options for DX.
2) If you really need shallow DOF for whatever you are shooting.
3) Very low light, as a larger sensor from any given generation of cameras will be about 1 stop better.

One other thing that draws me to using a 35mm format (in my case Canon EOS) is how the lenses match up on the wide end. I like to use a 24-70/2.8 zoom. Both Canon and Nikon have somewhat similar options for the sub-frame cameras, but they tend to be 17-XX zooms which are not quite as wide, and f/2.8 on the smaller format is not the same for either low light or DOF. I also find a 70-200/2.8 to be great on 35mm format, but too long for what I want to shoot on the sub-frame formats.

I generally agree, but I will voice that factor #2 may be disproportionately blown up in magnitude as an issue. For example, if shooting with FL proportional to the format size, for same AOV from same camera position...

Example: Shooting to frame 0.9m x 0.6m area, from 4.2m

FF with 160mm f/4.5 image has DOF zone of 6.4cm deep
APS-C with 100mm f/2.8 image has DOF zone of 6.4cm deep

and the degree of background blur is the same too (this graph shown with160mm f/4.4 simply to visually separate the two curves)

The easy answer is: YES.

EDIT:
After reading the thread, I feel the need to elaborate. What follows is my experience, and will not necessarily be yours. I started shooting Canon/digital in 2009 with a Rebel and EF-s glass. Coming from film/manual, I found AF to be quite amazing. After a few weeks/months, I found AF to be quite amazingly slow. The 18-55 II and 55-250 II are not built for shooting action. I bought a 15-85. Quite nice. That lead to wanting a faster aperture lens, and the 35 IS. One thing lead to another, and I found myself wanting more DOF control. Enter the 5Dc. That was a real AHA! moment. I have more control over the results with full frame (much like my film days) than with apsc. Over the course of a year or so, I sold off my ef-s glass, replacing it with EF. Most of it was consumer primes like the 28 1.8. Some was what I consider high-end glass like the 135L and 70-200 f/4L IS. The quality of available EF glass exceeds that of ef-s glass, in most cases. The kicker for me was that I could use EF glass on apsc bodies, but not the other way around. No more ef-s glass.

Some comparisons, if you please. I used a 60D/10-22 combination and was super happy with it. When selling off the apsc/efs stuff, I replaced the 60D with a 6D, and the 10-22 with a 17-40. That was my first foray into the world of 'the general opinions of Canon users just make no sense'. The 10-22 is widely lauded as an excellent lens. It is. The 17-40 is widely panned as mediocre. In my experience, the 6D/17-40 combo is way better than the 60D/10-22. Go figure.

One more. The 18-135 is widely regarded as above average. The 28-135 is widely regarded as crap. The 60D/18-135 setup is pushed to the curb by the 6D/28-135 setup. And yes, the 28-135 is crap. The 24-105L is better, my 24-105 STM is even better.

Glass like the 135L and 70-200 f/4L IS are in a completely different league than any efs glass available. Even lowly consumer primes like the 85 1.8 have no efs equivalent. If you are going to the expense (I did) of buying top quality EF lenses, why mount them on an apsc camera that gives you higher pixel density, higher noise levels, and less control over DOF? After spending about $10,000 on better lenses, it would make no sense at all to NOT upgrade my $800 60D to a $1400 6D. Spending $600 to upgrade my camera seems almost insignificant after spending large on glass.

That said, my 6D is seriously inadequate for sports/action shooting. I tried doing that with 70D, and was not happy with the results. Enter in quick succession (a few months) a 1D, 1D2, 1D3, and now 1D4. I am happy with both the 6D and 1D4. I just wish I could do it all with 1 camera, or at least two with similar controls. Currently pondering a used 1DX. Maybe next year.

One could get outstanding images with either.

MalVeauX wrote in post #18067827
Are you asking this question? Or are you just sharing your blog?

Based on looking at your blog article, I think you answered your own question. And to me, it looks like the answer is no, full frame is not really doing anything better for what you're doing, other than the slightly different angle of view.

+1 - Additionally, there is no reason to expect your camera to fall apart after 150000 clicks. If you are happy with your camera you should use it as long as possible, as the cameras will get better and better.