Trade my Canon 6dii for Canon M6ii?

nolten wrote:

ken_in_nh wrote:

BonnieSueM wrote:

Thanks! I think you're totally right that the FF frame quality can't be beat. I just find myself leaving it behind more and more. In the past year, I actually took more photos with the 18-150 than the 24-105 and more with the 11-22 than the 16-35. Which surprised me. While I gave the RP a hard look, the shutter speed doesn't excite me and I would still end up leaving the 16-35 behind because of weight. For me, I think it's time to move on.

What FF quality? You mean wall sized posters? You mean razor thin DOF? You mean shooting by moonlight? If you want that, why not go all the way and buy medium format? For the same reason some of us accept fictitious compromises and buy crop sensor: size, weight and cost.

How many non-pro FF shooters really take advantage of anything unique about their FF compared to a flagship APS-C camera?

I get it. FF frame look "professional". My tiny crop sensor camera doesn't. Is it worth the size, weight and cost penalty?

This is basic and you probably already know this, but full frame cameras have two advantages: they have larger sensors that collect more light and given the same generation of electronics will have better ultimate dynamic range and lower ISO noise. And 2nd, they take full advantage of L quality lenses which as a generalization out perform EF-S and M mount lenses.

I have the camera bodies listed below and I can still see an IQ advantage between my FF and APS-C kits. Having said that, the difference has been getting less detectable with each camera generation. On a Serengeti trip two years back I was using my 80D + 100-400 with G1X3 as backup and my wife was using the 5D4 with original 24-105L. We ended up with some pretty identical shots on the 5D and G. After post processing the raws in Lightroom it is extremely difficult to tell the difference between images displayed on my 27" 5K Retina display. Our granddaughter accompanied us on that trip as a graduation present. She used an SL1 with 55-250 STM and brought home excellent images. I'm sure if I did the trip again with just my G and M6II and 100-400 or 70-300 I'd be very happy with the results.

And that's my point.  At what cost, in weight, size and money do shooters go to with FF to get shots that are at best, marginally better?  For pros, I can see it.  For the rest of us?  Unless, as I said, you want "the look".