Is it worth moving to Full Frame? Locked

Started 8 months ago | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
HumanTarget Senior Member • Posts: 1,738
Re: Is it worth moving to Full Frame?

Dochorahan wrote:

Hello. I am hobbyist/enthusiast. I have a D7500 with a variety lenses (AFP FX 70-300 4.5-5.6, 35 1.8, AFP 18-55). It has been reliable, producing great images, and it feels great in the hand. Almost perfect. The reason I like DX is for the reach for sports/wildlife/planes. However, as time goes on I find myself just taking more landscape/pets/architectural photography and needing less reach, and more low light capability.

Syndrome of, grass is greener on the other side? Sony A7III is what has been on my mind for the last few months. I've actually listed my D7500 for sale several times but always take it down because it feels so familiar in my hands and I actually quite like it, almost perfect for me. The Sony A7III with it's full frame sensor low light capabilities, IBIS, better video, smaller form factor, popularity, and interestingly complex menu system is alluring to me. The one thing that is keeping me from going over to it is mainly reach and lens selection. Going FF with the A7III I will not have the reach for sports/wildlife, and the Sony lenses in the budget category are not as good as the Nikon DX lenses. Take the Sony FE 50mm 1.8, great price but it has a slower and noisier AF motor than even my $60 Nikon AFP 18-55. Honestly, it's difficult to even find FF lenses for the A7III under $400.

Should I stick to my D7500 and lenses? Or go for the Sony A7III. Is the price difference worth the image quality/experience improvement?

One thing that you should be aware of is that "reach" is a combination of focal length and pixel size, with sensor size not playing a direct part; a smaller sensor has no inherent reach advantage other than tending to have smaller pixels. For instance, your D7500 has the reach of a 47MP full-frame camera, so the 45.7MP Nikon Z7 would give nearly the same reach, despite being full frame. Of course, lenses matter, too. A budget DX lens could potentially give better resolution than a budget full frame lens that's being cropped to give the same "reach." And be lighter and cheaper, to boot.
Another thing is that full frame's low light advantage comes at the expense of depth of field. So if you're doing low-light landscape or architectural shots, full frame is not going to help any unless you're okay with a shallower depth of field than you're already getting. On the other hand, full frame can provide more dynamic range in a shot with good light (which is generally less of an issue nowadays anyhow).
A tripod might be a better route to go. Or a wide-aperture lens with good image stabilization.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Bob
Bob
Bob
Bob
Bob
Bob
Bob
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow