New camera. Go full frame?

I’m looking to update my camera/gear. I have a d80 with a 18-135 and a 70-300 lens, and a Sony a5000.

I’m looking at the z50, z5, or a used z6. Other brands are a possibility, but I already have some Nikon gear. I’m leaning on going full frame for low light performance, better dynamic range, etc.

My question is will ff give me more versatility in post processing? I shoot raw and love to push things in editing. I’m not sure how much difference the jump to ff would make if any.

Any thoughts on this or camera suggestions are appreciated. Thanks.

bluekat wrote:

I’m looking to update my camera/gear. I have a d80 with a 18-135 and a 70-300 lens, and a Sony a5000.

I’m looking at the z50, z5, or a used z6. Other brands are a possibility, but I already have some Nikon gear. I’m leaning on going full frame for low light performance, better dynamic range, etc.

What is your budget? If you want to go FF route, I would probably buy Z5 with 24-200mm. In this case it's a question if keep 70-300 (which version you have?). Other gear is for sell.

My question is will ff give me more versatility in post processing? I shoot raw and love to push things in editing. I’m not sure how much difference the jump to ff would make if any.

You can see difference in both going to new sensor technology and going to fullframe. You can check dynamic range of various cameras here:

https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

It affect also mentioned versatily in PP.

Any thoughts on this or camera suggestions are appreciated. Thanks.

bluekat wrote:

My question is will ff give me more versatility in post processing? I shoot raw and love to push things in editing. I’m not sure how much difference the jump to ff would make if any.

Quite honestly, any current model will give you more processing room than what you currently shoot with, as sensors saw a lot of development progress in recent years.  The Z5/6, with one of the best sensors in the market when it comes to dynamic range, will give you  A LOT more wiggling room there.

The question is what you shoot and what kind of ISOs you need? The Z bodies are very good for landscape shooting where you usually use base ISO, but so are many other models that do not necessarily have to be full frame.  Where the qualities of a good FF sensor really come to shine IMO is when higher ISOs are needed, say when street shooting in dim light, taking pics during the blue hour, or doing some astro shooting.

you will have a little more flexibility processing full frame images than APSC images. but the difference is far less than what you will be gaining going from your D80 to any modern APSC sensor.   D80 came out in 2008 and has a 10 MP CCD sensor.

bluekat wrote:

lokatz wrote:

bluekat wrote:

My question is will ff give me more versatility in post processing? I shoot raw and love to push things in editing. I’m not sure how much difference the jump to ff would make if any.

Quite honestly, any current model will give you more processing room than what you currently shoot with, as sensors saw a lot of development progress in recent years. The Z5/6, with one of the best sensors in the market when it comes to dynamic range, will give you A LOT more wiggling room there.

The question is what you shoot and what kind of ISOs you need? The Z bodies are very good for landscape shooting where you usually use base ISO, but so are many other models that do not necessarily have to be full frame. Where the qualities of a good FF sensor really come to shine IMO is when higher ISOs are needed, say when street shooting in dim light, taking pics during the blue hour, or doing some astro shooting.

I've always been reluctant to use higher iso. Showing my age, I think this comes from my old film days. I've been experimenting a bit more with this. My hikes are often in forest settings in the cloudy Pacific Northwest. I struggle to get sufficient shutter speeds often. (At least I think this is the reason for some of my blurry images.) I do a lot of sunset pics and if I'm not to lazy to get up in the morning, sunrises too. I've dabbled with astrophotography. I now live in a low-light rural setting and have done one attempt at shooting the Milky Way. This is something I hope to do more of.

Right now I just dabble in a bit of everything. But I think my love is nature/landscapes and architecture.

That bigger sensor might give you a stop. Not that much. And you've been using pretty slow lenses. A faster lens might improve things more than the sensor. And IBIS. And using the tripod. And good denoise software. And stacking. It's sort of a complete package if you want noticeable improvement; the body alone won't be a miracle cure.

bluekat wrote:

lokatz wrote:

bluekat wrote:

My question is will ff give me more versatility in post processing? I shoot raw and love to push things in editing. I’m not sure how much difference the jump to ff would make if any.

Quite honestly, any current model will give you more processing room than what you currently shoot with, as sensors saw a lot of development progress in recent years. The Z5/6, with one of the best sensors in the market when it comes to dynamic range, will give you A LOT more wiggling room there.

The question is what you shoot and what kind of ISOs you need? The Z bodies are very good for landscape shooting where you usually use base ISO, but so are many other models that do not necessarily have to be full frame. Where the qualities of a good FF sensor really come to shine IMO is when higher ISOs are needed, say when street shooting in dim light, taking pics during the blue hour, or doing some astro shooting.

I've always been reluctant to use higher iso. Showing my age, I think this comes from my old film days. I've been experimenting a bit more with this. My hikes are often in forest settings in the cloudy Pacific Northwest. I struggle to get sufficient shutter speeds often. (At least I think this is the reason for some of my blurry images.) I do a lot of sunset pics and if I'm not to lazy to get up in the morning, sunrises too. I've dabbled with astrophotography. I now live in a low-light rural setting and have done one attempt at shooting the Milky Way. This is something I hope to do more of.

Right now I just dabble in a bit of everything. But I think my love is nature/landscapes and architecture.

Well, in that case, I encourage you to think beyond the body itself: your AF-P 70-300 is an ok lens, at least with shorter FLs, but no more than that.

What really sets the Z series apart, in spite of the sensors' low-light performance, is the extraordinary quality of the lenses, which even includes the "kit lenses". If you expect to upgrade lenses, you're going to love taking the Z route.  If you plan on hanging on to your old lens(es), you'll still have the extra post processing wiggling room, but sharpness and overall IQ still won't be what you may be aspiring to.

Long story short: I would go with a Z50, maybe even a decent Nikon DSLR (the D750 is a strong low-light performer that won't break the bank) if you don't plan to add newer lenses.  Otherwise, Z6 is the best answer you'll get.

(I own Nikon, Canon and Sony cameras and am waiting for an Olympus/OMDS one to arrive, so not much of a brand bias here...)

robgendreau wrote:

That bigger sensor might give you a stop. Not that much. And you've been using pretty slow lenses. A faster lens might improve things more than the sensor. And IBIS. And using the tripod. And good denoise software. And stacking. It's sort of a complete package if you want noticeable improvement; the body alone won't be a miracle cure.

No offense intended, but that's just nonsense, and bad advice as such.

Look at this photonstophotos comparison : it is more like three to four stops of light, which is a huge difference. A faster lens will hardly make as much of a difference.

bluekat wrote:

OpticsEngineer wrote:

you will have a little more flexibility processing full frame images than APSC images. but the difference is far less than what you will be gaining going from your D80 to any modern APSC sensor. D80 came out in 2008 and has a 10 MP CCD sensor.

Thanks, yes. The D80 will only take so much processing it seems, and not much room for cropping if needed. I think my iPhone even does better on that score.

Given your stated use case / needs for wildlife and landscape photography in North America's north western forests... Give serious consideration to the extremely rugged 26mp Pentax K-3iii, which is exceptionally good at higher iso values.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66114827

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66128616

bluekat wrote:

My thoughts with the 70-300 was I could use it for now, but replace it later, perhaps something with a little more reach. That was the main advantage I see. I am fond of Nikon, but I am open to other systems as well. DLSR is an option too, but I lean towards mirrorless. A little less weight, and the EVF is a little better for my old eyes.

Agree completely on the advantages of ML. I wouldn't go back to DSLRs myself. All I was trying to do is illustrate that it is more than a body decision if you want to take full advantage of the change.

'Open to other systems' makes perfect sense to me. For my bird shooting, I've left Nikon because they do not (not yet?) have what I want. Yet, for the kind of shooting you describe, I would take the Nikon route unless you want to go MUCH smaller, where M43 becomes the most attractive option (at the price of a little less dynamic range, though still better than what you have today).

Canon and Sony also offer good choices, but their bodies are pricier and I don't see much you would have to gain, if anything. On top of that, the Nikon Z bodies are definitely at or near the top IQ-wise. Their weakness is AF with fast-moving subjects.

Personally, I would not switch to Pentax, as I see them as the next brand to go the way of the Dodo. They aren't even close to keeping pace with the other major brands. The brand first went to Hoya in 2007, then to Ricoh a few years later, and neither seems to have much of an idea about what to do with it. It largely appears as an afterthought to Pentax' more important medical imaging business. But we all have different perspectives.

bluekat wrote:

lokatz wrote:

bluekat wrote:

lokatz wrote:

bluekat wrote:

My question is will ff give me more versatility in post processing? I shoot raw and love to push things in editing. I’m not sure how much difference the jump to ff would make if any.

Quite honestly, any current model will give you more processing room than what you currently shoot with, as sensors saw a lot of development progress in recent years. The Z5/6, with one of the best sensors in the market when it comes to dynamic range, will give you A LOT more wiggling room there.

The question is what you shoot and what kind of ISOs you need? The Z bodies are very good for landscape shooting where you usually use base ISO, but so are many other models that do not necessarily have to be full frame. Where the qualities of a good FF sensor really come to shine IMO is when higher ISOs are needed, say when street shooting in dim light, taking pics during the blue hour, or doing some astro shooting.

I've always been reluctant to use higher iso. Showing my age, I think this comes from my old film days. I've been experimenting a bit more with this. My hikes are often in forest settings in the cloudy Pacific Northwest. I struggle to get sufficient shutter speeds often. (At least I think this is the reason for some of my blurry images.) I do a lot of sunset pics and if I'm not to lazy to get up in the morning, sunrises too. I've dabbled with astrophotography. I now live in a low-light rural setting and have done one attempt at shooting the Milky Way. This is something I hope to do more of.

Right now I just dabble in a bit of everything. But I think my love is nature/landscapes and architecture.

Well, in that case, I encourage you to think beyond the body itself: your AF-P 70-300 is an ok lens, at least with shorter FLs, but no more than that.

What really sets the Z series apart, in spite of the sensors' low-light performance, is the extraordinary quality of the lenses, which even includes the "kit lenses". If you expect to upgrade lenses, you're going to love taking the Z route. If you plan on hanging on to your old lens(es), you'll still have the extra post processing wiggling room, but sharpness and overall IQ still won't be what you may be aspiring to.

Long story short: I would go with a Z50, maybe even a decent Nikon DSLR (the D750 is a strong low-light performer that won't break the bank) if you don't plan to add newer lenses. Otherwise, Z6 is the best answer you'll get.

(I own Nikon, Canon and Sony cameras and am waiting for an Olympus/OMDS one to arrive, so not much of a brand bias here...)

My thoughts with the 70-300 was I could use it for now, but replace it later, perhaps something with a little more reach. That was the main advantage I see. I am fond of Nikon, but I am open to other systems as well. DLSR is an option too, but I lean towards mirrorless. A little less weight, and the EVF is a little better for my old eyes.

My opinion to sell also 70-300 was based on necessity to buy adapter for it. If you would decide to buy a combo Z5/Z6 with 24-200, with 24Mpx sensor, you can crop to 300mm without issue anyway. Maybe better to buy 100-400mm in the future instead.

bluekat wrote:

I’m looking to update my camera/gear. I have a d80 with a 18-135 and a 70-300 lens, and a Sony a5000.

I’m looking at the z50, z5, or a used z6. Other brands are a possibility, but I already have some Nikon gear. I’m leaning on going full frame for low light performance, better dynamic range, etc.

My question is will ff give me more versatility in post processing? I shoot raw and love to push things in editing. I’m not sure how much difference the jump to ff would make if any.

Any thoughts on this or camera suggestions are appreciated. Thanks.

A camera is a combination of body + lens. If you're looking for better IQ, you'd do well to evaluate possible changes to both elements. When shooting in low light, you'll get better detail and dynamic range, and less noise, by using brighter lenses. I wouldn't expect a dramatic improvement in DR simply by moving from APS to 35mm format.

Jacques Cornell wrote:

bluekat wrote:

I’m looking to update my camera/gear. I have a d80 with a 18-135 and a 70-300 lens, and a Sony a5000.

I’m looking at the z50, z5, or a used z6. Other brands are a possibility, but I already have some Nikon gear. I’m leaning on going full frame for low light performance, better dynamic range, etc.

My question is will ff give me more versatility in post processing? I shoot raw and love to push things in editing. I’m not sure how much difference the jump to ff would make if any.

Any thoughts on this or camera suggestions are appreciated. Thanks.

A camera is a combination of body + lens. If you're looking for better IQ, you'd do well to evaluate possible changes to both elements. When shooting in low light, you'll get better detail and dynamic range, and less noise, by using brighter lenses. I wouldn't expect a dramatic improvement in DR simply by moving from APS to 35mm format.

In his case the dynamic range improvement will be dramatic, mainly because he have old sensor, see below. More than 3 stops is significant. Noise reduction is similar story. Nothing against bright lenses though

Martin_99 wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

bluekat wrote:

I’m looking to update my camera/gear. I have a d80 with a 18-135 and a 70-300 lens, and a Sony a5000.

I’m looking at the z50, z5, or a used z6. Other brands are a possibility, but I already have some Nikon gear. I’m leaning on going full frame for low light performance, better dynamic range, etc.

My question is will ff give me more versatility in post processing? I shoot raw and love to push things in editing. I’m not sure how much difference the jump to ff would make if any.

Any thoughts on this or camera suggestions are appreciated. Thanks.

A camera is a combination of body + lens. If you're looking for better IQ, you'd do well to evaluate possible changes to both elements. When shooting in low light, you'll get better detail and dynamic range, and less noise, by using brighter lenses. I wouldn't expect a dramatic improvement in DR simply by moving from APS to 35mm format.

In his case the dynamic range improvement will bedramatic, mainly because he have old sensor, see below. More than 3 stops is significant. Noise reduction is similar story. Nothing against bright lenses though

Wow, I didn't realize the D80 was that far behind on DR.

Full frame will give you hands on experiences you have not had yet as a photographer.

Full frame will let you push to the side all the "why you need it, why you don't need it" opinions and conversations.

Full frame will let you answer the questions you have from the perspective on how you use your cameras, not how others use their cameras.

Full frame will put you on a journey on how to leverage the benefit of full frame and see first hand if those benefits are ultimately of value to you the photographer.

Full frame will let you cross over the line from being led by the opinions of others about the value of full frame to the side where you become authoritative about the impact of full frame on your photography mission.

AstroVagabond wrote:

Full frame will give you hands on experiences you have not had yet as a photographer.

Full frame will let you push to the side all the "why you need it, why you don't need it" opinions and conversations.

Full frame will let you answer the questions you have from the perspective on how you use your cameras, not how others use their cameras.

Full frame will put you on a journey on how to leverage the benefit of full frame and see first hand if those benefits are ultimately of value to you the photographer.

Full frame will let you cross over the line from being led by the opinions of others about the value of full frame to the side where you become authoritative about the impact of full frame on your photography mission.

Nice speech And that is why you own Fuji apsc