Continuing with Crop Sensor vs Moving to Full frame

[Yuvaraj_R]

Hi All,

I believe this question would one of the most asked but even after thinking for over a month now I am not able to come to conclusion.I currently own a Crop sensor Nikon DSLR (D100) and looking to purchase the next one .

I am an amateur Photographer and mostly covering Landscapes on travel but my interest is Not limited to only landscapes but exploring more.My Initial Idea was to go with Nikon D7500 as it made sense as I can use my 18-270 Lens with the D7500 but with the last month Introduction of Sony A 7 III has really got into thinking of getting that with all new 693 focus points and a nice Full frame for that Price range.

but if I need to Invest on A 7 III - I need an atleast 2600 USD ( even with Kit Lens) and a Prime lens which even would not satisfy my need for a Decent zoom. so I may have to raise the bar to atleast 3000 USD even if I buy a 18-135 Crop Lens from sony ($500) . but so far reviews from Sony are very promising.

On the Other hand if I buy a Nikon D7500 with a Prime Lens ( 35MM) and I already have a 18-270 from Tamron which totally costs only 1500 USD and also gives me more options to buy lens in the future without having to break the bank.

so I am confused between whether to go with Option A (Sony A 7 III) or Option B (D7500), I am not worried much about money (though it might break my Bank with Sony) as I am worried if I choose to go with either one I cannot consider for any upgrade in the next 5 years atleast.

what do you suggest for a person like me who is not a professional one but really having interests in exploring . Going with D7500 and allowing more options for Lenses or going with Sony A 7 III with a Kit and Prime lens and wait for other makers to release a less costly sony Mirrorless lens in the near future.

Thanks!

Yuvaraj R

 

[Leonard Migliore]

It depends on how much money you want to throw at your hobby. A new crop sensor camera such as the D7500 is a massive improvement on your D100 in every way except for not being able to use AI lenses (I didn't see where you had any, anyway).

A full-frame camera such as the Sony A7 will be better than the D7500 but not, I would say, by very much. And the full-frame lenses are much more expensive than DX lenses. So you would be in for a significantly greater expense for a marginally better result.

I would only go with full-frame if you have $3000 in disposable cash. Full-frame lenses are always going to cost more than DX lenses if only to maintain the difference in category.

 

[Yuvaraj_R]

It depends on how much money you want to throw at your hobby. A new crop sensor camera such as the D7500 is a massive improvement on your D100 in every way except for not being able to use AI lenses (I didn't see where you had any, anyway).

A full-frame camera such as the Sony A7 will be better than the D7500 but not, I would say, by very much. And the full-frame lenses are much more expensive than DX lenses. So you would be in for a significantly greater expense for a marginally better result.

I would only go with full-frame if you have $3000 in disposable cash. Full-frame lenses are always going to cost more than DX lenses if only to maintain the difference in category.

 

[beatboxa]

Hi All,

I believe this question would one of the most asked but even after thinking for over a month now I am not able to come to conclusion.I currently own a Crop sensor Nikon DSLR (D100) and looking to purchase the next one .

I am an amateur Photographer and mostly covering Landscapes on travel but my interest is Not limited to only landscapes but exploring more.My Initial Idea was to go with Nikon D7500 as it made sense as I can use my 18-270 Lens with the D7500 but with the last month Introduction of Sony A 7 III has really got into thinking of getting that with all new 693 focus points and a nice Full frame for that Price range.

but if I need to Invest on A 7 III - I need an atleast 2600 USD ( even with Kit Lens) and a Prime lens which even would not satisfy my need for a Decent zoom. so I may have to raise the bar to atleast 3000 USD even if I buy a 18-135 Crop Lens from sony ($500) . but so far reviews from Sony are very promising.

On the Other hand if I buy a Nikon D7500 with a Prime Lens ( 35MM) and I already have a 18-270 from Tamron which totally costs only 1500 USD and also gives me more options to buy lens in the future without having to break the bank.

so I am confused between whether to go with Option A (Sony A 7 III) or Option B (D7500), I am not worried much about money (though it might break my Bank with Sony) as I am worried if I choose to go with either one I cannot consider for any upgrade in the next 5 years atleast.

what do you suggest for a person like me who is not a professional one but really having interests in exploring . Going with D7500 and allowing more options for Lenses or going with Sony A 7 III with a Kit and Prime lens and wait for other makers to release a less costly sony Mirrorless lens in the near future.

Thanks!

Yuvaraj R

There are other options as well: For example, used/refurb Nikon D610 or D750. Both full-frame cameras which you should be able to get for under $1500.

Both will be able to use your 18-270 lens--though in crop mode or possibly with some vignetting in corners. Even in crop-mode, these cameras will be a significant upgrade over your D100. But the D7500 will offer more reach than these full frame cameras if that's important to you.

You will also have the option of many used lenses, some of which cheap but good performers.

Just an additional option, not a suggestion.

Depending on what & when you want to explore, either the Sony or the Nikons will be fine and will be a significant upgrade over your D100. The Sony is probably the most capable camera, but it will cost more and has fewer inexpensive lens options. The Nikon is cheaper with better lens options now. Speculating into the future, I think either will have great options years in the future when you want to upgrade again or expand your lens arsenal.

 

[Lu1Wang]

What I would ask myself is, how good is good enough? FF game is very, very expensive to play. Despite how amazing a7iii is, higher end FE lenses are prohibitively expensive. Nikon is less so, but still will cost you a fortune. With the price of getting an entry level FF camera, you could live like a king in crop world! Not only you can get top of the line bodies, you still have spare for some quality glass.

The biggest problem with APS-C format is, the big three - Canon, Nikon and Sony, treat their APS-C lineup simply as gateway to their FF systems. They do not invest enough resources into developing the lens lineup for their APS-C. The only manufacture that is fully commit into APS-C is Fuji ATM. That's one of the major reason I chose M4/3.

 

[Michael Fryd]

The two main advantages of full frame are:

1. It’s easier to get a wider aperture diameter for any particular angle of view
2. Full frame cameras tend to be bundled with more high end features

If you don’t need the wider apertures (and corresponding shallower DoF) then the first advantage isn’t an issue for you.

Keep in mind the full frame “low light advantage” is just another way of saying that you can get shallower depth of field. At the same depth of field, the full frame and the crop body offer similar noise.

If your crop body has all the featured you need, then you don’t need to step up to the higher end full frame cameras.

There is also a third reason - bragging rights. When I am marketing to a potential customer, I make a point of mentioning that I can deliver 50 megapixel images taken on a full frame camera. While I usually don’t need a that for the job, the client is happier as they are getting a better product.

 

[Camley]

What I would ask myself is, how good is good enough? FF game is very, very expensive to play. Despite how amazing a7iii is, higher end FE lenses are prohibitively expensive. Nikon is less so, but still will cost you a fortune. With the price of getting an entry level FF camera, you could live like a king in crop world! Not only you can get top of the line bodies, you still have spare for some quality glass.

The biggest problem with APS-C format is, the big three - Canon, Nikon and Sony, treat their APS-C lineup simply as gateway to their FF systems. They do not invest enough resources into developing the lens lineup for their APS-C. The only manufacture that is fully commit into APS-C is Fuji ATM. That's one of the major reason I chose M4/3.

I have an APS-C Canon DSLR and most of my lenses are FF. I see this as an advantage for the Canon/Nikon and Sony APS-C/FF approach. I can switch to FF by just buying a body or I can choose to remain with APS-C. In other words I am not "locked in" to one format.

I purchased a FF mirrorless and use my Canon FF lenses with an adapter plus some native lenses. There is now a Nikon adapter with AF.

The cost of the top end FE lenses is high but they provide great IQ particularly with the 42MP sensor. In any case, there are cheaper ones available including third party lenses so you don't have to break the bank. http://briansmith.com/sony-a7-a7r-a7s-lens-guide/

 

[Yuvaraj_R]

What I would ask myself is, how good is good enough? FF game is very, very expensive to play. Despite how amazing a7iii is, higher end FE lenses are prohibitively expensive. Nikon is less so, but still will cost you a fortune. With the price of getting an entry level FF camera, you could live like a king in crop world! Not only you can get top of the line bodies, you still have spare for some quality glass.

The biggest problem with APS-C format is, the big three - Canon, Nikon and Sony, treat their APS-C lineup simply as gateway to their FF systems. They do not invest enough resources into developing the lens lineup for their APS-C. The only manufacture that is fully commit into APS-C is Fuji ATM. That's one of the major reason I chose M4/3.

I have an APS-C Canon DSLR and most of my lenses are FF. I see this as an advantage for the Canon/Nikon and Sony APS-C/FF approach. I can switch to FF by just buying a body or I can choose to remain with APS-C. In other words I am not "locked in" to one format.

I purchased a FF mirrorless and use my Canon FF lenses with an adapter plus some native lenses. There is now a Nikon adapter with AF.

The cost of the top end FE lenses is high but they provide great IQ particularly with the 42MP sensor. In any case, there are cheaper ones available including third party lenses so you don't have to break the bank. http://briansmith.com/sony-a7-a7r-a7s-lens-guide/

Thanks all for your valueble comments..

my take away -

1) we are not losing much between a Full frame and Crop sensor

2) we can use adopters and still use the Nikon/Canon Lenses for Sony Mirrorless.

 

[PerL]

Hi All,

I believe this question would one of the most asked but even after thinking for over a month now I am not able to come to conclusion.I currently own a Crop sensor Nikon DSLR (D100) and looking to purchase the next one .

I had the D100, I bought when it came out in 2002. Why not consider the D610 or D750 if you think about FF? They are a tremendous upgrade. I dont agree that the lenses are very expensive. Nikon has a budget line of FF lenses with excellent IQ and there are the options from Sigma and Tamron as well.
But the D7500 seems like an extremely good APS-C if you want to stick with the format.

Mirrorless has an advantage for video, otherwise I think DSLRs are better.

I am an amateur Photographer and mostly covering Landscapes on travel but my interest is Not limited to only landscapes but exploring more.My Initial Idea was to go with Nikon D7500 as it made sense as I can use my 18-270 Lens with the D7500 but with the last month Introduction of Sony A 7 III has really got into thinking of getting that with all new 693 focus points and a nice Full frame for that Price range.

but if I need to Invest on A 7 III - I need an atleast 2600 USD ( even with Kit Lens) and a Prime lens which even would not satisfy my need for a Decent zoom. so I may have to raise the bar to atleast 3000 USD even if I buy a 18-135 Crop Lens from sony ($500) . but so far reviews from Sony are very promising.

On the Other hand if I buy a Nikon D7500 with a Prime Lens ( 35MM) and I already have a 18-270 from Tamron which totally costs only 1500 USD and also gives me more options to buy lens in the future without having to break the bank.

so I am confused between whether to go with Option A (Sony A 7 III) or Option B (D7500), I am not worried much about money (though it might break my Bank with Sony) as I am worried if I choose to go with either one I cannot consider for any upgrade in the next 5 years atleast.

what do you suggest for a person like me who is not a professional one but really having interests in exploring . Going with D7500 and allowing more options for Lenses or going with Sony A 7 III with a Kit and Prime lens and wait for other makers to release a less costly sony Mirrorless lens in the near future.

Thanks!

Yuvaraj R

 

[Yuvaraj_R]

Hi All,

I believe this question would one of the most asked but even after thinking for over a month now I am not able to come to conclusion.I currently own a Crop sensor Nikon DSLR (D100) and looking to purchase the next one .

I am an amateur Photographer and mostly covering Landscapes on travel but my interest is Not limited to only landscapes but exploring more.My Initial Idea was to go with Nikon D7500 as it made sense as I can use my 18-270 Lens with the D7500 but with the last month Introduction of Sony A 7 III has really got into thinking of getting that with all new 693 focus points and a nice Full frame for that Price range.

but if I need to Invest on A 7 III - I need an atleast 2600 USD ( even with Kit Lens) and a Prime lens which even would not satisfy my need for a Decent zoom. so I may have to raise the bar to atleast 3000 USD even if I buy a 18-135 Crop Lens from sony ($500) . but so far reviews from Sony are very promising.

On the Other hand if I buy a Nikon D7500 with a Prime Lens ( 35MM) and I already have a 18-270 from Tamron which totally costs only 1500 USD and also gives me more options to buy lens in the future without having to break the bank.

so I am confused between whether to go with Option A (Sony A 7 III) or Option B (D7500), I am not worried much about money (though it might break my Bank with Sony) as I am worried if I choose to go with either one I cannot consider for any upgrade in the next 5 years atleast.

what do you suggest for a person like me who is not a professional one but really having interests in exploring . Going with D7500 and allowing more options for Lenses or going with Sony A 7 III with a Kit and Prime lens and wait for other makers to release a less costly sony Mirrorless lens in the near future.

Thanks!

Yuvaraj R

sorry guys, there was a Typo, mine was D3100 not D100. apologies for the typo

 

[PerL]

Hi All,

I believe this question would one of the most asked but even after thinking for over a month now I am not able to come to conclusion.I currently own a Crop sensor Nikon DSLR (D100) and looking to purchase the next one .

I am an amateur Photographer and mostly covering Landscapes on travel but my interest is Not limited to only landscapes but exploring more.My Initial Idea was to go with Nikon D7500 as it made sense as I can use my 18-270 Lens with the D7500 but with the last month Introduction of Sony A 7 III has really got into thinking of getting that with all new 693 focus points and a nice Full frame for that Price range.

but if I need to Invest on A 7 III - I need an atleast 2600 USD ( even with Kit Lens) and a Prime lens which even would not satisfy my need for a Decent zoom. so I may have to raise the bar to atleast 3000 USD even if I buy a 18-135 Crop Lens from sony ($500) . but so far reviews from Sony are very promising.

On the Other hand if I buy a Nikon D7500 with a Prime Lens ( 35MM) and I already have a 18-270 from Tamron which totally costs only 1500 USD and also gives me more options to buy lens in the future without having to break the bank.

so I am confused between whether to go with Option A (Sony A 7 III) or Option B (D7500), I am not worried much about money (though it might break my Bank with Sony) as I am worried if I choose to go with either one I cannot consider for any upgrade in the next 5 years atleast.

what do you suggest for a person like me who is not a professional one but really having interests in exploring . Going with D7500 and allowing more options for Lenses or going with Sony A 7 III with a Kit and Prime lens and wait for other makers to release a less costly sony Mirrorless lens in the near future.

Thanks!

Yuvaraj R

sorry guys, there was a Typo, mine was D3100 not D100. apologies for the typo

Aha - that changes things a bit. Then I would keep the D3100 as a small camera for travel, etc and complement with either a D7500 or a FF D610.
I have something similar, a D3400 when I want to go light, and a D600 FF. Between these I can choose if I want convenience with a small camera or use FF for play with shallow DOF, vintage AI-lenses or just the best possible IQ. A few DX-lenses works with very little crop on FF, like the 35 1.8G, the 70-300 AF-P VR and according to reports the 10-20 AF-P.

 

[Lu1Wang]

You are only not losing if you choose to use FF lenses on your crop body, which totally negates your size and weight advantage when using it. You also lost ultra wide angle options if you choose to do so.

 

[stevo23]

It depends on how much money you want to throw at your hobby. A new crop sensor camera such as the D7500 is a massive improvement on your D100 in every way except for not being able to use AI lenses (I didn't see where you had any, anyway).

A full-frame camera such as the Sony A7 will be better than the D7500 but not, I would say, by very much. And the full-frame lenses are much more expensive than DX lenses. So you would be in for a significantly greater expense for a marginally better result.

I would only go with full-frame if you have $3000 in disposable cash. Full-frame lenses are always going to cost more than DX lenses if only to maintain the difference in category.

 

[Max Iso]

Hi All,

I believe this question would one of the most asked but even after thinking for over a month now I am not able to come to conclusion.I currently own a Crop sensor Nikon DSLR (D100) and looking to purchase the next one .

I am an amateur Photographer and mostly covering Landscapes on travel but my interest is Not limited to only landscapes but exploring more.My Initial Idea was to go with Nikon D7500 as it made sense as I can use my 18-270 Lens with the D7500 but with the last month Introduction of Sony A 7 III has really got into thinking of getting that with all new 693 focus points and a nice Full frame for that Price range.

but if I need to Invest on A 7 III - I need an atleast 2600 USD ( even with Kit Lens) and a Prime lens which even would not satisfy my need for a Decent zoom. so I may have to raise the bar to atleast 3000 USD even if I buy a 18-135 Crop Lens from sony ($500) . but so far reviews from Sony are very promising.

On the Other hand if I buy a Nikon D7500 with a Prime Lens ( 35MM) and I already have a 18-270 from Tamron which totally costs only 1500 USD and also gives me more options to buy lens in the future without having to break the bank.

so I am confused between whether to go with Option A (Sony A 7 III) or Option B (D7500), I am not worried much about money (though it might break my Bank with Sony) as I am worried if I choose to go with either one I cannot consider for any upgrade in the next 5 years atleast.

what do you suggest for a person like me who is not a professional one but really having interests in exploring . Going with D7500 and allowing more options for Lenses or going with Sony A 7 III with a Kit and Prime lens and wait for other makers to release a less costly sony Mirrorless lens in the near future.

Thanks!

Yuvaraj R

Sony E mount hasn't released a sub $999 camera since the A6000, over 4 years ago. I wouldn't expect Sony to cater to any budget consumers any time soon, and lenses are in a similar boat if you are looking for native glass. And, you mention landscapes as your main concern, which means even if the A7III had 100,000 AF points, it doesn't really help your photos.

My suggestion is the Pentax K1. It has a super high end IBIS system rated at 5 stops (you might be able to get away with some handheld landscapes if there's no other way), it's FF, it has a very high IQ 36mp sensor, and it has Pixel shift which will improve your landscape shots even more (the caveat is things can't move during the shift phase).

The K1, being a DSLR, also gives you far better battery life if you use the OVF from framing. The K1 is also a lot cheaper than the A7III, you can get the Pentax for $1700 new on Amazon, or under $1500 used, which leaves good chunk of cash for a better lens.

Finally Pentax is known for their top notch weather sealing, probably the best in the business. Pentax lacks in C-AF for action shooting, but if you are a landscape shooter, i don't think there's a better landscape camera than the K1 unless you spend WAY more.

 

[smithim]

Personally, I don't see the point in paying the extra money for a D7500. I'd much rather spend a lot less money on a D7200, which will also work with AI lenses and above - thereby giving you access to a huge array of lenses.

Alternatively, for the price of a new D7500, you could buy either a new D610 or a second hand D750.

Unless you have a fairly healthy budget for future lenses, I'd stick with DX cameras.

 

[a_c_skinner]

The quality difference between APS and full 135 frame isn't huge. It is there but really for very very big prints and higher ISOs only. Unless you need this I'd stick with APS sensors.

Your superzoom isn't a very good lens, only flattered by lower resolution sensors. Putting it on a higher res sensor will make marginally better images, but it will be a modest improvement in definition. Colour, noise and dynamic range will be out of sight better though.

Sony stuff isn nice, but it is expensive compared with any APS offering.

I've previously said this isn't a good time to buy Nikon, the WWW is awash with rumours of big changes to mirrorless, the same is partly true of Canon, but your D100 is so far behind the curve even I am reluctant to say stick with what you've got for a bit longer. What about a very cheap Nikon body for a few years and see what happens? You'd get a D3400 and the 18-50mm zoom for a modest amount of cash and the IQ would be easily visibly better.

I settled on Fuji, but already had a small amount of Fuji stuff when I decided to change to a smaller, lighter, cheaper system, I've no idea what I'd buy now if starting from scratch as is obvious from this reply.

 

[smithim]

....but your D100 is so far behind the curve even I am reluctant to say stick with what you've got for a bit longer

The OP has since said that he has a D3100, not a D100

 

[Tom_N]

I would only go with full-frame if you have $3000 in disposable cash. Full-frame lenses are always going to cost more than DX lenses if only to maintain the difference in category.

Thanks for your reply Leonard. either ways I am going to use the installment option so I am okay there in terms of cash .

Maybe in terms of cash flow – but you'd still be spending the money. So (best case) you wouldn't have that $3,000 for long-term savings and investment; (worst case) you would be getting over your head in debt for something that isn't an essential need.

but I was thinking it as worth if Sony A 7 III has good reasons in terms of clarity and I could stop at $3000 and may be one lens like 18-105 F4 could offer that what multiple lenses on Nikon can provide

The APS-C Tamron provides the same field of view range on a Nikon DX body that a full-frame 27–405mm lens would provide on a full-frame body.

That 18-105 f/4 lens is for APS-C bodies.

Tamron has a relatively inexpensive 18–200mm lens for the Sony E-mount, but it is also for APS-C bodies.

Sony has a 24–105mm f/4 full-frame lens and a 100-400mm f/4.5.6 full-frame lens. The lenses provide better wide angle coverage than your Tamron, and essentially identical telephoto coverage. Their combined price is also nearly $4,000. Add in a Mark III body and you are probably looking at an expenditure of about $7,000.

If you sell the D3100 and the Tamron lens, you probably won't get much back for them, especially if you sell them to a camera dealer. So what are you expecting to get from a new camera that could be worth $7,000? If you can't answer that question to your own satisfaction, you might want to hold off and think it over more.

 

[MarshallG]

I upgraded to FF after many years of crop sensor use. This left me with a 50mm f/1.4 and my 70-200 f/2.8

My macro lens, 18-135, and 10-22mm could no longer work. Replacing them with sweet Canon L lenses can be very expensive, although this is a big quality upgrade. On the high end, in Canon, the 16-35mm f/2.8 can cost about $1,800 for the very best and the 24-70mm f/2.8 runs about $1,600. Of course, you can buy the f/4.0 lenses for about half the price and still get the legendary L quality.

Another point is that FF lenses are substantially heavier and larger than crop sensor lenses.

No matter how you do it, if you have existing crop sensor lenses, upgrading to FF is costly and you should consider it carefully.

 

[mobi1]

I am in same situation but I decided against upgrading to full frame, due to [1] cost [2] bigger camera to haul around holidays.

A crop sensor camera can take amazing photos so FF is not a necessity (unless it is required for professional reason).

Shooting technique is more important than gears :-D