Your experience of upgrading from crop to full-frame: Never-looked-back or underwhelmed?

Messages
143
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
Why did you upgrade?
What did you upgrade from and to?
Did you immediately notice a significant improvement in the quality of your photos or was it basically the same?
Was it worth the investment?
 
Messages
1,275
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
I didnt
What did you upgrade from and to?
Was considering the A7II from the A6000
Did you immediately notice a significant improvement in the quality of your photos or was it basically the same?
Slight improvement in details using my 105mm F/2,8 AFD Micro nikkor but not much and only really visible either zoomed in or at side by side comparisons. I found the differences between JPEG and RAW from same camera to be greater
Was it worth the investment?
I found it wouldnt be. Its not the technical quality of my images thats holding me back but my ability to make interesting images and the difference wasn't significant
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,900
Name
Elliott
Edit My Images
No
#4
I upgraded from a 40D to a 6D and of course the difference was night and day. The 40D was an old camera when I upgraded. Only 10MP (if I remember correctly). The 6D was a great low light performer which the 40D wasn't.

During my stint with the 6D, I also bought a 7DmkII and to be honest, I was always very happy with the images from that camera and wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them and those from the 6D.

I've now traded both the 6D and 7DmkII for a 5DmkIV. Image quality is probably on par but with improved dynamic range.

If you are upgrading from an older crop camera then you are likely to be very impressed. If you have a more modern crop then you probably won't notice that much of a difference.
 
Messages
3
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
#5
7dmkii to A7iii, kept the Canons though for sports and wildlife on the long glass. I am blown away by the Sony although part of that may be down to the Zeiss glass. The move has totally revitalised my love of photography.....
 
Messages
32,682
Edit My Images
No
#6
I've used both FX & DX inc D7200/D500 and D800/810.
I moved from the D500 (a superb camera and great for wildlife) + D7200 to a D850 on the basis of having, in one camera, a 46mp FX option and a 20mp DX option and I have not been disappointed. The D850 provides superb resolution and works really well for when wildlife does not fill the frame and a crop is required, the amount of detail that can be retained is amazing.
The only downside for me is the weight of the camera + grip + ENEL18a battery (for 9fps shooting and extended battery life) with large lens attached.
 
Messages
1,091
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
#7
Been all over the place with sensors.
Still chasing that "One Camera Does All" solution.
 
Messages
558
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
No
#8
Blown away by the jump from my D3300 to the Sony A7III. I still have the Nikon as I can't afford a 11-16mm equivalent on the Sony just yet and I primarily use that for Architecture.
 
OP
OP
Tom Pinchenzo
Messages
143
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
#9
Blown away by the jump from my D3300 to the Sony A7III. I still have the Nikon as I can't afford a 11-16mm equivalent on the Sony just yet and I primarily use that for Architecture.
I'm looking at a similar upgrade: D3300 to D600/610.

D3300 is a pretty good camera though - what were the main difference you noticed?
 
Messages
558
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
No
#11
I'm looking at a similar upgrade: D3300 to D600/610.

D3300 is a pretty good camera though - what were the main difference you noticed?
Yeah it is, it has served me very well!

It might sound strange but I think the colours feel different, the dynamic drange is far, far better on my Sony but I think these are points that are to be expected. Just the jump in tech really has made me ask why I waited so long to just go Mirrorless.

The difference of Crop and FF I've not paid much attention to to be honest, my main reason for switching was the Mirrorless system.
 
Messages
3,475
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#12
Went from Fuji X series to Nikon Z6, initially because my Fuji kit was gradually getting larger and heavier, and I thought I might as well go 35mm format for the same or less weight and size. Plus, I kept looking back at my 5D Mk1 shots and noticing a "clarity" for want of a better word.

In actuality, I do find the Z6 files are cleaner, sharper, and crisper. Some of it might be Emperors New Clothes, but so far I'm delighted and a boring evangelist.
 
Messages
4,765
Edit My Images
Yes
#13
My first camera was the Canon 350D (which I still have) and I progressed through the 450D to the 1Ds MkII.

Nowadays with modern programs using AI I find that it is possible to use almost any camera I have and produce good photos from them.

If I was to have to use just 1 camera it would probaly be the 1D MkIII for it high FPS (10 FPS) and low noise.

It also has micro adjustment for lenses and is a good compromise between a 1.6 crop and full frame.

But even more important than the camera are the lenses and I have now standardised on the 24-105mm L lens and the 70-300mm L, which covers everything from 24-300mm.

And by upscaling I can increase the reach to 600mm if I want.
 
Last edited:
Messages
175
Edit My Images
No
#14
I've gone from full frame Canon to M43. This was a long process over 3 years or so. Enormous weight reduction (especially with lenses) while flexibility is actually greater than with the FF outfit. At the same time the quality is more than adequate for my needs. Of course your mileage may well vary but I'd recommend considering it.
 
Last edited:
Messages
610
Name
Col
Edit My Images
Yes
#16
I wanted better high iso performance mainly
I upgraded from a nikon d90 to a d750
I noticed a massive jump in dynamic range between the two and the iso performance was just mind blowingly different. I wouldn't shoot above about iso 400 on the d90, 800 at a push but those days have now long since passed. The thing that prompted me to upgrade at the time i did was because i got booked to shoot my first wedding and the d90 just wasn't going to cut it since it was a nighttime wedding in november and so the extra iso was pretty much essential in order to avoid having to use flash for every single shot.
Definitely worth the investment especially since i have now added the 24-70 f2.8 lens.
 
Messages
1,275
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#17
So how much is the change in size and how much is due to change in tech generations? ;)
 
OP
OP
Tom Pinchenzo
Messages
143
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
#20
So how much is the change in size and how much is due to change in tech generations? ;)
It does feel like full frame is reaching a ceiling in terms of image quality - it’s basically as good as the human eye can discern! - and so tech improvement are only pushing crop sensors closer to the quality of full-frame. By the sounds of it, low-light performance is where the only real difference is.

Do I shoot much in low light? Not really. Would it be nice to get more detail from shadows. I suppose. Would it be nice to have the additional features of a semi-pro camera? Yes. Would these benefits be worth the several hundred pounds to upgrade? Still undecided!!
 
Messages
3,083
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
#21
I went the other way. Full frame to APS-C for landscapes. Why? Smaller lenses. Lighter equipment. Less glass in lenses to they are cheaper to make and buy, and can be sharper (smaller image circle). No need for very shallow depth of field, no need for high ISO - portability is key.

Mind you, my full-frame kit was quite small - Leica M10 plus 3 lenses. However, I wanted a longer range than the 90mm I could get with the Leica M10, so went with a Leica CL and 18-56 zoom, plus 55-135 zoom (28-200mm equiv). Image quality is excellent. Lenses are excellent. Ideal for landscape IMHO.
 
Messages
1,117
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
#22
Canon 350D to 70D to 5DM3 never looked back, big improvements for what I shoot, and continued to 1DXM2. Weight not an issue for the time being.
 
Messages
11,046
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
#23
I went from Sony A58 to Nikon D610.

I found crop to be noisier at anything above 800 ISO than I'd been led to expect, images would often get fringing/halos from processing and I found the relative flatness of images made me want to process even harder. Prints looked fine generally from crop, even up to 30"X20" but I felt images lacked fine detail and depth. The D610 had much better dynamic range and greater sense of detail and depth to the images. Although images looked quite gritty when pixel-peeping, even at base ISO, when viewed normally they were fine and contained clean, crisp detail. I also liked the ability to control depth of field more readily and also the ability to stop down hard before the image turned to mush.

It took a while to learn to use the camera, and also to get the best from images in processing. I'd shot film for many years, and the way FX images appeared seemed more 'photographic' to me than those from crop.

FWIW the D610 is a great camera with slightly sucky AF (my entry level Sony was better at focussing in low light) and I'm missing it at the moment while trying to adapt to an A7III. The D750 is, I suspect a much better camera, and probably what I'd recommend if you can afford it. I'd have bought an D810 instead of the A7 if a) it had a flip-out rear screen and b) weighed 200g less.
 
Messages
20,049
Name
KIPAX
Edit My Images
Yes
#24
Don't all these answers really depend on what your shooting? Flowers in the garden arn't going to be much different.... indoor without flash is :) So you can get an honest opinion that its usless and another equally honest opinion that it's a godsend..

You can take it as a given that anything in poor light is going to benefit from full frame :)
 
Messages
10,611
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
#25
Went from a 40D to 5D, yes the difference was quite noticeable and ended up with a 5D MkII.
Now using m4/3 and Fuji, for most of my photography which is mainly travel I don't notice any difference.
Only print up to A3 so don't the need the massive mp count that modern FF can give.
I don't miss the size and weight of FF, started to put me off carrying it very far.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Tom Pinchenzo
Messages
143
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
#26
Went from a 40D to 5D, yes the difference was quite noticeable and ended up with a 5D MkII.
Now using m4/3 and Fuji, for most of my photography which is mainly travel I don't notice any difference.
Only print up to A3 so don't the need the massive mp count that modern FF can give.
I don't miss the size and weight of FF, started to put me off carrying it very far.
I guess the jump from 40D to 5D was a pretty big one regardless of sensor size.

Interesting that you didn’t notice the difference between FF and M4/3!
 
Messages
10,611
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
#27
I guess the jump from 40D to 5D was a pretty big one regardless of sensor size.

Interesting that you didn’t notice the difference between FF and M4/3!
Similar cameras to operate, mp count was roughly the same too, but photo quality was definitely better especially colour.
Both pretty lousy above ISO 800 and the 5D was a swine for dust, big jump to the MkII though.

Most of my photography is in good light with fast primes and cameras with excellent IBIS.
Lots of detail from the 20mp sensor and some of the lenses are really excellent.
Daresay for action or wildlife it would matter a lot, but for me the difference is negligible
 
Messages
273
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
#28
Why did you upgrade?
Reading reviews i really wanted the quality from the full frame
What did you upgrade from and to?
Nikon D5300 to a D750
Did you immediately notice a significant improvement in the quality of your photos or was it basically the same?
Yes massively, not only the quality but they were so much better to post process with the massive increase in dynamic range
Was it worth the investment?
Yes!

I now have swapped the D750 for a D810 and love it, the only reason i miss my D5300 is for the very small size and weight & the extra reach with the crop factor when at model air shows or the local flying field.
 
Messages
720
Edit My Images
Yes
#29
I went from APS-C to FF 5dmkI,II, III, and finally IV. I still use the IV but I switched to Fuji X a few years ago and I'm pretty happy to use these cameras of 90% of the stuff I shoot.
 
Messages
767
Edit My Images
Yes
#30
So how much is the change in size and how much is due to change in tech generations? ;)
Went from D7100 to D750 (with D7100) and it was like night and day - mainly because as an old fart, lenses did what they used to when I learnt photography. Sensor tech and size made a big difference too, with a quality in the images that was just different.

More recently I’ve got M4/3 and there’s another world of a difference, cameras about the size of 35mm, with excellent quality and stunning low light performance.

So I’ve gone APSC to APSC and FF and now do FF and M4/3.

Ultimately it’s what you are happy using to get images you and others like.

Oh, and GAS. :)
 
Messages
280
Edit My Images
Yes
#33
Why did you upgrade?
I wasn't happy with the EM1 IQ for large prints, or even when using them as 1080p desktop backgrounds. The images never seemed "crisp" to me, and I wanted more Megapixels. Crop sensors tend to top out around 24MP so I looked at full frame options. After a VERY long consideration (3-4 months) I picked the D810 because it was tough, high MP count, and better value than some other options.

What did you upgrade from and to?
Olympus EM1 to Nikon D810

Did you immediately notice a significant improvement in the quality of your photos or was it basically the same?
I'd rephrase that to noticing a significant improvement in image quality. Obviously a better camera isn't going to improve your photos, but yes, actually I was surprised by the improvement in IQ. That "crispness" showed straight away, with much more detail and sharpness, and much cleaner images as well.

Was it worth the investment?
It was a LOT of money, but so far I think it has been worth it. I was originally considering adding a Fuji system to my kit for travel, but to be honest the D810 with a couple of primes is more than manageable so I probably won't bother now.

Edited to fit the question structure :)
 
Last edited:
Messages
165
Name
Trevor
Edit My Images
Yes
#34
Bigger, better, faster more - plus GAS and a greedy lust for nice toys. Oh and better pictures of course. :D

What did you upgrade from and to?
I've upgraded from a D7100 with DX lenses; mainly a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 and a Tokina ATX Pro 2.8.

I've now upgraded to a D810, Nikkor 50 & 85 f1.8 primes and a Nikkor AFS 24-120 f4.

Did you immediately notice a significant improvement in the quality of your photos or was it basically the same?
The difference is night and day as I was expecting. Obviously, the lenses make a huge difference, but the low noise and higher usable ISO of the camera means my low-light and indoor shots are spectacularly improved. Shooting in manual with Auto-ISO I'm getting results I never imagined could be so good.

Although heavier, the camera is a joy to hold and shoot. I find the grip far better and the extra body weight (with a battery grip) helps counter balance the weight of the lens so everything is far better balanced.

Was it worth the investment?
Absolutely, I now have a renewed enthusiasm to get out and take more pictures. It was a HUGE investment for me too as I'm retired, disabled (electric wheelchair maintenance is not cheap) and on a very tight income. I must now start making my hobby pay a little in order to support itself and stop refusing paid work.
 
Last edited:

Nod

Krispy and Kremey
Messages
31,584
Name
Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
Edit My Images
Yes
#36
Why? I wanted to use a DSLR for my wide angle shots rather than shooting them on film. I had the Sigma 12-24 when I was still film based so Fx made sense.

What? D70 & D200 to a D700, then a D800 as well, then a D750 instead of the D800. Now mainly a Fuji crop system.

Benefits? Far better high ISO performance from the D700 and D750; faster and more accurate AF.

Why go back to crop? Bulk and weight. I now have a 3 body, 3 lens system that fits in the same bag that the 2 bodies filled. High ISO performance and AF speeds have improved in the meantime and the Fuji lenses are pretty damn good!

Still got the Nikon FF stuff but haven't used it for a while so should move it on, I suppose.
 
Messages
4,463
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
#38
I went m4/3 to FF

The difference is pretty big but only really matters towards the limits, e.g. low light
The other features make more difference than sensor size.
Sensor size affects DoF, sharpness and noise. They're not really issues in most circumstances.

Things which do matter: Ease of tethering, dynamic range, bit depth - hence can take more post work before degrading - more buttons and dials, more customisable, better focus tracking, better viewfinder.
 
Messages
1,091
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
#39
Do I need a new camera or do I want a new camera... :oops: :$
I always want a new camera even when I just got one.

Back on topic.
If there is a new generation of APSC sensors that can compete with full frame with regards noise handling and definition, then I'll be going back to the smaller format.
 
Messages
370
Name
Igor
Edit My Images
Yes
#40
D90 to D700 then A7III - Never going back.
 
Top