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

FF is better, it's wether it's "better enough" is the question. We switched from d200/d300/d2x to D3 some years back (when the D3 first came out) yes it was better (especially compared to the d2x) but was it several K better, no I'd say.
Recently I shot with I think it was a d3300? something like that, I was amazed by the quality jump of the crop, same when I tried a canon 750d my good lady bought. I liked that so much I bought one myself. So light and yet great quality, even high iso is pretty good.. Great for a long walk.
I doubt I'd go back as such, but the gap has closed.... by a lot.
 
I got into full frame 5 years ago when my new employer bought me a new camera - I went from Nikon D7000/18-55mm 55-300mm to D810/24-70mm and 70-200mm f2.8s - I was delighted, I'm not a gearhead but it felt like something clicked and as well as having much better image quality and dynamic range, I can see I took another step forward as a photographer, I guess as I didn't want to underachieve with that kit and put in a lot of hard work. If you can afford it go for it
 
Talking of purely of Digital, I moved from a D300, to a D700, then to a D810. I have saved like hell when I had the D300 to by Nikon FX lenses. Each step I think seemed to be a game changer. Although I think the biggest difference was when I purchased the quality lenses. An then the D810. Still have the D300 and D700 lovely cameras. Perhaps when I get fed up with hauling the DSLRs around I may move to something a little lighter.
 
jerry12953 said:
Moving from a canon 7d to a 5d3 for wildlife photography the difference was night and day. Anything over about 400ASA on the 7d and the images were just about un-croppable.
Click to expand...
Agree with this and Supergeeman at the top. Just gone 7D to 5Dmkiii and used it for a school musical this week. Much better at high ISO. AF is comparable, dynamic range seems better too. Also 70-200mm was the perfect range.

J
 
When I moved from DX to FX, it was D300 to D700. Back then DX sensors did struggle in low light at high iso and so the difference there was really quite something, blew me away to be honest. Nowadays I suspect a modern DX sensor would be better than the D700 in that regard and stuff hasn't got darker so it seems less relevant to me. The other thing was the viewfinder. This is really only relevant to DSLR's but the bigger view finder would make it hard to go back to a DX DSLR. But mirrorless makes that a bit irrelevant. Nowadays it doesn't really bother me except when it comes to wide field astrophotography where everything is against you. There FX makes more sense and it's the main reason I have a D800 but I do shoot with a Fuji X100t as well and Olympus M4/3 for other stuff and cannot say I ever feel disappointed .
 
I have to concur with Dave :)
DX and FX of the same generation are pretty much interchangeable.
 
I gwnerally find that im not all that fussed about shutter speed and only shoot landscapes on tripod... so ISO 100 99 percent of the time... unless its really windy.

I am impressed with my 80D though. I can lift shadows tremendously if needed.
 
Interesting some people are finding a massive jump in IQ and others not. I'm of the opinion that between my 7DII and 5D mike there's a noticeable difference, but that's probably a tech enerational advance thing. The Fuji X does such a great job I don't notice much difference between it and the 5Dmkiv in reasonable conditions. Although there is a noise advantage to the Canon I don't find it enough of a difference in my shooting to sorry about.

Personally I don't feel FF is worth it just to make a change to FF
 
Last edited:
77d to eos R was my latest jump.

IQ wise there is not a lot of difference if I am using a quality L lens. Low light performance is where I can see the biggest difference, the FF sensor is much cleaner at higher iso.

The biggest difference was going form dslr to mirrorless and seeing in the viewfinder and immediate effect of any changes to settings. I am reviewing pics less as I go along as I don't feel like I need to!!

T
 
I’ve upgraded from Sony a700 to A77ii and now to A7Riii, massive difference in low light and dynamic range, but I still use the a77ii for wildlife with longer lenses. Worth the investment? Definetvly yes.
 
I went from D3100 to D600 and then to Fuji X. What struck me more was that the D600 had many more capabilities. If there were more featureful bodies (and of course more DX lenses, i.e. smaller and cheaper) in the DX range I'd probably never have switched.

When Fuji started producing high quality crop bodies and lenses it was a no brainer for me; I don't get the fascination with shallow DoF and rarely if ever got anything I'd want to have kept from low light scenes.
 
I went from a 50D to a 5D mk3, bit of an unfair comparison as they are light years apart, but we also had a 600D in the family at the same time.
Huge difference, low light, quality, just overall ease at getting the image right in camera
 
I've recently done the "jump"; From Panasonic G and Canon EOS M to a Canon EOS 6D; Most noticeably when I crop in severely it is much cleaner at all ISO and I "think: some better cropping potential before it downgrades. I'm sure it would be noticeable when printed big but I don't tend to print sadly. However I don't think I'll the 6D forever - eventually a sideways step to mirrorless full frame with. - most likely - Canon RP. Just can't get used to traditional SLRS with the mirror and viewfinder etc; I have come to love the ease and flexibility of EVF.
 
Brief history over the years for me = Canon DSLR crops > Micro 4/3rds > Fuji X > Sony FE.
Now having arrived at Full Frame I do sometimes miss the compact Camera systems I had in the past. I think the Fuji may have been the sweet spot but I still want shallower DOF in some of my images so I tried Sony Full frame. I think full frame advantages make up for it and frankly, full frame mirrorless cameras like the Sonys coupled with some prime lenses, are still quite compact enough for me.
 
I went from a Pentax K5 to an A7s and A7rii. The A7s is excellent at higher ISO's, the A7rii is still much better than the K5 at high ISO's. High ISO performance is quite important to me as I shoot a lot at night. I also get more detail with the A7rii than I did with the K5, but this is more due to the much higher pixel count than anything else.

However, the biggest difference between crop and FF sensors for me is with lenses. I shoot a lot with legacy lenses. On FF, 15mm is much wider than on a crop sensor. Likewise, a 28mm lens (I have several legacy 28mm lenses) is a wide angle, on a crop sensor it's more like a 42mm lens. 50mm lenses, overall, tend to be the sharpest legacy lenses: on FF, a 50mm lens is 50mm, rather than effectively being a 75mm telephoto lens. Old lenses around 50mm also tend to be faster. So, for legacy glass, especially wider lenses and standard lenses, FF mirrorless is way more versatile than using a crop sensor. Narrow DOF is also easier to achieve on a FF sensor.

So, for me, FF is a big jump from a crop sensor. But I very rarely use lenses more than 58mm focal length. If I used longer focal lengths, say for sports or wildlife, I would probably get a crop sensor camera, to increase both the apparent focal length, which would keep kit weight down and no doubt save money, and to get better DOF.
 
Last edited:
aliengrove said:
I went from a Pentax K5 to an A7s and A7rii. The A7s is excellent at higher ISO's, the A7rii is still much better than the K5 at high ISO's. High ISO performance is quite important to me as I shoot a lot at night. I also get more detail with the A7rii than I did with the K5, but this is more due to the much higher pixel count than anything else.

However, the biggest difference between crop and FF sensors for me is with lenses. I shoot a lot with legacy lenses. On FF, 15mm is much wider than on a crop sensor. Likewise, a 28mm lens (I have several legacy 28mm lenses) is a wide angle, on a crop sensor it's more like a 42mm lens. 50mm lenses, overall, tend to be the sharpest legacy lenses: on FF, a 50mm lens is 50mm, rather than effectively being a 75mm telephoto lens. Old lenses around 50mm also tend to be faster. So, for legacy glass, especially wider lenses and standard lenses, FF mirrorless is way more versatile than using a crop sensor. Narrow DOF is also easier to achieve on a FF sensor.

So, for me, FF is a big jump from a crop sensor. But I very rarely use lenses more than 58mm focal length. If I used longer focal lengths, say for sports or wildlife, I would probably get a crop sensor camera, to increase both the apparent focal length, which would keep kit weight down and no doubt save money, and to get better DOF.
Click to expand...

I use Nikon so legacy glass is something that appeals to me - I shoot landscape mostly so I don’t need AF, VR/IS or anything particularly fast. Just simple and sharp! Cost is also a big factor as I can’t afford to splurge loads on an expensive new lens.
 
I work on a daily basis with very large prints (1m+) in a gallery and in the right hands, top end crops like an XT3 etc there's no difference in the final print. That's not to say that on a 4k monitor there will be slight differences in dynamic range etc which on the whole is better than crops with full frame, but in real-world use it's barely perceptible unless you start producing prints at massive sizes which for 99% of people they never print beyond A3.

The performance of the top end fuji's is such that I'm considering going back to crops from my D810 for the weight savings and practicality (plus it's a much nicer experience using them). The photography industry to me plays on the fact that the majority of buyers either don't have much knowledge of what they're getting into or don't care about practical advantages, and often just want the latest and greatest because they're more interested in the 'gear' than taking photos in the first place. Full frames performance wise are now starting to hit a bit of a wall anyway.
 
Last edited:
It was like night and day for me. Went from a 60D to a 6D and had loads of cameras in-between that were crop and FF. Now I'm back to 5D3 and IMO none of my other cameras compared for me and that includes an A7RII. The only annoyance is for the crop equivalent focal lengths on a FF camera it's hella expensive. For example I mean a 200mm on crop is 300mm. But FF 200mm is 200mm and from using crops you notice it and sometimes long for the length - oo-er.
 
I noticed a reasonable difference . But I noticed a much bigger difference when I went from non L to L lenses
 
I'd be interested to see examples of the difference demonstrated under controlled conditions. Anyone know of any?
 
Stuart Mc said:
The photography industry to me plays on the fact that the majority of buyers either don't have much knowledge of what they're getting into or don't care about practical advantages, and often just want the latest and greatest because they're more interested in the 'gear' than taking photos in the first place. Full frames performance wise are now starting to hit a bit of a wall anyway.
Click to expand...
I think you’re right there. There’s probably little difference between high-end crop and ff sensor but I have an entry level sensor (d3300) and wonder if the same applies...
 
I thought the difference well worth the outlay but whether it was the sensor size or more stepping between two different generations of camera i'll never know and to some extent a bit of both. Canon 50D to 5DIII.
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
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?
Click to expand...
It's not an 'upgrade'. It is a change. Neither is an upgrade to the other. Both are an upgrade at one thing or another.
It's been done to the death.:banghead:
 
I find my D750 absolutely brilliant for low light photography. I worked upto FX from DX, and definitely find the FX better with low light. Yes it’s heavier, but if you pick and choose the lenses you want on the day it’s quite manageable.
 
soupdragon said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think I would agree with that, subject to available funds
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
I think you’re right there. There’s probably little difference between high-end crop and ff sensor but I have an entry level sensor (d3300) and wonder if the same applies...
Click to expand...
There's a significant jump from low end crop to FF for sure - both shot at base ISO in good conditions you'd not see much difference but as soon as the dynamic range is tested in low light / high ISO they suffer badly. A few years ago I went from a 3300 to a a 610 and it was significant. It really boils down to the intent for which it's used to be honest.
 
Being on a tight budget, I don't change cameras often. So when I went from crop to ff, the ff body that I got was 7yrs on in sensor terms. Its more mpx might've been a slight benefit, for biggish prints, but were a long way from being the lure, which was a better capacity for being able to protect the always crucial highlights by 'exposing to the left', followed by pulling up the exposure / shadows as & if necessary during raw processing.

So it was essentially about noise in the shadows - and given the generation gap, not about format size as such. But since I use mf lenses (both legacy and modern), the bigger vf was a benefit anyway.
 
Bounced between APSC DSLR and m4/3 MILC for a while - stuck with Nikon for APSC, started with Panasonic and switched to Olympus for m4/3. D80..D7000, GF1..E-P5. Bought a few cheaper bodies along the way, And then I saw the Nikon D810 being advertised for an affordable price...

The difference, for me, was noticeable. Portraits have a level of clarity and sharpness that smaller sized sensors are unable to replicate, That said, I still use my Nikon D3300, Ricoh DR, Nikon F6, Instax wide/square/mini and a couple of 120 pinholes (and my iPhone). Each camera serves a purpose.

I've made 100cmx100cm prints from APSC. I'd be reluctant to do the same with m4/3. Have yet to find someone who wants a FF print bigger than 100cmx100cm.

I wonder... Does the sensor size really matter that much if you're never going to print your images?
 
Stuart Mc said:
There's a significant jump from low end crop to FF for sure - both shot at base ISO in good conditions you'd not see much difference but as soon as the dynamic range is tested in low light / high ISO they suffer badly. A few years ago I went from a 3300 to a a 610 and it was significant. It really boils down to the intent for which it's used to be honest.
Click to expand...
D3300 to D610 (or 750) is what I'm considering. Aside from high ISO performance did you find the improvement in features made a difference - exposure bracketing, better AF etc.?
 
adrianday said:
I wonder... Does the sensor size really matter that much if you're never going to print your images?
Click to expand...

I would add to that: Does the sensor size really matter that much if you're never going to print your images BIG? D3300 is 24mp and you can get away with massive prints.
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
D3300 to D610 (or 750) is what I'm considering. Aside from high ISO performance did you find the improvement in features made a difference - exposure bracketing, better AF etc.?
Click to expand...
Yep all of those things, it's a significant jump for sure in all aspects - though I'd debate if the image quality and DR is any better than a 71/7200, probs isn't as good as a D500 which are all crops. Biggest thing aside from image quality is having dedicated buttons for tasks you'd normally have to go through a menu for. If you can stretch to a 750 I'd get that tbh it has a few more tools and tilting screen which is always useful. Main thing you need to be aware of is what you invest in glass - cheap lenses won't do FF justice
 
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, and it may be obvious, but the lenses for FF are significantly more expensive and also usually a fair bit heavier, though there is usually more choice. Getting a FF system is often a serious investment into the hobby.
 
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?

I upgraded because I thought I was not happy and was chasing infinity. As the MP from most modern cameras meets my needs, I made the move to get better dynamic range and improved low light performance (less signal noise).

I went from APC (Nikon D90) to 1" (Nikon 1 and Sony RX100), to AP-C (Fuji XT-1 and Sony a6000) to FF (Sony a7).
Each has it pros and cons.

I have noticed an improvement in image quality, under the conditions where the sensor provides the benefits (High Dynamic or Low Light Scenes). So for interior building shots or night time images it has helped, particularly where a tripod and a longer exposure cannot be used. However, for general walk around day-to-day images, its not really made much difference and I do miss the greater depth of field by smaller sensor sizes and have struggled with my focusing abilities at times. I also miss the smaller lens sizes and lower cost of good glass.

In hindsight, I do not think it was worth the investment.
 
Last edited:
In my own case, a ‘change’ from crop to FF included a generation skip so it’s not comparing like for like of the same generation and I suspect that would be the case for many people who made that jump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top