Advice moving from APS-C to full frame

[a.m.]

Dear All
I need your help.
I would like to have access to a few nice plane images in raw format from the following cameras : Nikon D750, Sony a7rIII, Canon R

And why I need/want it, you may ask ?
Well.. short story then...

I'm using a D3300 and the kit lens (+55-200) since ever. It has served me well. No big complaints.

However, I would like to move to FF ( not only because o JP hobby, but still in the hobby space )
Since I don't have many lens, I don't loose much on moving to a complete new system.

Here's my choices for the moment ( all in the same price range on my location ) :
1) Nikon d750 and 70-300 Zoom ( this one is to keep the family... I've a tokina 11-16 for astro photo that I can reuse )
2) Sony a7r iii and 24-240 Zoom
3) Canon R and 70-300 Zoom

Now, apart all the possible difference and advantages of both systems I'm really interested in understand if there will be a huge impact (for the good/better) in image quality regarding my actual system (D3300) .

I'm assuming/expecting two great benefits:
1) noise reduction ( FF x APS-c )
2) sharper images. (Better lens, in body stabilisation (sony))


If these assumption are correct, then the final image quality, should be better : better definition, sharp, better colours, better perceived resolution.
In order to assess this, I would like then to test some raw files, process it and judge/compare the final results.

Now you understand my (strange) request for the raw files. Can you share some ?

Along with my judgement, your opinion/story is very also very important.

Do you have a story to share ? Have you done such a move from APS-C => FF ?
What were your findings ? small improvements ? improvements sometimes ? a big issue while handling all these huge files ?

Your comments/suggestion/ideas are welcome.

Thanks for your time and help

[seahawk]

Decide for yourself

DX
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10683445

FX
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10689391

Imho FX gives you resolution (at least with the high end cameras), better ISO performance and a bit more dynamic range. It costs you money and a much heavier kit to carry around.

[MARK0]

Hi I hope this helps you
i switched from a Canon EOS T7 (aps-c) to a Canon EOS RP (ff) and there are huge differences (better iso performance, better image quality in general and more).

here you have some of my favorite shots taken with the EOS RP using both the RF 24-105 STM and EF 75-300 lens

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10645994
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10697418
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10550863
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10440595

[a.m.]

Decide for yourself
Imho FX gives you resolution (at least with the high end cameras), better ISO performance and a bit more dynamic range. It costs you money and a much heavier kit to carry around.

Thx Seahawk

Two great shots, hardly can see any difference . Very interesting exif data: different lens, different apertures, different speeds, 200ISO (!) ..
Doing a bit pixel peeping, then the definition , clarity and noise reduction can be noted. Sure, don't know how much or which processing was applied to both ..

Based on these two.. I would keep the DX hands on. Am I a bit surprise ? yes.. I was expecting a bit more difference in the definition and clarity ..
thanks for the help and insights.

[seahawk]

FX:

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10539797

DX:

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10536637

Editing is practically identical and only vignetting correction on FX, cropping, exposure adjustment, resize + sharpening. No noise reduction added in editing. Different lenses are unavoidable though, as you need a longer lens on the FX camera if you want to make use of the full frame and if you can not simply walk closer. (as it is the case for spotting)

[a.m.]

Hi I hope this helps you
i switched from a Canon EOS T7 (aps-c) to a Canon EOS RP (ff) and there are huge differences (better iso performance, better image quality in general and more).

here you have some of my favorite shots taken with the EOS RP using both the RF 24-105 STM and EF 75-300 lens

Thx Mark0

#i switched from a Canon EOS T7 (aps-c) to a Canon EOS RP (ff) and there are huge differences
Maybe I'm bias here.. but that's the kind of answer I was expecting from the ones who have switch.. but probably it's just me .. dreaming and wishing .

I've a similarly photo to your's : https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10697418
this : https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9415303

However I can see differences in the noise (iso), dynamic range ( just like Seahawk mentioned ) and to me this reflects on the clarity , perceived resolution/definition and therefore a more 3d /wow effect, details will pop up a bit more on your photo.

But again, not huge differences. In the end everything will add up... lens, sensor, light, stabilisation...if everything is aligned then we have a wow photo...( thus better quality in general) ..if not then we may have a bad photo even with the theoretically best gear.

Now, if DX sensor are good enough, either in image quality and resolution... then probably the FX cameras can bring other (side effects) benefits:
1) better/fast auto focus... which allows for sharper images
2) better dynamic range... then more expose/light images
3) better iso... then we can use faster speeds... more sharper images

... which end up in : "I don't see how/why ... but I like more of FF images "... not a great/backed up justification.. but..

So, thanks Mark0 for your help/story,

[a.m.]

FX:

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10539797

DX:

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10536637

Editing is practically identical and only vignetting correction on FX, cropping, exposure adjustment, resize + sharpening. No noise reduction added in editing. Different lenses are unavoidable though, as you need a longer lens on the FX camera if you want to make use of the full frame and if you can not simply walk closer. (as it is the case for spotting)

#Editing is practically identical and only vignetting correction on FX, cropping, exposure adjustment, resize + sharpening. No noise reduction added in editing.
Great. Thx Seahawk for the clarification.

#as you need a longer lens on the FX camera if you want to make use of the full frame a
Complete agree with you. That could be a huge deal break, and I need to consider the impacts.

as of today I'm using
1) 50 => 75 FF Equivalent
2) 18-140 => 210 FF Equivalent.
3) 50-200=> 300 FF Equivalent.

Which, moving to FF are in the "acceptable" size/weight and reach in FF.

(In my local area, 200mm is enough, usually I'm shooting < 120 and I live near the airport, walking from home to the spot place )
But yes moving from a D3300 to a d750 with a 70-300.... is 1Kg more to carry.

Thanks again for your help

[bleuair]

please do yourself a favour when buying a 70-300 lens from Nikon. Always go for the AF-P 70-300 fx (not dx) lens. It performs incredibly well on DX sensors and the pulse AF is the fastest I ever witnessed. The few extra $$$ are really worth it. I use the lens on a D7500 body and since I own this combo, I never used the FX for spotting again. The D7500 uses the same sensor as the D500 in a more compact body.

Just for the records though. The D750 is still among the best FX bodies when it comes to noise levels and dynamic range. This however works best when working in high iso and high contrast environments. Landscape, travel, macro, work well. If you're a hangar shooter, you might consider FX (surely better than an iPhone!). But for outdoor spotting I'd stick with a decent DX kit. Of course from Nikon, what else?

[seahawk]

Agree with Mirko, using an FX tele lens on a DX camera is making things a lot easier, as you can practically forget about vignetting and use only the sharper centre of the lens.

[787Dream]

Uhmm, D750 doesn't seem to be in the same price range as the other two and is certainly not mirrorless like the other two. If you want to keep using your old lens, you could use Nikon's FTZ adapter to use your old DX lens if you are short on cash. I think with the same price range you could get a Z6ii or D780, with better sensors, AF, and processing unit. Maybe choose z6ii since mirrorless is the future; but tbh I still love optical viewfinder.

And I second AF-P 70-300 fx lens if you still stick with F mounts. Super sharp. But I do have issues with vigentting when aiming at the sky; could be painful to fix.

[a.m.]

please do yourself a favour when buying a 70-300 lens from Nikon. Always go for the AF-P 70-300 fx (not dx) lens. It performs incredibly well on DX sensors and the pulse AF is the fastest I ever witnessed. The few extra $$$ are really worth it. I use the lens on a D7500 body and since I own this combo, I never used the FX for spotting again. The D7500 uses the same sensor as the D500 in a more compact body.

Just for the records though. The D750 is still among the best FX bodies when it comes to noise levels and dynamic range. This however works best when working in high iso and high contrast environments. Landscape, travel, macro, work well. If you're a hangar shooter, you might consider FX (surely better than an iPhone!). But for outdoor spotting I'd stick with a decent DX kit. Of course from Nikon, what else?

Thx bleuair, great and strong advices.

#Always go for the AF-P 70-300 fx (not dx) lens.
Indeed , I was just considering the FX version, because I wanted to pair it with the D750. I admitted, that I was not considering to be using it a DX.
But, probably that's the better combo. The effect of less vignetting, the effect of probably using a more central point of the lens will for sure benefits sharpness and and detail.
Not considering the reach of it with the DX crop result... sure I don't need this as of today... but I never know what a holiday will let me go to.
So yes, the 70-300 FX version looks a good option for both..and who knows I can even buy it to use on my D3300... and later upgrade it to a d750... (and in a year's time..probably d780...will be at the same price)


#Just for the records though. The D750 is still among the best FX bodies when it comes to noise levels and dynamic range.
So glad to hear that. D750... looks like the last dslr at an affordable price, that could stay here forever...(ah maybe misses the in body stabilisation) ...
That's again for the great insights, keep them coming..

[a.m.]

Agree with Mirko, using an FX tele lens on a DX camera is making things a lot easier, as you can practically forget about vignetting and use only the sharper centre of the lens.

Thx Seahawk
It looks then the FX version is a good approach, can be used on both systems, giving then great flexibility,
and yes I agree that keeping vignetting away will be a big plus

That's again for the advices, keep them coming..

[a.m.]

Uhmm, D750 doesn't seem to be in the same price range as the other two and is certainly not mirrorless like the other two. If you want to keep using your old lens, you could use Nikon's FTZ adapter to use your old DX lens if you are short on cash. I think with the same price range you could get a Z6ii or D780, with better sensors, AF, and processing unit. Maybe choose z6ii since mirrorless is the future; but tbh I still love optical viewfinder.

And I second AF-P 70-300 fx lens if you still stick with F mounts. Super sharp. But I do have issues with vigentting when aiming at the sky; could be painful to fix.

Thx 787Dream

#D750 doesn't seem to be in the same price range as the other two and is certainly not mirrorless like the other two
In my region, they very similarly, but indeed the D750 is the cheaper of the pack. Yes, it's not a mirrorless... but I don't have a formed opinion on that. I never used one before, just check and use video cameras... admittedly probably I will prefer a play old dslr optical system... but the fact is that people are start to getting use to it... and the resolution and refresh rates of the viewfinders are getting crazy .. so

#If you want to keep using your old lens, you could use Nikon's FTZ adapter to use your old DX lens if you are short on cash.
Sure, I've consider keeping my 18-140 or even the 55-200... but then the crop factor on a d7x0 will render them with a very small area. yes... the d850 would be a different story...but money, size and weight wise... d850 isn't an option.

#And I second AF-P 70-300 fx lens if you still stick with F mounts.Super sharp.
Good. I start to see a trend here ...

#But I do have issues with vigentting when aiming at the sky; could be painful to fix
ah... that's bad ( I'm assuming you notice the problem on a FX camera, right ? ) .
Usually I shot small apertures... f/10 to f/13... do you notice the vignette problem also at those ?

That's again for the insights, advices, keep them coming..

[seahawk]

You want to rethink using F10-F13.

The topic is diffraction: https://photographylife.com/what-is-...in-photography

If you look at the charts of the 55-200 the best sharpness can usually found at F8-F11 depending on the focal length: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/n...-review--27221

And regarding the body. The future is mirrorless and the Z mount. But I would wait till all the goodies of the Z9 trickle down to the cheaper siblings. The Z9 is probably the first mirrorless to soundly beat the top of the line DSLRs in every aspect and you can be sure that a lot of the AF logic will show up in the cheaper bodies over time.

[a.m.]

You want to rethink using F10-F13.

The topic is diffraction: https://photographylife.com/what-is-...in-photography

If you look at the charts of the 55-200 the best sharpness can usually found at F8-F11 depending on the focal length: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/n...-review--27221

And regarding the body. The future is mirrorless and the Z mount. But I would wait till all the goodies of the Z9 trickle down to the cheaper siblings. The Z9 is probably the first mirrorless to soundly beat the top of the line DSLRs in every aspect and you can be sure that a lot of the AF logic will show up in the cheaper bodies over time.

#You want to rethink using F10-F13.
Agree. And I may have push a bit that F13 limit. Usually I use F11 on the ground... as strange as it seems , photos looks sharper to me. Then use F8 to F10 on flying planes depending on lights conditions thus the speed . Times to times I test the F13.. end of the day, could weather.. and I don't dislike the results. But I'm not trying to bend the physics diffraction law.

Yup the Z9 would be a dream come true... but not budget for that .
(I believe Sony is a bit cheaper for the moment)

I'm starting to disguise a plan...
1) start by buying a AF-P NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E ED VR. (FX)
2) use it on my D3300.. evaluate the results...
4) decide later on buying a d750

That's the simplest plan and also the cheapest one. I don't compromise the evolution and can reuse the 70-300 lens.

thanks again for your time and help