Do you really need Full Format

[Oldboy]

Some of those advantages are more to do with how the manufacturer designed and built the camera, than format size per se.

If that was true then Hasselblad would have trouble selling their medium format cameras. 

[Simple]

My camera's are getting a bit long in the tooth now, but I use a Bigma 50-500 on a Nikon D3 and on a Nikon D300. A full frame and cropped frame camera. By the time I crop my D3 pictures to the same size as the D300 pictures I have difficulty in seeing much difference. The D3 seems to win on fine detail, so the subject matters a lot. When conditions with light become a bit worse the D3 is a clear winner. Recently used a 300mm f2.8 Nikon lens on both camera's and was astounded by the minimal difference in pictures. The D300 became a lot clearer and fine detail was good as well. Those are just my experiences and I never sat down with that equipment to do performance comparisons or the like.

[Hinfrance]

Some of those advantages are more to do with how the manufacturer designed and built the camera, than format size per se. When Olympus introduced the E3, they made a splash - literally - by throwing a bucket of water over the camera to show that it was weatherproof.

Toughness and being able to use the camera in rubbish weather was one of the main reasons I went for Pentax. I use them out in torrential rain and up mountains in the winter when we go skiing. Built like tanks and have a weatherproof kit lens option. So many people seem to have problems with Canikon's build quality that I dismissed them fairly early on. I've only used Canon DSLRs twice, once I got E06 (50D) and locked up after two shots and the other time the camera wouldn't focus properly (550D). Not encouraging.

Although I like a sharp image as much as the next person, I'm not a slave to it. Content is more important. But, given the modern preoccupation with sharpness and detail you can't beat prime lenses, even relatively cheap ones.

[StephenBatey]

Some of those advantages are more to do with how the manufacturer designed and built the camera, than format size per se.

If that was true then Hasselblad would have trouble selling their medium format cameras. 

That was why IO said "some" and not "all". The example I gave made it clear (I thought) that I had weatherproofing mainly in mind; although anyone who has handled an E3 and compared its weight with that of an APS-C sensor camera would soon see that weight went up as well.

My other points should have made it clear that I do believe that the larger the sensor, the better the result (but only in certain circumstances, just like the box camera example). I have one book on digital landscape photography where the author states that even full frame isn't good enough, and you need something even larger. Don't shoot the messenger on this one - I'm only quoting someone else; but I do know that for black and white landscape photography in the style and print size that I use medium format is only just acceptable, and large format better. I therefore find it easy to believe that full frame is too small, for the same reasons that smaller formats don't work so well in film.

[Hinfrance]

I think Stephen that you may be falling into the trap that a bigger sensor means a larger image. It doesn't, it's the pixel count that determines the size of the image. That said, of course, the larger the individual pixels in the sensor, all other things being equal, the better the quality of the image will be. A 24mp APS-C sensor will produce a larger image than an 18mp full frame.

[StephenBatey]

On re-reading, it looks that way. But I didn't mean that, so apologies for being unclear.

There are two factors in play - how big you can print based on the available pixels, and how big you can print based on the detail that's actually recorded. It's easy to show that these aren't the same. I did start on what would have been a lengthy and technical post to show this, but decided not to bother and just content myself with making it plain that there is a difference between sensor size and megapixels, and a smaller sensor may have more.

Just as a small format film camera may have greater resolving power due to a fine grain film; but that extra resolution/quality still doesn't hold up against an inferior film (in grain/resolution terms) in a larger size. Larger size means less enlargement of imperfections which applies to the optics as well as the electronics.

I'm happy to explain further if you want, but I don't think that this thread is the place.

[Geoff]

Thanks guys, I have learn't a lot in this thread, stuff I had not even thought about, thanks for to
all who have joined in on this thread.

Geoff

[Andrew]

and a final nod - worked with all - film, crop and FF.

It really is horses for courses. Film gives something that digital has as yet to equal, crop seems to be loved by those wildlife and action people whilst full frame seems to be the format of choice for weddings, portraits and landscapes.

FPS, Weather Sealing, Dual Card Slots etc are all just features of the camera that may influence a choice

My camera history: Canon AE1P, A1, Nikon 5700, 7900, Canon 30D, 40D, 5D2x2 and now Fuji X-Pro 1

Interestingly, the X-Pro 1 can match the 5D2 in just about every situation for IQ, DR, Noise, Low Light etc and it is only a crop sensor - moral of the story - technology is the crucial factor 

[Geoff]

Thanks Andrew, for coming in with your knoledge of the different formats, it appears that I still have a lot to
learn.

[Andrew]

Thanks Andrew, for coming in with your knoledge of the different formats, it appears that I still have a lot to
learn.

Don't think so - just work out what you want to take pictures of - and then work out how big you want to present (print/ show on screen) the images.
Crop is soo good nowadays that unless you have the money or a business case requiring the MP's of FF.

A former work colleague was after FF Nikon until he won a Nikon 7100 - now he's not even interested. The 24mp APS-C does him an absolute treat and he's making money off his pics as well. You can see his stuff at http://www.flickr.com/photos/sitan321/ - have a good look, and then decide if you 'really' need full frame?

I found that putting some nice glass on my 30D and 40D were the best investment. Body wise, in your position i'd give the 70D a look - seems to have plenty good to say about it.