From that article I linked to earlier about DxOMark lens testing:
P.S. Another interesting tidbit: DxOMark writes that though (sic) using this new metric, they have confirmed that a 12-megapixel full-frame camera is sharper than an 18-megapixel APS-C camera.
Here’s how APS-C sensor sizes compare to full frame:
My APS-C Nikon D7000 is two years old. I expect to use it another two or threes years. If I still need a DSLR full frame is going to be tempting. Sharper, better ISO, better dynamic range, and a bigger, brighter viewfinder. The full frame D600 is just a hair bigger than the D7000 and is under two grand. By the time I upgrade full frame may be down in the $1,600 range.
If I don’t go full frame, then why would I upgrade – to get some more megamixels and a few features? If that’s it I’m not sure it would be worth upgrading.
The only downside will be lenses. Full frame zoom lenses cost more. The kit zoom lens for the D7000 is the 18-105mm – $400 and 15 ounces. The kit zoom for the D600 is the 24-85mm – $600 and 16 ounces, a 50% difference. Telephoto lenses are a little bigger and more expensive, but not much.
Full frame wide angle on the other hand is way expensive, bubba. The APS-C 12-14mm is $1100 and 1.1 pounds. The full frame 14-24mm is $2,100 and 2.1 pounds. Ouch. Plus sides – it’s 2mm wider in 35mm equivalent, it’s a pro-level gold ring Nikon, it’s a stop faster, and some people say it’s the best wide angle zoom ever made. So there’s that.
Anyway, that’s my internal monologue on full frame. Thanks for listening.