I have pondered this question for quite some time. I have gone through so many internal debates on the merits of this question: do I really need a full frame camera? After so much debate, I couldn't just wish it away, early this year I took the plunge for a marvelous full frame camera, the Nikon D700.

Oh my God, what a camera! I have raved quite a bit about this in a previous blog, I would not bore you with details, you can look it up if you want, but today I felt compelled to confront this question head on. I think you can go about this from two different angles: whether or not I need the full frame technology, or whether or not I need the full frame experience. All and all considering my kind of shooting.

First, I am hobbyist, meaning, I work with budget limits. I enjoy street and landscape photography the most, but I mainly use cameras for personal and family projects. For many years I have heard that image quality was the realm of full frame camera, and many times I had doubts I was getting suckered by cheaper crop sensor alternatives, regardless of what many good professionals promoted: it is not about the camera, it is about you and your journey of photography. Wondering no more, I bought the D700.

In terms of the technology of full frame bodies, yes I can see a couple of clear benefits: dynamic range and depth of field mostly. Having tried and tested the D700 for some time I realized not only I can recover more information from shadows and highlights, but it is the amount of details retained in high ISO files within the image that surprised me the most.

It is also true, crop sensors have made a great deal of progress in term of dynamic range, but regarding recovering details it is not the same, I have noticed the crop sensor struggles to retain details, but does enough of a good work to hide it if you look at the picture from a distance.

As far as shallow depth of field, this is where I believe I fell in love with that full frame look, that feeling of film photography, that image quality provided by Nikkor lenses, a kind of look that sometimes you prefer not to apply "lens corrections” in Lightroom, just because the image with the embedded imperfections of the lens just looks so gorgeous. Those soft backgrounds are to die for. See below what I mean, the first image taken with the D700, and the second with a Pentax K1000 with a roll of Superia 400.

Nevertheless, looking at the third picture from above, I'll be hard pressed to deny how much of a good job camera manufacturers, such as Fujifilm, have accomplished with their lenses, the one above being the XF 23mm shot at f1.4. Same happens with my other crop sensor Pentax K5 when you couple it with great quality glasses. In other words, that film look so natural from pictures taken with a full frame camera can be replicated to a certain degree with a crop sensor camera, as long as, the lens you shoot it with provides good quality optics.

So far, that's what I have learned about what full frame cameras provide in terms of technology to my photography. But what about the second angle to the argument, what have I learned regarding the full frame experience, at least using the Nikon D700? And whatever lessons I could extrapolate from this camera body to other manufacturers and camera models? This is where I'd be more subjective, or perhaps, more honest about my dilemma.

I relate the experience in terms of how it feels holding the camera, using it, shooting with it, and being able to produce images on a constant basis that you can feel proud of or inspired for. From the first moment holding a D700 and still today, there is a gratifying addictive emotion of going out and shoot pictures with it. Its weight, its button placement, the loud sound of its shutter, for some reason I feel it commands respect, makes you noticeable, and you could even be confused to be a master of your craft, just by the looks of it.

And then, a few days ago, when I decided to take it to the beach looking to shoot some beautiful sunrise scenery I was suddenly face with couple of important facts: the ergonomics of a fixed LCD camera, and the high costs of full frame quality optics to get sharp pictures. Regarding ergonomics, every time I wanted to take a low angle shot I feel the pain of my injured knee, or the pain from crouching my neck to have a better angle of view to my composition. In my opinion, physical pain ruins any good feeling experience using any camera. The shot below just took some ache bearing and patience when composing, next to the struggle to get a good exposure due to the tricky light. A tilt screen could benefit so much the experience of photography that I don't understand why camera manufacturers do no consider this more in their offerings. So far, in terms of full frame, in my research I have only found the Pentax K-1 provides the most clever solutions to this situation with ta very innovative tilt screen for low angle shot both in portrait and landscape orientation mode.

Regarding optics, there is no denying, quality full frame lenses are both heavy and expensive. As a budget conscious hobbyist I compare the price and weight to their crop sensor counterparts, and I am sure most people agree that carrying around two or three high quality lenses to any photographic situation makes you pay a price to your back pain, and pay another price to the insurance company for the attention such visible collection of gear calls on to sneaky robbers. In my opinion, that also hinders living the promise of the full frame experience. And, being on the subject of price, I have also noticed that most camera manufacturers keep their quality optics within the full frame lineup, I have hardly noticed such quality for their crop sensor lens line-up, a work perhaps left to third party vendors. It was until I had experience using Fuji glasses and Pentax limited series optics, that I realized that quality has little relationship to the size of the camera's sensor, and more to do with an agreed up marketing strategy from big camera manufacturers such as Canon, Nikon, or Sony.

I am sure many of us have heard the expression that there is no perfect camera, and that you have to compromise in terms of your needs. I guess that for those passionate about photography, compromise is a big word because it means that we have to let something go and all the possibilities of experiences that could represent in the future, in order to make a choice and live the consequences. i have heard this before, it is called "growing up".

In conclusion, do I need a full frame camera, I dare to answer this way: I need a full frame camera, the same way I need a medium format camera. In my opinion, you get the camera that suits the need of the photography you want, or shall I say, you get the technology that best serves the experience you want in your photography. I guess I have a lot of growing up yet to do, and as my photo coach Aaron once told me, sooner or later in your photography journey you'll gravitate to one camera and one lens. I am far from it.

To make a point, make it with pictures. In the next series of photos, the first seven were taken with a Pentax K-5 IIs and the kit lens 18-55mm, and the following 8 pictures were taken with the Nikon D700 and the 50mm 1.4 lens. Would you have noticed much difference not only in terms of image quality, but in terms of quality of the picture? Then, again, it is just street photography.