How do you know if u need a Full Frame ?

Yet i dont know ANY 'professional' who works with anything less than a FF

You need to greatly expand your horizons then. Ever met a pro sports photog?
It's either/or. Don't forget or ignore the part psychology plays in your decisions. If you psych yourself into feeling you NEED (and want) a FF DSLR then nothing can stop that urge until your pull the trigger and get a new 5D or 1Ds. Can your business model handle the pricier camera? (e.g., no more plastic EF-S lenses).

Is there something the 5DII will do better for you than a new 7D? Likely not, just throwin' it out there.

you might like having a FF sensor for your Travel work, but possibly for food, portrait, and nudes I don't think that you will see a noticeble difference as the setting is almost always controlled. FF sensor will definitely give you better low light performance, and the dynamic range as well, but ask yourself while looking thorugh your portfolio, would this have been that much better if you had taken with a FF sensor camera instead of a Crop sensor camera, and would your clients have noticed.
By the way, I really like your work...but outside of a couple of pics I don't really feel that any of them would benefit from a FF sensor.

well- that part of why i ask- Im thinking that sports would be one of the few exceptions to being able to get more from a FF.... and i have no ambition to do sports....
So is it REALLY just my tech lust that is pushing me to get a FF...?
Dont they deliver better quality images - with more ability for post-prod editing in the areas I will use it for mainly...? Fashion/portrait/food/travel.... ?
And since i dont want to use my camera for video- the 7D doesn't appeal to me so much...
Thanks again- all input appreciated...

Wow.. so i may really have to re-examine my "whys" in getting one, huh...?
I've just spent all these years since getting my 1st DSLR (4 yrs) thinking that a FF would be the next logical step toward professional-hood (and yes, i know its more a matter of attitude, conduct and skill)... That i would upgrade to FF when i could afford it (and thanks to student loans, i soon can), and have my XSi cropped as a back-up body.. i have bought mainly EF lenses for this very reason...

Thanks for the compliments, Dan Glad u like.. I luv to share...

muchas gracias all...

If you have to ask that question, then you don't need a FF. You would need to upgrade your lenses before even thinking about going FF. A FF camera allows premium lenses to be used to their full potential, it also magnifies all the flaws of cheap glass. There are pros that don't use FF. The camera of choice for sports photogs is the 1DMkIII or MkIV now, and its not FF, its an APS-H sensor. You use the tool designed best for the job, and in some cases, a FF isn't the best tool.

I would definitely NOT get a FF and use the kit lens with it. I would get a couple L zooms and a prime or 2 or 3 before going FF. Using the 18-55mm kit lens on a FF camera would be like riding a Harley Davidson with a dirtbike engine. As said on this forum and everywhere else, "buy glass first."

[begin broken record mode]

At desktop printer sizes, the quality differences are invisible.

The differences are significant at print sizes too big for one person to hold.

Even at such sizes, APS-C cameras can still make excellent enlargements.

[end broken record mode]

Cheers,

b&

Ahh
Ok ok
starting to see the light...
hmmm and like the idea of getting great glass, come to think of it...
i can get 'more' of them for 'same' amount of a FF, as well..
my covetous tech-lust can still be satiated! whoo-hoo!

any suggestions for a REALLY good everyday lens...?

I am a big fan of full frame and I believe it does offer some benefits but I think your collection of photos shows its the photographer that makes the photo, not the equipment. So many people think spending more money on equipment will give them better photos should see what can be done with fairly inexpensive gear. great photos

It seems you reach a point in every sensor size where there is no useful increase in resolution possible, and that seems to be driving manufacturers to larger sensors, including full frame sensors in 35mm sized cameras. So if you make really big prints, Full Frame is a good option.

If you frequently blow up small sections of an image to make your final image, then increased useful resolution could be useful to you and full frame might be a possibility.

If you need really good performance in low light (high ISO low noise) it seems that certain full frame cameras starting with the 5D and ending recently with the Nikon D3 seem to be a good option.

If you have a large investment in lenses for full frame cameras where you like the view you get from those lenses on 35mm, then a full frame camera will give you that. Right now I have a Sony A350 and I like the weight, but all my old Minolta lenses do different things on the sony and I really wish the 50 was a 50 on the Sony and it's not. So I would like to have a full frame Sony, but there's the cost and the weight of the A850 and A900.

So, really unless you have a specialized need and a fair bit of money, you really don't NEED full frame. But one thing to consider is that we seem to be headed toward full frame and if that is true, then investing in a lot of APS only lenses could be an economic dead end. You will have to decide for yourself -- pay your money and take your chances.