One of the common beliefs in photography is that a full-frame camera is far superior to a crop sensor, but is this true? How much of a difference does a larger sensor provide?
When I began my career as a photographer, one theme I heard from others was that full-frame cameras were for professionals and crop sensors were for amateurs. I didn’t start to question this until I realized that two of the most successful photographers I knew were using cameras with crop sensors. After trying out their gear for a while and comparing to my Canon 5D Mark IV, I began to wonder if the difference was as significant as I had thought.
This video from Becki and Chris provides the answers to many of the questions you might have about sensor sizes. Here, these two photographers shoot several clips of the same scene with two different sensor sizes to demonstrate the differences that each provides. They then go on to explain the benefits to each option and show in what situations a full frame might honestly be better for you.
I will add that after experience with both full-frame and crop sensors, the larger size is not the ultimate goal I initially thought it to be. Many incredible photographers prefer their crop-sensor cameras, and companies such as Fujifilm have some excellent options right now. What is your opinion? How much does the sensor size matter?
Glad to see someone making this point. A good APS-C camera can produce results identical in IQ to a full frame camera. I have the Leica CL and SL (both 24MP), and use them interchangeably. When I show A3+ prints, no-one has ever picked one camera over the other. The differences are in the handling, not the IQ.
Give Jimmi Hendrix a cardboard box attached to a piece of string and he'd sound awesome.
Give me a Stradivari and I'd still be crap.
I have seen that! Not Jimmi Hendrix obviously but at Tamworth Music Festival here in Australia. A street busker playing the blues on a homemade slide guitar made of a cigar box and (3) strings. Sounded awesome. Have the video to prove it!
If most people believe that full-frame is better, it doesn't matter what the reality is.
Most clients and employers ask for full-frame, even though given a photo, none of them could tell the differences.
So long as you know what you are doing, an iPhone could do most of the jobs. But no one would like to believe their eyes, they only believe the magic word "full-frame".
Here I am with my nearly 10 year old 7D, still loving it, rarely missed a beat. Never used a full-frame so what would I know?
Like so many things in photography, it depends. I would say outside of pretty extreme situations, however, it really doesn't make a significant difference aside from the fact that most companies treat APS-C as a consumer thing and release inferior glass for it compared to their full frame offerings.
20 min video talking about it...Whether it matters or not really depends on each ones individual needs. It also depends on whether you are looking at it as a photographer or as a client, or as a pro photographer looking to get hired or as an amateur or a pro photographer whose life does not depend on getting income from photography. In some areas, one of the requirements when clients are looking for a photographer is to have a full frame frame. It is not enough (or for some clients, it does not matter) that your images created with Olympus, Fuji or Sony look professional; their requirement is to have a full frame body. If you don't have it, you are not getting the job. You can spend time trying to prove that you can do the job with Olympus or Sony, but from the client's perspective (the ones who have this requirement), having a full frame is a must have requirement to be hired. In the city where I live, most briefs I get have a requirement "you must have a full frame body".
I'm 1.6 m tall and 61 kilos. I guess I don't qualify for a "full frame body" ;-)
I have found that those who want to micromanage my equipment will also want to micromanage the entire process.
Sometimes, the benefits of one thing over another aren't immediately obvious or apply to everyone. In my case, I'm getting older and my eyes aren't so good. A full-frame DSLR allows me to see things I never could with an APS-C camera. Mirrorless is out of the question so don't even go there!
Good point.
Hi Sam, why isn't mirrorless an option?
Not to be rude but I've answered that question several times over the past few years and only been insulted for my efforts. Suffice to say, I do my thing and everyone else should do theirs.
As you get older you become long sighted. Thus looking at a tiny mirror less oled a few mm away is going to be quite difficult.
As your younger who's short sighted it should be a win win
I'm not sure what you're getting at so can't see how it's related to my comment.
I can't reply based on my experience?
Of course you can. I just don't understand your point.
Ok so being long sighted is very useful when focusing on something far away so looking through a lens is easier. My parents use reading glasses to focus on a newspaper. But don't need anything while driving.
Mirrorless which uses a display in the eye piece which means your trying to focus on something very very close. I don't know how well the diopter helps in this regard.
I'm short sighted, and as I get older will fall into that category that needs varifocal lenses ughhh.
One of the hardest parts of photography for me is checking if the image is sharp or not and I find it very hard to do without chimping. I'm not saying my composition or photography is any good to start with!
My uncle gave an example with his 7100 he can look through the lens and take a photo but then needs to throw on his glasses to check settings or see how the photo came out. It frustrates the heck out of him. Despite loving photography.
I know what you mean. When it's critical, I have to bring my reading glasses to see the LCD or use my Hoodman Loupe. :-(
Real professionals use medium format :-)
Real professionals use large format and develop their own film. Haha :P
Real professionals use oil based paint and brushes made from animal hair!!!!!! HA!..........
Real professionals use a stick with a fire blackened end on a cave wall.
Not true...................who paid them to draw??........................they were prehistoric tagger's.......
It depends of the kind of photography you do…
Try to make a sport reportage with a Sinar P3, or even with an Hassy…
I own both. To me it doesn't really matter, but if I want more reach out of my long teles...it's good to have the option. IQ is about the same...except when I use certain films that can't be touched by my digital. All my professional work is done mostly with medium format though.
People thinking sensor size doesn’t matter shouldn’t buy “real” cameras. Smartphones can take pictures and videos and at social media size most people can’t see the difference anyway.
If you spend many thousands on an FF camera and lenses you should know why or be rich enough not to care.
PS, Fujifanboys thinking their crop sensor camera will get them the same results as cameras with bigger sensors should ask themselves why Fujifilm made the GFX.
This argument is usually coming from fuji fanboys. They never justify GFX and for argument sake since sensor size don't matter, then not get a 4/3 camera over a GFX or Fujifilm APS-C? That Olympus sport's camera should do lovely
It all depends on the setting... With good light and not needing a super shallow DOF a crop sensor will do just fine- low light/needing ultra shallow DOF you do have to deal with physics - no way around that....
People thinking sensor size doesn’t matter shouldn’t buy “real” cameras. Smartphones can take pictures and videos and at social media size most people can’t see the difference anyway.
If you spend many thousands on an MF camera and lenses you should know why or be rich enough not to care.
PS. Canon, Nikon, and Sony fanboys thinking their full frame sensor camera will get them the same results as cameras with bigger sensors should ask themselves why Phase One made the IQ4.
PPS. Or maybe it's the photographer, not the tools.
Sure, a great photographer will get better results with lesser cameras than an average photographer with the best equipment money can buy, but that’s not what this is about. It’s about the same photographer thinking the results will be the same when using different tools.
You can use a small hammer on a large nail or a large hammer on a small nail, but you will get better results if you use large hammer on large nails and a small hammer on small nails, unless you can’t hit the nail at all.
In the end it’s the result that counts and the effort and time to get to the desired result, especially if photography is what pays your bills. Getting the right tool for the job you need to do is part of that.
Sorry, but sensor size does matter to a lot of us. If I had the money, I'd have my 5DIV for wildlife and action and I'd have a GFX50S for everything else. A phone camera wouldn't work for me because I hate them, but that's me.
Smaller cameras don't work for me because I like the heft and bulk a larger DSLR gives, especially when I put a heavier lens on my camera (5DIV w/grip). Fuji came up with a well thought out medium format camera that closely emulates a good ole' FF DSLR. And Fuji lenses are quite amazing.
"Does Having a Full-Frame Camera Matter?" Only if you need full-frame images.
No! More important is story, composition, light but not a stupid camera body.
100% agree...
How could you disagree with my reply to Linas? It's demonstrably true! If you have a reason, that's fine but have the courtesy to voice it.
Sorry, wrong button, possible I was in hurry :)
No worries. I'm always in a hurry. :-)
Just because those things are more important, and I totally agree, doesn't mean a stupid camera body never matters. And that's the real question. If it matters sometimes, you should probably have one. Kinda like a vehicle with 4WD. Nobody needs it all the time but if you need it sometimes, you'd better get it.
:-)
It depends. If just delivering images is your highest priority, a D500 is better than a D610. If you just want the perfect personal picture, your money is better spent on travel expenses, lighting and makeup artists.
But if money isn't an issue at all, get that juicy A9.
The sensor size might not be the complete reason to buy a particular full frame. The 5D Mark IV shares the 1DX Mark II's AF system and has a pretty respectable continuous shooting speed. To say that you can get the same results is really dependant on a lot of factors like having fast lenses with enough compression to get the same DOF, or having a speedlight to compensate for the ISO wall you hit where the image becomes too noisey.
Another Sony commercial.....
They were already going to make the video on this topic but got invited by Sony to California so why wouldn't they take advantage of the change in scenery? It'd be a waste not to do so.
if you really want to undestand the difference go and see tony northrup video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi_CkZ0sGAw&t=1s
or this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XMk9jFcnlA&t=2s
at least you can understand, then you can decide if usefull
Levi:
Owning both before I would almost always grab the FF camera. But these are DSLRs. The FF gear allows so much more light into the camera and low light (indoor) focusing is that much better. It's not an image quality issue.
However, with mirrorless cameras the EVF can brighten the view.
Having recently acquiring a mirrorless FF Z6 I find it small and great for travel and street work but still prefer the FF D750 for indoor event photography because it focuses so much faster and accurately in low light with moving subjects. The mirrorless focusing technology is close but not as good.
It seems to me that a crop sensor camera works great most of the time but for low light photography FF is the way to go and for most situations mirrorless is good enough but not as good as a pro FF DSLR, a D850 for example.
Also disappointed that the manufacturers no longer have a built in strobe in pro cameras. Because, sometimes it's just nice to have it.
Hmmmm....FWIW almost every Nikon DX lens on a DX camera like the D500 is rated lower on DXOMark than the equivalent FX lens on a D750. And all lenses rate higher on a D850 than on a D750. Even though many people can’t tell the difference it seems clear that FX is technically superior.
of course it is. but it doesnt matter. the difference is so small they said. im selling my d3s/d4/d4s and getting dx cameras. the kiddos have now decided that it doesnt matter.