Full-frame cameras have faced recent criticism, deemed unnecessary by advocates of smaller formats. This article aims to counterbalance the discussion, presenting arguments for why full-frame cameras may indeed hold the top spot for photographers.
Full-frame cameras are a popular choice among many photographers, but it’s crucial to emphasize that selecting a camera should primarily be based on individual needs and preferences. Essentially, there are no universally right or wrong answers when it comes to choosing between sensor sizes. If you find that a smaller or larger sensor camera aligns more with your shooting style and the results you aim to achieve, then that choice is valid. In this article, we will discuss some reasons why I think full-frame cameras Are the best format overall.
Best Autofocus
Full-frame cameras, particularly from established brands such as Sony, Nikon, and Canon, have substantially influenced the autofocus dynamics in contemporary photography and videography. These devices are now integrated with advanced autofocus systems that excel remarkably in delivering high-quality still photography and also demonstrate significant prowess in high-end video work. This signifies an impressive stride in the evolution of imaging technology.
The incorporation of eye-detect autofocus was a transformative development, pushing full-frame cameras further ahead in the autofocus spectrum. But that wasn’t the end of the road. Full-frame cameras have continued on a trajectory of innovation, incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance autofocus capabilities extensively. These refined, AI-enhanced autofocus systems show a remarkable capability in identifying, tracking, and focusing on a variety of subjects such as animals, birds, cars, planes, and bikes with precise accuracy.
Furthermore, the technological enhancement is seen in its ability to maintain a consistent focus on people, even when they are not directly positioned toward the camera. This sophistication in autofocus technology is a defining feature of full-frame cameras. While some advancements do make their way to smaller sensor cameras eventually, they are primarily introduced and refined in full-frame models, reinforcing their influential role in driving autofocus technology innovation within the industry.
The Best Lenses
This isn’t debatable: full-frame cameras unequivocally reign when it comes to lens selection. There's no other format on the market that matches the sheer variety and quality of lenses available for full-frame systems. I want to make it absolutely clear, in this discussion, I won’t be throwing around specific brand or format names negatively. This isn’t about bashing or diminishing any particular brand or format. Instead, this is about delivering a balanced, straightforward discussion highlighting the superiority and benefits of full-frame systems when it comes to lens selection.
Also, I’d like to mention that more often than not, upgrading your camera body won’t bring improvements in image quality as profoundly as a lens upgrade will. And this is why the argument for lens selection is important.
Prime Lenses
When diving into the realm of prime lenses, full-frame cameras are unparalleled in options and performance. Let’s start with the smaller primes; even here, full-frame cameras showcase their superiority. An f/2.0 prime lens, for instance, when paired with a full-frame camera, tends to be compact, cost-effective and often yields better results compared to the same aperture lens from a smaller format. This aspect bolsters the flexibility and convenience of shooting with prime lenses on full-frame cameras, making them a go-to choice for photographers valuing both quality and portability.
Moving on to larger apertures, finding an f/1.4 lens for a full-frame camera is relatively commonplace. These lenses, without commanding an incredible amount of money, allow photographers the creative freedom to capture images with stunning background blur and exceptional performance in low-light conditions. On the contrary, when we look at other formats, getting a lens with an f/1.4 aperture equivalent becomes a tougher and more expensive endeavor. Such lenses, if available, are often bulkier, heavier, and come with a higher price tag. It wouldn’t be a huge leap to say that full-frame cameras have the best range of prime lenses among any current digital camera format.
Zoom Lenses
Moving on to zoom lenses, full-frame cameras offer the absolute best options. For instance, the trio of lenses often referred to as the "holy trinity" of zoom lenses, covering wide-angle to telephoto ranges: 16-35mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm, all maintaining a constant aperture of f/2.8. These lenses stand out by providing versatility, speed, and exceptional image quality that is quintessential for various photography styles and professional photography.
But the innovation doesn’t stop there. Full-frame systems have pushed the boundaries even further, introducing zoom lenses with an even wider f/2.0 aperture. These pioneering lenses are exceptional, as they almost encompass the utility of several prime lenses, enabling photographers to work with remarkable speed and flexibility. They are currently exclusive to full-frame cameras, lacking any equivalents in other formats. The presence of these f/2.0 zoom lenses reiterates the unmatched superiority of full-frame cameras, underscoring their position in the realm of photography. Thus, in the zoom lens category, full-frame cameras have no equal.
Niche Lenses
Specialty lenses, such as tilt-shift lenses, find their true companions in full-frame cameras. This combination is particularly useful in specialized fields such as architectural photography, where the adaptability and precision of tilt-shift lenses are crucial. Full-frame cameras also stand uniquely supreme in allowing photographers to explore ultra-wide perspectives, offering lenses that provide up to a 135-degree field of view, which remains unmatched by other formats. While medium format cameras present themselves as potential contenders, especially when considering brands like Fujifilm with their latest tilt-shift lens, they come with a significant cost, and their overall lens offerings don’t quite topple the full-frame dominance.
In wrapping up this segment, the formidable array of lenses compatible with full-frame cameras—from prime to zoom and specialized lenses—underlines their extraordinary standing in the photography market. It's not merely about variety; it’s about the quality, performance, and creative possibilities that these lenses unlock for most creative professionals.
Best Camera Features
Full-frame cameras really bring a lot to the table, especially when it comes to standout features that professionals appreciate. First off, they offer some of the best internal sensor stabilization, a really crucial feature. It’s all about keeping your shots clear and steady, minimizing the blur you might get from camera shake. This is a huge help in making sure your images are consistently sharp, regardless of some inevitable movement during shooting.
Speed is another major benefit of full-frame camera. The frames per second (fps) are some of the highest available from any system so far, helping you nail those action shots without missing a beat. It’s particularly useful when fast-moving subjects are your focus, ensuring that you capture every crucial moment with precision.
Build quality is another major benefit of Full-frame cameras. These cameras tend to boast the most durable and resilient design. They’re constructed to handle a multitude of environments, whether you find yourself in a windy desert or a misty, rugged landscape. Their adaptability makes them a reliable companion for professional shooting tasks in varied conditions.
Additionally, they are generally the most user-friendly cameras on the market. They’re designed with intuitive controls like custom buttons and dedicated record buttons, as well as navigational features like D-pads and joysticks. All these add up to a smoother, more efficient user experience, aligning well with what professional photographers actually need.
Finally, let’s talk video. Full-frame cameras don’t mess around. With some of the highest resolutions currently available, the highest frame rates, and the flexibility of raw video - they bring everything to the table. These features aren’t just specs; they translate into real-world, on-screen excellence, giving your videos a professional edge. In the video arena, full-frame cameras unquestionably hold their ground, proving to be an indispensable tool for creators who are serious about their craft. This is especially useful now more than ever due to the number of creatives working as hybrid shooters.
Ultimately, there’s always debate surrounding the necessity of full-frame cameras. However, for enthusiasts dedicated to mastering both photography and videography, full-frame cameras emerge as a compelling choice. They come loaded with essential features, aligning well with the demands of hybrid shooting. These cameras hold significant practical value, and remain the best option for most professional creatives.
What About Image Quality?
Shot on a 6 year old iPhone X
Shot on the Vivo V25 a Budget Smartphone
Image quality seems to be the one thing that everyone is obsessed with when it comes to discussing different formats. But these days, even smartphones are giving professional cameras a run for their money. The differences in image quality between various formats have shrunk to a point where it is effectively negligible. It’s not the thing you should worry about when picking a camera. There isn't a single pro-level camera currently on the market that has poor image quality.
Marketing folks will tell you that bigger sensors like the 645 medium format systems offer a massive leap in quality. But honestly, the improvements are small, and once again, effectively negligible.
Smartphones competing with professional cameras are a reality now. And it tells us something important – a slightly larger sensor isn’t going to revolutionize your photos.
So, what should influence your choice? Look at other factors like usability and how well the camera has been put together. Consider how developed the format is, the kind of accessories that are available, and the lens selection. And in this competition, full-frame cameras are winning by a significant margin. They bring a good balance of usability, features, and a well-rounded selection of lenses. They’re not just about image quality – they’re about giving you a reliable, versatile tool for your photography.
Then again, it's also important to note that full-frame cameras offer some of the best in image quality. So, even if image quality is a factor for you then full-frame cameras are mostly unrivaled.
Final Thoughts
Full-frame cameras have emerged as undeniable champions in the realm of photography and videography. Their balance in features, lens selection, and overall performance means that they are quintessential tools for professionals.
The array of lenses available for full-frame cameras is unparalleled, offering diverse creative possibilities to produce extraordinary and distinctive imagery. These lenses, ranging from the versatile to the specialized, enable artists to fully realize their vision.
In terms of development, full-frame cameras boast a robust infrastructure of features, support, and compatibility. A wealth of accessories and third-party offerings augment their usability, allowing for a customizable and comprehensive photographic experience.
The hallmark of the full-frame camera lies in its professional effectiveness. Their innate capability to meet and exceed the multifaceted demands of the photographic and videographic domains underscores their superiority. Full-frame cameras don’t merely perform; they excel, embodying an unmatched synergy of innovation and practical applicability.
I mean sure, other formats have their place in the industry too, but let's face it full-frame is undeniably the best.
Totally agree, even if it is an irrelevant truth for 99.9% of the world’s consumers. Name the format, and I have shot with it over the past 50 years, but there’s no denying that in our imperfect camera world, it is in the full-frame format where all the best attributes of today’s camera technologies blend the best and product the most consistent great content. But it may not matter much these days outside a minute number of consumers. People are growingly happy and satisfied with whatever, and as long as it produces a visual feeling of some sort in the 2 seconds they will look at a photograph, that’s good enough for them. And to tell you the truth, with me too, despite my Leica full-frame cameras. Those small sensor from drones to smartphones have not only revolutionized image capture, but also have had led to a monumental shift in what consumers find acceptable and cool in today’s digital era. And all within less than 20 years. I’m afraid the future belongs to them, and an exciting future it will be.
For what I shoot and what I do with my images, I would love to go up to a true medium format sensor.
BUT ..... there are no lenses that would give me the same field of view that I get from my 800mm or 600mm on a full frame sensor. And even if such lenses were made for medium format, they would cost upwards of of $30,000 and weigh 25 or 30 pounds.
So ..... for this reason, I agree that the "full frame" sensor hits the sweet spot - the best compromise of image quality and utility ..... at least for most of what I shoot and for what I demand when it comes to pixel-level image quality.
However, there is some subject matter that I shoot that would actually be better shot with a smaller sensor. Why? Because for my herp shooting (small reptiles and amphibians such as lizards, toads, snakes, turtles, etc.) supreme image quality is not essential. Those are not images that I plan to print at sizes over 36", and for 36" by 24" print sizes and smaller, APS-C and MFT sensors provide sufficient image quality.
Also, when photographing herps, size and weight matter, whereas these things do NOT matter when shooting mammals and birds. Why does size and weight matter for herps? Because when I do that type of shooting, I am putting my camera gear into a backpack along with a headlamp, change of clothes, 3 quarts of water, bite-proof gauntlets, a ground cloth, and food for the day. The smaller size of a Sony A6xxx and a 55-210mm lens, compared to a Canon 5D 4 and a 60-600mm lens, or a 100-400mm lens, is necessary in order to get it to fit into the pack without crushing and cramming my lunch and snacks.
Lastly, in herp photography I am always, yes always, trying to get MORE depth of field, never less. So, the smaller sensor sizes, which limit flexibility in DOF, are not a detriment because I never want shallow DOF in this kind of photography anyway.
So overall I agree with the points in your article. But I do think that there are certain instances where other sensor sizes are actually preferable.
I especially agree that full frame advocates are under attack and face peer pressure to use smaller sensors. And that is wrong - if a sensor size works best for someone, then others should accept that and let them shoot with what they want, instead of telling them how wrong they are for using full frame.
I was with you up until you used the word attack! Who in their right mind would attack another person for using a certain type of camera? Who in their right mind would take any notice or pay any heed to such a person who would be upset or incensed by someone using a bigger sensor than they use?
Unfortunately, we as emotional consumers attach our identities to products, and you best believe the manufacturers and marketing firms they hire understand this phenomenon very well
and absolutely use it to their advantage, not yours as the consumer.
Sometimes, to say, "FF sucks, or "MFT is irrelevant" is like telling someone THEY suck and THEY'RE irrelevant.
Research shows we're not as conscientious in our spending habits as much as we like to believe. A lot of the things we do, and say and consume is in one way or another attached to our core insecurities, and psychology, both conscious and subconscious. We falsely believe that if we aquire this lens, or that body, somehow we will be made more whole. But that never is the case past the initial awe of having something new in hand. If anything, its an expensive exercise in futility.
AI is going to rip the band aid of a lot of folks who have been hidding behind their tech. Its these folks who are going to be replaced the most, because when you pit tech against tech AI will come out on top. However, creativity vs tech is another matter.
24x35mm film became the de facto standard due to numerous factors totally unrelated to image quality. That format has carried over to digital purely based on the ease of transitioning manufacturing and users by making legacy equipment more directly compatible. The arguments of one format being the "best" at this or that lacks any quantifiable proof.
Depends on the subject matter, how much money you have to spend and how mobile you want to be. For me the smaller Micro Four Thirds system is by far the better choice due to the Olympus 150-400mm zoom and the OM-1. As its always the case, we all have our opinions based on individual needs and just because this author wants to stand up for Full Frame doesn't mean he's right for you. The reason Full Frame cameras are taking it on the chin lately is due to the iPhone. If Apple can shoot their entire last special event on an iPhone, you can bet, for most people, Full Frame is overkill.
100% agree. I completely ditched my full-frame gear for mft. because it suits my needs way better then full-frame.
so i have to respectfully disagree the statement of Usman Dawood :)
If subject isolation and thin depth of field don't matter to you (they certainly would seem to in wildlife), then yes use whatever. I mean a 1" bridge camera will get the job done, right?
I agree with the author that Full Frame seems to be the sweet spot especially since nowadays you can get gear that's just as light weight at crop systems if that's what you're chasing.
"If subject isolation and thin depth of field don't matter to you" ... spoken like someone who's never shot m43. Shallow DOF is eminently achievable with MFT. Sure, if two photos are shot from the same spot, one with MFT and the other FF, and at the same aperture values and equivalent FL, the FF photo will be shallower. Reality doesn't work like that. With MFT you can easily get at eye level with the subject, move around to change the background and shoot handheld at wide apertures for long focal lengths. All things that are difficult with the FF lenses of equivalent quality, since they are large, heavy and require a tripod. You should not comment on something without trying it.
Gear that's "just as light weight" as crop systems will necessitate slow lenses that do not allow full AF functionality in low light. Not to mention, the IQ of such full frame lenses is consumer-grade. You can shoot BIFs before sunrise with the 300mm Pro + TC and OM-1, using all 1000+ AF points, since you'd be shooting at f5.6 even if the "look" is like 840mm f11 on FF. You cannot use the RF 800mm f11 in low light because it's an f11 lens, period, and crippled even on an R3.
Thank you! i read that a lot and i am always wondering the same. have people, who said that, never used mft seriously or are they just trolling :D
You can quantify some things in the space of subjectivity but at the end of the day you're going to always hit a wall of subjectivity where opinion can't possibly be quantifiable in any meaningful way to the masses.
Personally, I think each of us hide weaknesses in our skill set behind technology. And dare I say I think the people that push or peddle technology before the craft the hardest and most aggressively are typically the worse offenders. They chase gear almost incessantly. I find it sort of annoying, because it often overshadows the importance of cultivating an artistic voice, which becomes misleading to newcomers jumping into the craft.
Just get this camera, this lens, with these specs and you're off to the races. Yes, you're off to the races of taking a magnificent still life of a vibrant and sharp bowl of fruit. And yet, your glorious image quality says nothing, other than fruit is nice in 8k.
Now that tech is finally delivering on diminished returns it would be nice to start to see more photographers and videographers go back to their artistic vision and the popular discourse be more about developing one's creative voice with whatever gear one owns. More about the craft, instead of this overly saturated focus on this or that tool.
The camera manufacturers are doing just fine without the free advertising, and will continue to do so well into the future. Don't you worry your socks about that.
Except 3:2 is a terrible shooting ratio for many applications including weddings, portrait, studio and architecture.
If I’m going to invest in a new format I’ll skip full frame… it will be medium format for me.
And it will be an adjunct to my MFT, gear, not a replacement.
Full frame is just too much of a compromise.
I use both full frame (Nikon Z8) and medium format (Fuji GFX 100s). Each has its own way of presenting the scene before you. For landscapes and architecture, I'll choose the Fuji. When travelling, it's the Nikon.
Guy is brave writing this lol I just had to see the comments.
I agree on principal, it's the most perfect for the most range of subjects. If crop had the image quality/dof control of full frame, a lot less people would useful full frame wouldn't they. Maybe.
Then again if I could get medium format in a crop size body, that's another conversation :)
Have fun all. Life is short, shoot with the best gear you can and enjoy yourself. Cheers all.
None of your arguments really back up that's it's the best format, just that the selection of tools that are made in that format currently are the best. Nothing is stopping camera manufacturers from making the best selection of lens in another format, putting the best auto focus in them, or putting more controls on.
There are lower limits to size when it comes to image quality and upper limits when it comes to ergonomics. And for almost everyone, that's going to be somewhere between micro 4/3rds and medium format. If 35mm hadn't been the predominant film size, we'd probably have the best tools in some other size than full frame.
I think full frame is the standard but honestly if you only shoot things like wildlife or sports a micro 4/3 can do well with the reach and insane IBIS.
If you are low light then go full frame.
If you’re studio, portraits or landscapes (aka things that don’t move) medium format may be best.
Aps-c is good all around sensor size.
I like 1 inch sensor bridge cameras for travel (Sony R/RX or Panasonic L/LX types)
It sucks for me because I haven’t settled on what I want to focus on so I have too many systems and sensor sizes.
If sales are any indication, smartphones are the best, no? Adequate image quality in photo and video, editing and sharing on device, supremely portable with multiple lenses.
In general, I agree with you, and I don't even shoot full frame anymore - but if you can make the argument for one format, you can make it for any other.
Sorry, but calling them "full-frame" just exposes your bias. An uncropped frame from a 35mm-format camera is no "fuller" than one from any other-format camera. It's not hard to type "35mm format" instead of "full frame" - it's just one more letter.
Also, the comparison of lens lineups is a red herring, lumping all 35mm-format lenses together as if they were interchangeable. Micro Four Thirds has more native lenses than any APS or 35mm-format mount except Sony E-mount.
I just explained the difference for you.
Here's another hint: What do you call a darkroom print that has the unexposed portion of the film forming a black border around the uncropped image area?
Well, if you mention FF to 99% of experienced photographers, they will, in all likelihood, point to a D850 or an A1 or a Z9 or an R5. That's the reality in today's photography lexicon. You may not like it, but you'll be rowing against the current.
Yes, the corporate PR brainwashing has been very effective, mostly because prior to the misinformation campaign most folks weren't familiar with the term "full-frame". And, because the photo press didn't bark.
Also, when you say "experienced photographers", you're clearly not referring to dinosaurs like me who were already pros in the film era. We all knew the historical meaning of "full-frame".
I'll keep rowing against the current as long as it's trying to push me onto the rocks.
I'm not sure if this is very relevant because I compared an older Sony FF vs. APS-C camera almost exact same images with the exact same lens. When I pixel peeped, it was really hard to tell the difference unless I unrealistically blew it up. But comparing the images directly, the FF image just seemed to be a bit more sharp and vibrant.
I believe you're seeing the difference in the improved dynamic range of a full frame sensor vs. an APS-C or MFT. Likewise, a medium format sensor (larger) has more dynamic range than a full frame. Realistically though, if you have good glass, all of them will take great photos.
Only pixel peepers and the insecure actually care!
For me it’s 3 things. Size, weight, cost. All too much. There’s no doubt the format is superior. But of those 3, cost is the biggest factor. The exponential increase in cost not just for the body, but in replacing your lenses (or why bother). So yes, full frame is better, but only if you can afford it.
I did not know that fstoppers allow such a click-bait articles. “Best everything” may be for you, but saying that in general proof your level of understanding the others … and that your FF camera actaully never left your studio environment and you did not bring it to the outwoods, right? Funny how this site is going down …
Because its a business, you wouldn't have clicked on a useful article. Look at how many comments this already has. Controversy = profit.
The very obvious rejoinder, of course, is "The best format to do what?"
I also think the other points are far too reductive. The Sony a6XXXs have the same eye focus as their full frame cameras do. One can put a G-Master lens on those bodies (although that tends to miss the point of an APS-C camera, at least for me). I've got three f/1.4 lenses for APS-C in my bag now. I think veeeery few people here have PC lenses (I do, an adapted Nikkor. Don't use it much). The lenses now almost all outperform the photographers, as no one here is doing four color full bleed prints for publication. I have an f/0.95 on a body now, and no one here is paying for (an immensely better) Nikkor Noct. The frame rate on most APS-Cs is far beyond what anyone needs for almost any use case, and far beyond the amount of time it would take most to edit.
There was a world-class photographer named Galen Rowell, who shot for National Geopgraphic back when that meant something almost unique across the industry. He owned and could have shot with any Nikon or Canon F camera, but he mostly shot with a semi-pro Nikon N8008. It was smaller, lighter, and could be carried to where he needed it carried. It was enough to do what he needed it to do, nothing more.
This article is far too well written and thought out to consider "click-bait." It is, however, a "hot take" to grab eyes, which is what most of us are doing anyway, or should be. But full frame cameras are best at being full frame cameras. APS-C and MFT cameras are the best at being APS-C and MFT cameras, medium frame, etc. The real question is "What do YOU need for the work you do?" Buy that. Use that. Think hard about the work you want to do. Don't buy or use gear just because the most successful artists in the world use that gear, they almost certainly have a different job than you do.
Besides, Apple's already got that "Well, the most successful artists in the world use that gear, so I must purchase it too" market sewn up.
"The real question is "What do YOU need for the work you do?" Buy that. Use that."
THAT is what determines 'best'. There are trade-offs for everything: size, cost, flexibility, lens choice, image quality (various definitions of that, too), etc. Something that might be "better" or "best", but doesn't work well for a given photographer isn't actually "better" for them, much less "best".
This has been true since (at least) roll-film was introduced.
For me, a guy with one camera, FF, or whatever you want to call it, is a very good fit. Size and weight aren't a concern except that I like the feel of a nice chunk in my hand. The R5 with a grip is just about perfect for me. Second would be Nikon. After that...
The article was well thought out, especially since the author started off his reasoning with Autofocus. The autofocus of the R5 is what lured me away from my beloved 5DIV. It's that much better. And for me, that makes FF, or whatever you wish to call it, a winner. Now, if I had a big ole' photo piggy bank, I'd probably have a medium format Fuji just for landscapes and cityscapes. But such isn't the case.
In the end, it's an opinion piece. His opinion, your opinion, my opinion, are worth the same. It comes down to 'we like what we like'.
I’m sick of “full frame” sales talk. When I am on a 12 mile mountain hike I do not want to carry a bloody FF camera and lens(es). Ergo, FF is not the “best” format.
But I also do 12 mile mountain hikes, quite frequently, and I do carry a full frame body and lenses with me, because yes, it actually is the best format for those ventures.
There is an exception: if I am hiking for reptile and amphibian photography, I can use a smaller system, because I do not need the noticeably better image quality that I need for bird and mammal imagery.
If all things were equal… Not everyone has the same level of health, fitness or age.
Yep, I understand that. I used to do those kind of hikes with a monorail 4x5. Not anymore ... LOL.
"Full-frame cameras really bring a lot to the table, especially when it comes to standout features that professionals appreciate."
First off, congratulations on the excellent clickbait. On to the point - since I'm not a "professional" but shoot for the pleasure of it, I will continue to shoot what brings me joy and not care about external validation. I guess I'll have to make-do with my OM-1's non-standout features such as ProCapture with full RAW, 50 FPS in RAW, 240 fps for video, built-in 6-stop ND filter, real-time preview of composite photos, in-camera focus stacking and the ability to shoot 30 second exposures handheld at wide angles. I wish I could use a "professional" camera that ... oh wait, cannot do any of this. Poor me! 😭
“If you find that a smaller or larger sensor camera aligns more with your shooting style and the results you aim to achieve, then that choice is valid.”
Here's a post that generates reactions.
I guess there's so much more factor than that.
I am shooting APSC-C and doing 99% landscape and it has been perfect for me for years.
I've been thinking about switching to FF and never did it as there were more cons than pros.
1/ size & weight: I am going up mountains, trekking, hiking walking for hours. I bring my camera, three lens, tripod, a drone few accessories, food and so in. This make my backpack fairly heavy. I can't imagine adding few kilos more and a bigger backpack. For travelling it's also perfect.
2/ Cost: well that's still a thing. FF are becoming really pricey, as well as lenses. Most ppl can't afford and don't want to make a credit.
3/ video. Well Fuji has very good reputation for being advanced in video and honestly they are pretty good. Probably even better than most FF. So video might not exactly be the best FF winner.
Few things for which I would consider FF: night photography, large prints, where I need trusty AF.
Now, I don't say one is better than the other, it just matches more my profile. I am cutting on AF reliability and ability to print extra large, which for now is not really a concern for me.
I never say never.
Thanks for raising the debate anyways, always cool to see all point of views.
My first mirrorless camera was the full frame Canon R5. It was a great camera for a lot of things, but because it was a FF camera, I could never get the reach I needed to fill the frame with tiny skittish birds... Even with an 800mm lens.
A friend suggested I try the R7 crop sensor body for 60% extra reach. I did, and I loved it so much, I bought one. Later, I sold my GF R5 and bought a second R7 as my back up.
Never looked back. Btw, my FF R5 in crop mode, put only 17mp on my subjects. My crop sensor R7, which is always in crop mode, puts 32 mp on my subjects. Double the FF R5.
This falls into the category of "self-fulfilling prophecy" to me. It seems to me that the most resources have been poured into designing and engineering FF bodies and lenses over the course of digital ILC history. But MFT is the most attractive format right now in my not so humble opinion for its lightweight components and high quality. It is an optimal middle ground between FF and smartphone in my eyes.
Wow, this first good article I've reas here in a long time. Like truly good.
Keep articles like that comming and it will elevate this website.
Well in an ideal world, you would possess all three, excuse me four formats! They are all valuable tools in their own rights. Right now I'm running with the A6700 with a combo of APS-C and full frame lenses. (Love the tamron 70-180 2.8, incredible lens). It takes about a 62 MP full frame sensor in crop mode to equate to a 26 mp sensor native like on the a6700. But if money were no option I would have a combo of bodies encompassing aps-c, full frame and medium format. No doubt in 10 years stacked sensors will gradually make their way into all formats bringing more quality on different levels to each. It's like anything else in life, you get what works for you. When I hit the lottery I will have multiple formats to choose from.. but for now super happy with the combo I'm running, as it lends itself to my lifestyle.
In my 'ideal world', I'm quite happy to stay with fullframe.
"The incorporation of eye-detect autofocus was a transformative development, pushing full-frame cameras further ahead in the autofocus spectrum."
Introduced on the Olympus E-PL2 2011.
"Full-frame cameras have continued on a trajectory of innovation, incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance autofocus capabilities extensively."
Introduced on the Olympus E-M1X in 2019.
"Full-frame systems have pushed the boundaries even further, introducing zoom lenses with an even wider f/2.0 aperture."
Introduced in 2005 with the Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0
So... are full-frame cameras really introducing these things, or are they just copying them several years after they were introduced on Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds cameras?
Too bad Micro Four Thirds did such a shit job, though. For instance, no one cared about eye-af until FF Sony.
MF f2 is about FF f4 DOF wise. Come out with a 35-100 f.5/.75 and I might be impressed.
"no one cared about eye-af until FF Sony."
You just weren't paying attention.
"Come out with a 35-100 f.5/.75 and I might be impressed."
No one cares whether you're impressed.
Olympus and Panasonic were way ahead of Sony in these and other areas. IBIS and touchscreens are two more examples.
Facts don't care if they hurt your ego.
--- "You just weren't paying attention."
Apparently, MFT Eye-AF was so shitty, no one was paying attention. Eye-AF is synonymous to Sony because they revolutionized it.
--- "No one cares whether you're impressed."
Then stop trying to brag about your laughable f2's (cough f4 FF equiv).
-- "Olympus and Panasonic were way ahead of Sony in these and other areas. IBIS and touchscreens are two more examples."
Well, assuming you are correct, they are shit where it matters, hence, they are and will always be behind Sony...and Canon, and Nikon.
--- "Facts don't care if they hurt your ego."
Look in the mirror and say that.