Full frame cameras are often considered the tool of choice for professional photographers. You rarely find such cameras in articles aimed at beginners. For many photographers, transitioning to a full frame camera is the next logical step in their journey. In this article, we will explore some crucial factors to consider before making the leap to full frame.
I'll be straightforward with you and admit that I'm firmly in the full frame camp. Although I have some experience with cropped sensor cameras, my exposure to them is limited. Nevertheless, my previous encounters with cropped sensors have given me insights into what they lack and how full frame makes a difference. While I may be a full frame enthusiast, I will objectively consider both the advantages and disadvantages of investing in a full frame camera. Essentially, this is the practical guide to anyone who is interested in the real differences between full frame and cropped sensor cameras.
1. Size and Weight
If you're upgrading to your first full frame camera, you'll certainly notice the difference in the size and weight of your gear. Mirrorless full frame cameras are lighter than crop sensor DSLRs, but once you attach a lens to these new cameras, you'll hardly distinguish them from DSLR setups, regardless of the sensor size. This is because while cameras have become lighter, lenses have grown heavier. I can only imagine the balance issues that arise when using a full frame mirrorless lens on a lightweight crop sensor body.
That said, if size and weight are your top priorities, full frame may not be the ideal choice. We all have unique priorities in photography, and I understand how significant size and weight can be for photographers who often work outside their studio comfort zone. If you frequently find yourself on the move, shooting in less comfortable environments, or needing to carry your gear for extended periods, upgrading to full frame might not be the best option. It's a heavier setup, and I strongly urge you not to be misled by the lighter mirrorless bodies; the weight of the lenses can disrupt the balance and reduce comfort.
2. Lenses
Most lenses are originally designed for the full frame market. There are exceptions, with certain brands offering a substantial lens lineup for cropped sensor cameras. Additionally, lenses made for full frame cameras tend to be of higher quality since full frame is the industry standard for professional photographers, who demand nothing less than perfection. I, for one, love using my trusty 2004 24-70mm f/2.8 lens on my full frame camera. Despite the layers of tape and battle scars, I won't replace my lenses until they become irreparable.
3. Image Quality
When it comes to image quality, full frame cameras outshine their crop sensor counterparts. Even an older full frame camera from 2010 will surpass the image quality of any cropped sensor camera released in 2023. I apply the same logic when discussing the capabilities of smartphones compared to cameras. While modern smartphones boast superior processing technology, sensor size remains a limiting factor. The most noticeable differences in image quality are in low-light performance and color depth. Since some photographers, myself included, enjoy post-processing and image manipulation, it makes sense to opt for a camera with a larger, yet still reasonably affordable sensor, rather than a smaller one. I've found that files from cropped sensor cameras can be more challenging to edit and fine-tune.
4. It's Not the Best You Can Get
While full frame is often seen as the pinnacle of camera sensors, there's something even better: medium format cameras. These cameras occupy a niche market and come with a hefty price tag. Medium format cameras reign supreme in terms of image quality, color reproduction, and capturing the most from a single scene. If you want to witness the most significant leap in image quality, consider a medium format camera and never look back. However, it's essential to note that medium format cameras are notoriously slow, which is why I recommend them primarily for portrait and studio work. If you have a well-established studio setup and introduce a medium format camera, you'll be fine. However, if you're into sports and action photography, medium format might not be the best choice for you.
5. Range
This aspect is a double-edged sword. A cropped sensor provides an extended effective focal length, but it also limits your ability to shoot wide angle shots compared to a photographer with a full frame camera. Some professional wildlife photographers require the extra reach of a crop sensor and opt for cameras like the Canon 7D or the EOS R7. However, if you intend to focus on wide-angle work, a cropped sensor might not be the most optimal choice. Any full frame lens attached to a cropped sensor camera will immediately alter its zoom range. For instance, a 24mm full frame lens on a Canon crop sensor will become a 24 x 1.6 = 38.4mm lens. The limitations of a crop sensor do mean that you are not able to take full advantage of the focal range your camera gives. You might say that the telephoto capabilities make it worth it for you; however, you can always crop in, but you can't crop out. 
Closing Remarks
Before upgrading to full frame, it's essential to be aware of the limitations and advantages such a setup brings. Smaller sensors come with their own appeal, offering a more portable setup. Some photography genres may not even require the image quality of a full frame sensor, let alone medium format. If you're considering an upgrade from a crop sensor camera, I encourage you to contemplate a medium format camera if you aim for the best of the best. A quick online search reveals appealing used options from brands like Phase One, Hasselblad, Fujifilm, and more.
What type of camera do you shoot with? Please share in the comments below!
Good article but before you make statements about smaller sensors being not up to the task, compare the pros and cons (which has been done before). I use M4/3 and find the system to be brilliant when traveling. Smaller lighter and with the post processing available these days, the advantages of full frame shrink all the time. The need for full frame applies to professionals or those who print massive prints.
I have used digital Full Frame, APS-C, 35mm film SLR, Medium Format SLR, 4X5 Large Format and 110mm point-and-shoot cameras. When it comes to film it was pretty easy to determine which option gave you the most resolution. Large Format wins hands-down ! Next was Medium format, then 35mm. If you want to go down even further, 35mm was better than 110mm, or Minox 8mm. The determining factor with film cameras was the lenses and format.
With digital things get a little more complicated because of the electronic processing engines that work behind the scenes to artificially enhance an image. I got to admit I have been blown away by pictures taken with 4/3 cameras, but I also have been blown away even embarrassed by pictures taken with cell phones. I have also been dissapointed with some images taken with my so-called Full Frame camera when compared to the same picture taken with my APS-C.
Having experienced all formats, the difference with a FF camera vs APS-C is stability/predictability. Lets say I take 100 pictures with a FF in a variety of situations, then take the same 100 pictures with an APS-C camera. Then the same 100 pictures with a 4/3 system. I guarantee you that the Full Frame will come out on top when it comes to resolution, dynamic range, low-light etc. Meaning that the FF camera will have a higher percentage of images that are better than the other two systems. Not that the other two system won't/can't produce images that match, or even best the FF camera, it's just that it won't happen as often.
This is nothing new and it really has to do with Physics. Bigger is better when it comes to cameras, no matter how you slice it. This is why most Photography gigs these days ask for a FF camera when it comes to your equipment.
With that said, I would never give up or sell any of my Non-full frame cameras. They serve other purposes such as reach when it comes to wild-life, nature and even sports. Also size, portability convenience, speed, just to name a few...
For casual photography, or posting on the web, do you really need a FF camera ? Heck no ! However I would not go without my full frame camera either. The pictures just have this "Je ne sais quoi ?" as well as a little bit of that '3D', that is often missing in smaller format cameras. That's just the way it is.
"an older full frame camera from 2010 will surpass the image quality of any cropped sensor camera released in 2023" is utter nonsense. Perhaps you should have actually looked into it first.
Thanks for posting this so the rest of us don't have to.
I use my Z50 more than my Z6.
Exactly.
I opened this article thinking there would be something different from what has been copied and pasted a million times, but no. It's mind blowing the amount of people that believe that pros are only interested in image quality. Having been a pro myself for 10 years, I own both full frame and crop sensor cameras - and use mostly crop sensors for me professional work! The author forgot to mentioned the quality and aperture of the APS-C lenses available for each specific brand and compare them to the current full frame alternatives. Also analyse the advantages of each brand regarding sensor readout speed, weather sealing, pro customer support, pricing and availability of accessories and third party lenses, the list goes on. These are all major factors for a pro to consider when buying into a camera system.
Canon doesn't apply here, as their mediocre more selection of crop lenses is the worst in the industry.
I have my crop cameras with me everyday alongside my full frame body but I would never go as far to say the crop sensor image quality is just as good. It's not. It's definitely capable and can handle many a task. I've used crop cameras to shoot events and locations for years. It can certainly get the job done.
But at a certain point it's just preference.
Joao Lourenco typed:
"The author forgot to mentioned the quality and aperture of the APS-C lenses available for each specific brand and compare them to the current full frame alternatives."
I don't think that is an oversight by the author, because honestly, APS-C lenses don't matter. Why don't they matter? Because all of the full frame lenses can and should be used on the cameras with APS-C sensors. We don't need separate lenses for crop cameras; the full frame lenses work even better on crop bodies than the crop lenses do, because they produce much brighter corners and edges.
When I used a Canon 50D as my primary body from 2010 to 2013, I never had an APS-C lens for it. I used it mostly with my 400mm f2.8 IS lens and the images had wonderfully bright sharp corners! Ditto for the images made with other full frame lenses such as the 24-105mm f4 and the 100-400mm f5.6. No vignetting and no sharpness falloff as you get far from the middle of the frame.
Like the article.
I could buy any FF or medium format camera cash.
I chose the R7 because of the crop factor and 32 mp sensor. I have yet to have anyone complain about it being a crop sensor photo.
There's a perfect example of a crop sensor camera that will surpass the image quality of a full frame camera from 2010, contrary to what Illya Ovchar assumes and didnt bother checking,
Likely only in high ISO quality, but you're not going to get a better IQ just because it's 32mp. That's just not how this works.
Is my m62 for landscapes because of the higher MP. But take the same camera and do a portrait of a person next to a full frame version and no it's not comparable. You can get relatively close but it's just not the same thing and I don't think it's good to act like it is. And it's definitely not better regardless of the MP..
Go take a look at the studio shot comparison tool on DPreview. Load up the 5D II and R7. Tell me which one has more detail. Tell me which one has less noise at high ISO. Tell me which one has more dynamic range. How else would you like to evaluate image quality?
I don't think you're doing the technical comparisons correctly. Irregardless of what this article is trying to say, all of the sensor data is known knowns.
First of all you're talking about a 5D2 which was no champion for high ISO. ISO was one of the biggest issues with Canon sensors for a very long time.
Next, the 5D2s low ISO image quality is still going to be better. Canon's crop sensors never reached the heights that nikons crop sensors have an IQ. It just is what it is.
Next, the IQ in the r7s sensor is more or less the same but still a little bit better potentially than the sensor in the m62, which I own and I'm using literally everyday in New York and Tokyo. The sensors dynamic range is not great, even though the iso quality is a bit better than it has been in the past. It also generates truly truly flat almost monotone raw files, that said it handles very well in post with adding saturation. It's still pretty noisy once you get past isolate hundred so it's not winning any real awards there. Trust me I've used that sensor to shoot models and portraits, daytime wide expanse landscapes, and also nighttime cityscapes. There are some obvious limits to the sensor once you start hitting low light. Trying to save highlights with the crop sensor never gets easy it's always a compromise and pulling up shadows and blacks to save highlights sometimes just does not work at all. The shadows will be immensely noisy even at low ISOs.
Basically at the end of the day you've got to do your own comparisons. I literally have 10 years worth of raw files from various Canon cameras both crop in full frame and I can just put them next to each other any given day. I've never made much use out of DP reviews image quality test because I think it's pretty bogus. Like I shoot people and portraits and model faces, and DP reviews tests only help to see how ISO is handled and maybe some detail differences but overall I just don't find it to be that great. That's my opinion though your mileage may vary.
Anyways rent the gear or buy the gear do the tests look at them side by side and generic even testing application and just take it from there. I don't need to go back and forth on the internet about these technical details because I've done the work over the years. I encourage everyone to do the same.
Cheers.
So yet another "I havent looked into it at all, but i think it should be this way." Why not... actually look into it? If you don't think I'm doing the comparison correctly, then just... do it yourself. Share what you discover. Otherwise, all you're saying is that it doesn't match up with what you want to blindly believe.
And now compare the R7 to the R5 or R6 mk2 instead of a ff dslr from 2008
This article stated "an older full frame camera from 2010 will surpass the image quality of any cropped sensor camera released in 2023" so that's what we're talking about.
my bad, I responded to the wrong section of your comment. Indeed the R7 has better detail than the 5Dmk2, the 5D does have better dynamic range above ISO 400 ( although slightly)
The remark from the author isn't a valid argument.
What I want to respond to is your remark that you could afford to buy ff or medium format but bought the R7. I can see the advantage in portability , especially if you use crop lenses, but in image quality the ff and certainly the medium format cameras have superior image quality. off course it also depends on what you shoot and how you use your photos, social media, or large prints. But you must admit that dynamic range and detail level on a Fujifilm GFX 100 II or a Hasselblad x2D 100 is superior to a R7.
Another question , why did you choose the R7 , you used to be a avid M4/3 defender ( I remember discussions with you on your now deleted account)
You're mistaking someone else's comments for mine - I dont own an R7.
I am very surprised to see an article here in favor of full frame cameras. Almost every article I read and almost every comment I read keeps beating the same dead horse - that you don't need full frame and that crop sensor cameras are better for us because image quality isn't as important as we think it is.
Finally an article to speak up for the full frame cameras! Thank you. FF deserves some credit instead of being shot down all the time. There are reasons why the majority of professionals choose full frame, and those reasons are not preposterous. They make sense. And you do a nice job of explaining the advantages that full frame sensors have over smaller sensors, and you also acknowledge the weaknesses.
EDIT:
I know of one major disadvantage that full frame cameras have, relative to crop sensor cameras. Full frame sensors usually produce some degree of vignetting ... it may not be real obvious, but the deep corners of the frame will usually be darker than the center of the frame. Fine detail in the deep corners and far edges of the frame will be softer than that in the center of the image. When full frame lenses are used on crop sensor bodies, the entire frame is nice and bright and sharp throughout - no dim corners and soft edges.
With a crop sensor, we get the very best part of the image circle that the lens produces. Lens correction software often does a poor job, compared to just having super bright sharp corners in the first place, so this is a big "win" for the smaller sensors. But of course it is an advantage that is only realized if using the larger full frame lenses on the crop sensor bodies. If you use the little lenses designed specifically for crop sensors, then you completely lose out on the advantage that the small sensor can provide.
The biggest rectangle to fit inside a circle is a square. 3:2 aspect ratio means a bigger circle. This is a dumb ratio for optimal optical design.
4:3 is better for lens design than 3:2 and 1:1 even better still.
Illya Ovchar asked:
"What type of camera do you shoot with? Please share in the comments below!"
I shoot with full frame, 1.3 crop sensors, 1.5 crop sensors, and 1.6 crop sensors.
Here is a history of the years I have been shooting professionally and what sensor I used most during each time period:
2007 - 2008 1.3 crop a.k.a. APS-H
2008 - 2010 full frame
2010 - 2013 1.6 crop a.k.a. APS-C
2013 - 2020 1.3 crop a.k.a. APS-H
2020 - 2023 full frame
present - moving forward - both full frame and 1.5 crop.
I just bought a 1.5 crop mirrorless body and I am looking to use that for reptile & amphibian photography, and some bird photography, while continuing to use the full frame for mammals and other bird photography.
I should note that throughout the past 16 years, I have always used a mix of 1.6 crop, 1.3 crop, and full frame. The "main" or "primary" body that I use has changed from one sensor size to another, but my backup bodies get a lot of work too, so I have maintained great familiarity with the different sensor sizes and what results I can expect from them all. I am only swayed by my own firsthand experiences and have never been influenced by what anyone wrote or said about any sensor size.
Photographers, even beginners, are not sheep being mindlessly led by popular and loud opinions. We all have sharp brains and make our own decisions and are not much influenced by reviews or by what famous photographers have to say. Photographers, collectively, are known for thinking for themselves and being unswayed by the opinions of others, so we need not worry about what "everybody is saying" because barely anyone is listening to them anyway. Hahah! Es verdad!
"Photographers, even beginners, are not sheep being mindlessly led by popular and loud opinions. "
I don't mean to be 'sheepish' but before I purchase an item I make sure I do a lot of research on it instead of just guessing. When it comes to certain items such as camera equipment, tools, cars, stereo systems, computers, there are tons of technical articles and reviews on the web which can be helpful in making your choice. And yes popularity such as constantly bad reviews do play a part.
You are right though just because a superstar athlete endorses a product, that does not mean you should run out and buy it. Or because every Tom, Dick and Harry on your block has one, then so should you. There should also be other factors such as: budget, need, purpose, application, technical specs, reliability, maintenance, warranty, brand-name etc. when purchasing an item.
“Any full frame lens attached to a cropped sensor camera will immediately alter its zoom range. For instance, a 24mm full frame lens on a Canon crop sensor will become a 24 x 1.6 = 38.4mm lens”
I really wish that writers would be more careful with claims of crop sensor extra “reach”. A crop sensor does not turn a 24mm lens into a 38.4mm lens. The crop sensor with a 24mm lens provides the same field of view as a full frame camera fitted with a 38.4mm lens.
Any extra “reach” would come from higher pixel density, which technically might allow you to crop further in post processing. But even then the benefits are limited because agressive cropping exposes other problems with camera shake, focus, noise, thermal disturbances and lens limitations.
You can find all sorts of heated crop sensor arguments from people who believe that their 100mm lens is magically transformed into a 160mm lens simply by virtue of attaching it to a crop sensor body. And a lot of these folks get that perception from articles like this one
Well, and effective aperture should also be considered. Fuji's great 23mm f2 lens acts roughly like a 35mm f3 lens, as far as depth of field is concerned.
That results in far greater DoF on MFT when doing macro work. I was really shocked when I first encountered single shot images done with MFT macro lenses which weren't reproducible for me without severely stopping down or doing focus stacking for such a DoF. Of course, all depends on the light, but ... this fact combined with the in cam focus stacking features of some MFT bodies gives them a high value for macro work. Different cameras for different purposes.
I’m not sure that I’m following you on this. If you go to a depth of field calculator such as PhotoPils you’ll see that the DOF is reduced on a crop sensor compared with full frame for the same subject distance, focal length and aperture.
It’s only when you step back to cover the same field of view as the FF that you get an increased DOF. But that’s a result of changing the shot conditions, not the sensor itself.
I recommend reading this a bit technical article, it's an oldie but goldie: https://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-...
Thanks for the link. I read through it and I don't believe what I said is in conflict with the article. I think what I'm saying underscores the point in the link all the different combinations of equivalent focal lengths and apertures (lets throw in equivalent ISO and shutter speed for good measure) only leads to a lot of confusion and provides no help in the field.
Well, it depends on what you're comparing. When out in the field you want to capture an object - let's say in macro photography - in a 1:1 magnification. Working at the exact same distance on crop in comparison to full frame could lead to a different viewing angle, as the physical image on the sensor stays the same, the smaller sensor has a relatively larger image on it. To get the same composition one has to change the distance, and therefor you have a different DoF. (As you have to move further away the DoF gets larger.)
Of course it get's complicated when taking the other stuff into account, but what counts for me is getting my stuff into the frame I want it in, and therefor different bodies might be a solution, for someone, not for me. I'm using classical full frame sensors.
Yes, I completely agree. And I’d wager that you probably never had to stop and ask yourself what would you do if you had a full frame camera in your hands
Thank you..im amazed how often I read that a 'smaller sensor increases the focal length'.it does not such thing, it just crops the image.
Yep. Have you noticed that people go out of their way to post their settings as equivalent full frame focal lengths but not equivalent apertures? Or that medium format photographers never bother to convert to full frame? None of it makes any real sense.
The points you make are good ones. I should probably explain that to almost everyone who uses the term "reach" in photographic context, we mean "pixels on the subject". That is how just about everyone defines reach.
So when people say that a crop sensor gives them more reach, they are almost always speaking correctly because the pixel density is almost always greater than that of a comparable full frame camera.
The few exceptions would be older APS-C cameras compared to super high resolution full frame cameras such as the 45 or 50 megapixel offerings that we have available today. For example, a full frame Sony A7R IV has more reach than my old APS-C Canon 40D because it has a higher pixel density.
You are correct, if the angle of view is the same and all other factors are equal. But of course in real life, the angle of view is not the same, and other factors are not equal. The angle of view can not be the same, without changing other factors, so to keep that one thing equal, other factors are necessarily biased for or against one system or the other. But you are absolutely correct if considered in the hypothetical sense.
My first camera was the APS Nikon D7100 with a pair of kit lenses. I used this camera for about 18 months taking what I considered some fine images but I longed for the larger file size and thus more pixels to work with in my photography. I then purchased my Nikon D4s which is a great camera. I also continued to add to my lens collection of both prime and zoom lenses including macro capabilities. I still wanted more, so I next purchased my Nikon D850 and this camera made the D4s virtually obsolete with its capabilities not only in image size and quality but also with the features in the firmware. With these, I got the experiment further in my photography. Finally Nikon joined the direction of the industry and developed a line of Mirrorless cameras. I bided my time waiting for Nikon’s benchmark, the Z9. I purchased this with the FTZ II adapter to enable me to use the F-mount glass I had since the cost of this equipment is not inconsequential. I slowly purchased my first Z-mount lens, 35mm, f/2.8. This I followed with the 70-200 f/2.8 and recently the Z MC 105mm f/2.8. With the updated firmware in the camera I can do things I never imagined when I started the creative outlet of mine back in 1980 first using a Fuji 35mm straight manual and then upgrading to my Minolta X-700. In between, I setup a b/w darkroom for both 35mm and 6x6 from my Rolleiflex TLR.
I have come a long way in photography and have learned the importance of of negative size and the fine grain size of the silver halide crystals in making larger prints the same way that the file and number of pixels adds to the print quality and the details with digital photography. For this reason full-frame is better than crop sensor but for the more specialized photography there is still the option of larger sensor sizes both in medium format and large format but keeping in mind that there is still the cost of yet larger lens to cover the sensor size and that the maximum shutter speed is usually limited to 1/500 sec. These cameras are only used in studio and landscape photography.
Very good compare! I started with a Canon T2i and went Sony not so much for the full frame but with options inside on camera apps as well as the C1 software $30 and bracketing 5 at +/- 3EV. People talk about the crop sensor is far reaching but 24mm lens on either a crop or full frame is just that 24mm. Ah! but my Sony's can have a button where you select APS-C and great for the added distance look but just center of sensor getting faster AF it is said and if the sensor is IBIS better. No matter, it is the whole camera like having the rear LCD screen and better if it is articulating. Also Fujifilm X-Trans sensor not bayer meaning more green pixels I think the colors are better shame Sony does not have. As far as number of pixels the third image is the Milky Way years before i knew what it was with the T2i. The last image is with the A7rii and the FE 200-600 with a 2x teleconverter in a APS-C getting 1800mm (sorta) but if not said what with and settings it could be just a cropped image the red dot is mars. The previous are T2i. The secret is knowing your camera/lens limits and how to get the capture with it.
While there has been progress with lenses designed for crop sensors, one thing that is rare in the lens world is delving into the realm of diminishing returns, due to that, users may still opt to get a full frame lens for their crop sensor camera. For example, one full frame lens that I really liked on a crop sensor camera, is my Tamron SP 45mm f/1.8 VC. While it is designed for full frame, on a crop sensor, the vast majority of the vignetting and sharpness falloff happens outside of the frame, furthermore, there is very little curvature of the focal place in the region over the APS-C sensor, thus it works well for close up images of things.
Beyond that, in terms of quality, crop sensor cameras when it comes to high ISO performance, especially when you start to get above 6400, are around 6-7 or so years behind full frame when you compare noise levels while pixel peeping, as well as when doing things like shadow and highlight recovery at higher ISO.
(Seems attached images get scaled down :( )
F-stoppers is like Hello magazine, everyone can write anything...
Title: "I Wish I Knew This Before Going Full Frame"
Text:
"I'll be straightforward with you and admit that I'm firmly in the full frame camp. Although I have some experience with cropped sensor cameras,"
I don't think they do even the most cursory review before letting articles be published. Example:
Fstoppers 2016: "Lens Compression Doesn't Exist"
Fstoppers 2018: "Lens Compression Doesn't Exist - Here's Why"
Fstoppers 2023: "Why Lens Compression Is Important"
One would think that the Editor, Alex Cooke, would carefully proofread every article before it gets posted to the website, but so many articles have titles that don't really jive with the content, and there are often spelling and/or grammatical errors, which would be easily caught and corrected even with just a cursory proofread. And yet these things are not caught and then get posted without the necessary corrections. Makes me question how important it is to the Fstoppers team to get everything perfect, or are they just caring about generating revenue and okay to live with bunches of mistakes as long as they keep making money.
It's human to err. I don't think there's a single website, newspaper, or magazine that never has a mistake in it. Look at the huge amount of compensation Fox News had to pay out because of the lies they told about election fraud. I read the BBC site this morning and spotted a mistake, and that's a far larger and better-funded site than this. Recently, another popular photography site published an article with the writer's brief at the top that they forgot to remove. Another regularly copies the articles from here and barely changes the wording. In comparison, the odd spelling mistake, typo, or grammatical error here is minor.
All the writers use spell checkers and apps like Grammarly, and the editors still pick up mistakes we make. However, some still slip through. If you are reading 10+ articles a day, each of at least 1000 words, then you will not spot every error.
I guess that if you don't like the content, you could always ask for a refund or not renew your subscription fee and go to one of the other sites. I don't think you will notice any difference though. A site I used to pay for has far more spelling mistakes and less useful content than Fstoppers. Thankfully, even if you made that choice, there will be tens of thousands more people still reading the articles here, so I'll still get paid.
Ivor,
I understand and accept that there will always be errors. It is the mindset of the editors and site owners that is important - do they really really care about catching and correcting as many errors as possible? Is quality control of great importance to them? Or are they not concerned about a bunch of things slipping thru on a daily basis? That is what really matters - the mindset and priorities. If they really care about getting everything right and work hard to be as perfect as possible, then I have no issue with mistakes slipping through from time to time. As you wrote, it can, and does, happen to everyone.
In answer to your question, the editors work extremely hard, and they are great guys. Articles regularly get knocked back for a amending or rewriting if they don't meet the expectations and long list of guidelines we adhere to.
It's good to know that everything gets proofread and carefully combed over before going up on the website. That's just how it should be.
This article contains an awful lot of opinion based on the author's preferences that are stated very confidently as fact but I guess that is the way of things anymore. Many people shoot subjects and have different interpretations and parameters for quality for example.
I shoot ASP-C, but with full frame lenses, exclusively astrophotography. They tend to be really sharp out to the corners.
Yes, FF lenses are much better on crop cameras than crop lenses are. There is really no viable reason to use crop lenses unless one is being a cheapskate, or being a wimp about a few extra ounces or an extra wee bit of space taken up in the bag.
Yeah, all those wimpy cheapskates using the $300 Canon EF-S 10-18mm, or the $600 10-22mm, when they should be using the $3000 EF 11-24mm that weighs 5x more and can't take filters. Fools.
If shooting at such extreme wide angles is so important to someone, they probably should not have chosen to use a crop sensor camera. They have chosen gear that works against what they are trying to do. Why not choose gear that facilitates what one's objectives are? Gear should work with us, not against us.