Full frame cameras promise top-tier image quality and serious video power. But most days, you don’t need all that bulk, cost, or pressure to shoot something meaningful.
Coming to you from Curtis Padley, this thoughtful video lays out a clear, experience-based shift away from full frame bodies like the Sony a7S III and the Sony a7C II toward APS-C options, especially the Sony a6700. Padley argues that for hybrid shooters, the a6700 often makes more sense than cameras such as the Sony a7 IV. That claim will raise eyebrows. Full frame has long been treated as the end goal. Bigger sensor, better results. That idea sticks, even as the gap narrows. Padley points out that modern APS-C sensors now deliver results that are far closer to full frame than many expect.
You see this play out in real images. In many everyday scenes, the difference is slimmer than you might admit. Unless you shoot studio portraits, high-end weddings, or specific commercial work, full frame becomes harder to justify. The performance edge exists, especially in depth of field control and low light extremes, but it is no longer a night-and-day divide. You start to question whether you want full frame for your work or for what it represents.
That question leads into something more honest. Status plays a role. Bigger body equals serious shooter. Expensive gear equals credibility. It is easy to connect great results with the most visible tool in the frame. Padley calls that out directly. The camera gets the credit. The person behind it fades into the background. You have likely felt that pull. You see a cinematic clip and think about the body, not the years of skill behind it.
APS-C changes the equation in a practical way. Bodies like the a6700, or even older models such as the Sony a6000 and the Sony a6400, cost far less than their full frame counterparts. Lenses follow the same pattern. An APS-C setup with a standard zoom is smaller, lighter, and hundreds or thousands of dollars cheaper than a comparable full frame kit with a 24-70mm. That difference shows up when you travel. It shows up at the end of a long day when your shoulder aches. It shows up when you realize you could have spent the savings on a trip instead of on a sensor you barely push to its limits.
Padley does not dismiss full frame. In fact, he recently added the a7S III to his kit and calls it Sony’s first true hybrid full frame body without obvious compromises for his needs. No frustrating crop in 4K 60p. Strong video tools. Solid photo performance. That balance matters if you split your time between stills and video. He is not abandoning APS-C, though. Instead, he sees a dual system approach, pairing the a7S III with the a6700 depending on the job, the trip, and the mood.
There is more in the video about side-by-side comparisons, real-world tradeoffs, and how to think clearly about your own buying decisions without getting caught in the hype cycle. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Padley.
9 Comments
There are great APS-C camera, but the problem starts when you add lenses.
L lenses or GM lenses are only available for Full frame. And it will be useless to carry them on a APS-C
So, top quality iis only available in FF.
There are APS-C great lense, but not as many as for FF.
and size matter as well for you hands,
Smaller cameras, but you keep you same hands, so smaller button, smaller lenses means smaller rings to grab.. Or you go for big APS lenses? so .. what is the point after all?
Don't settle for half product FF is the only outcome.
(And I have a A6700 on my side and FF as well)
Deleted.
These days, going with a crop sensor is no longer a very good choice because of too much price gouging. These days, the price delta between APS-C and and full frame has shrunk in the worst way possible by APS-C steadily being price gouged while full frame largely remained static or even dropped slightly. It is at a point where both have become similarly priced.
Beyond that, size is not much of an issue either since many full frame cameras have reached a point where they have gotten too small for many users, to the point where you need a battery grip or something else to extend the base so that it can more effectively fit in your hand.
Modern lens designs have also allowed them to become more compact.
Furthermore, Even if you choose a crop sensor camera, you are likely to go with a full frame lens anyway because many lens makers do not produce as many APS-C lenses, and with crop sensor gouging also extending to lenses, the full frame options end up being only slightly more expensive and only slightly larger, but the quality improvements end up being worth it since at least on a crop sensor, the larger the image circle often means that most of the vignetting and sharpness falloff ends up not being within the coverage area of the APS-C sensor, thus it is better to still go for full frame when you can.
This is probably not what this article is really about but my (2020 tech) Sony a7C FF is SO much better than my old Sony a6000 (2014). No comparison.
Just do a back to back image comparison. That's what I did. Fuji X-H2S vs Nikon Zf. Then I made my choice. The image quality at anything above base ISO was dramatically in favor of the Nikon. It outweighed any system weight advantage of APS-C. YMMV
The challenge with using APS-C Sony is the lack of lenses. Sony (and Canon and Nikon and Panasonic) overwhelming support FF format with greater lens selection. APS-C is perfectly viable *if* you can get the lenses you need to do the work you want. It makes little sense to use larger format FF lenses on smaller "cropped" sensor bodies.
Missed the point—again. You should be asking why MFT makes more sense than 35mm sensor camera? With a high end stacked, BSI CMOS sensor, 120fps, Pro Capture, Live ND, Live Capture of star trails, Focus Stacking, industry-leading IBIS, excellent optics, great high ISO performance (despite what the naysayers say) and 16x20” prints without a sweat—an OM-1 will half your budget and gear weight. An APS is only as good as the lenses in front of it and that it always a FF lens. Besides, if you want bigger, Gigapixel is now in Lightroom and the 80 MP results are sharp as a tack!
Yeesh! Totally disagree. If you're usuing a FF for portriats, weddings, studio work then that implies youre getting better results, which we should all strive for regardless of the end product. The only advantage of a smaller camera is maybe with travel. Appreciate the very detailed responses here btw, I’m just an amateur.
Hobbyist here. Everyone is right when discussing subjective topics. Im just waiting for the Tamron 35-100 "lightweight" lens. I'll be wishing it weighed the same as the Sigma 18-50 shortly. 🙂