Five Reasons to Choose Full Frame Over Small Sensor Cameras

When it comes to choosing a system, opting for the sensor size that’s going to work best for you can be a bit of a conundrum. This short video looks at why one professional photographer thinks full  frame is the best option when it comes to shooting stills.

With so many pros and cons to Micro Four-Thirds, APS-C, and full-frame, it’s good to know what advantages each will bring. Photography Manny Ortiz runs you through the reasons why full frame is the best option for his business. No doubt there’s a lot of other factors to consider, and Ortiz doesn’t mention price; not only will full frame bodies tend to be more expensive, but you will also need to factor in the increased cost — and size — of lenses.

That said, with so many third-party manufacturers making ever-improved and more affordable options, the comparative cost of shooting full frame is possibly not what it was. Being a big fan of Sigma, Tamron, and Samyang/Rokinon lenses, I see them as three manufacturers that have had a huge impact on the accessibility of shooting on Sony’s full frame cameras, and their lens line-ups are only going to become broader.

What else would you put on this list? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Log in or register to post comments

21 Comments

I wish the author would post a text summary instead of having to sit through a video (even though short).

Yep...I can read six times faster than the average video presents info to me. Let's not be lazy fStoppers!

Kawika Lopez's picture

Aaaaand cue the opposing comments from anyone without full frame.

Yawn, just make images that speak to you who cares what sensor size you use. If it matters that much to you why aren’t you shooting medium or large format. Full frame is a cropped sensor compared to those puppies. I shoot a 1DX MkII for all my commercial work but my personal work is all shot on a cropped sensor Fujifilm XPro2 and I much prefer the latter.

Disingenuous... by this logic everyone needs to buy the GFX. That said it’s probably not a bad idea

Tony Tumminello's picture

What, that tiny cropped medium format sensor? Everyone needs to be shooting with a Phase One IQ180 instead!

Indeed!

However the reason for the GFX would be: costs more or less the same...

pish! That tiny full-sized medium format camera?! Amateur hour!!

Everyone needs to be shooting with the LargeSense 9x11inch large format digital back!

Walter Kovacs's picture

Cool story, bro.

Tony Hetherington's picture

😁😂😂😂.....while you,'re at it how about buying the very best image quality television you can afford......the colours will be more splendid....the sharpness will be beautiful......t he realism will be astounding......the actual programmes will still be sh..t.!!!!😁😁

nitinchandra's picture

Even a mobile camera is good enough for some. It all depends on your usage, intent and purpose.

Sports and wildlife....

Sports and wildlife.... Sports and wildlife

Sports and wildlife

Teemu Paukamainen's picture

Should I actually care why someone chose format X or Y? Nope. I don't. Neither should you.

Martin Howard's picture

I have both! Fuji X-T3 and Nikon D850. I tried the GFX but didn't see enough difference to justify the price.
The Fuji 56 1.2 is badass but I still can't give up on my Nikon 85 1.8.

Huh?

I have a XT-3 and a GFX. I used to have a D850 but couldn’t justify the cost considering XT-3 is almost as good and the GFX is so much better and the same price as a “fullframe” camera...

5 reasons to choose APS-C or MFT over FF. Without 6 minutes video in bullets:
- Price
- Seize
- Weight
- beter IBIS
- Reach

James Mlodynia's picture

I see a camera as a tool, how many times have you heard that one. But it is so true. 12 years ago I bought my first DSLR, a 6 mp Pentax K100D super, years latter it became one of nine Pentax DSLR bodies. K 100D super, K10D, Kr,K5 MKII, K3, K3 MKII, KP and a K1 MKII. I kept every body and they served different photographic functions. The KP and Kr became my travel and every day camera, the K5 I used for years as my critter camera with a older sigma 120-400 F 4.5-5.6. the two k3's became my two event cameras and after a few years the Full Frame K1 MK II became my number one camera for event photography, the few events I shoot helps fund Photography gone wild. I just added two Panasonic Bodies and some Pani / Oly glass to go with a GH4 and G95. The Pentax K1 MKII is for me as a non pro photographer the best camera to photograph events with, the weight, cost and size will prevent it from going on a plane, if I did not photograph events the K! would not seen the light of day, The K5 and K3's along with the KP would cover every thing that I photograph. So in closing if you are not a working pro or photographing events a full frame set up is not a must. There are so many great APSC cameras and if you invest in good glass you will be good to go. Don't drop a lot of money on a full frame camera and then put cheap glass on it, you will never get the most out of your camera. Bottom line you need good glass to up your game no matter what camera you use.

Yucel Yalim's picture

Which way the future?

Quality getting so good, size reduction is huge benefit going forward. Sigma glass, for exasperated example, great image quality, huge size... who will carry all that weight as small sensor technology improves?

Or you may as well go Medium Format for the same price and same size (almost).

35mm* getting squeezed if you ask me.

* let’s call it what it is... “fullframe” is such an obnoxious term, especially if you think of 8x10... now that is fullframe!