I wish we’d all just move on. The format that used to be a compromise between image quality and price in the film days is nowadays being taken as the sole possibility for a serious photographer, and if you are not part of the gang, you apparently deserve to be ridiculed.
It’s Getting Old
Can we have one camera announcement without someone preaching his millimeters are more than the other dude’s? Every single time there is a discussion regarding cameras, or every single time there is a new camera announced, the “full frame evangelists” seem to feel as if it is their time to shine and their time to shun whomever is not using the sacred 24x36 mm sensor. We get it, you invested a decent amount of time and money in picking your preferred gear, but leave the rest out of it and stop dragging everyone else down.
I work with cameras for a living, not just using them as a photographer, but also in customer service, advice, retail, workshops, technical support, B2B, and more. The number of people coming to me asking for a full-frame camera without actually knowing what that term means is frankly too high. The social media crusade of “you can’t be a serious photographer unless you use full frame” is getting old. Many are so confused that they just know to get a full frame camera without actually understanding what one is.
What is even sadder is the fact that a smaller sensor body and system would be beneficial to their needs in terms of cost, size, image quality requirements, lens selection, and speed, but they’ve been so mentally conditioned that anything other than a 35mm sensor is just unacceptable.
Not Just The Users Though
Manufacturers are often guilty of this too. Of giving in to the pressure and dumping anything else. Of course, Canon’s and Nikon’s professional bodies are full-frame. That is where they shine and that is perfect for their target demographics. Sony has been at the forefront of full-frame mirrorless production for some time, before the former two finally caught up and in some instances surpassed the latter. But that was at the cost of leaving the smaller sensors in the dust with a lacking lens and feature selection.
We still have no true successor to the near-perfect Nikon D500. Sony’s APS-C lineup is mediocre at best, with no serious camera on the horizon since most of the resources are being poured into the a7/9/1 lineups.
The worst offender would unfortunately be Panasonic with their Lumix cameras. The micro 4/3 cameras they have produced were some of the best and unique in their respective price ranges. The GX9 was a perfect small camera with decent image quality, considerable speed, a quiet mechanical shutter, a unique tilting viewfinder, and decent ergonomics. Unfortunately, there is no successor in sight, and it seems that the cheap but capable micro 4/3 cameras are all but dead to Panasonic.
I’ve had a chance to shoot with the recently released G9 II along with the original G9, and I can’t seem to not feel like the new generation is a considerable downgrade. The original Lumix G9 was a wonderful crop sensor camera with brilliant ergonomics, a great control layout, a well-shaped and well-fitting grip, a unique almost racecar-like design, and, even by today’s standards, great shooting speeds. And how has Panasonic decided to follow it up? Slap a micro 4/3 sensor in the literal same body as the full-frame S5 II, which is ergonomically inferior to the G9, and call it a day. I don’t generally like being negative about new releases. But this does truly feel like an afterthought of a camera to keep a few core users happy. And it will. Mainly due to the fact the original G9 is now going to be truly affordable on the second-hand market though.
Don’t even get me started on the discontinuation of the brilliant LX100 II (or the Leica D-Lux7 for the red badge fans out there). The current selection of premium compacts is rather sad, and the fact that the number is getting even smaller definitely does not put a smile on my face. All of that to divert resources toward full-frame cameras.
A Small Few Do It Right
There are still some manufacturers who do sensors right, ignoring the nay-sayers. If Ricoh listened to the full-frame lobbyists, their GR would’ve lost a considerable amount of its charm due to the perfectly pocketable size. Had OM System jumped ship to the 35mm sensor, their OM-1 would have lost its charm, speed, and the clear benefit of lenses at a fraction of the size of their full-frame equivalents. OM System seems like the only manufacturer currently taking M4/3 seriously and honestly, picking between an OM-1 and a G9 II is not a tough decision.
Then we have Fujifilm. A company whose every single camera launch in the last decade has been met with a crowd of “But muh full frame!” Luckily, Fujifilm has stuck to their guns which means in 2023, they have two fully capable systems, each with the benefits of a wholly different sensor size either smaller or larger than 35mm. Even their latest GFX100 II release has also been met with comments in the form of it not being full frame. That is what baffled me the most.
There are currently seven camera manufacturers producing 35mm cameras of all shapes, sizes, and capabilities. Fujifilm is the one company not going with the flow but rather plotting their own very capable course of small, fast, and lightweight X-Series and uncompromising, beefy, and detail-oriented GFX “Digital Large Format” cameras. Who in their right mind would cannibalize such a lineup by releasing a mid-range compromise eating into both of their currently unique sensor formats?
Workers in an often shelled Avdiivka coke plant, Donbass, Eastern Ukraine.
Taken using a brilliant M4/3 Panasonic GX9. Apart from the 4:3 aspect ratio you'd most likely would not be able to tell unless zooming in at 200%. And that is truly a pointless excercise to do with most photography.
Image Quality? Please.
There is no doubt that a larger sensor often produces better results either in terms of low-light performance or in the amount of detail captured. But nowadays, technology has advanced so much that most of us can barely tell the difference unless we zoom in at stupid levels on a computer. Good photography is often subjective. That we can all agree on. But some of the greatest photographs in the history of the medium were captured on technology far inferior to a 10-year-old Sony a58. Just look at the best works of photography giants like Sir Donald McCullin, Sebastião Salgado, Peter Lindbergh, Alfred Stieglitz, David Bailey, and many, many more. None of their work cares about grain, about detail, about the latest gear. The eye, the dedication, and the vision of the photographer are what matters.
Sure, it helps to be able to crop 80% of the image out if you’re shooting 102 megapixels. Sure, it might be beneficial to show your client a product image of a shoe with the split seam invisible to the naked eye being captured in the shot. I completely understand the precise and meticulous professional needing top-notch image-resolving capabilities, but the vast majority wouldn't be able to tell a difference between a Phase One image and a well-shot GH5 one.
For most of us, a smaller sensor is good enough. A 16-megapixel APS-C file taken using an old X70 can easily be printed on 297x420mm paper with all of its detail retained. The most important aspect of photography is not the amount of detail per pixel, but the overall beauty of the image. We concentrate so much on the noise performance of a new sensor instead of the stories we can capture with it. Shooting a wedding does not mean getting every single unwanted pimple hidden under a layer of makeup. It means capturing the once-in-a-lifetime day along with the overall mood and feel. Documenting a poignant story should much less be about noiseless, grainless postcards and more about the emotions of the captured seen through the eyes of the photographer.
Seagulls on Charles bridge.
Would a full-frame make this Fujifilm X70 capture any better? I highly doubt it.
Just One of Many Formats
If you want to carry a 5D Mark IV on you with a 70-200mm f/2.8 on you everywhere you go regardless of your back telling you to stop, that is entirely up to you, and I couldn’t be happier for you to have a camera that works for you. However, if your entire personality is based around having a camera that has a sensor a few millimeters larger than the other guy which in turn must mean you’re the better photographer, that is when photography stops being a form of art and communicating your vision to the world and instead becomes a contest of who can pee higher with zero positive outcomes.
Do Yourself a Favor And Print
Now, the sad truth. How many of you still print their images? I’ve always been an avid believer in the notion that if it's not printed, it's not truly a photograph. Paper is what makes a photo a photo. And it is a lot more forgiving in terms of grain and detail than many might think. However, the vast majority of photography nowadays is being displayed on screens. And mostly on truly small screens at that. What is the most popular way to share and look at photography today? Instagram. Your full-frame, AI-sharpened, meticulously processed image you poured your soul into is going to be displayed at the width of 1080p on a six-inch display for a few seconds to receive a quick double-tap and then forgotten.
It’s a terribly sad truth about most photography nowadays. Many photographs are just lost in the endless scroll, never to be mentioned again. Does a sensor size really matter so much in that case? Do yourself a favor and just drop the need for a full-frame camera idea from your head. Shoot whatever works for you. Don’t spend unnecessary and hard-earned money on something that is not going to magically advance you to the next level. You can do just fine with less.
And if you already have a full frame camera, and it works for you, that is wonderful. I’m truly happy for you. But don’t go out of your way to shove it down everyone else’s throats. It’s beautiful to have options. I think we should all just concentrate on photography more and less on whose is bigger.
The G9 II is an unfortunate comparison. It's a micro 4/3 sensor on a full frame body. There are smaller and lighter bodies out there. And even still, the lenses are whet makes the weight difference.
Nikon got some pretty small lightweight lenses. The Nikkor 28mm f2.8, 50mm 2.8 macro (which I own). Sure, you can go big and heavy, depending upon your needs, but Nikon provides bodies and lenses in full frame that match the lightness you are seeking. The new Nikon zF is 750grams. I personally prefer larger bodies (I currently use both the Fuji GFX 100s and the Nikon Z8), so the Nikon Z7 with 50mm 1.8 if a great carry around system (and still 45MP).
OM5 is 414 grams, olympus 25mm f1.8 is 137 grams …
We always need to remember that "too small" is also tiring to hold and carry.
I agree that heavy equipment is problematic, but I must also remember that photographers need to pay more attention to physical preparation to carry out the activity (whether as a hobby or professionally).
Camera gear that is small is easy to carry around, but uncomfortable to actually use (yes it is).
Camera gear that is large, even very large, is terrible to have to carry around, but very comfortable to shoot with.
People who think otherwise of either of these points are lying to themselves.
You do realise that ease of use, fit, and comfort are extremely subjective? Not everyone enjoys using a massive camera. Many photographers prefer smaller and more compact bodies like Fujifilms, Leicas, Ricohs and so on. I'd hate to have to use a large body like a Z9 or a 5D IV even though my hands aren't small regardless of how good cameras they are. My tiny X-T5 is the most comfortable camera I've ever used.
The Z9 isn't that huge; it's much smaller than the D6 was, and is even smaller than the Z8 with battery grip. In some ways, I almost find it too small, as I have to be sure to lock out the vertical shutter button else I constantly accidentally trigger it.
Don't get me wrong. The Z9 is a brilliant camera. One of the best on the market. Ergonomically near flawless. But it is not small. And if I plan on carrying my camera strapped to my wrist all day it wouldn't be my first choice. Probably not even a fifth one regardless of how much of a great camera it is.
I guess it's all relative; compared to what I've had to lug around over the years... ;)
True 😁
Well said.
Have never heard anyone arguing about this. Must be some internet beef or some nonsense.
That said just because of few people talk about it doesn't make it worthy of an article.. You're just given a highlight to something that's nonsense.
I totally agree. The author just made this up so he would have something to write about. Created a straw man and then shot him full of holes. Whatever.
If you've never come across such a discussion good for you. But that doesn't mean it's not happening. I experience it almost daily. I personally interact with dozens of photographers and beginners every day and this is still a very much existing issue I have to explain every simple day.
I come across these discussions all the time, but they are almost always the OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAY. It is almost always someone putting full frame down and trying to lift smaller sensors up above the full frame ones. I am sick of people trashing full frame sensors and telling people that image quality doesn't matter so much. By the way I own and use both full frame, APS-H crop, and APS-C crop bodies. So I am not biased against any of them.
Not to mention the "a smartphone is all you need" faction.
On point. My daily work cameras (real estate, head shots, certain sports) are a pair of D500's. My play cameras are a couple Z50's. I can't find find any reason to double cost and clog up my hard drive with mega-megapixies. That and crop frame Sigma Art (and non Art) in F mount and an FTZ insure me into the next generation. If not, it'll another and another low click used D500 until I age out.
Both are great cameras with really nice image quality. I'm still patiently waiting for a Z80 or a Z90. An APS-C version of the Z8/Z9 for wildlife and sports.
Both the Z8 and Z9 offer the option of an APS-C mode, yielding smaller files by using only that smaller portion of the sensor. It can be very handy for wildlife photography.
Same here - sort of. A Z500 is more what I want, super sturdy as a day-in-day-out working camera.
If needed there is always the Nikon Z7 II, the resolution is a bit higher at 45mp, thus great for social media, or even prints especially if you want to push things as high as 20 inches on the longest end, and the raw files are very small at about 79MB for most images.
What is the cult? For me it looks like a mainstream.
The cult isn't the legit photographers, it's the marketers selling to the noobs who wander around like zombies chanting "fullll frame... fulll frame..."
… it is an old story (video), but entirely and still true > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY&ab_channel=ZackArias
… Ondřej, you are right :)
… it is an old story (video), but entirely and still true > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY&ab_channel=ZackArias
… Ondřej, you are right :)
Thank you very much!
The very term Full Frame is nonsense if you think about it. There are much fuller frames available.
The company LargeSense makes a digital camera with a 9x11" sensor. I'd say their frame is the fullest 😁
Ondřej Vachek wrote,
" ..... is nowadays being taken as the sole possibility for a serious photographer"
No it is not. Completely wrong. You are creating a straw man and then blowing him over.
I spend hours and hours every week reading about photography on the web, talking to pro and amateur photographers, and watching videos about photography and photography gear. And NOWHERE am I seeing this mindset being pushed.
What I am actually seeing everywhere is a widespread acceptance of many different formats and sensor sizes. Especially popular among many hard core and provessional users these days are the smaller-than-full-frame sensors. In fact, over just the last 3 months, look at how many articles here on Fstoppers have championed the use of cameras with tiny sensors! Ditto for YouTube videos, ditto for the pros who run my regional photography club, ditto for the salespeople at my local camera shop (Allen's Camera in Levittown).
NOBODY is making us feel like we need to shoot with full frame gear to get acceptable results or to be taken seriously. Nobody. Not even people in the comments and forums of photography websites.
This whole article is fabricated upon a lie.
You haven't come across this discussion before. Good for you. But there's no need to being unnecessarily defensive and calling out non-existent lies.
I work with dozens of photographers and beginners every day in-person and an unfortunate majority is still being "groomed" with the idea of "only full frame" by marketing, influencers, youtubers, fellow photographers and so on. It's a shame because most of these won't even utilise any benefits of full frame and end up spending too much money or carry unnecessarily big kits with no tangible difference to their photography.
That is why we also need the opposing view. Some companies are even nearly fully abandoning smaller formats to "go with the flow" like Panasonic. Their tiny GX cameras were brilliant but are not being produced anymore. They are concentrating so much on full frame that they lost what made them unique. I don't blame them. The full frame voices are loud and Panasonic gave in, but that doesn't make any less a shame.
No need to attack anyone if their experience doesn't match yours. No strawman here. It's a real thing many of us deal with daily.
The "opposing view", as you call it, is so prevalent that it is becoming annoying. Every day I see countless posts, articles, and videos trying to convince people that they do not need full frame. There is actually a huge amount of full frame hate out there. I shoot with both full frame and APS-C bodies, and enjoy the benefits of both, so I am not biased toward or against either one. But I am sick and tired of seeing so many people trying to force their anti-full-frame agenda on me and others.
Feels to me that you haven't really understood what I was saying in the article. That's ok.
Oh yes I completely understand what you are saying. I just don't believe you because so many of my observations have been to the contrary.
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Has it not occurred to you that someone could completely understand exactly what you are saying, and yet totally disagree with you?
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
There is a ton of full frame hate out there and gazillions of authors and commenters continually telling us that image quality isn't so important and that "telling stories" is all we should care about and that big prints are viewed from a distance so super great IQ isn't necessary and that smaller size and weight and lower cost is so damn important and should be prioritized over higher image quality. That is what I read and hear over and over and over. It is obvious that this is your stance, as well. Yet you seem to have this distorted idea that the majority of opinions out there are contrary to yours, when in fact they align perfectly with what you say and what you believe.
Full frame proponents are in the minority, inasmuch as loud outspoken opinions are concerned. Those who use full frame do so quietly and secretly because they are afraid of being criticized for the gear they use. Fact.
Tom is a nature photographer who spends a lot more time alone and is in the States - out west maybe? - where there's more of a "do what you want to do" attitude, while Ondrej is in central Europe where there's more of an interactive, closer social millieu. So there's that.
Tons of personal interaction with other photographers here where I am. Like I travel between the east coast and the west coast a couple times a year and shoot with people all over the country and attend many photography club meetings and to go brick and mortar camera stores and then I spend TONS of time online on forums like this one, interacting with other photographers on social media, and watch dozens of gear-relates videos on YouTube every week. So there is no regional bias in my experiences because they are so broad and so vast.
I've taken wonder photos with a d200, 2004 crop sensor, and the look great printed. That being said the performance, lack thereof, of a d200 makes it a poor choice for modern photography. I find the same to be said for a modern crop sensor vs my photographic needs/wants. I know dxomark is not a perfect resource but..... Look at the iso performance of crop sensors vs ff ( listed as sports) it's so lopsided. There are no crop sensors listed that remotely scratch the performance of ff ones. 12-24 mp ff sensors are outstanding when it comes to lowlight performance and you can't find a crop that competes, or even comes close.
I always say that the bar for how much noise/grain one tolerates in his work is a highly subjective topic. There are those who say an 800 ISO image shot on a 1D X is already too noisy for them. Then there are the exact opposites who do not care about noise or grain at all. I shoot my APS-C cameras anywhere within the native range of 125-12,800 and sometimes even push the 12,800 ones in post. Grain does not ruin an image for me. I'm still very satisfied with the result.
I do not care for comparison charts. What's captured in the photograph is more interesting.
I don’t really get this. Who cares what other people shoot with. I don’t give a flying piece of red dotted badger crap what other people have or don’t have. It had no impact on the images I create so why should I care. People getting hung up on what other people have and may crow about…. So what! Let them crow. Does it impact on what you create? If not get over it and stop bleating.
Exactly my point. I've learned to filter the full frame narrative from my personal use and it does not affect my photography.
But I work with dozens of photographers and beginners every day and an unfortunate majority is still being "groomed" with the idea of "only full frame" by marketing, influencers, youtubers, fellow photographers and so on. It's a shame because most of these won't even utilise any benefits of full frame and end up spending too much money or carry unnecessarily big kits with no tangible difference to their photography.
This wasn't written about me being impacted by it. I've learned to ignore it. But many haven't and that's why it needs saying.
Red dotted badger crap? I don't remember that term in creative writing class. :-) You saved me some typing, Eric. When I got serious, I started with a crop camera, a 7D. I tried a 6D and from that point, I was hooked on FF. As Eric said, why care about what others say/do/think? And the big one, why does anyone care how someone else spends their money (as long as it's in the budget)?
Free will is a funny thing and in a free society, it allows us to make choices, some good, some bad. If I'm asked about photo gear, I give the person asking my experience and it's been 98% FF, so it would be expected that I would give a very favourable recommendation for a FF camera. Is that so bad?
Quite frankly, if you can't take a good photograph with today's cameras, you can rest assured that it's not the camera's fault.
Artificial Intelligence will make resolution irrelevant. It will never replace the creative mind which is unique, it might help though if used properly.
Will it though?
For real cameras, it seems it's place is supplementary to getting the shot, via autofocus and I'd wager smarter auto shutter speeds and ISO balancing eventually among other internal bits.
For resolution, that would assume they suddenly roll back the MP count to the single digits.
Maybe for future point-and-shooters, (cells phones are arguably there depending on who you talk to), assuming the AI movement progresses to where even iGPUs have 4090 level AI accelerators on board?
I'm gonna be that guy lol
Not sure how FF/35mm counts as a ":compromise" at this point when the players who helped bring the format into it's prime are the ones still pushing it. Ad to that how certain capabilities seem to exist exclusively on that format (even if due to the product as opposed to the tech capability itself) it becomes hard to totally knock the trend, even if other formats seemingly get left behind.
And lets be blunt. Size is simply not a universal constant.
/ internal confliction
I said compromise in the film days. It came about when 120 film was too big and needed big cameras whereas smaller 8/16mm film stock lacked the image quality. That's when 35mm film was the perfect compromise.
Well said.
An even bigger problem was the lenses required for 120 film, for those who shoot wildlife with supertelephoto focal lengths.
I actually prefer a large camera because it is so comfortable in the hands. But a 600mm or 800mm lens that covers a 120 image circle would be preposterously huge and prohibitively heavy.
The 800mm that I have and use with my "full frame" and APS-C crop bodies is 12.5 pounds (6 kilos). It is about as much as I can carry on hiking trips, especially when one considers that a very stable tripod and full gimbal head must be carried along as well. A similar lens for 120 film would undoubtedly weigh more than twice as much.
A 6 kilo lens I can handle, but a 15 or 20 kilo lens would simply be impossible to carry around the woods and mountains. So that is exactly why 35mm was a good compromise between image quality and portability. Admittedly, the image quality from 35mm isn't really quite good enough for some of us, but there were simply no lenses made for the 120 film cameras that would give the field of view of 600mm or 800mm that we need, so we had to make due with smaller, poorer quality 35mm film.
I'm pretty excited about the newly announced 500mm f/5.6 lens that Fujifilm is set to release for their GFX 100 II next year. That should be pretty interesting.
Yes 500mm f5.6 will be interesting. And with the small sensor allowing for smaller optics, they could easily make an f4 or even an f2.8 that would still be able to be carried. Do they already have such a lens, or does Fuji not really specialize in making a lot of very big fast supertelephotos?
This lens is announced for the GFX cameras. Those are 102-megapixel medium formats. I wouldn't call that sensor small 😁
This is the one https://fstoppers.com/reviews/fujifilm-just-announced-gfx100-ii-and-were...