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.
Oh wow! I thought Fuji was all APS-C sensors.
A 500mm f5.6 for medium format will be AMAZING because the depth of field will be similar to a 500 f3.5 on a full frame. At least I think it will be if my math is correct. All they make for full frame in 500mm is f4, so it will be great to get some 500mm wider than that for a bit more subject isolation in situations where you can't adjust your shooting position or like the subject up with a better background.
I would actually love to add medium format gear to my bag, but the thing that has always held me back was a lack of lenses ..... if they start to make a LOT more lenses for this format and if Sigma and Tamron and Laowa start making specialty lenses for MF, then I will get a MF body and add it to the gear I already shoot with.
I shoot too often at 3200 and 6400isos, after that, heavy crop. M4/3 and aps-c is a no go for me.
I shoot often at ISO 6400 and 12,800 and I shoot APS-C.
Everyone has a different bar when it comes to how much grain or noise they tolerate in their work which I fully understand. Use whatever works for you.
I have no hate for crop cameras, some of my personal favorite photos were taken with a Canon Rebel. But as I got serious about selling myself as a professional photographer I found that some corporate clients, right or wrong, want a shooter with a full frame camera. And a 3/2 aspect ratio is often specified and is what the editors want, because it fits their workflow. They don't want to accommodate your 4/3. And full frame lenses from Canikon are typically better than their crop lenses, and that makes a real difference in IQ. So, I shoot full frame. Going with the flow.
Do those corporate clients even know why they want a full frame shooter or is it just something they heard is "professional"? That was exactly my point. I'm positive if you shot it on an APS-C camera and shot it well and told them it's full frame they wouldn't be able to tell once you showed them the results.
No, they probably wouldn't know the difference, but it is an easy criteria for them to use, and does show that you have at least made an investment in decent equipment. You have to get the gig before you ever have the chance to "show them the results". Depending on who your clients are this may have little affect on your business, but I found it was important for me.
Yup. Just like the wedding photographer that shows up with a non-serious camera. You don’t want the client worrying or even nit-picking. You need to establish confidence from the beginning. A banker should never meet a new client when wearing jeans.
I prefer showing my potential clients my work instead of my gear. It tends to do the talking well. A smaller camera helps me blend in with the crowd when I'm shooting an event, a wedding, or a documentary. A smaller camera keeps my clients more at ease and less intimidated. They are always in love with the results when they come so I never felt the need to bring up my gear. The camera you have should not matter.
I reached the same conclusions as in this article 5 years ago; I dumped the Canon 5D MkIV based system and bought into FUJI (X-H1) and a boat load of FUJI lenses that give superb image quality and I can carry in my backpack. That camera was much maligned too and there was no ergonomic or technology basis to the grumpiness of the crowd. Well I am so impressed with FUJI IQ that I also bought an X-H2s to go next to my H1. The new machine's speed and auto-focus quality in addition to color quality perfectly complements my existing system. Oh I also agree that a paper print completes a photograph. I have been printing 'giclee' since 2005. It still requires deep craft and editing expertise to produce a memorable print and I have proven that I don't need a 24x36 mm sensor to be a printer. How ridiculous and pretentious some photogs can get amazes me.
Exactly! Printing is the real test of image quality. Not zooming into a digital file at 400%.
True, but keep in mind that I print at 36" by 24" as a minimum, and more frequently print at 48" by 32". And images are viewed from just a few feet away, no matter how big they are. This idea that large prints are viewed from longer distances is just wrong, as the large prints are most often being hung in small rooms and hallways where there is no way to get more than a few feet from the print because the room size is small.
And of course with mammal and bird photos everyone just naturally wants to get as close as they can to see the individual hairs and feathers. Fine detail resolved beautifully is what matters most in wildlife prints. We are not trying to "tell stories". We are trying to show hair and feather detail. That is what is most interesting about wildlife photos.
And you know what? I can often accomplish excellent pixel-level image quality with very little to zero noise grain with sensors smaller than full frame. It is more difficult, and I need better light while actually shooting, but crop sensor photos can indeed yield excellent results that please the pixel-peepers if shot in favorable ambient conditions. That is why I shoot with both crop and full frame bodies, despite the fact that I am printing at 48" across.
Yeah but.
The big 3, SoNiCan, are not really doing crop cameras. They introduce them and they don't really support them, the crop lens selection is non-existent (just use your full frame lenses!).
Go full-frame. Crop sensors are a dead end. That's just how it is. I think they are too close in performance to cell phones, so they are getting beat up from below in the marketplace.
--> I'd love to see some compact full-frame cameras. Sigma FP, etc. An OM-1 for the digital age is overdue. The new Nikon Zf is interesting perhaps.
I agree that SoNiCan aren't serious with their aps-c lines. That's why Fuji is the best choice when you want aps-c.
Yeah. They treat the smaller sensors as an afterthought and it's a damn shame. But they're not the only ones out there. Fujifilm is a considerably larger company than Nikon and their APS-C cameras are at the forefront of their lineup being treated with the same importance and weight as their medium formats.
Isn't it nice to have options?
b t wrote:
"The big 3, SoNiCan, are not really doing crop cameras. They introduce them and they don't really support them, the crop lens selection is non-existent (just use your full frame lenses!)."
Why would you write that? Do you have any detailed awareness of the Sony lens lineup for APS-C sensor bodies? According to my count when viewing this page, Sony makes 18 different lenses for APS-C sensor mounts.
https://electronics.sony.com/imaging/lenses/c/aps-c-e-mount?cid=sem-na-3...
It would behoove you to do some research before you post such a comment, to make sure that what you are about to post is actually true.
True, but how many aps-c lenses has Sony released in the last 5 years? And how long have we waited for the last upgrade of the 6xxx line?
Sony might be a viable option for aps-c because that's how they started the ILC business, but since Sony has launched their FF FE, development for aps-c has slowed down considereably.
This might be a good business decision for Sony, but if someone want's to buy into Sony aps-c he has to be aware of the fact that most new E-mount aps-c lenses have to come from third parties.
So, yes, Sony is an option for aps-C, while it's still true that Fuji is the only major manufacturer who cares about their aps-c line.
Very well said. I’ve been suggesting formats other than full frame for over a decade. I currently shoot the OLYMPUS MFT system and just today I received a print 40 x 70” in size that has astonishing detail. You would have no idea this image wasn’t produced by medium format. Admittedly, I used the most up-to-date and sophisticated enlarging software, Topaz Photo AI, to create a file that size. But it doesn’t matter how you get there as long as the quality is absolutely refutable. Attached is a photo of the big prints I’m speaking about.
Thank you for the nice comment, Daniel. Your prints are a testament to what I was saying.
It's about time this got written and published and I couldn't agree more.
The problem is that the phrase "full frame" is marketing gold. Who wants to shoot less than "full"? And hey, it "gathers more light", right? Just like a bigger microphone "gathers more sound". It's laughable.
Nothing is being cropped in a "crop camera".
I own a Z6 and a Z50. Guess which gets used most.
I think I know the answer. The APS-C Z cameras are pretty nice. I loved testing the Z fc. I only wish Nikon made more DX-dedicated glass.
I can't tell which sensor is which but based on size from larger to smaller, I'd say in the first set, it's 2,3,1 and in the second set it's 1,2,3.
Having the new AI photo programs now, seems to make this argument now longer relevant.
Here's the actual answer ;) No AI enhancements were done at all. Just a few simple Lightroom edits.
It also works the other way. I prefer shooting fullfrme, never really liked the crop of aps-c but I'm not in a FF cult and people should use whatever camera they like. I have on a number of occasions, just because I mention I like FF had some very defensive comments from people either accusing me of being a FF fanboy or trying to defend their preferred sensor choice. It's when people make blind assumptions about you based on some lazy stereotypes that can get quite annoying. You are immediately labelled just for making a comment. Also Youtubers creating the ever tiresome crop vs fullframe videos don't help.
Still, at the end of the day we can just ignore anyone creating discordance and carry on with what we are doing because there really are no right or wrongs when it comes to personal camera choices.
One of the best article hitting the point … thank you. I have learned that 95% of forum warriors and XY system crusaders are usually making wall test images, backyard comparison photos at the best … and true professionals with beautiful portfolio give a s**t about system wars … they choosed specific system because it meets their requirement
Exactly. Use the camera you enjoy using and disregard the negative comments. As long as it works for you, you do you.
To be completely honest the cult mentality lies mostly with people using smaller formats. Usually photographers who use full frame just take photos for a living or as a hobby and don't really even think about the format. Whereas people using smaller formats tend to want to argue endlessly about the the smaller systems and trying to prove that they are equal to or better than other systems.
Maybe they enjoy carrying around smaller, lighter gear?
small light gear is easy to carry around, but larger gear is much more comfortable to actually use ... I don't like carrying my large cameras and huge lenses from point A to point B, but when I get to point B I sure feel great shooting with the big heavy stuff ... I have smaller crop sensor gear too, but I am often disappointed when I use it and wish that I had just been willing to work harder and carry the monster sized gear with me instead of giving in to what my muscles and joints told me to do
No offense, but seeing what other people can achieve with aps-c or m43 cameras, what beautiful images they produce, I would suggest to kearn more about your small sensor gear first. E.g. From olympus body you can ger higher resolution and/or better dynamic range than FF in certain situations …
I already know what I can get from my smaller sensors. I can get images that look great, but not at quite the huge print sizes that the full frame images look great at. And not as great when pixel peeping in preparation for the super nit picky review processes that my images are subjected to when I submit to agencies and photo calls. Comparing images where everything is equal except the sensor size, the larger sensors usually yield a slight edge over and above the smaller sensors, when viewed in huge prints or at the pixel level.
Your points are well said, but I might make the headline and article less whiney, which detracts from your valid points.
Your caption:
Medium format? Full-frame? APS-C? M4/3? Can you really tell which image is taken using what format? Well, do so in the comments. I am truly curious.
with the three images, represents what is annoying about the "you don't need the full-frame" crowd. While a valid point, the point is often made with no reference to the differences that would be obvious while displayed larger. That is quite annoying as it suggests that printing larger than a thumbnail is not relevant any more.
I'm guessing you've read the article since you're commenting. So you know I addressed this exact point in the last chapter.
I think that the issue boils down to the following.
"All things being equal, the larger the format the better the resolution."
"All things being equal, the larger the format the bigger, heavier and more expensive the gear."
When the "pro-full frame" and "pro-APS-C" cults refuse to acknowledge this simple truth, they both get annoying. As long as you are mindful of these simple truths when you choose your gear, who are we to criticize?
I agree. If you look at my past reviews I praise many cameras of all formats. From m4/3 though APS-C and 35mm to medium format.
My experience is with the full frame side taking a stance of superiority on a nearly daily basis and seeing it actually do a disservice to either beginners or less knowledgeable photographers it just became a tad annoying so I said my two bits.
I agree that everyone should shoot whatever camera works for them. That's the whole point on the article.
Your experience is the opposite of mine. For the occasional Full Frame "true believer" I've encountered, I've ran across dozens of Micro Four-Thirds fanatics who deny that any other format has any legitimacy whatsoever. Then there are the Fuji film simulation evangelists...
I have had the same experience. There is a very strong outspoken cult of tiny sensor proponents who have a very big, loud opinion, not only on this website but everywhere else, as well. They don't seem to realize that image quality is more important than storytelling for many of us.
I have no interest in telling stories with my photos. The reason I take photos is to SHOW people things, not to TELL people things.
If I want to tell someone something I will use words, not photos.
If I want to show someone something, I will use photos, not words.
"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..."
Gee, I wish I could be a serious photographer, but all I have is my 8x10...
😁 Look at you making us all jealous of your camera. I miss shooting those although I do not miss the costs.
I don't miss the smell of fixer.
I agree with author. I am but a simple amateur and I use both formats. My mainstay is a point and shoot, the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VIIl, and to my eye, the APS-C takes great pics that hold up to the largest pictures that I print. I had a Canon 5D Mark IV but the camera was tiring to carry around and not convenient for me. So I gave it to my daughter and replaced it with a Canon RP mirrorless camera. The RP is lighter than the 5D and at times I prefer holding the "bulk" of the Canon when I am composing an image rather than using the Sony. But both take great pictures, perhaps not to the critical eye of a professional, but my guess is that more cameras are bought by folks like myself vs professionals who earn their living through photography. I started my photography avocation as a teenager in the 1970's. While I never had a problem identifying and differentiating 11x14 prints that were produced by 35 mm vs a medium format, I can't tell the difference between 11x14 prints captured by the Sony APS-C vs the Canon full frame sensor.
11 inch by 14 inch prints are so tiny! Of course you can't tell a difference.
Even at 36" by 24" the differences aren't significant.
It is when I print at 48" by 32" that there is an appreciable difference between the photos I've taken with a full frame body and an APS-C body.
There's also a big difference between the modern full frame 5D4 and the old 5D classic ... the 5D classic honestly can't keep up with the much higher resolution of the 5D4, and I can't print 48" with those 5D classic files if the image is going to be hung in a small room or hallway.
Tru-nuff, but I would wager that only a small percentage of printed images ever get printed above 8x10. The differences in quality only begin to emerge with large prints. However, you missed my point about comparing images captured on film and that there are clear differences between 35 mm and medium format pictures when printed at 11x14. APS-C vs full frame show no differences in quality when printed at 11x14. For a professional who is producing mural sized images then the cost and expense of medium format imaging with greater than 100+ mb sensors and sensor size exceeding full frame really show their colors. On a personal level, I'm not happy about the cost of Canon RF lenses but I was well aware of this drawback prior to getting the Canon RP mirrorless body. So as an amateur, there is no difference in my real world use of either size sensor.
I didn't miss any of your points. I read and understood all of them, but only commented on the points that were noteworthy to me.
Tell me you’re a Fuji shooter without telling me you’re a Fuji shooter.
The most important point that you raised is that few photographers make prints. I have the Fujifilm GFX 100s . It’s really difficult to show the beauty of images from this camera on social media where most things are “lower resolution”. I shoot to make gallery prints. To me that’s what matters, and having this camera enables me to the best prints that I am capable of doing. Otherwise, pretty much anything else will do that’s going to end us as sRGB on the web.
But bruh . . . the bokeh. Seriously though, for my wedding work, I use a full frame for my main camera, and an apsc for my second shooter. There is definitely a difference in the creamy out of focus backgrounds, and the iso noise. Would it ever be noticeable to my end clients? Probably not. But it’s noticeable to me. And I shoot for me as much as I shoot for my clients.
Bokeh is extremely important to me, too. There are ways to get really gorgeous bokeh with smaller sensors. Think of it this way - the small sensor is just like a portion of a full frame sensor. So if a part of your full frame sensor can render out-of-focus areas beautifully, then a smaller sensor can, as well. You just have to make sure that when you shoot you position yourself so that there is more distance between the subject and the background (or foregroud).
Honestly, bokeh quality is much more a function of the optical quality of the lens than it is the size of the sensor or even the aperture used.
I used a crop sensor Canon 50D for this image, and it had no trouble capturing the smooth background bokeh that my lens produced at f4.
That is why I adore my 56mm f/1.2 lens. Perfect for creamy bokeh shots.
Yes, I imagine the bokeh would be dreamy and smooth from that lens.
What are the longest lenses that you own and use personally? Do you shoot at 500mm and beyond on a regular basis? Or is most of your work of humans and therefore not needing long focal lengths?
That is the longest lens I generally use. I do occasionally pick up an odd telephoto for Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, or Canon to use here and there when I'm reviewing those but it's not my main photographic goal. I really like the 180-600 Nikon Z, or the 100-400 Nikon Z. Fujifilm has a nice 150-600 and a beautiful 200mm f/2. My job gives me the perks of being able to shoot with pretty much any system and lens I want to whenever I feel like it so I have the benefit of not being biased since I get to try them all and see the pros and cons of each.