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.
Full frame isn't a cult, it's 'just' a golden standard tool that sits at the perfect place between price, best practical image quality and lens availability, that's all. And it comes in small and big size (cameras and lenses) and almost every brand makes it.
It doesn't matter today what apsc/mtf/MF could have been if companies hadn't push for more FF sales, result is there's no downside to full frame today and it's overall the most advanced and developed format. You can save some weight, size, money to go smaller with less lens options and always wonder if your work depends on it, or try MF overkill for most that doesn't bring that much more IQ today, but the FF is simply the tool for 'everything' - and people know that even though they might not understand in detail everything about it.
Agreed on full frame excelling in those areas. Great balance of image quality, low light performance. One other area is sensor readout speed, given the limitations of CMOS sensors, it is hard to get a fast readout speed on a medium format sensor, but modern full frame sensors have gotten fast enough to avoid rolling shutter issues in most use cases, thus making the great for video.
Petr Klapper wrote:
"Full frame isn't a cult, it's 'just' a golden standard tool that sits at the perfect place between price, best practical image quality and lens availability"
Petr,
I think that the "perfect place between price, IQ, and lens options" is what is debatable. What is a perfect compromise for one photographer could be a horrible compromise for another.
We all have very different needs and demands when it comes to image quality. Some people are happy if they can get a photo to look great printed at tiny little sizes like 11" by 14". Others want every photo they take to be able to look spectacular at 60" by 40" when viewed right up close, with minimal or no processing applied.
We also have very different needs and priorities when it comes to price.
And of course lens availability and a wide range of lens options matters much more to some than to others. APS-C actually has an advantage over full frame in this regard, as all lenses with full frame coverage can be used on APS-C bodies. I used an aPS-C crop body as my main camera from 2010 to 2013, and I always used full frame lenses on it and never bothered with the silly lenses made just for crop sensors. I benefitted by using only the center of the image circle, which is sharper and brighter than the outer edges and deep corners of the image circle.
So your "perfect place" is actually very subjective and variable from one user to another, and is not at all an absolute. That's actually the main point of this article that Ondrej has written.
Well said Ondrej. I agree with everything you have written with exception of the fact that Sony did actually come out with an improved APS-C model, the A6700. Maybe your article was written before that model was finally announced. Personally I shoot with an A6600 and am very happy with its performance. As you mentioned, light is the most important element to avoid the need for artificial noise reduction. Printing my images is definitely what I need to do in order to see my results for myself. My 13mm laptop screen is not the right medium and my 24mm monitor is presently out of service.
Thank you for a down to earth article.
Thank you for the comment. It was written well after the a6700 announcement. In fact I've reviewed it a while back and was a bit disappointed in it. Here it is https://fstoppers.com/reviews/still-not-taking-aps-c-seriously-review-so...
Sony could do so much better if they tried. But currently the king of APS-C is undoubtedly Fujifilm with their X-H2S and other models.
You talk very little about Ricoh. Their DSLRs are quite good and their lenses are great. Their K3iii is a beautiful camera. They even recently released an excellent Monochrome version. Take that Leica! Who needs a full frame?
I have never even heard of Ricoh until I read your post! I am curious to know if they have a very diverse selection of lenses for their cameras, and lots of 3rd part lens options. If so, it may be something I look into for my reptile & amphibian photography.
I gotta be honest .... the ONLY time the subject of full frame versus crop sensor versus M4/3 has ever come up in my working life are in articles like these. I have never had a conversation with a photographer where there was an argument or disagreement about sensor size - or even the old Canon versus Nikon versus ...
You are absolutely right. NOBODY has these conversations with clients, and if they say they do, they're making things up.
Well, I sell cameras for a living. So I have conversations like these with my clients on a daily basis multiple times. That is why I wrote this because there are many photographers who simply do not need to spend extra money on a camera just because it has a bigger sensor. Instead, they could get better glass, better accessories, less bulk and weight to carry, or simply save some money since smaller sensors could meet or even exceed their needs more than enough.
However, many are conditioned to think they just must get full frame or otherwise they'd be considered amateurs, their images would be unusable, the image quality would equal potatoes, or they would be insanely limited in their creativity. That is what makes me more sad than angry because the marketing works all too well. I'm not saying full frame is useless. This article is in no way an attack on full frame as a format. It is a valid sensor size with a plethora of benefits. Many photographers such as yourself do need the extra quality, the resolution, the bokeh, the print options. But there are those who truly do not and it's hurting their options and decision process.
So yeah, it does happen. Between photographers, gear geeks, enthusiasts, beginners, pros, clients, customers, manufacturers, reviewers, tutors, and salespeople. I honestly have no need to make this up. I gain nothing. In fact, my bottom line in my day job is negatively affected when I sell a crop sensor camera instead of a more costly full frame with the subsequent glass. But I'd rather have a client who has gear that is appropriate for them and his needs than them buying an unnecessarily expensive kit with no benefit to his photography. Why spend more when you do not need to? Why be belittled (and as I have said, it does happen) for not choosing a certain format, when you gain no benefits? Nowadays you truly cannot buy a bad camera (Unless you pick up a 4000D) so let people be and shoot with whatever works for them.
Ondřej, I had no idea that you were a camera salesperson. I had thought that you were a photographer, and that when you said "clients" you meant people hiring you to shoot photos for them. I did not realize that to you, "clients" means people who are buying cameras from you. Hence the misunderstanding that filtered into everything that I wrote previously. I am sorry for my incorrect assumption and the resultant misunderstanding.
Well I do photograph as well. So I've got both types of clients we've talked about 🤭
Why should I or you or anyone else care about what anyone else shoots with? Why do people bother writing guff like this. Who cares about what camera was used to shoot what image? Photography is about images not gear. Get over it.
That... is exactly my point. Have you read the article and my responses to the comments here?
Where photos go to die: I only went to a digital camera because I lost a contract to shoot 500 pieces of Egyptian Objects d'Arts and he wouldn't accept the work done on scanned film. I was shooting with a Nikon N90s FM2n and F90, mostly on Fuji Provia RDP. I was a medical science copy photographer/graphics (film it was a grand creative time) tech. So I got a Nikon D7100 and a solid Nikkor macro. I quickly got fed up with all this marketing white noise about image sensors. I said phooey threw exasperated arms into the air and went back to shooting b+w film. I had three modest solo exhibits with Giclée printed images mostly scanned b+w film on fibre based. Several unrealized Europe invites, CDN Gov't. Reviewed and published in the Peterborough Examiners' art column Xl/2005. Thank you Ms Culley. One thing led to the another, and capitulated again and just bought a Nikon Coolpix W300. Because I finally realized, the puter hard drives and the monitor is where photos go to die.
After using all the cameras, and going for a certain "look" in my photos, I will say that I think photographer skill is first and foremost the most important factor, and second is the lens (don't expect great results with kit lenses), and third is how well color is being interpreted by your RAW interpreter for a given camera and if you use a neutral gray card etc for white balance or profiles. I.e. Lightroom just does not do well for me with skin tones, Capture One for example does better. But neither software gave me what I wanted to see for colors with my old Olympus OMD EM1 mk1 perhaps due to laziness on the part of the Lightroom and C1 calibration staff. Another possibility, however, is the issue with small pixels on the sensor not having enough signal to noise ratio. So there is that... More megapixels on smaller sensors may mean crap color.
I'm old enough to remember when 35mm was considered inferior - for many of the same reasons today's 35mm zealots consider anything smaller inferior. Smaller-sensored cameras have been ridiculed in the industry for years. Marketing and specifications have used derogatory terms like "crop sensor" or "effective focal length (EFL)" to compare them to the Holy Grail of 35mm for decades now. It got to the point that many photographers had never shot 35mm but were forced use it as a baseless reference for them. And to call 35mm "full frame" is just more of the same "mine is better" mantra. I usually use the full frame of my camera when I shoot and it's much smaller than 35mm.
Crop sensor and effective focal length are not derogative at all. Have no idea where you got the idea that these terms are in any way negative. Are you just making things up? I use crop sensors extensively and I have always used the terms crop sensor and effective focal length to describe my cameras and the way they work compared to FF bodies. The fact that you think these terms are in any way derogatory is just flat out wrong thinking. The way you think and the way you feel about these terms is so off from reality. Please change your mind now.
Of course but pixel peepers on basically every photography blog just love having inane arguments more than they love taking photos.
I found one!
That's great!
What did you find?
For film, the benefits of larger film sizes were far more important than with CMOS sensors. For example, after a while, film quality largely stopped increasing.
Check out the Sony a7R V https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0641980724/sony-a7r-v-sample-g...
Compare some of the good lighting, as well as low light images (especially the raw files) at ISO 6400+. After that, check for which type of film you would need to match the noise performance, detail level at the higher ISO, or both.
35mm became popular because it offers a decent balance of sensor readout speed, low light performance, and even even after the gouging from lens makers, allowing for prices that are not as insane as the medium format lenses.
Those guys would totally hate me 😀 lol My first mirrorless was a Canon R5. It was a fine camera, but because it was FF, I could rarely get close enough to my often tiny, skittish subjects. I rented an R7 Crop camera, and I just killed it ! Loved it so much, I bought one even before returning the rental. After that, I shot with it every day, while my R5 collected dust on my dresser. One day, feeling guilty about not using the R5, I tried taking it out. I 2as totally let down with how much better my R7 had been working for my purposes. So I sold the R5, and bought a second R7 + the 600 F11 + the RF 100-400 + paid my rent 🙂👍
And I never looked back !
Is the R7 perfect ? Far from it. I so hope the R7 Mk II addresses some of its weaknesses. But for the time being, there is no other camera on the market, from any manufacturer that can do so well for me, as the Canon R7.
I am interested to know why you got the 600mm f11 instead of the 800mm f11. For what you shoot and how you shoot it, it seems that the 800 would be the more obvious choice. But you must have good reasons for wanting the 600mm instead, and I am interested in knowing what those reasons are!
Excellent article, thank you!
I think that the same goes with lenses. You don't need the latest, the sharpest and most technically perfect lenses to create stunning photos. Most of 20-30 years old lenses will produce excellent results. Even much older lenses, that you can mount on any mirrorless, have sometimes more character than new ones (vignetting, specific bokeh,...).
Sure you can see differences when viewing photos on screens at 100% or more magnification. But as you said, the real photos are on paper. Unless you compare huge enlargements side by side at very short viewing distances (which no one does at exhibitions), you can rarely tell if the lens was the latest model or 30 years old.
Thank you!
I've recently picked up an old Helios 44-2 and man do I love it! Sure it can't resolve enough detail to utilise the 40-megapixel sensor in my X-T5, but the images rendered and the bokeh are just so beautiful I can't get enough of it...
Here's one from a few days ago when I tried it for the first time.
Awesome!
I'm sure A3+ or bigger enlargement would look stunning!
Thank you for sharing. And thank you for all great articles you've written!
It's always a pleasure to read them!
Thank you very much! 😊
It's quite disingenuous to compare heavily edited different images from different formats and then expect readers to pick out the difference between them. A true test would be to shoot all images under the exact same circumstances, or at least as close to identical as possible given cellphones have non interchangeable lenses. One example even had a black and white to color comparison. Really!?!
One example? Four out of the six comparison images are black and white 😄 They're not really that heavily edited. Just a few blacks, whites, highlights sliders, and an occasional "S" curve here and there.
The point was not to compare differences between formats. The point was to show that you simply cannot tell which format was used to capture these in an online world where the majority of photography gets reduced to 1080p presentation. The point was to show people they could get away with much less to get decent work done and that spending extra money on expensive gear does not mean a considerable difference for many. It's less about sensor size and shape and more about skill, glass, vision, and experience.
Obviously, iPhones are everywhere and perfectly suited to take images mostly seen on a 7" screen. If that's your point then I agree.