Full frame cameras are often considered the tool of choice for professional photographers. You rarely find such cameras in articles aimed at beginners. For many photographers, transitioning to a full frame camera is the next logical step in their journey. In this article, we will explore some crucial factors to consider before making the leap to full frame.
I'll be straightforward with you and admit that I'm firmly in the full frame camp. Although I have some experience with cropped sensor cameras, my exposure to them is limited. Nevertheless, my previous encounters with cropped sensors have given me insights into what they lack and how full frame makes a difference. While I may be a full frame enthusiast, I will objectively consider both the advantages and disadvantages of investing in a full frame camera. Essentially, this is the practical guide to anyone who is interested in the real differences between full frame and cropped sensor cameras.
1. Size and Weight
If you're upgrading to your first full frame camera, you'll certainly notice the difference in the size and weight of your gear. Mirrorless full frame cameras are lighter than crop sensor DSLRs, but once you attach a lens to these new cameras, you'll hardly distinguish them from DSLR setups, regardless of the sensor size. This is because while cameras have become lighter, lenses have grown heavier. I can only imagine the balance issues that arise when using a full frame mirrorless lens on a lightweight crop sensor body.
That said, if size and weight are your top priorities, full frame may not be the ideal choice. We all have unique priorities in photography, and I understand how significant size and weight can be for photographers who often work outside their studio comfort zone. If you frequently find yourself on the move, shooting in less comfortable environments, or needing to carry your gear for extended periods, upgrading to full frame might not be the best option. It's a heavier setup, and I strongly urge you not to be misled by the lighter mirrorless bodies; the weight of the lenses can disrupt the balance and reduce comfort.
2. Lenses
Most lenses are originally designed for the full frame market. There are exceptions, with certain brands offering a substantial lens lineup for cropped sensor cameras. Additionally, lenses made for full frame cameras tend to be of higher quality since full frame is the industry standard for professional photographers, who demand nothing less than perfection. I, for one, love using my trusty 2004 24-70mm f/2.8 lens on my full frame camera. Despite the layers of tape and battle scars, I won't replace my lenses until they become irreparable.
3. Image Quality
When it comes to image quality, full frame cameras outshine their crop sensor counterparts. Even an older full frame camera from 2010 will surpass the image quality of any cropped sensor camera released in 2023. I apply the same logic when discussing the capabilities of smartphones compared to cameras. While modern smartphones boast superior processing technology, sensor size remains a limiting factor. The most noticeable differences in image quality are in low-light performance and color depth. Since some photographers, myself included, enjoy post-processing and image manipulation, it makes sense to opt for a camera with a larger, yet still reasonably affordable sensor, rather than a smaller one. I've found that files from cropped sensor cameras can be more challenging to edit and fine-tune.
4. It's Not the Best You Can Get
While full frame is often seen as the pinnacle of camera sensors, there's something even better: medium format cameras. These cameras occupy a niche market and come with a hefty price tag. Medium format cameras reign supreme in terms of image quality, color reproduction, and capturing the most from a single scene. If you want to witness the most significant leap in image quality, consider a medium format camera and never look back. However, it's essential to note that medium format cameras are notoriously slow, which is why I recommend them primarily for portrait and studio work. If you have a well-established studio setup and introduce a medium format camera, you'll be fine. However, if you're into sports and action photography, medium format might not be the best choice for you.
5. Range
This aspect is a double-edged sword. A cropped sensor provides an extended effective focal length, but it also limits your ability to shoot wide angle shots compared to a photographer with a full frame camera. Some professional wildlife photographers require the extra reach of a crop sensor and opt for cameras like the Canon 7D or the EOS R7. However, if you intend to focus on wide-angle work, a cropped sensor might not be the most optimal choice. Any full frame lens attached to a cropped sensor camera will immediately alter its zoom range. For instance, a 24mm full frame lens on a Canon crop sensor will become a 24 x 1.6 = 38.4mm lens. The limitations of a crop sensor do mean that you are not able to take full advantage of the focal range your camera gives. You might say that the telephoto capabilities make it worth it for you; however, you can always crop in, but you can't crop out. 
Closing Remarks
Before upgrading to full frame, it's essential to be aware of the limitations and advantages such a setup brings. Smaller sensors come with their own appeal, offering a more portable setup. Some photography genres may not even require the image quality of a full frame sensor, let alone medium format. If you're considering an upgrade from a crop sensor camera, I encourage you to contemplate a medium format camera if you aim for the best of the best. A quick online search reveals appealing used options from brands like Phase One, Hasselblad, Fujifilm, and more.
What type of camera do you shoot with? Please share in the comments below!
Right, they could have bought a full-frame camera and a $1300 16-35mm. Will the extra $1000 make that much of a difference? Or would a $300 lens and a $1000 trip somewhere result in better photos than a $1300 lens and a walk around their home neighbourhood?
I don't know the answers to your questions, I only know that a larger sensor is more appropriate for shooting with a wide field of view. That seems to be pretty obvious, if one considers just common sense physics and optics. If someone wants to use gear that isn't as well suited for something just because they are being cheap, then they can surely do so. These days the marketplace is filled with less-than-ideal gear for very low prices.
But... why is a larger sensor more appropriate for shooting with a wide field of view? What's the common sense? If you want something really wide, you could get the Laowa 12mm f/2.8 for a full frame camera, or the Laowa 6mm f/2 for a Micro Four Thirds camera, and is one really significantly better than the other?
yup!
One lens I wish they would do a full frame version of, in addition to adding OIS, is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. Decent for video but struggles with anything close up due to the large foval plane curvature near the edges. A full frame version will have less of that issue since the APS-C body will use the sweet spot of the lens, and at full frame, users will enjoy its capabilities on cameras that don't crop when recording video.
yeah, it would be a LOT more expensive and a lot heavier, but it would certainly be more useful because it would produce better image quality in the deep corners and as you say it might be much better at subject magnification at the sensor plane.
For years I used my heavy, expensive full frame lenses on my crop sensor bodies and I never wished they were cheaper or lighter - was just glad to have the better image quality and bright sharp corners. IQ is more important than affordability or ease of carrying around.
The corners of the APS-C frame, that is.
I dunno man the D500 pumps out some pretty intense quality. So does the D90 and most of fujis crop cameras. The line between crop and full frame is pretty blurry these days.
A classic example of what a psychologist friend of mine used to call "Contempt prior to investigation".
I've been a Photographer since 1963, and I've used every format imaginable from Minox to 4x5 and every tech from silver halide to APS-c. Today I mostly shoot with a Fuji XH-2, because it's the right tool for what I am trying to accomplish today. If it were not up to the task I'd use something else.
BTW, I've not had any issues shooting wide angle. I just use the right lense for the shot. There are plenty to choose from.
If sensor/film size is all that matters then shouldn't we all buy huge large-format camera? For $100k or so you can get a digital 4x5 camera. For a much smaller number of thousands of dollars you could buy or have made an 11×14 or larger film camera. That huge film will surely result in the most incredible images!
Except that the ultimate quality of the resulting image relies not on the size of the sensor or film; it depends solely on the skill of the photographer and on their knowledge of the camera they're using. There are photographers that are so talented that they could take great pictures with the crummiest point-and-shoot camera.
I really don't think the camera or its sensor size/film size matters much. The "eye" of the photographer and their knowledge of the gear their using is what's important.
I love my crop sensor Red Komodo lol
Now, I'll leave aside the clickbeit title which alone diminishes the article's entire value.
What really got me is the Full Frame Above All message, together with many comments here. It just hit me how detached from reality so many photographers are.
I congratulate the author for being blessed enough to consider the 4/3 cameras "pricey".
My admiration to the photographers who can't comprehend why amyone would buy "cheaper" lenses or why APS-C cameras even exist.
Well, guys, yes, you, the privileged ones - in the real world photography is a very, very expensive art. And the vast majority of us, simple mortals, shoot with the pathetic aps-c simply because we can't afford anything better.
I'm glad you, guys, have entire stores-worth of camera bodies and lenses. But the stark reality is that most of us can't afford anything beyond an old DSLR.
Yes, we know full frame are best. BELIEVE ME, WE DO! And, by the way, many have to resort to shooting with smart phones simply because they're cheaper. No, it's not fashion, it's about money, that little commodity you all seem to take for granted.
You know, back in the day I actually got mocked for buying my old Nikon 5200 instead of a higher end model, when in fact I had to count coins to be able to purchase it. ...And then I'd edit my images on my new, gorgeous Asus, which was stil cheaper than most DSLRs and decent mirrorless.
Yes, photography is the unattainable dream of many broke losers out there.
So, let me spell it out for you in case you didn't get it yet - WHY WE BUY APS-Cs:
1. Because we love photography, and 2. Because we're poor.
Thank you!
Ellie Siopis wrote:
"in the real world photography is a very, very expensive art"
Ellie, I have found that photography is actually very inexpensive compared to the hobbies that many of my friends have. I mean there's only a couple thousand dollars for a body and a few lenses, then a few hundred bucks of incidentals like editing software, memory card, etc. And then you're all ready to shoot!
Conversely, my friend Chad just dropped another $32,000 on another bass boat for his weekend fishing ventures. Bob has a vacation home on a lake and a KrisCraft motorboat for his waterskiing hobby. The other Bob and his wife love golf, and travel all around the globe to golf on the world's most iconic golf courses. Many of my friends hunt, and travel to Africa to hunt big game. Just their taxidermy bills are over $10,000 each year! And then my friend Mark is a huge NFL football fan, and travels around to different cities each fall to see his beloved Seattle Seahawks play their away games ..... and then he also goes to the Super Bowl every year and that trip and those tickets are well over $10,000 just for that one game!
If you think photography is expensive, just view it in the context of the other things that everyday people do for hobbies, and then you will change your mind and realize just how inexpensive photography is.
There's a lot wrong with this article. It sounds like it was written about 15 years ago when full-frame was actually drastically better than crop sensors. As a professional, I made the seemingly backwards swap from a Sony A7RIV to a Fuji X-T4 and the image quality is virtually identical. I've done test after test to try to see a difference in dyamic range and noise, guess what, identical. I really think it's time for real photographers to write these articles instead of people looking at charts and price ranges to predict image quality.
My Minolta and Canon point and shoot cameras back in the day were my gateway drugs to a Canon APS-C DSLR. Then the Canon DSLR led me to a mirrorless Canon APS-C. Then when Canon left me for dead when they abandoned the M mount, it was my gateway drug to a Sony FF. And here we are! I love the Sony and all these digital cameras were/are great in their day. But I really loved the newer OM-1 4/3 camera and if I had a wallet big enough to buy one, I would definitely have that too. On top of all that, my cell phone has a damn fine set of cameras and lenses, too. No way to go wrong with all of these excellent tools.
Can't disagree more on the image quality side. Was photographing with various Canon fullframe bodies in the past and switched to the Fuji systems during the last years. I ditched fullframe completely and shot only APS-C and middle format now (bought the GFX for certain demanding customers but mostly I run with the X-H2 and the X-T5 as a backup).
Was a fullframe snob in the past too but I'm cured and enjoy the benefits of a good APS-C system now.
Rene Radler wrote:
"Can't disagree more on the image quality side."
What do you mean? Do you mean that your Fuji crop sensors produce better image quality than your Canon full frame bodies? Or do you mean that any edge that the full frame images have is so small that it does not matter for what you and your customers are doing with the images?
I am so glad that I never even considered a crop sensor camera. I was late to the digital game. I was still shooting film as recently as 2013 both 35mm as well as 6X6 Hasselblad. When I decided to go digital, I only looked at cameras that were at least the size of my 35mm. Ergo, I went with the Canon 5D Mark II. I didn't understand the question when folks asked me if I had a crop or full frame sensor. It seems like that was the best use of time and money. I recently went to medium format 4:3 via the Fujifilm 100s. Sometimes it's best to not know what you don't know.
Ed,
I am so sorry that someone issued a negative response to your comment. I cannot understand the petty mindset of this person Durr. You simply shared your experience with gear that you have chosen to use. You weren't critical or disrespectful of anyone or any type of camera. How odd that they would give you a thumbs down. What a weirdo.
Tom, don't worry about me.... I am a big boy and I've been through many wars. I learned a long time ago that haters will hate. That's fine. What I said was the truth and with all due respect. That's the way I roll. I say haters can just bring it on...
Just go ahead and call me a full-frame bigot. When I got my first SLR camera in 1980, a Canon A-1, there were no APS-C films. July 2013, I bought one of my bucket list cameras, a used Canon New F-1, with the AE Motor Drive FN, and the AE Finder FN. Driving back from Charleston, South Carolina, I mentioned to my wife that KEH had the F-1 kit for $400. She asked, "Is that their flagship camera?" I answered "Yes, for the 80's." She said "Buy it."
December 2013, I got the Canon EOS 5D III.
Ive been shooting portraits and weddings for 20 years . I've used film, aspc, ff and now own a 4/3 .
I still shoot with all 4 mentioned. All of my cameras produce beautiful image's, glass plays a major roll as well. In my personal opinion people get too caught up in brands and sensor size.
Both Crop and Full But Mainly Crop !!! But I really Have To Start using My Full Frame More !!!
Pentax k1mk2 full frame and Pentax K3-III apsc. Both produce fantastic images.
The cost of living has compelled me to step down to an original model Canon EOS 7D. Okay, I get that it’s old but the DR is shocking. If it were anyone else’s camera I would be able to see the funny side but since it’s mine, I’m struggling! I would never buy another crop sensor camera.
Yeah the crop sensor cameras prior to 2010 were really brutal in terms of both noise grain and dynamic range. Back in those days, some photographers thought the image quality from those cameras was great. I could never understand what was wrong with those people who thought that way. They must have had extremely low standards ..... or else they never really did anything very demanding with their images.
You can create great images from even a Nikon D100. Not every one is working in as demanding conditions you are that require the latest and greatest. Not every one expects the same things you do from a camera. I have a D200 that still produces some pretty rad images. Does it have amazing dynamic range amazing? No not at all but you don't need amazing dynamic range and high ISO capabilities to produce quality photographs. It has nothing to do with "Standards". Even iPhones with their tiny sensors can create awesome photos. It comes down to needs.
You are correct. But the goal for most of us is not simply to take some great photos. It is to get as many great photos as possible every time we are shooting. If I go out on a three day shoot and come away with 73 high quality, marketable images, that is not at all acceptable if having better gear would have yielded 112 marketable photos, or 140 marketable photos. The goal for the most demanding of us is to be able to come away with as many unique, marketable images as is humanly possible every time we shoot. More. More. MORE!
If a camera and lens have not given me as many marketable images as possible, then they have failed me.
I still use my D700 and D800. IMO the D800/e is the best bang for buck full frame camera on the used market right now. The D800 has some pretty dang good DR as well.
I ended up selling my Fuji GFX gear along with my Pentax K-1.ii a bit back when it got to what I thought was a peak in value (with Fuji tax, who knows tbh). For work or personal projects, I found myself always using my E-M5iii/G9 MFT kit along with my KP when I wanted to use my favorite Pentax lenses. I picked up a Pentax 645Z used in Japan while staying with my work partner that lives in Hokaido. We share that camera between her or my 645 lens collection when we want something more than our main bodies (she swears by the Pentax KP).
Personally speaking, with modern processing and sensors like that in the OM-1, I don't see myself switching from MFT/APS-C any time in the future. The crop factor and small body/lens combo helps get more personal shots from a distance with my photojournalism and personal projects. I do have a FF camera, a Sigma fp that I love a lot, but I only have it because I already had been building up some l-mount lenses for my Leica CL and I got it dirt cheap used off a video friend. If Sigma released an APS-C CMOS sensor camera on l-mount that was basically a quattro cut down and changed to fit a fp's screen but with tilt and weather sealing, I'd buy it on the spot to be an APS-C partner wtih my CL and possibly swap to it as my main body. I love the colors from the fp and the menu system is probably my favorite. It's just I'm not paying like 1300–2400 dollars for a close to 150mm f1.8 lens like I use with my MFT gear nonstop in the Olympus 75mm f1.8. I do use the Sigma 90mm f2.8 on my CL a lot that gives a 135mm f2.8, and that on a APS-C Sigma body might be enough to win me over tbh.
I ended up selling my Fuji GFX gear along with my Pentax K-1.ii a bit back when it got to what I thought was a peak in value (with Fuji tax, who knows tbh). For work or personal projects, I found myself always using my E-M5iii/G9 MFT kit along with my KP when I wanted to use my favorite Pentax lenses. I picked up a Pentax 645Z used in Japan while staying with my work partner that lives in Hokaido. We share that camera between her or my 645 lens collection when we want something more than our main bodies (she swears by the Pentax KP).
Personally speaking, with modern processing and sensors like that in the OM-1, I don't see myself switching from MFT/APS-C any time in the future. The crop factor and small body/lens combo helps get more personal shots from a distance with my photojournalism and personal projects. I do have a FF camera, a Sigma fp that I love a lot, but I only have it because I already had been building up some l-mount lenses for my Leica CL and I got it dirt cheap used off a video friend. If Sigma released an APS-C CMOS sensor camera on l-mount that was basically a quattro cut down and changed to fit a fp's screen but with tilt and weather sealing, I'd buy it on the spot to be an APS-C partner wtih my CL and possibly swap to it as my main body. I love the colors from the fp and the menu system is probably my favorite. It's just I'm not paying like 1300-2400 dollars for a close to 150mm f1.8 lens like I use with my MFT gear nonstop in the Olympus 75mm f1.8. I do use the Sigma 90mm f2.8 on my CL a lot that gives a 135mm f2.8, and that on a Sigma body might be enough to win me over tbh.
I shot with a Z6ii and a D850 backup. I shoot commercial real estate, daily.
Your article is spot on.
It's nice to hear it so thoughtfully explained.
What an amazing article. Almost everything in it is wrong!
For example: "Mirrorless full frame cameras are lighter than crop sensor DSLRs, but once you attach a lens to these new cameras, you'll hardly distinguish them from DSLR setups, regardless of the sensor size." What absolute rubbish. Any wide-angle lens on any SLR is going to have to be of a reverse telephoto design to clear the mirror box. This drives up the number of elements and groups, driving up weight, length, and cost; and diminishing optical quality. A wide angle lens on a mirrorless body is a much simpler and natural design and can be shorter, lighter, cheaper, and higher image quality. This is why in the non-electronic days some photographers preferred a rangefinder like a Leica exclusively for their wide-angle lenses and would use a DSLR for their normal and telephoto lenses.
Here is another absolute rubbish statement: "Even an older full frame camera from 2010 will surpass the image quality of any cropped sensor camera released in 2023." Sure, within a generation the larger sensor will generally outperform the smaller sensor. But sensors 13 years apart? That's two or three generations, incorporating changes like switching from front side illumination to backside illumination, higher fill factors, deep trench isolation between the pixels for less crosstalk and higher contrast, much deeper storage wells for greater dynamic range, and lower noise for higher sensitivity especially at high ISOs.
I have been designing cameras, lenses, and sensors for decades, starting my career at Ernst Leitz, and I am the named inventor 94 US patents, most of them related to cameras or lenses or imaging or image processing. I have shot on view cameras, medium format cameras, full frame cameras, aps-c cameras and mft cameras. My current favorite camera system is the Fuji XT series, and I wish I had bought an XE when they were available. My widest angle lens is 9mm, so I'm certainly not suffering from the lack of a full frame sensor.
I could go on, but then my comment would end up longer than the original article.
.