When it comes to sensor size, the majority of the time, we talk about if it is worth moving from a smaller sensor to a bigger sensor, such as going from full frame to medium format. However, in the last few years, we have seen significant advances in the capabilities of APS-C cameras, both in terms of performance and sensor quality. So, is it worth trading in your gear for a smaller, lighter, and likely more affordable kit? This interesting video features a longtime photographer discussing his thoughts six years after switching.
Coming to you from Andy Mumford, this great video features him discussing his thoughts on using APS-C Fujifilm cameras six years after switching from full frame. A decade ago, the difference between full frame and APS-C cameras was generally significant, both in terms of capabilities and image quality. However, APS-C cameras have made significant strides in both areas, and Fujifilm's X series is particularly respected for its design, price-to-performance ratio, capabilities, and image quality, and along with all that, you get the benefits of a smaller and lighter kit and lenses and bodies that are generally cheaper than their full frame counterparts. It is certainly a compelling proposition for a lot of photographers. Check out the video above for Mumford's full thoughts.
I think a large segment of the market must be feeling a bit of a hangover after binging on FF gear. I have both, and in the end I'd be hard put to show you something from the Z6 that I couldn't have gotten with the Z50. The Z6 has less noise in very low light, but does it really matter? My APS-C gear is smaller, lighter, and I think "luckier".
An interesting post. I also "down-sized" my sensor, in my case going from Canon APS-C to Olympus MFT. I'm an amateur nature/wildlife/bird photographer; the Canon APS gear didn't get me what I needed with rapid auto-focus and frame-rate (nor was it meant to, I'm not blaming them). I could go FF with the R system and step UP to expensive, heavier gear, or step DOWN to (sorta) expensive, lighter gear, both of which would let me do what I wanted to do. So I stepped down. So far, so good.
I don't think the question is whether it's worth going to APSC, I think the question is whether it's worth going to MFT; which has a hell of a lot going for it.
Agreed.
If one is looking for lighter gear the MFT world offers this plus a huge line of high quality interesting lenses.
You're right a lot smaller and a lot of lens choices
Except for Fujifilmm which makes excellent APSc cameras and a lot great lenses to support the system...
APSc isnt that much smaller than FF and the systems are treated as Steph Childs. With inky a few lenses produced for the system....
And again those lense for APSc are seldom great ...
who's Steph and who are his children?
Maybe the man you secretly dreamed of Pedro 😉
Fact is that usually not that many native APSc lenses are made by canon and nikon... in comparison to Fujifilm Sony and the M43 system
Well you Portfolio is the best evidence and that Fujifilm makes a lot of excellent lenses ....
Too much beauty for mortal men to absorbe at once 👍
Such nice words (other than the part of me dreaming of Steph. hehe). Cheers. Thanks mate
Could also put aps lenses on FF bodies...won't get the "free" 1.5x zoom though but you would get lighter lenses...
I think Andy Mumford would struggle to do that on his system.
I recently switched to a Fujifilm X-T4 from Nikon full frame. No regrets at all. Now I have a lightweight and very versatile system that I couldn't be more happy with.
The language around digital camera sensor size is completely broken and needs to be divorced from film format terminology. Take “full frame” for example. “Full” what? If 36x24mm is the “full” frame then what about “medium format”? Is it smaller than “full” frame? Or should it be called “extra full frame” since it is actually larger? And referring to “APS-C” (or other APS designations) as “crop sensor” is ridiculous as the sensor isn’t cropped— technicians aren’t taking a 36x24 mm sensor and snipping out a smaller chunk with scissors.
The term "Full frame" turned out to be marketing gold.
Not really. I shoot concerts and low light events. Crop sensors are an amateurish tool.
Bullshit
How many of your concert and "low light event" photos end up printed on paper, large, in front of people who'd actually notice that additional noise?
When folks were used to shooting 24x36, a frame that was less than that size was not the frame sized we were "used to", like the "half frame" Olympus camera frame was 24x18mm instead of the "full frame" 24x36 of other 35mm cameras. I guess it was "marketing" to say that the 1Ds was full frame aka the same as a 35mm film camera frame. I had a Canon camera that shot APS film, I assume that is where the APS-C digital name came from if that was same size as APS film.
Medium format digital was just an idea back then so it doesn't really come into play. For film we usually said "35mm", "medium format" was 120/220 film regardless of aspect ratio, and "large format" was for sheet film.
It isn’t always about the sensor size which we all seen so stuck on debating ad Infinitum.
A friend just changed from Fuji APSC to Sony FF after 10+ years of shooting happily and successfully with Fuji. Her work has changed in the last few years and is now more wildlife oriented. With her need for faster and more accurate AF and tracking the switch to the Sony a1 and a7r4 give a significantly higher keeper rate. It’s all about fitting the right tool to the job. Do you need more pixels, faster AF, better high ISO or low light capability? Maybe you hike a lot and NEED small light gear. Find the right tool for YOUR needs. A persons skills will make a bigger difference than their gear for 95% of photographers. When your gear limits your work then it’s time to consider a change.
No thanks Three reasons.
a) the focal length. APS-C sucks for wide angle shots.
b) in my own personal experience, after using the D7000 and then going to a D750, the difference in image quality was night and day, and finally, c) there is no APS-C sensor that can hold a candle in low light photography to a low megapixel FF sensor (D3S or D750 to name 2). Larger photosites, more light gathering capability. Simple as that
Again, bullshit.
I jumped to Fuji XT 4 in 2021. I am 75 my health limits my hiking but like the weight of the fuji system. I am part time so I don't see myself supporting myself in Photography. I found a lighting system from F. J. Westcott Co. The system was buggy at first, Fuji has a menu system I need to hire a tour guide, lol for me. Westcott's support is superb. I talked several times on the phone. Fuji just had a firmware update and so did Westcott. My system is running smooth and clean. I enjoy Fuji and their color science for me is so nice, I do post in PS with LAB. Get good color when I use LAB in PS. We have a boutique race track where I live and shoot the horses in the spring and fall. The best camera in the world is the one I have with me. Grateful too
If Fuji can make their AF systems match that of Sony and Canon, there would be very few reasons to carry larger gear.
Like most gear decisions, it all depends on what you're shooting, in what kind of light, and how far you have to walk to get there balanced with how fit you are. Of course it also depends on how much you can afford or are willing to spend.
I was fortunate enough to start out on full frame. Later in life I stepped down to Sony's APS-C lineup, then to Fuji's. I've honestly never been happier. The image quality is more than sufficient for professional work. The cost of equipment and accessories are significantly lower. And the overall shooting experience is far better. For me, there is no reason to accept the many disadvantages of going back to full frame. The slight image quality gain full frame offers isn't enough to incur the extra weight and cost of lenses.
the benefit is just not there
there is only minimal weight and size difference for any APS-c with ibis and professional grade handling
the small sensor may allow for somewhat shorter - and lighter weight - lenses, but that assumes that the user isn't getting any low-light benefit from a larger sensor
Fuji xt-4 is only 150 bucks less than a Sony A7III
And the Nikon Z5 is priced lower than the Sony a6600
The 6600 is insanely expensive compared to the market.
Yeah but my X-T20 cost me 300 quid used and takes the same images as my X-T2… and it’s tiny and extremely powerful with the f2 primes attached. Nothing in the full frame space comes close.
Nobody seems to mention bokeh. Isn't bokeh a major differentiator between the 2 formats and hence a major driver for portrait photographers to choose full frame?
Studio portrait photographers will shoot at f8 with lighting.
The only people who think you cant get nice out of focus areas with an APS-C camera are people who have either fallen for the marketing spiel of full frame, or haven't actually used an APS-C camera, or both.
Yes a full frame camera will give slightly shallower depth of field at equivalent distance, but if you cant use a 35mm or 50mm f2 lens on an APS-C camera and achieve nice out of focus areas, that's on you, not the camera.
As for "Nobody seems to mention bokeh", have you been living on the moon for the last 10 years?
I migrated from micro 4/3 to a combo of full-frame and 1-inch sensor. I think the issue for me was that my micro 4/3 gear wasn't actually that small - I was giving up some quality and flexibility for a camera that was nearly the same size. If price is the primary motivator, if you want lots of lenses - it can be a great system.