You Said It: Why Sensor Size Isn’t the Whole Story

You Said It: Why Sensor Size Isn’t the Whole Story

What matters more—sensor size or how a camera fits into your real-world workflow? Recent comments from our Fstoppers community made me curious to delve into how typical photographers feel, and it revealed a lot more than just APS-C vs. full frame preferences.

After we published a story about one photographer trading a $4,000 full-frame setup for a compact APS-C body, the responses rolled in. But instead of just debating specs, readers shared deeper insights—about creative trade-offs, ergonomics, and what really makes gear worth using. So what matters to photographers, and not just those reviewing the latest camera bodies?

What Readers Had to Say—At a Glance

The overall tone of the discussion leaned positive toward APS-C sensors, with many photographers sharing personal experiences that validated the switch—or reinforced their decision to stay with smaller sensor systems. About 60% of the comments leaned in favor of APS-C, while a smaller but vocal group voiced reservations or reaffirmed the benefits of full frame.

The discussion quickly moved beyond technical comparisons. Instead of arguing about specs, readers talked about real-world usability, emotional comfort, and shooting style compatibility. Some photographers praised APS-C for its portability, affordability, and versatility. Others highlighted areas where it falls short—particularly in low-light performance, shallow depth of field, and overall ergonomics.

What emerged was a more nuanced and experience-driven take on the APS-C vs. full frame debate than what you’ll typically find in spec sheets or marketing material. The following sections dive deeper into the themes and trade-offs photographers surfaced in the comments.

Micro Four Thirds systems are often praised for their portability. They take fine photos, too.

APS-C Isn’t Just 'Good Enough': Sometimes, It’s Better

One of the most common threads in the comment section came from photographers who don’t just settle for APS-C—they choose it. For many, especially wildlife and telephoto shooters, the 1.5x or 1.6x crop factor isn’t a compromise—it’s a creative advantage. You get more reach out of your lenses without the added weight, which can be a game-changer when you’re deep in the field or packing light for travel.

Several readers pointed out that for most practical uses—especially online or print at modest sizes—the difference in image quality between APS-C and full frame has become harder to notice, especially with modern sensors and processing.

Full Frame Lenses on APS-C: A Smart Hybrid Approach

Another nuanced point that came up repeatedly: pairing full frame lenses with APS-C bodies can actually improve image quality in specific ways. Because you're using the center portion of the lens (often the sharpest), you can avoid edge softness, vignetting, and other optical quirks that sometimes show up on full frame sensors.

It’s a clever hybrid solution—leveraging premium glass with a smaller, more affordable body. It’s an approach that perhaps fails to get sufficient attention in camera reviews and discussions.

Ergonomics Matter (Sometimes More Than Specs)

Not all the feedback was glowing for APS-C systems. Several photographers flagged ergonomics as a dealbreaker. Smaller camera bodies might be easier to carry, but for those with larger hands, left-eye dominance, or glasses, the compact size might actually get in the way of a smooth shooting experience. For other photographers, this trade-off could of course go the other way, with full frame bodies being too large in hand.

This is a reminder that usability goes far beyond numbers on a spec sheet. A technically capable camera still has to feel right in your hands. For some, full frame cameras strike this balance best. For others, smaller sensor bodies may be preferred. In the end, ergonomics is a very personal experience, with the implication being that you will have to hold a camera to really know if it’s the right one for you.

It’s Not Always About the Sensor

Interestingly, some of the most candid comments had nothing to do with sensor size at all. Instead, they pointed to frustrations with system design—menus, button placement, or unintuitive interfaces that slow down the shooting process. A few readers even said their decision to stick with or switch away from a camera had more to do with user experience than with the output itself.

That’s a subtle but important point: when gear feels like it’s getting in the way, even a full frame sensor can’t save the experience.

A compact camera with a 1" sensor can be a great form factor when travelling.

Peace of Mind Is Underrated

One unexpected—but highly relatable—takeaway: several photographers said they preferred using APS-C setups when traveling, not just for the lighter weight, but because it’s less stressful to carry gear that’s easier (and cheaper) to replace. The peace of mind that comes with knowing you won’t be devastated if your camera gets lost, stolen, or damaged is something we don’t talk about enough in gear discussions.

What Else Matters When Choosing a Camera?

To build on what we saw in the comments, I surveyed another online photography community to understand their primary concerns when buying a new camera. The responses echoed many of the same themes—sensor size plays a role, but it’s far from the deciding factor.

In an open poll, here’s how photographers ranked their primary factor when choosing a new camera:

  1. Ecosystem / available lenses – 38%

  2. Ergonomics / in-hand comfort / physical controls – 32%

  3. Sensor format – 19%

  4. Menu interface – 6%

  5. Cost – 3%

One response summed up the general sentiment of that community well: “The camera that works in your hand, stays in your hand.”

Others mentioned secondary—but still meaningful—factors like weather resistance and sustainably sourced materials. It all reinforces the idea that camera choice is about balancing multiple priorities to match your intended use and personal values.

So, Does Sensor Size Matter?

Yes—and no. The conversation around APS-C vs. full frame is less about technical superiority and more about context. What you shoot, how you shoot, where you shoot, and how much you’re willing to carry—all of that shapes what "better" really means for you.

The lively discussion highlighted that sensor size is just one piece of a much bigger picture. Many photographers will consider at least a few key aspects of a camera, and the balance of those will determine if it’s the right choice for their own photography. Supporting their own comfort, control, and creative freedom is king—not sensor size.

I’ve heard from a lot of photographers for this article, but every journey is different. What tipped the scales for you when choosing your gear? Was it sensor size, something else, or a combination of factors?

Adam Matthews's picture

Adam Matthews is an outdoor photographer based outside of Chicago, Illinois. He regularly enjoys photographing the many local forest preserves as well as the shores of Lake Michigan. He also makes a point of taking photos on any trip he happens to be on.

Log in or register to post comments
93 Comments
Previous comments

I own a Sony a7 III and an a7000? model. I'm in a hospital bed, now, and the a7000 is in storage, so I can't check its pedigree. As far as ages. I bought them about 2 yrs apart, APSC first, but I think the cameras were released within the same calendar year. Maybe, the APSC is older.

At first, I'd carry both bodies, hoping for the crop advantage, when needed. I never saw an advantage after post.

I use both white and red letter alpha lenses, zooms and primes. Forgive my ignorance on names, my head has bonced off of a couple of concrete barriers since my original post.

I'm strictly an amateur, but I had a job where I could afford my hobby. I have my reasons for no longer selling. However, because I no longer sell, maybe I'm not as critical as I used to be.

I've rented both the a7RIV and a7RV. Good cameras. I've never had experience with a new APSC camera.

I'd love any info on how to securely mount several kgs and several $$$ worth of camera to a wheelchair. Who makes tripod feet that are clamps?

I can't use my Sony FE lenses with a medium format camera. That leaves me a choice between FF and APS-C for sensor size. I've got every mm covered from 12mm to 600mm. With a 2x converter, to1200mm. My FF produces better images, even when cropped in post to match FoV of my APS-C camera. I never use in camera zoom. I'd rather crop in post. New sensors have enough MP to handle the loss of pixels when cropping. So, when it comes to sensors, it's not which is better. It's what can you afford.

PS: I'm basing my opinion on Sony cameras. I've (next to) never used a Fuji. They're a good company, though. However, can Fuji match the lens line-up of Sony? Can their 40MP compete with 61MP?

Thanks for the comment Rich Umfleet! I'm curious...is there a notable age difference between your FF and APS-C cameras? Sensor technologies do keep improving, and so I do feel there's a valid argument to be made that a (much) newer APS-C could actually outperform an older FF. Likely debatable, though.

Inherently though, if it's "what you can afford" then you are saying more expensive (i.e., FF) is better. What I've noticed, and experienced with my own purchases, is that sensor size is not necessarily what defines "better" for a given person. For example, you've ruled out medium format not because the sensor is worse, but because it doesn't fit into your current ecosystem. At the end of the day, it's all about tradeoffs....and where each person places value. For some, that's sensor size; for others, it is megapixels; and for others, it's completely different aspects!

I'm an amateur with money. I stopped selling pics after I quit my job as a forensic photographer. My talent is no longer for sale.

I currently own an a7III and have rented different cameras up to the a7RV. My APS-C is about the same age, maybe a year older than my a7III. I used to carry both bodies, hoping to take advantage of the crop factor. I didn’t see it.

I have alpha zoom and prime lenses from 12mm-600mm and a 2x converter. All my primes are red letter except for my 20mm f/1.8.

Following a motorcycle accident, I don't foresee buying anything new until I can figure out how to securely mount a tripod to a wheelchair. Do any companies make tripod feet that are clamps?

I don't know how to best mount a camera to a wheelchair, unfortunately. I know Anthony Carbajal (https://www.instagram.com/carbajalphoto/) has a good setup. If you're on Instagram, it might be worth messaging him to see what's worked for him.

Thanks for the link! His setup looks pretty light. I need something heavy duty.

Does anybody make clamp feet for tripods? I have rubber feet, ice feet, spike feet, but are there any clamp feet? Or is this something I'll have to make or havè made?

I just remembered this. It goes under an "ultimate crop" heading. Even APS-C cameras have a digital zoom feature. I don't remember to what crop factor. I put my 2x converter on my cropped Sony with my 200-600mm zoom and then digitally zoomed it to its max magnification. It was fun to try, but there was so much noise, you could hear the pictures scream.

Oh wow, that sounds a bit intense!

I'm trying to find my APS-C Sony online. Being hospitalized, I haven't seen it in over 3 yrs. Are the cropped cameras a6000 or a7000 series? Here I've got it matched with an adapter and my old A-mount 70-300mm Minolta lens. I was on my rooftop getting moon and planet pics.

Yes, those are primarily Sony's APS-C cameras! They also have the ZV line, but I believe that is more geared towards vloggers.

That's a pretty solid-looking setup you had there!

Full frame? Bah, medium format only for me. Those pixels aren't going to peep themselves.

👀👀👀

Russ, I believe the debate was in regards to 35mm style cameras. In which case, I'll choose an FF sensor. Going to Medium Format is a bit cost restrictive. I still have and use 30 year old A-mount lenses.

If I were ever to return to wedding and portrait photography, I'd probably invest in an MF system. However, I'm strictly a hobbiest. I stopped selling my talent, for reasons, back in the film days.

The reason I use Fuji GFX cameras is because Fuji don't make a full frame cameras. I do like their X series cameras (I own an XT5)

They have some advantages but I did miss the low light performance of a full frame camera when I went from a Nikon D850 to a Fuji XT5 just the dynamic range was a big hit so I wanted to stay with Fuji and like I said they don't make full frame cameras so I ended up in GFX land and I love them. Honestly they are great cameras. They are quirky and a little bit challenging to use but that's what I like about them. Are they better than other cameras? Know they're just different. I've always said no camera is better than another camera. They're just all different and they have strengths and weaknesses as that guy on YouTube says which I love his channel. All I'm in search of is the perfect camera but there isn't one. The GFX system make great lenses as well so you have great bodies and great lenses and I don't see myself leaving this system. The whole bigger camera in your hands thing doesn't bother me. It never has..

That's really interesting Nev Clarke! I looked at the X series maybe about a year ago, having heard good things about the performance. Glad to hear that you're happy with the GFX system!

Yeah I'm sure you've seen some of my photos on here. I know you've liked some of them. It's a difficult dilemma if you want to be in Fuji because there is no full frame camera and in many ways the GFX system is kind of like an oversized full frame it's not as big as the hasselblad medium format. It's kind of in between full frame and medium format. Some people call it large frame which actually fits a description really w. I actually think the Fuji GFX sensor size is absolutely perfect for what my needs are but it won't suit everybody, but it produces the most amazing files, but they are tricky cameras to use.

This is an old and very tired agument that will go on and on. It really does not matter what size your camera is sensor size wise or how many megapixels it has because whatever camera you choose, it will have pros and cons. I have taken great photos with a Nikon P7000, a Fujifilm X-S1, a Lumix F330, a Sony RX100 and many more. The main thing for me is the feel of the camera and does it make me want to pick it up and use and I can say yes to many of the cameras that I have owned, any camera out there is a good camera if you use it.

Sounds like you're solidly in the ergonomics camp then Keith Patrak! Rather than looking at arguments over purely sensor size/format, I was curious what most photographers actually care about when assessing a system. For all the reactions and responses to the (I agree, old and tired) sensor size argument, the majority of photographers don't seem to prioritize it above other aspects of a camera. Thanks for the comment!

Yes Adam ergonomics are very important to me and I have tried all formats up to APS-C. The only full frame cameras I have used are the SLR's I used in the 70's, which were big and cumbersome. I think APS-C is the best compromise for size and weight and image quality. I have had a few M43 system cameras and loved the compact size and weight and the x2 advantage but the ergonomics did not feel right for me. I am sure some of the new cameras are fantastic and I would love one of the new Canons or Nikons but they are too pricey for me sadly :)

Ah yes, that pesky price issue. I was at a Leica store/gallery today, and even their used models are a little too much for me!

Getting a bit tedious here. No one seems to mention the differences in dynamic range which is every bit as important as resolution. In general, the larger the sensor the better the dynamic range. Pixel size and density are factors here too. That's why medium format is considered the best in terms of image quality compared to full frame, APS-C, and micro 4/3.

It's a very valid point James Bruton! Interestingly, dynamic range didn't come up as a factor on choosing a camera in any of the comments on the original article -- that I saw anyway. It also didn't come up in my other rather unscientific surveys and discussions with other photographers. I wonder: Do all modern cameras offer enough dynamic range that at this point it isn't really a deciding factor of what to get? Is the extra performance of larger sensors like medium format more an added bonus for a smaller number of shooting conditions?

In my case I used to have both an APS-C M-mount mirrorless Canon and a FF Sony mirrorless. The optimized configuration was to have Canon EF lenses (FF) that had an adaptor for the Canon M mount and an adaptor for the Sony E FF. Then I used the same lenses on both bodies. Plus I also had lenses specifically for each mount and sensor size. Adapted lenses are not as good as native ones for things like autofocus, but for my wallet it worked well. Regarding sensor size I believe that micro 4/3, APS-C and FF are all excellent enough for great output, speaking for myself and my needs. Each sensor size comes with surrounding equipment that is supposed to be proportional to the sensor size. So that is important to people for carrying things. Now I am down to the FF Sony, though, and use my Samsung S24 Ultra for what the Sony is not there for. As a pro photographer making a living off your work, you may not approve of using a mobile phone but the output can be excellent with the right conditions and settings. (The Samsung has excellent output at 50 Mpx for 1x and 5x.)

Thanks for commenting M Hector! I'm always interested by photographers who get a lot out of their phone cameras. I could probably be doing a better job of that myself!

I am a person that also uses Full-Frame Canon-EF lenses on my M-Mount APS-C body and with the right adapter I can guarantee I lose no AF ability. Now I never tried to cross-breeds, to other brands like Sony, I didn't even know you could do that, that is probably where AF is lost. I did it because it was, what I could afford. And in the future, I plan to upgrade to 'Full-Frame'. But I guess some would say the M6 Mark II is "better" right? I doubt it.

Robert koernke the question is always, "better" how? If the qualities of the full frame sensor are what you prioritize, then make the move to full frame and enjoy! For many (most?) photographers, the differences between the sensors aren't noticeable in how they use or share their work. As a result, other aspects of the camera become more important when making a purchasing decision.

But if it gives you a joy from your photography to have full frame files, then I think that's a totally valid reason for you to buy into one of those systems! That makes it better....for you 🙂

i'm not sure how relevant this is to the topic Why Sensor Size Isn't The Whole Story as it might be for the topic Resolution Does Matter to a Certain Extent however when i printed images at 20" x 30" or rather had a friend who had a commercial printing business print images at 20" x 30", i found that at 30 megapixel and above ( 5D Mark iv and EOS R ) images from my full frame digital cameras were almost identical in quality though i could tell a slight increase in sharpness from my 36.3 megapixel D810. i found that images from my 21.1 megapixel 5D Mark ii was slightly softer than the others even though the colour rendition was fine

Look I used a Nikon D850 and I did print quite a few photos from that for clients and customers when they order landscape photos. I then switched to the GFX system because I wanted to go mirror but I didn't like the Nikon mirrorless cameras.... I've seen a significant jump in sharpness going to GFX and it's just a different look. It's incredible. The prints are life like you feel like you are standing on the beach or on the rocks where I shut the photos from the level of detail is so beautiful in GFX Prince. I certainly couldn't go back to 36 megapixels and that sounds ridiculous. I know but I'm talking about quite large prints sometimes 1.5 m across their marquee pieces for clients.

i love the GF 23mm, GF 55mm, the GF 80mm [ which i tried but did not own ] and the GF 20-35mm [ which i owned ] and sort of liked the GF 45mm [ which i also owned ] and the GF 32-64mm [ which i also owned ], but i did not like the GFX colour science and went through three colour charts and three colour profiling software programmes to try to profile the cameras [ GFX 50R and GFX 50Sii ]

the lenses are much larger than most DSLR and mirrorless lenses and the bodies are somewhat larger too but it is the colour science that i did not quite like although it was better in Capture One than in Adobe Lightroom

i currently use a 50 megapixel Hasselblad X1Dii and three XCD lenses and still use my full-frame Canon and Nikon DSLR's and Canon mirrorless but have sold off all my aps-c bodies [ but still have two X-mount prime lenses ]

i had once considered the GFX 100S when it was first released together with the GF 32-64mm f4.0 as a hybrid camera for photo and video however i settled for a Super 35 Canon C70 Cinema Camera [ which i almost never used ] and continued to use my Canon and Nikon full frame systems. the 50 megapixel Fujifilms as well as the 50 megapixel Hasselblads are unable to do video well as they use a relatively old Sony sensor with contrast detect autofocus and without phase detect autofocus

i loved the Fujifilm X-Mount cameras, namely the X-Pro 2 and the X-T4 for their mechanical dials and metal construction but would not use them for serious photographs as i somehow am unable to compose properly and create proper images with aps-c cameras. i think it has to do both with sensor size and depth of field. i can, but they are not as great as full frame images.

also, i only used f1.4 primes on my X-Pro 2 ans X-T4 due to depth of field issues and lens quality issues - i used the Fujifilm 10th anniversary lenses, i.e. the newer designs

yeah it was a real dilemma for me mate. I loved the Fuji colour science and I love the GFX colour scheme. Did you try and change it from Adobe to sRGB and did this help as well?.... Funnily enough for some photos I prefer Adobe and then some I prefer sRGB...but I settled on sRGB. I still have my XT5 which I use for a lot of things and I love my GFX cameras the GFX 100 SII is such a great camera. It's actually quite light and compact compared to the bigger GFX cameras and I don't find it cumbersome to hold at all and I've shot weddings with it and the focusing is spot on so I'm sticking with that system. It would cost me way too much money to change now but my little photography business that I run is doing really well selling GFX prints as the print from the 100 are just phenomenal to look at they are life like in their rendition.

there was one wish i had which was to try sensors of various designs so i read that Sony once had a red, green, blue, emerald sensor in one of its Cybershots which was supposed to deliver more accurate colours, and i know that Huawei had a strange sensor which used yellow in its bayer array instead of green, making it yellow, red and blue, and i know that Sigma has its Foveon sensors which deliver very dense images on the internet, as if there is an extra amount of data in each image, and i've tried and like 24 and 26 megapixel x-trans sensors which i somehow prefer to Fujifilm's 50 megapixel GFX sensors in terms of colours when colour grading even though the images colours look identical and i know that film scans of my old Fujifilm Provia 400 slide film and old push processed Fujifilm Provia 400 still looks very good but i wish that somehow colours could be more malleable and colour spaces larger, especially since delivery is almost always in sRGB or Adobe 1998 even though they may be processed and edited in a far larger colour space. in other words, digital cameras are probably capturing more colours than can be rendered in sRGB or Adobe 1998 images which is the accepted delivery format apart from Tiff files which thankfully are universally accepted for desktop publishing and for high end printing

I was curious after your post actually and I went and tried my GFX 50 SII and compared the files out of the GFX 100 Sii .... And yes, there is a little bit of difference. It's not much but it's definitely there.. If you go into the Lightroom community, you can probably download the Provia preset from somewhere... I have downloaded all of the Kodak film Sims. They're not exactly the same but they're pretty close. There is so many different presets in the Lightroom community section. It's like a kid in a candy store. It's a lot of fun..... yes I've only print tiff files now and I cannot believe the difference. It is huge. They just retained so much more data and without running extra sharpening they just look sharper. I'm a sticker for sharp images. If I'm printing big they have to be pin sharp.

can you post comparison images from your GFX 50Sii and your GFX 100Sii perhaps as the full images and a crop of a relevant parts of the image as an example

I've pixel peeped at both images and there's a slight difference in colour but not much and it's hard to pick with a naked eye but in terms of resolution there's no difference at all and you probably finding that that's because even 50 megapixels is exceeding what Lightroom is capable of pixel peeping into if that makes sense. I'm not sure I'm making a lot of sense with this but I've had a look at the two files and the GFX 50 is incredibly sharp still and I've printed photos from both cameras does make me wonder why I even upgraded to the bigger camera but that one has better focus and I do use that for weddings I'll see if I can find two images the same but what I'll do is over the weekend. I will go out and shoot with both cameras same land same spot and just see what the difference is.

hi Nev, can you shoot the photographs from both cameras in jpeg and in raw and if necessary compare both the film simulations and the RAF files for discrepancies in colour. also which software would you be using to post process the photos but please upload the post processed RAF files

yeah I will do that. I've got some time on tomorrow and Monday as well which is a holiday where I'm living. I've been flat out this weekend with some other photography events so I haven't had a chance but I will do it when I get a chance. It will be interesting to see what the difference is. Maybe just message me on Instagram and I can flick them across to you there. My Instagram is Neve Clarke. You'll find me it's the same profile pic as my photo here.

Agree. I'm using my FF Phase One in a project just because no other camera gives me what I need to do it. And that IQ sensor is something special.

there is one more thing, with regards to Adobe Lightroom Photo Merges, and i know there are specific programmes for photo merges, i find that digital cameras with between 24 to 30 megapixels work best, i.e. 24 or 26 megapixel aps-c and 30 megapixel full frame, although i have also successfully completed photo merges with 50 megapixel medium format cameras. somehow my 45 megapixel D850 and EOS R5 full frame images had difficulty merging ~ why sensor size isn't the whole story

That's in interesting one juiH tan! I wonder what the issue with megapixel count is there.

I am constantly doing panos with files of 32.5mp. I don't use Lightroom. I use Affinity Photo 2. I find it difficult to believe the size itself has anything to do with the issue. But I suppose it could be a problem with the specific computer not being able to handle that much data and trying to jam it all together, as with the bigger MP, and the more files you ask it to merge, the more memory the computer will attempt to use in one setting. I personally have a gaming computer, that I rarely use for gaming, but predominantly use for video rendering, and photo editing. Yes the software could also break, when the size is very large. Are you seeing consistent issues with large files, or are you referring to a couple of individual cases? As with any photo merging or panorama: Sometimes the software sees something, or thinks it sees something that we do not, and feels it does not see a panorama. Then I might try to force a couple shots, with layers, and sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't... and only then it might be revealed what is preventing two or more shots from going together. In one case, just today, the wind had blown a dress just slightly enough that the software said it could not see a pano. I therefore forced it anyway, and was able to jam them together, and 'Topaz-Remove'/ and clone/heal the errors, so it appeared seamless.

i suspect it has to do with pixel pitch as i was able to complete photo merges with the 50mp Hasselblad X1Dii which has a similar pixel pitch as the 30.4mp 5D Mark iv and EOS R and the 36.3mp D810 however this is only a guess

perhaps it has to do with the density of the data and the ability of the lenses to resolve the data but this is somewhat unlikely so the likely reason is the amount of data my intel iMac is able to handle and the free resources available

i have been able to merge a total of 70 30.4 megapixel 5D Mark iv images and prior to that 50 and that took several hours however the usual number i merge is between 24 to about 36 images from aps-c or full frame sensors

the 45 megapixel D850 images seem to merge less reliable and less consistently with the same scenes and subject matter and the same number of photographs so somehow the megapixel count does affect the success of the merges