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.

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.

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:
-
Ecosystem / available lenses – 38%
-
Ergonomics / in-hand comfort / physical controls – 32%
-
Sensor format – 19%
-
Menu interface – 6%
-
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?
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 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 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.