Old question, full frame or APS-C sized sensor?

[harper]

I realise this is an old question and has possibly been asked numerous times before but what size sensor (FF / APS-C) would you choose?

 

[Phil V]

I realise this is an old question and has possibly been asked numerous times before but what size sensor (FF / APS-C) would you choose?

I choose FF, because that was the camera that provided what I needed.

But if there was a new APSC camera next time that fit my needs better, I’d buy that. In the past I shot APSC for years.

It depends on your priorities, and your choices aren’t related to someone else’s.

 

[Dave Canon]

I have one of each. I previously chose a FF because I needed the IQ for large prints but eventually I found that this camera with lenses was too heavy to carry around so then chose an APS-C ML which was much smaller and lighter but IQ still good. I use the smaller lighter camera for most of my photography now but still keep the FF for studio work.

Dave

 

[ancient_mariner]

I have both, but only really use FF - there's a depth to many FF images that's not present in a smaller format, and even moresense of depth in medium format. APS-C isn't smaller enough to save much weight while the compromise in image character is substantial. If I wanted light weight then I d buy M43.

 

[welshwizard645]

When I started my digital journey APS-c was just about affordable and I couldn't justify £5000+ on a Canon EOS 1Ds.

But now I have the choice, and have an excellent APS-c camera (D500) I would go for full-frame for the small reason you get a much better choice of higher-spec lenses for full-frame, the only non-mirrorless APS-c maker that made much effort in this area was Pentax, whereas Canon and Nikon made the odd lens in EF-S or DX fit.

But, if no money no object, it has to be medium format.

 

[realspeed]

Is it just about sensor size or something else? I always used FF cameras until weight became an issue. So I Changed to a MFT format camera. this made a huge difference with lighter lenses and dual IS. For example = lenses are small and lighter, a 100-300mm mft lens is the same as 200-600mm in a lot smaller package .

 

[ancient_mariner]

Is it just about sensor size or something else? I always used FF cameras until weight became an issue. So I Changed to a MFT format camera. this made a huge difference with lighter lenses and dual IS. For example = lenses are small and lighter, a 100-300mm mft lens is the same as 200-600mm in a lot smaller package .

Lens design probably plays a part, but I think it's image size (possibly a result of focal length required) mostly. When I used film, MF gave a great sense of depth to an image, 35mm somewhat, but half frame was flat as a pancake.

 

[hunnymonster]

I chose FF because of the inherently better noise performance in low light and because I favoured keeping both kidneys over going MF or LF digital

 

[Sky]

Naturally, biggest is best - you can't argue with physics. However, it's always limited to what my wallet can stretch to, which is currently:

Digital FF
Film MF & LF

If I had any sense, I'd use a crop sensor and a 35mm film camera. Unfortunately, GAS prevails . . .

 

[Petrochemist]

In digital I use both FF & APSC as well as more heavily cropped cameras.
Which I take depends on what I'm expecting to shoot, as well as which lenses I'm wanting to play with.

 

[DumfriesDik]

I had this very dilema recently. I had a look at M43, APS-C and FF. And I went for the FF in the end, but after a few months of soul-searching. These first world problems!

 

[swanseamale47]

I use both. Both have advantages and disadvantages. FF gennerally produces better results in low light, but are usually bigger heavier than a crop.
Crop cameras on the other hand have the advantage of being usually lighter and giving extra "reach" with a telephoto lens.
A lot depends on what your use is going to be, and your age and fitness. If your an old git like me go light. A FF with good glass and a flash is no fun to carry for 10 hours. Trust me.

 

[GetBusyLiving]

Is it just about sensor size or something else? I always used FF cameras until weight became an issue. So I Changed to a MFT format camera. this made a huge difference with lighter lenses and dual IS. For example = lenses are small and lighter, a 100-300mm mft lens is the same as 200-600mm in a lot smaller package .

I did this. I started on 35mm film, then to APS-C for twenty years, then FF for twenty years, but as the lenses got longer and heavier, I got older and weaker. I could have gone back to APS-C but I decided to change systems from Nikon to Olympus MFT; I can't see me changing again now. The only gripe is that I can't get a real wide-angle lens without getting a fisheye, but then I couldn't get an 800mm lens for my FF without mortgaging my house and employing someone to carry it for me.

 

[sk66]

To me APS is just kind of "in-between"... not much benefit, and not much negative. I use FF or much more compact (Nikon 1 1" sensor, Fuji X20 2/3 sensor). There's greater tradeoffs going to a much smaller (and older) sensor, but also much bigger benefits (cost/size/weight/etc).

Fact is, there's a whole lot of times where ultimate/maximum image quality really doesn't matter... like most of the time...

 

[woof woof]

FF mostly for me because I used film for years and the obsessive in me likes a 35mm lens to have the field of view I expect it to have rather than the FoV a 35mm lens has on APS-C. I do have MFT kit and I do use it mostly when I want a smaller camera and lens than I can get with FF and when using MFT I have to get over the fact that I'm using a 14mm lens instead of a 28mm and a 20mm instead of a 40mm

APS-C is sort of stuck in the middle for me. I'd rather use FF for most occasions and MFT when I want smaller.

 

[Rincewind]

FF for me it was a natural progression up the nikon camera body system to the D810, my Sigma 150 macro f2.8 is almost welded to the body so I get the best from it and the body - as I shoot all natural light macro from tiny fungi up to orchids and butterflies it does the job, yep its heavy but with the right posture I can get rock steady images with lots of depth and high quality with some cropping if needed. Yep i can and do use a good tripod and remote release on the fungi shots for low iso high f stop. Not for everyone and maybe in a few years my old bones may complain too much but for now its good !

 

[whyone]

Up until recently I had a Canon R7 and R5. I've sold the R7 and bought a second R5.

With mirrorless the weight of FF bodies (at least my side of R3) is less of an issue than was the case with DSLR.

I like the quality and feel of FF images, and the cropability (is that a word?!) of the images from R5 negates the extra-reach benefit of the APS-C body.

 

[LeeRatters]

It all depends on what I/you want to do with it.

For me, the best IQ and performance is the A7Riii, so full frame in that instance. I could also pick full frame for my cheaper to use and more shots per roll film camera. For more precision and thought into the images I'd go with the medium format Yashica Mat 124g where i try to make each frame worth it at about £3 a click...... For lightweight and small I'll pick the APSc X100f......

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I currently use cameras containing sensors from 1/2.5" to full frame (36x24mm).

So long as the final image is sufficiently sharp and shows sufficient detail for my needs, it really doesn't matter to me what size the recorded image was. How well the usage of the camera fits your needs is usually much more important, in my opinion, than what size of sensor it contains.

This page is a useful guide to the plethora of digital sensor sizes...

Image sensor format - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Nikon photographer]

I use both, FF for most times, but I use a lighter APS -C camera for overseas travel, much lighter and unless you're pixel peeking, you won't see much difference, I took a Nikon 1" sensor camera to Mallorca in 2018, and still ended up selling prints.

 

[Brentor]

Depends on what you shoot. I have a APS-C for bird photography when I need the reach, FF for everything else given the lower noise, ability to blur backgrounds and image quality.

 

[Bletch]

@harper . I'm about to move from APS-C to FF. Or at least I think I am. My D5300 is nearly at the end of it's life. I'll miss the extra reach which has always come in handy and there's replacing my lenses to think about, but the time feels right. I might try carrying two cameras around with me when I go on my travels

 

[snerkler]

@harper . I'm about to move from APS-C to FF. Or at least I think I am. My D5300 is nearly at the end of it's life. I'll miss the extra reach which has always come in handy and there's replacing my lenses to think about, but the time feels right. I might try carrying two cameras around with me when I go on my travels

The extra reach of APS-C can be better, but I don't find it's as much as you think as FF crops better and therefore can crop to give extra reach more than you can with APS-C and retain image quality.

 

[snerkler]

Full frame for me, if you want to save size and weight then you're better off with m4/3 imo, APS-C is a little bit in no mans land nowadays.

 

[Petrochemist]

The extra reach of APS-C can be better, but I don't find it's as much as you think as FF crops better and therefore can crop to give extra reach more than you can with APS-C and retain image quality.

I disagree, crop sensors often have higher pixel densities, so where noise & dynamic range are not an issue they can crop better.

 

[Petrochemist]

Full frame for me, if you want to save size and weight then you're better off with m4/3 imo, APS-C is a little bit in no mans land nowadays.

Where size & weight are really an issue I use my Pentax Q (much smaller than my MFT kit) but all the sensor sizes are just options in the balancing act between camera size & IQ.
Your FF is definitely not the ultimate here, though digital medium format is extremely expensive & not ideal for fast moving stuff...
Large format then takes this to extremes, but in most cases that requires the switch to film & a severe slowing down so my 5x4 very rarely gets out.

 

[Garry Edwards]

This subject has been done to death, I'm not sure that I have anything useful to add, but here are my thoughts on the main differences, all things being equal.

Larger sensors =:
Better image quality
Reduced depth of field
The ability to stop down further without diffraction limitation rearing its ugly head
Larger and heavier, this applies to both bodies and lenses
More expensive to buy, this applies to both bodies and lenses.

My choices? Full frame or MF when it suits, APS whenever I can live without the extra image quality.

 

[myotis]

I realise this is an old question and has possibly been asked numerous times before but what size sensor (FF / APS-C) would you choose?

Primarily, I would choose the sensor size that comes with the camera system that gives me the features I want, for the subjects I am interested in.

For example, in wildlife and nature photography, the hand held focus stacking on the M43 OM1 cameras make it hard to think of a better camera for insect photography. Or, If you are constantly cropping into a small part of a full frame sensor, because birds are always too far away for the lens you can afford, then a cropped sensor will usually give better results than cropping a FF sensor. Cropped sensors tend to have higher pixel densities than full frame sensors.

But , for an example of where sensor quality might matter, if you are interested in "intimate landscape" photography, the better tonal and colour gradation available from FF, or even better from medium format can make an important difference to how a print "feels" when compared to prints made with smaller sensors.

Files from larger sensors tend to be easier to process and more forgiving of minor exposure errors so if you work in difficult circumstances, but need to reliably produce results e.g press photography or wedding photography, then a 24mp full frame sensor might be the best choice. But lots of people successfully use Fuji cropped sensor cameras for both these types of photography.

I've used a range of sensor sizes, from 1" to cropped medium format (Fuji GFX) and I would generally prefer full frame (or larger) because of the ease of processing, and my particular interest in the "intimate landscape".

For wildlife, I prefer FF, because it gives me the flexibility of FF when I can get close enough, but still crop when I can't. It's also useful when chasing flying birds or dragonflies to have the larger field of view of the FF viewfinder, making it easier to keep the subject in the frame, knowing I have the capacity to crop when needed. But, I'm primarily interested in "wildlife in the landscape" type pictures, if I wanted "portraits" of distant animals, I would probably look at an APSc or M43 options

However, I wouldn't avoid a camera system, that offered me something I wanted, because of its sensor size. I also use a Fuji X100s, and for the "general photography" subjects I use it for, I have never felt the sensor size was an important issue.

 

[ancient_mariner]

And all this shows that there's no single outfit that's right for all of us. Choose based on what you want to do and what you want your kit to help you achieve.

 

[snerkler]

I disagree, crop sensors often have higher pixel densities, so where noise & dynamic range are not an issue they can crop better.

I don’t believe this is true, higher pixel densities tend to degrade image quality therefore if you crop into an image that is already not as good it’s going to look worse much quicker. A cropped image from a 24mp FF camera is going to look better than a cropped image from an APS-C camera.

Your FF is definitely not the ultimate here, though digital medium format is extremely expensive & not ideal for fast moving stuff...

I never said it was, but the discussion is about FF and APS-C

 

[Pound Coin]

I run FF and M43. The latter gets the most use because of weight and convenience. The FF comes out when light is low, or I need less depth of field, or for an official pic/portrait etc.

 

[SimonDewey]

I'm actually looking at the same issue from a different perspective. I shoot weddings and have recently purchased a whole Nikon wedding kit to replace my trusty Fuji's. I'm still using both kits, but one will have to go off to MPB at the end of the season.

Having now shot thousands of images with both, I'm leaning towards selling on the Nikon stuff. I think all it really comes down to is, how much do you like bokeh?

 

[Petrochemist]

I don’t believe this is true, higher pixel densities tend to degrade image quality therefore if you crop into an image that is already not as good it’s going to look worse much quicker. A cropped image from a 24mp FF camera is going to look better than a cropped image from an APS-C camera.

Higher pixel densities degrade IQ only by having relatively more noise & lower dynamic range, which is the reason for the two provisos I allowed for.
If the same focal length is in use the FF image will need to be cropped considerably more than the APSC one.
If the APSC camera is of similar age to the FF one it will likely have more resolution over the two cameras APSC crops. My FF as well as many others allows an APSC crop to be selected in firmware, but I rarely use this. I'm more likely to use one of my APSC cameras even though they are older tech.

 

[snerkler]

Higher pixel densities degrade IQ only by having relatively more noise & lower dynamic range, which is the reason for the two provisos I allowed for.
If the same focal length is in use the FF image will need to be cropped considerably more than the APSC one.
If the APSC camera is of similar age to the FF one it will likely have more resolution over the two cameras APSC crops. My FF as well as many others allows an APSC crop to be selected in firmware, but I rarely use this. I'm more likely to use one of my APSC cameras even though they are older tech.

We’re moving away from what I was actually referring too but I can’t see how a higher pixel density will give a better image (DR and noise excluded)? Obviously I can understand higher resolution/more pixels will give better results with cropping, but not higher pixel density. My iphone is 48mp on a 1/2.9” sensor, that’s going to have a really high pixel density but I think we all know that image quality is still some way off full frame cameras.

However, as I said we’re moving away from what I initially said, and I stand by what I said. I ran some controlled tests when I had my D750 and D500, I could crop the D750 much more whilst retaining acceptable IQ than I could with the D500. OK the D500 has 3.1mp less, but when you’re cropping this becomes pretty much insignificant.

 

[redhed17]

I was always drawn to the APS-C DSLR's for the size/weight/cost benefits. The quality was good enough for me, and of course you get the extra 'reach' as well. The DX specific lenses were smaller/lighter/cheaper too. To be able to get the FF equivalent of 450mm from a 300mm lens would be a lot smaller package to get 450mm on a FF camera.

I feel with mirrorless the size difference of the FF and cropped cameras doesn't seem to be as pronounced as with DSLR's. One of the benefits of mirrorless was marketed as smaller cameras.

The manufacturers seem to have been focusing more on FF cameras, and specifically FF lenses too, because that is where the money is. The change to mirrorless was an opportunity for the manufacturers to re-align their user base, and 'push' people to FF. More profit margins, smaller range of cameras and lenses, and less choices for the user.

I have gone for smaller sensors for general purpose pics as the size and weight starts to be a problem for every day use with the DSLR. Over the summer I take pics of the cricket in the park most weekends, and rather than taking the cropped DSLR I have found that a 1" sensor with a 200mm lens is good enough, and has just about enough reach. Added with a much better AF, fully covering the sensor compared to the DSLR, 20 fps compared to 10 fps of the DSLR, and smaller camera does me for that. For any scenes where I hope to get very good images, the larger camera and lenses will always be used.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I'm actually looking at the same issue from a different perspective. I shoot weddings and have recently purchased a whole Nikon wedding kit to replace my trusty Fuji's. I'm still using both kits, but one will have to go off to MPB at the end of the season.

Having now shot thousands of images with both, I'm leaning towards selling on the Nikon stuff. I think all it really comes down to is, how much do you like bokeh?

I think lenses can play a part too, and some seem better at giving a sense of depth than others. Also some (really good togs) just don't see it in an image, so it's not something to worry about.

 

[Petrochemist]

I think lenses can play a part too, and some seem better at giving a sense of depth than others. Also some (really good togs) just don't see it in an image, so it's not something to worry about.

Very much so! I'd think lenses probably play a far bigger part than sensor size.
I also find ergonomics & menus etc play a big part in which camera works best out in the field

 

[snerkler]

I'm actually looking at the same issue from a different perspective. I shoot weddings and have recently purchased a whole Nikon wedding kit to replace my trusty Fuji's. I'm still using both kits, but one will have to go off to MPB at the end of the season.

Having now shot thousands of images with both, I'm leaning towards selling on the Nikon stuff. I think all it really comes down to is, how much do you like bokeh?

Bokeh is a quality of the lens not the sensor size, depth of field is influenced by the sensor size due to the difference in focal length lens needed

 

[woof woof]

I'm actually looking at the same issue from a different perspective. I shoot weddings and have recently purchased a whole Nikon wedding kit to replace my trusty Fuji's. I'm still using both kits, but one will have to go off to MPB at the end of the season.

Having now shot thousands of images with both, I'm leaning towards selling on the Nikon stuff. I think all it really comes down to is, how much do you like bokeh?

I don't think that bokeh is the only thing, I think the age and tech of the kit comes into it. Newer small sensor kit may well offer better IQ than older FF kit. For example my on Canon 5D was FF but my more modern MFT kit which has a much smaller sensor beats it for IQ, IMO, but my MFT kit can't match the IQ of my newer than the 5D mirrorless Sony kit.

Other things to think about are the bells and whistles which come with newer kit of any sensor size which make taking pictures easier and faster and in some cases allows pictures to be taken which wouldn't be possible with older kit.

 

[Bletch]

The extra reach of APS-C can be better, but I don't find it's as much as you think as FF crops better and therefore can crop to give extra reach more than you can with APS-C and retain image quality.

Yeah that's good to know, and one of those FF cameras I was looking at was 61mp, I think the others I looked at offered more than my humble 24mp Nikon too.