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?
Lenses. I used a Tamron 85mm full frame lens on my Nikon 7500 APS-C camera. Very beautiful images.
Steven Barr Did you have the lens first? And if you needed to get a new body, do you think you'd stick with a Nikon APS-C so that you could keep using that lens?
Hello Adam. I had the camera first then the lens. With my Nikon D7500, my hockey images were very noisy even Topaz Denise did a decent job. When I got my Nikon D780, alot of the noise was gone. But other that, the D7500 did fantastic images. I wish I could of kept the camera.
Ah, photographing hockey sounds like something I would really enjoy! I've heard differing opinions about APS-C vs FF in the realm of sports photography, so it's interesting to hear your experience there.
Did you continue to use the Tamron 85mm with the D780?
Yes, I really like my Tamron 85mm on my lens. Sharp. Decided over the Nikon 85mm. No regrets. But the 85mm on my
Nikon APS-C sensor camera, impressive
Nice. I'll have to look more into it 👍
i did test prints at 20" x 30" this year of images from my digital cameras. the test print of the image at an indoor flower garden taken with my aps-c Fujifilm X-E3 and XF 16mm f2.8 lens somehow proved to be lacking subtlety in tones and was not acceptably sharp at that size but perfectly fine when viewed on screen
i suppose i could have used my XF 18mm f1.4 lens which i subsequently purchased with a slightly larger body such as my X-Pro 2 or my X-T4 which i did not have at that time but what i felt was that in comparison to the full frame images i had also printed at 20" x 30" with my Canon and Nikon cameras, this image which was actually lovely could not be reproduced at this size, possibly because of the lens, but perhaps [ or perhaps not ] because of the smaller sensor
i had printed an image from a Fujifilm GFX 50R and GF 32-64mm f4.0 lens on the same sheet of paper at the printer and was able to compare the differences probably due to sensor size and lens quality. in my opinion, it may be safer to use full frame digital cameras or larger for professional work, both because of the larger sensor but possibly because there might be a larger selection of high quality lenses [ unless one does lens tests with the cameras in question ]
Very interesting test juiH tan! When comparing the prints, were you inspecting them closely? Or standing at a more typical viewing distance? Are there differences at both distances?
i was comparing the images on our dining table as i do photography [ and to a lesser extent video ] only as a very, very serious hobby and not as a vocation
Edited: I don't like 'Cropped sensors' being referred to as 'Your getting more reach'. They should be thought of as what they are 'Cropped'. The focal length does not change. But the APS-C-user doesn't know the difference while using it, unless he were to take his lens to a full-frame body. It is marketing alone that dictates that these are somehow better, because they 'crop-in' @ 1.6, oh somehow they are now seeing farther 'no'. That doesn't make the glass better or focal length better. I can digitally crop-in too, that doesn't make my photo have more 'reach', just because I cropped it.
I have no idea why anyone would call it a “cropped sensor” since my APS-C system never crops anything from any of my pictures. I get 100% of what I framed, every single time —especially when I consider that my OVF system gives a 100% view, and not the 92%–95% view other OVF systems give their users.
…But I do get “more reach” that with a similar size/weight F-type system, albeit, —obviously— with a different FoV. …And that is the rub; people being more concerned with their focal length rather than their FoV, or their DoF rather than their exposure, or their MPx rather than their sharpness, or their histogram of the frame rather than the exposure/dynamic range of their subject.
ASIDE: Yes, the whole frame matters, but not to the detriment of the subject.
I agree. Nothing was ever cropped out or even zoomed in. The camera was made to be affordable, so they made it with a small sensor.
Example Reach argument: A 100-600 on an APS-C shot of a wolf... Imagine the whole wolf is nicely framed at 350mm. Now take the same lens to a Full-Frame body, you would need to zoom a little more to get the same framed shot. Go ahead and ding my math, but closer to 550mm...? However in the end, which shot will in theory be sharper? One is "cropped" that gets you the shot at that FOV. The other is using the actual focal length of your lens. One of the things i mentioned above is that the APS-C user doesn't usually think about the 1.6 crop factor in the field.. so in that sense: Your correct, no cropping is happening, and maybe your not even talking about the use case that the article is speaking about. That of using full-frame lenses on APS-C bodies... in which Yes a crop does happen internally.
So the answer to the above question is the same as the age old question of digital zoom versus optical zoom. Optical zoom wins every time.
You are referring to digital zoom, not optical zoom.
I'm not sure what your reply means: To be more clear: I was comparing an APS-C 350mm shot to a FF-body 550mm shot with the same lens (roughly 1.6x), both having the same FOV. The 550mm-shot is optically zoomed versus the 350mm shot is just going to be effectively digitally zoomed to be around 350*1.6=560 (FOV). So again what I said stands... "Digital Zoom versus Optical Zoom"... "Optical Zoom wins every time". That was the answer to the question: "Which shot will in theory be sharper?"
Crop because if I flip a switch on my full frame, I crop to the FoV you get with your APS-C camera. However, you can't flip a switch on your camera to achieve the wider FoV I get from my full frame. That's why yours is called "cropped."
Karim Hosein I get that it's because when using a full frame lens, an APS-C sensor doesn't user the full image circle....so in that sense, it is "cropping." I use the term in no small part because it's such a standard. I don't think it's as valid to think of full frame sensors as the benchmark size at this point, but more one of many options. Since I primarily shoot APS-C or M4/3, I'm not the biggest fan of "crop sensor" since I think it undermines the value the respective formats provide. But I'm also not that bothered by it.
I agree with Karim. Stop looking at focal length and start looking at FOV. The image that I capture eith my APS-C sensor is a full-size image, captured with the entirety of the sensor. There's nothing cropped out. My 24mp APS-C image taken with 135mm lens has roughly 210mm FOV. My 24mp image taken with FF sensor needs cropping to achieve 210 FOV, resulting in less than 24mp.
And the marketing ploy that is suggested could be taken further by saying that FF sensors don't offer more "reach" than medium format systems but are actually just a crop of the larger sensor size, and so on and so forth.
"There is nothing cropped out?" Maybe you didn't understand what I meant. The concepts in the above article about not seeing your full-frame lens vignetting and edge softness is there because when you pair a full-frame lens with an APS-C body, the edge is cropped off. That's why it's called a crop sensor. The cropping 1.6/1.5 is done internally... Now let's speak about your 210mm image. Are you actually getting 210mm of magnification? No. Your getting a reach of 135mm cropped. I'm arguing that the type of sensor you shoot with doesn't change the magnification, ability, strength of the glass. I can crop-photos in post too to narrow the FOV... how is this different? That is why I speak against the concept of calling it 'Reach'. I don't know anything about 'medium format' except that I thought those bodies were mostly for high-end-video, they probably have their own types of lenses, and I doubt you can interchange them with these bodies.
I'm strictly speaking about the concept that a lens is rated at 135mm, but somehow people are giving the impression that it's now more powerful because it was paired with an APS-C body. That is what I'm talking about as a marketing concept.
Yet when you take a ff shot, in order to get the same FOV, you have to crop the ff image, tesulting in lower resolution. Focal length is merely a # to attain a particular FOV. It's only meaningful within a particular system. Case in point is medium format vs ff. "Cropping", in the traditional sense, means taking an image (be it APS-C, 2/3", FF, etc.) and removing information. A FF sensor is " cropped" when compared to medium format.
"you have to crop the ff image, resulting in lower resolution."... More than likely, the FF camera body has generally higher MP and certainly the use of the word 'Resolution' is something that more expensive 'Full-Frame' cameras do better than their APS-C counterparts, that is why they are chosen, if you have the money to afford them. MPs isn't the end of the story anyway. I would like to see where an APS-C camera is winning this logic, and it is not just marketing. The concept of the body being lighter weight... 'Yes'. Especially with older Full-Frame lenses it solves vignetting and other lens issues... 'Yes'. But to say that hey it makes my tele-lenses more powerful. No.
You keep bringing up Medium Format, and maybe there are medium format lenses, that you can use on FF or APS-C bodies, I have no idea. But the discussion is about using FF lenses on APS-C bodies. So when the lens says it's 300mm and your cropping the edge off the view.
Nothing about power. Using a ff lens on an aps-c camera fully utilizes the entire sensor. That's why I mentioned ff vs medium format. Using a medium format lens on a ff sensor doesn't crop your sensor. You still get full resolution. So focal length is defined as the distance from the recording medium to the front element of the lens without regard to the size of the sensor. So what changes os FOV. My first digital camera was a Canon G1 with a 7-21 mm lens. FOV about 28-75,maybe? Who knows. That focal length strictly defined the distance between the sensor and the lens element. Did it crop the sensor? No. It fully utilized the tiny sensor. It's only a trick of marketing if you think soley in 35mm format world, but to be clear, no info is being removed from an image when using a ff lens on an apsc sensor, and save for a few models, most ff cameras are between 24 and 36 mp, not considered a hige leap in resolution.
The sensor size DOES change magnification. It changes relative FOV and CoC depending on the size of the recording medium.
I'm sorry it does not perform any magnification of your image. It is simply cropping the frame. Any perceived magnification your getting is the marketing ploy.
You can superimpose a medium format or large format frame onto your diagram and the results will be the same. You will still see the benefit of all your sensor's pixels be put to use. The #mm on your lens is irrelevant. Yes, parts of an image will not be included on the sensor but that goes without saying. That is why we have wide-angle and telephoto lenses. The fact is that the 24mp recorded on my apsc sensor are the same # of mp captured on your full frame, the density is just different (which again is implied). The reach of your focal length, per FOV, is dependent on the recording medium. So on a ff camera you can use a digital zoom (a true crop) to attain the same FOV but your mp will decrease bc you are removing data. It's not a marketing ploy. If I am using an Olympus OM with a 600mm lens (300mm FF) and capture a 24 mp image, you would need to crop your ff 300mm FOV image to attain the 4/3 600mm FOV. Your FF loses hefty mp. I'm sure that you get that. Nothing is being cropped in the OM image- it is exactly the FOV that I wanted, in full 24 mp. The "cropped" nomenclature is at best misleading bc nothing is cropped. It's a smaller sensor, just as your FF has a smaller sensor than medium format. Is it cropped or just smaller? And it has been shown that mp are not the end-all and be-all of digital imaging, but using a FF lens on an aps-c sensor does not rob you of mp but merely changes the FOV.
You mentioned optical zoom in a previous post. There's nothing not optical about using FF lenses on aps-c cameras, but the reverse is true for using aps-c mode on a FF camera.
A final thought. When the first digital cameras were released, they had smaller sensors than the traditional 35mm film that photographers were familiar with, which is why everyone talks in 35mm language (to make things familiar). That's changed though (obviously), which is why Mr. Borries offered up the discussion in the first place.
Great conversation! I do think some of this might be semantics, but there is also value in understanding what's going on. I can appreciate Robert koernke's point that it isn't "more reach" in the strictest sense. I use a 70-300mm telephoto lens, and that will always be 70-300mm whether it's on an APS-C or FF body. At the same time, Edward Parsons's point that APS-C bodies provide the full sensor's data for effectively "extra reach" (or magnification) is also very valid. We all know there is a difference between optical and digital zooming. The term "cropped sensor" does arise from the fact that APS-C's don't use the full image circle of FF-sized lenses, and so you can definitely achieve the same result with cropping in post-processing. I've heard many medium format photographers talk about that cropping as if they're giving their lens extra reach as well.
What might be tripping things up is that focal length has largely become a stand-in for field of view. At 300mm, my field of view on a FF sensor is a lot wider than on an APS-C one (before any cropping in post). The norm has become to talk about that APS-C view as a 480mm equivalent, rather than what the difference is in degrees between the two FoVs. So colloquially, that becomes "more reach." So long as we all understand why that's all happening, I don't really see the harm in the terminology myself.
What's been put forward for discussion here is: That there is no need to consider upgrade. I own a Canon EOS M6 Mark II it produces images @ 6960x4640 (32.5 APS-C 1.6 crop).. let's say I want a Canon R5 Mark II 8192x5464 (45mp FF) = but to produce the same field of view I would need to crop by 1.6 (5120x3415) <-- Please check my math here, I'm not sure I did this correctly. Either way, somehow my older APS-C camera is winning? Regardless if it does in the pixel-math, I don't think it would in actual field practice. Oh... If it was true, than let's all go out and buy older APS-C camera bodies.
Ah, I think you've hit the nail right on the head there Robert koernke! Your math is correct, and so for the same FoV the older APS-C camera does offer a higher resolution image. But does that mean it "wins"? For some people it would, for others there are different considerations. I also don't think that buying a full frame is by definition an "upgrade"....because it depends on what matters to you and your photography!
Overall I would say that sensor size is less important than it used to be. As an example in optimal lighting my iPhone can take a pretty decent photo. I think the two biggest factors affecting camera choice are how the camera feels and operates in your hand, and are there decent lens options for the mount that also meet one's price and size criteria.
Most cameras now are certainly good enough. My own opinion is that for meaningful differences in image quality there needs to be at least a two step jump in sensor size. 1" to APS-C, or M4/3 to full frame, etc. If you like to pixel peep and want the ultimate in detail go for it, but I personally don't think it is going to give me a better photograph.
For myself I like to carry less but still want decent image quality and this has led me to settle on APS-C for the time being. Could i technically get better image quality with something that has a larger image sensor - I certainly believe I could but for me the difference is not enough to make me want to carry the larger kit around.
And some camera/lens combos punch above their weight. To this day I am still amazed at the detail and quality of many of the photos I took with the original RX 100 back in 2012/13. I rarely print larger than 11 x 14 and many of the photos from this camera are quite stunning in print (enough to make me wonder why in hindsight I HAD to have more). But "GAS" always seems to linger, at least in my mind.
It really comes down to - if you are happy with your camera and the quality of the photos it takes, take a deep breath, get off the new gear train, enjoy using what have, get out there and take more pictures. You don't have to justify your choice to anyone other than yourself (well maybe your spouse too if it is expensive).
Well said, Jeff! And that's what I found interesting, is that many gear reviewers and even some photographers will say "oh you need this or that"....without knowing why you are looking for gear. The original article had some very strong reactions, even though switching to an APS-C system made a lot of sense for Chandler.
First I thing I believe it has already been said (sort of) when talking about the cropping and lenses, Well lets see I was using my T2i with the EF-S 10-22 and it was capturing at 16mm so you do need to do the math and my posting on Smugmug states 10.0 mm (15.7 mm in 35mm) to confirm. But to show how good a sensor is also well again sort of 1. aperture f/3.5 and 25sec. ISO 6400 and captured 2014-04-15 04:46:32 only because while capturing a moon setting behind a Lighthouse and just point it south and not till a look back in 2020 did I see the Milky Way at the time had no knowledge of the Milky Way core and that smile in the night sky. 2. the waiting image.
I went Full Frame in 2014 when Sony came to my attention mainly for the $20 Capture One software and the A7SM1 brackets at 5 at +/- 3EV, it was the HDR era, I was using the Promote Control devise to go beyond the 3 at +/- 2EV.
Thanks for speaking about this! I was not expecting to get that much feedback, both positive and negative about the article. I also had people reaching out to me through email and social media about it. Thanks for re-sharing!
Sure thing Chandler Borries! I found your article interesting and compelling in its own way, and some of the responses were interesting or even surprising.
I had an expensive lesson in ergonomics when I bought a Lumix GX-8. While it gave me quite decent photos, the meat of my thumb overlaid the white balance switch and caused inadvertent shifts. Fortunately I shoot RAW so the accidents were not fatal. When the G9 was released, I "tried it on" before buying. Much better fit to my hand. The GX-8 was sold immediately with no regrets. All lenses were retained, so no loss there. The G9 has been wonderful. True, it could stand an update to phase shift AF, but it's just not a big deal. Sadly, Panasonic has seen fit to do away with the top LCD which I use regularly, and the ergonomics of the G9 II, S5 II and S1 II are nowhere near as good as those of the original G9 in my hands. Looks like I'll be picking up a used G9 body as a back-up in the near future. As for image quality, my G9 gives me all the detail I need for real estate photography, especially when I have to export the finished images in no greater than 2048 x 1536 px. size for MLS and other online usage.
Willy Williams Glad the GX-8 only caused accidents you were able to correct! But still, it must have been annoying. I've heard good things about the G9, specifically about the ergonomics, and agree with you about the top LCD plate on cameras. Thanks for commenting!
I'm glad you didn't go with the click bate title of "Does size matter?"
The main difference I've seen in image quality, and its really more of a quality of life observation, full frame handles lower light better. I have both a Sony a7iv and a Fuji x100vi and when I first tried to shoot with the x100vi in low light, I had to increase ISO more than I normally would to get the same shot. Now, I don't have any experience with medium format, but I'm guessing it handles low light even better than full frame?
Thanks Richard Brodowski! It was challenging to get a title for this that didn't veer too much into click-bait!
It's true, larger sensors will handle low light better with equivalent pixel counts, basically because each one is larger (oversimplifying) and so it can collect more light. At some point, you could theoretically jam enough pixels on a FF sensor to negate the advantage. This size difference is also why medium format will have lower noise levels than FF. That said, the computational side of modern cameras and editing tools are also flattening this advantage in many ways.
Why choose? They both can be part of your "system." I shot a basketball game with the 138 f/1.8 on my APC and a 35 mm on a FF. (Z50ii & Z8). (In the 70's I sat under the basket with a 180 and 35, each on a Nikon FTn. These were the same effective focal lengths.). I'm going to Monaco for the F1 Race. I'll have my 100-400 on my APC for the cars and a 40 f/1.2 Voigtlander on my FF Zf for people pictures. Look in your Mechanic's toolbox. He has 3 to 4 rachet handles with dozens of sockets for each. Cameras are tools. Use what's best for you. I shot 4x5 in the studio in the 80's for incredible images. Weddings with a Hasselblad. Use what suits YOU and YOUR type of photography.
Absolutely Kenneth George, use the tools that will best serve your purposes!
I'm happy to see this. I have both APS-C and FF bodies and I use my APS-C a lot for its versatility and reach. And with current retoucning technology (e.g., Topaz) my shots are incredibly clean.
I even use Sony's 1-inch sensor RX-100 when super-portability is critical, so when my phone is included, I'm using four separate sensor sizes, and they all have a place in my shooting portfolio.
Thanks for the article.
I like that a lot Paul Scharff, "they all have a place in my shooting portfolio."
Thanks for the comment, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article!
hi, i looked over some of the comments and would like to add a remark about the leeway that photo labs might sometimes require to produce good results :
when i print photographs at our local photo lab, and we usually do 6R matte prints as keepsakes of family events and 4R gloss prints for our photo tree, i found that images printed with aps-c and above sensors could be adjusted by the lab for density ( brightness ) and for colour balance ( CMY ) by about three or four stops whereas images created by 1" sensors and by mobile devices, whether shot in raw and post processed or not, could hardly be adjusted without destroying the image
this was in relation to actual print output from the wetprint photolab printers at 6R which i discovered by trial and error
these adjustments seem have to do with the latitude of the jpegs produced from post-processed raw files supplied to the photo lab for printing which seems to be dependent on the size of the sensor and which seems to suggest that jpegs created by different cameras are not all of the same quality
in my opinion i would never try to create printable images with 1" sensor cameras and below if i had the choice though i have not had the opportunity to compare the performance of micro 4/3's to other sensor sizes and would like to try mobile devices with computational photography with 1" sensors
That's very interesting juiH tan -- thanks for sharing your experience and perspective on this front!
The cropped system zoom advantage is false. You can crop a full frame sensor internally and gain the internal zoom for super telephoto shots. I may lose some MPs doing it, but I already have a 600mm lens with a 2x converter. I rarely need to use 1800mm.
A 40MP Fuji APC will give you more MP than a 60MP FF cropped. Why not shoot medium format if everything is about sensor size? Why is a 24x36 sensor the "perfect" sensor size?
Cheers to this!!
I would like to see real examples of this and how pictures actually compared. In reality the FF cameras usually win do that not? As I was saying above the perceived zoom advantage of the APS-C, I believe is just marketing, not reality. It's not like we are supposed to adjust the EXIF data, just because we shot the picture using a Full-Frame lens on an APS-C body. Above I compared the 350aps-c shot to the 550ff shot using the same lens. Saying of course the 550ff shot would win in sharpness and detail. The 350mm is effectively digitally zooming the picture to nearly the same FOV as 560 (350x1.6), but that doesn't actually mean the glass is magnifying the picture to 560mm. I don't understand why 'Medium Format' keeps being brought up. I have looked it up now. It has it's own lens types. Meaning is it so easy to just take your Medium-Format lens and stick it on your Full-Frame body to get the same effect that the article is talking about: Here is an example.. You generally need an adapter, and the results, are they worth it? This guy says maybe: https://priceloom.info/medium-format/should-try-shooting-medium-format-gl...%3C/a%3E He doesn't say anything about getting greater reach or magnification as a bonus but just like the guy in this article speaks about, because of the cropping, the center being the best advantage, and not having light issues in the edges or vignetting. Edit: Btw the adapter he offers in the article is Manual-Focus only. Maybe you can find something better?
I would say that medium format keeps being brought up because if your primary standard is image detail (through resolution and sharpness), those systems are hard to beat. They have larger sensors, often with 100MP. They have exceptional dynamic range, because of the relative size of the photosites. But because of their larger surface, they need longer focal lengths to get equivalent fields of view to full frame cameras: a 100mm lens on a MF Hasselblad is the equivalent of 67.4 on a full frame....so in essence, one could argue that a FF is "cropped" in comparison to a MF sensor.
I appreciate that medium format lenses are not generally designed for use on full frame sensor cameras. It's worth noting that many APS-C systems also have lenses specifically designed for them, that would not then have larger image circles than necessary. This is where a size and weight advantage can come into play. However, even with these lenses the "crop" factor comes into play when wanting to discuss equivalences with FF. The same is true for other sensor sizes.
For better or worse, we've standardized our lens language around full frame fields of view. Personally, I think having a bit of a universal way of referencing field of view across sensor formats is helpful....even if me putting a 35mm lens on my camera might yield different results than you putting a 35mm on yours 🙂
Do you really need all of those pixels anymore, anyway? Especially since, I already have capability to zoom to 1200mm without loss of pixels. I don't loose that much by switching to internal zoom. The pictures are still brilliant! My old 6.4 mp still takes great pics.