Bill Pierce
Well-known
There are inarguable arguments in favor of APS-C digital cameras over full frame cameras. Most important, they can be smaller and less expensive. Even if you are incredibly wealthy, smaller can be a distinct advantage on the street and a distinct pleasure on your vacation. APS-C also offers a slight advantage in depth-of-field if you do macro work, and, if you shoot sports, long lenses with equivalent reach will be smaller.
Why full frame? All other things being equal, image quality… Unfortunately, all other things are rarely equal and “image quality” is a somewhat vague term. There are factors that have nothing to do with the camera sensor - focus accuracy, lens quality, camera motion, e.t.c.. In terms of sensor size there can be finer details, greater dynamic range and less noise at a high ISO - qualities that are important if you make large prints or prints from a cropped section of an image, qualities that are essentially meaningless if you limit the display of your images to a computer screen.
As somebody who started out shooting with a 4x5 Speed Graphic and cropping when necessary, a full frame camera with a fixed wide-angle lens like the Leica Q2 makes sense. As somebody who grew up shooting even more pictures on high speed 35mm film, I can’t fault APS-C images that produce technically better prints and are as convenient to use as the Leica film M’s when they were dominant. And as somebody who loved taking an occasional shot with a elderly 8x10 bought used for $30 and refurbished for much more, I am again reminded by a many pixel full frame of my total inadequacy at and my sheer enjoyment of landscape photography.
But that’s in a print world. More and more we look at images on a screen. Less and less we share paper prints. The "on screen" world doesn't care about sensor size. How has this effected your choice of equipment?
Why full frame? All other things being equal, image quality… Unfortunately, all other things are rarely equal and “image quality” is a somewhat vague term. There are factors that have nothing to do with the camera sensor - focus accuracy, lens quality, camera motion, e.t.c.. In terms of sensor size there can be finer details, greater dynamic range and less noise at a high ISO - qualities that are important if you make large prints or prints from a cropped section of an image, qualities that are essentially meaningless if you limit the display of your images to a computer screen.
As somebody who started out shooting with a 4x5 Speed Graphic and cropping when necessary, a full frame camera with a fixed wide-angle lens like the Leica Q2 makes sense. As somebody who grew up shooting even more pictures on high speed 35mm film, I can’t fault APS-C images that produce technically better prints and are as convenient to use as the Leica film M’s when they were dominant. And as somebody who loved taking an occasional shot with a elderly 8x10 bought used for $30 and refurbished for much more, I am again reminded by a many pixel full frame of my total inadequacy at and my sheer enjoyment of landscape photography.
But that’s in a print world. More and more we look at images on a screen. Less and less we share paper prints. The "on screen" world doesn't care about sensor size. How has this effected your choice of equipment?
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I would be more concerned with using legacy vintage lenses, and full frame digital mirrorless would get the most out of these lenses even though these lenses were meant for film use and some would be less than good on a digital sensor, especially wide angle lenses. Your needs and expectations from equipment could be vastly different. Cameras are tools and you should use what you can afford and what gets the job done, it could be medium format like those nice Fujifilm cameras or full frame or APS-C or micro 4/3rd cameras or cheap pawn shop old and out dated point and shoot cameras , it does not matter.
lynnb
Veteran
I enjoy using my 35mm and 120 film cameras. I share the images by scanning and post processing in LR/CS. I have FF digital - a Canon 6D - which can use some EF lenses I own. If I bought another digital camera I'd want one with maximum compatibility with my existing SLR and rangefinder lenses, so it would be full frame.
If I was photographing surfers or birds with a digital camera APS-C or micro 4/3 would make sense. For landscapes I really like the look of the Merrill Foveon images, but I'd probably still opt for a full frame camera to use my existing lenses. Most modern lenses are way beyond my budget and overkill for what I need.
If I was photographing surfers or birds with a digital camera APS-C or micro 4/3 would make sense. For landscapes I really like the look of the Merrill Foveon images, but I'd probably still opt for a full frame camera to use my existing lenses. Most modern lenses are way beyond my budget and overkill for what I need.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
My 'grab and go' camera is a Leica CL these days, and with the right focal length lenses... and the right lenses ... the results are identical to what I used to get with my Leica M digital bodies. And, with TTL viewing/focusing, and the adaptability of the L-mount to most any other lenses I want, it is a far more versatile camera. It is almost irrelevant to consider that it is an APS-C format sensor as opposed to a FF format sensor.
I've made thousands of pro-quality, sold prints with APS-C, and FourThirds. Not every call for prints is for gigunda sized things to fill the side of a barn.
G
I've made thousands of pro-quality, sold prints with APS-C, and FourThirds. Not every call for prints is for gigunda sized things to fill the side of a barn.
G
ymc226
Well-known
As I become older and weight and size makes a difference, I have adopted the APS-C system as my choice when it comes to travel (meaning anything outside of 20 minute drive from my house). My SL/2 and their large zooms and my digital M's and their relatively compact but heavy lenses stay home. I just recently bought one TL2 with the standard zoom, found it to be perfect with it's iPhone like interface which is very, very convenient. I adapted it so well, that I got another TL2 (both) were on closeout like prices (half price) and were new so it was a no brainer. I then added the other 2 TL zooms and also the 18mm for pocketability and 23 Summicron for low light. Pertaining to the Apple like interface, it works better than the phone as I can set the TL2 to focus and snap the photo by merely taping the area on the live screen the camera should focus on. Auto ISO with minimum shutter speed can also be specified to it is literally a point and shoot with Leica colors and sharpness which I have become accustomed to.
In digital, APSC or larger for me. That's the cut-off. I don't find a huge difference between 24mp APSC and 24mp FF. I find M43 and 1" sensors to be a bit flat at higher ISOs (800 for 1" and 1600 for m43). That's just me. Other's make wonderful photos with them.
In film, I feel I shouldn't bother with anything less than 120, but I do sometimes. I guess because the cameras are cool.
Now the other thing is I never cared until a gallery in Italy wanted to print my photos large and one photo was from a 12mp Fuji X100 wide open. It just couldn't make the cut...and it's ok...it needed to be smaller. For me, you just make it smaller. Who cares? Unfortunately, most galleries like big in order to price higher. If I had my way and could call my own shots, I would only print small. I guess it's why I prefer books.
In film, I feel I shouldn't bother with anything less than 120, but I do sometimes. I guess because the cameras are cool.
Now the other thing is I never cared until a gallery in Italy wanted to print my photos large and one photo was from a 12mp Fuji X100 wide open. It just couldn't make the cut...and it's ok...it needed to be smaller. For me, you just make it smaller. Who cares? Unfortunately, most galleries like big in order to price higher. If I had my way and could call my own shots, I would only print small. I guess it's why I prefer books.
APS-C has been the new full-frame for years. I’ve had multiple 135-format digitals but have settled on Fujifilm X-H1 as Fujinon glass offers the highest performing optics for that size sensor. Similar quality for full-frame is considerably more cost but the differences are pretty much indistinguishable.
Dogman
Veteran
For me it's how the camera handles and feels in the hand that matters more than the format. Familiarity means a lot. I could probably pick up any Canon or Nikon DSLR, be it APS-C or 135 format, and use it without looking at instructions. And I like the Fuji X-Pro and X100 lines because they handle a lot like the Leicas I've used in the past. But the current trend in video cameras that also take stills (mirrorless) require some in-depth research for each model.
Image quality is of less importance. I've shot large, medium and small format film cameras in the past. It was easy to see the difference in image quality with them. Today, using digital formats, it's really not very important. Even tiny sensor pocket cameras (remember those?) and iPhone image quality are decent enough for online and smaller prints. Larger prints if you want a certain "look".
Image quality is of less importance. I've shot large, medium and small format film cameras in the past. It was easy to see the difference in image quality with them. Today, using digital formats, it's really not very important. Even tiny sensor pocket cameras (remember those?) and iPhone image quality are decent enough for online and smaller prints. Larger prints if you want a certain "look".
zuiko85
Veteran
Technology wise I’m one of those photo tinkerers who has always been well ‘behind the curve’ when it comes to the latest wonder camera. So, my small M4:3 mirrorless, introduced in 2014, vintage in digital years, is still a marvel to me.
Guess it all depends on what you can justify with your own personal hobby budget. But even if I had a bigger budget would still prefer the compact form of a less than FF sensor body, for all the reasons you outlined.
Edit; One thing that amazed me was IBIS. One feature I wouldn’t want to be without now.
Guess it all depends on what you can justify with your own personal hobby budget. But even if I had a bigger budget would still prefer the compact form of a less than FF sensor body, for all the reasons you outlined.
Edit; One thing that amazed me was IBIS. One feature I wouldn’t want to be without now.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I'm a clumsy framer so I like the additional real estate of large sensor cameras. I went so far as to get a Fuji GFX but the camera was a bit too big for my failing strength so I went mirrorless full frame and crop with reckless abandon.
historically it would be called 'miniature format.'
farlymac
PF McFarland
Right now what holds me back from completely going full frame digital is the cost. I started at 1/2.3, upgraded to 1/1.7, then jumped to APS-C, down to 4/3, then got a used 24x36 at a decent price. I use my old D lenses on the D610 since it still has the screw drive AF, but I bought AF-S G lenses for the DX bodies.
The only reason I got the D610 was to digitize my slides, as the ES-2 works best on a full frame camera with the 60mm Micro-Nikkor. I always planned on sticking with the APS-C format as my main cameras, and what with the advancements in sensor tech I can upgrade to the Z50 or Zfc and gain some resolution and low light performance while staying with the older DX lenses.
But there is a problem. One of the DX lenses has already failed, and who knows, the others may follow soon. Upgrading to an Z5/6II would mean having to buy all new lenses, or go manual focus only with what I have (nothing G in FX). So it's looking like I'll be keeping the DX system for a long time. I'm okay with how it performs, but using the D610 has me yearning for the higher performance in a smaller Z FX body.
I just need to hit the Lottery.
PF
The only reason I got the D610 was to digitize my slides, as the ES-2 works best on a full frame camera with the 60mm Micro-Nikkor. I always planned on sticking with the APS-C format as my main cameras, and what with the advancements in sensor tech I can upgrade to the Z50 or Zfc and gain some resolution and low light performance while staying with the older DX lenses.
But there is a problem. One of the DX lenses has already failed, and who knows, the others may follow soon. Upgrading to an Z5/6II would mean having to buy all new lenses, or go manual focus only with what I have (nothing G in FX). So it's looking like I'll be keeping the DX system for a long time. I'm okay with how it performs, but using the D610 has me yearning for the higher performance in a smaller Z FX body.
I just need to hit the Lottery.
PF
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I've used the ES-1 on a Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 with M1 extension tube and filter extension tube to capture slides with an APS-C format Leica CL. The M1 lets it get to the 1:1.5 magnification easily, and the filter extension tube pushes out the ES-1 far enough to focus at that magnification point. Easy. It's actually more flexible a setup than using a FF format camera because you have a range of magnifications to work with, allowing you to capture the whole slide or even crop down a bit. You can also use a Novoflex focusing rail and its slide carrier attachment to do the same thing, without the ES-1 and filter extension tube, and have much more flexibility.
There are many ways to do this job. I prefer working with the APS-C camera for my negative and transparency capture, unless I'm capturing 6x6 to 6x9 format where I prefer to use the Hasselblad 907x due to its higher pixel count and greater dynamic range.
G
twopointeight
Well-known
I use apsc exclusively for professional work. I just have to take a xtra care to nail focus, work with the best light, and make perfect exposures. The XT4 delivers.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Lightroom's Super Resolution feature can now help with this problem. Basically you can double the size of the image with little or no effect on image quality. This feature alone has killed my lust for FF gear.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Really, so what is FF currently then?
FF is the technology needed for the photographer that needs to carry big expensive lenses around all day.
twopointeight
Well-known
I've been using APS-C for all professional work for the past 5-6 years. I make prints to 17X22. The main difference for me between APS-C and the larger sensor is that the former is less forgiving. One needs to nail the focus and exposure, the framing, and work with great light.
JeffS7444
Well-known
I'm guilty of choosing cameras the way some people choose automobiles: I think of uncommon but possible scenarios; the equivalent of hauling a sofa or soccer team; and choose the camera which will cover it. Why not? Often, there's no real size or weight penalty involved provided that one chooses lenses with some care.
But strictly speaking, if you replaced my current gear with a decent entry level APS-C or M43 body and kit zoom (Nikon Zfc!?) I figure the actual impact upon my work would be fairly minor. I think the thing which really does have impact is how driven and inspired I am to photograph.
But strictly speaking, if you replaced my current gear with a decent entry level APS-C or M43 body and kit zoom (Nikon Zfc!?) I figure the actual impact upon my work would be fairly minor. I think the thing which really does have impact is how driven and inspired I am to photograph.
farlymac
PF McFarland
I've used the ES-1 on a Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 with M1 extension tube and filter extension tube to capture slides with an APS-C format Leica CL. The M1 lets it get to the 1:1.5 magnification easily, and the filter extension tube pushes out the ES-1 far enough to focus at that magnification point. Easy. It's actually more flexible a setup than using a FF format camera because you have a range of magnifications to work with, allowing you to capture the whole slide or even crop down a bit. You can also use a Novoflex focusing rail and its slide carrier attachment to do the same thing, without the ES-1 and filter extension tube, and have much more flexibility.
There are many ways to do this job. I prefer working with the APS-C camera for my negative and transparency capture, unless I'm capturing 6x6 to 6x9 format where I prefer to use the Hasselblad 907x due to its higher pixel count and greater dynamic range.
G
Yeah, I learned all that after I got the camera. But I already had the lens, and needed an excuse to get an FX camera (which though used, had very little use).
Now I just need to get the ES-2 kit.PF