IS FULL FRAME BETTER THAN CROP SENSOR? The truth revealed...

Today we're diving deep into the great debate: crop sensor vs full frame cameras.

The question on everyone's mind - is full frame really better than crop sensor? A crop sensor could be APSC like Fuji, it could be micro 4/3s like Olympus.

Either way, is full frame worth it.

As an amateur photographer trying to step up my game, I've been grappling with this question. So, let's uncover the real truth and see which one comes out on top!

What does FULL FRAME and CROP SENSOR mean?

First off, let's quickly define what we mean by full frame and crop sensors. Full frame sensors are the same size as traditional 35mm film, measuring around 36mm x 24mm.

Crop sensors, on the other hand, are smaller, typically in the APS-C or micro 4/3s format. Canon's crop sensors are a tad smaller than other brands, but they're all in the same general size range.

Now, you might be thinking, "Bigger is always better, right?" Well, not so fast! Each sensor size comes with its own set of advantages and disadvantages.

I literally have a full frame system and a crop system and so I can talk about all of this from personal experience.

#photography #photographytips #landscapephotography

[kenclements]

I bought a Nikon D7500 crop sensor camera this year and the low light performance is outstanding along with the quality of the photos that it takes. The bonus is the fact that many people are selling off their lenses to buy the more expensive ones for their full frame cameras and I can pick up really good used lenses for a reasonable price. As I will never be a professional, a crop sensor camera with the latest technology is perfect for someone like me.

[koblih]

I use the pro series M4/3, but many years ago I finally understood one fundamental thing. 90% of the best photographs don't depend on HW at all, but on good composition, capturing the right moment and also luck. I've seen a lot of great photos taken with second hand digital cameras with resolutions as low as 5Mpix. Since then I don't deal with changing equipment, but I'm learning to take great photos. Even with a mobile phone...

[zathraspersonal]

You are falling into the old familiar trap of suggesting that "APS-C/MFT is for hobbyists and that full frame is for pros. This is a generalisation which serves any inexperienced photographer very poorly. I use the APS-C Fuji system for wedding (as a professional) and street photography as well as fine art landscape and architecture photography. Many other pros do as well. Whilst I might miss that little bit of extra low light performance, I have never had a client who has criticised my images for having a bit of noise and advised me to get a full frame system. Most people, unless they are compulsive pixel-peepers, could not tell the difference between an image shot on a modern ff or aps-c sensor. The massive advantage for me is the small size and portability of fuji system cameras an lenses.

[clancydubh]

Finally, someone with expertise making a common sense comparison that an amateur like me can understand and use in a real world situation. Thank you.

[brugj]

Always a hot topic, but in reality it doesn`t really matter.
For beginners it`s irrelevant, once you find your thing in photography you can choose what suits you the best.
And it doesn`t have to be fullframe. For example wildlife can benefit from the smaller cropped in sensor to give your lens more reach.
Fullframe will always be better in gathering light and usually has the better fast prime lenses.
If you want shallow depth of field, fullframe will do best. But APS-C also has some.

[the_rat_run]

I moved from FF to APS-C cameras a few years ago. As a hobby photographer of 50 or so years, I started on FF film cameras, which are coming back into fashion with youngsters... I liked my FF digital camera (Old Canon with CCD sensor) but it wasn't that good in low light.... I could take equally as crap photos on that as I can on my modern Sony cameras, but at least nowadays it is just age exhausting me, not the weight of my camera bag!
Some folk get a bit tribal over make & format, which makes me chuckle... I just enjoy the hobby.
Great video, have a new subscriber.

[chrishowell]

It's interesting that no one referred to 35mm as 'full frame' in the days of film cameras, when every camera club had at least one bore who looked down on everyone else because he he a Hasselblad or a Mamiya medium format camera, and everyone knows real photographers shot roll film and 35mm was for snaps and amateurs.
35mm became the standard for film photography not because it was some platonic ideal size, but because it allowed for reasonably convenient and portable movie cameras, which in turn meant that 35mm film was produced in vast lengths that could be conveniently packaged in lightproof cannisters for easy loading into stills cameras, which led to the development of the SLR as the ultimate convenient, portable interchangeable-lens camera by the late 80s (just before motor drives, vertical battery grips, and auto focus turned the likes of Canon's EOS series into monsters that challenged 5x4" plate cameras for bulk).
These days, 'Full frame' is a marketing phrase: if 35mm is full frame, what does that make medium format, which is even fuller? There are trade-offs: smaller sensors mean smaller lenses for the equivalent field of view and light transmission, while larger sensors make it easier to achieve a shallow depth of field, should you want to do so. Larger sensors also have better high ISO performance, but that's only really relevant at about ISO 12800 (note to the young: in the days of film cameras, ISO 800 was considered pretty fast, and ISO 1200 was specialist fast film and you accepted the visible grain as an artist choice or compromise). Frankly, anyone getting into digital photography as a beginner now who allows themselves to be sold a 35mm sensor camera is either being oversold or wants a status symbol. Get a crop sensor camera (perhaps second hand), find out how and what you like to shoot, and only upgrade to a larger sensor if you really need it because your old gear is limiting in some way. Generally, if you have a half-decent camera (and pretty much all crop sensor cameras that have sold in decent numbers over the last 10-15 years are decent cameras), probably the best way to get better photos with £2500 is to do a course or go somewhere new and inspiring, rather than buying a new and expensive camera and starting again with a new instruction manual. Unless you really need low light performance, you'll probably appreciate smaller gear more than the ability to push up to ISO 25600. That and greater shallow depth of field are limits of smaller sensors dictated by physics, though in fact if you can't achieve pleasing bokeh with even a m43 camera and a F1.7 lens, you probably aren't going to get your money's worth out of a Sony a7 either.

[mistergiovanni]

I am also an amateur and I use different systems, from full frame, M43 and even smaller sensors. When a photo is good, it is good regardless of the camera used. Weight and volume are very important factors when deciding what, when and how to photograph. And another fundamental thing, the optics, the sensor is not as important as good optics. And prime lenses are still superior to zooms, they are lighter and much cheaper.

[danielx]

I'm a hobbyist photographer and I had an old DSLR crop sensor Canon. I noticed this year that I'm slowing down because it was old, and I looked at my different options. I eventually decided to buy the Canon r100 and to stay with a crop sensor instead of going full frame. The r100 is so small that I can travel with it effortlessly. Someday I will get a full frame camera just for the experience but I haven't really run into any disqualifying problems with crop sensors. (I'm also really amazed at the ISO range of the r100, considering I spent $237 on it.)

Potentially, I might just jump from a crop sensor to medium format at some point.

[rsat]

On the DOF, you are right but I might add that not everybody needs that super blurry bokeh. Most of the times we need some context of where the subject is to tell better story. FF DOF also extremely shallow at F1.2 or below to the point that subject face or head are not even in 100% focus. and I personally find that weird and hard to work with. However, that is a territory APSC will never reach despite personal preference. An APSC great lenses like Viltrox Pro series 75mm F1.2 will do more than enough to blur the background and I doubt anyone can really tell a difference vs FF.

[ownpulsmusic]

Hi, in your opinion, what's the best for making STOP MOTION in studio ? full frame or crop sensor ? thanks

[rwmcgeesr]

You left out purchasing a used full frame vs. a brand new camera and lens and saving a bunch of money. I look for bargains in used equipment and have not been disappointed.

[mikariekki]

My D5100 16mp sensor gives about the same picture as a 33mp D810, when both need to be cropped for distant subjects like birds, but on a 150-600mm lens when taking aviation pics, the wide end is more useful on a full frame camera.
So it depends on your lens, distance to subject/size and sensor pixel density, which is better.

[SnowAngelfish]

I went through this whole investigation years ago and I believe my assessment still stands. Crop sensor cameras are basically as good at everything except portrait photography and its not necessarily the fault of the sensor but the availability of lenses that can get full frame results. There are some lenses for crop sensors that get very close to full frame results but due to the engineering challenges required due to less light capture on a crop sensor and more glass needed they are very expensive and so you might as well have just bought a full frame. I think they have an edge in astrophotography also.

Hi can You tell us what your is model of backpack You use? Looks very nice and slim?

[Joh]

The sweet spot of price, weight and size, the advantages of dof for landscape and macro let choose me undoubtly APS-c. The advantages of fullframe are for me theoretically in most cases. And new editing software makes the difference yet smaller. The few cases in which fullframe would be really a clear better choice for me could not justified by the fact that I have to carry a lot more weight and have to spend a lot more money. That does not make sense to me. For a portrait photographer or professional this might be another choice, but many professionals are working with APS-c, too.

[bamsemh]

Depends on the print, and the heavy weights you want to be carrying on the 10km hikes. 8 out 10 photographers crop their fullframe shots to match the crop cameras anyway. So their MP goes from 40+ to actual 20'ish.

[wanneske]

I started out with the Canon 500D (Rebel) with a 1.6 x crop in 2008. I quickly got fed up with it, mainly because of the poor image quality above iso 800. Switched to the 5D and 1D series and never went back to crop. The 1D was 1.3x crop which was something inbetween. Now I have an R6 and it's iso performance is amazing.

[ElectronInc]

Came from Nikon APS-C to Olympus MFT 4 years ago for the exact facts you shared: small, light, and having my hands on the camera, after almost 2 years of not taking photos because I couldn't be asked to bring my camera and lenses (including a sigma 18-35 f1.8) with me.

Since then I've got 2 MFT cameras, one became my everyday-carry-with-me, and haven't been happier.
Couldn't care more about the never ending and boring FF, 1", MFT, APS-C war than the crash of a bug on a window.

[ronald]

I switched from Nikon Z to fujifilm because the small camera and lenses and the quality of photos. Nowadays both are great.
Fujifilm is very professional for portraits and wedding is my experience

I use also a Leica Q2 and sometimes I don't see the difference between quality