Full frame. There’s a strange magic in that word that makes us feel like anything derived from the sacrosanct 36mm x 24mm format is a mere substitute… not full. But is that really the case? Let me try to shake off this mysterious air and look at full frame with sober eyes.
For those of you who have only fallen for the magic of photography in the age of digital cameras, let me start with a little history. The first strips of celluloid film were sold in 1889. At the time, however, they was only used to make movies. In those days, film was loaded into cameras vertically. The individual frames were therefore 18x24mm.
A year before the First World War, German engineer Oskar Barnack came up with a revolutionary idea. Having asthma and a difficult time carrying heavy, bulky cameras over the mountains, he designed something smaller. The first Leica camera loaded perforated film strips horizontally, with a36 x 24mm size for each frame. After the war, he began producing this camera commercially, and thus full frame was born. It quickly became the most popular film format on the market.
About eighty years later, in 2002, the first full-frame digital camera was released with the same sensor size. Do you know what it was? It was the short-lived Contax N.Unfortunately, this first step didn’t bring much luck for the once-famous photography company, which closed operations in 2005.
But let’s leave history behind and move into the present. Can Barnack’s full frame format still hold its own today?
A Brief Overview of Sensor Sizes
Although full frame has been popular for about a century, it is not the only sensor (or film) size available. Let me briefly introduce the available digital options today, from large to small.
Medium format cameras
In the days of classic celluloid film, it was common to shoot with larger rolls of film if photographers wanted better image quality. The 60 x 60mm format, or a derived format of 60 x 45mm, were popular.
When celluloid was replaced by digital sensors, medium format stuck around but shrank somewhat. Medium format digital cameras typically have 43.8 x 32.9mm sensors (Fujifilm, Hasselblad, Pentax). Premium medium format digital cameras costing tens of thousands of dollars have slightly larger sensors than this, such as 53.4 x 40.0 mm (Hasselblad) or 54 x 40.5 mm (Phase One).
Full frame cameras
The digital sensor sizes of full frame are basically the same as that of the first Barnack Leica, which is 36 x 24mm. Most major camera companies have full frame options, including Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica, Pentax, Panasonic, and Sigma. Only Olympus and Fuji skip it, of the major companies.
Thankfully, the days when full-frame digital cameras sold for at least $7,999 are over. (That’s what the Canon EOS-1Ds cost in 2002; today, you could buy a new Hasselblad with two lenses for the same amount, adjusted for inflation.) Current price tags for new full-frame cameras start at around $900.
APS-C cameras
These camera sensors have physical dimensions of 22.3 x 14.9 mm (Canon) or 23.5 x 15.6 mm (Fujifilm, Nikon, Pentax, Sony). If you attach a lens from a full-frame camera to these cameras, you will notice a crop factor– it’s akin to cropping a full-frame photo by 1.5x (1.6x for Canon).
As the sensor size decreases, so does the price. APS-C cameras can now be bought for less than $400, even with a lens.
Micro Four Thirds (MFT) cameras
If you want interchangeable lenses, MFT is the smallest mainstream sensor size. (Pentax briefly tried an even smaller system, called the Pentax Q, which was short-lived.) Micro Four Thirds have a sensor size of 17.4 x 13 mm and a crop factor of 2x relative to full-frame.
The trend for prices to fall with sensor size doesn’t totally apply here. While the most expensive MFT cameras aren’t bad (in the $2200 range), there is a relative lack of true entry-level models, so the cheapest are still in the $700 range unless you buy used.
Full Frame Is the Best! Or Not?
In the previous chapter, I gave a brief overview of the sensor sizes found in today’s interchangeable lens digital cameras. Now I’d like to return to the original idea of this article. In fact, I want to answer the question I asked in the title: Do we really need full-frame cameras? Or can smaller sensors do the same job?
I decided to let two fictional photographers debate the pros and cons of small and large sensors. I should point out that they are both mainly wildlife photographers, although they shoot some of everything.
One of them, let’s call him Pat, will be a die-hard full-frame advocate. His friend Mat is a fan of small sensors. It’s possible that this could lead to an argument, and some strong words could be spoken. But I can assure you that at the end of the day, the two photographers will merge into one person, Libor, and share some beers. So let’s do it.
Shallow Depth of Field
Pat:I don’t want to be rude with you, but you have to admit that full frame is just better than the tiny sensor in Micro Four Thirds.
Mat: I don’t want to argue, Pat, but could you please tell me what makes your full frame camera such a miracle compared to my Micro Four Thirds?
Pat: Sure, listen. The bigger the sensor, the less depth of field you have. I can put a 50mm f/1.8 on my camera and get dreamy backgrounds. You would put a 25mm f/1.8 on your Micro Four Thirds camera, and the background would hardly be out of focus!
Mat: I understand the math. But your example is just too wide. For bird photography, we’re always using telephoto lenses, and backgrounds are plenty blurry. Haven’t you seen my photos from the Olympus 300mm f/4?
Pat: Well, okay, but what are you going to do if you want to get a dreamy portrait with nice blurry bokeh? You’re not going to use your 300mm super-tele, are you?
Mat:I admit that full-frame has more options here, but if I did portrait photography on a daily basis, I could get close to full frame. For example, I’d probably get a 45mm f/1.2.You wouldn’t believe the portraits you could get with that.
Pat: Well, it’s not hard to believe. Because it’s equal in depth of field to a 90mm f/2.4 lens on full-frame. But if you’re talking about the Olympus lens, it costs $1400. I can buy an 85mm f/1.8 for less than half the price and get blurrier backgrounds.
Mat: To each his own. A 45mm f/1.2 is enough for me.
Landscape Photography
Mat:Speaking of depth of field,don’t forget that a small sensor is great for landscapes. I don’t have to stop down as much as you do to get more depth of field. Where you have to stop down to f/16, I’m fine with f/8.
Pat: Don’t you know that’s a myth? Your f/8 is the same as my f/16. You’re not getting better sharpness or better performance in low light.
Mat: Au contraire! You’ve forgotten how impressive the image stabilization is on my camera, and how useful the multi-shot features can be. If my f/8 is the same as your f/16, that means my camera is ahead because of these features.
Pat: Don’t make me laugh, have you forgotten about dynamic range and resolution? You won’t beat my Nikon Z8 at 45 megapixels and ISO 64 no matter what you do.
Mat: I don’t have a problem with that. The prints I make from my desktop printer are so full of detail. You can count the petals of the daisies in my photo of the meadow if you want to. And I never need to push my shadows so bright that dynamic range is a problem. If I did, I would simply shoot HDR.
Resolution
Pat:You might be fine with 20 MP of resolution for landscape photography, but what about for photographing birds? 20 MP definitely doesn’t allow you to crop that much. I recently submitted photos to a magazine and cropped a bunch. It scared the hell out of me. So I checked how many megapixels I ended up with, and it was still more than your 20.
Mat: You know, Pat, I don’t crop much. As you’re very fond of pointing out, Micro Four Thirds is a crop sensor already! I can use a 300mm lens for wildlife photography with no cropping necessary.
Pat:I can do that too. There are plenty of 600mm lenses for full-frame. But if I need to crop, I can.
Mat:Even so, the math still favors Micro Four Thirds, my friend.
Pat: Why is that?
Mat:Well, I can simply put more pixels on a distant subject than you can. My 20 megapixel Micro Four Thirds sensor has twice the pixel density as your 45 megapixel full-frame camera. If you spot a rare species of bird in the jungle, wouldn’t you rather be carrying the maximum possible reach?
Pat: Sure, and that’s why I have an 800mm f/6.3 Nikkor and Nikon’s teleconverters. Pixel density doesn’t mean much when your longest native lens is just 400mm or 500mm.
Price and Weight
Mat:Hey Pat,how much did you pay for your 800mm f/6.3? It’s one of Nikon’s “budget” lenses, isn’t it?
Pat: About $6500, why do you ask?
Mat: It’s just that my longest and most expensive telephoto lens, a 300mm f/4, costs less than half of yours. And with my 1.4x teleconverter, it becomes a 420mm f/5.6 with even more reach than 800mm on full-frame.
Pat:Well, I think your ISO performance will start to be a problem, but sure.
Mat:Besides, lugging your monster around the mountains? I really don’t want to do that. Also, if you want to fly somewhere with it, you risk paying for oversized luggage. And when you finally get there, try taking the lens out somewhere in the Brazilian suburbs. You’ll end up walking back to your hotel in your underwear… if at all.
Pat: I can’t argue with that, but I didn’t get into wildlife photography because I wanted to save money or weight. It’s an expensive and physically challenging hobby, what can I say? If it bothered me, I would have taken up knitting.
Low Light
Mat: You mentioned that the ISO performance of my camera would be a problem, and I wanted to set the record straight. Micro Four Thirds has no problem in low light. I bet I can shoot handheld in low light more easily than you.
Pat: Is that because your camera is lighter?
Mat: That’s only part of it. My image stabilization is so good that I can easily shoot at 1/40th. Even with your “lightweight” 800mm f/6.3 and your advanced Nikon Z8, I don’t think you could manage that.
Pat: Maybe, but I remember one of your wildlife photos where you had a perfectly sharp bird that practically had its head missing because it had just moved. 1/40th is only good for static subjects. For flying birds in miserable light, what would you do?
Mat: That’s easy – I’d just go and get a beer. Okay, in all seriousness, I would just shoot at a high ISO like 6400 and use some of today’s modern noise reduction software. It’s amazing how well it works.
Pat: Yeah, but I only go home when my ISO is somewhere around 32,000. I barely consider 6400 to be high ISO any more. Full frame is simply better at high ISOs.
Mat:I can’t deny that, but you should keep flexibility in mind.I remember taking photos from a tower in Panama. Everyone around me had monster lenses like you. There was a harpy eagle sitting on a branch not far from us. Everybody was shooting it from a tripod, and they all had the same bad shot against the bright sky. I stood on a bench with the camera over my head, tilted the screen down, and got a nice green forest background behind the Harpy.
What Really Matters
Mat: What else do you have for an advantage? By the way, can your camera shoot in pre-capture RAW?
Pat: Don’t try to make me mad! There’s a rumor that says it’s coming soon!
Mat: And I almost forgot, does your camera do anything like Live Composite?
Pat: No, and I don’t need gimmicks like that! What really matters in photography is the photo, not cheap tricks.
Mat: I take issue with you calling it a gimmick or a cheap trick. I like Live Composite a lot… but… I can’t deny, you’ve struck on something important.
Pat: Oh, you finally see the light?
Mat: I’m not changing my mind about Micro Four Thirds, but you said something that grabbed my attention. What really matters in photographyis the photo. How did we start this argument in the first place?
Pat: Well, that’s true. Maybe we need to cool our heads for a minute. A good photo is a good photo. And I can’t deny it – you have nice photos, and I have nice photos.
Mat:Most definitely. And many of the best photos I’ve seen could have been taken on either system, and they’d still be good.
Pat: That’s what we have in common, I think. It doesn’t really matter what camera either of us uses. Isn’t any modern camera capable of taking good photos?
Pat:Yes, of course. And the same is true of not-so-modern cameras. So, let’s not yell at each other any more and just have another beer, okay?
Mat: Sounds good, Pat. Although, for the record, I’m not going to switch to full frame any time soon.
Pat: And you can pry the Z8 out of my cold, dead hands.
Summary
Ugh, I’m so relieved. The two friends have finally found common ground, and that’s the way it should be. Each system has some advantages and disadvantages. And, it’s possible to find workarounds – or carefully choose lenses – that minimize many of the differences between sensor sizes anyway.
Well, as we approach the centenary of the first commercial 36 x 24mm camera, we can look back with clear eyes. Approximately 100 years later, do we really need full-frame cameras? My short answer is, yes! Full-frame is great… and so are all the other formats I’ve mentioned today. Our photographic lives are better for having options.
Finally, something to amuse you. You may have noticed that the photos in this article lack the traditional camera, lens, and exposure information. I have chosen ten photos taken with different cameras. I haven’t even credited the authors to make it more difficult. Can you guess the sensor sizes of any of them? Feel free to leave your guesses in the comments section.
And with that, I wish you good light, whatever sensor size it falls on.
