For The Majority Of Us Photographers, Is Full Frame Now Largely Unecessary?

I randomly picked out some images from my photo library to illustrate this post.  None of these
images weremade with a full frame camera. (click any image to enlarge)

NOTE:  This is a rather long post.  If you don’t want to get into the weeds and just want the 40,000 ft. view, here it is:  With all of the various advances in technology, I questioned whether or not a full frame camera for most of us, for most of the photography most of us practice, is overkill (notice I didn’t use the word all).  After much consideration, my conclusion and the case that I think can be made is—yes.  The need for a full frame camera for the vast majority or us has diminished considerably.  There is little difference today in the ‘actual’ results versus ‘theoretical’ results from full frame cameras and those cameras with smaller sensors in most circumstances (again, no absolutes).  That is not to say there isn’t a place for full frame cameras, there certainly is.  But the differences in image quality today for 90% (not a scientifically derived number, just gut estimate) of the types of photographs we make are negligible.  That includes the most common differences put forth—depth of field, high ISO noise and dynamic range.  That all said, sometimes we just want something that is more than we need such as a a Corvette instead of a Camry or a mansion instead of a cozy smaller home, for other reasons—psychological, personal preference or otherwise—and that is perfectly fine as I often find myself feeling that same way.

For years, we photographers were told that “full frame” was THE destination. If you were serious about photography, eventually you would “graduate” to full frame. A bigger and better sensor produced better photographs. The penalty for that pursuit was bigger cameras, bigger lenses, a bigger camera bag and a bigger credit card bill.  For a long time, that advice was perfectly reasonable. Certainly, I was on board with it as were many of you.  But I don’t think that is sound advice today.  At least not for most of us.

Twenty, fifteen and maybe even ten years ago, the differences between full frame cameras and smaller sensor systems were substantial. Easily seen.  Easily measured.  Full frame cameras offered noticeably better low light performance, better dynamic range, cleaner high ISO files, faster autofocus as well as greater flexibility in post processing. If you wanted the best image quality possible, especially in most conditions, full frame delivered very real advantages.

Today, however, I think we are at a turning point. Not because full frame has become worse. Modern full frame cameras are extraordinary. But because cameras with smaller sensors have become so incredibly good that, for most photographers, the practical differences have shrunk dramatically and in some cases, no longer exist.

That raises an uncomfortable question for the camera industry: For the majority of us photographers, is full frame now largely irrelevant? That is not clickbait. I genuinely think it is a legitimate discussion. 

For many photographers of my generation (I’m older), the path we followed through the digital photography world followed a fairly predictable progression. We started small, moved upward through increasingly larger and more sophisticated systems, and eventually arrived at full frame because that was considered the ultimate destination. My own journey followed that exact road. I began my digital photography journey with a compact Canon G2 4mp point-and-shoot camera back when digital photography was still in its infancy (2001). Frankly, I was amazed at the images I made compared with the ones I produced with my Leica M6 & R8 cameras (to be honest I was never completely satisfied with the quality of the prints I made with my 35mm gear and, for most of my three decades shooting film, I moved to medium format.  There was a visible and satisfying visual differences in prints—even as small as 8”x10”.) 

From there I moved into APS-C with the Nikon D70, a camera that at the time felt revolutionary. Eventually, like so many serious enthusiasts and professionals, I graduated to full frame with the Nikon D700 and over the years, after upgrade after upgrade after upgrade, built an extensive Nikon full frame system around their cameras. Yet today, after recently selling off all of my Nikon full frame gear I find myself relying entirely on cameras with smaller sensors (Fujifilm & OM) which now completely satisfy both my needs and my wants while still allowing me to produce technically excellent imagery. In many ways, that personal evolution mirrors what I believe is happening, or is about to happen, throughout much of the photography world today. 

Photography technology has advanced at a breathtaking pace over the last couple of decades. Sensor performance has improved dramatically. Image processors have improved. Autofocus has improved. Lens quality has improved. AI based noise reduction has more than improved. Computational photography has been introduced and become much more sophisticated. Also, editing software and the associated plug-ins have improved enormously. The entire photographic chain has dramatically improved.  The result is that cameras with APS-C and Micro4/3 sensors now routinely produce images that would have stunned photographers not very long ago.  Due to the advances in technology, which I’ve called ‘the great equalizer,’ as well as being hit with skyrocketing prices for full frame gear, I believe many photographers will look at less than full frame camera systems in the future.

The old argument was straightforward. Larger sensors had larger photosites. Larger photosites gathered more light. More light meant cleaner files, better dynamic range, and superior image quality. That still matters. But I believe it matters less than it used to.

When you compare modern cameras today, the gap is nowhere near as dramatic as many photographers still assume. A modern APS-C sensor with 40 megapixels or a Micro4/3 sensor with 20 megapixels combined with advanced processing software (as well as features that allow you to turn your normal resolution files into much higher resolution files, if necessary) can produce results that are remarkably close or equal to full frame in real world use.  I’m not talking specifically about spec sheets or theoretical here, but out in the real world under real world conditions.  Every day conditions, not extreme conditions. It is every day conditions in which most of us routinely photograph. Most importantly, the images from smaller formats close enough to full frame for most photographers. The operative phrase is “real world use.” Again, no absolutes proclaimed here.

If you are a pixel peeper and regularly zoom to 200-300 percent and examine shadow noise under laboratory conditions, full frame still wins. Medium format still wins over full frame.  That makes sense.  It’s physics. But photography is not normally viewed that way. Images are viewed on phones, tablets, monitors, social media feeds, websites, and reasonably sized prints. In those situations, the practical differences often become surprisingly small or nonexistent. Meanwhile, the practical advantages of smaller sensor systems remain very real. Weight matters. Size matters. Bulk matters. Cost matters. Comfort matters. Enjoyment matters. 

With the gap in real would image quality so narrow now, carrying a lighter camera and lens system can change everything about your photographic efforts.  It can change how you think of your next photography outing. It can change your attitude. It can change how long you want to carry your kit. It can change how tired you become after hours of shooting. It can change whether photography feels enjoyable again or physically exhausting. That matters far more than photographers sometimes admit.  How many times have you decided not to take your big bag with your camera and all of your lenses because it is just more than you want to deal with?  You leave it at home.  You may take the small kit, however.

Take travel photography as an example. Carrying a compact APS-C or Micro4/3 system through airports, cities, museums, hiking trails or foreign countries is simply easier. Smaller bags attract less attention. Smaller systems create less fatigue. Smaller lenses are less intimidating to subjects in street photography and documentary work.

There is another advantage that rarely gets enough attention. Smaller sensor systems have more depth of field at equivalent distances and aperture. Ironically, often framed as a disadvantage by those pushing full frame, it is frequently an advantage rather than a disadvantage.

Photography ‘influencers’ often behave as though every photographer desperately wants microscopic depth of field with one eyelash sharp and the rest of the image dissolving into abstract blur. But in the real world, many photographers struggle to get enough depth of field, not less.   Can I propose that more photographers more often want more depth of field than less depth of field?  I am just putting that out there.  For example:  Landscape photographers want front to back sharpness. Street photographers want zone focus flexibility, especially in fast moving or spontaneous situations. Travel photographers often want environmental context. Event photographers need groups of people in focus. Macro photographers constantly fight razor thin focus planes often resorting to focus stacking to achieve it.  Even wildlife photographers frequently benefit from more depth of field and that may surprise people because wildlife photography is one genre where full frame has traditionally been considered essential.  Why?

Completely out of focus and unrecognizable backgrounds largely work for wildlife and bird “portraits.”  It looks great and the emphasis is the animal itself with no distractions.  But I’m seeing a trend where more and more of those photographers are framing their targets in their environmental context and unrecognizable background blur really doesn’t look so great to me.  A photographer with a full frame camera and using a 400mm f/2.8, 600mm f/4 or 800mm f/5.6 lens will really struggle to keep that environmental context.  In one sense extremely shallow depth of field works well, but in others, not so much.  

On the other hand smaller sensors offer enormous advantages for wildlife photographers. The apparent “reach” advantage of APS-C and Micro4/3 systems can be significant. A 300mm lens on Micro Four Thirds gives a field of view equivalent to 600mm on full frame. A relatively compact APS-C telephoto setup can deliver framing equivalent to massive and extraordinarily expensive full frame super telephoto lenses.  Did I mention huge, heavy lenses on full frame?  Also, did I mention how expensive those lenses are!  Yikes!

Using smaller sensor cameras means wildlife photographers can carry smaller, lighter, and dramatically less expensive equipment while still filling the frame with distant birds and animals—and when you spend hours hiking through marshes, mountains, forests, or wildlife refuges, that matters enormously.

A full frame wildlife setup with long fast telephoto lenses can become brutally heavy. Many wildlife photographers eventually realize that a smaller sensor camera with a compact telephoto lens allows them to shoot longer, move farther, react faster, and simply enjoy the experience more.  Just because of these factors, I believe Micro4/3 systems are experiencing somewhat of a comeback—especially for wildlife, bird and travel photography.

If you need shallow depth of field, you can achieve that with smaller sensor systems.  Third party manufacturers like Viltrox, Sigma, Tamron, and others now offer excellent and reasonably priced f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses for APS C systems. Micro4/3 has long offered compact fast lenses as well.  For example OM offers three extraordinary prime f/1.2 lenses.  Panasonic/Lumix offers a couple as well.The practical ability to create subject separation and blurred backgrounds is no longer exclusive to full frame. 

And honestly, I think shallow depth of field has become somewhat fetishized online.

If you watched only YouTube photography channels, you might believe every image should be shot at f/1.2. But look at the kinds of photography most people actually practice: Travel photography, family photography, street photography, nature photography, landscape photography, documentary photography, ‘casual’ wildlife photography, architectural photography, vacation photography and just photographing everyday life. Most of those genres benefit from moderate or deeper depth of field, not less. The truth is that extremely shallow depth of field is often a stylistic choice rather than a necessity. It can be beautiful. It can also become repetitive and distracting.

Autofocus.  Typically full frame had better autofocus but modern autofocus systems.  That is where the R&D money was spent, not on smaller systems.  That has changed. Smaller sensor cameras are now astonishingly capable—subject detection, bird tracking, animal eye autofocus, aircraft, motorcycle, cars, trains, face and eye detection and computational stabilization have become transformative technologies.  They have those cutting edge technologies now.

Dynamic range.  Typically full frame has one stop more dynamic range than APS-C and APS-C has one more stop of dynamic range than M4/3.  That can be important but you have to ask yourself in how many circumstances of everyday shooting is it really an issue?  I can only speak from my own experience, but every time (yes, every time) I’ve bracketed to handle what I thought was a scene too contrasty for the sensor in my OM or Fujifilm camera, it turned out that I was able to successfully edit it using only one -of those three bracketed frames.  Surprised me.

Digital noise.  With the advent of Lightroom Denoise, DXO PureRaw and the latest Topaz plug-ins, noise just isn’t an issue any longer.  Well, let me qualify that.  If you are shooting at ISO 25,600 or 51,200 or higher, noise is not your only problem.  You’re likely to lose fine detail and experience banding as well.  I think that applies to most cameras, with maybe the exception of the monochrome cameras.  Some of that can be mitigated but it is hard to retain detail that was never captured.  The noise difference issue, in and of itself, is not what it used to be.

Again, the gap keeps shrinking. 

And yet the photography industry continues heavily marketing full frame systems as vastly superior to any other.  I understand that from a business perspective. The overall camera market has shrunk dramatically because smartphones absorbed much of casual photography. Manufacturers now make more profit selling a smaller number expensive full frame bodies and lenses than they do selling larger numbers of affordable smaller sensor systems.

But photographers themselves may be moving in another direction. Fujifilm APS-C cameras are thriving. Compact fixed lens cameras are experiencing a resurgence. Ricoh GR cameras and the Fujifilm X100 cameras have almost cult-like popularity. Canon and LUMIX just introduced new cameras with smaller sensors. OM System continues attracting photographers who value portability. Many photographers who once chased maximum technical perfection are rediscovering the joy of carrying smaller systems.

Perhaps that is the key point. Photography should be enjoyable. A camera that encourages you to get out and shoot is more valuable than a theoretically superior camera that stays home because it is too large, too heavy, or too cumbersome.

There is also a psychological component here that photographers do not always acknowledge. Full frame has become associated with status. Professionalism. Seriousness. Achievement. Owning full frame gear can feel validating. It can feel like reaching the top tier of photography. You now have the same gear as the well known professional photographers whose work you admire. Manufacturers and influencers understand this very well. But wanting something and needing something are not the same thing.

For some photographers, full frame still absolutely makes sense.  For others, psychological and peer pressure may push them that way.

Professional sports photographers shooting poorly lit stadiums. Wedding photographers working in dark venues. Commercial photographers creating enormous prints. Astrophotographers pushing extreme low light boundaries. In those situations, every ounce of performance matters.  Full frame is ‘mostly’ needed.  It is imperative to have that ‘safety’ factor of full frame when the circumstances only the best will produce and deliver the images needed.  And the pro must deliver—every time.

But for many other photographers, modern smaller sensor systems are already delivering far more image quality than they realistically need—and if technology continues progressing at its current pace, the future becomes even more interesting.

Artificial intelligence based noise reduction is already remarkable. Computational photography continues advancing rapidly. Autofocus systems become smarter, faster and more accurate every year. Sensor readout speeds improve. Dynamic range improves. Stabilization improves. Lens design improves. Software and processing now reduce the practical image quality differences between sensor sizes even further.

We may eventually see APS-C and Micro4/3 cameras whose real world image quality becomes fully indistinguishable from full frame for the overwhelming majority of photography. Meanwhile, physics still matters. Full frame will likely always retain certain advantages in ultimate image quality potential, low light performance, and dynamic range.
But the question is whether those advantages remain meaningful enough for most photographers to justify the penalties in size, weight, and cost. I suspect the future may divide into two very different markets.

I believe there will be highly specialized professionals who genuinely require every possible performance advantage may continue using full frame with the highest resolution and perhaps even medium format systems. Meanwhile, many enthusiasts and even working professionals may increasingly prioritize portability, affordability, convenience, and enjoyment through smaller sensor systems.  In the future, as small as the differences are today, they will increasingly shrink.

In other words, photography may be shifting away from the endless pursuit of maximum technical perfection and back toward the actual experience of making photographs. That is perhaps where this entire discussion ultimately leads.  Many photographers now claim their digital images look too good.  Too perfect.  No soul.  I think one outgrowth of that is the resurgence of film based photography.  Their photos look more ‘real’ to those who choose that.

So, my answer to the question I posed int he title of this post, I think full frame, if not completely, is getting to be irrelevant and/or unnecessary to our photographic endeavors.  It is not what it used to be when considering the differences in final output than it was a decade or more ago.  Your opinion may differ and, if it does, leave a comment so all of can consider your point of view.  I’m sure many will disagree with me and my reasoning.  Of course, that’s great.  We need differing opinions in this world.  Think about how boring things would be if we all thought alike

In my opinion, APS-C might now be the ‘sweet spot’ when considering resolution, dynamic range, size, price, features, lens selection and, of course, image quality.  It is not quite as good as full frame when it comes to ‘laboratory’ comparisons and full frame has a wider variety of lens availability but I think (and I’m not pushing one brand over another) Fujifilm’s APS-C 40mp sensor lineup of highly featured cameras as well as OEM and independent manufacturer’s lens availability may be the best compromise out there today?  Could be?  But Sony’s, Nikon’s and Canon’s APS-C cameras perform admirably as well.

To wrap this up, the best camera for you is not necessarily the one with the biggest sensor. It is the one that helps you create the photographs you want while still making you want to pick it up and go shoot tomorrow—no matter what sensor lies within.  They are all great photographic tools.  Just choose wisely.

Join me over at my website, https://www.dennismook.com.  

Thanks for looking. Enjoy!  

Dennis A. Mook  

All content on this blog is © 2013-2026 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.