The Full Frame Revolution! 

There are advantages and disadvantages to all forms of photography but all said and done it's the photographer that makes the biggest difference

I'm with you. Sticking to micro 4/3 for the weight and size advantage. Great to see you back on RU-vid talking sense as ever.

As a relative newcomer to photography (and an MFT user), I'm finding your videos extremely useful. Thank you.

I have been using Micro Four Thirds for a few years now and never felt I needed to upgrade to full-frame. I love the fact that I have less weight in my bag and never needed to print anything bigger than A3. M4/3 has me think more about my images.

I dove head first into Olympus gear a year ago and couldn't be happier. Because, as you so rightly point out, it's not about the gear, it's about the photographer. Honestly your earlier videos are a major factor in what convinced me, because you always get such amazing results. Form, shape, story...that's really what it's about. The only thing I was missing for a while was being able to explore shallow DoF, but now that I've picked up a "nifty-25" 1.2, I get as much DoF range as I'd ever want.

Great video, as usual...Just a small addition: being a macro-photographer I really appreciate the higher magnification factor and increased DoF of M4/3. In this field some of the much advertised Full Fram advantages turn out to be disadvantages instead. Something you really should consider if you plan to do some types of photography.

I switched to full frame for two main reasons: 1) I deal with quite a bit of low light no flash allowed event photography that demands at least 1/160 second; and 2) I was lugging around two APSC cameras each with heavy constant f2.8 zooms to be able to cover the range I have noticed I covered the most during these events - 11-23. There is no APSC zoom in any APSC line that covers this requirement (at least back in January 2020 when I made the decision to switch). So now I have the pleasure of a very high ISO capable camera and only have to carry a single 16-35 zoom with dimensions and weight similar to one of the two APSC lenses I was carrying about.

Sense - and with humour!

I always tought Mft was not good enough because all the big you tubers said so...but i bought one myself and i am more than happy with the results i get out of it.Also the quality of the olympus pro lenses is really unbeatable in my opinion.

I have both FF and APSC, for different reasons. The FF old 6D is for low light (blue hour, indoor event etc) dof in portraits, and prints. My APSC Canon sl2 with pancake lens is for my street/travel/Instagram moments. It largely depends on my goals and or circumstances. Note my FF is "old" why? Because for my style of shooting I see no need for the advantages of mirrorless. I take pictures of mostly subjects with no eyes like flowers and trees ( no need for eye auto detect). Oh and portraits I do take? Well they are often in a laid back relax setting were I control the pace, and can take my time on focusing (engagement, senior, branding). The key is knowing who you are as a photographer and what tool is right for you.

You are capable of taking truly wonderful pictures with the gear you use. Most photographers (if not almost all) look very pale with their intermediate pictures taken on any systems near you with your little MFT camera. Go on doing amazing stuff Craig!

The best camera is the one you have in your hand, FF M43 APSC etc is immaterial if the photographer doesn't know how to use it.

Thank God you are back and talking a lot of sense! The world has gone mad and I suspect photographer's have joined in too! Everybody has to have a full frame mirror less camera! thousands of pounds changes hands very quickly, it's not a problem when you are loaded with money, but hey all you are after is a decent picture and that's achieved by the photographer! I just wish there were more photographers on here that could talk for 20 minutes without showing pictures that were taken with a 10k camera and lens that's as big as a DSLR on it's own....thanks for your thoughts and info...

I guess I'm a hybrid since I have both MFT and FF (mirrorless). I grab my MFT about 75% of the time for landscape hiking, wildlife and a bit of street photography. I just recently purchased the Panny/Leica 100-400 for birding, which is wonderful considering the colossal FF equivalent. I tend to use FF for particular landscapes and/or when I know I'll be printing something very large which is only 20-25% of the time. I enjoy both systems very much.

Tools are for using; ; pick the right tool for the job. Sometimes that's a smartphone, or an 8x10 film camera, or a MFT digital camera, or a 'medium format' digital camera. Or something else; everything has a trade-off. What do YOU need? I guarantee you don't need marketing hype.

I made the switch to full frame in 2013 (Nikon D800) and then switched to Fuji in late 2016. In 2013, I just felt that the smaller sensors weren't ready to keep up with full frame, but that changed very quickly. Then when I started having health problems, the full-frame equipment was just too heavy for me to carry around all the time and I decided to go with Fuji. That's still where I am today and I haven't regretted it. For what I shoot (travel, landscape, now and then architecture) the smaller sensor is more than sufficient and the quality of Fuji's cameras and lenses is excellent. I don't think I'll switch back to full frame, although I still have my D800 and think it's a fantastic camera.

Great video, I came down from Full Frame to Olympus OMD Micro 4/3rds and I defy anybody after showing them an Image to tell me what format it was taken on, the two issues you highlighted in the differences were correct, i e depth of field, size of finished printed photograph and cropping, I can print A3+ with edge to edge sharpness which are superb in detail and quality that I have not seen bettered, so you are spot on with your analysis, regards.

Instead of full frame “ revolution “, a more appropriate term might be full frame “ propaganda “. Its just marketing from the camera manufacturers. All of your points are spot on!

I am glad there is people like you Craig 🙏

Excellent video, I agree that FF is mostly unnecessary for the average hobbyist photographer. If you collect and shoot with MF vintage lenses with adapters like I do, a FF camera body has the advantage that the old lenses function as they were intended with correct aperture and focal length. I bought an a7II mostly for my old film lenses, but I agree with you. My results are really no better than my a6000 with APS-C lenses.

medium format is the ONLY way to go!!! #TeamGFX 8)

hear! hear! as a Fujifilm 'crop' sensor size camera, I totally agree with you.

I am using my OMD E-M5 with no interest in an upgrade of any sort. I shoot a considerable amount of low light and the thing that I find makes the biggest impact is the lens that I am using. I purchased an Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens and that has made a huge impact. My wife gave me a Panasonic 25mm f1.4 as a gift and now when the light is really low I use that. The other night I was out taking a shot of an old church in the country with no moon. I used the 1.4 with an exposure of 30 minutes and the results were so clean that I didn't need to use noise reduction in post! The camera is just a tool and learning how to use it is the best thing a person can do to make good images. Thanks for another great video filled with level headed content.

I'm just now moving "down" to m4/3rds from FF. Old Oly cams @12 mps. I'm having a blast & my back is very thankful.

Yes you’ve saved me a lot of cash Craig as I was thinking of “upgrading “ to full frame a few months ago but was dissuaded by your sensible arguments. Thank you 😊

I switched from nikon fullframe to fuji APSC few months ago. Very happy about reduced weight and easier handling, IQ difference is negligible (fuji might be even better because their in-camera jpeg is better than what I can get from nikon raws). I don't think I'll ever think about returning to FF or upgrading to medium format. You're totally right that FF is an obsession, it certainly was for me.

Just uploaded a photo to social media of a local park monument. Not one did anyone ask if that was a full frame camera. I own Sony a7r3 but my iPhone 11 was powerful enough. Composition, good subject and light is all you need.

My full frame Sony A7r3 requires two lenses to cover the 24mm to 200mm range. Most of the time I can get similar quality with my Em1mk3 and the 12-100 lens. With the Sony's inferior stabilisation I need f2.8 lenses for shooting in lowlight. They are not lightweight at 886gms and 1500 gms respectively for the 24-70 and 70-200. The Olympus 12-100 f4 weighs 561gms, but the stabilisation is so good, when combined with the EM1mk3 IBIS, that I can shoot handheld at up to one second. The best camera is the one you have with you. Unless I need shallow DOF or the greater dynamic range of the Sony, which is not often, I take my Olympus.

A very interesting video. I listened carefully to the arguments you presented. I bow to your years of experience. Thanks.

Nice well balanced video. In 2019 I switched from full frame to Fujifilm after a lot of research and trying various cameras. I figured out for 90% of what I shoot crop sensor or full frame made no difference. One of the reasons for choosing Fujifilm was dedicated crop sensor lens unlike some manufacturers who seem to force you to select full frame lens to get the best lens they sell. Another reason was weight. I have kept my eos 6d full frame and one lens for Astro photography and I can’t see my self ever moving away from a full frame for Astro shots.

Great to see you back in action. Very well spoken video so true your views.

Hi Craig, I switched back to full frame (Sony) after shooting MFT (OMD EM1 MkII) for a couple years. I originally got into MFT because I was traveling the world extensively for both business and vacations, and I wanted a more compact system with me. I have to say you make a compelling argument for MFT with landscape images. Some of my best images were shot with my 20MP EM1 MkII, and most people would never be able to tell them apart from my 61MP A7RM4. That being said, my chosen genre and personal style requires me to push and pull (including cropping) my images hard in post processing, and I find that full frame images can hold up to editing abuse better than MFT images. Plus I recently retired and travel less, so having a compact system is no longer a priority for me. By the way, I started watching your channel when I switched to MFT, and I still do today. What you have to share goes beyond the MFT community. Keep up the great work Craig.

I sort of went the other way too. I have FF Canon 5D classic and a Leica M Type 262. The Leica simply because I love Leica, have for 25 years. But both are good sized cameras. My most used cameras are the Olympus Pen F and a Sony A6600 APS-C. The Oly Pen goes in a tiny Peak Design 3 liter Everyday Sling bag along with three lenses. Truly a small kit to take along. The Sony A6600 goes when I need long reach, up to the Sony 200-600 G zoom. A fabulous lens. I never feel under equipped with either of the smaller cameras. Thank you for another great video. I like your videos because they most often point us to what's really practical.

Love my FF for the woodland detail. I would invest in MFT if I climbed mountains, shot vistas or did long hikes where MFT makes sense for weight saving. If I did street or tourism than would also use MFT. The purpose of your photography should determine what you invest in, plus your budget.

I just recently found your channel. It's refreshing to see someone speak on this subject objectively, without sounding like they are paid for their opinion or a fan boy.

I’ve spent six months deciding on my next camera and I went into it “knowing” it had to be full frame. I’ve done a ton of research, thought long and hard, weighing up pros and cons. I have systematically disassembled my argument for full frame to the point where I’m now about to by an X-T3 because I strongly think for my purposes it’s about perfect. Excellent video and thank you.

I used many film and digital cameras since the 80's as a photo enthusiast and later a wedding photographer. I've swiched to mft 8 years ago and don't feel the need to change as this system perfectly suits my needs and is more than sufficient in wich ever I want to do. Noise has never been a problem except for pixel peepers who never look at a photo for what it is really: an emotional feeling we love to share!

I use both SONY A7III FF and Olympus EM1-III. For most of the stuff I enjoy 10times more the Olympus who offer much more on site creativity and ability to carry more lenses with lower weight. Having said that, I use the SONY A7III for "commando" shoots. By commando I refer for spots that I know I would like to have shallow depth of field as in most portraits shoots (outdoor) or for high speed shoots as socker at night with arteficial light going to ISO of 5000-8000 even with 70-200 F2.8 lens when shooting at speeds of 1/640 (would love faster however ISO is so high that 1/640 is a compromise). One major disadvantage of Olympus cameras not related to sensor size is their relative poor ability to perform at continuous focus when human are invalved. Compared to Sony A7III not to mention the newer one A7III is almost 3 years old). Another disadvantage (technology - not sure related to sensor size) is the lower ability to recover shadows in Olympus RAW VS Olympus relatively very old 20MP sensor that must be updated to more advanced technology. So there is no weight and wrong. For landscape M43 is usually great. I enjoy shooting M43 much more, and use M43 or FF based on my needs

I have full frame & medium format cameras. Much of my photography of late has been with my OMD E-M1 iii. The small size, lower cost, weather sealing and computational imaging features, plus excellent glass, make it my go to camera when I’m out hiking or just walking around. The other cameras get pulled in when I need the resolution, dynamic range, or features but the Olympus is good enough for 90% of what I do lately. I’m loving it. Great video!

I bought a full frame mirrorless camera last year, mainly for night landscape photography and have to say the images are much cleaner. However, I find I've gone back to my Lumix for carrying on walks as the weight is hardly noticed by comparison. Looking back, my first digital camera was an Olympus 5mp in 2004 and this produced some of my best images ever (so long as I don't want to print large). As you say, horses for courses. Very useful video Craig.

I use vintage lenses- almost but not quite exclusively- and my brain still thinks in full frame terms, despite currently shooting APS-C. So I want FF because it's how I understand the focal length and I want mirrorless because I can use a lot more of those vintage lenses such as rangefinders due to flange distance. Otherwise, I would stick with APS-C. Is full frame best? No, but it is what I want.

Started with a Minolta SRT-101 and got back into photography with my Pen F and the 17mm & 45mm. I can tell I'll learn learn mucho from you while in South America with my Pixel 3a. You are a good teacher and of course a good photographer.

Thanks for the video! Appreciate this take and makig people understand that for most of us, 'the FF revolution' or 'affordable FF' is just marketing gimmicks; sony & canon aps-c cameras lost a lot of $1-2k market to fuji and even MFT. So now as silicon gets cheaper they're selling it by the square ft, making people think everyone needs it, when in fact, with better lenses and sensors, apsc or mft will be just as good in most cases while offering weight and cost benefits.

I think you are spot on. I use FF just because the camera that had the other features I wanted happened to be FF, and I've used a friend's Olympus and been envious of the IBIS you get with MFT. I've been thinking of trying an older used MFT camera just to see if it sparks some creativity in me by being a simpler, smaller system

I was frightened as to what you were going to say and am so plsd I carried on listening - great video, thank you.

Thank you! Great video!

I generally photograph people in all sorts of locations and what convinced me to go FF was a couple of shoots I did in low light and I had to up the iso on my 600D to a level where it became grainy and the colours faded. That low-light capability is a winner for me with the FF. I still use my 600D for holidays etc but FF for any model shoots.

I'm a MFT shooter who recently purchased a full-frame body, mostly to shoot vintage glass, but I also have a few high-quality modern lenses. I agree with everything said in this video. One point struck me in particular that doesn't get mentioned much, i.e., aspect ratio. Maybe its in part because I have been shooting MFT for quit some time, but I have been struck by the somewhat awkward character of 3:2, especially in portrait mode. 4:3 seems much more natural to me. As the speaker says, you can always crop a 3:2 image, but half the joy of photography is seeing it and getting it right in camera.

Excellent, Ive been saying the same thing on my blog.

I switched from a FF DSLR to a APSC mirrorless (Nikon Z50) and love it. It’s so light and small I can almost put it in my pocket. Only “lost” about 3mp with switching (24 to 20.9) so not a big deal with that. Hopefully Nikon will add a few more DX lenses, but for now I’m plenty happy with the switch.

I am glad to hear your thoughts. In the discussion that suggested to "upgrade" from APS-C, I still wonder why FF and not medium format. So I agree that our photography needs might not required a more expensive camera. Those who needed it, do not hesitate on getting it. Those who might not need it, needs to justify to themselves. Either case, we should use the camera we have.

Beside the 35mm film camera of my parents (and some film travel cameras) I used some point-and-shoot digital cameras. And then I came to Olympus. Since then, I stayed with Olympus and I'm happy. Don't need any more. Not more shallow depth of field, not more weight. Nice background blur can also be achieved with my MFT gear. Not so much, but enough for me.

I am a Chinese user of the MFT system. I just started buying and using Olympus cameras last winter. I am a latecomer to the MFT system (even if there is a problem with the Olympus operation). I have always been a full-frame amateur user before, and I own photographic equipment worth more than one million yuan. Later, in the winter of last year, I saw that the Olympus camera department might be closed down. I was worried that I would not be able to buy new Olympus cameras in the future, so I bought 5 EM1Mark3 at a time and matched three Olympus Pro F1.2, 12-100 and Leica 12F1.4 lens (my camera is equipped with a lens). After using an Olympus camera, I feel like I’m so late to meet each other. Because I didn’t know that Olympus cameras work well for many years! Now, my FF camera is idled in the electronic moisture-proof box. In the various lively photography community forums in China, many people are divided into two groups, and everyone is always arguing and contesting the pros and cons of the FF and MFT systems. FF users always attack MFT system users constantly, mocking MFT system users for "bad picture quality", such as high noise, low light environment, low pixel quantity, low color bit rate, etc. (MFT is only 12bit, FF has 14 bit). MFT users laughed at FF users for the clumsy lens! Maybe I belong to an alternative, I also want to buy a few more Olympus fuselages for storage (I am worried that I will not be able to buy them in the future). Now the price of EM1Mark3 in China is between 1200-1300 US dollars, and it will be lower later. China can buy brand new third-party-made batteries at any time, the price is between 4-5 US dollars, I will buy ten spare batteries at a time (buy three batteries to give a travel charger). I like to use Olympus very much, and I left my FF camera idle!

I love my small Nikon D3500 crop. It sure does have its shortcomings and I was tempted to switch to FF but this camera makes me learn different post processing techniques and to be creative.

Having shot 4/3 and then micro 4/3 for over a decade along with full frame and crop I am pleasantly surprised on how much DR is in the new OMD-EM1 mark iii. It's so good that I have started using my newer Olympus for professional high end architecture jobs and so far can't see much difference in working with the files. My kit is now in a small bag and weighs very little compared to my full frame backpack that is very heavy.

Excellent video and so true. I'm going back to Olympus/Om once it arrives as been on order 3 months. Thanks for the video I'll be watching more of your stuff 👍🏻

Nice video and thoughts as always. In the film days FF equalled 24x36, APSC equalled half frame (original Olympus Pen). Mft was a size named 110. But that was a long ago, with a different technology. Love my Panasonig GX series. / Ulf

Camera companies are great at creating the “need” to upgrade. I’ve had the philosophy since I first started photography that if I can’t do it with a cheap camera/ lens, then I won’t be able to do it with a good camera/ lens. Updated my camera body a few months back and have been using a Holga lens on it for the last few weeks just because it’s fun.

I basically use to focal lengths all the time and it’s wonderful I can keep a 50mm equivalent and 35 equivalent for two cameras that is water resistant in one small shoulder bag.

I’m just a hobbyist. I went full frame because I wanted a 24mm (35mm equivalent) for my aps-c Nikon. I noticed that I could buy a D700 for the same price. I already had an old 35mm AI lens. The D700 will meter with old manual lenses. So I just used what I had with a D700.

I agree that you should not get a FF just because, just as you should not get mFT just because. Similarly some could argue that you don't need mFT either because you can use your mobile etc...(I don't agree with that) File sizes are not larger on a 24Mpx FF than on a 24Mpx mFT. My Sigma fp is smaller than a Olympus E-M1 and PEN F, a Sony A7III are roughly the size of E-M1. I got FF because that was what I wanted now after a decade with APS-C and I had the lenses to use (also using Sigma APS-C/APS-H cameras). Prices are not that different either for body or lenses (not talking flagship cameras). So it comes down to what you want, for landscape you don't need shallow DOF, but in other situations you do. But don't "upgrade" or "downgrade" gear just to relieve ones GAS. Better to upgrade oneself as a photographer. Watching e6 Vlogs is one thing to do :-)

Thoughtful analysis, as always. Own and enjoy my Fuji XT2 and small assortment of zoom lens. Size manageable and fun to use. Does not cut it for low/natural-light events, though. Just invested in FF Sony A73 for that purpose. Whoa - amazing in low light! The way forward for me is having 2 small systems.

I have a Nikon D7100 (an APS-C camera for those not familiar). There is an awful lot of pressure, from many sources, to upgrade to a full frame mirrorless and I have been tempted. However, following quite a few sleepless nights kept awake thinking about what I should do I have decided to stick with what I have and keep practising with it. At the end of the day I am not a professional photographer and my camera suits my needs and requirements so what would be the point? Videos like this are really very helpful so thank you very much indeed.

Great video, Craig. Absolutely agree. I could switch to FF or even MF any day. But I am still really happy with MFT. The versatility, the weight. I also really love the Olympus f1.2 Pro lenses.

Bang on Craig It’s good to see you back on RU-vid, I thoroughly enjoy your vlogs

I use both. I like this the crop factor on telephoto lenses for the smaller sensor and the better noise reduction on the full frame for astro and very low light work. Both cameras secondhand and not mirrorless. As a landscape photographer you are right to highlight depth of field, full frame can cause problems if in some instances you don’t photo stack. Also lens quality of crop lens at f8 is better than full frame at say f16 if you decide not to focus stack! Well argued Craig👍👍👍

I totally agree but where people find enjoyment in photography varies. For me, trying to get the best photos I can with the equipment I have (mft) is the goal and there is still a long way to go 😂

I switched to a Sony A9 a year ago for two reasons. Low light performance (which swung it over the A7R) and more detail in the images. I use the camera for building surveys ( I am an architect) and the A9 takes photos in the dark which is great for poorly lit spaces and the greater detail allows me to zoom into every detail such as cracks in brickwork. I did use a Canon 1D but a flash on a super wide angle created problem shadows in the images.

What an excellent analysis of the current camera market. I have to say that there is a “Use Case” for just about every camera/sensor format, pixel count and lens option. That said, in my case I am sticking with M43, as it is the best trade off in terms of quality, size/weight, cost and features. I had a loan of the new Panasonic full frame and was able to spend 2 weeks comparing to my trusty Olympus omd em1 and the GH9. I honestly couldn’t see an appreciable betterment in picture quality nor justify the upgrade? Not only to myself but to my financial controller. I’m not a professional photographer, so it’s not mission critical to have the hip gear to impress a client........in a world that is turning to imperfect lenses for a different / retro look. The only person I need to please is myself.

I'm glad you mentioned about the 4:3 vs 3:2 aspect ratio Craig. I was beginning to think it was just me that realized I preferred the shorter rectangle and didn't feel the need to crop anymore. I used to crop my 35mm images a lot of the time. I wonder if all those I hear talking about needing to crop all the time, do it mainly because subconsciously they don't like the native 3:2 aspect ratio either and they just haven't figured it out yet. It could explain the number of landscape photographers that seem to have recently swapped 35mm full frame for the 4:3 ratio of the Fuji GFX cameras.

I was use apsc and full frame dslr, but I started more and more productive when using m43. Because how compact it's and easy to carry. Even with mirror less full frame required big lens which cost of thousands us dollar. Yeah I still shoot with full frame for astrophotography, you can't beat noise but when normal situation you don't need those big chunk gadget.

There are way too little videos like this on RU-vid!! You are spot on, I came from my Canon M50 and made the switch to the Canon R6. I needed a second camera anyway, and I actually use a lot of the new video features (10bit, 4k/60), but to be fully honest the pictures looks pretty similar :)

100% Agree. I use m4/3 now, and I carry a tripod lighter than before. My filter system is smaller, and working with flashes is easier. I am a little happier now!

Thank you for your thoughts. FF is the new APSc. I use both formats depending on the situation and in my experience files from a FF camera are a bit more flexible in post. One shouldn't ignore the recent development of "medium format" cameras. Generally speaking you can take excellent pictures with most post 2011 entry level exchangeable lens cameras. The only advantage of mirrorless to me is the histogram in the viewfinder and that's nothing to do with the sensor size.

I’ve been an Olympus user for quite a few years and I was considering changing because I felt I needed more megapixels at times, and low light noise was a problem. I then discovered Topaz De-noise and Gigapixel AI. Problems solved. Happy now to continue with my EM1 Mk 2 and my excellent array of Zuiko lenses.

Thanks so much for this timely post Craig. I’m a Fujifilm shooter (an aging X-T2) and I’ve being torturing myself with the decision as to “upgrade” to full frame or medium format. As my teenage daughter would say, “calm your farm dad”. Yes. Relax and be happy with what I have. Again, thanks.

I only just found your channel and wanted to say thanks for being a voice of reason in the FF culture wars. I've given up trying to argue with the Canikony sales machine that is hell bent on assimilating us all into the FF universe, so it's nice to see from your video and the comments that I'm not alone. I was a Canon APSC user from my first DSLR but in time, as it became clear that Canon were never going to support their APSC bodies with dedicated pro standard EF-S lenses, I had to decide whether to go FF or change system to Fuji or m43. Long story short - I traded my Canon gear in for an E-M1 mk2 and a couple of Zuiko Pro zooms. They aren't a lot lighter or smaller than my APSC kit was but as a system they give better IQ than I had with my Canon kit. I still have the Panasonic GX-80 two-zoom kit that I bought to dip my toes in the m43 water as a super lightweight & compact backup kit. I realise that m43 won't suit everyone but for a landscaper/generalist on a budget, it's a system with a lot of plus points compared to FF. I've also become aware that I am 3x2 averse - I don't crop to square so much but I do like to crop to 5x4 portrait a lot. On m43 that crop results in a much smaller percentage of pixels lost compared to the same crop on APSC.

I totally agree with where you are coming from, your points make sense Craig/ Gary ;-) What I found with APC is that the lens range is limited. Full frame also gets the advantage of the latest lens developments. That said I have got by. The cost to swap to full frame (for me) would be an investment I'd need to think twice about. Cheers

Nice summary i shoot APSC as i feel it is the bets compromise. Of course one the reasons FF becomes appealing is cost, with so many companies bringing out FF cameras they can be cheaper than some of the APSC alternatives. For me i like the size and weight of APSC and until im pushing it all to the limit and being held back then it suits me for now.

I went from an APS-C enthusiast camera (Sony A65) to a FF pro body for a list of reasons. Ironically one was value and cost. I was able to purchase a used, 42 mp full frame camera that used several of my existing lenses for less than a new mirror less APS-C plus having to buy all new lenses. Because I didn’t buy a mirror less I was able to purchase several more excellent used lenses to replace any that didn’t make the transition. Each lens was less than $200 each and carefully chosen. In total, all the lenses and the body was only a few hundred more than a new Sony A6600. Here’s my kit list; Sony A99ii (the key was getting this body for a fantastic price) Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 Tamron SP 28-75 f/2.8 Minolta 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 Sony 50mm f/1.4 Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Macro Tamron SP 70-300 f/4-5.6

Well said !

I went with a 4/3 system when I switched from film back in 2005 and then gradually shifted to m4/3 after 2012. Two reasons I have stayed with m4/3; lens quality (Olympus) and ergonomics. I never gave sensor size a second thought because I trust the equipment, hardware and software, to give me the results I want. I actually went with Olympus digital because my first Olympus 4/3 system reminded me of the ergonomics of my old Nikon FE. I've never been a Canon fan because of the ergonomics and I didn't like the direction Nikon went in digital for the same reason. Frankly, I don't believe the human eye can tell the difference, without extremely close examination, between a 4/3 sensor and a 35mm (arbitrary size which has no connection to 35mm film in spite of what marketing would have us believe) sensor and no one has been able to convince me otherwise.

You're absolutely right. What can a full frame give me that I can't get on a micro 4/3? Four months ago, I bought Olympus for only one project - harsh winter shooting in the Arctic Circle. I thought it was just for this. But... now my Nikon z7 is in my bag and I haven't touched it all this time. I like the compact, lightweight and excellent Olympus pro series lenses. Мy choice is a micro 4/3 and a 6x6 film camera .

M4/3 (G100) for a lot of work I do and video... full frame Leica for the shooting experience. I’ve used them all and there’s a lot of truth to what you say. Focus on composition, story telling, and overcoming obstacles

The message is clear, thanks to remind for that. What I love with full frame is the specific shallow depth of field with a 35mm Lens. It gives you something special. Reason for not going to the Olyumpus system is because the lenses are quite expensive at least 1.2 ones and they are quite heavy was 400 g against the example of 1.8 lens from the full frame system it’s about 250g to 300 g.

I added a full frame camera to my Fuji x cameras last year as I have moved into serious architecture photography and the canon lenses (short of entering the technical camera domain,) are the only viable option for that purpose, so that determines the camera. Luckily for me, the craze for full frame mirrorless has seen a substantial drop in prices for new and used DSLRs!

Brilliantly explained, it’s because like me you’ve been a professional photographer for years and know you always use the camera a job requires. Because it is small, you mostly take your camera with you, but not if it’s a huge cumbersome beast with large lenses. While at the same time having massive unnecessary file sizes which requires more storage and processing power... Seen a couple of vids reporting Photoshops and Lightroom have a facility now to increase the raw file size, and claims to provide larger images with greater detail ? If this proves to be the case, and is a success, then M4/3s will be an even greater advantage as the kit will be much smaller and lighter. We don’t see anyone insisting these days on bigger unwieldy mobile phones, and going back to the Brick as a preference. Great to hear someone talking sense for a change !

Nice video Craig! On a shelf beside me there's a full frame Nikon DSLR with its 5 lenses, all in perfect working condition. I didn't use it for the last three years. Instead I'm using a smaller mirrorless Fujifilm, as good and more enjoyable to use as the big camera. The results are as satisfying for me as the Nikon was, but because I can see on the field exactly what I am doing I'm achieving the same results in a more efficient way. And all my post processing is also much quicker.

I think part of the attraction of full frame for many photographers is in the name; “Full Frame”. It implies that it is the ultimate and that everything else is, well, “not full”! Of course, full frame is just another sensor size, as Fujifilm have recognised, by eschewing full frame and going directly from Aps-c to medium format. Mind you, what is “medium format”? Is it “digital medium format”? (Not that much bigger than full frame), or 6 x 4.5”, or 6x7, or 6x9...😂. At the end of the day, the camera and lenses are just tools. You pick the right combination to get the job done. Anyway, hasn’t Adobe’s “Super Resolution” changed the whole debate? You want good dynamic range, high resolution and light weight / portability? Just go for a low megapixel APS-C or M43 system and “super resolutionise” them in Camera Raw. It’s all a digital workflow anyway, until the final print appears on paper, so it doesn’t really matter how much of it happens in-camera and how much on the computer, does it?

I have both MFT (Lumix G9) and FF (Leica Q). My first MFT camera was Lumix GX7, when I decided to improve my photography and make step from compact point and shoot camera. This significantly changed my photography. Of course, I had knowledge of photography since childhood, when I had film camera and developed photos myself in dark room. With the Gx7 I renewed my love to photography. In 2018 I decided to upgrade my gear and bought an amazing Lumix G9 camera. Since I travel a lot and love wildlife, I bought these Panasonic/Leica lenses: 12-60 f2.8-4, 50-200 f2.8-4 and 100-400 f2.8-4. The combo of G9 with any of these lenses is really very compact and lightweight comparing with FF. Last year, I decided that for travel, street and low light photography I need something better and more compact. After much deliberation, I acquired good condition second hand Leica Q. I am very happy with both cameras, but FF cameras are definitely a better choice in low light conditions due to low noise. Also, much easier RAW file post processing is from FF camera files. Although I love both cameras, but photos from the Leica Q looks better than from Lumix G9.

To a larger degree FX is sales hype and often shouted loudest about by people who fail to understand many aspects of photography. Like you I'm not bashing FX, I shoot FX myself and within the last year actually bought the Nikon D850 or rather I should say I traded 2 x D750 that I used to shoot weddings with to largely finance the D850. Before buying I looked at all options including micro 4/3rds, mirrorless, DX etc. I'm now retired and also disabled, my images are now shot from within 50 yards of my car on a tripod so weight is not an issue. Ultimately given the money I have invested in Nikon F mount lenses balanced against my age and that the camera will be the last I ever buy it made sense for me to stay with FX Nikon. A good pal of mine shoots Olympus 4/3rds and kindly lent me some of his gear, it was superb but of course I shot it with an open mind but the costs of trading all my lenses and rebuying now I'm retired I couldn't justify it.

Back in the day I used 35mm film than moved to Crop sensors in 2004, but was still utilised 35mm lenses. Considered m4/3 but didn’t see any advance on body size over crop, although lenses were a little smaller. Since 2016 use Full frame for specific tasks, and a Fuji for walking around street work. Being a bit of a sado I still pull out old medium format film cameras because I like the look of the results for some tasks. On balance I also prefer the look of full frame, this is of course subjective as there isn’t a right answer or a single solution.

Like you I swapped from FF to m4/3rds and apart from iso I haven’t missed the bigger sensor and definitely not the back breaking FF lenses. While I don’t shoot in extreme dark condition I do feel the only downside for me is the higher iso capabilities. But I also feel that this is probably more down to Olympus/ OM Digital cameras been long over due a sensor upgrade (which apparently is on the way in 2022 😀).

i went from full frame canon to fuji for a couple of reasons size and weight been the main one, value for money been another. if you have money to burn on full frame go for it but id rather buy a train ticket and go take some photos :)

Great video, Craig and some good points. I use Micro Four Thirds as well and am very happy with the format and don't really need full frame. It also makes me wonder if people that shoot in the 3:2 ratio find it a bit too stretched and elongated as I certainly do (particularly for portraits) and is another reason I'm not so bothered about it. Great stuff anyway, look forward to the next one.

I am with you I went from film mainly 35 mm (full frame? ) but also a bit roll film 6x4.5 Bronica when I went digital the Canon 5D and then mk2. I have been using mu43 since the end of 2010 at first mainly just when on holiday and wanting to travel lighter. But as the cameras got better and me slightly older I switched over completely and not looked back. I have not had any problem getting shallow depth of field when needed and even low light and software programs also help to sort that these days. As you said it is the person behind the camera more than the camera it self.

I use a Canon 80D for portrait and landscape alike. I don't need a full frame body. For low light work that I do as a volunteer at a local civic theater, I use my Canon SL1 because it gives me better low light performance. Same with a local symphony that I contracted with for a season. I would like a full frame, but I don't //need// it. I know the limits of my gear and work within those limits.

My first camera was the Olympus OM2n with a then growing set of good Olympus OM lenses. The better-than-state-of-the-art technology convinced me to stay with Olympus up to now with their MFT system. Its just fun to use PM2, EP5, PEN F, OM-D M1.. with fine Olympus MFT lenses. Being able to still use my excellent OM portrait, wide angle, and macro lenses without this otherwise welcomed "focal 2 factor" was the only reason why I also bought a SONY A7r. But guess what - the A7r is suffering a dreary lonely drawer live without any hope to be surprised by a new A7xxx buddy.

I went full frame from crop sensor purely because I had an itch and needed to scratch it, FX lenses far better than DX and quality of the image in certain conditions are better and here's the but! The fx gear is a heavy lump to carry around all day so I still have times when I reach for the DX set up so much lighter and in most cases you'd never know the difference, but still very happy and love full frame sensor performance.

To stop GAS I decided to put my attention on 2 cameras I have. And made sure I had the lenses I wanted for them, the tools, enough batteries and so on. And I am happy. I can't shoot 6k 120fps video, nope. And yes one of those systems is full frame. But luckily with an adapter it handles A-mount lenses well and there are a few really nice ones. Going out there is a lot more fun if you got the fitting gear. Oh and the other, just an Sony rx100 mark III. small sensor, easy to take with you, decent quality sensor. Good stuff.