Full Frame vs APS-C vs Micro Four Thirds – Which one is right for you?
Mar 4, 2020
John Aldred
John Aldred is a photographer with over 25 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.
Share:
The sensor size debate is one that will probably never end. It’s just too polarising of an argument. On the one side, you’ve got the “Full frame = king!” lot, and on the other, you’ve got “Nope, doesn’t make a bit of difference”. Two extremes. The truth, however, is somewhere in the middle, if you look at things objectively.
There are definitely benefits and drawbacks to differently sized sensors, but there are also many situations where it really doesn’t matter. In this video, Marc Newton at The School of Photography takes an objective look at cameras with three different sizes of sensor – 35mm full-frame, Canon’s 1.6x crop APS-C and Micro Four thirds to see which might best suit your needs.
In the video, Marc compares three cameras with three different sizes of sensor. The full-frame Canon 5D Mark IV, the 1.6x crop APS-C Canon 1200D, and the 2x crop Micro Four Thirds Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II. To add to the confusion, Canon’s 1.6x crop isn’t the standard for APS-C sensor sizes. It’s actually a little smaller than most. Every other manufacturer (Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc) uses slightly larger 1.5x crop sensors in their APS-C cameras, although it makes little difference in practical terms (although there is still some).
We’re shown various examples of how a different sized sensor affects the field of view of a given focal length, adjustments we might have to make as a consequence of the differently sized sensors, and the consequences we may face as a result of those adjustments.
There’s a post on The School of Photography website to go along with the video, although I don’t necessarily agree with every statement made. For example, “A bigger sensor has bigger pixels which means each pixel can capture more light and this creates less noise at higher ISOs”.
That’s not necessarily true, in multiple senses.
Full-frame vs crop pixel size…
Let’s take a look at the full-frame Canon 5DS, which is a 50-megapixel camera. That means it has a pixel size of 4.1 microns. The Nikon D7000 is a 16-megapixel 1.5x crop APS-C sensor, with a pixel size of 4.7 microns. That means this crop body actually has bigger pixels than the full-frame 5DS. The sensor size alone does not determine the size of the pixels on the sensor.
You have to take the resolution into account, too. Pixel size is a combination of the two.
Bigger pixels = more light = less noise…
Even though in the example cited above, the D7000 sensor has larger pixels than the Canon 5DS, it’s not as good at higher ISO. Advancements in sensor technology play at least as significant a part as the size of the sensor or the size of the pixels. And not just advancements in technology, but the amount of it that the manufacturer invests into higher-end (usually full-frame) bodies.
Even when comparing sensors of the same size, like a couple of full-frame cameras… The Nikon D700‘s 12-megapixel sensor has 8.4-micron pixels, but its ISO performance isn’t anywhere close to the 7.3-micron pixels of the 16-megapixel sensor inside the Nikon D4 and D4s, despite having larger pixels.
Ok, an unfair comparison, perhaps. The D4 & D4s are next-generation bodies vs the D700, but what about the D700 vs the D3s? Those are both the same generation, both 12-megapixels, with the exact same size of pixels on the sensor, yet the D3s wipes the floor with the D700 when it comes to ISO performance, and was the low-light king of all DSLRs for quite a long time.
You can see why this is a hotly debated topic, huh?
Still, there is some great info in the video, and lots of things for you to chew over and research to see how it affects you and your own photography. And be sure to head over to The School of Photography website to read the full post to go along with the video.
For me, I shoot all three (four?) formats. Micro Four Thirds, Canon 1.6x & everybody else’s 1.5x APS-C, as well as full-frame. Most of the time, the body I choose is simply a matter of convenience and due to the features available in one specific body over another. The size of the sensor is the least of my concerns.
What do you shoot with? Does sensor size make a difference to you? Why or why not?
[Images used with permission]
John Aldred
John Aldred is a photographer with over 25 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.
Related Posts
Full Frame vs Micro Four Thirds in Macro Photography
The new NiSi 9mm f/2.8 lens for APS-C and Micro Four Thirds is perfectly imperfect
7artisans releases a teeny tiny 18mm f/6.3 pancake lens for APS-C and Micro Four Thirds
Panasonic remains committed to developing the “full Micro Four Thirds lineup”
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
21 responses to “Full Frame vs APS-C vs Micro Four Thirds – Which one is right for you?”
Full ? ?
I find the 1″ sensor on my RX10 IV provides ample clarity, sharpness and spot on focus. I’m able to also achieve creamy bokeh and fantastic macro shots.
I don’t see a need to upgrade yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY
Hmm, you can’t compare the low light capabilities of the Nikon D7000 with a 5DS. The D7000 was new in 2010 while the 5DS was new in 2015. That’s five years of technical advancements that gives the 5DS a slight advantage. You can even say that its successors, with their 24MP sensors, will perform better in low light than the D7000. The D500, with its much newer 20MP sensor performs quite well compared to just about every cropped sensor camera out there and I have personal experience comparing images taken side by side with my old D610, with 24MP and older technology sensor, and the D610 puts the D500 to shame in both low light low ISO and low light high ISO situations. Oh, I’ve heard it said that the D500 and X-T2 have the best low light performance of any cropped sensor camera and my old D610 still outperforms them in side by side comparisons. Yes, I shoot a lot of photos before sunrise and after sunset, preferring the blue hour.
Under good light conditions the size of the sensor doesn’t really matter. Under less than ideal conditions the larger sensor begins to show its advantages. Ultimately, though, the people viewing your images can’t tell what size sensor you had used to create the image. Isn’t that what matters?
That was exactly my point, Peter. All these statements about “Bigger sensor = more light” and “bigger pixels = less noise” are nonsense. There’s a lot more to the equation than blanket statements. :)
Medium format has always had a bigger sensor than “full frame”, but there was a time when those CCD sensors couldn’t hold a candle to the ISO performance of the “small format full frame” CMOS sensors. It’s not just about sensor size.
4×5
Full Frame
A camera is simply a tool. What do you want to do with it. If you want to take a picture of a black cat in a coal mine, get the biggest sensor you can afford. If you want to take pictures of your kids playing in your back yard micro four thirds should be fine. Carefully consider your usage. Then pick the sensor size for you. Taking heads on line will usually try to sell you on a camera that can do a least 20 things you will never use. Remember you will be paying more for options you will never use.
Most (all?) “1.5x” crop are actually 1.55x crop when you get to measuring, so the difference between them and canon is even smaller than people realize.
I made a comment regarding FF and APS-C in the video posted above, I don’t shoot micro flour thirds, so I can’t comment on it. in the video, if anyone is interested.
In regards to noise, yes larger pixels do help, that’s why pro DSLR’s from Nikon and Canon use 20-21 megapixel sensors with larger pixel pitch sensors, which help in low light situations, where these cameras will mostly be used.
Larger pixels do not guarantee better low-light, low-noise/high iso performance and that’s been proven repeatedly over time. There are PLENTY of APS-C cameras that have larger pixels than full-frame cameras and perform worse at higher ISO’s or lower light situations. The sensor technology, generation, and other factors will dictate the overall performance of the sensor, pixel size is not the sole dictator of how a camera performs. Also, as we move into an era of post-sensor processing of data in real-time via AI software you will see pixel size means even less for image quality.
With modern camera and sensor technology (and by modern I really mean anything manufactured since the mid-2010’s) the idea that “full frame is always better” or “larger pixels mean better noise” is archaic and a waste of time. Couple that with lens innovations, ADC/post-sensor/in-camera modifications, post processing/software image modifications and the whole argument of sensor size is moot. The SINGLE biggest dictator with regards to final image quality is the person sitting behind the camera, period.
Reading comprehension is essential and not your strength, did you even read my post. I mentioned the two pro cameras from Nikon and Canon which are FF with low megapixels 20-21 but excel at high ISO do to larger size pixels and software enhancements.
My D500 and D850 are the same at high ISO’s, one is FF and the other APS-C.
My reading comprehension is fine, your understanding of camera technology is not. Great, you listed 2 cameras that can excel at low light/high ISO imaging that have certain pixel sizes, there are plenty of instances where having larger pixels is no guarantee of good low light/high ISO performance, there are plenty of instances where APS-C cameras with larger pixels than FF cameras that perform worse in low light/high ISO, there are plenty of instances where FF cameras with smaller pixels perform better than FF cameras with larger pixels. Pixel size is not the dictator of overall image quality and these days it’s not the dictator of low light/high ISO performance, that’s all there is to it. There is no point in arguing about pixel size and these metrics because there are too many other factors that will dictate the final image quality.
You sound upset for being called out for your idiotic comment, and up voting your own comment makes you look ridiculous.
That’s it? That’s your response?! The internet equivalent of “you’re a stoopid doodoo head and I hate your face”? I had no idea it took so little to win a comments section “debate” these days. At least put a little effort into it, ffs.
And who gives a crap up about upvotes?
There’s no pragmatic way to engage with this guy. If you skim his history, you’ll find that he’s a Staten Island racist, sexist, Trump Boomer.
I use MFT. It suits me well.
The most important thing is the lens. Because there is less glass in them, MFT lenses are cheaper, and lighter. Because they are cheaper, you can afford to buy better ones. Because they are a standard there is more of them. Get the Leica designed Panasonic built 15mm f1. 7, pop it on a small gx9 and you have an awesome cheap high performing setup. So much better than your FF or APSC with its kit lens.
For me, sweet spot is Sony APSC with the Sigma trio of f1.4 lenses.
With my a6500, they are stabilised, and pairing their nice sharp image and wide aperture with the body’s AF, ISO performance, buffer size, touch screen etc, you can’t get more bang for buck anywhere else.
I can’t imagine that there is a situation that I need more that this set for hobby.
As a concert/ Special events photographer that shoots APSC I agree with you but also wish you were more elaborate for some of those that can’t visualize the difference. Yes FF would suit my line of work better but I’m happy with my work. Id have a FF system but it’s way over my budget but for the average shooter FF is an overkill.
Awesome! my mind is totally clear, love you man <3