A few years back a client needed 30x40 color prints for display in the lobby of their City Hall. I'd shot with a humble MFT Panasonic G1 which was just fine for their website. I'm a pro and the JPEGs were good straight out the camera and the question was what would they look like as 30x40's???


There was a public reception gig and in attendance were members of the local camera club who had a close-up look and after critical examination I was asked if I'd shoot with a 4x5 camera and a news shooter with a brace of D4's flat-out questioned my honesty!

If a photographer is sloppy then RAW files from a FF camera will certainly help in corrective PP, a harsh judgement on my part but I'm too not far of the mark with this observation.

It costs more... has snob appeal for some.

It performs about one f/stop better in low light than APS-C (there’s less noise, better color) and nearly two stops better than Micro 4/3.

Manufacturers can cram more sensor sites on the imaging chip. This allows bigger prints, tighter cropping, or some of each.

You use a longer lens to get the same field of view at the same distance from a subject. This creates shallower depth of field at the same aperture.

These qualities may, or may not, appeal to you. FF gear is bigger and heavier than APS-C, and MUCH bigger and heavier than Micro 4/3. It is generally more expensive.

There is nothing wrong with any format, so long as it serves its purpose for your needs. Get what makes sense.

Most Photo Labs will tell you that <5% of prints sold are larger than 11x14. Over 90% of images are bound for Internet sharing sites (Facebook, Instagram, etc.). Few of us spend much of our time photographing in dark places.

That said, if you want room to crop, or if you make LARGE landscape images, or if you photograph scenes that will be printed huge and examined from a foot away, full frame gear becomes desirable.