There are advantages and disadvantages of each. I like the size of APSC and its lens better. I also like the extra reach. I have a Fujifilm X-T3 paired with a Tamron 18-300, which from a full frame standpoint is 27-450. I don't print large photos, so any extra resolution of full frame, as they say, is not an issue with me. The one issue that is important is low light performance. I keep hearing that full frame gives you an extra stop. So I find that I get acceptable photos to ISO 6400 when then processed with Topaz DeNoise. I would love to have higher ISO. When I see or hold the size and weight of the full frame cameras, I say not for me. I am 72. No thanks to the extra weight. Plus when I compare cost, the full frame cameras are more expensive. Attached is a recent photo taken with an APSC camera.

For the last decade I've been a devoted user of full frame DSLRs. It's been quite a love affair. dozens of weddings and portraits, commercial work and thousands of miles of travel, lightpainting and astrophotography. My digital photography started in earnest with a Sony NEX6, which is an APS-C camera. From there I graduated to a Nikon D750 and what a difference! Boom. But in the last decade it seems that APS-C cameras have greatly advanced. I'm currently trying out the Nikon Zfc, which is a 2022 APS-C camera and comparing to my D750, it's really hard to tell any difference. I've tried low light, high ISO, etc. No, I don't want to buy the Zfc. It simply doesn't have the amount of control I'm used to and it's hard to hold in my hand. But here's my questions - are today's APS-C sensors equivalent to full frame or are they just equivalent to my 10 year old D750? Are new full frame cameras better at handling noise? How about dynamic range? And my second question is, if APS-C has gotten so much better, what about MFT? In other words, does sensor size matter anymore? Because my 72 year old body wouldn't mind lighter gear on my shoulders but I also don't want to go backwards in quality and capability. Comments?

For the last decade I've been a devoted user of full frame DSLRs. It's been quite a love affair. dozens of weddings and portraits, commercial work and thousands of miles of travel, lightpainting and astrophotography. My digital photography started in earnest with a Sony NEX6, which is an APS-C camera. From there I graduated to a Nikon D750 and what a difference! Boom. But in the last decade it seems that APS-C cameras have greatly advanced. I'm currently trying out the Nikon Zfc, which is a 2022 APS-C camera and comparing to my D750, it's really hard to tell any difference. I've tried low light, high ISO, etc. No, I don't want to buy the Zfc. It simply doesn't have the amount of control I'm used to and it's hard to hold in my hand. But here's my questions - are today's APS-C sensors equivalent to full frame or are they just equivalent to my 10 year old D750? Are new full frame cameras better at handling noise? How about dynamic range? And my second question is, if APS-C has gotten so much better, what about MFT? In other words, does sensor size matter anymore? Because my 72 year old body wouldn't mind lighter gear on my shoulders but I also don't want to go backwards in quality and capability.

Comments?

Each year the ability to make better chips improves, and the quality of smaller sensors does too. Moore’s law isn’t perfect, (every 18 months you get twice the capacity for half the cost) but it certainly illustrates the trend.

While you are specifically mentioning formats common to pro and amateur cameras, consider also the trend to even smaller sensor formats which are buried in cell phones. Not only are the tiny sensors very good, but the computers they are attached to get better every year, too.

I think pictures from last year’s 12 mp cell phones are as good as pictures from 12 mp cameras of a decade or more ago. And future year’s cell phones will be even better.

A hundred years Leica showed that with higher resolution film, and higher resolution lens designs, a 35 mm camera could produce images on par with what a 4x5 press camera could produce. In a much smaller and lighter system.

Some of the improvements in small format were picked up with larger format gear and emulsions, but obviously the market shifted to the smaller size. Cell phone cameras are now that smaller size.

You’ll probably see something similar play out over the years with digital. Innovation in tiny sensors for cell phones will be applied to larger sensors used in cameras.

The question you might have asked would have been about even larger sensors. Look at the other end of the spectrum, too: there aren’t a lot of physically big sensors on the market at any cost.

I think Lots of people are waiting for a cheap 4x5 sensor with even 1 mp per square inch—the equivalent of a 20-year-old 1.5 mp full frame camera—but multiplied over 20 times the area. It would be a 20 mp large format sensor. And if they could make the 60 mp chips (about 40 mp per square inch) then there would be something between 1000 to 1200 mp on a 4x5 format!

I think the bigger chips are just too difficult to make currently. I guess they find more flaws as the chip size increases, which makes it more expensive to produce bigger sensors.

There are advantages and disadvantages of each. I like the size of APSC and its lens better. I also like the extra reach. I have a Fujifilm X-T3 paired with a Tamron 18-300, which from a full frame standpoint is 27-450. I don't print large photos, so any extra resolution of full frame, as they say, is not an issue with me. The one issue that is important is low light performance. I keep hearing that full frame gives you an extra stop. So I find that I get acceptable photos to ISO 6400 when then processed with Topaz DeNoise. I would love to have higher ISO. When I see or hold the size and weight of the full frame cameras, I say not for me. I am 72. No thanks to the extra weight. Plus when I compare cost, the full frame cameras are more expensive. Attached is a recent photo taken with an APSC camera.

…and I’m too lazy to figure out which would win at that point…but since the 850 is frequently said to have a 500 inside of it the difference at DX crop is likely small at 1:1 and me to to nonexistent at output resolution. I have no idea whether the 2 bodies have the same sensor gen or not…but if they don’t then this is an apples to pears comparison and is relatively useless in the which format to shoot debate.

I shoot FF Z8 and Z9 currently…upgraded from APS-C for features, not format…and a Z7II body is almost identical in size and weight to a D500 anyway. As an older guy…eventually I will want to carry less and at that point MFT would actually be a bigger weight reduction…and for screen only output with equivalent quality lenses and body features one would be very hard pressed to see any difference in the actual output. Our local blowhard’s statements that only a certain brand of FF MILC can possibly take a good photo are just trolling…the best camera for person X or Y depends on many factors that are much more important than frame size.

For the last decade I've been a devoted user of full frame DSLRs. It's been quite a love affair. dozens of weddings and portraits, commercial work and thousands of miles of travel, lightpainting and astrophotography. My digital photography started in earnest with a Sony NEX6, which is an APS-C camera. From there I graduated to a Nikon D750 and what a difference! Boom. But in the last decade it seems that APS-C cameras have greatly advanced. I'm currently trying out the Nikon Zfc, which is a 2022 APS-C camera and comparing to my D750, it's really hard to tell any difference. I've tried low light, high ISO, etc. No, I don't want to buy the Zfc. It simply doesn't have the amount of control I'm used to and it's hard to hold in my hand. But here's my questions - are today's APS-C sensors equivalent to full frame or are they just equivalent to my 10 year old D750? Are new full frame cameras better at handling noise? How about dynamic range? And my second question is, if APS-C has gotten so much better, what about MFT? In other words, does sensor size matter anymore? Because my 72 year old body wouldn't mind lighter gear on my shoulders but I also don't want to go backwards in quality and capability. Comments?