SteveR Loc: Michigan

A Bonneville from the 60's.

canon Lee

Full Frame means you get more of the scene and a crop sensor crops off 1.6% of the scene. this is very important when you are shooting in tight spaces and need to get all of the scene.

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

Totally agree!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

FYI, the illustration that Linda from Maine posted is significantly enlarged.

So called "full frame" is the same as the images that most 35mm cameras made: 24x36mm. A U.S. quarter is 25mm in diameter, to help put that into perspective. Part of the reason for "full frame" term being used to describe digital was people moving from film cameras to digital and wanting their lenses to work the same. Today I bet a lot of buyers have never used film... so it's less relevant.

There are pros and cons to both full frame and APS-C formats. (As a side note, I find it interesting that these digital sensor formats both refer to film formats. "Full frame" references 35mm, while APS-C was a fairly short-lived film format, too.)

"Full frame" cameras and the full frame-capable lenses for use on them tend to be bigger, heavier and more expensive. For example, I often use a 300mm f/4 lens to shoot sporting events with an APS-C camera.... that lens cost around $1300 new and weighs about 3 lb., so is easily hand held. In order to use a full frame camera to shoot from the same location and frame my subjects the same way, I'd need a 500mm f/4 lens that weighs closer to 8 lb. and costs almost $10,000... plus a tripod to sit it on, making me less mobile.

"APS-C" format digital cameras are far more widely sold. They use a sensor that's approx. 13x22mm (it varies a bit from brand to brand). APS-C cameras and the "crop sensor" lenses designed for them can be smaller and lighter weight. They also typically cost significantly less. And in most cases an APS-C format camera can use both "crop only" lenses and full frame-capable lenses.

Sensors are made from silicon wafers. Those come in standard "blank" sizes. A typical wafer can make 80 APS-C size sensors.... or 20 full frame size sensors. Plus those wafers sometimes have flaws that cause a sensor to fail quality control. If there are two flaws on a wafer that's used to make APS-C sensors and as a result two of them fail quality control, that's a 2.5% loss. But if the same wafer were used to make full frame sensors, two of which fail, that's a 10% loss. This and the other camera components that need to be scaled up for full frame are the reason that full frame cameras are more expensive than APS-C.

Modern full frame digital is massive overkill for most peoples' real-world uses of their cameras. You don't need a 46MP FF camera to post images to Instagram, Facebook or anywhere else online! Plus APS-C cameras have come a long, long way and seen significant image quality improvements in the most recent generations.

Depth of field and diffraction are actually very little different with full frame, than they are with APS-C. They just seem like it. The reason full frame seem to produce stronger background blur with large apertures actually has little to do with the format... it's how we have to use it, that makes the difference. In order to frame a subject the same way as we were doing with APS-C, with full frame you have to either use a longer focal length lens or move closer to your subject. Or maybe a little of each. These changes are most of the reason that full frame seems to produce stronger background blur effects.

Conversely, full frame also can be used at smaller apertures before diffraction becomes an issue. But the reason this is the case is simply because the full frame image will be considerably less magnified later, to make any given size of print. For example, assuming no cropping is done, an 8x12" print from a full frame image is approx. and 8X magnification. The same size print from an uncropped APS-C image is closer to 13X magnification. So diffraction which is caused by using a really small aperture is going to show up more in the APS-C image, than in the full frame image.

The result of these two factors is that full frame appears to give about 1 stop stronger blur with big lens apertures and it's usable about 1 stop smaller aperture when great depth of field is wanted. This increased range of control with the aperture range can make full frame a bit more desirable for portrait and landscape/architectural photography, for example. FF also may be preferable for macro work.

It is true that full frame cameras can make more noise free images at high ISOs.... but APS-C cameras have steadily improved in this respect, too. There also have been significant improvements in noise reduction software, too. Both formats can make usable images in far lower light conditions and at far higher ISO than was EVER possible with film.

I'd wager that the majority of full frame buyers actually never get any benefit from the larger format. They think they're getting some kind of help making "better images".... but in truth it may be simply making their shortcomings more obvious. And the user is often the only person who actually sees any of the "full frame goodness", while viewing their images "at 100%" on their computer monitors. By the time they've resized the image for its intended use, there's no visible difference that anyone else will ever see.

Full frame also may mean slower continuous shooting speeds and more noise from mirror "slap" and the bigger shutter in the camera. It's also common for full frame to have slower flash sync speeds. And the much larger image files some FF create will also require bigger memory cards, more hard drive storage space and a more powerful computer to work with them.

In the end, full frame never made anyone a better photographer. It's just a tool that can work well when used skillfully for the right reasons. But the exact same thing can be said for APS-C and other digital formats.

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

I get it, however, I wonder why so many of we FF’s are satisfied with such a “small” sensor compared to Medium format. So much of all this arguing back and forth about camera size is such nonsense.... It reminds me of those in the classic car hobby who felt that a Caddy was the best partly due to size, until the little Chevy Corvette whooped it in the mid 50s. To each their own. Today’s sensors and accompanying tech are doing to FF just what the little Chev did to the once “mighty” Caddy so many years ago. Today’s high-tech Tesla, et al are blowing the brand up once more in the 2000s. So tired of this brick-a-brack over the size of a camera’s sensor.

Cheers!

BebuLamar

Today when people say "Full Frame" they mean cameras with sensor size of 24x36mm or close to that. All Nikon full frame (they call it FX) cameras have sensors slightly smaller than 24mm x 36mm. The term "Full Frame" doesn't make sense to me. It's actually more meaningful back in the days when there were very few of them. The most valid reason (to me) for calling them full frame because back in the beginning of the DSLR's most manufacturers used the same lens system, shutter, mirror from a 35mm SLR for their DSLR's which had smaller sensor than the 35mm frame. Today Nikon still use the same lens mount for their DX cameras but they do make lenses specifically for them as well as they use smaller mirror and shutter for these cameras. They also increase the viewfinder magnification on these cameras so the term "Full Frame" is no longer meaningful in my opinion.

Dan Ausec

Dan Ausec

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

No larger, called large format but is basically only film. Recently a guy converted a house into a pinhole camera and made the largest image ever using a whole wall as a print.

Bipod

Great diagram, but of course blow up for clarity to about twice tha actual scale.

The traditional term for "full frame" is "miniature format". This is relevant because
an inch is still an inch--a chihuahua with a digital collar is still a small dog.

ROLL FILM WIDTH
To the best of my knowledge, the widest roll film in current production is 120/220 (2.4 inch wide stock),
and the largest sheet film in current production is 8" x 10". This has approximately 60 times the area of
35 mm ("full frame").

Guess the world really is shirnking, or at least, expectations are. Why buy a bigger dog, when a chihuahua
will do? Not life size:

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Just more of your trolling.

Before I forget, please do us a favor and remind us what the traditional term is for the sensor size in your 13 year old digital P&S camera that you take on hikes?

Bipod

Perhaps if you knew more about photography, you would understand how much has been lost
because of "small fits all".

I have always owned cameras of various sizes and types, in order to have the right tool for the job.
I do not take my expensive cameras into wet conditions, scamble up hills with them, or leave hem
in my car.

You can do whatever you like tdekany. But who is the troll here?

Shutterbug57

[SARC]Wow, was that the first time somebody did that?[/SARC]

tdekany Loc: Oregon

You are. Whether you like change or not, it is irrelevant. You are the only person, who, gets involved in threads to push your bias against modern technology. Full frame is the new standard.

In any case, my question wasn’t what you take out or not, I asked this question:

What is the traditional term used for the sensor size in your 13 year old P&S camera?

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Yes they are smaller, but only if you're looking thru the wrong end of binoculars.