This one will never go away.
There is no doubt from my persepctive* that this is just another of those phurphies told by an industry bent on selling more/bigger/newer cameras, but I know there are a few of us who disagree and can prove it if needed ;).
Shape
First, lets look at the history of “full frame”.
When the first makers of compact and portable stills cameras went looking for a film stock to make a “miniature” camera format, easily sourced 35mm film stock was the logical, the only real choice. It was first used as the movie shooters used it, but vertically being the later named “half frame” of 18x24 4:3 ratio. The later Simplexpresented a pair of options, one of which resulted in an odd shape the wider 3:2 ratio 24x36. The 3:2 ratio was never popular with print makers, magazine editors or even frame makers, but it was bigger which matterred when quality was premium. Leitz then adopted the horizontal format officially and that cemented the 35mm 3:2 format into history.
Almost all formats that came before were squarer, but this did not stop 35mm “full frame” from shoe-horning itself into the mainsteam market.
Fast forward to the dawn of digital and the term “full frame” became known as the professional format, almost promoted to a status of mystical superiority. This was because the early formats of digital, forced by technical realities of making sensors, were smaller, but also some common sense prevailed and a few deliberately went away from 3:2 full frame.
Canon and Nikon as the main players were never happy relinquishing full frame as their pro offerring**, but the reality was, the economy of sensor manufacture guaranteed full frame sensor cameras sat at the top of the tree, further reinforcing the perception they were the one true format, the format to aspire to.
Some companies looked at the whole thing from scratch, such as the 4:3 consortium, who decided to (1) go back to a better shape for print and at that time screen and (2) chose a sensor that actually made lens design easier. It was easier for them, because Olympus in particular had not much of a working legacy to support and Panasonic and Fuji effetively started their push here, choosing 4:3 and APS-C respectively as their primary formats.
While we are on it, I feel there are really only two true formats of choice, the square and 16:9 wide screen or wider. The square is convenient, equitable, expressive and logical, while the wide screen format is proven to make sense to our two eyed view of the world.
The 3:2 format is not as settled, crops poorly and forces a wide/tall choice that is often not satisfying or even convenient. The sensor is also too wide for good lens design. The designer need to cover a lot of width for a low content of height.
below are four crops (well three and an original). Which is best? Up to you, but the bottom two to me are more decisive, more poweful, the top two are much of a muchness, the 4:3 one though is more versatile.
When chosing a shape for my images I find the square is exciting and freeing, cinema wide feels “right” and a little epic looking. My standard 4:3 is convenient and less wasteful to make square, but 3:2 is a poor compromise of all of these. The reality is, 3:2 is not a shape enabler it is a shape forcer like square or wide screen, but more limiting. Interestingly, no one I have ever submit my images to has every noticed or complained about my squarer submissions.
My editors both at the school and the paper say the same thing, “shoot horizontal, so we can crop vertically if needed”. Almost all the templates we are forced to use still ignore 3:2 as the norm, often forcing us to accomodate wider or squarer.
This image has enough height at the distance shot. On a 3:2 ratio camera a little more width would have been needed. It can also go vertical with ease.
Ok, so full frame, a format that is the current pro choice is by default an odd choice and has a mixed history. Remove nostalgia and legacy and it makes little sense to stay with it in the modern era. Like the mirror, it is a hold over from the past, a convenience, a habit, supporting the legacy of the two big guns in the industry.
Quality
Next, we need to look at quality or more accurately sufficiency.
What do we actually need? The line peddled regularly is we need more, but ironically, highly ironically, the only medium that needs more resolution in real terms is print, a form of image viewing that is dying before our eyes. When we needed quality in a print based world, resolution or raw image quality was elusive, creating a desire that was hard to sate, but now we have tons of quality and the software to fake it if needed, few ever do.
Taken from a half body (+) image.
I was talking to a friend the other day who is running a 60mp Sony, but never uses his images for more than screen viewing! The proper viewing distance rule has always been the limit that addresses print size needs. Print a billboard, then stand back and look at it. Stand close enough to see the dots that make it up and you cannot see the image. How close do you sit to your TV screen? You are dot or pixel peeking and only photo nerds do that to prove a pointless point.
Enough for most people is 2mp (a 1080p screen), maybe 8mp (4k), but even then, a good screen and good base image quality will defy you seeing any real difference at proper viewing distances. We are constantly looking at high res on lower res screens or the opposite, almost never realising the inherent compromise. Some of the sharpest images you see on TV are still recorded on 720 HD. Even 4k is only 8mp.
What resolutuon did the masters of painting have or the vast majority of film photos in the 20th century? They satisfied all our visceral needs at the time and are often revered now, because they were good in all ways relevant and the technical limits did not stop that from happening. The large format film shooter had enough quality to satisfy any needs, even in the 1930’s, but most of us were happy with less.
As we move through our image making history, we are sold the idea that quality is all. This is true to an extend, but what we need to remember is quality is a combination of things all supporting each other, not a single number or value.
Ask yourself this;
If M43 or crop frame are inherently inferior, then why would any company, especially one with 100 years of innovation and excellence behind it stake it’s whole future on these formats? Why indeed would a photographer who was working in a camera shop with all it’s buying advantages buy into that system and then, with the opportunity to re-think their path, choose it all again and go even deeper?
One day a few years ago I decided to test my Fuji and Olympus cameras and lenses against each other with the intention of choosing between them in the short and longer term. All was going fine until I discovered, after a lot of normal sized viewing, that the Fuji images were actually taken as small jpegs (amazing jpegs being a Fuji thing, so that bit was no surprise).I had this set to take some web images for ebay. I had not noticed even at 8x10 print sizes, that the Fuji files were tiny. Super sharp, colourful, but tiny. One of the main reasons this went unnoticed was my determination to look at the images fairly, using the 29” screen of my Mac without peeking closer and a decent print as the gauge. Turns out the Fuji files just filled the screen with little more to offer, but were fine for that.
Contradictions are plenty. The mobile phone industry and even most full frame makers are quick to sell us on the benefits of their 1” sensor super compacts, their APS-C range or even the smaller sensors in their remaining compact cameras, but then they want you to believe that anything short of full frame is a compromise unworthy of a professional.
From 12mp on in crop frame, only printers or pixel peepers were dissatisfied. The rest of us could not tell the difference and the customer/client/employer usually does not care. My sisters favourite image I have taken for her was on a 6mp crop camera and she always comments on the “quality” of the image.
Search the internet for examples of people "fooling” clients or viewers with their lesser gear posing as top flight equipment***. M43 passing as full frame, low res prints indestinguishable from high res. The list goes on and on, all made irrelevant by application and even time itself.
If the next great thing is needed to make future images, then what about everything that came before?
In the film era, format did make some difference, because lacking computers for post we could only enlarge like to like. Physics at work. Start with a bigger negative then you can enlarge to a bigger size, but even then, some of the benefit of the larger formats was lost due to the difficulty of making better, larger format lenses. The Nikkor 55 micro blew away the standard 80mm Hasselblad lens for actual resolution measued in lines-per-mil, a lens that in itself had a near perfect reputation, but it relied very much on the bigger format for its raw quality.
Convenience and Empowerment
I can go on forever about the massive size difference between my M43 lenses and their full frame equivalents, but lets look at this seriously.
The squarer M43 sensor is a lens designers shape of choice. A square sensor matched to a circular lens shape makes the most logical choice, so closer to square makes more sense than not. This means the sensor offers more useable area for the design and even smaller lenses.
Not a choice for me. The newer Olympus is at least a match for this well respected war horse and the rest speaks for itself.
The reality is if they went with a half sized 3:2 ratio, the sensor area would have to be even smaller or the lenses bigger. The lens mounts on M43 cameras are quite relaxed, in comparison to some full frame ones anyway (the Sony mount actually clips the sensor corners). Nikon has gone super wide with their Z series cameras, but that is again partially because of the shape of their sensor. They could actually squeeze a 4:3 medim format one in there also and may intend to.
I can realistically carry a 600 f4 around with me in my day kit and regulalry have a 300 f2.8 at hand. My 300 f4 is a toy compared to most. There are examples with every lens I own of bigger, heavier, more expensive full frame equivalents, that are often optically compromised or are even more ridiculaously oversized to avoid that. Look at the Sigma ART series for example. Packing 2-3 of their FF 1.4 primes into a bag is no laughing matter, but in M43, it is not a big deal (although they are bigger than most M43 lenses as they can fit APS-C also).
My cathartic moment came when I was showing a friend my Canon 35 f1.4L and my Panasonic 20 f1.7. The size difference was drastic, but I knew that my images at that time (5d mk2 vs EM5 mk1) were effectively the same, the Oly often winning on speed and focus accuracy and always for convenience.
Would I, knowing what I know, sacrifice my current flexibility and freedom for the assumed, but mostly un-provable advantage of full frame quality? No way.
This file is a crop from the image below. Taken on a tiny, relaitively cheap zoom acting as a ff 300 f4 equivalent, it is more than enough for any uses, even without aggressive post processing.
I work with two photographers who omly take a small part of their FF kit with them on a job, because the whole lot is back breaking. I cannot help but wonder if they miss opportunities by leaving things behind. I have a comprehensive kit including 18-300 FF equivalent focal lengths in zooms and some fast primes, two cameras, video and flash accessories, all in a bag that would only handle one of their bodies and an attached lens. I still manage to complain about weight!
Real Benefits
The most often sited benefits of full frame compared to smaller formats are better high ISO noise control and shallower depth of field when needed. These two really wrankle and are the foundation of many full frame users feeling of superiority and non full framers sense of injustice.
Depth of field is a creative tool, but who is to say one format is better than the next. If you want super creamy, super shallow depth, the difference between M43 and FF formats is not going to make a huge difference.
For a real change in depth of field try large format with movements! The rules of depth of field are based on lens magnification, aperture, distance to subject relative to their distance to the background. Basically, the same lens on any format will produce the same DOF, but will be effectively different in practical focal length. There is a lot going on here and relatively small differences in sensor size, determining actual lens magnification, is only one small element. Even a compact camera can achieve very shallow depth of field if used well.
Even at effectively 600mm at f9 on a full frame, there is not enough depth of field to get all the birds sharp. I rarely complain about having too much depth of field.
I find professionally, a little more depth of field is always a good thing. I can fake less in post, but not more. I can use my f1.8 lenses wide open more often than not, gaining the benefit of their light gathering power without worrying about stupidly shallow depth of field.
This brings us to the second point, noise at high ISO settlings. I will go on record here and say I believe software will kill this monster way before sensor size make any real diffierence. I can regulalrly use ISO 6400 in my work, which is more than enough, with little fear of dissapointing a client (they never seem to notice). There is a balance between the quality of the latest M43 sensors and good processing.
Add to this the above mentioned depth of field advantage and I can shoot two ISO settings lower than a full frmae shooter in the same situation. Sure the Full framer can buy the same focal length and speed and gain those ISO settings back, but can they?
A full frame pro body and 150-200, f1.8 to f2 lens would come in at $10-1500au+ (if available at all). The closest I have seen is the Canon 135 f2L, a great lens, but matched or actually beaten by the Oly 150 f1.8 (75 f1.8) at half the price and smaller. This on an EM1x comes in at about $3500au. The full framer can also crop if blessed with more pixels, but that often evens out the advantage as 40mp+ drop to 20mp odd, the same as the M43 camera and that resolution advantage you paid for is lost.
ISO 25,600 properly exposed with a quick trip through C1 and ON1 No Noise. More than just a rescue mission.
Relying on a full frame camera’s sensor and running the files through the same old soup is fine, but why limit yourself to using just the sensor size? If you do go the extra yard, then how much better is sensor A vs Sensor B? When you look a little deeper you see that the world has changed. We can all get enough from a lot less. I have seen amazing results from the latest phones.
Full frame has it’s advatages as does any format, but the relentless push for it to be the sole format for small cameras seems one eyed and pointless. To me it just seems to be the middle ground of the range of formats available and like many middle points, it is a compromise of ideas, master of none. Sometimes it forces a larger dynamic, but not add a decent enough jump in quality.
If the ability to shoot good enough quality for a fine art grade 16"x20” print from a well treated ISO 3200 file is enough, then M43 will do fine, maybe more than enough. For screen filling, even less is needed. Before you go and get that monster sensor camera with 30+ MP, and a lens stable to match, consider what you are actually going to use it for. It may be that less is more.
Just my take.
*20+ years working in camera shops, 35+ years using cameras of all formats and media.
**Canon never made a red ring lens for APSC, Nikon never even fully fleshed out their lens offerings for crop sensor and Sony still under sells and supports their excellent APS-C cameras. Ironically, I found many of their older lenses performed much better on crop sensors.
***Luminous Landscape have plenty, as does the Lens Rentals blog, Ming Thein, who shot a Rollex commercial with a 1” compact, etc, etc, etc.