Is full frame really necessary?

[Emanuel]

We can start the discussion from possible many angles indeed... let alone the customary DOF or use of slower glass and strictly going from a low light perspective?

 

[PannySVHS]

FF gives me cheap wide angles and cheap entry into all focal lengths. Nuff said. Thank you for dropping the wisdom. Spend money on camera body, save money on lenses, if AF does not matter. Just the thought of putting a 28mm or a 50mm Canon FD on my S1 makes my heart rush. Beautiful! Now, Panasonic, give your beautiful Lumix S1 a free 10bit VLOG update, 10bit 4k60p included. Put out a paid update for 10bit 120fps HD and your ALL Intra Codec for 799 EU and S1, S5 and S1H will coexist and all become megasellers. S2H, SDI and internal NDs for 4499EU in 2022.:) So, FF is great.

[zerocool22]

Nah Fullframe is not needed. But for me it is handy if you do photography(full frame) and video and you want to share the same lenses.

A bit offtopic: but the dynamic range of the 8K R5 RAW  shouldnt be limited by clog right? So It is safe to say that the pocket 6K has more DR then the R5?

[SteveV4D]

Given how many movie and TV productions use S35 cameras and lenses, I would say, no its not necessary.  Its better in lowlight and you can have more OOF at the same aperture, but apart from that, its not adding more to a cinematic image.

[MrSMW]

I actually prefer...at least at the moment, my APSC crop Fuji XT3's because of the extra 'reach' of the equivalent FF lenses.

Such as my Sig 18-35 in 4k 50p crop is more like a 32-62mm lens yet still an f1.8 for light gathering purposes.

If I had a need for wide(r) angle, I think I'd go FF though.

For low light stuff, XT3 suits my needs more than well enough, at least in regard to video which is a bit more forgiving than stills.

But other than that, for me it's not 'necessary'.

[David Bowgett]

It's not needed, but right now it's the direction the industry seems to be moving in. Only Fujifilm and, weirdly enough, Canon really seem to be pushing the boundary in terms of APS-C sensors right now, and things have been even slower on the m4/3 front.

[Geoff CB]

For me it's not necessary but it comes down to the lenses I'm investing in. At this time I'm not willing to buy any glass that doesn't cover full frame. So by extension I lean towards full frame camera purchases in the future because that takes the most advantage of the lenses I have and will continue to buy.

[Yannick Willox]

1 hour ago, David Bowgett said:

It's not needed, but right now it's the direction the industry seems to be moving in. Only Fujifilm and, weirdly enough, Canon really seem to be pushing the boundary in terms of APS-C sensors right now, and things have been even slower on the m4/3 front.

And maybe the Ursa mini pro 12k...

[Trankilstef]

For video I personnally super 35/APS-C is the sweet spot. I really like micro 4/3 too for video. But I can't really appreciate taking stills on a crop sensor. For now I only use mirrorless bodies for my stills business and for my filmmaking business (except when I need to rent a certain camera for a project). But if I would buy a proper video camera, I'm pretty sure I'd go for a super 35 camera like the C300 MkIII  for video and keep a full frame camera for my photography.

[David Bowgett]

2 hours ago, Yannick Willox said:

And maybe the Ursa mini pro 12k...

Well, I was talking stills cameras specifically. It's a bit of a different picture (excuse the pun) in the pro video market, since there's already so many lenses, both new and vintage designed to project a Super 35 image circle, and APS-C's obviously a better fit for that.

[BenEricson]

2 hours ago, Trankilstef said:

I'm pretty sure I'd go for a super 35 camera like the C300 MkIII  for video and keep a full frame camera for my photography.

The C500 Mkii is nice, with the ability to switch between Full Frame and Super 35.

That being said, you certainly do not need some giant sized sensor to create cinematic visuals.

[Trankilstef]

29 minutes ago, BenEricson said:

That being said, you certainly do not need some giant sized sensor to create cinematic visuals.

Exactly what I think.

[EphraimP]

I think the premise of the question is unhelpful. What you NEED to capture images, still or moving, is light, a sensor to capture that light, and a lens to focus it, right? Everything falls into the category of aesthetic or practical choices.

Framing a discussion around the relative benefits and drawbacks of full frame is much more interesting. Having always shot ASP-C/Super 35 since I first picked up a digital camera, I'm definitely interested in playing with that idea.

[noone]

Until they come up with a 8.5mm high quality tilt shift lens for M43 that will work on a camera in low light at (at least) ISO 25600  with at least 9 stops of DR, yes for me!

[Trek of Joy]

Its such an individual thing, its an impossible discussion to have - hence the millions of mind-numbing arguments about equivalence. They're all tools that can get the job done. IMO the best balance of IQ with camera/lens size and cost is FF for stills and now - for me - video too. I need great AF, and really don't want to juggle two (or more) sets of lenses anymore. Now that FF cameras have some mind blowing video specs, its all come together - again for me. Personally I like the look of a fast wide, my 24 or 28/1.4 is my favorite, and I can only get that on a FF. Fuji's 16/1.4 and various m43 options come close, but its just not the same. I can't imagine the size of a Fuji equivalent to Sony's minuscule 24/1.4 GM since they said the 33/1.0 needed a tripod collar for support and was too large/expensive to make a reality. The new 50/1.0 is huge. I like the creative options with shallow DOF at times too, and again its much easier with FF. But I recognize everyone has different needs, I'm not trying to say one is better, I just prefer the IQ and aesthetic options FF gives me.

The arguments against FF years ago - mainly big/expensive lenses and bodies - are a thing of the past when you look at the Tamron zooms and lenses like the Sony 20G, 24GM, 85 1.8 and so on - compared to Olympus Pro primes or something like that new Fuji 50/1.0. Unless you shoot Panasonic's S lenses LOL! Its easy to go small/light, or no compromise with IQ or speed and thanks to so many jumping in on the E-mount, there are more 3rd party options than anything on the mirrorless side. I'm deliberately ignoring DSLR stuff because I don't shoot anything with a mirror anymore. But when you look at the popularity of speedboosters, lots shooting sensors smaller than FF are still looking for that FF aesthetic. IDK, just my perspective.

As always YMMV.

Chris

[markr041]

Maybe I am missing something, but with a full-frame camera you have the choice of shooting in APS-C or full-frame with a full-frame lens, right (true for the sigma fp and the Nikon Z6, for examples)? Then you can choose the look, lens and capabilities depending on the scene. Some movies change aspect ratios, why not FF and crop aesthetics too?

[ntblowz]

I like the flexibility of using crop mode if need more reach on FF, that is my biggest convenient point.

 

Sadly only R5/R6 can meet my point atm for 4k60 on FF and Crop mode. A7s3 is FF mode only while Pana is S35 only.

[SteveV4D]

2 hours ago, Trek of Joy said:

But when you look at the popularity of speedboosters, lots shooting sensors smaller than FF are still looking for that FF aesthetic. IDK, just my perspective.

Definitely not.  There is no fullframe aesthetic as far as I'm concerned.  Just advanatages with depth of field, especially at wide angle and low noise.  

I got a speedbooster simply to make my 18 to 35 S35 lens more consistent with MFT field of view.  As for depth of field, choosing a MFT Voigtlander lens at 0.95 aperture is hardly chasing fullframe, but still gives improvements in lowlight.  But again, its more practical in darker venues than aesthetics.

[SteveV4D]

1 hour ago, markr041 said:

Maybe I am missing something, but with a full-frame camera you have the choice of shooting in APS-C or full-frame with a full-frame lens, right (true for the sigma fp and the Nikon Z6, for examples)? Then you can choose the look, lens and capabilities depending on the scene. Some movies change aspect ratios, why not FF and crop aesthetics too?

Why pay for fullframe and not use it?  I don't agree with movies changing aspect ratios between shots, but I've no problem mixing fullframe and S35 and many productions do mix the two.  Were I to do so, I would choose a S35 cinema camera mixed with fullframe hybrid.  Each have their advantages.  

However this has nothing to do with the argument, is fullframe necessary.  Its more a question of how important fullframe is currently needed to shoot with.  I still feel that its not.  Yes, fullframe hybrids are dominating the market, but S35 is still popular for cinema cameras, and we can expect to see it continue for many more years.

[Trek of Joy]

45 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

Definitely not.  There is no fullframe aesthetic as far as I'm concerned.  Just advanatages with depth of field, especially at wide angle and low noise.  

I got a speedbooster simply to make my 18 to 35 S35 lens more consistent with MFT field of view.  As for depth of field, choosing a MFT Voigtlander lens at 0.95 aperture is hardly chasing fullframe, but still gives improvements in lowlight.  But again, its more practical in darker venues than aesthetics.

I'm not speaking in absolutes, but some buy speedbosters to get shallower DOF or reduce the crop factor. That's why I said its an individual thing. I'm aware of the other aspects, but that's not what I was talking about. Yes there's no FF specific aesthetic, but there's no lens available that gets me the same thing I get with a 24/1.4 or 135/1.8 with smaller sensors. Aesthetic was just a poor choice of words for DOF at a given FOV.

But again its an individual thing, I shoot with available light and I need photos for everything I shoot. For me FF has significant advantages over everything else, its the sweet spot of size/cost/IQ - for me. YMMV.

Cheers

Chris