GUEST POST FEATURE HERE
Write Your Articles Directly On FujiRumors!
Guest post by theoverratedphotographer – website / instagram @theoverratedphotographer
Preface
On the back of Nikon’s comments that “No professionals use Fuji” and “Full frame is the trend”, I decided it was only appropriate to explore the difference between full frame and APSC, largely from an enthusiasts/amateurs perspective.
Despite what it may look like this is not intended as a click bait article but it will probably will be construed as one and result in the wrath of many full frame owners.
The problem is photographers get defensive when you tell them they don’t need something. Our egos tell us we are better than we are. That’s why we buy the best bicycles, golf clubs and everything else conceivable. We buy ultralight tour de france bicycles that will shave seconds off our ride to work for no apparent reason at all.
This article is not intended to be an APSC vs Full Frame argument from the perspective of trying to prove that APSC is better than Full Frame. The question isn’t whether, it’s better, it’s whether it’s “good enough” to make a difference to you. I can’t make that call, only you can.
We could argue Medium Format has better image quality than Full Frame which has better image quality than APSC. If that was the case, why isn’t every photographer using medium format? The truth is when looking at Medium Format vs Full Frame vs APSC, the argument of “what is better” comes down to a number of different requirements including purpose, size and budget. A DSLR isn’t much help if you are hiking 90km’s with a 40kg backpack and a medium format doesn’t help you much if you are shooting sports. In the absence of budget, one could argue that having all 3 would be the ideal outcome, but very few people live in an environment where budget is not a constraint.
Before the arguments start, what I would like to make clear is that:
