We often read several articles and threads about how fullframe HDSLRs are better and superior to competitors with smaller sensors, but no one really explores what the differences are and especially the disadvantages of FullFrame sensors, because there are several and NOT eliminable.

The only advantage of fullframe sensors is that by using fulframe lenses there are no crop factors and therefore a lens is used as an angle for what it is, it is not reduced, but that is the only real advantage, on the contrary there are a whole host of disadvantages that most fullframe advocates forget, or simply have never had two systematic experiences…

What are the disadvantages of a fullframe sensor?

  1. The FullFrame sensor uses the whole surface of the lens, which means no crop, this is good, but on the other hand you can only mount excellent lenses because otherwise you lose definition laterally, you can find halos, fringing etc. on the edges of the images… so you have to invest no less than a thousand euros to get very good quality lenses, or a good zoom like a 28-70 2.8 that costs 1600…
    With a smaller sensor you will use only the central part of the lens, so the best part, consequently by using medium to high quality lenses, you will always be able to take advantage of the best of the lens.
  2. Cmos sensors all suffer from Rolling shutter, that is, they scan the image one line after another, which means that very fast panning and rotational movements distort the images. The fullframe sensor on fast panorama movements generates a very annoying jello effect. The larger the sensor the stronger and more disturbing the effect, while with a sensor half the size it is almost imperceptible.
  3. Fullframe sensors possess greater pixel resolution than smaller sensors (crucial for the photographic side), but that becomes a handicap for video.
    Image scaling of the large sensors of HDSLRs results in most cases in a quality loss that does not occur with smaller sensors, because they use different scaling techniques. Sony in this case uses a pixel binning algorithm for scaling its FF camera and offers good definition without moires artifacts and aliasing, but it is a white fly…
  4. Large-sensor machines tend for some reason to overheat more than those with s35 and smaller sensors. Often because being born for the photo shoot, the burst, they are not meant for continuous, steady shooting. In my own experience with varying temperatures, but especially ambient humidity, I have encountered several overheating problems, while in “drier” situations I have been able to use fullframe cameras in the midday sun without problems of overheating lockup. This means that they offered me less working reliability….

So why use fullframe sensors?
To not have the crop problem that multiplies the length of the lens focal angle, which complicates life when using wide-angle lenses in tight quarters.

Is it worth it?
Now with the release of adapters like speedboosters that reduce the crop gap with multipliers of x ,058 on the m4/3 and also give you an extra aperture of brightness, there are fewer and fewer reasons to choose a fullframe sensor camera…

Of course I imagine someone will object that with fullframes they blur more than with aps-c or m4/3, have a good laugh, then tell him to study photography again, and then think again about his statement.
The myth that the fullframe blurs more stems from the fact that when comparing the two sensors everyone uses nonequivalent lenses to have the same focal angle, so on smaller sensors they use wider-angle lenses, which are known to have a greater depth of field…

In reality the majority of lenses are born for fullframe size, but then are projected by cropping to smaller focal planes, with the simple result that the depth of field does not change, because the concentration of light does not change, but is simply discarded.
Have a doubt? take a fixed, mechanical, 50mm 1.4 nikon from 40 years ago, place it via adapter in front of a 5d/a7r/7D/gh4, with the same shutter settings such as shutter speed and aperture, then superimpose it and you will find that the images, despite the crop of cropping around the image that captures more or less information, the depth of field is exactly the same, because it is the lens, its construction, how light passes through the different lenses and their projection that define the image, it is impossible that the sensor can depending on its size alter the light a posteriori…

The deception is related to the fact that lenses used to be designed for the focal plane, while EF-s lenses i.e. frontally like ef lenses and then with a concentration of light for a smaller format, but keeping the crop (so useless to make for a smaller format if you throw away part of the image anyway) the dof remains the same.

p1010076to demonstrate just look at this photograph taken with a m4/3 gh3 camera (camera declared no dof by fullframe fanboys, but with a fullframe lens in front, 50mm 1.4 and amazingly (for them, for me it is normal) I have the reduced dof of a fullframe… like my sony A7r.