Should Entry Level Shooters Consider Full Frame?

Full Frame for Entry Level?

The camera market has changed tremendously since the transition from film to dSLR over the last 10 to 15 years.   Early dSLRs used sensors smaller than the film found in traditional SLRs, due to the high cost of sensor production.  Gradually, the major camera makers (Canon, Nikon, Sony) started introducing “full frame” models using the larger sensor size, but those cameras were aimed at professionals and high end enthusiasts.   For the most part, when ordinary consumers and entry level shooters stepped up to an interchangeable lens camera, they were buying aps-c sensor cameras.

Over the last two to three years, as much of the camera market has collapsed, the manufacturers have been far more focused on full frame cameras.  We are now more than half-way through 2018, and only Canon and Fuji have introduced new aps-c models in 2018.   Sony, Nikon and Pentax have only introduced full frame cameras in the last year.   (Sony’s last three ILC cameras have all been full frame, no aps-c since 2016.  Nikon’s last aps-c camera was in April 2017.  Even Pentax, which had been solely aps-c until recently, hasn’t done a new aps-c model since January 2017).   Meanwhile, the prices of full frame have been dropping.

With a shrinking camera market, the camera makers want consumers stepping up to more expensive cameras, to maintain profitability.   But just because the camera makers are pushing people toward full frame, doesn’t mean that buyers should necessarily follow.    In this post, let’s address whether in today’s world, entry-level type shooters should be considering full frame.

Pros and Cons:  Full frame vs APS-C

You can find lots of articles written all over the internet about the advantages and disadvantages of full frame compared to aps-c.   Without going into detail, the basic advantages of full frame:

• Better low light performance and image quality
• Truer wide angle shooting
• Potential for more resolution (*depending on body)
• Potential for narrower depth of field (more background blur)
• Current full frame bodies tend to be more advanced than average aps-c bodies.   The high-end aps-c bodies are often similar to low end full frame bodies, at similar price.

Disadvantages of full frame compared to aps-c shooting:

• Less telephoto “reach” out of lenses
• More expensive
• Heavier/bigger
• Flaws in lenses, technique and focus are more likely to be apparent when shooting full frame

In summary, full frame shooting grants a lot of superior potential.  Typical entry level and mid level aps-c cameras tend to have fairly cheap bodies, often without weather sealing, with limited direct manual controls.  Typical full frame bodies are more advanced, with more direct manual controls, dual card slots, weather sealing, etc.  With aps-c cameras, these features are reserved for high end aps-c cameras, which start to match full frame in size and price.

Image quality factors, especially low light performance, are directly tied to sensor size.   Without question, full frame sensors can provide the potential for superior image quality, but flaws also become more apparent.   There are many factors that go into depth of field or background blur.  (The portion of the frame that can appear critically sharp as opposed to the background and foreground being blurred).   Sensor size has a very strong indirect effect on the depth of field.  While background blur is often a desirable trait, it requires greater attention to accurate focus and technique.  Below is an example of a very narrow depth of field portrait.  If you look carefully (click for larger), you will note that the eyes are in perfect focus but the depth of field is so narrow, that the ears are quire blurred.  With wider depth of field, a miss in focus might be more forgivable.  With the narrow depth of field, even a slight miss could have ruined the image.

Full frame allows very narrow depth of field. Note the eyes are in perfect focus yet the ears are blurred

So while full frame can allow higher image quality, it is also more prone to demonstrating flaws.   Lenses are also more challenged when shooting on full frame.  APS-C cameras really only use the stronger center portion of a lens.  As a result, full frame shooting can result in vignetted or softer corners when not using the best lenses.

Finally, many aps-c shooters appreciate the benefit of “cropping” by the sensor and lens.   Ultimately, every image taken by an aps-c camera is being cropped by a factor of 1.5x (1.6x on Canon), giving an effective result of more telephoto reach.

In the end, full frame shooting has always been more expensive than aps-c shooting.  More expensive bodies and more expensive lenses.   So should today’s entry level shooters be investing in these more expensive cameras in pursuit of the potential for superior image quality?

The Price of Full Frame

Full frame camera remain far more expensive than today’s entry level aps-c cameras but prices of full frame have dropped tremendously over the last few years.   I bought my first entry-level aps-c dSLR in 2006 — a 10 megapixel Sony A100 for $1,000.  When considering the effect of inflation over the last 12 years, today’s full frame cameras are pretty comparable in price to entry level dSLRs of 10-15 years ago.

A number if full frame cameras are available for under $2000.

Considering that entry level aps-c dSLRs were $1000 in the mid 2000’s, paying $1400 to $2000 for a full frame camera today doesn’t seem that expensive.   Of course, entry level aps-c dSLRs have become much cheaper, with each of the below well under $1000:

• Nikon D3400 with kit lens
• Sony A6000 with kit lens
• Canon Rebel T6 with 2 lenses

So full frame bodies have become relatively cheap in a historical context but are still 3 to 4 times the price of aps-c in terms of current pricing.   That doesn’t even include the prices of lenses.  When shooting an aps-c, you can put together a nice kit of 2 to 3 lenses plus the camera for $1,000 to $2,000.   A total similar kit for full frame will typically run over $3,000.  Entry-level aps-c cameras are much cheaper, but those bodies have other sacrifices that we will discuss below.

Camera Size Differences

Full frame sensors are bigger than aps-c sensors, necessitating bigger bodies.   As the camera makers also load more controls and features into full frame cameras, they further become larger than entry level aps-c bodies.  But there is an important recent caveat, as shown below with this comparison from camerasize.com:

Mirrorless cameras have brought down the size of cameras, so that a full frame mirrorless camera, like the Sony A7iii, is pretty similar in size to an entry-level aps-c dSLR.   Still, as you add good lenses, a full frame kit will be larger and heavier.  A full frame mirrorless will certainly still be bigger than an aps-c mirrorless.  A full frame dSLR will be bigger and heavier than an entry level aps-c dSLR.

Yet in a historical context, as with price, you can now get full frame cameras similar in size to older entry level dSLRs.

Why Do People Buy “Real” Cameras?

This question and answer has changed a great deal in recent years.   It’s helpful to break down the question over time.   Pre-digital, when you had to load film, get it developed, etc….. We would ask:

Why Buy a Camera?

The reasons would vary by individual but would include a combination of:

• Document a historical record for yourself, your family
• Preserve memories with physical re-creations
• Artistic expression

In the early 2000’s, digital took over.   Digital added simplicity, no need to develop film.  Instantly delete images that were no good.   Instantly share images, at first with e-mail but later with Facebook, etc.  So in the early 2000’s, entry level shooters started to ask:

Why Buy a Digital Camera?

• Easily document a historical record for yourself and family
• Easily preserve memories with a click
• Easily share images and moments with others
• Artistic expression

In 2003, Canon released the first Canon Rebel dSLR, a consumer level digital SLR camera, priced at $999.  It was a huge success.  Minolta got into the dSLR game in 2004, with Sony taking over the mount in 2006.   Nikon released the first dSLR with video in 2008.  So the mid 2000’s saw explosive growth of dSLRs in the consumer market.   Putting aside their point and shoot cameras, we could ask a consumer/entry level shooter:

Why Buy a Digital-SLR (dSLR)?

• Easily document a historical record for yourself and family
• Easily preserve memories with a click
• Easily share images and moments with others
• Artistic expression
• Interchangeable lenses offering greater versatility than point and shoot cameras
• Superior image quality over small sensor point and shoot cameras
• The ability to manipulate narrow depth of field, background blur

Notice, up through this point, the list kept getting longer and longer.  More and more reasons to buy an upgraded camera.   But then something changed.  In 2007, the iphone was released.  While it had a pretty poor camera, smart phones started to invest heavily in improving the smart phone cameras.   Today, more is spent on research and development for small smart phone sensors than for big dSLR sensors, leading to smart phones being on the cutting edge of imaging.   As the smart phone cameras became pretty good, the list for traditional cameras started getting shorter.   If you goal was to easily and simply preserve some memories and share some images, a smart phone is better than a traditional camera.  Even today, you can’t instantly share on Instagram with a traditional camera, it’s essentially a smart phone-only sharing platform.

If I’m on vacation and want to preserve and share a photo of my family in front of the Eiffel tower, the process with a smart phone is simply take it out of my pocket, point it at ourselves for a selfie, click, and then click another button to upload to instagram or facebook.  If I want to do the same thing with a traditional dSLR, first I have to take the camera out of the bag, turn it on, make sure it is charged and ready.  Most dSLR’s and dSLR lenses aren’t really accommodating to selfies, so I have to either set up a tripod or ask a stranger to take a photo of us.  Then after taking the photo, I have to either click a bunch of buttons to send the phone from the camera to a smart phone, or I have to wait until I can remove the memory card and upload the photo to a computer.   Exhausting.

Meanwhile, how do smart phones compare to aps-c cameras in terms of image quality?   I did a quick experiment a while ago, comparing fairly low light photographs of the iPhone 7 with the Sony A6300 + kit lens.   I tried to re-create the “entry level” shooter performance, simply taking these photos on automatic modes with no further editing.   Looking at the photos at typical display sizes:

I dare say the Sony A6300 photos (and APS-C camera with a kit lens used here), are no better than the iPhone photos.  In fact, you can make the argument that the iPhone photos came out better.   And this isn’t even the newest smart phone, it’s a 2-year-old smart phone.   Thus, consumers have lost a lot of incentive to buy a dSLR/ILC camera.

It’s important to note, these samples were taken in full auto and the A6300 used the cheap kit lens.  The A6300 certainly had the potential to outshine the smart phone.

So as I asked above, Why Buy a “Real” Camera in 2018?

We must remove some of the items from the above-lists, as smart phones are just as good or better.  But the new list:

• More zoom/focal length range versatility
• Superior artistic expression
• Superior ability to manipulate controls, depth of field, etc
• Potential for superior image quality

Let’s look at that list more closely.   In order to realize the benefits of a “real camera” in 2018, the photographer must actually know how to use their camera.  If you are simply going to point and shoot, you are unlikely to get much benefit from a “real camera.”

Five years ago, when someone wanted photos better than a smart phone, I would tell them that an aps-c dSLR will give a better result than a smart phone, even when used purely on auto with a kit lens. That’s no longer true.

What is an “Entry Level” Shooter?

For purposes of this discussion, I’m considering “entry level” as someone with limited experience and knowledge in advanced photography gear and technique.   Such a person may have used smart phones or point and shoots before.  Such a person may have even owned and used dSLR/ILC cameras, but hasn’t yet strayed too far from auto modes and kit lenses.

An entry-level shooter may be someone who wants to be “entry level for life.”  They like taking pictures, but have no interest in ever getting “serious” about photography.  They just want simple, easy, good images.

An entry-level shooter may also be someone who has started to develop a keen interest in photography and wants to take it further.   A great thing about smart phones, is that there are tweens and teens developing a really fantastic photographic eye.

So let’s combine this question with the former question…

Why would an “Entry level” shooter buy a Real Camera?  Which Camera?

Looking back at the lists for reasons to buy a camera, many entry level users may be best off sticking to a good smart phone.   If you’re simply looking for a device to conveniently record memories and share the images of those memories, without spending lots of extra money or time learning photography, a good smart phone may be your best bet.  Even the $400-$500 entry level dSLRs may be a complete waste.

If you’re not nitpicky about image quality, you still don’t want to learn much about photography, but you simply want some telephoto reach, then the point and shoot camera may be for you.   The point and shoot market is nearly dead, as phones can surpass the convenience of point and shoot while delivering better features and similar image quality.  But if the only reason you are even considering a “real” camera is some telephoto zoom reach, then you are the remaining market for point and shoot.

Ten years ago, the “entry level for life” shooter might still have bought a dSLR, simply to get good family snapshots.   But such investment is no longer necessary.

Which brings us to the serious entry-level photographer.  This is the photographer who wants to take their photography to a higher level.  They are ready to invest some money and time into developing photography as a hobby or craft.   An interchangeable lens camera will allow such a person to take more control over their photographs, shoot RAW, adjust manual controls, use different lenses for different purposes.  Ultimately, an interchangeable lens camera will give the potential for more varied artistic expression, higher image quality.

So should the “serious” entry-level shooter stick to entry-level aps-c dSLR/ILC cameras?

Above, I listed several entry level aps-c cameras that sell for around the $500 mark.   But there is a major drawback inherent in these cameras:  They were designed for the non-serious entry-level shooter.   They were designed for those who are probably better off with smart phones.   These cameras tend to have tiny viewfinders, rudimentary autofocus systems and limited ability to adjust manual controls.   Someone trying to learn about the interaction of shutter speed, aperture and ISO may become frustrated with the need to dive deep into menus of the entry-level cameras to make such changes.   Someone hoping to photograph more action may quickly become frustrated by the very basic autofocus systems of those entry level cameras.  Small dark viewfinders can make those cameras generally unpleasant experiences to use.

So yes, if on a tight budget, a serious entry-level shooter can go start out with  Canon T6.  Used properly, they will get better images than out of a smart phone.   But let’s look more carefully at the Canon T6.  For under $400, you can get the Canon T6 with 18-55 lens.    But how does it compare to smart phones and more serious cameras?

• Canon T6 is 18 megapixels of resolution.  Only 50% more than the 12 megapixels standard in smart phones.
• The Canon T6 has only 9 autofocus points.   A smart phone can focus anywhere in the frame, the T6 is limited to 9 spots.  A mid-level Canon aps-c dSLR like the Canon T7i has 45 points.
• With the kit lens, you get an equivalent focal length range of 29mm to 88mm.  That’s not actually much more than you can get with an iPhone 8+, which can cover 28mm and 56mm with two different lenses.
• The viewfinder is tiny and doesn’t offer 100% of the frame.  In other words, you can’t even see the entire frame you are shooting, your final image will be wider than what you see through the viewfinder.
• The controls layout is very simple, meant for those who want to keep things pretty easy.  The downside is that it makes it very difficult to take control, which is supposed to be one of the advantages of an ILC camera.

I’m not trying to pick on the Canon T6, but just using it to demonstrate the limitations of the cheapest cameras on the market.   When you pay more, you do get more.

So What Cameras Should a Serious Entry-Level Shooter Consider?

Just because the cheapest APS-C cameras may be limited, doesn’t mean you have to jump up to full frame.  You can get good viewfinders, good autofocus systems, good control layouts in aps-c cameras.   Full frame then adds another element of even higher image quality, potentially more resolution, etc.

So what are the serious ILC cameras?   I’ll limit this discussion to the big three brands:  Canon, Sony, Nikon. These models are all priced around the $1000 mark or higher.

• Canon 80D
• Canon 7D Mark II
• Nikon D7500
• Nikon D500
• Sony A6500

There are some “in between” models like the Canon Rebel T7i, Nikon D5600 and Sony A6300, but the above-listed cameras can give you an idea of the pricing for “serious” cameras that an entry-level shooter won’t outgrow the moment they become serious.

With good aps-c cameras priced at $1000 to $1900, suddenly the pricing of full frame doesn’t look so bad…..

What about starting with APS-C and later transitioning to full frame?

This is certainly the traditional path.  But the gap in pricing between full frame and aps-c cameras used to be much larger.   Furthermore, many aps-c lenses are not fully compatible with full frame cameras.  It’s quite wasteful to buy lenses, then have to replace them just a couple of years later.

As noted above, there are advantages of aps-c apart from price.   Certainly, regardless of price, you may choose to stay with aps-c.  There are plenty of advanced experienced photographers wo prefer aps-c over full frame.

Even just one to two years ago, I would have said it was absurd for any “entry level” shooter to start with full frame.

What’s Changed in the Last Two Years?

• Prices of full frame cameras have fallen below $2,000
• Camera makers are far less focused on aps-c cameras
• Smart phones have continued to progress quickly, improving image quality, adding multiple lenses, added simulated background blur.

Going back to the original question:

Should an entry-level shooter consider full frame?

I’m surprised by my own answer:  MAYBE.    Given the changes in technology, there is little reason for any non-serious shooter to even buy any interchangeable lens camera.   So if you’re even considering dSLR/ILC cameras, you should be of the mindset that this is a hobby or craft that you really want to spend time with and want to learn.   If that’s the case, you would likely quickly outgrow the $500 entry-level aps-c bodies.

So if it’s a choice between $1000 to $1900 aps-c bodies, versus $1400 to $2000 full frame bodies…..   it might not be so absurd to “skip” ahead directly to full frame.  If you are looking to maximize image quality and low light performance compared to smart phones, then full frame will give you a far bigger edge over phones then you would get with an aps-c camera.  Full frame will give you more flexibility in raw files than you would get with aps-c (which in turn still get far more flexibility than smart phones).


Please note that you still need to add lenses, and full frame lenses are more expensive than aps-c lenses.  But again, returning to the serious shooter:   Cheap lenses aren’t going to give you results better than you can get with a smart phone, in most cases.   Thus, even a serious aps-c shooter is going to start to spend more on lenses (though still a bit less than full frame).

I implore you, if you do make the jump directly to full frame, don’t treat it like a point and shoot camera.   Take a local photography class.  Read books like Understanding Exposure (many learning photographers swear by it as an educational tool).   Be ready to invest in better lenses over time.

In conclusion:

Consider skipping directly to full frame if:

1. You feel a growing passion in photography.
2. You are prepared to spend the time and money to refine your craft and maximize the potential.
3. You want the best potential image quality.
4. It is in your budget.  Expect to spend $2,000 to $3,000 initially on camera and lenses.

If you don’t check off everything on this list, then you are probably best off sticking to cheaper cameras.  If you intend to be an “entry level for life” shooter, then stay away from the investment in full frame.   But if you are an entry-level shooter who wants to become a more advanced shooter, it’s not absurd to consider full frame.

From my experience, the absolute best values in full frame cameras are currently the:

• Nikon D750:This is simply the best traditional dSLR you will find for under $2000.  No camera under $2000 will have significantly better image quality.   Nikon has access to a wide lens library including many great value lenses.
• Sony A7iii: Image quality may be a hair better than the Nikon D750, but they are close.  Yet, the Sony A7iii is the most featured camera you will find for under $2000, able to shoot 10 frames per second, 4K video, and with a super advanced autofocus system.   Lenses are slightly more expensive than you might find for a traditional dSLR system.  On the positive side, the camera size is very small for a full frame camera, similar in size to entry-level aps-c cameras.

Please follow me on twitter or accept notifications to follow this blog!  Please comment below, who should be considering full frame?