To Full-Frame or Not To Full Frame?

The release of Canon's newest digital SLR, the EOS-5D, has brought full-frame digital capture within reach of a new group of photographers. It costs just about the same as the ground-breaking EOS-D30 did when it was announced. Three grand is still a lot of money, but it's not in the sell-your-car territory where full-frame has hitherto resided (not counting Kodak's efforts, which are in skilled hands capable of incredible quality, but have some serious limitations compared to more mainstream cameras). With used but eminently serviceable EOS-1Ds's on the market too, going full-frame is now a realistic option not only for full-time pros but also well-heeled amateurs and semi-professionals. However, full-frame high-resolution digital capture is something of a mixed blessing. Nikon isn't blowing smoke about the issues with it. It's much more challenging to shoot than APS-C in more ways than one -- but also immensely rewarding. Is it worth the expense and effort? Read on...

In film-based photography, the number three factor limiting image quality is and has been film. For this reason, when discussing capture size and image quality, bigger is better. So, while 35 mm film has hit a very sweet spot of quality, cost, and convenience, larger formats have thrived alongside it, both among professionals and amateurs. While the digital revolution has stirred the pot somewhat (most digital cameras by far have tiny capture formats, as small as or even smaller than 1970's toy cameras using formats like 110, or those funky ViewMaster-style disks), the principle remains the same. That's why there's a clear and pretty much undisputed difference in image quality between even the best small-sensor compacts and even the cheapest digital SLR's.

Limiting factors one and two are, of course, skill and circumstances -- you really have to make a serious effort to max out the quality of a decent bit of 35 mm film.

No need to turn up your nose at the small-sensor compacts either. This is from one, and it prints plenty fine up to 20 x 30 cm. Beyond that the going does get a bit mushy.

It is pretty obvious just from looking at the kinds of cameras people are buying and shooting that digital capture produces a good deal better image quality per square millimeter of capture than film does. Film cameras with formats the size of digital compacts have been tried, and their limitations are woefully obvious even at 10 x 15 cm and even at slow film speeds. Good digital compacts can turn out a splendid-looking 20 x 30 cm without breaking a sweat, and for the right subject shot and post-processed the right way, there's virtually no upper limit to the print size you can get. Digital SLR's clearly exceed the quality of 35 mm film for most practical purposes and most print sizes. APS-C has hit the same sweet spot as 35 mm film did back in the day -- reasonably inexpensive to produce, possible of quality that's easily up to most applications.

So, given that a full-frame chip will cost approximately 12-16 times more to produce than an APS-C chip, and given that sensor evolution isn't over by a long shot, is there any point in going after bigger formats?