Why is using More than one camera different system or sensor format, the “In thing?”

Using more than one camera system or sensor format is “in” partly because it gives photographers and filmmakers more flexibility and creative options than relying on one setup for everything.

Here’s the practical reason:

• Different tools suit different jobs. A full-frame camera might be great for low light, shallow depth of field, and high image quality, while Micro Four Thirds or APS-C may be lighter, cheaper, and better for travel, wildlife reach, or video.
• Hybrid shooting is common now. Many people shoot stills, video, reels, behind-the-scenes clips, and social content, so one camera may not cover every need comfortably.
• Lens and size trade-offs matter. Smaller sensor systems can make telephoto setups much more portable; larger sensors often give more control over background blur and dynamic range.
• Content creators want redundancy. Two systems can mean backup bodies, different focal lengths ready to go, or a stills/video split during jobs.
• Brands have specialised strengths. One system may have better autofocus, another better colour, stabilisation, compact lenses, or video features.
• The internet makes gear mixing look normal. YouTube, reviews, and influencer culture make multi-system ownership visible and fashionable, even when it is not always necessary.

The downside is that it can become expensive and complicated: batteries, menus, lens mounts, colour matching, accessories, and file workflows all become harder.

So the short answer is: it’s “in” because modern creators value flexibility, portability, redundancy, and specialisation — but it only makes sense if the extra system solves a real problem rather than just following gear trends.

sensor size differences

Sensor size mainly affects field of view, depth of field, low-light performance, dynamic range, lens size, and overall system size.

Common sensor formats

From larger to smaller:

• Medium format — larger than full-frame; very high detail and dynamic range, usually expensive and slower.
• Full-frame — about the size of 35mm film; popular for professional stills and video.
• APS-C — smaller than full-frame; common in enthusiast and semi-pro cameras.
• Micro Four Thirds — smaller again; compact bodies and lenses, strong for travel, wildlife, and video.
• 1-inch and smaller sensors — used in premium compacts, drones, action cameras, and phones.

The big differences

1. Field of view and crop factor

A smaller sensor captures a smaller portion of the image projected by the lens. This makes the view look more “zoomed in.”

For example:

• A 50mm lens on full-frame behaves like 50mm.
• A 50mm lens on APS-C looks roughly like a 75mm lens on full-frame.
• A 50mm lens on Micro Four Thirds looks like about 100mm full-frame equivalent.

This is called crop factor.

2. Depth of field

Larger sensors make it easier to get a blurred background.

Smaller sensors give more depth of field, meaning more of the scene stays in focus.

That is why:

• Full-frame is often favoured for portraits, weddings, cinematic looks, and low-light work.
• Micro Four Thirds or smaller sensors can be useful for wildlife, macro, documentary, and video where keeping focus is easier.

3. Low-light performance

Larger sensors usually collect more total light, so they often produce:

• Cleaner images at high ISO
• Less noise
• Better shadow detail

But modern smaller sensors are very good now, especially with good lenses, stabilisation, and software processing.

4. Dynamic range

Dynamic range is the ability to hold detail in bright highlights and dark shadows.

Larger sensors often have an advantage, especially in difficult lighting, but camera generation and sensor technology matter a lot too.

5. Lens size and portability

Smaller sensors allow smaller lenses, especially telephoto lenses.

That is a big reason people like APS-C or Micro Four Thirds for:

• Travel
• Wildlife
• Street photography
• Hiking
• Video rigs
• Long-lens shooting

A 600mm-equivalent setup on Micro Four Thirds can be much smaller and lighter than a similar full-frame setup.

6. Cost

Larger sensor systems usually cost more, especially lenses.

Smaller sensor systems can be cheaper and easier to carry, though high-end APS-C or Micro Four Thirds gear can still be expensive.

Simple way to think about it

Larger sensor = more image quality potential, more background blur, better low light, bigger and more expensive gear.

Smaller sensor = more compact, more reach, easier focus, often cheaper, but less extreme background blur and usually less low-light advantage.

So the best sensor size is not automatically the biggest one — it depends on what you shoot and how you like to work.

pros and cons of full-frame vs APS-C

Full-frame vs APS-C: pros and cons

Full-frame pros

• Better low-light performance
  Full-frame sensors are larger, so they usually handle high ISO better and produce cleaner files in poor light.
• Shallower depth of field
  Easier to get strong background blur, which is useful for portraits, weddings, events, and cinematic video.
• Wider field of view with lenses
  A 24mm lens behaves like a true 24mm lens, which is useful for landscapes, interiors, architecture, and wide video work.
• Usually better dynamic range
  Full-frame cameras often hold more highlight and shadow detail, especially in difficult lighting.
• Professional lens selection
  Many premium lenses are designed with full-frame users in mind.

Full-frame cons

• More expensive
  Bodies and especially lenses usually cost more.
• Larger and heavier
  A full-frame setup can become bulky, particularly with fast zooms or telephoto lenses.
• Telephoto reach is less convenient
  Wildlife and sports shooters may need longer, heavier, more expensive lenses to fill the frame.
• Shallow focus can be harder to manage
  At wide apertures, keeping subjects sharp can be more demanding.

APS-C pros

• Smaller and lighter system
  APS-C cameras and lenses are often easier to carry for travel, hiking, street photography, and everyday use.
• Lower cost
  APS-C bodies and lenses are often more affordable, though high-end gear can still be expensive.
• Extra apparent reach
  The crop factor makes telephoto lenses appear longer. A 300mm lens on APS-C often frames like roughly 450mm on full-frame, depending on the brand.
• More depth of field
  Useful for wildlife, macro, documentary, video, and situations where keeping more of the subject in focus matters.
• Good balance of quality and portability
  Modern APS-C cameras can produce excellent images without the size and cost of full-frame.

APS-C cons

• Less low-light advantage
  APS-C sensors are smaller, so they usually show more noise at high ISO compared with similar-generation full-frame cameras.
• Harder to get very shallow background blur
  You can still blur backgrounds, but you may need faster lenses, longer focal lengths, or more subject-background separation.
• Wide-angle can be trickier
  Because of crop factor, a 24mm lens behaves more like a 35–38mm equivalent, so true wide-angle work may need dedicated APS-C wide lenses.
• Some systems have fewer premium APS-C lenses
  This depends heavily on the camera brand.

Simple summary

Choose full-frame if you prioritise: low light, background blur, dynamic range, wide-angle work, and maximum image quality.

Choose APS-C if you prioritise: portability, cost, telephoto reach, travel convenience, and a lighter everyday kit.

For many people, APS-C is the more practical choice, while full-frame is the better choice when image quality, low light, or shallow depth of field are the main priorities.

_DSF0337_DxO _DSF0381_Nik_DxO _DSF0418_DxO