Is a full frame necessary for family portrait work?

Yes or no and why?

It's not necessary. There are some fine crop Cameras. That said I would certainly go full frame (and did) if portraits were my goal. If for no other reason that some of the best portrait lenses do their best work in the format they were originally designed for. The 135L and 85L or even the 85 1.8 have a useful niche on a full frame. Yes they work well on a crop but its a different function. Also when I went full frame there was a significant upside in ISO performance and resolution. Those advantages might be lessened now but I still prefer the full frame files.

No you can get nice format appropriate focal length fast primes for either sensor size, or even the 1.3× crop sensors. If you are never going to be doing other stuff, where you could be focal length limited, the larger format does indeed have some technical advantages, but then so would Medium Format digital (which technically is actually a cropped format in comparison with the original sizes based on 120 film) over a 35mm format digital sensor. So yes if I could I would use a larger format, but I also wouldn't worry overly if I couldn't do so for any reason, including cost. So a MF digital with 80, 135 and 200mm lenses would be my three lens portrait combination of choice. Since I can't afford that or an FF digital option I will be quite happy with a crop sensor and 28/50/85 lenses. (crop factor from MF digital, down to 35mm is oddly enough about 1.6× too).

Alan

Necessary? No.

Nice to have? Yes.

FF can be a bit nicer than 1.6X for some things, which to some extent goes into the cost difference. But there really are only a few things that one can do with a FF camera that would be absolutely not possible with 1.6X. To my mind these would be:

1. Shoot with a tilt-shift lens and UWA FOV at the same time (17 TS-E)
2. Shoot in the realm of very wide and very thin DOF at the same time (24/1.4L and the new 20/1.4).

FF is also capable of the very thinnest DOF possible, so I guess in cases where a 50L or 85L wide open on FF is just required this would be another FF instance, but I'd also suggest that portrait work doesn't need just the absolute thinnest DOF possible.

Full frame is nice, if you can afford it. Selling my 10-22 and 15-85 netted me $750. My 17-40 and 70-200 IS cost me about $1,600. Then there are the primes I added because f/1.x is so flipping nice on full frame: 28 1.8, 35 IS, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, and 135L. That's another $2,300. I had the 35 IS for use on my 60D. The rest I added after moving to the 6D.

I can't tell from looking at 8x10s or computer screens which camera I used to take a photo. In the last few years I've had: 60D, 70D, 7D, 5Dc, 6D. When I look at the EXIF and see a clean ISO 12800 shot, I know it was the 6D. Well, the hugely underexposed flash shots are my 70D, but we're working on that.

Is a medium format sensor necessary?
Is a 35mm sensor necessary?
Is a 1.6 crop sensor necessary?
Is a 1" sensor necessary?

the answer is dependent on what type of quality you wish to accomplish.

Frodge wrote in post #17806160
Yes or no and why?

Full frame isn't necessary for any work.

But being specific to portrait work, the sensor size really doesn't matter at all any more (I'm sure someone can and will argue the opposite ((**)). More important is the lighting and distance to subject.

(**) There is a point where someone will want the thinnest depth of field they can get. And they will want a full frame, which I understand. This is the exception to what I'm describing above however. Consider someone using an 85 F1.2L. If I were shooting that lens specifically for it's F1.2 potential, I'd want a full frame to be able to get a crushingly thin depth of field as an option. But this is a very niche way to approach the subject of portrait. There is also the subject of longer focal lengths. If you had access to the 200 F2L, you'd probably also want to use a full frame, so that you don't end up with 60 feet between you and the subject using a crop of some kind. So if long focal length is your poison (135~200mm) for portrait, and/or if fast aperture with crushingly thin depth of field (ie, eyes are in focus but nose & ears are not in focus) are what you're into, then a full frame makes sense. For virtually everything else, it will not matter much if you're shooting a different sensor size.

Some of the most highly regarded portrait photogs out there are doing it with full depth of field.

Ultimately all that matters is what you want your final media to look like. How you get there can be many different ways.

Very best,

Really makes no difference, In fact for the most part I had an easier time with my crops. Even after upgrading I still use my crops just as much as my full frame.

Of course not.

Absolutely not necessary.

There are plenty of photographers out there using systems like Fuji that don't even offer a FF option, and they're doing fine. FF has its advantages (and disadvantages), but the whole feeling of "it's FF or nothing" that some have is quite overhyped IMO. If you're a skilled photographer, you can make compelling images with any camera.

Edit: One of the threads I frequent lately is the OM-D photo thread. There are some amazing images in there and they're not even APS-C. I've been quite amazed at what the recent generations of these tiny little mirrorless APS-C and m4/3 cameras can accomplish.

No. Check out picturecrazy (Lloyd) on the board and the images he gets with an old 40D. He specializes in weddings, boudoir, and portraits.

No, but you may still feel you want one.

Lyndön wrote in post #17806706
Absolutely not necessary.

There are plenty of photographers out there using systems like Fuji that don't even offer a FF option, and they're doing fine. FF has its advantages (and disadvantages), but the whole feeling of "it's FF or nothing" that some have is quite overhyped IMO. If you're a skilled photographer, you can make compelling images with any camera.

Edit: One of the threads I frequent lately is the OM-D photo thread. There are some amazing images in there and they're not even APS-C. I've been quite amazed at what the recent generations of these tiny little mirrorless APS-C and m4/3 cameras can accomplish.

flowrider wrote in post #17806717
No. Check out picturecrazy (Lloyd) on the board and the images he gets with an old 40D. He specializes in weddings, boudoir, and portraits.

apersson850 wrote in post #17806794
No, but you may still feel you want one.

Full frame isn't necessary for anything. Some of the best pictures on here are shot with non full frame cameras. It's not the camera that takes a great photo.

And Apersson850 is right, you, and many, feel they want or in fact need full frame. When, in fact, it won't make the new owner a better photographer.

saea501 wrote in post #17806836
Full frame isn't necessary for anything. Some of the best pictures on here are shot with non full frame cameras. It's not the camera that takes a great photo.

And Apersson850 is right, you, and many, feel they want or in fact need full frame. When, in fact, it won't make the new owner a better photographer.

Nope, it certainly won't. I spent about $4,000 to move to full frame. My photos aren't any better. They have a little more fine detail, a little less noise at higher ISO, and I get a bit better dof control. Nobody but me will ever notice. I still take the same snapshots I took with my BHF (technically medium format 60x60) 50 years ago. They just cost a lot more now.

Necessary? I don't think so, but I can tell you that there is a world of difference between the photos I got from my 7D to the ones I get now from my 5DIII and my 1DX.