No, the real reason is because people have no standards or they just don't know any better. They don't know what good photography is or they don't care about making good photos. That's why people still use cameras with sensors smaller than full frame. It's just the ignorance and low standards of the uncultured masses.
You do realize that although there is history to it, today the size of a FF sensor is completely arbitrary?
It wasn't arbitrary. There was a historical reason it wasn't arbitrary, therefore the reason it exists like this now isn't arbitrary.
There is a direct relation between sensor size, light gathering capability, and the size of a lens necessary to take full advantage of the sensor. So you can create a sensor of any size, the larger the "better" in terms of ability to resolve, but the more burdensome to carry. Why stop at FF? It's absurd to think that that arbitrary point is the "best." Why not 5% larger than FF? 10%? 100% larger? The constraint is the size and cost. So in that regard, FF is one of many options along an infinite number of possible configurations.
I disagree, and so does this reviewer:
https://nofilmschool.com/2014/08/crop-factor-sensor-size-zack-arias-dedpxl
Pretty amazing what you learn with Google. BTW something can happen in history and still be arbitrary. It's like... arbitrary things happen, you know?
I'm not sure that article settles anything. Mostly, he sounds like a spoiled brat who thinks the industry should shift for his convenience. But also, apparently he thinks the world revolves around cinema frame sizes.
The fact remains - when digital SLRs first came out, there were a lot of people out there with 35mm film cameras and lenses. In order to continue using their lenses and get the same results - FOV, DOF etc, they wanted a full frame sensor. This was no small problem. You could use APSC, but that meant the wider angles you were used to were less wide and the apertures you used to use are now providing a different DOF to the images you're producing. I know I waited until full frame sensors (D600) became reasonably priced before I bought a DSLR precisely because I wanted to use my lenses that I already had.
So the choice of 135 frame size for digital sensors was anything but arbitrary - it was intentional due to an industry standard. You can't argue with that reason and it wasn't arbitrary. You would have to go back and question the wisdom of using it in the film days and ask why they chose that frame size and why it became so mainstream.
You can of course ask, "why didn't we use that point in history to make a jump to a larger sensor? After all, so many folks ended up buying new lenses for digital anyhow. Would have been a good time to shake things up..."
But then what is the answer to that? Maybe you know that one already?
You're missing the point of the argument. OF COURSE the reason for the size of FF sensor is because of the historical precedent, surely nobody thinks that there should be random sensor and lens sizes of every combination.
Glad you're finally coming to that conclusion.
If that were the case no two cameras would be interchangeable (btw, this pretty much still only applies to the same mount system, but I digress). What my point was in response to the argument that there was an inherent advantage to the specific FF dimension. That's what I am saying is arbitrary because it is not an inherent advantage until after the whole system was created around it. At this point, you could say that every system that was developed is exactly the best size because it actually works with the lenses available, and no one would argue with that. Probably.
Not exactly. I think you're mixing two things up.
First, saying "arbitrary because it is not an an inherent advantage" doesn't really follow. What is arbitrary? the frame size? To be arbitrary would imply someone just kind of picked it out of nowhere. But in fact, they were entirely deliberate. There was an inherent advantage to it before it was created because it immediately fit with an existing workflow. This was foresight, not hindsight. So nothing arbitrary that I can think of apply to it.
Perhaps you're trying to say that 35mm full frame doesn't have any particular advantage or reason for being promoted other than the fact that it was designed to match an existing workflow? That might work for me.
And to say that every system that was developed is exactly the best size because it works with available lenses doesn't quite work either.
4/3s was designed for digital from the start - no historical film size to match.
APS sizes seem to vary a bit. I don't think there were a lot of APS SLRs out there and most of them used full frame lenses, so no need to match a large installation of film APS cameras and lenses.
Medium Format has sensor sizes all over the place and I think very few match previous film frames.
