Are aps-c cameras good enough for wildlife?

A Royal Bengal Tiger at Kanha Tiger Reserve, India

About a month ago, I visited Kanha National Park in India to (hopefully) photograph some tigers with my trusty Sony a6400, a crop-sensor camera released in 2019. While it has older menus and autofocus that seems more interested in the branches and blades of grass in front of the animals, it still did the job. Now, why am I using this camera instead of shooting with my trusted full-frame a7Cii? Isn’t full-frame supposed to be better, with better dynamic range, a larger sensor, and image quality so good it practically convinces the animals to pose for their portraits? Well, it’s a little more complicated than that, and in fact, there are a lot of advantages to shooting wildlife with an APS-C camera. So, let’s talk about it…

‘If you're the sort of person who skips to the end of these sort of articles then let me save you the hassle: Yes, APS-C cameras are good enough for wildlife photography in 2025, in fact they’re more than good in enough - in some cases they’re better.’

APS-C stands for Advanced Photo System Type-C, and refers to a digital image sensor commonly found in smaller mirrorless cameras. While APS-C sensors are smaller than Full Frame ones (which are the same size as 35mm film, measuring 36mm x 24mm), they’re much larger than Micro Four Thirds and 1” sensors commonly found in other compact camera systems. These differences in sensor size affect the overall size of the camera, how it interacts with lenses, and how much light needs to be captured to effectively produce an image. While there are certainly trade-offs when using a smaller sensor, there are significant benefits, some of which are particularly advantageous for wildlife photography.

The first major benefit of using an APS-C camera for wildlife photography is its smaller size and weight. Why is size and weight so important for wildlife photography? Because wildlife lenses are quite possibly the largest and heaviest you can find. Take the Sigma 100-400 Full Frame telephoto lens — a compact and lightweight lens for its class — which weighs 1,160 grams... and is... long. That lens alone is larger and heavier than the Sony a6400 with the excellent Sony 70-350mm lens, which weighs only 625 grams (1,030 grams when attached to the a6400). But what if you want to shoot with one of Sony’s first-party lenses to get the most out of your camera? You’re probably going to need the Sony 100-400mm, which weighs 1,395 grams, or the Sony 200-600mm, which weighs an incredible 2,115 grams — definitely a great option for weight lifters. For travelers and backpackers, or anyone for whom a safari may be just one part of a longer trip, going APS-C is a no-brainer. Considering the weight of your lens is also crucial when shooting handheld at longer focal lengths, where every micromovement is exaggerated.

That’s a big, and heavy, difference…

The smaller sensor on APS-C cameras crops in on your lens's focal length, effectively magnifying it. On Sony cameras, this magnification is 1.5x, meaning the focal length of this compact APS-C 70-350mm lens is actually closer to a full-frame equivalent of 105-525mm. Not only is this lens more compact, but due to the crop factor, it will give you more reach. And this crop factor applies even if you use full-frame lenses on an APS-C camera, effectively turning that Sigma 100-400mm into a 150-600mm lens. You can tell if your lenses are designed for full-frame or crop-sensor cameras by checking the mount label on the side or front of the lens; if it’s designed for a Sony full-frame sensor, it will be labeled with an FE. If it’s for a crop-sensor camera, it will be labeled with an E.

And let’s not forget about price. Full-frame lenses are not only the size and weight of a small child but also come with hefty price tags. The previously mentioned Sony 70-350mm retails for $999 USD, while the Sigma 100-400mm comes in at nearly $1,400. It’s $400 cheaper to use a first-party lens that gives you access to native autofocus performance. And if you wanted to use the Sony 100-400mm GM lens, it will set you back a whopping $2,500 USD.

Now, I mentioned earlier that full-frame lenses are compatible with crop-sensor cameras — but does it work the other way around? Yes… and also no. Lenses designed for smaller sensors are built to let light into a smaller surface area. When used on a full-frame camera, the sensor will capture the edge of the lens’s barrel, resulting in harsh vignetting. You can crop this out, and most full-frame cameras have a setting that automatically detects an APS-C lens and applies the crop. But this greatly reduces the amount of your sensor that's being used, and it might have just been better to use an APS-C camera from the start. If I were to use that same Sony 70-350mm lens on my Sony A7Cii, a full-frame camera with a 33-megapixel sensor, and crop in 1.5x to mimic the size of an APS-C sensor, I’d be using only 42% of the camera’s sensor — effectively reducing it to a 14-megapixel sensor. On the other hand, when I use that same lens on my a6400, which has a 24-megapixel APS-C sensor, I’m using all 24 megapixels.

Now, there are some drawbacks to using an APS-C camera for wildlife photography. Smaller sensors mean APS-C cameras are less sensitive to light and require more light to achieve the same results as full-frame cameras. The impact of this will vary: in bright, sunny conditions, this will have little effect on your images. But in low-light conditions, it can result in darker or noisier images. You can compensate for this by slowing down your shutter speed, but this is far from ideal when photographing moving or unpredictable subjects like animals. Any movement at slow shutter speeds will result in blurry images, especially at long focal lengths.

This crop factor also impacts the look of your images in subtle ways. When using longer focal lengths, you’ll encounter a phenomenon called “background compression.” Essentially, the longer your focal length, the more the background is “pulled forward” and compressed into your image. This is how filmmakers achieve that cool effect where the background looks like it’s coming toward the subject. They zoom in to a longer focal length while moving the camera forward to keep the actor the same size in the frame. But how does this affect your wildlife photography? Remember when I said that shooting with an APS-C camera applies a crop factor that changes your equivalent focal length? A 23mm lens on an APS-C camera is a full-frame equivalent of 35mm. Well, this doesn’t impact how compressed your background is. The equivalent focal length might be zoomed in, but the background won’t be as compressed. This also impacts your bokeh (background blur), as the more compressed the background, the blurrier and dreamier it appears at lower apertures.

Finally, there’s image quality. APS-C sensors don’t inherently have worse image quality, but certain factors can impact the final result. In addition to letting in less light, the smaller sensor size results in a reduced dynamic range, meaning they capture a smaller “range” of light than full-frame sensors, leading to less detail in shadows and highlights. This can also affect your image’s micro-contrast, resulting in a perceived reduction in sharpness. However, these differences are often negligible, especially in bright conditions.

Can you tell which of the following photos were shot on full frame and which on APS-C?

So, when should you use a full-frame sensor, and when should you use APS-C? I recommend going full-frame only if you plan to do large prints of your photos, if you know you’ll be shooting in low-light conditions, or if you’re photographing birds and have access to a tripod — the larger sensor will allow you to use a faster shutter speed. In all other situations, you can safely use APS-C. At the end of the day, it’s not about the size of your sensor, but how you use it.