Full Frame vs APS-C - Image Quality is Key!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 พ.ค. 2022
- Should you upgrade to a full frame camera? Are APS-C (crop) sensor cameras good enough? You know about the size differences, it’s the image quality you need to see. Is it worth it?
Well, here we are going to test the difference in image quality between full frame and APS-C sensor cameras. We will look at the difference in noise, dynamic range and the fine detail between the two.
View full blog here: www.theschoolofphotography.co...
Support us:
Get 10% OFF our Online Courses here - bit.ly/3Jt12kZ
Check out our Complete Guide to Photography Book here - bit.ly/2KZDw2U
Check out our eBook here - bit.ly/photog-ebook
Grab a Freebie:
Get our Free eBook for learners of photography here - bit.ly/2DwNS4c
Get 15 Free Lightroom Presets - goo.gl/xvTPT7
Get the Best Music for your TH-cam videos and other projects. Try for free here - share.epidemicsound.com/wBdh6
Create a photography website with Squarespace. Try it for free here squarespace.syuh.net/TSOP
Get Photoshop and Lightroom here - prf.hn/l/9mEZ58x
I hope you liked this video, if you did, please support us by sharing it with your friends and subscribe to our channel for more.
Get weekly tutorials and special offers delivered straight to your inbox, subscribe at www.theschoolofphotography.com
Join our learning community on social media:
Facebook ► / theschoolofphotography1 Instagram ► / theschoolofphotography1
Follow my personal photography work here:
Facebook ► / marcnewton
Instagram ► / marcnewton
Vero ► vero.co/marcnewton
Thanks for watching and remember - Learn more at The School of Photography.
NB: Above are some affiliate links and TSOP will receive a small percentage of some purchases made.
#cameraequipment #fullframevsaps-c #theschoolofphotography
Love this vid. I started with an APSC and upgraded to an APSC and plan to once again upgrade to another APSC. Crop sensor bodies are not a downgrade. Some camera spec nerds will say it's all FF or nothing...it's not. It's just as professional as a Full Frame if you know what you're doing. No one cares about those fine details, but other camera spec nerds. I've shot weddings, maternity, engagements all with an APSC and I never heard a bride or mom say, "!!But The Dynamic Range!!" 🤣
Thanks 👍
So you use ONE APS-C camera for Photo and Video?
@@JinKazama92 People have varying definitions of “professional”. For some people, “professional” just means that they put up a Craigslist ad and someone paid them for a gig. I’d call it freelance work, but I suspect the kind of person who would claim that only “camera spec nerds” could see the difference doesn’t really have the same idea of professionalism as myself.
@@asphaltannihilator157 agree to that. They are basically limiting themselves to their own definition of ''Quality''. They forget or disregard why apsc is priced lower in the spectrum.
@@asphaltannihilator157 says the camera specs nerd lol
When I show my Olympus micro 4/3 photos to my Nikon Z 7II buddy, he tells me my images are more than good enough. I like my small gear. If a camera is fun to use, you will use it more.
Good advice David, thanks for sharing 👍
Yes I agree with that! I love my olympus/OMD gear and the new Om1 is absolutly amazing.
Good comparison but I’d note a couple of things. 1) The Fuji and Nikon sensors are totally different, Nikon and most other companies (including Canon and Sony) use the Bayer sensor while Fuji mostly uses the X-Trans sensor. Because of that Lightroom is known to have issues demosaicing (decoding) Fuji raw files. Using Capture One instead of Lightroom would produce better results but I would say a fairer comparison would be between a Nikon full frame and another Nikon aps-c camera to keep everything as similar as possible. Also the lenses make a big difference in the details captured too, it would be fairer to compare a Nikon pro lens against a Fuji pro lens. 2) There is not only a noise difference between the crop and aps-c cameras, there is also a depth of field difference as the aps-c camera is cropping in on, say, a 35mm lens, while the full frame camera is using the full image circle. While this doesn’t affect image quality per se it is something that affects the images themselves as it may impact the kind of photo you want to get and the kind of lens you would need to get the same look as full frame. I think that’s something worth mentioning, particularly in terms of the cost of lenses and as the difference in DoF is quite noticeable in the night example. 3) There won’t be a huge difference in dynamic range in ideal conditions as both cameras are very good and have modern sensors, where you would really see a difference is in more extreme situations like a sunset with the sun in the frame causing both very bright and dark areas. The full frame camera would perform better because of the size of the sensor but that comparison would be interesting to see. 4) There’s also quite a big resolution difference between the two cameras, 19mp is a lot and you’d expect it to produce more detailed images. I think it would be fairer either to shoot the Nikon in a lower megapixel mode or to compare the Fuji with something more similar to its megapixel count.
For what it’s worth I currently use a full frame Sony A7iii and have a crop Fujifilm X-T30ii as a travel camera. I’ve also found the difference in image quality between them to be less than expected. Both produce fantastic images, particularly when paired with good lenses. Where I notice the difference is in extreme conditions like sunsets and high ISO situations like astro, for those shoots and when I need a full frame look I always go for the Sony. What the Fuji offers in exchange though is a smaller and lighter system that is easier to travel with while still offering excellent quality and as I get older, that weight difference is something I really value. I’m lucky to have both and can choose but for most people, particularly those starting out, I think crop makes the most sense as it’s a good balance of price, features and performance
Do you notice significant difference on capture one ? I have a sony a7iii same as you i just got a fuji fir size but a x100v for a daily carry, i tried using capture one but its so complicated for me im so used to lightroom, wondering if I should keep trying to learn capture one, what is the difference I could barely see difference on my own trials but i might have given up on capture too soon. Thanks
@@Lucamitm Hi Camila, I do see a difference with some photos but it depends a bit on what I’m shooting. I tend to see it with anything that has a lot of greens in it, particularly foliage which looks mushier compared to in Capture One. So landscapes, flowers, that kind of thing. City scenes and portraits I don’t see it in as much. So depending what you shoot you might not notice it enough to worry about.
I used Capture One in conjunction with Lightroom for a while and it’s a great program once you get used to it but because I’ve got years of archives in Lightroom, it wasn’t worth me staying with it in the end. I use DXO PureRaw now instead, it adds an extra step to importing the files but the resulting raws are as good as those in Capture One and crucially it lets me do everything in Lightroom. Would highly recommend checking that out if you do run into any issues 🙂
Happy to DM you some samples if that would help or if you have any other questions 🙂
@@cjlevinsonphotography dxo pure raw is that to convert the raw to jpg and then pass to lightroom or is it keeping the raw but doing a process to it first ? Is it all inside lightroom like can you import batch with it ? Thanks
@@Lucamitm It’s a standalone program but it also has a Lightroom plugin so you can do it from within Lightroom. Basically you import your photos as normal in Lightroom then once you’ve made your selections, you run them through the plugin and it brings a demosaiced DNG back in to Lightroom. And then you do your edits on that. Pretty quick and simple once you’ve done it a few times. There’s a free trial if you want to try it out 🙂
@@cjlevinsonphotography thanks a lot !!! I’ll give it a try !
When I shot film, I used the same camera for 20 years. I now shoot digital on a crop sensor, I have no desire to upgrade. No one has ever told me that my images were lacking in some way, whether film or digital, or landscapes or portraits. I think people can get too concerned about the gear and not enjoy the process and outcomes, that getting out and taking photos, can give you. Have to say, some of the more creative images I’ve enjoyed seeing, were taken with a phone.
Thanks for sharing Steve 👍
This will of course never stop being discussed. I have an APS-C camera purely for private, hobby photo and video shooting. And would perhaps be able to make the monetary effort to "upgrade" to full frame.
However... I am a person that like to keep life comfortable and uncomplicated. Add a pinch of laziness and APS-C is for me the right size to lug around. I am not always satified with the photos and videos I take, but have yet to be able to blame it all on my camera.
As a consequence I am busy "upgrading" my own skills and talents as it seems smarter than just buying a new, bigger camera. :)
You're right there Per, thanks for sharing this 👍
Agreed, for many, including myself upgrading the skills is more important than upgrading the gear :)
Just a note for the Fuji details looking off. That comes down to how Lightroom processes the files. Capture one doesn't have the same issue
This is July 2023 - I have very recently purchased the Fujifilm X-T5 and used the 16mm lens with stunning results. This morning I printed one of the images - Stunningly sharp (landscape). Ive been a NIKON user for some 30 years or more and currently still have my NIKON Z7 II (having sold my D850 with all f mount lenses …. trying to reduce carry weight as old age doesn’t help). Possibly will sell my Z7 II + lenses. My X-T5 at this point fulfils my need to reduce weight in my camera bag without losing image quality.
Nikon equipment sold🙊
Would be interesting to see a similar comparison with an R7 and a full-frame camera with a comparable megapixel count
Thanks for doing this. A couple thing. First, regarding detail. For me the take away from your comparison was that a 45 mp sensor will provide more detail than a 26 mp sensor. Perhaps a more appropriate comparison would have been the Fuji compared to say, a Nikon Z6 or a Sony A7 III. The huge difference in resolution of the 2 sensors compared, makes me question, is the result a reflection of the sensor size, or is it more about sensor resolution?.
What I would have love to see is a comparison of the images under normal viewing conditions. Is the difference relevant when viewed on a laptop at full screen? How about a 32 inch monitor or a 65 inch T.V. again at normal viewing distances? Finally print a couple at say, A2 and view them from a normal viewing distance. Now what do you think about them? How do they compare?
Ironically, I'm heading out on a tour of the National Parks of the American Southwest in a couple weeks and I'm conflicted over whether to bring my A7 IV kit or my A6600 kit. Rationally, I know that none of my images will be viewed (except by me) at 200% or printed at A1, but there is always that techie part of my brain that tells me not to compromise. Tough decision.
I hear ya James! Had to make those decisions myself. Thanks for sharing 👍
The problem with this comparison is: They are actually comparing a Nikon-design (with its sensor and electronics and lens) to the fuji-design (with probably another sensor and other electronics and lens) . We might be looking at stuff like: difference in sensor desgin, difference in electronics(-stability and gain method), difference in lens effects, difference in pixel size, difference in pixel density. There are just way to many variables in this comparison also a few of those are unclear (e.g.: are the sensors made by the same supplier, are coatings the same) The best way to determine what size of the sensor does is: take a FF camera and shoot a picture in normal mode and in crop mode. Using the same lens (yes I know the picture wil look different). The biggest difference in performance wil not be in the 100% or 200% detail. There would be no reason to, because it is the same electronics/lens/sensor) the difference will be if you blow both pictures up to the same size. The cropped one (besides looking different) needs more magnification because the base size is smaller. By blowing up you might loose quality. (If you look close).
If you already have a FF and crop sensor cameras why don't you just connect your laptop to a TV and see the difference for yourself? I'm also happy that he compared FF to Fuji as it is often considered as best APSC camera and many ppl be considering either Canon FF vs Fuji or Sony FF vs Fuji. If you compare results of a FF camera with full screen readout to FF camera with crop read our you'll compromise quality of the crop readout and you'll end up in the situation where your crop mode has a lot lower resolution.
@@michalrv3066 The thing is: this topic is indeed nothing more than comparing a Nikon and a Fuji camera which happen to have a different size sensor, but have a good reputation.And it is nothing more than that. For making conclusions what sensorsize do to your picture there are just way to much variables.
@@MrGirbes well, I doubt you'll find FF and APSC camera with the exact sensor (just bigger/larger). I think there are videos comparing FF to crop mode on FF sensor but I personally don't like that
I only had one main camera which was a Canon 5D, which I used to take on holidays. In the kit I had the camera body, a 24-105 lens, a 50mm fixed and a 100-500 tele, a flash unit, several filters and spare batteries and cleaning gear. I carried them in a Lowepro backpack and the weight was 7 kilos (the maximum allowed on planes). My camera bag was quite bulky as all the gear is on the large end of the scale. I also wanted to add some other small items to the kit but was unable to due to weight.
When going on a trip overseas (we are based in Australia) I decided to go to a Panasonic G9, with a combination of Olympus 24-200 lens, a Panasonic 24mm fixed and the Pana/Leica 100-400 lens, flash gear, spare batteries, and sundry gear in a smaller Lowepro backpack. The weight was less than 5 kilos and the space saving was considerable.
The sensors on both cameras are about the same size, so I was more than interested to see how the Micro4/3s shots stacked up with the full frame. The only time I see the little sensor losing out is in very low light scenarios, with noise becoming more obvious. But most shots with the G9 I find the quality of shots are excellent, and it was quite a relief to find that the full frame didn't leave the Panasonic behind.
I am very impressed with the smaller sensor camera and it's gear, and will continue to use it for some time. The very good quality shots, the size and weight savings to be gained, and the difference in price are well worth considering.
Great effort Marc, keep up the good work.
I use a M4/3 camera. I find with DXO I just don't worry about noise anymore. I am happy with the weigh and size i save with the system. That's what was important to me.
Thanks for sharing 👍
Very happy with my X-T3 and A7IV primary cameras. Very little difference in quality in good light. It's when the light drops that you start to see differences but that's when you use equivalent lenses. One stop of light, like for like. I think people get to obsessed with sensor size, do you really need the big camera with the big sensor and big lenses? Yes, they are better but better does not mean the same thing for everyone.
Thanks for the comments 🙂
When most photographers at the time were using medium format cameras there was a chap that went for 35mm. His name was Henri Cartier-Bresson.
People don't say 'oh that's got amazing dynamic range and I can see lots of detail in the shadows'.
They do sometimes say 'I really like that photograph you took.
In an ideal world I'd have one of each type of camera with a good range of lenses for each.
Until that day the camera I have will more than suffice.
No image has worse quality than the one not taken because I left the gear at home because I couldn't bear the thought of lugging that size and weight around.
The low light images, the crop sensor image may have more noise but overall looks more pleasant.
Good point Peter 👍
People who faff about fuel frame being better than apsc, haven’t seen medium format…! The Fuji GFfX are insanely great! In any case, it’s not a matter of sensor size, it’s a matter of pixel pitch… the size of each pixel, which in truth defines the ability of the sensor to gather light (and with a set amount of noise)
Nice video…. For what it is worth I would like to add 2 points for your viewers…. When considering image quality - comparison should be done with true “equivalence”…. For example: f/2, ISO 200, 33mm on the APSC vs f3, ISO 800, 50mm on a Full-Frame… I used to lug around a heavy “full-frame” until I used a m43 camera… I have found that so long as you keep the ISO below 3,200 on any crop sensor (since 2018) the image quality in print under 16x20 at dpi 200 is virtually indistinguishable…. In short - I sold everything and can now carry my entire kit on any vacation in a shoulder bag!
My current kit is a Panasonic G9, Panasonic-Leica 15mm, 25mm, 42.5mm and 100-400mm all in a small shoulder bag….
So point #1 is at true equivalence the image quality is really not significant… And point #2 the size, weight and cost should be considered…
But a final point that makes me miss my full-frame (occasionally) is when you want to take full-body portraits at close distance - like at an indoor party…. The angle of view of a 25mm on a m43 is still far more acute than that of a 50mm on a full-frame…. So… although the “field of view” is the same the compression is truly evident! Portraits are not as pleasing! That being said - Using a 42.5mm and stepping back will return facial features and the compression distortion is not evident…. You however due to being further from the subject lose some of the ability to blur the background easily…. What this has done is cause me to be a better photographer…. I now have to place my subject carefully in relation to the background…. Still…. If having a more blurred background provides a more pleasing bokeh - then accept the need to keep a full-frame for indoor portrait shoots….
I know a full-time wedding/portrait photographer who uses an APS-C Canon DSLR, can't remember the exact model. It's not even current generation. Their stuff looks fantastic.
A better comparison would be the Nikon D850 or D5 and a Nikon D500, imo.
I'm a nikon user I use the D700 D850 and D7500 the 700 is my camera of choice for events like weddings and birthdays I do some wildlife and the 850 is my weapon of choice but my little 7500 is my daily driver it's smal light and powerfull for its scant 20mp it's my favorite to take everywhere with a nikkon 105mm prime.
Thanks for sharing Carlos 👍
I've just gone from a Canon 80D (APSC 24.2mp) to a Canon EOS R6(FF 'only' 20mp) and the improvement is staggering. The 80D struggled with noise badly at anything over ISO 800, but the R6 will give good results up to ISO12800, even in low light. The dynamic range is also far larger than the 80D so for me it's one of the best decisions I've made as I shoot most of my shots in lowish light. On a really bright day the difference wouldn't be as great, but the sharpness of the R6 (using adapted EF lenses that I used on the 80D) is much better then it was. Great video and analysis, thanks.
Thanks Mark, good knowledge to share there 👍
I had an R6 for a little over a year, and you're right, those cameras can just about see in the dark. I set my auto-iso limit at 25600 and still got good images with some post processing. I switched back to Micro 4/3 because of the size/weight, but the noise is about two stops worse(ie. iso 6400 on my G9 looks about like 25600 on the R6), which seems similar to the 80D noise, based on some sample images I've seen. I'm able to work around it, and happy with my decision, but I miss the nearly unlimited iso of the R6.
I'd hope a full frame that is 4.6 years newer would be an improvement.
I think we all get sidetracked by trying to capture an ultra sharp image etc, A pleasing image doesn’t have to be tack sharp, I shoot on APS-C & FF but one of my favourite images was taken on my little Sony RX100 mkiii 1 inch sensor
I use both for different situations. With small well-defined indoor spaces (imagine a restaurant), a crop body with an f1.4 prime is nice, small and less intimidating/distracting to a subject for spontaneous photos. When you need versatility and lighting is challenging, a wide aperture zoom on full frame works well (imagine museum or concert). I know how zooms fall apart in low light on crop bodies but full light outdoors a crop body zoom can work ok (hiking on vacation).
I use full frame Sony a7iv in a sling bag with a f2.8 trio, 16-35 GM, 24-70 ART, and 70-180 Tamron when I don’t know what I’ll be doing. Packs decently small.
Agreed. I have an old Fuji x-t2 and a 2.8 zoom, but I’ve discovered that the crop / 2.8 combination is not quite enough for indoor shooting. The ISO ends up much higher than I’d like.
That painting effect is something that will happen with X-Trans images (Fujifilm) when over sharpened in Lightroom. Known as worming effect. There´s many ways to work around this if you like me still want to use Lightroom. This is not happening in Capture One (they say)…
Iridient X-Transformer is another good option for Fuji shooters who don't want to change their workflow - affordable too.
@@TitouanDebray I used it for a while. Now I'm converting the RAW files to DNG using DxO Pure RAW. Not sure I'm going to continue with this workflow though. (Only when needed)
@@fotografi4fun Definitely an extra step but I've noticed the difference in the details of the files.
I have a cropped sensor Fuji but I shoot raw and process the files using DXO Pure Raw. Then I use ACR /Photoshop. The files are very good looking when you put some effort into the post processing. The one reason I am considering full frame is for the depth of field. I like the bokeh on full frame better but other than that the cropped sensor IQ is more than enough.
Thanks for the video. All these arguments in the comments are not needed. 🙈 You are correct, cameras are tools of the trade. I've been shooting a combination of digital 35mm =, "full frame" and APS-C "cropped" for decades. Before that we had different types of film, sizes, resolution, sensitivity. Someone shooting product photography may well use a very high MP CCD sensor all lit by carefully calculated strobes etc. You wouldn't want to carry that lot around 😅. Also, in the old days everything was printed or slides produced, now it depends on what you do with your files. If you just post to Instagram or other Web applications, tbh a good phone camera can give decent results. If you want to print large then what tool you use makes a difference. The two photos in this video of Haystacks over the lake are a good example of this. The lower dynamic range and lack of details and smudging in the shadows and foliage of the smaller sensor would not make a good fine print. The other file would be much better but for the web both are fine. APS-C cameras have as many advantages as disadvantages, I still use both. Decide what you are going to do with your photos, pick your tool, spend more time learning composition and digital darkroom skills. 😊
In the low light test, would shooting a 35mm at 1.4 on the crop sensor be more equivalent to the full frame 50mm f2? It seems that the increased depth of field of the 35mm at f2 makes noise more obvious since there is more background detail.
This is an interesting subject. You are correct. To get the comparable bokeh between the 50 and 35. What most forget is that the depth of field changes because the camera to subject distance changes to maintain same subject composition between full frame and crop sensor, consequently, the depth of field changes. So your changing f stop for the comparable bokeh between the two. I seem to remember micro four thirds being 2 stops different from full frame for a given lens
Hello,
I have watched a number of videos on You tube channels, on here and they all come up with the same result. The full frame is somewhat better but not by much. You really have to look close to see the differences, but they are there. I think both images from both cameras are great. It all depends on if you crop your images a lot. And not a big difference. I think where the differences will be in going to APS- C to a full frame medium format camera sensor. That when the medium format is going to shine. Thank you for the video and the testing.
Might have been interesting to have compared a FF and Crop sensor of the same Manufacturer and similar resolution...
For example Nikon's D750 and the D7200... with a quality lens attached...
No sensor or processor can account for deficiencies in the glass...
I upgraded from a D200 to D750. Same manufacturer; same lenses (vintage 28mm f2.8 AiS used on my FM film camera; 70-200mm f4 bought for D200). The D750 is considerably better at high ISO for building interiors. It’s not a bit; it’s huge. However, it’s an older APS-C vs full frame the sensor technology is better in the D750. Weight wise .. the D750 is LIGHTER and smaller than the D200. I’ll say that again - no mistakes - full frame cameras do not need to be too heavy; they can be lighter than some APS-C cameras. The lenses are the same. I have only 1 DX lens; used on the D750 I don’t get to use all the sensor but I still get more pixels in the image than with the (lower resolution) D200 APS-C sensor. In short I’ve never regretted upgrading from D200 (APS-C) to D750 (full frame).
One thing to note is if you're going to get a high MP ff camera then you need good glass that can resolve that much detail otherwise there isn't much point. That will probably push up the cost and weight too.
Very interesting video, thanks. I'm APS-C (thinking of upgrading) and another thing I notice is the crop factor. I have a 17-70 Sigma lens which is approx 25 - 100 on full frame. If you want longer focal lengths e.g. for sports APS-C is probably a plus. if you need a wide angle or do astro photography where low light performance is important full frame has a clear benefit. Otherwise I thin a lot depends on if you need to print large if the cost and other benefits make sense with full frame.
You're welcome, thanks for sharing 👍
Having a Sony A6600 and my wife's cousin having a Sony A7iii and an A7iv, we played some comparison games. Yes, low light there are noticeable differences. Not that we both use higher end G and Gmaster lenses. But for 90% if our shots we were hard pressed to notice an big differences outside of low light.
He did mention one thing that we both agreed was relevant. He said "I would enjoy taking your camera (a6600) and a couple lenses for a day of street shooting, but I find it a heavy pain to do that with gf, so I tend not to bring it out as often"
I think both systems have pluses and minuses, and it comes down to what works for you.
I have dabbled back and forth about changing and in the end, I decided to stay with CROP SENSOR [APS-C] the reason is that after pixel peeping and for what I do, it wasn't worth the expense.
Really good video Marc 👍 I agree with your thoughts and having owned Olympus micro 4/3, Nikon and Fuji crop sensor and Nikon full frame the noise is noticeable but only under certain conditions so not an issue for a majority of situations. I’m pretty much using full frame all of the time now but that is purely my preference and not to do with the sensor. Some of my favourite pictures were taken with my Olympus and Nikon crop sensor cameras and for me the best camera is the one you have in your hand. I 100% about weight of equipment but mirrorless full frame is much lighter and smaller than their DSLR equivalents. Great content Marc 👍👍
Thanks Gary, appreciate your sharing this 👍
i loved your video thank you for this. i have a question. i am a crop sensor user planning to upgrade but so confused if i take the highend crop sensor or the full frame. Budget does play a part in the decision making. Is the megapixel difference not going to make the difference. at 23:13 on your video i loved how the full frame has captured the rocks in the water vs the APS-C.
I haven't CHANGED the system, I just added a full-frame to my crop camera as an addition.
I have had a Canon 90D since... basically since it came out, and it was a great investment and is amazing for wildlife, with its 32,5 megapixel CROP sensor, you can really get much farther than with a full frame... bearing in mind the low-light conditions, of course.
Which is why I went for a Canon R6 to cover that aspect of my photographic interest.
Don't get me wrong, 90D is a very capable camera even in low-light, depending on what you want to achieve. If you don't crop too much, it's quite usable and I have plenty of photos to prove it.
But I've always been planning to move to full-frame and I've been buying ff lenses, mainly from Tamron, and it's always in the back of my mind how much light I'm collecting with those lenses that don't make it to the sensor. :D
With R6... even 25k6 ISO is quite decent.
Ouch..... tam..r.... on?
Their brand name is as bad as most of their lenses!
A speed booster might be what you're looking for, full frame glass on crop sensors with a speed booster can be quite good
@@FalloutUrMum Nah, I'm good.
And a further comment. How do the lenses used compare? Are they similar in terms of sharpness across the frame etc. etc.
There’s no right or wrong when choosing a full frame or crop sensor camera - both are capable of producing excellent images, depending of course on the skill of the photographer!
I have both a D850 and a D500. In my opinion each has its own merits. For me one issue to consider is if you plan to crop your image full frame is much more flexible. If, on the other hand, you consider that the crop sensor image is near the final image with little or no cropping, crop sensor is great. If you work out the full frame size you need to crop down to the 20 or more megapixels crop sensor size you get a larger image size equal to or more than many full frame cameras! There is also the consideration as to the type of photography you are using the camera for as, again, each system has it’s own benefits! Generally though it was always thought in the past that bigger image size is best!
🤘📷😁👍
Exactly! It depends what kind of photography you do. Nowadays even high-end smartphones will provide high-quality images in the hands of a skilled photographer. But if you want the best possible results, including the photograph you otherwise would have missed, then these cameras are best suited for that particular type of photography:
Medium size
Studio (product, food, fashion, portrait) landscape, architecture, art, astro, commercial
FF
On-site (fashion, wedding, portrait, food), evening/night, theater, sports, animal/wildlife, underwater, macro, micro, commercial
APS-C
Street, children, family, wedding, journalism, documentary, commercial
Smartphone
Snapshots (street, children, family)
If you're also videographer IBIS helps, but for the same money a gimbal is better. And APS-C and smartphones tend to overheat quickly.
I think more than sensor size, resolution and lenses are going to be key along with good technique. The only real advantages of FF vs APSC was (and is somewhat today although less so) is the high ISO noise abilities. FF has typically done better but with modern APSC sensors, I'd say that they rival that of 5 year old FF cameras, and so my answer would be "it depends". If you have a choice between a modern day APSC camera like an a6100 or a6400 or an R7 or Z50 over a 5-7 year old FF camera, I might be inclined to choose the modern APSC camera and take the extra money I would have saved and put it towards good lenses.
Great video, and good examples. I'm sending a link to a fellow photog. We were discussing this very thing this week.
Thanks Michael, glad it helped 👍
Thank you. Awesome video. The noise difference seems negligible but you do retain a lot more details in FF sensor at night. Look at the bottom of that sign, on on crop sensor it's pretty much just all black.
Hi Mark I have both the Sony and Fuji systems. In image quality for landscape my A7Riii at 42mp will out perform my A7iii at 24mp. Both full frame. The difference between the Fujifilm XT3 26mp and the A7iii is much smaller. I am not surprised with the results of the low noise test as sensor technology has come a long way since the Canon 5Div was released. To be fair to Fuji, Capture One is better at handling their raw files although Lightroom is getting there. Also regarding image quality I feel the choice of lenses can make a huge difference. Don't buy high end cameras and the save on lenses. It is a waste of good money. Sorry I know this is long but as you mentioned, my Sony gear is twice the weight of the Fuji. When i am out hiking guess which one comes with me? If one cannot take a good photo with any modern camera, it's not the camera. Enjoy your videos Mark.
Thanks Michael, appreciate you sharing this 👍
A very interesting subject and a difficult one to assess across different brands. Ultimately, it comes down to how much light each photosite receives, pixel pitch and algorithms a manufacturer uses.And every camera has it's place. I use the Nikon Z6 full frame and the Z50 crop sensor. So you have a full frame 24Mp v 20 Mp cropped. Surprisingly, when shooting wildlife, landscapes or architecture, I do prefer the Z50. Especially if I want to further crop the image with a given lens. The images seem more detailed and a lot sharper, but it does lose a little in the dynamic range.There's plenty of flexibility still in Lightroom though. My conclusion is the Z50 has a far better pixel pitch since less cropping is required and therefore more detailed, the trade off is in the dynamic range, but not much in the noise amplification. The Z6 would only be displaying 16Mp for the matching crop sensor equivalent. Let alone doing any further image cropping in post. However, for portrait work & pet photography, the reverse is true. Because I can utilize the full frame sensor area for a shallower depth of field, maintain a better compression to the perspective for a given lens, and handle dynamic range more. Consequently, detail isn't as a big issue (except for the eyes) because its lost in a softer bokeh. For Landscapes, there's surprisingly very little between them, again the z50 crop sensor is sharper. The Z6 may handle dynamic range better, but then the resolving power is lost because its cramming in more detail from a wider angle lens range. So, I really need a Z7 for Landscapes involving wide panoramas. And this is where I miss the resolving power of my d800.
Very interesting. I have just bought the Z50 (replacing my D7100) and have much to learn about it. Thanks for sharing.
@@arisultanik , thanks. Yes, I do think the Z50 is like a little unsung hero. And it always has put a smile on my face regarding picture quality.
Need help.. If any full frame camera shoots 4k 60fps in apsc mode.
Does that mean using 50mm f4 vl work as f6? And low light performance will be same as apsc camera (only using subset of pixels as sensor is acting as super 35)?
That was a helpful comparison. I've only got an entry level nikon d3500 and I'm pretty happy with the quality I'm getting. My skills haven't got to the stage where the camera is holding me back. Full frame would be nice but at the moment I can carry my camera, 18-55mm lens, 70-300 lens, a 35mm prime lens, extension tubes, some filters, a flash and a tripod in a cheap camera bag from Amazon. I'd probably have to leave some stuff behind if I wanted to go full frame.
That's a great little camera.
It is such a good little camera, and the af-p lenses are amazing. Had it a few years ago, regret selling it. Have tried everything from m43 to FF, apsc is more than good enough.
Good video and exactly what I expected? I have both systems the Nikon and the Fujifilm. For landscapes I prefer my Nikon system when I shoot large vistas, when I shoot casual and anything not too far away I will use the Fujifilm. The Fujifilm is very good with large objects and closer ones, the Nikon for everything is excellent. Good video and I just subscribed. Thank you. For noise reduction though I use a different software.
Thanks for sharing Luigi 👍
Diferent lenses can make a big difference than just the cameras sensor size southern are many factors to consider
Great video. Subscribed! Thank you for your clear, dispassionate explanation. Bravo!
Thanks and welcome aboard 👍
When looking at the night time photographs, I thought that the crop sensor photograph was better. This is because the brickwork behind the columns on the building behind the letter "h" looked clearer with the crop sensor camera and this was apparent before zooming right in.
I wonder what would be the difference with similar megapixel size, for example if you compared against the Fuji xhs.
The defining characteristic of full-frame is that it flattens a much widened field of view. Compare old-timey HUGE negative cameras to a smaller format to see the difference.
There is no advantage of FF for most landscape shots.
Great video you should make an update video with Fuji’s new 40mp sensor, also is very important to disclose what lens you used,because that can affect the sharpness of the images. I used to own the xt4 and now the xt5 is more sharper and the new Fuji lenses are very sharp. So a update of this video will be more than appreciate
Started with APSC 400d,40d, 60d, 70d,600d moved on to APS-H 1d2 then got full frame 5d3, currently have 1 of each and also micro 4/3 an Olympus OMD-EM1X which I'm enjoying using.
Very interesting video! I’m completely happy with my Olympus OM Cameras (and also with my Nikon)! The new OM-1 is AMAZING!
Light Room still doesn't play well with Fuji files. It would be interesting to see a comparison using Capture 1. I think the Fuji files would hold up better. DX0 also does a better job.
I went from canon 80d to Olympus em5 ii to Sony a7iii and finally x-h1. What I realized for portrait and wedding work is about light. I still needed to fill in shadows with full frame but at a lessened level. High iso for crop is 6400. High iso for full frame is 12800. These both depends on print size. For me the weight of full frame wasn’t worth it. But Sony came out with new lighter lenses after I sold all my kit. For me buying a pro level camera with dual card slots was the biggest winner.
Judging by the clouds difference, would have been better if the photos of the landscape were taken in the same moment in the same day, because the crop sensor landscape is much more hazy, and we don't know if it is atmospheric condition or variability in image productions.
Well done, excellent video, I shoot Fuji, Leica digital and Agfa 120 film........bang for buck I love my iPhone 13 pro max. I've done Canon & Sony. Olympus is very much fantastic bang for buck. Bottom line is, image & process. Software rules, IMHO, "IF" the image is a "keeper". I conclude, they are not so easy to attribute to a systems, as much as the artists eye.
Great advice here Alan, thanks for sharing 👍
I think when you compare the dynamic range, you could have compare the shadow on the floor tiles. How much of the floor tile detail can be recover from the each of the RAW file.
I kept my cameras as I "moved up" to larger sensors. I actually shoot most of my shots with MFT cameras. It's because of the size and weight. It's so easy to grab the smaller camera with a much smaller and lighter lens, and get out and shoot. The GX-85 with a 20mm 1.7 lens is almost always with me. My "favorites" are still my Nikon APS-C cameras. The D7200 and D300 feel "just right" when I use them. I think less and shoot more. If I can carry the larger gear, that's usually what I take. That said, my Z5 is nice. It just "feels" awkward to me. The lenses are bigger, and the third party primes are MUCH heavier. If I'm shooting at night, or in really low light, I get it out. That said, I could easily live without the full frame kit. I'm in my 60s, and the ability to get the camera and lenses out to where I want to shoot seems to be the most important factor to me. Of course, I'm shooting for me. If I was actually selling my photos, it would change the way I look at creating them.
Maybe the amount of detail also depends on the quality of the lens, using different lenses could distort the results when comparing detail?
I don’t really think that it matters what size sensor you shoot on if you are not pixel peeping. Surely it is the scene and its composition that matters more. This is even more true if you print a lot of your photos like me, as the limits of the printer change the resolution anyway. When prints are viewed from normal viewing distance you cannot tell what camera has been used. I have printed to A3 from a 20 year old compact camera 5mp and people have asked me for copies and had them framed professionally! We admire photos from the past taken by masters of the trade - and what old cameras were they using?
This was intresting! If you also compare the size and difference in price. It gets just more intresting. For me as an amateur. I think I will continue with the apc camera. When you also have to carry all the gear in the mountains...
Great video. No real surprises. This really tells me that other factors are more important than FF & DR. Hand held vs tripod, Lens selection, gear weight & transportation to & from your subject, IBIS or no IBIS, night vs daylight emphasis, absolute number of pixels etc etc. The vast majority of people don’t care about noise when viewing how the photo is intended to be seen. I doubt whether anyone is going to try to see the leaves on a particular tree a kilometre across a lake. Only the photographer is going to worry about FF & DR. Some of my most appreciated photos have been technically some of my worst (IMHO), and taken on technologically outdated equipment. We worry too much about these minor things.
Very true Tony, thanks for sharing 👍
Just swap my a7iv to xt5, best decision I’ve made. Yes, you’ll get more obliteration in the background when wide open but that’s it. But the lenses or rather price difference is enormous ie fuji xf 16-55 f2.8 £950, Sony gm 24-70 f2.8 £2700😵💫
Hi Marc, hello community. I have a question, not about the size of the sensor but do sensors depreciate noticeably over the years? Can you expect, for example, their colour or sharpness to degrade? Thinking about the 2nd hand market.
Hi Stu, I don't actually know the answer to that but I can tell you that I've had camera's for years and not noticed any depreciation in the sensor. Hope that helps
@@theschoolofphotography Thanks Marc, It's probably an unanswerable question when I think about it ;) Thanks for the feedback
Thank you Marc for this very interesting video. I have recently added a Fuji XT4 with a couple of lenses to my equipment list. I have kept my older Nikon full frame setup, so I haven't actually switched systems - just added a lighter kit for hiking days. Personally I still prefer to shoot with my Nikon D810 and I feel I get better image quality from this setup, however looking at the results of your tests I am wondering why that is. I have found images from my D810 to be brighter and crisper if that is a thing? Maybe lenses?
Anyway, I am very happy to have both for different occasions.
I am now beginning to feel that any perceived loss of image comes from either (a) pilot error as I m still learning, or (b) my imagination :)
Thanks again for your video content. I am going to sign up now for some of your tutorials.
Pete
You are welcome Peter 👍
in the first picture it seems to me that the picture section is shown larger in FF, so it is normal that more details can be seen when you zoom in.
Maybe it is a little unfair comparing a lower resolution crop sensor to a high resolution full-frame. You by default get more detail becasue of extra megapixels. Wonder how much details in the leaves would you get with a 24Mp full-frame from that distance.
Exactly, my thoughts too...
Could you do the same test, but use a similar MP sensor? Canonn 6dMk ii comes to mind.
Nice video! In my opinion, Fuji is maybe not the best APSC to do this test... I mean, the fuji noise is just not as bad as other brands in APSC, I would say that fuji noise is even better (aesthetically) than many full frame bodies. It has less color noise, so is more pleasant.
I used dc cameras for twenty years, kodak, olympus, pentax ist ds, pentax k-01, sony dsc-r1, Samsung nx500 (very underrated!). Pictures always satisfied me. But, I have bought a sony a7 iii last month with adapters to use my old lenses, and the difference is Amazing ! The field of view, bokeh, dynamic, each are a little better than crop sensors, but together, it's night and day ! I'm not a professional, just an enthusiastic, but with my full frame camera, I have seriously improved number of good shots compared to crop sensors.
I've shot with both FF and APS-C , All that matters is if you, (or your customer) likes the final results. In many years of shooting, not once did I have a customer ask me what sensor format I used. All they cared about was a quality print, viewed at a normal distance. To me, The quality from the lab was the most important thing.
I have Canon 50d which is heavy magnesium body , how ever I quite fancy the Fujifilm X T 2 they are getting on a bit but have good quality, but then I learned on a canon 50d, so it's pulling on my heart strings , so I'm right on the fence.
Perfect comparison. Can you tell me, what papersize means 100% at Full-frame and 100% at APS-C?
Hi. Could the difference be in the MP of each camera? (talking about the trees). Won't the 45MP have better sharpness at that level of zoom than the XT-4? Thx for the video...
Hi, yes it would do. Thanks 👍
I am totally confused about which camera should i buy for videography. Should i buy a Full frame or a aps-c please help me
Thanks for the video. I feel there is a slight problem with comparing a 45 MP FF camera with a 26 MP APSc camera and conclude that APSc will give you less detail when the level of detail is down to the MP count. You would find the same result if you compared a 45 MP FF camera to a 26 MP FF camera. Interesting video though
Yes correct Martin but it was more about how much more detail do you get.
@@theschoolofphotography Thank you, I am wondering if, perhaps, a fairer comparison would have been to compare the Fuji to the Canon 6d Mk2 or Nikon Z6 as their MPs are much closer to the Fuji.
Yes, especially if resolution was the purpose of testing. Send us a Z6 and we'll do one 😊
I could meet up with you, if you want.
If I want to “upgrade” crop sensor, I’ll just go to medium format. Don’t see the point of full frame…for me.
An important factor not mentioned here is the shallower depth of field you get with a FF sensor. That can be either a preferred characteristics, or a disadvantage, depending on one’s own preference. When we step up to a medium format we see an even more shallow depth of field. That’s just plain physics. For a landscape photographer that often like to have sharpness across the whole image from front to back a crop sensor has an advantage. But a bird photographer is more prone to wanting a blurry falloff behind the main subject and is therefor more inclined towards a FF sensor for that reason. But a shallow depth of field also means it’s harder to hit the target with. Many of us are ‘hybrid’ shooters and we don’t really like to carry two cameras with us wherever we go, right? Personally, I have chosen FF because I shoot more than 50% landscapes and I also happen to prefer shallow depth of field in many situations anyway. FF also gives me more resolution which means I can be a bit more aggressive in cropping, if I feel I need to. That can become an important factor when shooting birds and wildlife which are often too far away for any lens to reach.
I’m a Nikon FF shooter myself but I think the Fuji crop sensor was unfairly treated on two accounts; firstly, the megapixel count was just 57% to that of the D850 camera. Secondly, Fuji files do very poorly in Lightroom in general. It would have been a much more fair comparison if both cameras had the same resolution and compared in Capture One or DXO PhotoLab instead.
At the end of the day, what really matters is what the intended use of the image is? If we have no specific end-scenario for the image it is generally better to have as much data as possible saved on the card. That gives us more leverage to do things with the image in post later. But we must remember to match the quality of the glass to the resolution of the sensor. Which often means heavier and more expensive equipment, as well. This is the reason we see such a ridiculous disproportion between a mirrorless body and a long prime lens in balance and weight. Hi resolution demands large and heavy glass! There will always be trade-offs to consider, even when costs and budgets are not a factor.
I wished I would have read your comment a few years ago, i upgraded to full frame for more low light for travel photography but didn’t realized how more difficult it was to get pictures of my family while traveling to have both people and background in focus, not always having a portrait style photo is what you want like you were saying depth of field is not one better than the other it depends on the job you want it to perform
@@Lucamitm You’re absolutely right. It all depends on the desired results we want. We also need to consider the distance between the subject and the background to get the result we want.
@@Lucamitm just decrease the aperture
“In the crop sensor example, the trees look painterly, the tree branches and leaves have merged into what looks like a brush stroke.” This is true for a Fujifilm X-Trans crop sensor. Is this the same case for a crop sensor with a Bayer array sensor like the Nikon D500 or a Nikon Z50?
Not sure on that Keith but maybe others can help here by commenting below??
@@theschoolofphotography Thanks Marc. Great video. I process my X-T2 and X-T3 images with foliage using LR Enhanced ... Raw Detail or a LR plugin called Iridient X Transformer. Either of these make a huge difference IMO for RAF files and foliage detail.
@@keithernest8385 thanks for the advice Keith, I'll give that a go 👍
1 year late. But if you had both cameras with the same MP, so for example 24 for both, wouldn’t the cropped camera give similar or better results? For the landscape picture
If some hasn't said anything about this but you are comparing different sensors, which makes very little difference in the long run. From my experience I can honestly say that it all depends on your usage of your camera. If you are a professional than by all means, buy a full frame camera as long as you have the write-off or budget from your business to pay for it. If you are a hobbyist, someone who shoots for the fun of it, I would go with the APS-C because the difference is hard to find and it costs much less than the full-frame camera and glass (lenses). As a hobbyist you should remember this very important point, don't get hung up in your gear. Get out of the house, shoot, and most importantly, have fun doing it. And, look at light-room or Topaz to adjust your photos in post production.
First I had an APSC camera (Canon M6). I was quite happy with it, took nice photos, was lightweight. Then I bought a Canon RP (full frame) and got a good glass (Canon RF 24-105 mm f/4 L). I can say that I do see better performance of the full frame, combined with superior glass. But of course it's bulkier and heavier.
Hmmm, you are using an ageing Canon camera, how will this turn out on a RF camera? Personally I've bought a new R6 and a used 80D so I can have both worlds. Macro is very different with these two cameras in many ways
Maybe comparing FF bayer vs APS-C bayer sensors instead of bayer vs x-trans. There are so many software and hardware variables have to be accounted for before a like for like comparison can be analysed, especially regarding details.
Hi, wouldn’t the lens make any difference has I take it two different makes was used.
Clients don't care or understand... They like the pic, that's all that counts. Changed from Canon to Fuji... Did shoots for BMW, Reebok, and Disney... Never a complaint not being FF
I stopped caring years ago and with todays upscale and denoise I care even less. I had the privilege to win photograph of the year and best nature photograph in Swedens biggest photography magazine a few years back. Shot on Fujifilm XT2 and the Xf55-200mm. The image was also cropped more than 50% to only 11.3 megapixels. I was up against Leicas, Hasselblads and GFX etc. No one ever asked me what it was shot on. I did a limited edition of the print 1/5. I got 1 left. The first sold for 400usd, the second 1000usd and the last one is now up for 3000usd. A 7 year old APS-C image cropped more than 50% printed as an A3 shot on a kit you can buy used for 800usd these days.. I still use my XT2 as much as I can.
On the subject of noise assuming your not taking a picture of a person or similar could you not just take multiple shots and image stack to cancel out some of the noise like astrophotographers do?
Yes that would help
you don't have to zoom in to see the difference. the FF is just more pleasing to the eye. You can see the difference in the depth of field also. When I bought my Sony A7Rii, even when using APS-C lenses, I got better pictures than my a6600. The annoying thing is, as much as I want to keep at least one of my APS-C cameras, I can't get myself to use them anymore.
Thank you for the video . I shoot Fuji XT4 raw
The Fuji uses an Xtran sensor and the FFs a Bayer sensor
I have a lot of experience of Fuji XT4 in low light situations. The noise beyond 3200 iso is unacceptable and below that is only acceptable when Topaz Denoise Ai is applied
I would like to use a full frame camera however you hit the nail on the head at the end of the video ….all about weight of gear ….also the price differences.
If you have not done so already check out a fully functional 30 day free trial of Topaz Denoise Ai for your higher iso images
As for the difference in sharpness in good light . Check out Topaz Sharpen Ai .
The Topaz products are amazing
I would argue that Image Quality should be compared with the ISO you can shoot at a certain scenario. With DpReview test images, a FF sensor generally has at 1-2 stop advantage. If u wanna make crop look similar you need to provide the camera more light. For example in crop , iso 3200 image will be equivalent to a iso 6400 or even 12800 image in FF. So that’s using the tool for intended purpose.
If you own crop sensor you should invest in wider apertures to counter that. That’s why even MFT users are getting great results since the Olympic and Panasonic make large aperture lenses to get that amount of light.
I paired a crop sensor camera with a sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 zoom, which makes great kit.
Compared to a FF+24-70 f/2.8 it lacks the wide end, but gives equivalent light on a smaller package
Thank you. it would have been nice to compare the same sensor technology and same glass. e.g. a cmos crop sensor with the same glass. good video, thank you
What lens size did you use for each in the first landscape example?
Not sure of the top of my head but it is all explained in the video
There's an old adage that the best camera is the one you have with you. I would amend that a bit and say the best camera is the one you'll use the most. I don't use my a7iii much any more, instead opting for my a6400. The reason? Weight. And bulk. I use a gimbal for video and the a7iii is just too heavy. Also the newest Sony lenses designed for apsc are terrific. And light. And relatively inexpensive. Thanks for the video.
I would have preferred the same brand in FX and DX. Furthermore, the same megapixels in both FX and DX. Is this possible?
I fear that once you experience full frame you never want anything less. Ten years ago I bought a fixed lens full frame camera - Sony RX1 and despite it's undeniable limitations it was my go to camera almost all of the time. Do you really need full frame? Maybe not but if you want to take your photography as far as you can, the camera has a significant role to play.
If you can put a price (say x) on the delta of the image quality, you can figure out if it is justifiable to get a full frame by the number of pictures you will take times x.
I think you made some valid points but I don't think it was a fair comparison. The d850 is a high resolution camera. You're going to see more detail. I think you guys should have used a 24 MP full frame to compare. An even better comparison would have been with a crop sensor that's the same brand as the full frame because most people stay within the same eco system when moving up to full frame. Also, the Fuji camera is a little darker in the second test. I think it's because the base ISO is 200. If you had raised the ISO to the same number of stops it would have been higher than 10,000 and you would have seen more noise. Or I could be wrong on that. If the histogram looks the same in both images then 200 being the base ISO wouldn't matter on the Fuji. But there's more to a full frame than just the picture quality. There's options in the menu that you don't have on most crop sensor cameras. Most crop cameras don't have function buttons that you can assign to do specific things. A full frame camera gives you the option to be more efficient when you're on a shoot. You can quickly make changes by pressing a button rather than going through your menu and trying to remember where the setting is in front of a client. If you're shooting a once in a lifetime event you only have one chance to get it right. Being able to change quickly can make the difference in getting the shot or not. I think Nikon makes some of the best ergonomic cameras with the way the buttons are laid out.
Olympus/OMD m43 can be costumized exactly as you want. Image quality is exelent and you can set every button as you like. 😉
That Fuji XT4 can be programmed in that way. You can map just about any button to any function on the Fuji’s and that’s not a recent feature either. I think the qualifier is that most companies make their lower end cameras Apsc, whereas Fuji only make Apsc or medium format and their XT and XH lines are considered their ‘pro’ cameras. Whatever a ‘pro’ camera is, and that’s a rabbit hole in itself.
I’ve shot Nikon FF on the D700 and the Fuji XT2 professionally for weddings and portraiture and there’s no loss in efficiency between the different systems.
The biggest issue I found between Nikon and Fuji was having to step out of Lightroom and use Capture 1 to process the Fuji raw files. Adobe are awful at rendering Fuji files.
The D850 is an absolute beast of a camera though.