In this debate about apsc or full frame (which for me means Plaubel 13x18cm), one point is unfortunately always forgotten: which camera is the greatest pleasure to work with and when. For landscape photography I currently enjoy shooting with MFT. Gorgeous, almost no weight and wonderful focal length selection. After 50 years of towing, it's great to be able to walk with a light step. And the image quality is great too.
The old adage the painter not the paint I wasted so much time learning this For me A vision B composition C tells a story D Beauty And a side note Not until printing on better printers with great paper did any of above become “reel”
When digital cameras were first out most cameras made at that time were crop sensor cameras, pro photographers were using and making beautiful photos with crop sensor cameras because they understood the different factors that come into play to create such a photo. Subjects, lighting composition and exposure along with lens choice are what make a compelling photo regardless of sensor size.
I think that the FF-is-better-than-Crop comes from this time. My first digital was a Fuji S2Pro (6MP, APS-C) - literally a Analog film Nikon F80 Body with attached digital backpack. Viewfinder was dark and tiny, Sensor technic was basic (no microlenses or the other new stuff). And you where stucked with old Nikon Lenses for analogue film and the first "Digital Grade" ones In 2005 I bought a Canon 5D (FF, 12MP) - Big viewfinder view where you could see even in darker situations what you are photographing. Yes the S2 with 2003 tec-sensor has visible noise from ISO800 and was halfway usefull until ISO1600 (but the noise started to get ugly). But the 5D wasn't better ISO 3200 was "H1" and noise was visible at ISO 1600 and even ISO 800. Same pixel-pitch, more or less the same state of technologie. But with "only FF" - Lenses for both APS-C and FF for some kind of photography (shallow DOF - Aperture wide open aka Portrait) the Crop - Effect takes place and the myth started. Later when the first extreme fast -APS-C lenses where available this Crop Effect could be compensated (DOF on APS-C with a 35mm f1.4 was more or less the same as with a 50mm f1.8 (ok in real a f2.0) when taking the same picture. But the 50mm FF 1.8 was available for $99 the 35mm f1.4 cost a lot more and why should I buy a expensive lens for a minor APS-C (myth is recalling)? Later in the mid 2000s to maybe 2015 the sensors get better and better but on the other side the Megapixel Race has started. That a APS-C Sensor with 24MP compared to the same state of the art FF Sensor with 24MP has smaller sensor pixel (theoretically half the size) and therefore more problems with high ISO ( Something the next evolution stage of Sensor often compensate) - Yes but mostly only visible for pixel Peepers (Oh my god this camera is trash - at 10.000% I can see 100x100 Pixel Blocks - Not useable!!!!!!! - Where is the fork - burn the factory). From maybe 2016 to 2020 the Pixel race stopped for a short time (because more pixel doesn't make the picture better - even worse it makes it worser) and when comparing a maybe 16-20MP APS-C with a 32 to 40MP FF the difference (also because better APS-C lenses where available) was close to "non existant. Additionally - in 2003 the typical output was a maybe letter sized or bigger print on paper. Today 90% of the pictures rest with 1-2MP on Insta or Facebook, and shrinking the picture also means shrinking the noise (and other issues). No need (for most hobby photographers) for 60MP+ FF anymore, even the 6MP of a Canon 10D (my second digital) would match the needed quality. But there is always the GAS (Gear Aquiring Syndrom) - My pictures from a brick wall are boring! - Must be because I do not have the best of the best that is better than the best ever produced gear! - That my pictures are boring, because test charts from brick walls are by definition boring and Ifor other "not boring" pictures my skills are not existent? - No I'm the best photographer in the World and therefore it must be the Gear - End of Discussion. 🙂
@@DSP16569 Thank you for this historical and almost "arms race" perspective! I'm a hobby-ist amateur photographer, gradually learning more and more about the technical aspects of photography alongside with the with the skills-set and artistic sides, and I'm constantly impressed by the beauty and clarity of photos that I can produce with my small crop sensor DSLR. Recently as I try to do more kinds of photography, including portrait and indoor, I am a victim of GAS when it comes to lenses. I'm buying used, mid-grade expense/quality lenses, and each new lens I get lets me produce different kinds of photos than what I've made before. In my opinion some of my photos quality rival those of professionally produced photographs with FF cameras.
I've put this out there on other threads, and I know some people get it, some people don't, others may not agree and some get downright angry. But anyway, the way I see it, there are only TWO reasons to buy a camera based on specs/resolution/sensor size etc; 1) because you're a commercial photographer whose clients have demanded a specific output standard, or 2) you just like it. I used to be a commercial photographer, and many clients would want to see my gear list before they'd hire me. Not all, but it happened. If a client is not a photographer, they will not consider skill to be important, only specs ("Oh your photos are great! You must have an awesome camera!"). Others have output needs (like large format prints) where they demand as much resolution as possible, edge-to-edge sharpness, etc. So I had all the full-frame gear for that, the best you could buy at the time. And if this is you, go for it, spend big, earn those dollars/pesos/kroner/francs/yuan/etc. Or if you're new to photography, don't really get art and are a pixel-peeper who just can't be happy with an image unless you can zoom in to 1000% and count the hairs on the fly in the corner of the window of the building you photographed on vacation, then sure, go for it. But if you're a creative person who just wants to make images and tell visual stories in the most accessible way possible, then buy gear that enables you to do that, and stop letting people sell you on what they think you should have. When the pandemic hit and my business fell apart, I sold all the gear and went to a crop sensor. Now I do fine art photography, no clients, no briefs. I go where I want, when I want, shoot what I want. Sometimes it sells, sometimes it doesn't. I don't care, I earn my living in other ways now. But in three years since going APS-C, no one, NO ONE, has looked at any of my images and said, "It's nice, but it would have been better if you'd shot on a full-frame sensor with a 50mm f1.4 rather than a crop-sensor with a 35mm f2". No one. Because - *and here's the point* - people judge images based on what they ARE, not what they are NOT. If you present an image to someone and it's got some noise, soft edges or a little distortion - but the story is told well and is emotive - no one will care. They will look at the image holistically and accept those "flaws" as artistic choices used to tell the story. And if they get caught up in the technical details, they're probably not your audience anyway. Not everyone gets painting, not everyone gets sculpture, and not everyone gets photography. So for me, going APS-C was the wisest thing I've ever done. My kit is small, light and relatively inexpensive. I can have it almost anywhere, ready for the moment and I don't draw a lot of attention. My lenses aren't perfect, and in fact, I've sought out a lens selection based on their character. For you, maybe your decisions are different. If you're doing architecture, then perfect proportions and edge sharpness might be essential. If you're doing sports or other action, fast focus is key. But you don't need full-frame to get those things. Bottom line; define your needs first, get good at what you need to get good at. Then filter through the marketing noise, make a decision that suits your needs and gets you out there taking photos.
Thanks@@Pfagnan. I do genuinely believe in this. Too many people invest way too much in their gear when they should invest in their skills first. Of course, some people just like gadgets, and that's OK too. I just wish more people would be honest with themselves as to why they're buying it. I've known one guy for over a decade who buys a new camera every year, but his photos never get better. I wonder if he'll ever figure it out.
Pro optical engineer here…. My suggestion is that people analyse these issues in terms of the physical size of the aperture - the physical size of the hole in simple terms. For a fixed aperture size and field of view the amount of light entering the camera is fixed irrespective of focal length or sensor size. For a given sensor technology aperture size is the only significant factor that determines real low light performance- not sensor size. The depth of field is also determined by aperture size irrespective of focal length or sensor size. Let’s consider a specific example: a 50mm f/4 lens in front of a full frame sensor will give basically the same image as a 25mm f/2 lens in front of a m43 sensor - same depth of field and very similar image noise (for a given shutter speed and sensor technology). This is simply because both cameras have the same aperture size.
THANK YOU. It drives me a little nuts sometimes how people compare apples to oranges, for example in this video the presenter compares a 35mm f/1.8 to a 50mm f/1.8. Those two lenses have different aperture sizes, which is the real reason for the bokeh ball size difference!
@@gabedamienAs new hobbyist I am looking for a lens recommendation and always got that simple comparison. Just today I watch other video comparison that make me realize this, since I was a physics graduate in material optic long time ago I think my physics sense back a bit but not sure with how a camera engineered, thanks this comment section confirm this. photography seems even more interesting now
@@dutchbeef8920Not really. 35mm was the most commonly used format back in the film days, so it's not surprising it became the benchmark in digital photography.
@@BubblesPothowarithe amount of light they receive depends entirely on the lens mounted in front of them, and specifically on how much light it can gather (the absolute aperture) and how wide it can project it (the focal length)
Almost a year ago i got Nikon Z30 with the kit lens and then added a 50mm F2 manual lens few months later. All of it was a total of 650 dollars. I am not a professional , just an enthusiast and just wanted to get into dedicated cameras. The thing is the jump in the image quality and versatility you get over a smartphone vs an APS C camera is way bigger than an APS C vs a full frame camera. and for what its worth most people would be better off with an APS-C system.
I agree, I have the Galaxy S23 Ultra, my photos with this smartphone are as good as with my APS-C for Social Network posts, but the moment I need anything better I can just change the Kit Lens of my APS-C or simply change the apperture a bigger sensor is a advantage but not as big.
The Z30 is nuts for what it is. I've used it in professional applications without any hesitation alongside other bodies. Enjoy, you can absolutely get stunning results
@@cyberfunk3793 price is everything. Full frame cameras and lenses costs much more than APS-C and dont forget that not everyone earns in dollars. 2000 dollars may not be much to the people in the US but for example , in india thats a significant amount of money for 90% of the people. All that said i am strictly speaking for non professionals. If your work depends on it then sure its worth it. but then again the price to performance is not justifiable.
Excellent technical analysis. The people who view my photos neither know nor care about the camera equipment I use to produce photographs. I have yet to have anyone ask me what size size sensor I use. What is critical is the quality of my printing. Stop obsessing about sensors and just enjoy your work/hobby.
An important point that you don't emphasize in your discussion: if you want to get background separation (i.e. you want to shoot wide open on fast apertures), you are limited by the available lenses. To get the equivalent of 35mm f2 on APS-C, you need 24mm f1.4, for a 50mm f1.4, you would need 35mm f1 etc. For most modern APS-C systems, there exist no autofocus lenses with the required apertures. If you are going the manual route, you can adapt many beautiful lenses with fast apertures, but that means you are going to miss many shots. The situation is even worse for zoom: the fastest zoom lenses for APS-C have f2.8, which is equivalent to f4 on full frame.
And also cost - the full frame f4 will cost much less and weigh less than f2.8 full frame. On APS-C buying a lens that is one stop lower will add 50% or more to the cost of the lens (and some size and weight). Also, many small light f2.8 or f4 full frame lenses have come out that that rival APS-C lenses. Really, a chart should be assembled for Sony showing equivalent lenses that are matched for angle of view, and equivalent f-stop, size and weight. In the case of Panasonic - the fast lenses are $1500 to $2000+
I think a better way to view sensor comparison is as follows: 1. accept that for photos the image quality is *almost* the same. 2. APS-C naturally is better at telephoto and FF is better on the wide end and there is extra cost when you work against that by having to put more powerful and expensive telephoto lenses on ff and wide / faster lenses on APS-C. 3. Decide what is more important - birds and wildlife - APSC. Up close with soft backgrounds FF. 4. In general, go with APSC because it is lower cost for all around shooting if you don't shoot much in very low light or really need/want FF f1.4/1.2 etc.
If you want to get background separation, there are plenty of lens available for crop sensors, and you just need to adjust your set up to get the results you need. This might mean standing in a different position or using a different lens to FF, but that's no problem. You're just looking at this from a FF perspective and trying to mimic the results, but that's not important to a lot of people. If you had used a crop sensor all your life, would you be constantly dissatisfied with the results? No, of course you wouldn't. You can get F1.2 AF lenses for aps-c now that give you all the background separation you'll ever need, and even with slower lenses, you might just have to position yourself differently.
I’m weirdly attracted to APSC vs Full frame videos and there’s tons of these on TH-cam. I’m very respectful of both formats and their advantages and disadvantages. That said, this video is really the most misleading one I have seen on this niche topic. It’s somehow effective regarding the practical results but really oversimplified regarding the optical properties of each format. Full frame is almost presented as a scam orchestrated by manufacturers…
I am attached to them because I want to know if anyone at last will have the guts to say the truth- that this new trend "APSC is almost as good" is BS lol. They all say APSC is good enough, yet they all use FF for themselves )) Yeah, then why isn't micro 4/3 also as good as full frame ? Or even MF ? Sensor size doesn't matter, right ?
Amen! I have heard soooo many times that my apsc cameras is no good and that I need to get a full frame camera. I am sure they were just trying to help, but as you mentioned, the price difference is HUGE! An excellent photographer once said, “the quality of the lens you put on your camera is what will make the difference.” Another said “the camera you have in your hand is what will be best for you. Make the best use of what you have and you can’t go wrong.” So, I’m happy for those who can afford full frame cameras and their lenses, but MY reality is that I’m happy with what I have. That, to me is what matters most. Thanks for the excellent and very informative video. Cheers.
In the end what you are saying here is that you don't have enough money for full frame, but that could be put into perspective because there are many old, still very capable full frame cameras that cost less than APS-C cameras. It is true that the quality of the lens is very important, even more than the sensor, because a bad lens, no matter how good the sensor you have, will not give good results. That the best camera is the one you have in your hand is a phrase of pure existentialism And of course, if you are hungry it is better to have a potato than to have nothing, but if in addition to the potato you have the turkey it is better. Anyway, a good photo is a good photo regardless of the camera you took it with. At most with the best camera there will be more detail, better colors, it will be technically better but that is only part of the image.
Pausing this video at 3:22. Keep in mind the RP is not only old but it has been the cheapest full frame camera from the day it launched and it still is the bargain leader among full frame cameras. The FX 30 is nearly twice the price so that was an unfair comparison. And on video performance you omitted the key fact that Sony markets the FX 30 as a cinema camera. It damn well better out perform the RP for which video is an afterthought. Continuing the video now.
Sports photog here, often shooting at very high ISOs. My crop sensor cameras, of the same general generation as my full-frames, do poorly in comparison when it comes to handling noise in both video and photos. In addition, when I put my full-frame cameras in DX mode (turning them into crop frame cameras) in those low light conditions, I have very little room to crop in post as the images fall apart quickly. Now, during a nice bright day, at low ISOs, you can't tell the difference between crop and full-frame unless you do some extreme cropping.
I'm just getting into photography but have had an interest in it for many years. Something I don't see mentioned is how it is harder to do super wide angle photography with a crop sensor. This is just because you might find something like a 10mm lens, but it would be 15mm equivalent in APS-C. ALL your lenses get the FOV cropped, and some super wide FOVs are just impossible with a crop sensor as a result. I got an APS-C camera and don't really mind this, but just an observation.
I recently bought a FF for the first time after years of APSC and I can tell you that I see the difference in image quality. Even with a “cheap” 50mm lens
Even? More like because of... All of my "worse" 50 and 55mm lenses perform a lot better on FF than on APS-C. But in general you are right, most of my shots done on a EOS RP (FF) and even the modern and highly corrected (in a bad way) RF 50 1.8 are just superior to the ones shot on APS-C camera. On APS-C you lose resolution, especially with not so good/sharp glass compared to full frame. And mostly FF lenses are designed to work on FF the best.
I'm going FF in a couple of months, not because I care about FF but because Techart makes an autofocus adapter for Z mount and E mount but not X mount (sad) and I really want to try the adapter and get autofocus on vintage lenses, so I'm really interested to see if this is true. And more importantly as these bodies are double the price is the image quality twice as good. Everything is compromise in photography, let's see if bigger and heavier for better image quality is actually worth it.
Probably unintentional, but the video understates the real-world advantage of FF. Double the sensor area is double the light. That's your baseline point of difference, everything else comes down to what lenses are available on each system, how well they perform, how much they cost, and whether they are the optics that you want. It's not so simple has "the same performance for half the cost". For example, a FF 50/2 is usually a cheap and high performance lens. On APS-C, you'd need a 35/1.4 for the same basic function, and to get the same sharpness and overall image quality you'd be looking at a much more expensive lens for APSC than the FF equivalent. Generally FF favors wide angle, while crop favors reach.
FF lenses are not sharper and cheaper by definition. Same "rules" apply for both formats as you can get cheap and soft or expensive and sharp lenses and anything in between. Case in point, on Fuji you can buy the very expensive 1.4 Fuji lenses or go with cheaper, yet very good Sigma, Viltrox and other equivalent lenses. Another example is the Nikon Z 40mm f2 that's not better than equivalent APSC lenses in any way, as you get what you pay for. I believe that you can achieve roughly the same performance in both formats for similar prices for basic photography. Outside of basic photography, both formats have their strengths as you mentioned.
Well My ff is ableto get❤❤ primes in zeiss or older better manual lenses pennies on $$ So $ for $ im crushing either crop Or FF at even sale new pricing!! Have both so😮
The sensor size is not directly the reason full frames generally perform better in low light. The FUNDAMENTAL reason is that the individual pixels are generally larger on full frame cameras. So each PIXEL is gathering more light. For example, if you have a 12 MP crop sensor camera and a 30 MP crop sensor camera (and ignoring any technological advancements in image processing) - the 12 MP camera will perform better in low-light situations because each PIXEL is larger. It's actually gathering more light on a "per pixel" basis. Noise is not the result of the SENSOR not getting enough light; it's the result of the PIXEL not getting enough light. It's what causes the digital grain/color grain in high-noise digital images. The pixel isn't receiving enough light to properly produce the color. Now, what you sacrifice here is obviously resolution, but we are getting to the point now that unless you are REALLY doing some heavy cropping or REALLY blowing your images up, there isn't a difference resolution wise. Our eyes can't tell the difference on a computer screen or regular print size. If the individual pixels are getting more light; then the low-light performance of the camera will be better - regardless of sensor size - - it just so happens that larger sensors tend to have larger individual pixels. A 30 MP full frame will most certainly outperform a 30 MP crop frame photograph with regards to low-light noise - because the pixels are necessarily larger. A 12 MP crop frame camera will outperform a 45 MP full frame camera with regards to low-light performance (again - barring any in-camera processing and similar sensor technology) because while there are fewer pixels, they are each much larger, and are therefore able to each gather more light.
Although I am a FF shooter, I must correct you here. Double the sensor area is not automatically double the light. The idea of a crop sensor is to use it with a decreased focal length, so that, on a crop sensor, the same total amount of light that once filled the large sensor is "concentrated" on a smaller area.
As a life time photographer and someone who has worked professionally with digital cameras since 1998, I don’t agree with how the argument has been presented here. If you compare a Sony full frame with a Sony cropped camera of the same generation, you will see an obvious difference in noise levels both in video and in RAW stills. Add to this the complexity of comparing different resolution sensors (like the 12mp A7SIII/FX3) and the 26mp, cropped A6700 and ou will see another huge difference. I’m all for APS-C cameras for the size and price so I own both cropped and full frame but I favour my full frames for professional work, especially in low light. The annoying part with Sony APS-C is that people focus more on how big the grip is and creating F1.4-F1.2 lenses, that there is little size advantage to APS-C anymore.
@@markwiemels no, but the whole point of the video is to demonstrate how there’s little advantage to full frame. There is nothing wrong with APS-C but the only advantage in my opinion is size and cost. Both of which are getting more questionable with the increasing size and push towards bigger glass.
@@markwiemels I mean he is not wrong, you tried to say they are very similar, but they ARE NOT. Your example with the 50mm on FF and 35mm on APS-C was already a good start where you literally proved yourself wrong.... you can get good 50-58mm 1.4 glass for less than 100$, show me a 35mm 1.2 for APS-C (better 0,95...) for 100$ as well? Especially with the 50 vs 35 comparison, the win for size goes even to the full frame setup since good 50 1.4s are smaller and lighter than even 35mm 1.8s for APS-C. My personal opinion is, if you are "just" photographing and do a little bit of everything or dont even know yet what to do.... go Full Frame if you can afford it. Dont mind modern lenses and adapt older mounts or even M42 etc vintage glass for much cheaper money. If you can not afford, go APS-C camera. But as soon you know what you want to do/are doing already, there should be no question if APS-C or FF is better anymore. Then the basic questions should be easily answered: - low light is a thing? Full frame if affordable, otherwise APS-C with fast 3rd party F1.2s or even F/0,95 lenses. - crop factor/crop/range is a thing.... you might lean towards APS-C or even MFT cameras, APS-C cameras are basically 1,5-1,6x Teleconverters, MFTs even 2x TCs. - lens choices... varying from system to system, you might have to pick your camera and sensor size according to the lenses and usecases you are aiming for! For me this APS-C vs MFT vs FF thing was never that interesting. I learned it the way as you read it sometimes in the comments here: "Date your camera body, marry your lens". I had APS-C for long time, but only because of budget constrains. But when it comes to glass.... i preffered a expensive, better 24mm full frame lens over the less sharper and worse APS-C counterpart. Camera bodies were for long never expensive for me (50-300$ 2nd hand), but i invested in good glass and NEVER REGRET this decision. Good glass holds its value, mostly APS-C glass is the "not so good" glass and lose a lot of value, so APS-C can be definately more expensive than full frame in the long run (even saw it personally at a friend buying APS-C lenses only and he lost more money than i even paid for my glass...)
@@harrison00xXxespecially for Canon RF users, they only produced 4 RF-S lenses so far, none of them is ideal for low light. If I have to buy RF lenses for full frame, then the price and size advantages are gone.
Thank you Mark, someone who is making sense in this debate. I have always felt a little inadequate with my APSC or Super 35 sensor (as I like to call it) with those who have spent big dollars on a Full Frame system. Quite honestly the results I'm getting on my Sony A6400 in both video and photography have been outstanding at a fraction of the cost. I have some amazing Sigma primes that are beyond my expectations. You are right there are some TH-camrs waving the flag of FF as being the step up from APSC and APSC being for beginners. Hopefully your piece will start the flow of common sense around this topic.
I mean its not wrong, i would also prefer full frame over APS-C but its just not affordable or feasable for my needs (much reach for wildlife at a budget) And the crop sensor and budget constrains also make some things impossible like owls in flight in dark forests. Thats where you need a expensive FF camera and a 600 F4 or so beside a lot of patience and camo.
I had once full frame for regular photography, astro on telescope or with fast prime lenses, night and street photography etc, just as basic camera. Also affordable somehow with leftover EF (L) glasses and a affordable Canon EOS RP. Totally fine for photography and "affordable". Especially 1.4 and 1.8 primes were amazing on full frame (and affordable!) and its hard to match a good 50 1.4 or 1.8 lens on FF! My 50, 55 and 58mm primes have become from general use/awesome lenses on FF to specific usecase lenses on APS-C, mainly portrait or low light on the longer end. Also, my telezoom (150-600) and supertele prime (800mm) are both full frame and i use them on a APS-C camera as some sort of "teleconverter". In some instances, especially with the 800mm prime i would wish often back full frame. But you also have to think about many not too rare usecases where full frame just shines: low light, astro, landscape. And the "double the price" argument is so wrong nowadays, many manufacturers have "budget" FF cameras, and basically all allow for adapting lenses, and most of them even allow autofocus. Im coming from Canon and EF mount, so i have not much knowledge about other Full frame systems and their lens selection and prices, but at Canon EF glass became already before RF mount affordable 2nd hand, since RF prices dropped even further. So FF glass is at least affordable in the canon world when you accept the advantages and disadvantages with adapting EF-glass.
Nick crop sensor can/does look great and will be plenty good enough. But - FF will still look better. A person just needs to decide where they want to fall on the spectrum, and how much weight they wanna carry around, and, will their audience even care about any differences in IQ, and, most will not. So yes, crop sensor is a fine choice most of the time.
Been shooting ff or 35 exclusively since film days and I'm actually contemplating trading in for apsc. Nowadays IQ and low light performance difference is negligible.
@@nicedward7544"Nowadays IQ and low light performance difference is negligible" absolutely! I mean sure enough with compact or bridge cameras with MFT or smaller sensor there is still a noticable difference, but in general modern, "better" APS-C cameras are at least as good as professional FF DSLRs some years ago which costed much more.
At 5:59 in the video : It is said a 50mm lens on a full-frame sensor wil have the same field of view than a 35mm on a crop sensor but a different depth of field "by default". True, yet both lenses will provide the same depth of field if the aperture on the 35mm is adjusted by a ratio similar to the ratio of both sensor sizes, for instance 1.5 for an aps-c. Usually, closing the aperture by one unit of diaphragm will provide a similar enough depth of field on both lenses/sensors.
I just bought a Sony A7 III in addition to my A6500 (APS-C) that I've used for many years. Although I will keep my APS-C camera for certain purposes where it has its advantages (compactness for traveling or when you need very long range for wildlife photography), I'm blown away by the full-frame results. It's really a noticeable step up. When I'm shooting portraits outside with my Tamron 70-180 f2.8, the full-frame sensor really makes the crucial difference. At 180mm I'm still comfortably close to the object and the background gets so creamy as I've never seen it with my A6500 (although I have the Sigma 56mm 1.4). It's the small but subtle difference between nice and WOW.
Thanks! Thats exactly what he is (intentionally?) missing. As much i like my higher end APS-C body now (EOS R7, for wildlife and video mainly), its nearly impossible to recreate what my entry level FF body (EOS RP) managed to pull off with an older 50mm 1.4 Canon lens, my SMC Takumar 50 1.4 or even the newer RF 50 1.8 lens for compactness and ease of use as well wide open usage. At first i had this moment of "Full Frame Glory" as i watched some photos and wondered: "WOW! That looks great and so realistic, was that even my camera?" Turned out it was my loved EOS RP with the manual focus, vintage 50 1.4 SMC Takumar where i nailed the focus (rare event). Its basically impossible to shoot the same good looking image on APS-C, with much luck with a speedbooster you probably get close to it but it wont be the same for sure.
That is a stupid comparison. Since your APS-C camera is 24MP, you will have to prove that a FF Camera of 54MP (24MPx1.5.15) of "equal pixel density" is better than a 24MP (APS-C) camera. It is "pixel density" and not "sensor size" that is the issue.
@@set3777 I would say its more depending on the lens choice. To replicate with APS-C a 200mm 2.8 lens on a full frame camera you would need something like a 135mm 1.8, better 1.4 lens, this would give the same background blur. Same with for example 50mm 1.8 on full frame. To get the same look and DoF, you would need a 25mm F0,95 lens on MFT or about 35mm 1.4 (better 1.2) on APS-C If you have not noticed, he talks about the creamy background, in DAYLIGHT. The only unfair comparison he made was the same lens on FF vs APS-C. Which is inherently wrong to compare at all since as i stated already... different sensor size means different lenses, especially different focal lengths to be used.
@@harrison00xXx You are right. A Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro on a APS-C R7 will have the similar DoF and FoV as say a FF R6II with a RF 50mm f1.8 lens. (35mmx1.6=56mm)
@@harrison00xXx I won't be buying a Sony FF camera because:- Terushi Shimizu, Sony Semiconductor Solutions CEO said in 2022 that "by 2024, in just two years’ time - the image quality of a smartphone will exceed that of a single-lens reflex camera". So small crop-sensor smartphone cameras are going to be better than Sony FF cameras by next year? Sony said so!
One of the best examples of this subject that I have ever seen on TH-cam. Absolutely the best. Just using the physics of it all in a basic way of breaking it all down. Funny many woh compare full frame to crop sensors, never go in the opposite direction and compare full frame to medium format. I'm just saying. Many professional film makers prefer crop sensors in their line of work. Again thank you for the video, good job.
1. I don’t think people were claiming every single full frame camera has better high ISO performance than every single crop camera. That’s pretty naive. Clearly, advances in sensor technology play a role too. When people say full frame has better high ISO performance, they mean “all else being equal” 2. This is flawed reasoning too. The larger sensor size necessitates using longer focal length to get the same field of view. No one jumps over to full frame and just keeps using the same focal length as they were before and just accepts that every shot is wider. In reality people select focal lengths and camera positions in order to get the desired composition. 3. Yeah, I mean no one is making the argument that full frame cameras are the same price. That’s not how I’ve interpreted it at all. The claim is that there’s a higher ceiling on these factors by using full frame. You can buy lenses with larger image circles and take advantage of the additional light. You can position yourself closer, all else being equal, to get a shallower depth of field.
Hey Mark.. The point you make about price is so important. I started with a Sony a6400 but watching TH-cam, I thought I had to go to full frame to be professional. Long story short its taken me way too long (years) to get a used a7riii, Tamron 17 -28, 28 -200 and Sony 35 1.8 and 85 1.8.. and I still haven't manage to get a 100 - 400 (I do mostly landscapes). Its like it suddenly became clear to me.. I could have been in a cheaper system shooting and enjoying a fuller focal range, practicing, and creating much faster if I'd stuck with apsc. Heck my favorite pro landscape photographer is using fuji Xt5 most of the time (Andy Mumford). Things like affording extra bodies or more easily finding quality hybrid cameras start being possible or trips! My money would have been better spent travelling to practice and take beautiful shots then trying to get the perfect FF kit first. I'm now very strongly considering letting my Sony kit go (thankfully its all used and ill likely get nearly what I put in) and picking up a Fuji (The zooms I'd need are cheap thankfully). I imagine many photographers are in the same boat.. 10yr old cameras with cheap 3rd party glass just for the luxury of saying they're using full frame. Its a dragon I cant afford to keep chasing when I could be creating.
One thing to consider is if you want to use any manual focus vintage lenses. In that case you most likely want to go with a full frame camera that will preserve the original rendering of the vintage lens.
You can use a speed booster for full frame rendering with vintage lenses on APS-C or mft. I use the Zhongyi Lens Turbo II M42-Fuji X and it works perfectly fine.
My first DSLR was a Canon T3i I bought way back in January 2012. I only had the kit lens. But still had my Dads old Minolta MD mount lenses and my Grandpap's Canon FD mount lenses. I used Fotodiox adapters for both on my T3i and was very happy with the results. I also got a 5D mark III in 2015 and had great results with it too. I know shoot with a Canon 90D and a Canon R7 and the lenses work great on both of them too. You do need to deal with the slight zoom in going from 50mm to 80mm but i can work around that unless I need a wide angle photo.
@@CapraObscura I own a lot of these old Takumars, use them on my APS-C EOS 7d and FF EOS 5d II & EOS R. Esp. for portrait photography they perform very good on APS-C but way better on the FF cam, esp. my old Super 8-lens Tak 50mm 1.4. It also has much better image depth with landscape photography than on the APS-C cam. I think the differences on MFT (have no cam to compare) will be more significant because of the 2x crop.
Couldn't disagree more Dan. If you shoot crop sensor mirrorless, with a single vintage lens you now have the option with an adapter to get full frame +1 of light or an aps-c fov depending on what you need for the shot. So much more versatile, and you have so many more lenses to choose from because you can shoot full frame or apsc glass on a super35 sensor, but it doesn't really work the other way around.
Excellent video, after looking at the cost of the different formats, I went with aps-c sensor camera. Couldn’t be more happier, I’m a beginner so after looking at close to a 100 different videos, the only difference I see is the actual field of view. Unless you’re a professional photographer and actually know what specifics you need in a camera why go full frame. I got an A6700 with kit lens, will get a F11 1.8 lens and a 70-350 F4.5-6.3 lens. This setup will do everything I want, light enough to travel with and versatile enough for nature and astrophotography. Only cost me around $2600, no way I could go full frame for that cost new.
If you want to compare depth of field performance between full frame and crop sensor, you need to apply the crop factor to the max aperture as well. So the APS-C equivalent of a 50mm f/1.8 full frame isn’t a 35mm f/1.8, but is a 35mm f/1.2. (1.8 / 1.5 = 1.2) The crop factor for APS-C is 1.5.
I'm so glad you covered the cost differences. That's often ignored in these discussions in favor of just looking at on-paper performance or size/weight differences which, in real life, are often pretty minor. I recently got back into photography and had to make a choice of what ecosystem I wanted to get into. I ended up choosing one that is focused on APS-C for this reason. There was just no way I could justify spending so much more for pretty marginal IQ improvements.
@@FeedScrn I've been experimenting with APS-C video in very dim indoor conditions - wood panel walls, natural light only via a small window for a 10x30 ft space). Cloudy day, 4k @ 24 fps at f/1.4, ISO 6400 or 12800 worked well and looks good to me. I do think FF would be *better* of course, just not "twice the price"" better for me personally.
@@FeedScrn No special technique. 24 fps to allow longer exposure times, fast lens, and a camera with decent high ISO performance. I should note that I'm not shooting fast action with eye detect AF or anything. It's a static scene, pre-focused. But the IQ is good. Or at least good enough for me. Runs circles around my old APS-C DSLR which can't reach the high ISOs necessary and is crippled by color noise. And again, I have no doubt FF would give even better results.
Another great video, Mark. I feel like most camera manufacturers have priced out most of the general population from purchasing full-frame. Thankfully, there are ton of wonderful crop sensor cameras and lenses on the market! I’m hoping Viltrox will make some of their affordable X-mount lenses available for other crop sensor mounts, but that’s doubtful. We shall see!
buy used. There are great deals to be had. Especially when you get "older" glass. E.g. Canon EF lenses adapt perfectly to the R system and got really affordable, as lots of people are switching to the new lenses. I'm really happy with my EF L lenses, which I would've never bought new.
I certainly agree with your first point. I've settled on MFT and FF, because after using several cameras from about four different makers I've found that any advantage that APS-C might have over MFT is far outweighed by the smaller, lighter and less expensive gear in the MFT format. Only FF has enough of an increase in noise performance and dynamic range to motivate me to invest in a larger sensor. BTW, I wish when people talked about "crop sensors" they didn't only refer to APS-C. Micro four thirds is just a better balance of IQ with weight, size and cost than APS-C.
I'm still shooting FF DSLRs but have considered MFT as a travel sized body, carrying 2 FF DSLRs with lenses, and tripods and any other gear you're packing definitely wears you out by the end of the day.
@@michaelmorris1865 look at prices on MPB, compare the size and weight and come on board. Used, a 25 mm (~50 mm FF) f/1.8 MFT is under $200, and a pro weather sealed 12-40 mm f/2.8 (~24-80 mm FF) is around $400. I'm so glad I chose that format as my foray back into photography, it's just so convenient that it makes up 10 fold for what you compromise for it.
@michaelmorris1865 That’s exactly what I've done. I have an Olympus e-m1 Mk II that is weather sealed and just about perfect, and an Olympus E-PL10 as my anywhere pocket cam with the 14-42. Sometimes I wonder why I haven't done this before MFT is perfect to complement a FF or film setup.
@MacKingG I love my FF and had a hard time getting used to mirrorless when I tried and went back to my DSLRs but I think I could get used to an MFT with an EVF for long backpacking trips.
@@michaelmorris1865 I felt the same way. 5d Mk3 as primary to this day, I have however been shooting film almost exclusively for the past 3 years and decided to try MFT as a cheap digital backup and I fell in love. As long as your expectations are in line it will deliver, it'll never be my 5D but I don't need it to be
True. Good review. Could not agree more. It is war of numbers out there. I own 3 FF cameras - then bought a Crop Sensor body for BTSs-type footage. I was more then pleasantly surprised what a quality that CS produces. Now, I use it in "real" situations without fear of quality compromise, and now I even mix them in post with my FF footage - and nobody can tell difference.
This is the comparison so many camera users are afraid to make: 4 of us shot a local 1-day music festival with full-on lighting fx etc. There was a Canon, Nikon, Sony (all ff) & my humble Fuji x-t. Of the hundreds of shots posted & in a blind judging, not one person found a consistent difference.
I teach Avtech at a high school and I specializing in adobe premier certification. I preach this to my students. As a matter of fact your discussion and arguments are so on point they are going to watch this video today. The school system has the funds to go full frame we have FX3 at the school. I just bought my first actual cinema rig a few weeks ago. I am a teacher and just don't have the funds available to do full frame. I bought the fx30 for EXACTLY what you are preaching. Good job sir! Everyone in the camera market should watch this video. Earned a new sub for this video. Keep it up! as a matter of fact I am going to ask my students to subscribe to your channel your content on your channel like this is worth my kids subbing to.
I still don't understand why would a school spend time and money on something that is a private interest of students. Schools should concentrate on science and engineering, any hobbies the students can do on their own.
@@ElementaryWatson-123 Horrendous take. It's about holistic development. We should give students opportunities to become more well rounded people. Arts and entertainment are arguably just as important as science and engineering. It's also helps in cross-disciplinary learning.
This is a very complicated subject. Working distance has to be in the argument. When working outdoors Crop Sensors make a lot of sense. In small indoor spaces FF is much better. You have to bring perspective distortion into the conversation. Wider angle lenses add perspective distortion to faces and the human body. It’s why 85mm is a popular focal for portraits. 50mm on a crop body is 80mm equivalent but the faces will look different.
As sensor-technology, processors and RAW- converting software have made huge progress, I found that even a mFT- camera would do a very good job for me for any practical purpose. So I gave up my Nikon Z- full frame equipment and went do the awesome OM-1 with it's legendary Olympus Zuiko- lenses, some of them with f/1.2, which deliver an outstanding image quality. And I never looked back. Kind regards from Switzerland.
Yep, I did this too. Good lens with a MFT is way lighter than either an aps-c or especially a full frame camera. This is a huge consideration if you are going to be carrying it around all day.
And I went the exact opposite way years ago and bought a D600 after I had earlier owned a omd em-5. The Olympus can take good pictures but the difference in noise levels is obvious. Even if I could have dealth with that, the dynamic range difference of over 2ev was the deal breaker and it seems that difference is still there 10 years later.
@@KaniNarci Well I can easily tell the difference between photos I have taken with crop and FF sensors, but I can't tell the difference between any lenses if the aparture and focal length are the same unless I really zoom in and try to compare to find the difference.
@@cyberfunk3793 Many blind tests show the contrary - even well experienced and competent photographers couldn't tell the difference between mFT and full frame images, even when printed big.
For many non-professional photographers, the full-frame issue is a matter of snobbery. Professionals have to earn a living, thus much of their gear will be the best going (in other words, in the majority of cases, full-frame). A large number of enthusiasts want to look "professional" - hence they buy a full-frame camera. I own both APS-C cameras and full-frame (one of which is an RP). I can't say there is a lot of difference in my photographs when I use an APS-C and full-frame on the same shoot. Another point is that It's not just "influencers" who diss APS-C cameras - many of those who comment below-the-line do, too. Issues unrelated to image quality in general favour APS-C/micro four-thirds. For instance, these cameras and lenses tend to be smaller and easier to carry around (as well as being less expensive).
What is the difference between a professional who uses professional gear and an amateur how uses professional gear? Why is one being a professional and an other a snob? Is there a problem if somebody spends his own hard earned money on a hobby?
@@annoholicsthere is not a problem in and on itself in spending money on a hobby if that's what you like to do . The problem is that the information space gets filled with half truths and wrong facts by people.
@@ghjk193 Your statement might be true but it goes in both directions. Let me explain. Most people that watch video's on the Internet about photography and video are not professional photographers or videographers and are not prepared to buy real professional equipment either. TH-camrs have of course the tendency to please their audience and telling all these “amateurs” that "their camera sucks and that they have to buy gear that is far over their budget" is not going to win them the popularity award. Therefore you should not be surprised when most video's about equipment on TH-cam is telling the viewer that the lower priced equipment is "nearly" just as good as the real expensive professional equipment. Still, overall, in general, if you spend more money wisely you get better performance in the end. There is not one big TV station that is using cropped sensor, cheap camera's or even phones, for their production. At the same time the TH-camrs, who are often very smart boys and girls, are telling their audience that you get nearly the same results with the cheaper camera's then with the more expensive camera's. At the same time, there are way more video's on YT about "new" gear then about rockwool and light diffusers like bedsheets and foamboards, This, while this can greatly improve your audio and video quality.
This video was sort of correct up until the 7 minute mark where Mark Wiemels says that the cropped sensor camera’s are half the price of the full frame camera’s. Well, the same statement that not all full frame camera’s are outperforming the cropped sensor camera’s is also true about price. The cropped sensor camera that was earlier used to proof that cropped sensors can outperform full frame sensors is more then twice the price then the full frame camera (Sony FX30 vs Canon EOS RP) The same is true for price of the so called “comparable lenses”. If you want to compare cropped sensor lenses then you should take into account the crop factor. If you want to get the same picture with the same distance to the subject and the same distance to the background and you want the same amount of blur then you need a much bigger aperture. (lower f-stop number). These lenses are often not available or just as expensive as the full frame counterpart. If you want to compare two lenses where, one cropped and the other full frame, then you should have the same brand, within that brand the same quality (e.g. Sony GM against Sony GM), the lenses should have the same features (just as fast automatic autofocus, image stabilization, etc) you have to compensate for focal length as well as the f-stop, and if you do that then you will often find that there is no comparison possible or that you pay roughly the same price. But please proof me wrong with comparable cropped vs full frame lenses. I am really curious what people will come up with.
@@annoholics30mm f1.4 on crop frame and 50mm f1.4 on full frame will give you the same picture. Same depth of field becouse the image projected is (almost) the same, differences are minor in subject perspective but unnoticable unless directly compared. For the same frame(same image projected to sensor) and f stop, the depth of field will be the same. If you were triggered by his comment, I have bad news for you. You are exactly the guy who bought the full frame to look professional, as he explained
@@maxx-er3fj The two pictures 30mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.4 will nog look the same. The f-stop is the focal length divided by the diameter of the lens opening. So if your focal length is smaller and your aperture stays the same, then also your lens opening is smaller. You lens opening is determining your blurriness of your background (or depth of field). You can put it in the extreme with a lens of mobile phone. Very small focal length, very small lens opening, hardly any background blur. Let’s just assume that you are right and there is no difference at all, why would anybody buy a full frame camera? Even professionals would not need a full frame camera because the result cannot be noticed according to you. Oh, and there is much more needed to make me look like a professional photographer then just a professional camera. 😉
I can’t agree more! One more factor to be mentioned here is the weight of the set (did I missed it in the video?). It’s something that really matters when you go out or go to remote lands. I use Fujifilm cameras and they meet all the requirements that I can have. In any situation. And I’m not obsessed with having “the best cam ever made”. I prefer to focus on the artistic side of photography. And yes, most of modern cameras are almost on par from the technical point of view. So, everyone can pick something that suits his hand better without making any trade-off, and this is really nice!
Bought an m50 a couple years back based on your recommendations and love it and have never looked back. This channel has helped me so much since. Keep pumping out the great videos.
With regards to the bokeh technically if one can open the aperture wider with the crop sensor then they can achieve the same bokeh ball size. For example an APSC (~1.6) crop sensor with a 32mm lens shooting at f/1.8 with have almost identical bokeh as a full frame 50mm shooting at f/2.8, and the crop sensor will also have the same volume of light hitting the sensor as well; however, gain circuit (ISO) will have to be lower as well to compensate.
This video is very true. I've battled with camera brands with this myself. I remember when the Nikon z50 came out, it destroyed every camera brand in low-light, full-frame or otherwise, at least in my experience. And this is probably true to this day!
Price was the determining factor when I decided to sell my Sony full frame kit and move to Fujifilm. The 5 year old a7 III still sells for $2,000 and only shoots 8-bit 4K 30. Whereas the Fujifilm X-T5 shoots 10-bit 4K 60 and 6K 30. If I had my pick I would have stayed on Sony and bought an a7R V but I’m not a professional photographer and I can’t justify spending $4,000 on a camera body. For less than the price of a single a7R V body you can buy an X-T5 with an XF 16-55mm 2.8 and Vitrox’s Pro 27mm and 75mm 1.2 lenses. That’s kind of a no brainer in my opinion if you’re not either a professional photographer or an enthusiast with no budgetary considerations.
Thank you for this! Especially about the bokeh, a lot of people seems to think that ff bokeh is something that a crop sensor can not match. You can easily match, even beat the bokeh on ff with crop sensor, you just need to adjust the setup accordingly.
@@marwinjacinto301 0.95 existed and its close enough, will have a better low light performance as well, but your point stands, it's the wider angle where the FF will have an advantage over crop sensor
I've been a photographer for 45+ years..... and, in all modesty, a pretty fair one! I find it strange that you seem to make a 'big deal' ('myth' - 'truth') of of things that my generation learned 'at our mother's knee'. Of course it's not the length of the lens in mm, it's how that length relates to the format of the camera. Pentax Spotmatic - 35mm terefore standard lens is 50mm. Mamiya C330f 6cm x 6cm (medium format) standard lens is 80mm. Olympus EM-1 MFT. standard lens is 24mm...... pretty simple, really!
What a wonderful video. Communication is clear, direct, and accurately informative. no b.s. Thank you for making and sharing this video and I'll be watching more of your content. 🎉🎉❤
I think it all depends on how the sensor sizes are compared. With the same lens it might be a nice visualisation how the sensor size affects the image you get from a specific focal length, but when comparing FF to APS-C for example with regular zooms, for example on Canon a RF 24-105 F4.... you would need something like a RF-S version with 2.8 aperture to compare (Hint: it doesnt exist yet, all we have is the very old EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM)
the only lenses i can think of aside from the 17-55 2.8 is the fuji 16-80 f/4 which is equivalent to a 24-105 f/4 or the fuji 16-55 2.8 which is a little closer to a 24-70 2.8
@@patrickcazer yeah equivalent in effective focal length, but not close to comparable in depth of field thats why a „fast“ aps-c zoom is 2.8 mostly (F4 FF look) which is „as good“ in DoF as the FF F4s
Correction on using the "50mm lens" on the full frame vs. crop sensor. It depends on if the lens is DESIGNED for the crop sensor. For example, the Pentax line of lenses has those that are "DA" series which are designed for crop sensor, the "FA" designed for full frame. In both cases, the 50mm DA and FA will cover same area for their respective cameras. The FA lens will function as if it were 75mm on the crop sensor camera since it mounts at the same distance from the sensor. So, the image area overlaps the sensor. The DA lens will vignette on the full frame camera since it is not designed to cover the full frame sensor. Hope this helps!
This is incorrect. A 50 mm lens is always a 50 mm lens. It will provide same field of view on APS-C as 75 mm on full frame. If you use APS-C you do not need to care if the lens is APS-C or full frame. All lenses on a system have to mount at the same distance for them to focus properly. That is why mirrorless cameras use adapters to use DSLR lenses.
@@okaro6595 I think you misunderstand me. A 50mm APSC lens (Pentax nomenclature DA) will cover a field of view that will *vignette* on their full frame line (nomenclature FA). The extent of vignette varies, for best results Pentax has an ability to include a frame in the viewfinder to illustrate what will be non-vignette. An FA lens for full frame will overlap on an APSC camera. So, the 50mm DA will give a USEFUL 75mm effective on their FA line. A 50mm FA will overlap the sensor area on the APSC line, giving a USEFL 75mm effective area. I have DA and FA models, the K1 and K3 and KF cameras which are full frame, APSC, and APSC respectively. It's fun to mix and match lenses but important to know which type lens (stamped on the barrel) you are working with.
I think the deciding factor (in the choice between FF and APS-C) for a lot of people should be “How important is shallow depth of field across a variety of focal lengths?” For people who grew up looking at pictures taken with 35mm film SLRs (or rangefinders) paired with relatively fast 50mm lenses, and who want to be able to achieve the same look, full-frame is generally better. A fast 30mm or 35mm lens is more expensive than a fast 50mm lens, and will wipe out much of the cost-savings associated with buying an APS-C camera.
When was that? 20-15 years ago nobody shot with open aperture. Lenses were not build that way, the 1.4 wasn't actually usable. It was the working aperture to have a clear view in the viewfinder and to set the focus more easily via auto focus and manual focus. Lenses were very soft and full of CAs when shot wide open. For example the Canon EF 50mm 1.4 was not a cheap lens at all, but you had to shoot it at 2.8, to get good results. For the last 10 years with the introduction of new digitally rendered lenses for mirrorless cameras the open aperture got more usable and because of the hype around all the innovations, the wide open aperture look became the new deciding factor of what a good lens should be. I'm kinda glad this hype is mostly over and photographers realize that there are other factors to make nice photographs than supersoft bokeh in the backround...
Yea, I like the look of 50mm/85mm on Full-Frame. You just don't get the same image when using a m4/3 or s35 equivalent. You can make great stuff on either, obviously. But it's just a preference.
@@ThisIsWideAngle You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. It was extremely common to shoot at f/1.5 to f/2 since the 1960s. Not for every shot, but definitely in low light, for portraits, etc.
@@tcnoble I'm working as a professional photographer for the last 18 years. I learnt photography on film, mostly with cameras from the 70s and 80s. The last 5 years i work for a photographic archive with a history dating back to the 1920s, archiving colodium-glass-plates dating back in to the 19th century. In that job we also digitalize the photographic collection of an internationaly known art museum. Yes, for low light photography in reportage they photographed with open aperture sometimes. There also were a few photographers who made experimental photography with open aperture. For shallow depth of field in professional photography they used mostly long lenses and middle format. Both not shot wide open. Shooting professionaly wide open for stylistic reasons was very rare, also because lenses with optics which didn't fell apart wide open were very rare and expensive and very hard to handle manually. The style of open aperture of the last years widely common in professional and amateur photography wouldn't have been possible back in the days. So yeah. I sure don't know what i'm talking about.
@@ThisIsWideAngle Every classical photographer that I've ever worked with that was shooting before 2000 all believed great photos were shot deep stop. Historically you are right on the money sir.
Thank you. As a long time photographer (since 1977) I find myself constantly having to debunk these misconceptions. Great job explaining this. Bottom line, knowing the characteristics of our equipment and understanding how it impacts the scene, helps us achieve the results we want.
And as someone that has tried both out personally for landscapes I would say it's not a myth but the difference between Nikon or Sony FF vs. any crop sensor in for example dynamic range are huge and often can mean the difference of needing to bracket or not. I can take good landscapes on any sensor, but I would never buy anything else than FF for the purpose if I did it as a hobby and not just once a year on some holiday.
@@cyberfunk3793 Interesting because I have seen people make prints from Full Frame vs. Crop sensors and have pros try to determine which image was take by which camera, and most have not been able to determine which was the full frame camera most of the time. “Huge difference”, maybe on paper but not in practice. Also, using that logic, people looking for the best IQ would all be shooting medium format. They don’t. Why? There is a point where you get diminishing returns. All cameras have their strengths and weaknesses. I’ve sold as many images captured with my MFT cameras as I’ve sold using cameras with APS-C or FX sensors.
@@LebronPhoto1 The difference isn't in resolution so they aren't going to see the difference in prints. The difference is that when taking the photo on FF you might need only 1 frame when with aps-c you need to bracket or you will have the highlights blown. The shots that the aps-c people missed aren't going to end in the print phase so there isn't anything to compare and while bracketing is an option it's easier if you don't have to.
@@cyberfunk3793 not true. You can get exposures right on target with any camera if you are skilled enough and for those tricky lighting situations where you may be a little off, you can shoot RAW plus JPEG and if the JPEG isn’t on target, you can adjust the raw. Or for scenery, if you are using an Om System camera, there is an HDR feature. There are lots of ways to achieve a good exposure. I for one am not one to bracket.
One reason to spend more on the full frame body is that you can use old lenses on it. Those older high end lenses dont have to sit on the shelf. My old EF lenses actually perform better on my R6 than on my old 600D. The only drawback is the resolution when using old lenses. Add much better software and AF with eye detection and usb C on full frame cameras, I would still advice against older crop sensor cameras. Also the ability to spend more on full frame lenses in the future that will now work with the camera you spent money on. You spend more but you also get more.
The only thing lacking right now for apsc is fast zooms. Yes tamron 17-70 and sigma 18-50 exists, but compared to a full frame 24-70 f2.8, or a 35-150 f2-2.8, 18-50 2.8 on apsc simply doesn't cut it compared to the full frame counterparts. We need something like a 18-50 f2 but it might be impossible idk.
You can take beautiful photos even with a phone, but sensor size will affect the way you will have to use your equipment to get the image you have in your mind. Sensor size IS a big factor in perspective and depth of field so it deffinitely plays a role in image creation. There will be some images impossible to create on APS compared to full frame, but any APS image can be created with FF (you can always crop). Quality wise, it will always be comparing apples to pears, every person has to decide what he/she wants, as you said.
Another thing to consider. Nikon's Z series full frame cameras limit the image area to the specific crop mode you have set. For example set it to the DX format and that is what will be recorded in the image file. Some complain that other brands recorded the entire sensor data so if they change their minds after taking the shot they can recover the full frame data easily. With Nikon that data isn't there and the file sizes directly reflect that change. This means that the data transfer off the image sensor will be increased. Guess what can happen with that reduced load. A whole bunch of things can happen faster, such as AF performance, release rates, buffer size goes up, transfer rates to memory increase, and higher resolution 60fps video is possible. All it takes is adjustments to the software to take advantage of the reduced data load.
In some situations, you just don't have the option of contolling the light. For example, when you are taking photographs at a Live rock show, where they use flashing lights and light keep changing, you cannot control the light. You have no choice but to bump up the ISO to take photographs.
Straight up facts, yet gearheads will complain about it then wonder why many apsc shooters photograph better images than they do. They’re to focus on specs. One of the two reasons why I shoot with Fujifilm: 1. The Colors 2. The Price Tag. Crop Sensor portraits/wedding photographer here and yet people love my photographs.
I'm not so much getting old, but arrived. Full frame with lens is heavy for a day's shooting. I went for micro four thirds, with a bit of trepidation, but so far I'm well pleased. I can take my 100-300, (200-600 in 'old money'), and be happy to use it for a few hours. I'm 60% video, and there my camera excels. Birding is now a joy. Nice video from you.
Excellent points and video! Crop sensor is just as amazing as full frame. It's about how you use it! One thing I want to add about aperture is, similar to how you multiply the crop factor to get the full frame equivalent lens, you have to do the same with aperture. A f/1.8 lens isn't actually 1.8 on a crop sensor camera, rather, it's an f/2.7 (multiply by crop factor, 1.5). To get a true 1.8 you need to use a full frame lens that is 1.8 on a full frame lens camera.
Not really just as amazing. When you get into any more serious forms of landscape photography the sensor becomes important and the smaller sensors simply can't compete. Even if you could deal with the extra noise, the dynamic range differences often mean that you would need to bracket the shots on a crop sensor when on ff you could get away with 1 frame.
@@SuperTonda1It is. Smaller sensor and same aperture will result in less light stops. APC-S gathers less light and in order to compensate it, you should also go for faster lens that allows you to have lower ISO that is comparable with FF higher ISO.
@@tauritaal the aperture is a relative number so for example 2.0 aperture with iso 100 and same shutter speed will result in the same exposure on any size sensor.
@@cyberfunk3793 But FF has larger area and that equates to more photons so in reality it gathers more light and image quality will be better. Point is to get like 1.3 stops or so faster lens to make light gathering equal on both sensors. You cant compare FF and APS-C with f6.3 on both because they dont capture light or photons equally. If you use f2.8 lens on FF, get f1.8 lens on APS-C. While FF shoots f2.8 @ ISO2000, you get equal light and performamce on APS-C with f1.8 @ ISO800. Doing f2.8 @ ISO2000 on both sensor sizes will just make FF a winner because the playing ground isnt equal.
Good explanation. It's also a matter of time, with crop sensors lagging behind a couple of years in terms of high ISO, noise, dynamic range. The best crop sensors outperform FF sensors of 10 years ago (which were then considered top notch). My X-T5 with Viltrox 75mm F1.2 can rival just about any FF in terms of bokeh and (40mp) scharpness. The Olympus 45mm F1.2 is another good example, with it's smooth feathered bokeh, as the quality of blur is at least as important as the amount of blur. Too shallow dof can be a bad thing portraits, with just one eye in focus and the rest of the face blurred. In other situations more dof can be quite desirable, and this is where crop sensors have an advantage in low light, where large apertures are needed.
Thank you for sharing, don’t forget for landscape togs crop sensor gives u more depth of field and the lenses are also lighter in lugging around. I switched from FF canon to Fuji APSc and I haven’t noticed hardly any difference in Image Quality if anything I prefer the colors and skin tone from the Fuji and i paid much less for the system.
Thats the thing, isn't it? People seem to forget all sensor sizes are a compromise between size, weight and image quality. Let's not forget 35mm was small back in the film days. If all people cared about was image qualty then we should all be walking around with medium format, or hell large format cameras. We aren't though because most of us value practicality and therefore make the choice on how large we want our system to be. I regularly shoot on my FF lumix cameras and the do at the end of the day produce better IQ, however, my 100-400 lens is huge and sometimes I really can't be bothered lugging it around. I still often use my MFT set up simply due to how small, light and easy to use they are while in general good light, you know not after the sun has gone down, producing IQ that is by far good enough for even large prints. This TH-cam world of FF is a must and shallow DOF is 'PRO' is just missing the point entirely.
One point is missing here: some lenses are available only for full frame cameras and there is no aspc equivalents that are cheaper, smaller and lighter. For example 70-200 2.8 If you want such type of lens there is only "full frame" version and it doesn't make sense to invest in expensive lens and use it on apsc camera ...
This was a pretty good video, but some things worth mentioning when deciding on crop vs full frame: -Crop factor conversion (!) -Noise should be compared with similar scaling (not merely viewed at 100%), otherwise high-rez cams seem worse when in print they're not -In video, high-rez cameras will pixel bin, whereas low-rez cameras can use a higher effective percentage of the sensor -Features that come with full frame cameras, like dual memory card slots, focusing systems, viewfinder size, buffer, fps, battery life, etc.
Just bought a Sony a6700 with a Sony 16-55 2.8g and 70-350 mm g lens. Cost me a lot less than a similar full frame line up, gives me 24 to 525mm range and has a total weight of 1600 grams. For a hobby photografer who just want to make pictures and be able to bring the gear on trips and vacations it is amazing.
Interesting comparison. This reminds me of the musical argument that states “Vintage guitars and keyboards are far superior to modern ones or their modern clones.” Not a 1:1 analogy to cropped sensor vs. non, but in the sense that, in the final product, no one viewing, or in the case of the music gear argument, listening, can really tell. Our ability to measure and track nuanced differences has exceeded our human ability to actually detect it in real world situations. And your statement at 7:10 regarding the dollar for dollar results, justifies that the extra cost isn’t necessary or even justified for most use cases. Its really just Spec-Snobbing when you think about it. The advantage to hold the upper tech nerd hand when comparing gear with another professional or when BEING compared with another professional when competing for work.
Great video, however at the price range of the FX30, you can get much better camera bodies than the RP, which is notoriously bad for video and doesn't have dual native ISO. Something like the S5ii or even a R8 (still no dual native ISO) would've been a better comparison
If you compare the same generation sensor from the same manufacturer, then the full frame will give you less noise, that’s just physic’s of signal to noise ratio, and you can measure it at about 1 stop, The depth of field works in your favor for wildlife and macro, and against you for portraits, you hit a compromise when going closer to adjust for DOF is that you loose the compression that can be flattering, also if you go in too close to match say a ff 35 you will get perspective distortion, A very fair point about cost, also size and form factor can be an important benefit for a crop sensor, easier to blend in or carry on a long hike, Lastly noise reduction software like topaz denoise can make the noise claim a none starter, Great video, thanks
We have been making do with what we have all these years. Knowing what to buy (first hand or second hand) is essential. In many cases, too old bodies get worse outcomes when it comes to white balance, realism of colour, purple fringes handling and basic image qualities (depending how old you reach back). I just made a decision to dig out older stuff and make them work instead of buying yet another round of new stuff. All I needed to do is to throw away stuff that, from hindsight after seeing new stuff, no longer performs and to test and note their limitations. Good lenses often compensates for old sensors. New sensors often gets much more oomph than older sensors. Generation of technology matters a lot but can be compensated somewhat by down selecting the lenses your pare them with. Full frame means weight. Remember, weight is something money cannot solve.
Great analysis. I think the only main difference that makes a difference between cropped sensor and full frame is the tonal range. If we exaggerate this comparison say compare to medium format we definitely would notice the subtle tonal ranges, very smooth transitions. But of course it also depends on what type of photography one is doing for this to be a factor. For something like street photography it’s not as important.
Tonal range depends entirely on the image bit-depth (8-bit, 10-bit, 12-bit, 14-bit, etc). Nothing to do with sensor size. If by tonal range you mean dynamic range, then just say that; the latitude of information read by the sensor. Then in that sense, larger capture formats are generally better in terms of dynamic range.
I have a Sony ZV E10 body with 3 lenses: a Sony 50mm 1.8, a Sony 55mm 210mm, and a Viltrox 20mm 2.8. Still half the price, and I enjoy working with them a lot. 😃
Although two cameras may have the same number of pixels, say a 24MP APS- C vs a 24MP full frame camera, the full frame camera's pixels will be 2.3 times as large as the APS-C pixel. Pixel size affects image quality. Larger pixels collect more light. This means full-frame cameras perform better in low light situations. Also larger pixels also give full-frame sensors a wider dynamic range so they will perform better at high ISO settings.
Yet you can go to dpreview's comparison chart and you'll realize it's not that clear cut, they are very equal. Remember you also need to use double the ISO on FF bodies if you use equivalent lenses to size down (e.g. f4 zooms vs APSC f2.8 zooms or 2/3 stop when comparing f1.4 APSC primes vs equally sized and priced f1.8 FF primes).
This is a great video and something I've recently experienced myself. About a year ago I jumped into M4/3 and wanted a standard 50, so rather than settle for a 25mm f1.8 on m4/3, I instead bought a 25mm t0.95 lenses which I then compared to my FF canon and saw I got an almost Identical looking image in terms of field of view and blur, but with the added advantage of those 2 extra stops of light when shooting wide open. So now I'm able to shoot with m4/3 at night in the city with 400-800 iso and I'm getting comparable if not better noise performance than I get from the Canon with a 50mm f1.8 from a much smaller sensor. Needless to say I only really use my FF camera with vintage lenses nowadays🖖
Yes but isn’t that 25mm f/0.95 bigger, heavier and more expensive than a full frame 50mm f1.8? - the Sony one anyway, canon stuff is so huge! - I found by switching to full frame I saved money as there are great cheap fast third party lenses. MFT and APS-C are small in their respective sweet spots of f2 or f2.8, but then the equivalent full frame f4 options are so small, light and cheap now.
@@DigiDriftZone The thing is those extra 2 stops of light so it’s not really an apples to apples comparison. It is a fairly heavy lens at 500g and the total package is a shade over 1kg with the em1 mark ii, but I expect that any 0.95 lens on ff would be a fair size too. The extra light is worth the extra 200 or so grams compared to my ff canon for me. Add that to arguably the best ibis in any system and I’m happy with the switch.
@@DavidFlowerOfficial That doesn't make sense. That's like saying 10 speed will be faster in km than miles. These are completely different measurements. MFT ISO100 is FF ISO400, F/2.8 on APS-C is F/4.0 on Full Frame, 24mm on APS-C is 35mm on Full Frame, etc - you are just converting, like you would from miles to km. The same numbers mean completely different things depending on the sensor size. You must apply the conversation to all 3: ISO, Aperture and Focal Length just to know what the equivalent is, in every sense of the word. If you had an f/0.95 lens on MFT this would be f/0.47 on Full Frame to get the equivalent light gathering and depth of field.
@@DigiDriftZone It’s a common misconception that everything is 2x on micro4/3 but that only applies in terms of look. Aperture is a physical measurement so f1.8 on ff is f1.8 on mft or apsc In terms of light gathering. T stops are a transmission measurement which measures light hitting the sensor. Your iso theory is also incorrect since tests have shown iso 100 on my canon 6d is the same as 200 on my em1 mark ii and both actually measure around iso 80 and depending on gain within the camera this doesn’t run parallel since cameras like my em1 mark ii have lower noise at 640 than at iso 400. It’s not all straight lines or governed by crop factor.
@@DavidFlowerOfficial This is not a theory, this is just conversion. Aperture is not a physical measurement of anything, it is a ratio. This ratio changes with focal length and by extension sensor size. Light gathering on a 100mm F/2 is significantly higher than 50mm f/2 even on the same system, just because the iris opening is much larger. Same logic applies when you change sensor sizes as you are forced to also change the focal lengths to achieve the same field of view. The second you went from 50mm to 25mm that f/2 no longer refers to the same thing and the light gathering is drastically different - you cannot selectively apply a crop factor, it MUST be applied to all 3: focal length, aperture and ISO as they are all calculated relative to sensor size. As for ISO differences, it is different generations of sensors, ISO noise performance improves around 1 stops every 5 years or so. Canon have notoriously poor performing sensors when it comes to dynamic range and noise in certain models. If you are seeing ISO800 on APS-C performing better or worse than ISO1800 on Full Frame, this speaks to the quality of the sensor itself as they are running at identical settings and should have the same noise if the sensors are of equal performance. ISO450 MFT = ISO800 APS-C = ISO1800 Full Frame just like 1 mile = 1.6km. If 1 car is noisier at 160kph than another is at 100mph, that speaks to the engine quality, but they are running at the same speed.
I started out with ASC-C, and it made very nice photos. The issue was that I love taking photos at night, and I wanted lenses with larger apertures. To match an f/1.4 lens on a 35mm sensor, I would have needed an f/0.95mm lens. Back then, very few such lenses existed, they only existed around the 50mm range, and their image quality was compromised enough that it would sort of ruin the advantage of the fast aperture in a lot of scenarios. With my Sony A7R3 and fast lenses, I just get more total light hitting the sensor - at the cost of size and a much higher price tag. But I can shoot handheld in extremely dark locations, and get usable results. Had f/0.95 lenses been more prevalent, at more focal lengths, and with better quality glass, I would probably have stayed with ASC-C. But there would have been disadvantages there, too. It's more difficult to correct an f/0.95 lens than an f/1.4 lens, so the quality still wouldn't match larger sensor sizes. As far as I know, no f/0.95 lens has autofocus, which would make them more challenging to use for events. And to achieve something like an f/1.2 lens, an APS-C sensor would need an f0.8 lens, which is getting insanely close to the legendary f/0.7. There's always a trade-off somewhere.
Hmm... Am I wrong? The amount if light through the lenses will be the same on APS-C, like on full frame. But as the APS-C sensor is smaller it is more cramped with pixels and so you have more noise. Also: what does change is the depth of field- with APS-C you have more sharpness in the background- something not always wanted. To have the same amount of bokeh with f1,4 on FF, you will a f0,95 on APS-C. Now possible with some fine china lenses ;-)
@@heikoh.schulz9429 The total amount of light gathered depends on the intensity of the light and on the surface area. Two f/2 lenses will have the same intensity of light coming in, but the total amount of light that they let through will depend on their imagine circle size, and on things like the glass' transmission or vignetting. A full-frame sensor has 2.25x the area of an APC-C sensor, so it will gather correspondingly more light in total. If using the exact same technology, the pixels of a 60MP sensor will actually be smaller (more densely packed) than those of a 20MP sensor. On a pixel level, the 60MP full-frame sensor will be noisier, but at an image level, it's the APS-C that will end up being noisier because of the larger surface area. And technology plays a big part in it, too. I remember when the first A7 series camera came out. I thought at first that the 24MP A7 would perform better in low light than the 36MP A7R. At the image level, it did not. Interestingly, my A7R3 performs as well as an A7S at high ISO on an image level. That's because of its BSI technology that allows for more light to hit every pixel. If I process my A7R3's high ISO images and down sample them to 12MP, the images actually appear more detailed than the same image from the A7S. Regarding bokeh, you are correct. The main difference between a 35mm f/0.95 for APS-C and a 50mm f/1.4 on full-frame will be in terms of image quality and AF. A 50mm f/1.4 lens is much easier to get right than a 35mm f/0.95.
@@heikoh.schulz9429its like converting from miles to kilometres, an f2.8 35mm lens on APS-C will generate the same light, field of view and depth of field as an f4 55mm lens on full frame. What people forget to do is to apply the crop factor to the ISO as well. The way to think of it is think of a MFT sensor, say it is set to ISO100, how many of those ISO100 squares can you fit on full frame? It’s 4 because it’s roughly double the width and height, so to set the “same” equivalent ISO on full frame you have to use ISO 400. This still throws me when I shoot full frame at ISO 10,000, I have to keep reminding me it’s only 4400 roughly APS-C equivalent :) (formula is iso multiplied by crop factor squared)
One of the first considerations for what camera to take on holiday is weight. I have suffered with heavy cameras and lenses which doesn't make for an enjoyable day. For the past few years I have been using very light capable camera the RX100 mk3. Good with video and photos being so small and light, packing a punch well above it's weight. Street people don't notice you taking photos. I keep the camera in my left hand on a wrist lead ready for those quirky action shots.
The factor of size and weight is very often overlooked in my opinion. The amount of bulk that a full frame camera + full frame lenses commands over a similar APS-C setup, is pretty signifcant, if not in the size of the camera, definitely in the size of the lenses. And that's really why it's important to use purpose-built lenses for the camera that you're using (only exception being for long zooms, using a longer, full frame lens can be a good way to get extra reach). To me, APS-C is in that perfect goldilocks zone, between the large and expensive full frame cameras that gather all the hype and the more compact options from micro four thirds that start getting in the "that sensor is too small" territory. Most of my cameras are APS-C, exception made of the Sigma SD Quattro H that is APS-H (why was this format abandonned again?) and the Nikon D700 which I treat kind of like a larger format camera that I only use to really take advantage of that larger sensor or the rendition of vintage lenses. Speaking of vintage lenses, full frame definitely the way to go with those if you're after the rendition of the image rather than the performance the lens can give you. If however you see vintage lenses as a way to get good quality glass for cheap, then I'd recommend using APS-C cameras for that. The reason is quite simple: back in the film days, lenses could be smaller, and that was for a very good reason : light rays didn't have to be corrected. The film was almost a perfect plane, and the photo sensitive crystals would get teh light no matter if the light came in straight or at an angle. That changed with digital: light does not go on a perfectly flat plane of focus : they come at an angle, that grows more acute as you get closer to the edge of the image circle. On the other hand, pixels are like little wells. There is a micro lens that focuses the light on a photo diode, but there needs to be space for that, and the photo diode is quite a bit lower than the micro lens on the sensor. If the light comes in at too much of an acute angle, some of it will be lost, not being focused on the photodiode by the microlens. That's in parth why digital lenses are so much bigger than film era lenses : light rays need to be corrected and come straight if you don't want to suffer from vignetting in the corners. Using an APS-C sensor means that you only keep the center part where this isn't as much of an issue. On some cameras, there was no choice, but to use engineering to combat this. Typically, the Leica M8 which was the first digital Leica, needed to be fully compatible with film era lenses as it kept the same lens mount. On that camera, the micro lenses are offset compared to the photodiode, and they get more offset the closer you get to the edges. But that's an exception amongst digital cameras really
I actually reduced the size, weight and price of my setup by switching from aps-c to full frame. Once you are looking at those f1.4 primes on APS-C you realise full frame is smaller/cheaper.
It's easy enough to put APS-C lenses on a full-frame camera and If we're talking sony cameras they're both about the same size regardless of format. I'd rather just keep my options open cause I like using both my dads old lenses and my newer cropped lenses.
IMO the size and weight difference in most cases (as an amateur) is mostly negligible. If you're going to compare "similar" cameras where most functionality is the same apart from sensor size then you'll find out that full frame body is only slightly bigger and heavier than crop. And the same goes for typical amateur-use lenses. If you don't need very long focal length and super wide apertures, then the difference is also not that big. I switched from Nikon D7200 to Z 6II and I would say they feel mostly the same if not using telephoto lenses. Only difference now I use F4 standard zoom instead of F2.8, that means I get similar depth of field and picture quality is still better at higher ISO. As for me if size and weight was priority I wouldn't go for APS-C for sure but consider something even smaller, like way smaller. In fact I tend to reach for my smartphone on a daily basis and only use the full frame when I plan to go out for a photo shoot. And it was exactly the same when I had aps-c, probably wouldn't change much with micro 4/3... And if I was going to get some compact camera then today's smartphones are almost just as good...
@@kuba6156 For me size and weight were a big priority and full frame provides the smaller/lighter package these days (and it was cheaper than my Fuji APS-C). The new iPhone 15 Pro for example is 13mm f/10, 24mm f/6.3 and 120mm f/21 equivalents which is very poor even for photos (not to mention video), you can get really tiny compact F/2.8 or F/4 lenses for full frame to get substantially better results.
@@kuba6156 absolutely , similar lineup models will have same body size, FF offers larger selection of higher quality and/or specific lenses, which prob keep higher value. People most frequently end up using ff glass on apsc bodies with minimal weight/size saving. As you say one can look at it both ways - using slower lenses on FF to outweight the "downsides". It probably depends on the type of shooting, but me as an attempted wildlife photographer, back in my APSC days I would carry d500 and 60-600 and it didn't really matter if ff or apsc. Fuji may be different with their apsc lenses, but that is it. I used to think that m43 is the unnecessary format, but nowadays it makes more sense to me as it really offers something completely different to FX. Whereas apsc kinda sits in the middle, often being too close to FF but not yet there. Also the manufacturers are at fault, none of them really cares much about their apsc lineup to be build up as a standalone system. They rather offer it with hopes of customers later transitioning to FF (thus it also makes sense to use FF glass anyway).
Yeah, there are too many reviewers and content creators on here who make it seem like APS-C is a terrible choice. I have a few friends who tried to get into photography and they are still stuck with their kit lens because they blew all their budget on the full frame body and can't justify another expensive lens.
It’s not a terrible choice but for equivalent results it’s often bigger, heavier and sometimes more expensive than full frame. If you are using f2.8 lenses then sure, it’s small (but so is the f/4 equivalent on FF), but the second you look at something like an f1.4 prime. the full frame options are smaller and cheaper.
@@anisahs2110 there is no such thing. It is like saying my car has 60 speed too, like your car - but one car is MPH and one car is KPH. F/1.4 means nothing without knowing the sensor size, you then apply a calculation. So 1mile = 1.6km, 1inch = 2.54cm, APSC ISO800 = Full Frame ISO1800, 23mm APSC focal length = 35mm Full Frame focal length - same applies for aperture. Just like your focal length means nothing without the sensor size, the aperture means nothing too. Once you know the sensor size, say iPhone, you take the 5mm f/1.7 and you apply the crop factor to know on full frame that’s identical to 24mm / f6 or near abouts. All of these measurements are proportional to sensor size. And iPhone ISO100 is identical to Full Frame ISO1600 or near there (on the primary camera anyway).
@@DigiDriftZone I literally have it in my camera bag as we speak. You say the specs mean nothing cause of its sensor size, yet it still produces beautiful images with breathtaking bokeh and high image quality output similar to the full frame ones. Well, at least my clients can't tell the difference anyway. As long the clients and the photographer are happy, specs are not the end all or be all
@@anisahs2110 you literally have what? - I'm sure most cameras produce fantastic photos. My 20 year old Nikon D50 DSLR APS-C produced beautiful photos with breathtaking bokeh. But no, if you compare side by side with a modern full frame, you get a whole level of flexibility added in the full frame. Your stops of dynamic range, noise levels (especially in lower light) and micro contrast amount goes up in direct proportion to sensor size. With this said, the sensor technologies are improving too, a modern APS-C sensor is pretty much on par with a 10 year old full frame.
Clarifying what you said about the dof. An apsc sensor camera and a full frame camera with the same f2 50mm lens will show the same amount of subject separation and blur but since the apsc sensor camera has a smaller sensor it’s will only show a ‘cropped, 50mm image that has about the equivalent focal range of a 75mm lens on a full frame camera. To get the same view we have to put a 35mm equivalent f2 lens on the apsc camera and since dof increases with wider lenses, now you will not have the same amount of background blur.
You know, APS-C (crop sensor format) is almost exactly the size of the Super 35mm film frame - a standard we managed to live with for over 100 years for motion pictures projected onto super-large screens (not IMAX-large, but large enough). Only reason we ever got "full frame", i.e., full-sized 35mm frames in still photography is because, due to logistics, we mounted the film in the camera sideways, thus allowing for a larger frame size. Had still cameras been designed like motion picture cameras, all our still photography (except for medium and large formats) would have been "crop" format and no one would have ever been the wiser. Then again, you could say the reverse and we could have had all those years and decades of "Lawrence of Arabia"-sized movies (which would have been EXPENSIVE!).
Other than price, there's also the topic of size. Comparing the performance of Fullframe f1.8 lenses with APSC f1.8 lenses in nonsensical because f1.4 APSC lenses have the same size & price as FF 1.8 lenses. That means you almost completely eliminate the bokeh advantage and also add 2/3 stops of light to eliminate the ISO advantage. The only advantage FF has left is with f2.8 zooms, because there are no f2 zooms for APSC to balance it out like it happens with primes. However, you still can't defeat physics, the FF f2.8 zooms are significantly bigger than APSC f2.8 zooms. So every photographer has to ask if they are willing to carry that weight around on a regular basis for the little advantage. The extra cost might seem less relevant in a few years but the extra weight to get f2.8 zooms and f1.4 primes on FF are there every single day.
This is a weird comparison. By your logic we could say that an 8 cylinder engine isn’t more powerful than a 4 cylinder engine; “Here we have a 1982 Buick with an 8 cylinder engine, it’s less powerful than this 2023 Civic Type-R with only a 4 cylinder. See, 8 cylinder engines aren’t more powerful.”
Great video! I'm sure I'm not the first one to say this, but eeerrrrkkktually, focal length doesn't technically have an impact on depth of field... It's all about the apparent distance to the object. So if you go 200 metres back and shoot your Winnie the Pooh with an 800mm lens at f8, the depth of field would be the same as at 35mm f8 so long as the subject stayed the same size within the frame... But the background will look so stupidly close that it will APPEAR that the DOF is thinner... in actual fact the DOF is the same but just blown up to look huge, and thus more out of focus. You can test this yourself in a more practical setting, e.g. 24mm f1.4 vs 50mm f1.4 but about twice as far back (or whatever distance is needed to keep the subject the same size in the frame).
Great discussion. Crop cameras have their advantages in focal length \ DOF for certain applications. Also, it gets complicated once you bring in speedboosters, regarding DOF. Id say people should be looking at what sensor theyre buying instead. Eg : A nikon z7 in DX mode is identical to a z50 file wise. So the full frame camera isn't really better than the crop.
The physics of optic let in more light to full frame sensor thus higher speed and shallower depth of field. There is nothing wrong with cropped sensor, it takes great pictures if you don’t mind a f1.4 lens is actually f2.0 which still takes great fuzzy background photos. The reality is most lenses don’t reform their best wide open, so I buy a f1.4 lens I shoot at f2.8 mostly and now it’s a f4 on a cropped sensor and that makes a noticeable difference. I have tiny point and shoot up to medium format sensor camera, they all take great pictures. The choice should be what kind of pictures you like to take to decide which type of camera to get and not a simply debate on crop vs. full. I think borrowing or renting both sensor camera and try it yourself is the best method. I don’t do video so there are different consideration that I don’t pay attention to. A friend of mine uses cropped sensor Fujifilm, stacks up to 100 photos to one picture, so cropped sensor can create huge photo. He shoots landscape only so typically at f11, hence speed is no concern to him. I shoot street, portrait, flower and animals so I use different camera depending on what my primary goal each time. To me, making that selection is part of the fun too. Don’t get stuck with specs, price, brands, your own liking is the most important factor.
No an f1.4 lens is an 1.4 lens on any camera. Using it on an APSC camera has no effect at all, in the same way focal lengths are unaffected by sensor size. Optics on FF do not let in more light compared to APSC. An f2.8 lens on doesn't magically turn into an f4 lens on APSC You change focal lengths for a specific angle of view on each format. So a 35mm lens on APSC gives you the same angle of view as a 50mm on FF / 135. If your 50mm lens on FF is set to f2.8 - to match DOF on the 35mm on S35, you have to open the lens 1.5 stops to f1.4 That's it ... however by opening up the lens you have also altered the exposure by 1.5 stops.
Thank you for the video, I'm currently waiting for a used camera (either fuji or sony) to show up and need to decide between fujis aps-c and sony full frame! Don't forget the "advantage" of full frame sensors, you can use manual vintage lenses on them, and they behave a designed:)
I would not compare the cheapest full frame (with 2017 sensor inherited from 6D mark II) on the market with top notch apsc. In low light the later can be better but if you would compare it with R6 mark II or Sony Zv-e1 then I would say full frame would be significantly better. More area to let the light in does the job here.
As stated in the video, it was just to illustrate that there is more to the high ISO performance than the size of the sensor. I would also note, there is significant difference in ISO performance between the ZV-E1 and R6 II, which is further evidence that is more to it than sensor size.
The size of the sensor consistently has a few stops better noise floor compared to a smaller sensor for the same generation. APS-C typically lags behind the performance of full frame by around 5-7 years. So yes a 6 year old FF camera should on average perform as well as a modern APS-C camera all being set equal using the crop factor calculation. With a few exceptions but that’s generally the rule (e.g. a7s III was a bit of leap forward).
My experience is with Fujifilm specifically: I switched from the a7II to the X-T2 back in the day because the X-T2 had better gain noise performance at any iso, no colour banding, and no PDAF artifacting, plus higher fidelity IQ in general, and better battery life. I'm switching back to full frame because I want to get better low light performance and AF for the same size and weight. Fujifilm hasn't got any cameras currently significantly more compact and lightweight than the a7CII, ZV-E1, or Canon R8. It sounds crazy but check the specs. Plus the prices aren't really better either. For low light performance I can use a 35f1.8 full frame lenses and still get more light gathering and less overall bulk than the f2 equivalent XF 23f1.4 from Fujifilm. Where Fujifilm still shines is their high quality compact f2 line, but without a compact body, it kind of becomes no different to the compact full frame x 35f1.8 combo. I could even get a 2.8 full frame pancake lens, but still have better AF for the same low light performance. My only problem with aps-c is that if it's not significantly more compact, portable, lightweight, and cheaper, then why would I bother? If I can get an R8 for $200 less than an X-T5 with the R3 AF system and equivalent brighter lenses for less cost and bulk what is aps-c doing for me except being 80g lighter if I put my f2 glass on it? Longer lasting batteries, I guess? I can just buy more of those though. Currently my primary is a Ricoh GRIII, which is aps-c and is phenomenal, but a lot of what makes it good is intelligent design and UX considerations - so I don't worry at all about it in low light despite the 2.8 aps-c. I would say the Ricoh is very comparable to the fullframe Leica Q2.
The f2 primes on Fuji have awful focus breathing, unusable for video, they are also f3 equivalent on Full Frame. I did an expensive comparison and equivalent full frame lenses for Sony were always smaller, lighter and often cheaper. I recently switched from the X-S20 to the ZV-E1 and wow, so much smaller, lighter, and little cheaper but 100x better results.
@@DigiDriftZone for video you should not be using Fujifilm. The IBIS and AF are not reliable enough. Focus breathing is irrelevant in photo. I'd recommend the ZV-E1 for video too. If it were me I'd probably buy the FX3 though because I like it better for no good reason. 😂 Also, if you really want a compact high quality camera for photo, a7CII is your only option there. My only problem with Sony is I don't want to edit my image. And Sony is so colour accurate that I don't like the raw unfiltered reality I'm getting. I prefer a little quirk baked in, so I don't have to touch LR. 😂 It's the only reason I would choose the Z30 over the a6700 and the R8 over the a7CII. If I loved LR editing, I would have the Sony every single time. They're just better cameras.
While I agree with most of what you say, I wish everyone would realize that there are forms of photography where quality is not measured by bokeh and f/1.4 (or f/0.95) lenses are of no use whatsoever. You obviously measure quality using different standards than I do. Thank goodness there are not f/0.95 macro lenses. Some people take landscapes and prefer more universal sharpness. Some people prefer something in focus and sharp in the photo just to offset all that background blur. I have both a FF and a crop body using the crop more for what I like to shoot. Sometimes I wonder if M4/3 would be acceptable but the ergonomics of the few I have seen leave be drawing the line at APS-C. Perhaps that is why they make so many options? Not everyone defines 'best' in the same way.
Good points. Yes, I totally agree a huge iris does not equal a great lens. I was more talking about lenses like this one - th-cam.com/video/ksEg-WkPiZg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=K4sq5nS_zNsWFZiH Which is one of the best lenses I have ever used, for $549. Something this good on full frame would be $2000+, and as big as a garbage can.
If cost, bulk and weight aren’t factors I think a larger sensor is always an optical advantage, but taking them into account I went APS-C and got some really nice lenses. And hauling them around is much less of a pain that full frame gear.
The time to be a Fuji user has never been better. 40mp at an affordable price (about half the price of FF 45mp bodies) and the release of several 1.2-1.4 lenses from Fuji, Viltrox etc. I was almost about to switch back to FF because I missed the rendering of the D800 w/ Sigma 35 1.4 ART that I had a long time ago, but I finally feel like the Fuji APS-C system is complete enough that I don't miss out on anything important.
40 megapixels on APS-C is a scam - it gives no more detail than the 26-megapixel APS-C cameras (look up comparison tests that have been done). You need a larger sensor (full frame or larger) for 40 megapixels to actually give you more detail in your images. Not all megapixels are created equally!
The reason why 50mm f/1.8 on FF has a blurrier background than 35mm f/1.8 on APS-C is not directly the higher number since that is exactly compensated by the larger circle of confusion criterion. It’s the fact that “f/1.8” when f=50mm means a larger entrance pupil (aperture) than when f=35mm.
The maximum background blur one can achieve when measured on the focal plane is simply the size of the entrance pupil. Everything else is irrelevant. They may affect how close to the maximum one can get i.e. affect for example when the background is not very far. Like if the background is twice as far as the subject you get just half of the maximum and there is where the crop factor plays: if you shoot further way the background is relatively closer. For example 50 mm f/1.8 full frame at 2 meters with the background at 4 meters the blur is 50 mm / 1.8 / 2 = 14 mm. Now with APS-C at 3 meters and the background at 5 meters: 50 mm / 1.8 *(1-3/5) = 11 mm. If you used 35 mm at 2 meters (ignoring the slightly different framing) you would get 35 mm / 1.8 / 2 = 10 mm. Note this is just about the blur otherwise the distance of course affects the relationship between the background and the subject.
@@okaro6595 Unless I’m missing something (a definite possibility), I think you mean when measured in object space, not on the focal plane (the sensor). The two will coincide only at 1:1 magnification (so at the minimum focus distance of most macro lenses).
@@markwiemelswhy do you say that? F/1.2 lenses for aps-c are significantly more expensive to manufacture, they will also be significantly bigger and heavier than their f1.8 counterparts on FF, so FF in general is smaller, lighter and cheaper when it comes to fast lenses like this.
I am currently using a Fuji XH2 with a 16-55 F2.8 lens and the sharpness in shooting with it is a level I did not know from my old Canon camera. And I notice that its noise is quite low at high ISO. With F1.4 lenses and below, it outperforms much more expensive cameras in portrait photography. I'm all for switching to APS-C
Yes but that is an f4 equivalent on full frame which on Sony anyway gives you a smaller, lighter and cheaper lens while still out performing this really aging and heavy zoom lens (still excellent lens though). There are advantages like say resolution and hybrid use, sure. But ISO 6400 is on the limit of usable results where on Sony it’s more like ISO 50,000 for equivalent noise and much faster zoom lens options should you want that in the future.
@@DigiDriftZone I never go above iso 800 indoors because I always use flash so I’m not bothered and as for f4 it doesn’t bother me too because when shooting group photos I use f8 and f4 on full frame you’d have to go to f7 to get exposure on a group shot to get everyone in focus so realistically there’s more blur in full frame sensors therefore you’d have to use a higher aperture hence use higher iso on full frame so therefore there isn’t any difference in image quality is there and full frame lenses are always more expensive
Agree with you.. I'm a newbie more visual based thsn math. Just step or 2 back for a fuller frame! For aperture and clarity and bokeh i can live with the minor differences. Thanks for making the video!
You can easily turn your full frame sensor into a crop sensor by using software to crop your image. When you do that, your photo does not get darker. This idea that crop sensors are never as sensitive as full frame cameras has to die already. While it is true that a single sensor (i.e. one pixel) will tend to gather more photons if it is larger, there are many other things to consider. For one, copped sensors tend to have fewer megapixels so the physical size of each individual sensor/pixel may be the same. Also, size is only one thing that drives signal to noise ratio (SNR). Other things to consider are the quantum efficiency (odds that the sensor will register each photon) and the noise level. It is very possible to have a smaller single sensor that performs better in low light than a larger one.
The bit about APS sensors having fewer MP is only really true for the past few years. Throughout most of digital camera history, APS was on par with FF regarding pixel count.
Devils advocate here 😂 when full frame cameras started hitting the $1,000 mark (EOS RP) there arrived a lot of scenarios where full frame was smaller and cheaper than matching the equivalent FOV/DOF with a crop sensor. I know you demonstrated that the background blur between 35 1.8 and 50 1.8 is negligible in specific cases, but in scenarios (like you mentioned) where you’re shooting further away and you want that subject isolation still you can get it cheaper, smaller, and lighter with full frame (especially if you’re willing to shop used and DSLRs). If I put a 50mm F1.8 on a Canon 6D I’ve got a FOV/DOF that would require something like a 35mm F1.2 to match with crop sensor. An 85mm F1.8 on many full frame bodies is cheaper, smaller, and lighter than a 50mm F1.2 on any crop sensor body. A third party 85mm F1.4 lens on a crop sensor body can match the FOV/DOF of canon’s 135mm F2L on a full frame for less money, but the FF setup might still be smaller/lighter. Canon’s 40mm F2.8 pancake lens on a full frame would need to be matched by like a 24mm F1.8 lens on a crop sensor, again much larger and pricier than the 40mm F2.8. Lately my daily carry fun camera is a 5D classic with an EF 100mm F2 lens I bought for $199 and what it provides in terms of FOV/DOF is in a tiny and dirt cheap package compared to anything I’ve looked at with a crop sensor unless I want to manually focus. Not trying to argue or say that you’re wrong, just wanted to share that in a few weird little scenarios you can get looks out of full frame for way cheaper and with a much smaller/lighter kit than matching it with a crop sensor.
The old full frame cameras are bargain now, especially if you don't need the video features. Taking price into account, it does make sense to compare old FF to new Crop.
I found this helpful - the aperture size (diameter dimension) is directly proportional to the focal length. A grab from the web "The f‑number expresses a ratio of the lens focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil, and it's defined by the equation N=ƒ/D. Thus, the f‑number equals the focal length divided by the entrance pupil diameter." So for a 50mm f1.0 lens we have 1= 50mm/50mm (f1.0 = 50mm focal length / 50mm aperture diameter). This explains a lot of things but also explains why longer fast lenses are absolutely massive.
I shoot a Sony A7III, Fuji X-T4 and Olympus E-M1 mkII. In low light I get less noise in the Sony. Don’t get me wrong, my favorite is the Olympus, just love it, but the Sony is better than even the newer X-T4 in low light. For street photography the X-T4 is a better system for other reasons. As far as price, you are absolutely correct. I can’t see upgrading the A7iii anytime soon.
Enjoy you vids Mark and respect you and your work. But - I respectfully DISAGREE. :) Of course it all depends on a given user's budget, needs, their audience (and how much that audience cares about image quality), the display device, etc. I mean, by your logic, everyone should just use their phone. After all phones take "good" pictures, and, the best camera is the one you have with you. Yes, for 80 percent of us 80 percent of the time, a smaller-sensored camera will be absolutely fine. But... Larger-sensored cameras DO, almost always, take a "better" picture or video. The image just simply looks better. Of course if you choose an OLDER full-frame camera and compare it to a NEWER crop-sensor, the difference will be smaller - but even in that case the FF camera will win 98 percent of the time. And for me, full-frame IQ's goodness goes beyond specs. Or maybe it's the way the specs add up - the image just LOOKS better - less noise, more detail, more color depth, etc - it all adds up to an image that looks more "real", more 3D, "clearer". More "analog". Something like that. But it adds up to better. For me, anyway. Is that neccessary? Or even noticeable in well-lit images? Esp if viewing on a phone? Maybe/probably not. Depends on the viewer. But overall, and esp as the light falls and the demands of the audience increase, FF wins. Believe me I'd like to carry smaller/cheaper, but for me, it just doesn't work often enough.
In this debate about apsc or full frame (which for me means Plaubel 13x18cm), one point is unfortunately always forgotten: which camera is the greatest pleasure to work with and when. For landscape photography I currently enjoy shooting with MFT. Gorgeous, almost no weight and wonderful focal length selection. After 50 years of towing, it's great to be able to walk with a light step. And the image quality is great too.
I haven't yet managed to justify taking my own Plaubel out into the field.. maybe one day
The old adage the painter not the paint
I wasted so much time learning this
For me
A vision
B composition
C tells a story
D Beauty
And a side note
Not until printing on better printers with great paper did any of above become “reel”
When digital cameras were first out most cameras made at that time were crop sensor cameras, pro photographers were using and making beautiful photos with crop sensor cameras because they understood the different factors that come into play to create such a photo. Subjects, lighting composition and exposure along with lens choice are what make a compelling photo regardless of sensor size.
For sure.
Well said 💯👍 I use my Pentax K7 more than my 6D
I think that the FF-is-better-than-Crop comes from this time.
My first digital was a Fuji S2Pro (6MP, APS-C) - literally a Analog film Nikon F80 Body with attached digital backpack. Viewfinder was dark and tiny, Sensor technic was basic (no microlenses or the other new stuff).
And you where stucked with old Nikon Lenses for analogue film and the first "Digital Grade" ones
In 2005 I bought a Canon 5D (FF, 12MP) - Big viewfinder view where you could see even in darker situations what you are photographing.
Yes the S2 with 2003 tec-sensor has visible noise from ISO800 and was halfway usefull until ISO1600 (but the noise started to get ugly).
But the 5D wasn't better ISO 3200 was "H1" and noise was visible at ISO 1600 and even ISO 800.
Same pixel-pitch, more or less the same state of technologie.
But with "only FF" - Lenses for both APS-C and FF for some kind of photography (shallow DOF - Aperture wide open aka Portrait) the Crop - Effect takes place and the myth started.
Later when the first extreme fast -APS-C lenses where available this Crop Effect could be compensated (DOF on APS-C with a 35mm f1.4 was more or less the same as with a 50mm f1.8 (ok in real a f2.0) when taking the same picture.
But the 50mm FF 1.8 was available for $99 the 35mm f1.4 cost a lot more and why should I buy a expensive lens for a minor APS-C (myth is recalling)?
Later in the mid 2000s to maybe 2015 the sensors get better and better but on the other side the Megapixel Race has started.
That a APS-C Sensor with 24MP compared to the same state of the art FF Sensor with 24MP has smaller sensor pixel (theoretically half the size) and therefore more problems with high ISO ( Something the next evolution stage of Sensor often compensate) - Yes but mostly only visible for pixel Peepers (Oh my god this camera is trash - at 10.000% I can see 100x100 Pixel Blocks - Not useable!!!!!!! - Where is the fork - burn the factory).
From maybe 2016 to 2020 the Pixel race stopped for a short time (because more pixel doesn't make the picture better - even worse it makes it worser) and when comparing a maybe 16-20MP APS-C with a 32 to 40MP FF the difference (also because better APS-C lenses where available) was close to "non existant.
Additionally - in 2003 the typical output was a maybe letter sized or bigger print on paper. Today 90% of the pictures rest with 1-2MP on Insta or Facebook, and shrinking the picture also means shrinking the noise (and other issues). No need (for most hobby photographers) for 60MP+ FF anymore, even the 6MP of a Canon 10D (my second digital) would match the needed quality.
But there is always the GAS (Gear Aquiring Syndrom) - My pictures from a brick wall are boring! - Must be because I do not have the best of the best that is better than the best ever produced gear! - That my pictures are boring, because test charts from brick walls are by definition boring and Ifor other "not boring" pictures my skills are not existent? - No I'm the best photographer in the World and therefore it must be the Gear - End of Discussion. 🙂
@@DSP16569 Damn, well said 👍💯
@@DSP16569 Thank you for this historical and almost "arms race" perspective! I'm a hobby-ist amateur photographer, gradually learning more and more about the technical aspects of photography alongside with the with the skills-set and artistic sides, and I'm constantly impressed by the beauty and clarity of photos that I can produce with my small crop sensor DSLR. Recently as I try to do more kinds of photography, including portrait and indoor, I am a victim of GAS when it comes to lenses. I'm buying used, mid-grade expense/quality lenses, and each new lens I get lets me produce different kinds of photos than what I've made before. In my opinion some of my photos quality rival those of professionally produced photographs with FF cameras.
I've put this out there on other threads, and I know some people get it, some people don't, others may not agree and some get downright angry. But anyway, the way I see it, there are only TWO reasons to buy a camera based on specs/resolution/sensor size etc; 1) because you're a commercial photographer whose clients have demanded a specific output standard, or 2) you just like it.
I used to be a commercial photographer, and many clients would want to see my gear list before they'd hire me. Not all, but it happened. If a client is not a photographer, they will not consider skill to be important, only specs ("Oh your photos are great! You must have an awesome camera!"). Others have output needs (like large format prints) where they demand as much resolution as possible, edge-to-edge sharpness, etc. So I had all the full-frame gear for that, the best you could buy at the time. And if this is you, go for it, spend big, earn those dollars/pesos/kroner/francs/yuan/etc.
Or if you're new to photography, don't really get art and are a pixel-peeper who just can't be happy with an image unless you can zoom in to 1000% and count the hairs on the fly in the corner of the window of the building you photographed on vacation, then sure, go for it.
But if you're a creative person who just wants to make images and tell visual stories in the most accessible way possible, then buy gear that enables you to do that, and stop letting people sell you on what they think you should have.
When the pandemic hit and my business fell apart, I sold all the gear and went to a crop sensor. Now I do fine art photography, no clients, no briefs. I go where I want, when I want, shoot what I want. Sometimes it sells, sometimes it doesn't. I don't care, I earn my living in other ways now. But in three years since going APS-C, no one, NO ONE, has looked at any of my images and said, "It's nice, but it would have been better if you'd shot on a full-frame sensor with a 50mm f1.4 rather than a crop-sensor with a 35mm f2". No one.
Because - *and here's the point* - people judge images based on what they ARE, not what they are NOT.
If you present an image to someone and it's got some noise, soft edges or a little distortion - but the story is told well and is emotive - no one will care. They will look at the image holistically and accept those "flaws" as artistic choices used to tell the story. And if they get caught up in the technical details, they're probably not your audience anyway. Not everyone gets painting, not everyone gets sculpture, and not everyone gets photography.
So for me, going APS-C was the wisest thing I've ever done. My kit is small, light and relatively inexpensive. I can have it almost anywhere, ready for the moment and I don't draw a lot of attention. My lenses aren't perfect, and in fact, I've sought out a lens selection based on their character. For you, maybe your decisions are different. If you're doing architecture, then perfect proportions and edge sharpness might be essential. If you're doing sports or other action, fast focus is key. But you don't need full-frame to get those things.
Bottom line; define your needs first, get good at what you need to get good at. Then filter through the marketing noise, make a decision that suits your needs and gets you out there taking photos.
Awesome comment Mike!! 📸👏
Thanks@@Pfagnan. I do genuinely believe in this. Too many people invest way too much in their gear when they should invest in their skills first.
Of course, some people just like gadgets, and that's OK too. I just wish more people would be honest with themselves as to why they're buying it. I've known one guy for over a decade who buys a new camera every year, but his photos never get better. I wonder if he'll ever figure it out.
Awesome mini-essay sir - thanks for taking the time to write it - a wealth of wisdom & experience, right there. 🇬🇧 👍🏽👍🏽
Pro optical engineer here….
My suggestion is that people analyse these issues in terms of the physical size of the aperture - the physical size of the hole in simple terms. For a fixed aperture size and field of view the amount of light entering the camera is fixed irrespective of focal length or sensor size. For a given sensor technology aperture size is the only significant factor that determines real low light performance- not sensor size. The depth of field is also determined by aperture size irrespective of focal length or sensor size.
Let’s consider a specific example: a 50mm f/4 lens in front of a full frame sensor will give basically the same image as a 25mm f/2 lens in front of a m43 sensor - same depth of field and very similar image noise (for a given shutter speed and sensor technology). This is simply because both cameras have the same aperture size.
THANK YOU. It drives me a little nuts sometimes how people compare apples to oranges, for example in this video the presenter compares a 35mm f/1.8 to a 50mm f/1.8. Those two lenses have different aperture sizes, which is the real reason for the bokeh ball size difference!
Isn’t it crazy that all these comparisons between sensor size are still based on an ancient film format.
@@gabedamienAs new hobbyist I am looking for a lens recommendation and always got that simple comparison. Just today I watch other video comparison that make me realize this, since I was a physics graduate in material optic long time ago I think my physics sense back a bit but not sure with how a camera engineered, thanks this comment section confirm this. photography seems even more interesting now
@@dutchbeef8920Not really. 35mm was the most commonly used format back in the film days, so it's not surprising it became the benchmark in digital photography.
@@BubblesPothowarithe amount of light they receive depends entirely on the lens mounted in front of them, and specifically on how much light it can gather (the absolute aperture) and how wide it can project it (the focal length)
Almost a year ago i got Nikon Z30 with the kit lens and then added a 50mm F2 manual lens few months later. All of it was a total of 650 dollars. I am not a professional , just an enthusiast and just wanted to get into dedicated cameras.
The thing is the jump in the image quality and versatility you get over a smartphone vs an APS C camera is way bigger than an APS C vs a full frame camera. and for what its worth most people would be better off with an APS-C system.
I agree, I have the Galaxy S23 Ultra, my photos with this smartphone are as good as with my APS-C for Social Network posts, but the moment I need anything better I can just change the Kit Lens of my APS-C or simply change the apperture a bigger sensor is a advantage but not as big.
Yeah I experienced a very similar thing with the Sony Z body and some cheap-ish Sigma lenses, the pictures & video this combo produces are wonderful
The Z30 is nuts for what it is. I've used it in professional applications without any hesitation alongside other bodies. Enjoy, you can absolutely get stunning results
Why would people be better of with aps-c? The only benefit I see is the price and very slightly smaller camera body.
@@cyberfunk3793 price is everything.
Full frame cameras and lenses costs much more than APS-C and dont forget that not everyone earns in dollars. 2000 dollars may not be much to the people in the US but for example , in india thats a significant amount of money for 90% of the people.
All that said i am strictly speaking for non professionals. If your work depends on it then sure its worth it. but then again the price to performance is not justifiable.
Excellent technical analysis. The people who view my photos neither know nor care about the camera equipment I use to produce photographs. I have yet to have anyone ask me what size size sensor I use. What is critical is the quality of my printing. Stop obsessing about sensors and just enjoy your work/hobby.
Camera, Lens & Lightroom (Today's era) plus a knowledge in good printing.. amen!
An important point that you don't emphasize in your discussion: if you want to get background separation (i.e. you want to shoot wide open on fast apertures), you are limited by the available lenses. To get the equivalent of 35mm f2 on APS-C, you need 24mm f1.4, for a 50mm f1.4, you would need 35mm f1 etc. For most modern APS-C systems, there exist no autofocus lenses with the required apertures. If you are going the manual route, you can adapt many beautiful lenses with fast apertures, but that means you are going to miss many shots. The situation is even worse for zoom: the fastest zoom lenses for APS-C have f2.8, which is equivalent to f4 on full frame.
And also cost - the full frame f4 will cost much less and weigh less than f2.8 full frame. On APS-C buying a lens that is one stop lower will add 50% or more to the cost of the lens (and some size and weight). Also, many small light f2.8 or f4 full frame lenses have come out that that rival APS-C lenses. Really, a chart should be assembled for Sony showing equivalent lenses that are matched for angle of view, and equivalent f-stop, size and weight. In the case of Panasonic - the fast lenses are $1500 to $2000+
I think a better way to view sensor comparison is as follows: 1. accept that for photos the image quality is *almost* the same. 2. APS-C naturally is better at telephoto and FF is better on the wide end and there is extra cost when you work against that by having to put more powerful and expensive telephoto lenses on ff and wide / faster lenses on APS-C. 3. Decide what is more important - birds and wildlife - APSC. Up close with soft backgrounds FF. 4. In general, go with APSC because it is lower cost for all around shooting if you don't shoot much in very low light or really need/want FF f1.4/1.2 etc.
Viltrox make 600 dollar 75 1.2....it's as 112 f2 ....thats fine 🙂
"the fastest zoom lenses for APS-C have f2.8". Not true my dude. Sigma makes two affordable f1.8 zooms, that are awesome.
If you want to get background separation, there are plenty of lens available for crop sensors, and you just need to adjust your set up to get the results you need. This might mean standing in a different position or using a different lens to FF, but that's no problem. You're just looking at this from a FF perspective and trying to mimic the results, but that's not important to a lot of people. If you had used a crop sensor all your life, would you be constantly dissatisfied with the results? No, of course you wouldn't. You can get F1.2 AF lenses for aps-c now that give you all the background separation you'll ever need, and even with slower lenses, you might just have to position yourself differently.
I’m weirdly attracted to APSC vs Full frame videos and there’s tons of these on TH-cam. I’m very respectful of both formats and their advantages and disadvantages.
That said, this video is really the most misleading one I have seen on this niche topic. It’s somehow effective regarding the practical results but really oversimplified regarding the optical properties of each format.
Full frame is almost presented as a scam orchestrated by manufacturers…
I am attached to them because I want to know if anyone at last will have the guts to say the truth- that this new trend "APSC is almost as good" is BS lol. They all say APSC is good enough, yet they all use FF for themselves )) Yeah, then why isn't micro 4/3 also as good as full frame ? Or even MF ? Sensor size doesn't matter, right ?
Amen! I have heard soooo many times that my apsc cameras is no good and that I need to get a full frame camera. I am sure they were just trying to help, but as you mentioned, the price difference is HUGE! An excellent photographer once said, “the quality of the lens you put on your camera is what will make the difference.” Another said “the camera you have in your hand is what will be best for you. Make the best use of what you have and you can’t go wrong.” So, I’m happy for those who can afford full frame cameras and their lenses, but MY reality is that I’m happy with what I have. That, to me is what matters most. Thanks for the excellent and very informative video. Cheers.
In the end what you are saying here is that you don't have enough money for full frame, but that could be put into perspective because there are many old, still very capable full frame cameras that cost less than APS-C cameras.
It is true that the quality of the lens is very important, even more than the sensor, because a bad lens, no matter how good the sensor you have, will not give good results. That the best camera is the one you have in your hand is a phrase of pure existentialism And of course, if you are hungry it is better to have a potato than to have nothing, but if in addition to the potato you have the turkey it is better. Anyway, a good photo is a good photo regardless of the camera you took it with. At most with the best camera there will be more detail, better colors, it will be technically better but that is only part of the image.
Pausing this video at 3:22. Keep in mind the RP is not only old but it has been the cheapest full frame camera from the day it launched and it still is the bargain leader among full frame cameras. The FX 30 is nearly twice the price so that was an unfair comparison. And on video performance you omitted the key fact that Sony markets the FX 30 as a cinema camera. It damn well better out perform the RP for which video is an afterthought. Continuing the video now.
Sports photog here, often shooting at very high ISOs. My crop sensor cameras, of the same general generation as my full-frames, do poorly in comparison when it comes to handling noise in both video and photos. In addition, when I put my full-frame cameras in DX mode (turning them into crop frame cameras) in those low light conditions, I have very little room to crop in post as the images fall apart quickly. Now, during a nice bright day, at low ISOs, you can't tell the difference between crop and full-frame unless you do some extreme cropping.
Exactly, the same thing happens to me comparing my full frame cameras vs M43 even though the M43 has more resolution and is 5 years more modern.
I'm just getting into photography but have had an interest in it for many years. Something I don't see mentioned is how it is harder to do super wide angle photography with a crop sensor. This is just because you might find something like a 10mm lens, but it would be 15mm equivalent in APS-C. ALL your lenses get the FOV cropped, and some super wide FOVs are just impossible with a crop sensor as a result. I got an APS-C camera and don't really mind this, but just an observation.
I recently bought a FF for the first time after years of APSC and I can tell you that I see the difference in image quality. Even with a “cheap” 50mm lens
Even? More like because of...
All of my "worse" 50 and 55mm lenses perform a lot better on FF than on APS-C.
But in general you are right, most of my shots done on a EOS RP (FF) and even the modern and highly corrected (in a bad way) RF 50 1.8 are just superior to the ones shot on APS-C camera.
On APS-C you lose resolution, especially with not so good/sharp glass compared to full frame. And mostly FF lenses are designed to work on FF the best.
I'm going FF in a couple of months, not because I care about FF but because Techart makes an autofocus adapter for Z mount and E mount but not X mount (sad) and I really want to try the adapter and get autofocus on vintage lenses, so I'm really interested to see if this is true. And more importantly as these bodies are double the price is the image quality twice as good.
Everything is compromise in photography, let's see if bigger and heavier for better image quality is actually worth it.
Probably unintentional, but the video understates the real-world advantage of FF. Double the sensor area is double the light. That's your baseline point of difference, everything else comes down to what lenses are available on each system, how well they perform, how much they cost, and whether they are the optics that you want. It's not so simple has "the same performance for half the cost". For example, a FF 50/2 is usually a cheap and high performance lens. On APS-C, you'd need a 35/1.4 for the same basic function, and to get the same sharpness and overall image quality you'd be looking at a much more expensive lens for APSC than the FF equivalent. Generally FF favors wide angle, while crop favors reach.
To exaggerate the point: consider a 50/0.95 lens on FF. What's the equivalent version on M43? Like... perhaps 25/0.5?
FF lenses are not sharper and cheaper by definition. Same "rules" apply for both formats as you can get cheap and soft or expensive and sharp lenses and anything in between.
Case in point, on Fuji you can buy the very expensive 1.4 Fuji lenses or go with cheaper, yet very good Sigma, Viltrox and other equivalent lenses.
Another example is the Nikon Z 40mm f2 that's not better than equivalent APSC lenses in any way, as you get what you pay for.
I believe that you can achieve roughly the same performance in both formats for similar prices for basic photography. Outside of basic photography, both formats have their strengths as you mentioned.
Well
My ff is ableto get❤❤ primes in zeiss or older better manual lenses pennies on $$
So
$ for $ im crushing either crop
Or FF at even sale new pricing!!
Have both so😮
The sensor size is not directly the reason full frames generally perform better in low light. The FUNDAMENTAL reason is that the individual pixels are generally larger on full frame cameras. So each PIXEL is gathering more light. For example, if you have a 12 MP crop sensor camera and a 30 MP crop sensor camera (and ignoring any technological advancements in image processing) - the 12 MP camera will perform better in low-light situations because each PIXEL is larger. It's actually gathering more light on a "per pixel" basis. Noise is not the result of the SENSOR not getting enough light; it's the result of the PIXEL not getting enough light. It's what causes the digital grain/color grain in high-noise digital images. The pixel isn't receiving enough light to properly produce the color. Now, what you sacrifice here is obviously resolution, but we are getting to the point now that unless you are REALLY doing some heavy cropping or REALLY blowing your images up, there isn't a difference resolution wise. Our eyes can't tell the difference on a computer screen or regular print size. If the individual pixels are getting more light; then the low-light performance of the camera will be better - regardless of sensor size - - it just so happens that larger sensors tend to have larger individual pixels. A 30 MP full frame will most certainly outperform a 30 MP crop frame photograph with regards to low-light noise - because the pixels are necessarily larger. A 12 MP crop frame camera will outperform a 45 MP full frame camera with regards to low-light performance (again - barring any in-camera processing and similar sensor technology) because while there are fewer pixels, they are each much larger, and are therefore able to each gather more light.
Although I am a FF shooter, I must correct you here. Double the sensor area is not automatically double the light. The idea of a crop sensor is to use it with a decreased focal length, so that, on a crop sensor, the same total amount of light that once filled the large sensor is "concentrated" on a smaller area.
As a life time photographer and someone who has worked professionally with digital cameras since 1998, I don’t agree with how the argument has been presented here. If you compare a Sony full frame with a Sony cropped camera of the same generation, you will see an obvious difference in noise levels both in video and in RAW stills. Add to this the complexity of comparing different resolution sensors (like the 12mp A7SIII/FX3) and the 26mp, cropped A6700 and ou will see another huge difference. I’m all for APS-C cameras for the size and price so I own both cropped and full frame but I favour my full frames for professional work, especially in low light. The annoying part with Sony APS-C is that people focus more on how big the grip is and creating F1.4-F1.2 lenses, that there is little size advantage to APS-C anymore.
You must have skipped some of the video. Nothing I have said disputes what you have said above.
@@markwiemels no, but the whole point of the video is to demonstrate how there’s little advantage to full frame. There is nothing wrong with APS-C but the only advantage in my opinion is size and cost. Both of which are getting more questionable with the increasing size and push towards bigger glass.
@@markwiemels I mean he is not wrong, you tried to say they are very similar, but they ARE NOT.
Your example with the 50mm on FF and 35mm on APS-C was already a good start where you literally proved yourself wrong.... you can get good 50-58mm 1.4 glass for less than 100$, show me a 35mm 1.2 for APS-C (better 0,95...) for 100$ as well?
Especially with the 50 vs 35 comparison, the win for size goes even to the full frame setup since good 50 1.4s are smaller and lighter than even 35mm 1.8s for APS-C.
My personal opinion is, if you are "just" photographing and do a little bit of everything or dont even know yet what to do.... go Full Frame if you can afford it. Dont mind modern lenses and adapt older mounts or even M42 etc vintage glass for much cheaper money. If you can not afford, go APS-C camera.
But as soon you know what you want to do/are doing already, there should be no question if APS-C or FF is better anymore. Then the basic questions should be easily answered:
- low light is a thing? Full frame if affordable, otherwise APS-C with fast 3rd party F1.2s or even F/0,95 lenses.
- crop factor/crop/range is a thing.... you might lean towards APS-C or even MFT cameras, APS-C cameras are basically 1,5-1,6x Teleconverters, MFTs even 2x TCs.
- lens choices... varying from system to system, you might have to pick your camera and sensor size according to the lenses and usecases you are aiming for!
For me this APS-C vs MFT vs FF thing was never that interesting. I learned it the way as you read it sometimes in the comments here: "Date your camera body, marry your lens".
I had APS-C for long time, but only because of budget constrains. But when it comes to glass.... i preffered a expensive, better 24mm full frame lens over the less sharper and worse APS-C counterpart.
Camera bodies were for long never expensive for me (50-300$ 2nd hand), but i invested in good glass and NEVER REGRET this decision.
Good glass holds its value, mostly APS-C glass is the "not so good" glass and lose a lot of value, so APS-C can be definately more expensive than full frame in the long run (even saw it personally at a friend buying APS-C lenses only and he lost more money than i even paid for my glass...)
@@harrison00xXxespecially for Canon RF users, they only produced 4 RF-S lenses so far, none of them is ideal for low light. If I have to buy RF lenses for full frame, then the price and size advantages are gone.
@@maverick_nyaa The main point of APS-C is anyways reach, at least in the canon world.
Thank you Mark, someone who is making sense in this debate. I have always felt a little inadequate with my APSC or Super 35 sensor (as I like to call it) with those who have spent big dollars on a Full Frame system. Quite honestly the results I'm getting on my Sony A6400 in both video and photography have been outstanding at a fraction of the cost. I have some amazing Sigma primes that are beyond my expectations. You are right there are some TH-camrs waving the flag of FF as being the step up from APSC and APSC being for beginners. Hopefully your piece will start the flow of common sense around this topic.
I mean its not wrong, i would also prefer full frame over APS-C but its just not affordable or feasable for my needs (much reach for wildlife at a budget)
And the crop sensor and budget constrains also make some things impossible like owls in flight in dark forests. Thats where you need a expensive FF camera and a 600 F4 or so beside a lot of patience and camo.
I had once full frame for regular photography, astro on telescope or with fast prime lenses, night and street photography etc, just as basic camera. Also affordable somehow with leftover EF (L) glasses and a affordable Canon EOS RP. Totally fine for photography and "affordable". Especially 1.4 and 1.8 primes were amazing on full frame (and affordable!) and its hard to match a good 50 1.4 or 1.8 lens on FF!
My 50, 55 and 58mm primes have become from general use/awesome lenses on FF to specific usecase lenses on APS-C, mainly portrait or low light on the longer end.
Also, my telezoom (150-600) and supertele prime (800mm) are both full frame and i use them on a APS-C camera as some sort of "teleconverter". In some instances, especially with the 800mm prime i would wish often back full frame.
But you also have to think about many not too rare usecases where full frame just shines: low light, astro, landscape.
And the "double the price" argument is so wrong nowadays, many manufacturers have "budget" FF cameras, and basically all allow for adapting lenses, and most of them even allow autofocus.
Im coming from Canon and EF mount, so i have not much knowledge about other Full frame systems and their lens selection and prices, but at Canon EF glass became already before RF mount affordable 2nd hand, since RF prices dropped even further. So FF glass is at least affordable in the canon world when you accept the advantages and disadvantages with adapting EF-glass.
Nick crop sensor can/does look great and will be plenty good enough. But - FF will still look better. A person just needs to decide where they want to fall on the spectrum, and how much weight they wanna carry around, and, will their audience even care about any differences in IQ, and, most will not. So yes, crop sensor is a fine choice most of the time.
Been shooting ff or 35 exclusively since film days and I'm actually contemplating trading in for apsc. Nowadays IQ and low light performance difference is negligible.
@@nicedward7544"Nowadays IQ and low light performance difference is negligible"
absolutely! I mean sure enough with compact or bridge cameras with MFT or smaller sensor there is still a noticable difference, but in general modern, "better" APS-C cameras are at least as good as professional FF DSLRs some years ago which costed much more.
At 5:59 in the video : It is said a 50mm lens on a full-frame sensor wil have the same field of view than a 35mm on a crop sensor but a different depth of field "by default". True, yet both lenses will provide the same depth of field if the aperture on the 35mm is adjusted by a ratio similar to the ratio of both sensor sizes, for instance 1.5 for an aps-c. Usually, closing the aperture by one unit of diaphragm will provide a similar enough depth of field on both lenses/sensors.
I just bought a Sony A7 III in addition to my A6500 (APS-C) that I've used for many years. Although I will keep my APS-C camera for certain purposes where it has its advantages (compactness for traveling or when you need very long range for wildlife photography), I'm blown away by the full-frame results. It's really a noticeable step up. When I'm shooting portraits outside with my Tamron 70-180 f2.8, the full-frame sensor really makes the crucial difference. At 180mm I'm still comfortably close to the object and the background gets so creamy as I've never seen it with my A6500 (although I have the Sigma 56mm 1.4). It's the small but subtle difference between nice and WOW.
Thanks! Thats exactly what he is (intentionally?) missing.
As much i like my higher end APS-C body now (EOS R7, for wildlife and video mainly), its nearly impossible to recreate what my entry level FF body (EOS RP) managed to pull off with an older 50mm 1.4 Canon lens, my SMC Takumar 50 1.4 or even the newer RF 50 1.8 lens for compactness and ease of use as well wide open usage.
At first i had this moment of "Full Frame Glory" as i watched some photos and wondered: "WOW! That looks great and so realistic, was that even my camera?"
Turned out it was my loved EOS RP with the manual focus, vintage 50 1.4 SMC Takumar where i nailed the focus (rare event). Its basically impossible to shoot the same good looking image on APS-C, with much luck with a speedbooster you probably get close to it but it wont be the same for sure.
That is a stupid comparison.
Since your APS-C camera is 24MP, you will have to prove that a FF Camera of 54MP (24MPx1.5.15) of "equal pixel density" is better than a 24MP (APS-C) camera.
It is "pixel density" and not "sensor size" that is the issue.
@@set3777 I would say its more depending on the lens choice.
To replicate with APS-C a 200mm 2.8 lens on a full frame camera you would need something like a 135mm 1.8, better 1.4 lens, this would give the same background blur.
Same with for example 50mm 1.8 on full frame. To get the same look and DoF, you would need a 25mm F0,95 lens on MFT or about 35mm 1.4 (better 1.2) on APS-C
If you have not noticed, he talks about the creamy background, in DAYLIGHT.
The only unfair comparison he made was the same lens on FF vs APS-C. Which is inherently wrong to compare at all since as i stated already... different sensor size means different lenses, especially different focal lengths to be used.
@@harrison00xXx You are right.
A Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro on a APS-C R7 will have the similar DoF and FoV as say a FF R6II with a RF 50mm f1.8 lens.
(35mmx1.6=56mm)
@@harrison00xXx
I won't be buying a Sony FF camera because:-
Terushi Shimizu, Sony Semiconductor Solutions CEO said in 2022 that "by 2024, in just two years’ time - the image quality of a smartphone will exceed that of a single-lens reflex camera".
So small crop-sensor smartphone cameras are going to be better than Sony FF cameras by next year? Sony said so!
One of the best examples of this subject that I have ever seen on TH-cam. Absolutely the best. Just using the physics of it all in a basic way of breaking it all down. Funny many woh compare full frame to crop sensors, never go in the opposite direction and compare full frame to medium format. I'm just saying. Many professional film makers prefer crop sensors in their line of work. Again thank you for the video, good job.
1. I don’t think people were claiming every single full frame camera has better high ISO performance than every single crop camera. That’s pretty naive. Clearly, advances in sensor technology play a role too. When people say full frame has better high ISO performance, they mean “all else being equal”
2. This is flawed reasoning too. The larger sensor size necessitates using longer focal length to get the same field of view. No one jumps over to full frame and just keeps using the same focal length as they were before and just accepts that every shot is wider. In reality people select focal lengths and camera positions in order to get the desired composition.
3. Yeah, I mean no one is making the argument that full frame cameras are the same price. That’s not how I’ve interpreted it at all. The claim is that there’s a higher ceiling on these factors by using full frame. You can buy lenses with larger image circles and take advantage of the additional light. You can position yourself closer, all else being equal, to get a shallower depth of field.
Hey Mark.. The point you make about price is so important. I started with a Sony a6400 but watching TH-cam, I thought I had to go to full frame to be professional. Long story short its taken me way too long (years) to get a used a7riii, Tamron 17 -28, 28 -200 and Sony 35 1.8 and 85 1.8.. and I still haven't manage to get a 100 - 400 (I do mostly landscapes). Its like it suddenly became clear to me.. I could have been in a cheaper system shooting and enjoying a fuller focal range, practicing, and creating much faster if I'd stuck with apsc. Heck my favorite pro landscape photographer is using fuji Xt5 most of the time (Andy Mumford).
Things like affording extra bodies or more easily finding quality hybrid cameras start being possible or trips! My money would have been better spent travelling to practice and take beautiful shots then trying to get the perfect FF kit first. I'm now very strongly considering letting my Sony kit go (thankfully its all used and ill likely get nearly what I put in) and picking up a Fuji (The zooms I'd need are cheap thankfully).
I imagine many photographers are in the same boat.. 10yr old cameras with cheap 3rd party glass just for the luxury of saying they're using full frame. Its a dragon I cant afford to keep chasing when I could be creating.
One thing to consider is if you want to use any manual focus vintage lenses. In that case you most likely want to go with a full frame camera that will preserve the original rendering of the vintage lens.
This is true. Some still work well, but you are not getting the entire image charger that was rendered on film cameras.
You can use a speed booster for full frame rendering with vintage lenses on APS-C or mft. I use the Zhongyi Lens Turbo II M42-Fuji X and it works perfectly fine.
My first DSLR was a Canon T3i I bought way back in January 2012. I only had the kit lens. But still had my Dads old Minolta MD mount lenses and my Grandpap's Canon FD mount lenses. I used Fotodiox adapters for both on my T3i and was very happy with the results. I also got a 5D mark III in 2015 and had great results with it too. I know shoot with a Canon 90D and a Canon R7 and the lenses work great on both of them too. You do need to deal with the slight zoom in going from 50mm to 80mm but i can work around that unless I need a wide angle photo.
@@CapraObscura I own a lot of these old Takumars, use them on my APS-C EOS 7d and FF EOS 5d II & EOS R. Esp. for portrait photography they perform very good on APS-C but way better on the FF cam, esp. my old Super 8-lens Tak 50mm 1.4. It also has much better image depth with landscape photography than on the APS-C cam.
I think the differences on MFT (have no cam to compare) will be more significant because of the 2x crop.
Couldn't disagree more Dan. If you shoot crop sensor mirrorless, with a single vintage lens you now have the option with an adapter to get full frame +1 of light or an aps-c fov depending on what you need for the shot. So much more versatile, and you have so many more lenses to choose from because you can shoot full frame or apsc glass on a super35 sensor, but it doesn't really work the other way around.
Excellent video, after looking at the cost of the different formats, I went with aps-c sensor camera. Couldn’t be more happier, I’m a beginner so after looking at close to a 100 different videos, the only difference I see is the actual field of view. Unless you’re a professional photographer and actually know what specifics you need in a camera why go full frame. I got an A6700 with kit lens, will get a F11 1.8 lens and a 70-350 F4.5-6.3 lens. This setup will do everything I want, light enough to travel with and versatile enough for nature and astrophotography. Only cost me around $2600, no way I could go full frame for that cost new.
If you want to compare depth of field performance between full frame and crop sensor, you need to apply the crop factor to the max aperture as well. So the APS-C equivalent of a 50mm f/1.8 full frame isn’t a 35mm f/1.8, but is a 35mm f/1.2. (1.8 / 1.5 = 1.2) The crop factor for APS-C is 1.5.
I'm so glad you covered the cost differences. That's often ignored in these discussions in favor of just looking at on-paper performance or size/weight differences which, in real life, are often pretty minor. I recently got back into photography and had to make a choice of what ecosystem I wanted to get into. I ended up choosing one that is focused on APS-C for this reason. There was just no way I could justify spending so much more for pretty marginal IQ improvements.
With my APSC camera, it would not record me in a video indoors in regular room light. It was basically unusable. I was forced to go to FF.
@@FeedScrn I've been experimenting with APS-C video in very dim indoor conditions - wood panel walls, natural light only via a small window for a 10x30 ft space). Cloudy day, 4k @ 24 fps at f/1.4, ISO 6400 or 12800 worked well and looks good to me. I do think FF would be *better* of course, just not "twice the price"" better for me personally.
@@hanns1401 - If you can get it to work, that's great. Maybe share your techniques in a video... this can be valuable info for many.
@@FeedScrn No special technique. 24 fps to allow longer exposure times, fast lens, and a camera with decent high ISO performance. I should note that I'm not shooting fast action with eye detect AF or anything. It's a static scene, pre-focused. But the IQ is good. Or at least good enough for me. Runs circles around my old APS-C DSLR which can't reach the high ISOs necessary and is crippled by color noise. And again, I have no doubt FF would give even better results.
@@hanns1401 - Good info. Thanks.
I really like the clarity of your reasoning and your very down to earth and useful advise! Thank you.
Thank you so much!
you forced me to subscribe. watching videos on this for years. first time someone simplified this in such a wonderful way.
Well said. This are the reasons I love LUMIX MFT’s system. But, I wouldn’t call small sensors “crop”, more like sensors with crop factor.
Another great video, Mark. I feel like most camera manufacturers have priced out most of the general population from purchasing full-frame. Thankfully, there are ton of wonderful crop sensor cameras and lenses on the market! I’m hoping Viltrox will make some of their affordable X-mount lenses available for other crop sensor mounts, but that’s doubtful. We shall see!
I got their 75mm f/1.2 for e-mount and the image is superb
buy used. There are great deals to be had. Especially when you get "older" glass. E.g. Canon EF lenses adapt perfectly to the R system and got really affordable, as lots of people are switching to the new lenses.
I'm really happy with my EF L lenses, which I would've never bought new.
The 75mm f/1.2 on M4/3 would be INCREDIBLE ...
I certainly agree with your first point. I've settled on MFT and FF, because after using several cameras from about four different makers I've found that any advantage that APS-C might have over MFT is far outweighed by the smaller, lighter and less expensive gear in the MFT format. Only FF has enough of an increase in noise performance and dynamic range to motivate me to invest in a larger sensor. BTW, I wish when people talked about "crop sensors" they didn't only refer to APS-C. Micro four thirds is just a better balance of IQ with weight, size and cost than APS-C.
I'm still shooting FF DSLRs but have considered MFT as a travel sized body, carrying 2 FF DSLRs with lenses, and tripods and any other gear you're packing definitely wears you out by the end of the day.
@@michaelmorris1865 look at prices on MPB, compare the size and weight and come on board. Used, a 25 mm (~50 mm FF) f/1.8 MFT is under $200, and a pro weather sealed 12-40 mm f/2.8 (~24-80 mm FF) is around $400.
I'm so glad I chose that format as my foray back into photography, it's just so convenient that it makes up 10 fold for what you compromise for it.
@michaelmorris1865 That’s exactly what I've done. I have an Olympus e-m1 Mk II that is weather sealed and just about perfect, and an Olympus E-PL10 as my anywhere pocket cam with the 14-42. Sometimes I wonder why I haven't done this before MFT is perfect to complement a FF or film setup.
@MacKingG I love my FF and had a hard time getting used to mirrorless when I tried and went back to my DSLRs but I think I could get used to an MFT with an EVF for long backpacking trips.
@@michaelmorris1865 I felt the same way. 5d Mk3 as primary to this day, I have however been shooting film almost exclusively for the past 3 years and decided to try MFT as a cheap digital backup and I fell in love. As long as your expectations are in line it will deliver, it'll never be my 5D but I don't need it to be
True. Good review. Could not agree more. It is war of numbers out there. I own 3 FF cameras - then bought a Crop Sensor body for BTSs-type footage. I was more then pleasantly surprised what a quality that CS produces. Now, I use it in "real" situations without fear of quality compromise, and now I even mix them in post with my FF footage - and nobody can tell difference.
This is the comparison so many camera users are afraid to make:
4 of us shot a local 1-day music festival with full-on lighting fx etc.
There was a Canon, Nikon, Sony (all ff) & my humble Fuji x-t.
Of the hundreds of shots posted & in a blind judging, not one person found a consistent difference.
I teach Avtech at a high school and I specializing in adobe premier certification. I preach this to my students. As a matter of fact your discussion and arguments are so on point they are going to watch this video today. The school system has the funds to go full frame we have FX3 at the school. I just bought my first actual cinema rig a few weeks ago. I am a teacher and just don't have the funds available to do full frame. I bought the fx30 for EXACTLY what you are preaching. Good job sir! Everyone in the camera market should watch this video. Earned a new sub for this video. Keep it up! as a matter of fact I am going to ask my students to subscribe to your channel your content on your channel like this is worth my kids subbing to.
Thanks so much for your kind words. That’s really rewarding to hear.
I still don't understand why would a school spend time and money on something that is a private interest of students. Schools should concentrate on science and engineering, any hobbies the students can do on their own.
@@ElementaryWatson-123 Horrendous take. It's about holistic development. We should give students opportunities to become more well rounded people. Arts and entertainment are arguably just as important as science and engineering. It's also helps in cross-disciplinary learning.
@@Repudiate only st-o-o-pid people use the word "holistic"
This is a very complicated subject. Working distance has to be in the argument. When working outdoors Crop Sensors make a lot of sense. In small indoor spaces FF is much better. You have to bring perspective distortion into the conversation. Wider angle lenses add perspective distortion to faces and the human body. It’s why 85mm is a popular focal for portraits. 50mm on a crop body is 80mm equivalent but the faces will look different.
As sensor-technology, processors and RAW- converting software have made huge progress, I found that even a mFT- camera would do a very good job for me for any practical purpose. So I gave up my Nikon Z- full frame equipment and went do the awesome OM-1 with it's legendary Olympus Zuiko- lenses, some of them with f/1.2, which deliver an outstanding image quality. And I never looked back. Kind regards from Switzerland.
Yep, I did this too. Good lens with a MFT is way lighter than either an aps-c or especially a full frame camera. This is a huge consideration if you are going to be carrying it around all day.
And I went the exact opposite way years ago and bought a D600 after I had earlier owned a omd em-5. The Olympus can take good pictures but the difference in noise levels is obvious. Even if I could have dealth with that, the dynamic range difference of over 2ev was the deal breaker and it seems that difference is still there 10 years later.
Technology is so advanced that all cameras are pretty good. Invest in glass not the camera.
@@KaniNarci Well I can easily tell the difference between photos I have taken with crop and FF sensors, but I can't tell the difference between any lenses if the aparture and focal length are the same unless I really zoom in and try to compare to find the difference.
@@cyberfunk3793 Many blind tests show the contrary - even well experienced and competent photographers couldn't tell the difference between mFT and full frame images, even when printed big.
For many non-professional photographers, the full-frame issue is a matter of snobbery. Professionals have to earn a living, thus much of their gear will be the best going (in other words, in the majority of cases, full-frame). A large number of enthusiasts want to look "professional" - hence they buy a full-frame camera. I own both APS-C cameras and full-frame (one of which is an RP). I can't say there is a lot of difference in my photographs when I use an APS-C and full-frame on the same shoot. Another point is that It's not just "influencers" who diss APS-C cameras - many of those who comment below-the-line do, too. Issues unrelated to image quality in general favour APS-C/micro four-thirds. For instance, these cameras and lenses tend to be smaller and easier to carry around (as well as being less expensive).
What is the difference between a professional who uses professional gear and an amateur how uses professional gear? Why is one being a professional and an other a snob? Is there a problem if somebody spends his own hard earned money on a hobby?
@@annoholicsthere is not a problem in and on itself in spending money on a hobby if that's what you like to do . The problem is that the information space gets filled with half truths and wrong facts by people.
@@ghjk193 Your statement might be true but it goes in both directions. Let me explain. Most people that watch video's on the Internet about photography and video are not professional photographers or videographers and are not prepared to buy real professional equipment either. TH-camrs have of course the tendency to please their audience and telling all these “amateurs” that "their camera sucks and that they have to buy gear that is far over their budget" is not going to win them the popularity award. Therefore you should not be surprised when most video's about equipment on TH-cam is telling the viewer that the lower priced equipment is "nearly" just as good as the real expensive professional equipment. Still, overall, in general, if you spend more money wisely you get better performance in the end. There is not one big TV station that is using cropped sensor, cheap camera's or even phones, for their production. At the same time the TH-camrs, who are often very smart boys and girls, are telling their audience that you get nearly the same results with the cheaper camera's then with the more expensive camera's. At the same time, there are way more video's on YT about "new" gear then about rockwool and light diffusers like bedsheets and foamboards, This, while this can greatly improve your audio and video quality.
This video was sort of correct up until the 7 minute mark where Mark Wiemels says that the cropped sensor camera’s are half the price of the full frame camera’s. Well, the same statement that not all full frame camera’s are outperforming the cropped sensor camera’s is also true about price. The cropped sensor camera that was earlier used to proof that cropped sensors can outperform full frame sensors is more then twice the price then the full frame camera (Sony FX30 vs Canon EOS RP) The same is true for price of the so called “comparable lenses”. If you want to compare cropped sensor lenses then you should take into account the crop factor. If you want to get the same picture with the same distance to the subject and the same distance to the background and you want the same amount of blur then you need a much bigger aperture. (lower f-stop number). These lenses are often not available or just as expensive as the full frame counterpart. If you want to compare two lenses where, one cropped and the other full frame, then you should have the same brand, within that brand the same quality (e.g. Sony GM against Sony GM), the lenses should have the same features (just as fast automatic autofocus, image stabilization, etc) you have to compensate for focal length as well as the f-stop, and if you do that then you will often find that there is no comparison possible or that you pay roughly the same price. But please proof me wrong with comparable cropped vs full frame lenses. I am really curious what people will come up with.
@@annoholics30mm f1.4 on crop frame and 50mm f1.4 on full frame will give you the same picture. Same depth of field becouse the image projected is (almost) the same, differences are minor in subject perspective but unnoticable unless directly compared.
For the same frame(same image projected to sensor) and f stop, the depth of field will be the same.
If you were triggered by his comment, I have bad news for you. You are exactly the guy who bought the full frame to look professional, as he explained
@@maxx-er3fj The two pictures 30mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.4 will nog look the same. The f-stop is the focal length divided by the diameter of the lens opening. So if your focal length is smaller and your aperture stays the same, then also your lens opening is smaller. You lens opening is determining your blurriness of your background (or depth of field). You can put it in the extreme with a lens of mobile phone. Very small focal length, very small lens opening, hardly any background blur.
Let’s just assume that you are right and there is no difference at all, why would anybody buy a full frame camera? Even professionals would not need a full frame camera because the result cannot be noticed according to you. Oh, and there is much more needed to make me look like a professional photographer then just a professional camera. 😉
I can’t agree more! One more factor to be mentioned here is the weight of the set (did I missed it in the video?). It’s something that really matters when you go out or go to remote lands. I use Fujifilm cameras and they meet all the requirements that I can have. In any situation. And I’m not obsessed with having “the best cam ever made”. I prefer to focus on the artistic side of photography. And yes, most of modern cameras are almost on par from the technical point of view. So, everyone can pick something that suits his hand better without making any trade-off, and this is really nice!
Bought an m50 a couple years back based on your recommendations and love it and have never looked back. This channel has helped me so much since. Keep pumping out the great videos.
So based on his recommendations you have bought a dead system camera with almost no lens available. Just great...
With regards to the bokeh technically if one can open the aperture wider with the crop sensor then they can achieve the same bokeh ball size. For example an APSC (~1.6) crop sensor with a 32mm lens shooting at f/1.8 with have almost identical bokeh as a full frame 50mm shooting at f/2.8, and the crop sensor will also have the same volume of light hitting the sensor as well; however, gain circuit (ISO) will have to be lower as well to compensate.
This video is very true. I've battled with camera brands with this myself. I remember when the Nikon z50 came out, it destroyed every camera brand in low-light, full-frame or otherwise, at least in my experience. And this is probably true to this day!
Been very happy with the Sony a6600 crop sensor body and G lenses.
Price was the determining factor when I decided to sell my Sony full frame kit and move to Fujifilm. The 5 year old a7 III still sells for $2,000 and only shoots 8-bit 4K 30. Whereas the Fujifilm X-T5 shoots 10-bit 4K 60 and 6K 30. If I had my pick I would have stayed on Sony and bought an a7R V but I’m not a professional photographer and I can’t justify spending $4,000 on a camera body. For less than the price of a single a7R V body you can buy an X-T5 with an XF 16-55mm 2.8 and Vitrox’s Pro 27mm and 75mm 1.2 lenses. That’s kind of a no brainer in my opinion if you’re not either a professional photographer or an enthusiast with no budgetary considerations.
Bought an xt5 with a kit lens and viltrox 72 mm and 13 mm..I'm very satisfied
Fuji's are my favourite to use, even though I mostly shoot Sony now, sill like Fuji the most.
Thank you for this! Especially about the bokeh, a lot of people seems to think that ff bokeh is something that a crop sensor can not match.
You can easily match, even beat the bokeh on ff with crop sensor, you just need to adjust the setup accordingly.
@@BrunoChalifour But then again you're comparing different lenses in that case
Unless ur comparing something like 50mm f1.2, you’d need a 35mm f0.8 at a 1.5x crop to get almost identical, which I don’t think exists.
@@marwinjacinto301 0.95 existed and its close enough, will have a better low light performance as well, but your point stands, it's the wider angle where the FF will have an advantage over crop sensor
I've been a photographer for 45+ years..... and, in all modesty, a pretty fair one! I find it strange that you seem to make a 'big deal' ('myth' - 'truth') of of things that my generation learned 'at our mother's knee'. Of course it's not the length of the lens in mm, it's how that length relates to the format of the camera. Pentax Spotmatic - 35mm terefore standard lens is 50mm. Mamiya C330f 6cm x 6cm (medium format) standard lens is 80mm. Olympus EM-1 MFT. standard lens is 24mm...... pretty simple, really!
What a wonderful video. Communication is clear, direct, and accurately informative. no b.s. Thank you for making and sharing this video and I'll be watching more of your content. 🎉🎉❤
I think it all depends on how the sensor sizes are compared.
With the same lens it might be a nice visualisation how the sensor size affects the image you get from a specific focal length, but when comparing FF to APS-C for example with regular zooms, for example on Canon a RF 24-105 F4.... you would need something like a RF-S version with 2.8 aperture to compare (Hint: it doesnt exist yet, all we have is the very old EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM)
the only lenses i can think of aside from the 17-55 2.8 is the fuji 16-80 f/4 which is equivalent to a 24-105 f/4 or the fuji 16-55 2.8 which is a little closer to a 24-70 2.8
@@patrickcazer yeah equivalent in effective focal length, but not close to comparable in depth of field thats why a „fast“ aps-c zoom is 2.8 mostly (F4 FF look) which is „as good“ in DoF as the FF F4s
@@harrison00xXx ahhh
Correction on using the "50mm lens" on the full frame vs. crop sensor. It depends on if the lens is DESIGNED for the crop sensor. For example, the Pentax line of lenses has those that are "DA" series which are designed for crop sensor, the "FA" designed for full frame. In both cases, the 50mm DA and FA will cover same area for their respective cameras. The FA lens will function as if it were 75mm on the crop sensor camera since it mounts at the same distance from the sensor. So, the image area overlaps the sensor. The DA lens will vignette on the full frame camera since it is not designed to cover the full frame sensor. Hope this helps!
This is incorrect. A 50 mm lens is always a 50 mm lens. It will provide same field of view on APS-C as 75 mm on full frame. If you use APS-C you do not need to care if the lens is APS-C or full frame.
All lenses on a system have to mount at the same distance for them to focus properly. That is why mirrorless cameras use adapters to use DSLR lenses.
@@okaro6595 I think you misunderstand me. A 50mm APSC lens (Pentax nomenclature DA) will cover a field of view that will *vignette* on their full frame line (nomenclature FA). The extent of vignette varies, for best results Pentax has an ability to include a frame in the viewfinder to illustrate what will be non-vignette.
An FA lens for full frame will overlap on an APSC camera. So, the 50mm DA will give a USEFUL 75mm effective on their FA line. A 50mm FA will overlap the sensor area on the APSC line, giving a USEFL 75mm effective area. I have DA and FA models, the K1 and K3 and KF cameras which are full frame, APSC, and APSC respectively. It's fun to mix and match lenses but important to know which type lens (stamped on the barrel) you are working with.
I think the deciding factor (in the choice between FF and APS-C) for a lot of people should be “How important is shallow depth of field across a variety of focal lengths?”
For people who grew up looking at pictures taken with 35mm film SLRs (or rangefinders) paired with relatively fast 50mm lenses, and who want to be able to achieve the same look, full-frame is generally better.
A fast 30mm or 35mm lens is more expensive than a fast 50mm lens, and will wipe out much of the cost-savings associated with buying an APS-C camera.
When was that?
20-15 years ago nobody shot with open aperture. Lenses were not build that way, the 1.4 wasn't actually usable. It was the working aperture to have a clear view in the viewfinder and to set the focus more easily via auto focus and manual focus.
Lenses were very soft and full of CAs when shot wide open.
For example the Canon EF 50mm 1.4 was not a cheap lens at all, but you had to shoot it at 2.8, to get good results.
For the last 10 years with the introduction of new digitally rendered lenses for mirrorless cameras the open aperture got more usable and because of the hype around all the innovations, the wide open aperture look became the new deciding factor of what a good lens should be.
I'm kinda glad this hype is mostly over and photographers realize that there are other factors to make nice photographs than supersoft bokeh in the backround...
Yea, I like the look of 50mm/85mm on Full-Frame. You just don't get the same image when using a m4/3 or s35 equivalent. You can make great stuff on either, obviously. But it's just a preference.
@@ThisIsWideAngle
You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. It was extremely common to shoot at f/1.5 to f/2 since the 1960s. Not for every shot, but definitely in low light, for portraits, etc.
@@tcnoble I'm working as a professional photographer for the last 18 years. I learnt photography on film, mostly with cameras from the 70s and 80s.
The last 5 years i work for a photographic archive with a history dating back to the 1920s, archiving colodium-glass-plates dating back in to the 19th century.
In that job we also digitalize the photographic collection of an internationaly known art museum.
Yes, for low light photography in reportage they photographed with open aperture sometimes. There also were a few photographers who made experimental photography with open aperture.
For shallow depth of field in professional photography they used mostly long lenses and middle format.
Both not shot wide open.
Shooting professionaly wide open for stylistic reasons was very rare, also because lenses with optics which didn't fell apart wide open were very rare and expensive and very hard to handle manually.
The style of open aperture of the last years widely common in professional and amateur photography wouldn't have been possible back in the days.
So yeah.
I sure don't know what i'm talking about.
@@ThisIsWideAngle Every classical photographer that I've ever worked with that was shooting before 2000 all believed great photos were shot deep stop. Historically you are right on the money sir.
Thank you. As a long time photographer (since 1977) I find myself constantly having to debunk these misconceptions. Great job explaining this. Bottom line, knowing the characteristics of our equipment and understanding how it impacts the scene, helps us achieve the results we want.
I wish he would have mentioned crop factor conversion, at least.
And as someone that has tried both out personally for landscapes I would say it's not a myth but the difference between Nikon or Sony FF vs. any crop sensor in for example dynamic range are huge and often can mean the difference of needing to bracket or not. I can take good landscapes on any sensor, but I would never buy anything else than FF for the purpose if I did it as a hobby and not just once a year on some holiday.
@@cyberfunk3793 Interesting because I have seen people make prints from Full Frame vs. Crop sensors and have pros try to determine which image was take by which camera, and most have not been able to determine which was the full frame camera most of the time. “Huge difference”, maybe on paper but not in practice. Also, using that logic, people looking for the best IQ would all be shooting medium format. They don’t. Why? There is a point where you get diminishing returns. All cameras have their strengths and weaknesses. I’ve sold as many images captured with my MFT cameras as I’ve sold using cameras with APS-C or FX sensors.
@@LebronPhoto1 The difference isn't in resolution so they aren't going to see the difference in prints. The difference is that when taking the photo on FF you might need only 1 frame when with aps-c you need to bracket or you will have the highlights blown. The shots that the aps-c people missed aren't going to end in the print phase so there isn't anything to compare and while bracketing is an option it's easier if you don't have to.
@@cyberfunk3793 not true. You can get exposures right on target with any camera if you are skilled enough and for those tricky lighting situations where you may be a little off, you can shoot RAW plus JPEG and if the JPEG isn’t on target, you can adjust the raw. Or for scenery, if you are using an Om System camera, there is an HDR feature. There are lots of ways to achieve a good exposure. I for one am not one to bracket.
One reason to spend more on the full frame body is that you can use old lenses on it. Those older high end lenses dont have to sit on the shelf. My old EF lenses actually perform better on my R6 than on my old 600D. The only drawback is the resolution when using old lenses. Add much better software and AF with eye detection and usb C on full frame cameras, I would still advice against older crop sensor cameras. Also the ability to spend more on full frame lenses in the future that will now work with the camera you spent money on. You spend more but you also get more.
And the best thing about ff mirrorless is that you can use rangefinder lenses with them!
The only thing lacking right now for apsc is fast zooms. Yes tamron 17-70 and sigma 18-50 exists, but compared to a full frame 24-70 f2.8, or a 35-150 f2-2.8, 18-50 2.8 on apsc simply doesn't cut it compared to the full frame counterparts. We need something like a 18-50 f2 but it might be impossible idk.
You can take beautiful photos even with a phone, but sensor size will affect the way you will have to use your equipment to get the image you have in your mind. Sensor size IS a big factor in perspective and depth of field so it deffinitely plays a role in image creation. There will be some images impossible to create on APS compared to full frame, but any APS image can be created with FF (you can always crop). Quality wise, it will always be comparing apples to pears, every person has to decide what he/she wants, as you said.
What images are impossible with a crop sensor?
Another thing to consider. Nikon's Z series full frame cameras limit the image area to the specific crop mode you have set. For example set it to the DX format and that is what will be recorded in the image file. Some complain that other brands recorded the entire sensor data so if they change their minds after taking the shot they can recover the full frame data easily. With Nikon that data isn't there and the file sizes directly reflect that change. This means that the data transfer off the image sensor will be increased. Guess what can happen with that reduced load. A whole bunch of things can happen faster, such as AF performance, release rates, buffer size goes up, transfer rates to memory increase, and higher resolution 60fps video is possible. All it takes is adjustments to the software to take advantage of the reduced data load.
In some situations, you just don't have the option of contolling the light. For example, when you are taking photographs at a Live rock show, where they use flashing lights and light keep changing, you cannot control the light. You have no choice but to bump up the ISO to take photographs.
Straight up facts, yet gearheads will complain about it then wonder why many apsc shooters photograph better images than they do. They’re to focus on specs. One of the two reasons why I shoot with Fujifilm: 1. The Colors 2. The Price Tag.
Crop Sensor portraits/wedding photographer here and yet people love my photographs.
I'm not so much getting old, but arrived. Full frame with lens is heavy for a day's shooting. I went for micro four thirds, with a bit of trepidation, but so far I'm well pleased. I can take my 100-300, (200-600 in 'old money'), and be happy to use it for a few hours. I'm 60% video, and there my camera excels. Birding is now a joy. Nice video from you.
Excellent points and video! Crop sensor is just as amazing as full frame. It's about how you use it!
One thing I want to add about aperture is, similar to how you multiply the crop factor to get the full frame equivalent lens, you have to do the same with aperture. A f/1.8 lens isn't actually 1.8 on a crop sensor camera, rather, it's an f/2.7 (multiply by crop factor, 1.5). To get a true 1.8 you need to use a full frame lens that is 1.8 on a full frame lens camera.
Not really just as amazing. When you get into any more serious forms of landscape photography the sensor becomes important and the smaller sensors simply can't compete. Even if you could deal with the extra noise, the dynamic range differences often mean that you would need to bracket the shots on a crop sensor when on ff you could get away with 1 frame.
Not totally true. Only for bokeh and blurryness you need to multiplay the aperature. For light gathering its the same
@@SuperTonda1It is. Smaller sensor and same aperture will result in less light stops. APC-S gathers less light and in order to compensate it, you should also go for faster lens that allows you to have lower ISO that is comparable with FF higher ISO.
@@tauritaal the aperture is a relative number so for example 2.0 aperture with iso 100 and same shutter speed will result in the same exposure on any size sensor.
@@cyberfunk3793 But FF has larger area and that equates to more photons so in reality it gathers more light and image quality will be better. Point is to get like 1.3 stops or so faster lens to make light gathering equal on both sensors. You cant compare FF and APS-C with f6.3 on both because they dont capture light or photons equally. If you use f2.8 lens on FF, get f1.8 lens on APS-C. While FF shoots f2.8 @ ISO2000, you get equal light and performamce on APS-C with f1.8 @ ISO800. Doing f2.8 @ ISO2000 on both sensor sizes will just make FF a winner because the playing ground isnt equal.
Good explanation. It's also a matter of time, with crop sensors lagging behind a couple of years in terms of high ISO, noise, dynamic range. The best crop sensors outperform FF sensors of 10 years ago (which were then considered top notch).
My X-T5 with Viltrox 75mm F1.2 can rival just about any FF in terms of bokeh and (40mp) scharpness. The Olympus 45mm F1.2 is another good example, with it's smooth feathered bokeh, as the quality of blur is at least as important as the amount of blur.
Too shallow dof can be a bad thing portraits, with just one eye in focus and the rest of the face blurred. In other situations more dof can be quite desirable, and this is where crop sensors have an advantage in low light, where large apertures are needed.
Thank you for sharing, don’t forget for landscape togs crop sensor gives u more depth of field and the lenses are also lighter in lugging around. I switched from FF canon to Fuji APSc and I haven’t noticed hardly any difference in Image Quality if anything I prefer the colors and skin tone from the Fuji and i paid much less for the system.
Very true!
Thats the thing, isn't it? People seem to forget all sensor sizes are a compromise between size, weight and image quality. Let's not forget 35mm was small back in the film days. If all people cared about was image qualty then we should all be walking around with medium format, or hell large format cameras. We aren't though because most of us value practicality and therefore make the choice on how large we want our system to be. I regularly shoot on my FF lumix cameras and the do at the end of the day produce better IQ, however, my 100-400 lens is huge and sometimes I really can't be bothered lugging it around. I still often use my MFT set up simply due to how small, light and easy to use they are while in general good light, you know not after the sun has gone down, producing IQ that is by far good enough for even large prints. This TH-cam world of FF is a must and shallow DOF is 'PRO' is just missing the point entirely.
One point is missing here: some lenses are available only for full frame cameras and there is no aspc equivalents that are cheaper, smaller and lighter. For example 70-200 2.8
If you want such type of lens there is only "full frame" version and it doesn't make sense to invest in expensive lens and use it on apsc camera ...
That’s a myth right there!
@@mareius ?
This was a pretty good video, but some things worth mentioning when deciding on crop vs full frame:
-Crop factor conversion (!)
-Noise should be compared with similar scaling (not merely viewed at 100%), otherwise high-rez cams seem worse when in print they're not
-In video, high-rez cameras will pixel bin, whereas low-rez cameras can use a higher effective percentage of the sensor
-Features that come with full frame cameras, like dual memory card slots, focusing systems, viewfinder size, buffer, fps, battery life, etc.
Just bought a Sony a6700 with a Sony 16-55 2.8g and 70-350 mm g lens. Cost me a lot less than a similar full frame line up, gives me 24 to 525mm range and has a total weight of 1600 grams. For a hobby photografer who just want to make pictures and be able to bring the gear on trips and vacations it is amazing.
Get the new e11 lens you will be in love
Thank you for sharing! Wish I knew this a year ago before going 6k CAD, in debt, thinking I had to go full-frame or bust!
I’m sure it’s a great setup!
Hey as long as you enjoy it. cant take that money to the grave, might as well get something that will make you happy and maybe a little income
Interesting comparison. This reminds me of the musical argument that states “Vintage guitars and keyboards are far superior to modern ones or their modern clones.” Not a 1:1 analogy to cropped sensor vs. non, but in the sense that, in the final product, no one viewing, or in the case of the music gear argument, listening, can really tell.
Our ability to measure and track nuanced differences has exceeded our human ability to actually detect it in real world situations.
And your statement at 7:10 regarding the dollar for dollar results, justifies that the extra cost isn’t necessary or even justified for most use cases.
Its really just Spec-Snobbing when you think about it. The advantage to hold the upper tech nerd hand when comparing gear with another professional or when BEING compared with another professional when competing for work.
Great video, however at the price range of the FX30, you can get much better camera bodies than the RP, which is notoriously bad for video and doesn't have dual native ISO. Something like the S5ii or even a R8 (still no dual native ISO) would've been a better comparison
Now, if he got an equivalently priced camera, would be be able to feed the trolls for his monetized channel?
If you compare the same generation sensor from the same manufacturer, then the full frame will give you less noise, that’s just physic’s of signal to noise ratio, and you can measure it at about 1 stop,
The depth of field works in your favor for wildlife and macro, and against you for portraits, you hit a compromise when going closer to adjust for DOF is that you loose the compression that can be flattering, also if you go in too close to match say a ff 35 you will get perspective distortion,
A very fair point about cost, also size and form factor can be an important benefit for a crop sensor, easier to blend in or carry on a long hike,
Lastly noise reduction software like topaz denoise can make the noise claim a none starter,
Great video, thanks
Nice video! I would also be curious about the cost/benefit comparisions between APSC and Micro 4/3
We have been making do with what we have all these years. Knowing what to buy (first hand or second hand) is essential. In many cases, too old bodies get worse outcomes when it comes to white balance, realism of colour, purple fringes handling and basic image qualities (depending how old you reach back). I just made a decision to dig out older stuff and make them work instead of buying yet another round of new stuff. All I needed to do is to throw away stuff that, from hindsight after seeing new stuff, no longer performs and to test and note their limitations. Good lenses often compensates for old sensors. New sensors often gets much more oomph than older sensors. Generation of technology matters a lot but can be compensated somewhat by down selecting the lenses your pare them with. Full frame means weight. Remember, weight is something money cannot solve.
Great analysis. I think the only main difference that makes a difference between cropped sensor and full frame is the tonal range. If we exaggerate this comparison say compare to medium format we definitely would notice the subtle tonal ranges, very smooth transitions. But of course it also depends on what type of photography one is doing for this to be a factor. For something like street photography it’s not as important.
Tonal range depends entirely on the image bit-depth (8-bit, 10-bit, 12-bit, 14-bit, etc). Nothing to do with sensor size. If by tonal range you mean dynamic range, then just say that; the latitude of information read by the sensor. Then in that sense, larger capture formats are generally better in terms of dynamic range.
I have a Sony ZV E10 body with 3 lenses: a Sony 50mm 1.8, a Sony 55mm 210mm, and a Viltrox 20mm 2.8. Still half the price, and I enjoy working with them a lot. 😃
Although two cameras may have the same number of pixels, say a 24MP APS- C vs a 24MP full frame camera, the full frame camera's pixels will be 2.3 times as large as the APS-C pixel. Pixel size affects image quality. Larger pixels collect more light. This means full-frame cameras perform better in low light situations. Also larger pixels also give full-frame sensors a wider dynamic range so they will perform better at high ISO settings.
digitalrev showcased this alot years ago when fuji was releasing X mirrorless cams
Yet you can go to dpreview's comparison chart and you'll realize it's not that clear cut, they are very equal. Remember you also need to use double the ISO on FF bodies if you use equivalent lenses to size down (e.g. f4 zooms vs APSC f2.8 zooms or 2/3 stop when comparing f1.4 APSC primes vs equally sized and priced f1.8 FF primes).
This is a great video and something I've recently experienced myself.
About a year ago I jumped into M4/3 and wanted a standard 50, so rather than settle for a 25mm f1.8 on m4/3, I instead bought a 25mm t0.95 lenses which I then compared to my FF canon and saw I got an almost Identical looking image in terms of field of view and blur, but with the added advantage of those 2 extra stops of light when shooting wide open.
So now I'm able to shoot with m4/3 at night in the city with 400-800 iso and I'm getting comparable if not better noise performance than I get from the Canon with a 50mm f1.8 from a much smaller sensor.
Needless to say I only really use my FF camera with vintage lenses nowadays🖖
Yes but isn’t that 25mm f/0.95 bigger, heavier and more expensive than a full frame 50mm f1.8? - the Sony one anyway, canon stuff is so huge! - I found by switching to full frame I saved money as there are great cheap fast third party lenses. MFT and APS-C are small in their respective sweet spots of f2 or f2.8, but then the equivalent full frame f4 options are so small, light and cheap now.
@@DigiDriftZone The thing is those extra 2 stops of light so it’s not really an apples to apples comparison. It is a fairly heavy lens at 500g and the total package is a shade over 1kg with the em1 mark ii, but I expect that any 0.95 lens on ff would be a fair size too. The extra light is worth the extra 200 or so grams compared to my ff canon for me. Add that to arguably the best ibis in any system and I’m happy with the switch.
@@DavidFlowerOfficial That doesn't make sense. That's like saying 10 speed will be faster in km than miles. These are completely different measurements.
MFT ISO100 is FF ISO400, F/2.8 on APS-C is F/4.0 on Full Frame, 24mm on APS-C is 35mm on Full Frame, etc - you are just converting, like you would from miles to km. The same numbers mean completely different things depending on the sensor size.
You must apply the conversation to all 3: ISO, Aperture and Focal Length just to know what the equivalent is, in every sense of the word. If you had an f/0.95 lens on MFT this would be f/0.47 on Full Frame to get the equivalent light gathering and depth of field.
@@DigiDriftZone It’s a common misconception that everything is 2x on micro4/3 but that only applies in terms of look. Aperture is a physical measurement so f1.8 on ff is f1.8 on mft or apsc In terms of light gathering. T stops are a transmission measurement which measures light hitting the sensor. Your iso theory is also incorrect since tests have shown iso 100 on my canon 6d is the same as 200 on my em1 mark ii and both actually measure around iso 80 and depending on gain within the camera this doesn’t run parallel since cameras like my em1 mark ii have lower noise at 640 than at iso 400. It’s not all straight lines or governed by crop factor.
@@DavidFlowerOfficial This is not a theory, this is just conversion. Aperture is not a physical measurement of anything, it is a ratio. This ratio changes with focal length and by extension sensor size. Light gathering on a 100mm F/2 is significantly higher than 50mm f/2 even on the same system, just because the iris opening is much larger. Same logic applies when you change sensor sizes as you are forced to also change the focal lengths to achieve the same field of view. The second you went from 50mm to 25mm that f/2 no longer refers to the same thing and the light gathering is drastically different - you cannot selectively apply a crop factor, it MUST be applied to all 3: focal length, aperture and ISO as they are all calculated relative to sensor size.
As for ISO differences, it is different generations of sensors, ISO noise performance improves around 1 stops every 5 years or so. Canon have notoriously poor performing sensors when it comes to dynamic range and noise in certain models. If you are seeing ISO800 on APS-C performing better or worse than ISO1800 on Full Frame, this speaks to the quality of the sensor itself as they are running at identical settings and should have the same noise if the sensors are of equal performance.
ISO450 MFT = ISO800 APS-C = ISO1800 Full Frame just like 1 mile = 1.6km. If 1 car is noisier at 160kph than another is at 100mph, that speaks to the engine quality, but they are running at the same speed.
I started out with ASC-C, and it made very nice photos. The issue was that I love taking photos at night, and I wanted lenses with larger apertures. To match an f/1.4 lens on a 35mm sensor, I would have needed an f/0.95mm lens. Back then, very few such lenses existed, they only existed around the 50mm range, and their image quality was compromised enough that it would sort of ruin the advantage of the fast aperture in a lot of scenarios. With my Sony A7R3 and fast lenses, I just get more total light hitting the sensor - at the cost of size and a much higher price tag. But I can shoot handheld in extremely dark locations, and get usable results.
Had f/0.95 lenses been more prevalent, at more focal lengths, and with better quality glass, I would probably have stayed with ASC-C. But there would have been disadvantages there, too. It's more difficult to correct an f/0.95 lens than an f/1.4 lens, so the quality still wouldn't match larger sensor sizes. As far as I know, no f/0.95 lens has autofocus, which would make them more challenging to use for events. And to achieve something like an f/1.2 lens, an APS-C sensor would need an f0.8 lens, which is getting insanely close to the legendary f/0.7.
There's always a trade-off somewhere.
Hmm... Am I wrong?
The amount if light through the lenses will be the same on APS-C, like on full frame.
But as the APS-C sensor is smaller it is more cramped with pixels and so you have more noise.
Also: what does change is the depth of field- with APS-C you have more sharpness in the background- something not always wanted. To have the same amount of bokeh with f1,4 on FF, you will a f0,95 on APS-C. Now possible with some fine china lenses ;-)
@@heikoh.schulz9429 The total amount of light gathered depends on the intensity of the light and on the surface area. Two f/2 lenses will have the same intensity of light coming in, but the total amount of light that they let through will depend on their imagine circle size, and on things like the glass' transmission or vignetting. A full-frame sensor has 2.25x the area of an APC-C sensor, so it will gather correspondingly more light in total. If using the exact same technology, the pixels of a 60MP sensor will actually be smaller (more densely packed) than those of a 20MP sensor. On a pixel level, the 60MP full-frame sensor will be noisier, but at an image level, it's the APS-C that will end up being noisier because of the larger surface area.
And technology plays a big part in it, too. I remember when the first A7 series camera came out. I thought at first that the 24MP A7 would perform better in low light than the 36MP A7R. At the image level, it did not. Interestingly, my A7R3 performs as well as an A7S at high ISO on an image level. That's because of its BSI technology that allows for more light to hit every pixel. If I process my A7R3's high ISO images and down sample them to 12MP, the images actually appear more detailed than the same image from the A7S.
Regarding bokeh, you are correct. The main difference between a 35mm f/0.95 for APS-C and a 50mm f/1.4 on full-frame will be in terms of image quality and AF. A 50mm f/1.4 lens is much easier to get right than a 35mm f/0.95.
@@heikoh.schulz9429its like converting from miles to kilometres, an f2.8 35mm lens on APS-C will generate the same light, field of view and depth of field as an f4 55mm lens on full frame. What people forget to do is to apply the crop factor to the ISO as well.
The way to think of it is think of a MFT sensor, say it is set to ISO100, how many of those ISO100 squares can you fit on full frame? It’s 4 because it’s roughly double the width and height, so to set the “same” equivalent ISO on full frame you have to use ISO 400. This still throws me when I shoot full frame at ISO 10,000, I have to keep reminding me it’s only 4400 roughly APS-C equivalent :) (formula is iso multiplied by crop factor squared)
One of the first considerations for what camera to take on holiday is weight. I have suffered with heavy cameras and lenses which doesn't make for an enjoyable day.
For the past few years I have been using very light capable camera the RX100 mk3. Good with video and photos being so small and light, packing a punch well above it's weight.
Street people don't notice you taking photos. I keep the camera in my left hand on a wrist lead ready for those quirky action shots.
The factor of size and weight is very often overlooked in my opinion.
The amount of bulk that a full frame camera + full frame lenses commands over a similar APS-C setup, is pretty signifcant, if not in the size of the camera, definitely in the size of the lenses. And that's really why it's important to use purpose-built lenses for the camera that you're using (only exception being for long zooms, using a longer, full frame lens can be a good way to get extra reach).
To me, APS-C is in that perfect goldilocks zone, between the large and expensive full frame cameras that gather all the hype and the more compact options from micro four thirds that start getting in the "that sensor is too small" territory.
Most of my cameras are APS-C, exception made of the Sigma SD Quattro H that is APS-H (why was this format abandonned again?) and the Nikon D700 which I treat kind of like a larger format camera that I only use to really take advantage of that larger sensor or the rendition of vintage lenses.
Speaking of vintage lenses, full frame definitely the way to go with those if you're after the rendition of the image rather than the performance the lens can give you. If however you see vintage lenses as a way to get good quality glass for cheap, then I'd recommend using APS-C cameras for that. The reason is quite simple: back in the film days, lenses could be smaller, and that was for a very good reason : light rays didn't have to be corrected. The film was almost a perfect plane, and the photo sensitive crystals would get teh light no matter if the light came in straight or at an angle. That changed with digital: light does not go on a perfectly flat plane of focus : they come at an angle, that grows more acute as you get closer to the edge of the image circle. On the other hand, pixels are like little wells. There is a micro lens that focuses the light on a photo diode, but there needs to be space for that, and the photo diode is quite a bit lower than the micro lens on the sensor. If the light comes in at too much of an acute angle, some of it will be lost, not being focused on the photodiode by the microlens. That's in parth why digital lenses are so much bigger than film era lenses : light rays need to be corrected and come straight if you don't want to suffer from vignetting in the corners. Using an APS-C sensor means that you only keep the center part where this isn't as much of an issue.
On some cameras, there was no choice, but to use engineering to combat this. Typically, the Leica M8 which was the first digital Leica, needed to be fully compatible with film era lenses as it kept the same lens mount. On that camera, the micro lenses are offset compared to the photodiode, and they get more offset the closer you get to the edges. But that's an exception amongst digital cameras really
I actually reduced the size, weight and price of my setup by switching from aps-c to full frame. Once you are looking at those f1.4 primes on APS-C you realise full frame is smaller/cheaper.
It's easy enough to put APS-C lenses on a full-frame camera and If we're talking sony cameras they're both about the same size regardless of format. I'd rather just keep my options open cause I like using both my dads old lenses and my newer cropped lenses.
IMO the size and weight difference in most cases (as an amateur) is mostly negligible. If you're going to compare "similar" cameras where most functionality is the same apart from sensor size then you'll find out that full frame body is only slightly bigger and heavier than crop. And the same goes for typical amateur-use lenses. If you don't need very long focal length and super wide apertures, then the difference is also not that big. I switched from Nikon D7200 to Z 6II and I would say they feel mostly the same if not using telephoto lenses. Only difference now I use F4 standard zoom instead of F2.8, that means I get similar depth of field and picture quality is still better at higher ISO.
As for me if size and weight was priority I wouldn't go for APS-C for sure but consider something even smaller, like way smaller. In fact I tend to reach for my smartphone on a daily basis and only use the full frame when I plan to go out for a photo shoot. And it was exactly the same when I had aps-c, probably wouldn't change much with micro 4/3... And if I was going to get some compact camera then today's smartphones are almost just as good...
@@kuba6156 For me size and weight were a big priority and full frame provides the smaller/lighter package these days (and it was cheaper than my Fuji APS-C). The new iPhone 15 Pro for example is 13mm f/10, 24mm f/6.3 and 120mm f/21 equivalents which is very poor even for photos (not to mention video), you can get really tiny compact F/2.8 or F/4 lenses for full frame to get substantially better results.
@@kuba6156 absolutely , similar lineup models will have same body size, FF offers larger selection of higher quality and/or specific lenses, which prob keep higher value. People most frequently end up using ff glass on apsc bodies with minimal weight/size saving. As you say one can look at it both ways - using slower lenses on FF to outweight the "downsides". It probably depends on the type of shooting, but me as an attempted wildlife photographer, back in my APSC days I would carry d500 and 60-600 and it didn't really matter if ff or apsc. Fuji may be different with their apsc lenses, but that is it.
I used to think that m43 is the unnecessary format, but nowadays it makes more sense to me as it really offers something completely different to FX. Whereas apsc kinda sits in the middle, often being too close to FF but not yet there. Also the manufacturers are at fault, none of them really cares much about their apsc lineup to be build up as a standalone system. They rather offer it with hopes of customers later transitioning to FF (thus it also makes sense to use FF glass anyway).
hands-down, one of the best videos I’ve come across in a long time you have a new subscriber!
Very kind of you, thanks.
Yeah, there are too many reviewers and content creators on here who make it seem like APS-C is a terrible choice. I have a few friends who tried to get into photography and they are still stuck with their kit lens because they blew all their budget on the full frame body and can't justify another expensive lens.
It’s not a terrible choice but for equivalent results it’s often bigger, heavier and sometimes more expensive than full frame. If you are using f2.8 lenses then sure, it’s small (but so is the f/4 equivalent on FF), but the second you look at something like an f1.4 prime. the full frame options are smaller and cheaper.
@@DigiDriftZone But crop sensor cameras also have f1.4 prime lenses though? And the ones I bought were more affordable than full frame ones
@@anisahs2110 there is no such thing. It is like saying my car has 60 speed too, like your car - but one car is MPH and one car is KPH. F/1.4 means nothing without knowing the sensor size, you then apply a calculation. So 1mile = 1.6km, 1inch = 2.54cm, APSC ISO800 = Full Frame ISO1800, 23mm APSC focal length = 35mm Full Frame focal length - same applies for aperture. Just like your focal length means nothing without the sensor size, the aperture means nothing too.
Once you know the sensor size, say iPhone, you take the 5mm f/1.7 and you apply the crop factor to know on full frame that’s identical to 24mm / f6 or near abouts. All of these measurements are proportional to sensor size. And iPhone ISO100 is identical to Full Frame ISO1600 or near there (on the primary camera anyway).
@@DigiDriftZone I literally have it in my camera bag as we speak. You say the specs mean nothing cause of its sensor size, yet it still produces beautiful images with breathtaking bokeh and high image quality output similar to the full frame ones. Well, at least my clients can't tell the difference anyway. As long the clients and the photographer are happy, specs are not the end all or be all
@@anisahs2110 you literally have what? - I'm sure most cameras produce fantastic photos. My 20 year old Nikon D50 DSLR APS-C produced beautiful photos with breathtaking bokeh. But no, if you compare side by side with a modern full frame, you get a whole level of flexibility added in the full frame. Your stops of dynamic range, noise levels (especially in lower light) and micro contrast amount goes up in direct proportion to sensor size.
With this said, the sensor technologies are improving too, a modern APS-C sensor is pretty much on par with a 10 year old full frame.
Clarifying what you said about the dof. An apsc sensor camera and a full frame camera with the same f2 50mm lens will show the same amount of subject separation and blur but since the apsc sensor camera has a smaller sensor it’s will only show a ‘cropped, 50mm image that has about the equivalent focal range of a 75mm lens on a full frame camera. To get the same view we have to put a 35mm equivalent f2 lens on the apsc camera and since dof increases with wider lenses, now you will not have the same amount of background blur.
You know, APS-C (crop sensor format) is almost exactly the size of the Super 35mm film frame - a standard we managed to live with for over 100 years for motion pictures projected onto super-large screens (not IMAX-large, but large enough). Only reason we ever got "full frame", i.e., full-sized 35mm frames in still photography is because, due to logistics, we mounted the film in the camera sideways, thus allowing for a larger frame size. Had still cameras been designed like motion picture cameras, all our still photography (except for medium and large formats) would have been "crop" format and no one would have ever been the wiser. Then again, you could say the reverse and we could have had all those years and decades of "Lawrence of Arabia"-sized movies (which would have been EXPENSIVE!).
Other than price, there's also the topic of size. Comparing the performance of Fullframe f1.8 lenses with APSC f1.8 lenses in nonsensical because f1.4 APSC lenses have the same size & price as FF 1.8 lenses. That means you almost completely eliminate the bokeh advantage and also add 2/3 stops of light to eliminate the ISO advantage. The only advantage FF has left is with f2.8 zooms, because there are no f2 zooms for APSC to balance it out like it happens with primes. However, you still can't defeat physics, the FF f2.8 zooms are significantly bigger than APSC f2.8 zooms. So every photographer has to ask if they are willing to carry that weight around on a regular basis for the little advantage. The extra cost might seem less relevant in a few years but the extra weight to get f2.8 zooms and f1.4 primes on FF are there every single day.
This is a weird comparison. By your logic we could say that an 8 cylinder engine isn’t more powerful than a 4 cylinder engine; “Here we have a 1982 Buick with an 8 cylinder engine, it’s less powerful than this 2023 Civic Type-R with only a 4 cylinder. See, 8 cylinder engines aren’t more powerful.”
Great video!
I'm sure I'm not the first one to say this, but eeerrrrkkktually, focal length doesn't technically have an impact on depth of field... It's all about the apparent distance to the object. So if you go 200 metres back and shoot your Winnie the Pooh with an 800mm lens at f8, the depth of field would be the same as at 35mm f8 so long as the subject stayed the same size within the frame...
But the background will look so stupidly close that it will APPEAR that the DOF is thinner... in actual fact the DOF is the same but just blown up to look huge, and thus more out of focus. You can test this yourself in a more practical setting, e.g. 24mm f1.4 vs 50mm f1.4 but about twice as far back (or whatever distance is needed to keep the subject the same size in the frame).
Great discussion.
Crop cameras have their advantages in focal length \ DOF for certain applications.
Also, it gets complicated once you bring in speedboosters, regarding DOF.
Id say people should be looking at what sensor theyre buying instead.
Eg : A nikon z7 in DX mode is identical to a z50 file wise. So the full frame camera isn't really better than the crop.
I’ve been using APSC sensors since I converted from film to digital. And even with the crop factor I still get more true-to-film quality from them.
The physics of optic let in more light to full frame sensor thus higher speed and shallower depth of field. There is nothing wrong with cropped sensor, it takes great pictures if you don’t mind a f1.4 lens is actually f2.0 which still takes great fuzzy background photos. The reality is most lenses don’t reform their best wide open, so I buy a f1.4 lens I shoot at f2.8 mostly and now it’s a f4 on a cropped sensor and that makes a noticeable difference. I have tiny point and shoot up to medium format sensor camera, they all take great pictures. The choice should be what kind of pictures you like to take to decide which type of camera to get and not a simply debate on crop vs. full. I think borrowing or renting both sensor camera and try it yourself is the best method. I don’t do video so there are different consideration that I don’t pay attention to. A friend of mine uses cropped sensor Fujifilm, stacks up to 100 photos to one picture, so cropped sensor can create huge photo. He shoots landscape only so typically at f11, hence speed is no concern to him. I shoot street, portrait, flower and animals so I use different camera depending on what my primary goal each time. To me, making that selection is part of the fun too. Don’t get stuck with specs, price, brands, your own liking is the most important factor.
No an f1.4 lens is an 1.4 lens on any camera. Using it on an APSC camera has no effect at all, in the same way focal lengths are unaffected by sensor size.
Optics on FF do not let in more light compared to APSC.
An f2.8 lens on doesn't magically turn into an f4 lens on APSC
You change focal lengths for a specific angle of view on each format.
So a 35mm lens on APSC gives you the same angle of view as a 50mm on FF / 135.
If your 50mm lens on FF is set to f2.8 - to match DOF on the 35mm on S35, you have to open the lens 1.5 stops to f1.4
That's it ... however by opening up the lens you have also altered the exposure by 1.5 stops.
Thank you for the video, I'm currently waiting for a used camera (either fuji or sony) to show up and need to decide between fujis aps-c and sony full frame! Don't forget the "advantage" of full frame sensors, you can use manual vintage lenses on them, and they behave a designed:)
I would not compare the cheapest full frame (with 2017 sensor inherited from 6D mark II) on the market with top notch apsc. In low light the later can be better but if you would compare it with R6 mark II or Sony Zv-e1 then I would say full frame would be significantly better. More area to let the light in does the job here.
As stated in the video, it was just to illustrate that there is more to the high ISO performance than the size of the sensor. I would also note, there is significant difference in ISO performance between the ZV-E1 and R6 II, which is further evidence that is more to it than sensor size.
The size of the sensor consistently has a few stops better noise floor compared to a smaller sensor for the same generation. APS-C typically lags behind the performance of full frame by around 5-7 years. So yes a 6 year old FF camera should on average perform as well as a modern APS-C camera all being set equal using the crop factor calculation. With a few exceptions but that’s generally the rule (e.g. a7s III was a bit of leap forward).
My experience is with Fujifilm specifically: I switched from the a7II to the X-T2 back in the day because the X-T2 had better gain noise performance at any iso, no colour banding, and no PDAF artifacting, plus higher fidelity IQ in general, and better battery life.
I'm switching back to full frame because I want to get better low light performance and AF for the same size and weight. Fujifilm hasn't got any cameras currently significantly more compact and lightweight than the a7CII, ZV-E1, or Canon R8. It sounds crazy but check the specs. Plus the prices aren't really better either.
For low light performance I can use a 35f1.8 full frame lenses and still get more light gathering and less overall bulk than the f2 equivalent XF 23f1.4 from Fujifilm. Where Fujifilm still shines is their high quality compact f2 line, but without a compact body, it kind of becomes no different to the compact full frame x 35f1.8 combo. I could even get a 2.8 full frame pancake lens, but still have better AF for the same low light performance.
My only problem with aps-c is that if it's not significantly more compact, portable, lightweight, and cheaper, then why would I bother? If I can get an R8 for $200 less than an X-T5 with the R3 AF system and equivalent brighter lenses for less cost and bulk what is aps-c doing for me except being 80g lighter if I put my f2 glass on it? Longer lasting batteries, I guess? I can just buy more of those though.
Currently my primary is a Ricoh GRIII, which is aps-c and is phenomenal, but a lot of what makes it good is intelligent design and UX considerations - so I don't worry at all about it in low light despite the 2.8 aps-c. I would say the Ricoh is very comparable to the fullframe Leica Q2.
The f2 primes on Fuji have awful focus breathing, unusable for video, they are also f3 equivalent on Full Frame. I did an expensive comparison and equivalent full frame lenses for Sony were always smaller, lighter and often cheaper. I recently switched from the X-S20 to the ZV-E1 and wow, so much smaller, lighter, and little cheaper but 100x better results.
@@DigiDriftZone for video you should not be using Fujifilm. The IBIS and AF are not reliable enough. Focus breathing is irrelevant in photo.
I'd recommend the ZV-E1 for video too. If it were me I'd probably buy the FX3 though because I like it better for no good reason. 😂
Also, if you really want a compact high quality camera for photo, a7CII is your only option there.
My only problem with Sony is I don't want to edit my image. And Sony is so colour accurate that I don't like the raw unfiltered reality I'm getting. I prefer a little quirk baked in, so I don't have to touch LR. 😂
It's the only reason I would choose the Z30 over the a6700 and the R8 over the a7CII. If I loved LR editing, I would have the Sony every single time. They're just better cameras.
While I agree with most of what you say, I wish everyone would realize that there are forms of photography where quality is not measured by bokeh and f/1.4 (or f/0.95) lenses are of no use whatsoever. You obviously measure quality using different standards than I do. Thank goodness there are not f/0.95 macro lenses. Some people take landscapes and prefer more universal sharpness. Some people prefer something in focus and sharp in the photo just to offset all that background blur. I have both a FF and a crop body using the crop more for what I like to shoot. Sometimes I wonder if M4/3 would be acceptable but the ergonomics of the few I have seen leave be drawing the line at APS-C. Perhaps that is why they make so many options? Not everyone defines 'best' in the same way.
Good points. Yes, I totally agree a huge iris does not equal a great lens. I was more talking about lenses like this one - th-cam.com/video/ksEg-WkPiZg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=K4sq5nS_zNsWFZiH Which is one of the best lenses I have ever used, for $549. Something this good on full frame would be $2000+, and as big as a garbage can.
If cost, bulk and weight aren’t factors I think a larger sensor is always an optical advantage, but taking them into account I went APS-C and got some really nice lenses. And hauling them around is much less of a pain that full frame gear.
Yep agree 100% with you, size , weight and money are the big plus of APSC
The time to be a Fuji user has never been better. 40mp at an affordable price (about half the price of FF 45mp bodies) and the release of several 1.2-1.4 lenses from Fuji, Viltrox etc. I was almost about to switch back to FF because I missed the rendering of the D800 w/ Sigma 35 1.4 ART that I had a long time ago, but I finally feel like the Fuji APS-C system is complete enough that I don't miss out on anything important.
Which Fuji camera might I ask? I wanna check it out.
@@MohondhaY X-T5. It's the most affordable high resolution body out there with 40mp plus top modern AF system.
@@fotografalexandernikolis Thank you my good sir! 🤗
@@MohondhaYi got the xh2 and it is a 40mp hybrid shooting monster.
40 megapixels on APS-C is a scam - it gives no more detail than the 26-megapixel APS-C cameras (look up comparison tests that have been done). You need a larger sensor (full frame or larger) for 40 megapixels to actually give you more detail in your images. Not all megapixels are created equally!
The reason why 50mm f/1.8 on FF has a blurrier background than 35mm f/1.8 on APS-C is not directly the higher number since that is exactly compensated by the larger circle of confusion criterion. It’s the fact that “f/1.8” when f=50mm means a larger entrance pupil (aperture) than when f=35mm.
Thanks for the clarification, I was wrong about that and have been meaning to make a follow up video.
The maximum background blur one can achieve when measured on the focal plane is simply the size of the entrance pupil. Everything else is irrelevant. They may affect how close to the maximum one can get i.e. affect for example when the background is not very far. Like if the background is twice as far as the subject you get just half of the maximum and there is where the crop factor plays: if you shoot further way the background is relatively closer.
For example 50 mm f/1.8 full frame at 2 meters with the background at 4 meters the blur is 50 mm / 1.8 / 2 = 14 mm. Now with APS-C at 3 meters and the background at 5 meters: 50 mm / 1.8 *(1-3/5) = 11 mm. If you used 35 mm at 2 meters (ignoring the slightly different framing) you would get 35 mm / 1.8 / 2 = 10 mm.
Note this is just about the blur otherwise the distance of course affects the relationship between the background and the subject.
@@okaro6595 Unless I’m missing something (a definite possibility), I think you mean when measured in object space, not on the focal plane (the sensor). The two will coincide only at 1:1 magnification (so at the minimum focus distance of most macro lenses).
A used FF 50mm 1.8 is around $100, the equivalent will be F1.2 for APSC lens which is pretty pricy.
These won't be comparable in quality though. The amount of background will be similar, but that's about it.
@@markwiemelswhy do you say that? F/1.2 lenses for aps-c are significantly more expensive to manufacture, they will also be significantly bigger and heavier than their f1.8 counterparts on FF, so FF in general is smaller, lighter and cheaper when it comes to fast lenses like this.
I am currently using a Fuji XH2 with a 16-55 F2.8 lens and the sharpness in shooting with it is a level I did not know from my old Canon camera. And I notice that its noise is quite low at high ISO. With F1.4 lenses and below, it outperforms much more expensive cameras in portrait photography. I'm all for switching to APS-C
Yes, the notice the extra detail as well. I always put it down to the X-Trans sensors.
I’m a wedding photographer and I also have the same set up and in very low light situations I just use flash to compensate
The Fujifilm XH2 is probably one of the best prosumer Hybrid camera out there.
Yes but that is an f4 equivalent on full frame which on Sony anyway gives you a smaller, lighter and cheaper lens while still out performing this really aging and heavy zoom lens (still excellent lens though). There are advantages like say resolution and hybrid use, sure. But ISO 6400 is on the limit of usable results where on Sony it’s more like ISO 50,000 for equivalent noise and much faster zoom lens options should you want that in the future.
@@DigiDriftZone I never go above iso 800 indoors because I always use flash so I’m not bothered and as for f4 it doesn’t bother me too because when shooting group photos I use f8 and f4 on full frame you’d have to go to f7 to get exposure on a group shot to get everyone in focus so realistically there’s more blur in full frame sensors therefore you’d have to use a higher aperture hence use higher iso on full frame so therefore there isn’t any difference in image quality is there and full frame lenses are always more expensive
I have the same opinion. I have a Panasonic LUMIX GX85 with the Leica 25mm F1.4 and wow I love the results
Agree with you.. I'm a newbie more visual based thsn math. Just step or 2 back for a fuller frame! For aperture and clarity and bokeh i can live with the minor differences. Thanks for making the video!
You can easily turn your full frame sensor into a crop sensor by using software to crop your image. When you do that, your photo does not get darker. This idea that crop sensors are never as sensitive as full frame cameras has to die already. While it is true that a single sensor (i.e. one pixel) will tend to gather more photons if it is larger, there are many other things to consider. For one, copped sensors tend to have fewer megapixels so the physical size of each individual sensor/pixel may be the same. Also, size is only one thing that drives signal to noise ratio (SNR). Other things to consider are the quantum efficiency (odds that the sensor will register each photon) and the noise level. It is very possible to have a smaller single sensor that performs better in low light than a larger one.
The bit about APS sensors having fewer MP is only really true for the past few years. Throughout most of digital camera history, APS was on par with FF regarding pixel count.
Devils advocate here 😂 when full frame cameras started hitting the $1,000 mark (EOS RP) there arrived a lot of scenarios where full frame was smaller and cheaper than matching the equivalent FOV/DOF with a crop sensor. I know you demonstrated that the background blur between 35 1.8 and 50 1.8 is negligible in specific cases, but in scenarios (like you mentioned) where you’re shooting further away and you want that subject isolation still you can get it cheaper, smaller, and lighter with full frame (especially if you’re willing to shop used and DSLRs). If I put a 50mm F1.8 on a Canon 6D I’ve got a FOV/DOF that would require something like a 35mm F1.2 to match with crop sensor. An 85mm F1.8 on many full frame bodies is cheaper, smaller, and lighter than a 50mm F1.2 on any crop sensor body. A third party 85mm F1.4 lens on a crop sensor body can match the FOV/DOF of canon’s 135mm F2L on a full frame for less money, but the FF setup might still be smaller/lighter. Canon’s 40mm F2.8 pancake lens on a full frame would need to be matched by like a 24mm F1.8 lens on a crop sensor, again much larger and pricier than the 40mm F2.8. Lately my daily carry fun camera is a 5D classic with an EF 100mm F2 lens I bought for $199 and what it provides in terms of FOV/DOF is in a tiny and dirt cheap package compared to anything I’ve looked at with a crop sensor unless I want to manually focus. Not trying to argue or say that you’re wrong, just wanted to share that in a few weird little scenarios you can get looks out of full frame for way cheaper and with a much smaller/lighter kit than matching it with a crop sensor.
The old full frame cameras are bargain now, especially if you don't need the video features. Taking price into account, it does make sense to compare old FF to new Crop.
That is true if you use only FF lenses, i.e a 12mm 1.8 for micro 4/3 have a angle of view like a 24mm, cost 3 times less and is very tiny and light.
I found this helpful - the aperture size (diameter dimension) is directly proportional to the focal length. A grab from the web "The f‑number expresses a ratio of the lens focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil, and it's defined by the equation N=ƒ/D. Thus, the f‑number equals the focal length divided by the entrance pupil diameter." So for a 50mm f1.0 lens we have 1= 50mm/50mm (f1.0 = 50mm focal length / 50mm aperture diameter). This explains a lot of things but also explains why longer fast lenses are absolutely massive.
I have crop sensor cameras and I have full frame cameras. Huge difference!
Pl explain how
I shoot a Sony A7III, Fuji X-T4 and Olympus E-M1 mkII. In low light I get less noise in the Sony. Don’t get me wrong, my favorite is the Olympus, just love it, but the Sony is better than even the newer X-T4 in low light. For street photography the X-T4 is a better system for other reasons. As far as price, you are absolutely correct. I can’t see upgrading the A7iii anytime soon.
Enjoy you vids Mark and respect you and your work. But - I respectfully DISAGREE. :)
Of course it all depends on a given user's budget, needs, their audience (and how much that audience cares about image quality), the display device, etc.
I mean, by your logic, everyone should just use their phone. After all phones take "good" pictures, and, the best camera is the one you have with you.
Yes, for 80 percent of us 80 percent of the time, a smaller-sensored camera will be absolutely fine. But...
Larger-sensored cameras DO, almost always, take a "better" picture or video. The image just simply looks better.
Of course if you choose an OLDER full-frame camera and compare it to a NEWER crop-sensor, the difference will be smaller - but even in that case the FF camera will win 98 percent of the time.
And for me, full-frame IQ's goodness goes beyond specs. Or maybe it's the way the specs add up - the image just LOOKS better - less noise, more detail, more color depth, etc - it all adds up to an image that looks more "real", more 3D, "clearer". More "analog". Something like that. But it adds up to better.
For me, anyway.
Is that neccessary? Or even noticeable in well-lit images? Esp if viewing on a phone? Maybe/probably not. Depends on the viewer.
But overall, and esp as the light falls and the demands of the audience increase, FF wins.
Believe me I'd like to carry smaller/cheaper, but for me, it just doesn't work often enough.