I went with the Sony a1 (full frame) mostly for fast auto focus and high frame rate. I'm not sure the 50 megapixels are doing me that much good based on last weeks video about affective megapixels. I also have a Sony a6600 for travel. Believe it or not, I absolutely love my small Sony RX 100 VI with a one inch sensor! It's not only very small and can literally fit in a pocket, it takes amazing photos! It does a fantastic job in respect to auto focus and depth of field, even at night. I took photos of Red Square (yes in Moscow, before Russia lost it's mind!) at night using it and they came out like I was a professional. I cropped the images to make them look like they were panorama shots. I then used an AI upscaler program (last weeks video subject) to give them enough detail to print to 8" x 24". I also use it in an underwater housing for scuba diving photos and videos. Once again, it does an amazing job with auto focus and wide depth of field, especially for small subjects and fast subjects. I know it can't match a full frame camera in the hands of a professional, but it makes me look good!!! 😁
I currently own four Canon dslr's. All are crop sensor. I found that crop sensor work fine for my needs and the cost difference between full frame and crop is ridiculous. I've had prints made into 24x36 posters with no loss of detail( to the average person viewing the poster). If I am concerned about sharpness then I'll have the file printed on canvas. Also I am not limited on which type of lens I can use.
I switched to Fuji APSC a few years ago. On the one hand because of the price/performance ratio. On the other hand because of the weight. Whether at events or on hikes, etc., every gram counts for me. I also like the Fuji sensors and their image quality/look and how they are built. Regards
Full Frame and APS-C. I have a Sony A7 FF CSC and a Sony A77 APS-C DSLR. I love the flexibility of having access to better but more expensive E-mount glass and cheap second hand A-mount glass. The A77 is considerably bigger, but still performs really well and I can pick up excellent used A-mount glass for a fifth the price of equivalent E-mount lenses!
My photography mentor took me to Kenya (saved up for a year for that trip!) and demonstrated why he only shot crop sensor Nikon bodies. Instead of putting all his money into the newest full-frame gizmos, he put his money into the lenses. He used a Nikkor 400mm 2.8 lens on his crop sensor body and got reach and depth of field the rest of us could only dream of. Using the effective 600mm body/lens combo he grabbed a close-up portrait of a lion mid-roar. That photo was sold to CC Africa for one of their catalogs and paid for his entire trip. The body? A several years-old D200 that he shot until the camera wore out and then he got a D7100. I learned to stop reading internet reviews and megapixel comparisons. The proof was in the images.
The obsession with “gear” is a highly American phenomenon…no different from playing with firearms, invading countries, toppling govts and warmongering. Its part of the Anglo American culture. Created by the sneaky American EDWARD BERNAYS who shaped American consumers’ minds.
@fartpooboxohyeah8611 I mean, they are keeping their explanations VERY simple and rather short, so there isn't much leeway on how to explain it. I wouldn't be surprised if they both took their scripts from similar online resources (maybe WIkipedia).
Regarding the bokeh part, it’s the first time I see someone not only understanding but also demystify the concept of « point of confusion » without even mentioning it… Thumbs up!!!
"Use what you have and go out there and take some amazing photos." That is the best photography advice I have heard in some time. The best way to hone your hobby/craft is best accomplished by doing. Thank you Simon!
That's ultimately the thing, the best camera will always be the camera that you have with you, even if there is a "better" camera in existence, if it's not in your hands, then it's not better.
This was very true in old times, when photography was something special. Now being an photoamateur is more about gadgets, less about taken photographs. Now every camera is good enough, so sure you can take an old one OM-D or a top one EOS R and take the same, good photo. Or maybe even with a smartphone... But where is the fun? Where is the satisfaction of riding a fiery horse? Nice looking photo? In 2024 when in one day we see more images than our grandparents in one year?
so true. use what you have or what you want/love. it doesnt matter if its a expensive camera or a cheap. just make the right art and have fun. thats it. no bullshit.
I use an a6000 as a hobbyist. I have a different profession that I enjoy, so this is just a hobby for me. Even though the a6000 is older,it is very very usable. I was going to spend over 1000 dollars to upgrade my body. But instead I bought better glass and bought topaz de-noise. I’m very glad I went this route as now I get amazing looking photos. Most of my issues I had were do to my knowledge and not my gear. Thanks to Simon. I am enjoying photography far more than I ever have before.
Gotta give you props. As a m4/3 user I have to say that this is the most even-handed comparison of full frame vs crop/.small sensored cameras I've yet to hear/read. Well done.
@@SayWhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatwith the Olympus 300 f4 and the 12-100 pro you can get some very nice, extremely sharp photos. And neither costs ridiculous money either. I doubt you could tell the difference between full frame and photos from those lenses paired with an om1. If you shoot in a coal mine and are obsessed with toneh then yeah maybe m43 is crap.
This has to be one of the best explanations of the differences between crop and full size sensors. They need to have this video playing on a big screen in the lens section of every camera store.
I started in photography with a sony a7r3 and a 16/35gm in which I exclusively do landscape photography. I do mountaineering and I go to places difficult to reach and high, and the sony in a snow storm suddenly turned off. Since then I sold my sony a6600 and bought the OM1 with the 12/40proII 2.8 and with its 50 megapixel handheld photography it does not detract at all in landscape photography, I also use it in macro with the 60mm and the new 90mm macro, and with the price of a 600 mm in ff buy the 40/150 pro and the 100/400 from Olympus. Nobody disputes the quality of FF but my om1 has been with me in very hostile places, snow storms, rain, at Montblanc, at the Gran Paradiso, etc... and it has never failed me. I barely use my Sony camera anymore. With the weight of this and two objectives I carry a camera and four Olympus objectives.
As explained by Tony Northrup: You get the same image with an APS-C camera by selecting a lens with a ~33% reduction in focal length and in F# (shoot from the same distance). So your 24 to 75mm F4 zoom on a full frame should be replaced with a 17-50 mm F2.8 zoom on an APS-C. The total light landing on the sensor will also be approximately matched. (If the number of pixels is the same on both cameras then the number of photons per pixel will match.) So simple. Unfortunately what Simon did NOT mention is that fast zoom lenses are difficult to find for APS-C cameras. An F4 zoom on an APS-C is a slow lens.
I never comment on videos. But I must say that it's a pleasure to listen to you and see you explain your points. Densely packed content is appreciated. I skip over a lot of your competitors material trying to get to the point. They like talking more than I like listening. I really appreciate your content.
When I went from DSLR to Mirrorless I moved up from a crop sensor to a 46MP Full-Frame. I feel like with this combo I get the best of both worlds! When I need to crop in to a standard APS-C size, I still get a nice sharp 20 MP image.
True, but with a high megapixel APS-C camera, like the Canon R7 (32.5 megapixels, which is equivalent to about 80 megapixels in a full frame), you can take advantage of both worlds. You have the 1.6 crop built in (and still have all your pixels) AND you can crop in post, and still have plenty of pixels. The biggest disadvantage is dynamic range and high ISO noise. But photography is all about tradeoffs.
9:58 I’ve been arguing this with photographers for years. The people I’m arguing with always compare a 50mm full frame lens to a 50mm equivalent APS-C lens, using the same aperture value at the same distance, or just like your example, try to frame the exact same with the same lens using both sensor sizes to try and prove their point. Your video proved literally what I’ve been saying for a long time. Great video as always. I’ll send people to this video anytime that conversation gets brought up.
Yep, Where people get confused regarding depth of field between sensors is that there actually is no difference. Depth of field is determined only by the lens and where it is focused. For a given focal length, f/stop and focusing distance, the depth of field is equal regardless of the sensor size. The confusion lies because field of view of say a 50mm lens is equivalent to 75mm lens on APS-c, but all the other attributes of of the lens remain the same as a 50mm, and therefore not comparable to a full frame 75mm lens which would have a shallower DOF. Its is literally just a crop out the middle of a full frame sensor.
@@samuelsmith6804 which is why people also confuse f/stop with full frame and full frame equivalent with a crop sensor lens. It’s crazy how simple it all is, yet some really over think it too much and make a simple thing very confusing.
Lovely video. I am a terrible photographer because I don't get light/set-up/contrast/subject/depth of field etc, but I have high hopes to become average in 4-5 years. I have invested in the OM1 MKII and a few pro lenses because the other attempts with bridge/street/macro cameras could be junked as the cost was ''acceptable''. Now I can't leave this alone and it's great fun being tutored on TH-cam with kind experts like you. Thank you
The good news is that you know that you suck at so many level at the moment. But I have faith in you that you will get from 'terrible' to 'quite bad' very soon if you work hard enough. And then, from 'quite bad' to 'people don't leave as many hateful comment when I post my picture on FB'. And eventually... One day, you will reach the: 'people pretend I'm good only because I have expensive gear' ranking. And THIS will be an awesome day! Have fun in the process, life is too short! Greeting from Montréal
I use an a6000 as a hobbyist. I have a different profession that I enjoy, so this is just a hobby for me. Even though the a6000 is older,it is very very usable. I was going to spend over 1000 dollars to upgrade my body. But instead I bought better glass and bought topaz de-noise. I’m very glad I went this route as now I get amazing looking photos. Most of my issues I had were do to my knowledge and not my gear. Thanks to Simon. I am enjoying photography far more than I ever have before.
I'm a MFT guy and never regretted it. The majority of trips I do are on foot and the small size is a plus. But what really counts is the weight, or the lack of. Glass is heavy and after a 10Km trip to a location you will be happy about every gramm you don't have to carry back.
Many presenters on TH-cam offer information and opinions with a clear bias. Yours do not, which is something I appreciate. Your presentation on sensor size is a perfect example of your objective approach. You did not, for instance, immediately inform us that bigger is better as some presenters do. Instead, you provided the viewers with relevant information, contextualized it and then left it us to us to decide. Bravo!
I’m impressed that Simon cuts to the chase, gets to the point with a minimum of words. This shows high knowledge and experience with his subject matter. We get facts based on practical experience here, which is much more valuable than opinions, based on little or no practical knowledge or experience.
Great video and videos. I use all three sensor sizes. If I am traveling by air, or if I am concerned about weather conditions.and know I need to be on foot for a long time...Olympus OMD EM-1 mark II, micro 4/3's. if I'm traveling and don't have a weather concern: I bring my Canon R7 (APS-C) with full frame glass. And if I'm driving to a destination or to an event, and don't have a concern about packing light; I bring the Canon R6 along with my Olympus. Of all the systems, I have kept the Olympus gear the longest. I have shot Sony, Minolta, Nikon Fuji and now Canon, over the past 50 years. I gave up waiting on Nikon years ago when they delayed getting into mirrorless. I owned and used both FF and APS-C Sony, but the ergonomics of the cameras didn't suit me.
Thank you for the very informative video. There is a push from youtubers to convince everyone that real photographer has to use full frame and the crop cameras are inferior. However after switching from MFT to APS-C, I realized that what matters is to have a good camera that you have with you. Just because of bigger and heavier camera and lenses, I missed tons of shots. Just because of that, I switched back to MFT. Now I can carry my camera everywhere and also I can buy many high quality lenses that deliver fantastic results. I have seen many people buying aps-s or full frame camera to just pair it with one single low quality kit lens. Again, thank you very much for fantastic videos.
ปีที่แล้ว +28
I sold my Sony A7III and bought FujiFilm X-T3 and couldn't be happier. I shoot mostly landscapes and shooting with the camera is so much fun. The only difference real difference I perceive between FF and APS-C is that every time I change lenses I have to calculate the focal length equivalents so that I know what fov the lens has.
For me it is the other way around... I used APSC for about 5 years and got used to it. Now that I upgraded to full frame I have to calculate the focal length equivalents 😅
Same here I sold all my Full Frame Nikon gear and bought a Fuji X-T3 and Fuji EX2. I don't miss FF at all. I also own a print shop and the difference is so small in printing large images nobody can tell what was shot on FF vs Fuji APSC.
Why not X-T5 or X-T4? better battery and ibis, and the AF on the X-T5 is far superior not to mention 40mp.
6 หลายเดือนก่อน
@@stevenbamford5245 I got the X-T3 before X-T5 came out so that wasn't an option. I don't like the tilt screen and the slightly bigger size of the X-T4 although the ibis is quite a significant upgrade. Battery is really not a problem with X-T3, at least not for me, it usually lasts me a few days. 26 Mpx is plenty and the autofocus is quite good already.
Your objective assessment is one of the things that keeps bringing me back. Just the facts please. Simplicity and accuracy in presentation are a great skill not often seen. Thank you. You make it seem so easy, but so well thought out. I'm an APS-C user which I chose for reasons of cost, size and weight. I'm 70 years old and one-handed. Size and weight are critical issues. I bought the gear a couple of years ago new and have no regrets. Well... weather sealing would have been nice. I cope.
After 20 years i'm upgrading my EOS 1D Mark ii to a EOS R6 Mark II. I have some amazing photos with my old camerra and Im very exiting to take it to the next level using my very expesive lenses. Thank Simon for you videos. They are great!
Finally someone said it correctly. I love the fact you do understand both the physics aspects and art of taking photos. I would maybe mention that to simulate same crop you have to have "shorter" lens on your crop sensor - therefore the distortion introduced will be different. I do family photos, some landscapes and a bit of street. Now with 80D and 18-135 lens. But know internally that my go-to these days would be R5 and RF 24-240 just to have all-in-one package ready to do everything anytime
I am using a couple of Lumix GX8s (micro 4/3) for hobbyist wildlife and landscape photography, the light weight makes it practical to carry 2 of them with different lenses. An undocumented "feature" is that no-one takes much notice of a "toy" camera.
I have never before found someone who could explain these things so clearly, without favoring 1 over the other. I really like the "different tools for different jobs" mindset in your videos. Very nice work!
The fact that you provide these videos for free is amazing, So much information packed in such a short time and delivered so clearly. Thank you so much!
I use M4/3. After having used it as an amature for 10 years I don't think I would change. The small form factor, low cost and features that exceed my skill level make it a really good fit for me.
While not something I do I have heard it is good for wild life photography. I enjoy hiking/biking/kayaking and the weight and size difference has grown in importance to me over the years. Most lens will fit one to a coat or cargo pants pocket and the body is small enough that with a 20mm (40mm equivalent) prime lens it is very compact and portable (It almost fits in my coat pocket). All this means that I can carry a couple of lenses and the camera on my person without an extra bag or with a small bag at worst. As for quality I have printed my photos as large as 16x20(inches) and they look really good. I could go bigger also but never have needed to. If you are new to photography I would probably recommend you go with a m4/3 over a more expensive platform until you know what you features are most important to you but your mileage may vary.
another benefit of crop sensors : sice you need a smaller focal length to emulate the same angle of view compared to full frame cameras, you can run into situation where the focal lenght is small enough that you could get a very small focus distance, as close focusing capabilities degrade when the focal length increases. Also there is something I wanna add about the size and weight : Brands are not taking the same approach when it comes to APS-C, and recently it has gotten a bit worse. Before, in the DSLR days, we had APS-C cameras that could be entry level, with entry level lenses. But we also had pro level cameras that were made specifically to take advantage of a crop sensor (like the 7D line from Canon, D300/D500 cameras from Nikon) as well as prosumer cameras that were the mid/high end of consumer cameras (80D, 90D or the whole D7000 line). What made these cameras such good platforms is that you could use the APS-C glass that was purpose built for them(DX lenses from Nikon, EF-S lenses from Canon), but you could also use the full frame glass on there if you needed more reach or better image quality. But these times are kinda over. Nowadays, the crop sensor market is a lot more dull compared to what it was 5 years ago. The best contender in the APS-C space by far is Fujifilm, with very high quality APS-C cameras, and purpose-built APS-C glass that is very good whithout breaking the bank like a Sony GM lens would. The problem with that system, is that you're basically locking yourself in APS-C as Fujifilm doesn't have any full frame cameras. In firm second place comes Sony, with a good range of lenses, but aging camera bodies that will limit the potential of the whole system and are just here to be a kickstarter to the E mount ecosystem, ultimately pushing people towards full frame if they want basic prosumer features like dual card slots. Canon and Nikon have taken the exact same approach witht their mirrorless APS-C cameras as you have pretty decent cameras (especially on Canon's side with the R7 and R10) but you don't have any glass for it except kit lenses, so if you want good quality glass you'll have to get a full frame lens, and at this point you'd give up the advantage in size and weight that those camera systems would offer. Anyway, this was an outstanding video, with no nonsense and no further confusion added on top of that very controversial subject ! I've been trying to get this right at my level for the last few months and realised that most of the confusion came from youtubers that tried to explain something they didn't fully understand in the first place. You sir, know what you're talking about and it shows!
You could add Pentax, they still have great new APS-C bodies and glass. But of course, it's DSLR only and the speed of development is close to a standstill. Nowadays.
Agree 100% on Fuji...they've taken a really unique approach. The best crop sensor platform, high quality lenses for days, and then skipping right over full frame and going straight to medium format ($$$!) I love the cameras so much that I want to stay with their system but with the kind of photography I do, I'm always going to have one eye on the full frame Nikon Z and Canon R stuff...
The good thing about Canon is that their older EF-S lenses work great on their RF-S cameras. There's great entry level glass available, such as the 24mm 2.8 STM and the 55-250 IS STM. Sure, you need an adapter and they typically aren't as compact as native lenses, but for now, they are a great alternative. I recently switched to an R7, and I only own two R lenses currently (16mm and 18-150mm). For the rest, I am still using adapter EF lenses (24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 10-18mm, 55-250). One thing to keep in mind with using full frame lenses on APS-C is that a decent FF lens may look terrible on APS-C, due to the much smaller pixel size. Only the sharpest full frame lenses will look good on a high resolution crop camera - the R7 has the same pixel density as a 80+MP full frame camera...
Excellent presentation and very non-biased. As a long time amateur photographer using Olympus micro four thirds gear, I prefer it for size and cost considerations. But I know the system has both pros and cons as any camera system. At this stage, I'm more concerned about developing my "eye" and post processing skills rather than spending lots of money chasing sensor size and megapixel count. This video is one of the best, if not the best at presenting an overview of the various sensor sizes. Thanks!
Content is KING: Your dialog is for learning, your presentation is A++ teacher....a winning combination. I love to learn from you, just like others have said. Me, I am a situational photographer. I see it, I take it, I make sure to sell it. My camera of choice: Fuji X T-5 with 35mm 1.4; 70-300 with 1.4 teleconverter; 16-80mm ; 30mm 2.8 macro. I often go back and relisten so I can absorb more...thank you.
Simon, not sure you'll see this but its worth the effort. Of all the channels I scour to master the craft, you have some of the most illusory videos here, so thank you for your efforts. I'm a Director and DP in LA, and have been committed to the craft for over 15 years now, and I'm still learning. My mom is an amatuer wildlife photographer, and in the last 10 years, has progressed far enough that her photos outshine anything I could hope to capture. Im going to show her your channel tomorrow so that she has you a resource, as well as myself. You give us the information we need.
Dear Simon. Your explanations are like someone asks you and you give the answers to the point without any extra telling and without missing a thing. Thank you very much.
APS-C works fine for me for all the reasons you mentioned - size, weight, cost, and what I use my photography for as an amateur hobbyist. I always enjoy the combination of your narrative and illustration that results in those AHA! moments, even for subjects we have read about and listened to others talk about many times! Great teaching! Thanks!
if you have great light all the time or use flash theyre fine but in low light and high iso theyre garbage.. also i have a newer one and it wont use full frame lenses.. it adds a ring around the picture digitally so it doesnt work.. a crop sensor should be able to use a full frame lens but this one seriously adds a black ring.. thats only supposed to happen if you use a crop sensor lens on a full frame.. and it also wont let me dial in 1/3 stop isos.. wtf..
This is the best explanation of Crop vs Full Frame that I've heard. I imagine it took some time to really figure out how to explain this so concisely. Either that or you're just that natural of a teacher.
I just like to say I REALLY appreciate your patience in explaining full-frame and crop sensor dynamics. Never understood it THIS CLEARLY until now. Thank you, Sir!
What a great video. No fluff, just pure honesty and knowledge. I like that you used examples for why even some professionals would choose crop over full frame!
Simon, this is absolutely the most balanced description on this subject I've seen. I find it faultless. My primary ecosystem is M43, but I have gear in all three main sensor systems. My reasoning for M43 is pretty simple - it takes great pictures, and weighs far less. The only thing I would comment on - M43 has a professional tier of bodies and lenses with all the things you mentioned - great weather sealing, superior optics, etc. I would love to see your take on the OM-1 with one of the nice pro lenses...
I am a retired film photographer, who transitioned to digital only for the last decade. When I say that I mean to a DSLR. I have two APS-C DSLRs but I now prefer a smaller sensor because I can wear it on my belt. Also when I am out shooting no one interrupts me. My favorite now is a recent purchase of a Nikon P310. It is a lot like using an older range finder camera in size and the f stop on the wide is 1.8. I've owned a number of these little cameras but this one with full manual and similar menus to my DSLRs is now my go to. Since impressing people has no meaning now it fulfills what I want when I travel of even when I'm home.
Simon, I found you through Gavin Hardcastle. Finally, a person who doesn't dump all over anyone not using the same camera/sensor size they do! Must be because you're a Maritimer like me. Your attitude is more likely to make me stop and think about what I need to get the results I want rather than jumping from system to system like a frenzied lemming. And you have a great ability to cut through the fog of myth and misinformation that exists out there. Keep up the great content.
You're a natural teacher. Thanks so much. I've been using a crop sensor for years (portability) but have been thinking about full frame. I have a trip to Alaska next year and would love to have a crop sensor on one hip and a full frame / travel tripod on the other. I guess you always want what you don't have.
Full frame is definitely better, I used to think that I'd never own a FF camera because of how good the cropped sensors were, but I was wrong. Granted, I probably couldn't have afforded a full frame sensor anyways, but you get a tremendous amount of flexibility when you have a FF sensor to work with. You can downsize things a bit for noise reduction, or you can crop it at amounts between 1.x and the typical 1.6x that cropped sensors tend to be. And you generally just have more pixels to work with.
This is true. I was m4/3 for 10 years. I upgraded to FF a few months ago and the differences are astounding. Sad thing is that my old 4/3 gear went straight to the garbage. Nobody is going to want to spend more than a few dollars for used m4/3 gear - used market is weak.
Awesome take on the topic! I like you don't choose one sensor in the end of the video as most people do. I personally switched from Canon Fullframe to Lumix M43. For example, I have an optically perfect Leica 200/2.8 paired with 1.4x TC, reaching almost 600 mm with the crop factor. Paired with the Lumix G9, the whole setup is weather sealed. It's an extremely good build quality, and all for a fracture of a FF lens + body price. Another great portrait / product lens is Leica 42,5/1.2 which is an absolute treasure for me. There might be quite a noise issue on the higher ISO, but there are many brands as Topaz Labs so I can easily crop it, denoise it, then enlarge it. Or I can also use the 80Mpx mode on the Lumix G9 which really allows me to crop deep in the picture. I'm currently saving up for the new OM 90/3.5 macro which gets up to 2:1 magnification (not 4:1 as often wrongly mentioned), weather sealed, with AF so I can do bracketing right in the camera... I'm happy with this system and that's the most important thing. :-)
I definitely needed this advice, and the rest of your channel has been equally helpful. As an amateur photographer, my greatest worry has been that my 15-year old crop sensor camera is holding me back from progressing to a professional level. I've come to realize that gear-wise, the lens is more important than the camera, and technique, practice, and passion will get us far. As you said, the best camera for you is the one you have in your hand and you use. Great advice in these videos, thanks for sharing!
Awesome video ! As an amateur enthusiast, I went the M4/3 route for size so traveling was much easier. I also got a M4/3 with weather sealing and a fair bit of pro features like focus stacking. This is the best photography channel, keep up the great content !!
I have a Lumix GX8 (micro 4/3) that I use for bird photography with a Panasonic/Leica 100-400 lens. With the crop factor the effective focal length is 200-800, and it’s MUCH smaller than the 500 mm lens that Simon showed (much cheaper too, probably). The nicest part is that the OIS on the lens works with the OIS on the camera to practically eliminate camera shake, so I can shoot with a shoulder stock.
@@timmotz2827 I have the same lens I use on my Olympus/OM System bodies and it's jaw-dropping to see that incredibly large 500mm lens Simon uses. I can't imagine lugging that around on a hike for nature photography.
@@gregfeeler6910 Well, he's younger than me and probably in much better shape. 🙂 I once knew a sports photographer who worked carrying two large Nikon bodies with very large telephotos on them draped around his neck. he would shoot handheld and always got awesome images. He was actually a fairly small guy, but again, probably in much better shape.
Thank you. One of the best videos on this topic. I too have a Canon 7Dmkii and Canon M50 and absolutely love them. Travelled the world with them and shot everything from wildlife to cityscapes, landscapes, concerts and weddings. The issue is not the sensor, it is people not understanding the different sensor types and how to get the best out of them, and not being prepared with the correct equipment for what they are doing
I have never seen it explained so well with raw facts and demonstrations. really solidified my choice to stick with crop sensors for wildlife. Thank you for how you do what you do.
I wish I found your channel 13 years ago when I started photography. Everything is explained so clearly with no fuss and complicated theory, exactly what a beginner needs (needed in my case). Keep up the great work. Merci Simon!
I actually bought an APSC camera when I could not afford the fullframe that I really wanted, and bought the fullframe a few years later. Now I have both.
Another great video. Simply explained and factual. Well done. I don't need prime fixed lens pin sharpness. I can't justify the cost of one, less alone a set of them. Nor do I want to be changing lenses in bad environments. Then again I do mainly 'grab' shots, so fiddling about would mean missed shots and looking with envy at the photo taken on a mobile phone! My priorities are: photos (rarely video), above average IQ, price and weight. Here's what I've done: Canon R (FF 26MP) with RF 24-240mm Canon R50 (APS-C 24MP) with RF 100-400 (Effective 160- 660) Canon 430III flash The two lenses are FF and fully interchangeable with both bodies. I'm sure other brands can do similar. Meets my IQ needs. I've been using zooms for decades and not once has anyone said - oh, you took that with a zoom, didn't you! Not once. The two zooms above have received good reviews. My own research convinced me. Bought a Canon budget 50mm prime for portraits. The Tamron set at 50mm outperformed it. A cropped image (as low as 10MP) from an RP + 24-240 outperformed my old 650D (APS-C 18MP)+ Tamron 18-270 (effective 24-450) at any setting, inside and outside. BTW I loved that Tamron. Meets my budget. Shopping around, circa $AUD5,000 / $USD3,500. Meets my weight needs. My backpack for this + spare batts, SD cards, flash + bats, USB-A chargers, etc = 3.5Kg / 7.5 pounds. Most planes have 7kg on board limits. Plenty there for other fragile items, etc! Satisfies all the other debates. FF v APS (C), megapixels v optical cropping by zoom / change lens v cropping in edit. For the RAW(-C) v JPEG I use the body setting on my 650D and the RP to take both. Increases lag time but rarely bothers me. Always found the JPEGs Ok. No time for RAW-(C) editing etc. Most of the RP JPEGs only need size cropping. Pretty good straight out of the camera. The RP body does lens corrections for me. Spare battery and 80g portable USB-A charger fixes the 'small' battery issue. Having the same battery helps too. The Tamron and Canon RP lenses have IS. Great. So no IBIS is not an issue either. Mirrorless means EVF, so max F-stop does not affect seeing composition. The down sides? I can't get the bokah of a f/2.8 85mm prime. Or can I? I can use different zoom settings on one or the other body with one or the other lens and get a very similar effect! These bodies are not ideal for video, fps, nor some sports and it only has one SD slot. I knew that. No problem because I don't do / need that! Both have enough features for my travels. Low light with F5.6/8 max open. These days ISOs over 100 are not a real issue. Even 1600 is very good. I come from an era when ISO400 film was grainy (noise). Digital ISO 1600 is fairly comparable to film ISO100.
Thanks for that! I started out with a Nikon D7200 but bought lenses for a full frame camera. When I finally moved up to a full frame D780 I was surprised and mildly disappointed that my reach was diminished with my lenses. To regain that reach I sometimes set the D780 to the smaller DX crop size. Now I know why the images were not as sharp as I had hoped. I'm glad I didn't sell the D7200. It still has a purpose.
Found your channel and love it for clear reasons: 1. You are smart, know the tech and are not afraid to talk about it on a high level. Astro stuff included. 2. The pacing of your videos are up-tempo and information packed. Keep it fast and dense. Love the channel.
That was by far the hands down best explanation of sensor sizes I've ever seen. I would add only one comment, you can get professional quality in crop sensor cameras. The Nikon D500, Canon 7D, Olympus/OMDS E-M1/OM-1 series, Panasonic GH series (for a long time regarded as one of the best video mirrorless cameras).
Nice video Simon! The same way in which crop is better for wildlife photography, fullframe is better for almost all other everyday genres including landscapes where we need wide to normal focus ranges. I mean a lot of people after playing with telephoto for some time understand that most of everyday pictures are located within wide and normal ranges. On the other hand for landscapes with crop it's usually enough to set f=8-11 in most situation, but in FF you need to choose between not enough DOF (8) and difraction losses (16-22), if I remember correctly (not an active photographer last few years), so it's always a hard choice. Anyway I think for some people (including me) FF is just need-to-reach achievement just to experience how it feels to use 35mm, as for many years before the digital era comes :)
In my opinion this "Crop is inferior" mentality comes from the older days, where lenses were made for film and performed poorly on cropped digital sensors, and the noise was a real problem. Nowadays even crop cameras have good dynamic range and high iso capabilites. I use both Fullframe (Eos R) and Crop (80D). FF is good for portraits, events, and really low light, and the Aps-c is really good for macro and for wildlife, because of the crop, and also functions as a secondary body if I shoot weddings or other events.
Thank you. You explained this in a way that makes total sense to me. The big take away for me is I am not at a disadvantage with a crop sensor. Thank you so much for this video.
Great job, Simon. Yours was the clearest explanation about depth-of-field that I have seen on TH-cam videos, and I've watched a few of them. I'm a real estate photographer and I own both micro 4/3's (Panasonic G9) cameras and a full frame (Panasonic S5). For my job, shallow DOF is not an issue (everything must be in focus), and I don't shoot in low light. Both sizes of cameras perform equally great in these conditions. Plus, I bought a 100-400 mm lens (200 - 800 full frame equivalent) for my G9 to have fun when I go bird watching. It's awesome! But my full frame is definitely better when, for instance, I pull over to the side of the road to shoot a longhorn steer over a fence. For that I want the blurry background. Edit: As Simon mentioned, focal length is one of the factors in depth of field, so even with a micro 4/3 camera I get shallow DOF (good bokeh!) when shooting with my 100-400mm lens.
Great video, it reminds me that back in the 90's, when I was working on machine vision systems for robotics applications, I got chatting to a Photographer who was disappointed with his Digital Cameras. After years of only using 35mm kit, and getting pretty comfortable with it, he didn't like having to rethink almost everything he did, when using his digital cameras. He couldn't re-use the lenses for his film cameras on his digital camera bodies and expect the same results, every combination had to be thought about. He asked when the industry would start producing digital cameras with sensors the same size as 35mm film, and I couldn't answer. At the time, the largest sensors I'd worked with were 3/4", but I had researched a 1" square sensor (which used a pair of piezo cells to physically nudge the die, to quadruple the effective resolution) and explained how much more expensive that was. I could explain how silicon lithography processes worked though, and how expensive, relatively speaking, such a large 'chip' would be, and how the likelihood of a single defect ruining a whole sensor die would push up the price even more, but I had no idea that it would take a decade before these problems were solved well enough that full frame cameras would hit the mainstream.
I love how knowledgeable you are, it's incredibly evident in your ability to simply, and efficiently, explain what, at first brush for me, a complicated topic. Thank you for sharing your expertise!
i love the fact you are unbiased on whatever you comment on. thanks, keep it up, im never going to be a great photoghrapher but am interested in getting better. my first experience in SLR was i was a tattooist (this is in the days of film) i bought the most expensive compact camera you could get at the time with the biggest zoom lens but could not get go pics of my tatts so i went into jessops (when they were still on the highstreet) and explained to the assistant my problem. he gave me a knowing look and gave me an SLR and said borrow this for your photos. what an eye opener, it was like night and day obviously i bought the camera (a canon D10) i quickly realised how much more you could do with an SLR. my camera now is a 2000d, yes i still use my phone for photos but it still cant compete with a DSLR
I swear your videos are literally reading my mind and answering all the questions I have. After watching multiple videos on your channel the hardest thing in photography now seems to be the pronunciation of your surname
Another great video. I went M 4/3 (Lumix G9) when I got back into photography 2 years ago. I did spend the $ to go with a few of the higher-quality Leica lenses. I like the lower weight factor due to some rotator cuff issues. I do miss the nighttime shots but with sports, street and wildlife photography as my main hobby, I'm very happy with my choice. I appreciate the fact you presented this in a non-judgemental way of comparing the variety of types of cameras. It is fun to shoot with the smaller, shorter M4/3 lens and have others look at you and wonder what you're shooting with when it is so much smaller than the full frame lens.
Hello and thank you for an informative compilation of "pros" and "cons" for sensor sized cameras. I have two crop sensor cameras: a Canon APS-C 80D and an Olympus OMD-E1 MkIII. I don't use a full frame camera, not because of it's features, but because of it's weight. I am losing my arm strength due to a very old war injury, so carrying a heavy lens+camera is not possible. I would love to be able to carry and use the larger sized sensor cameras just as you do. I am both a nature and astrophotographer as you. Your work and your TH-cam tutorials and information is excellent.
This is probably the best - and most concise video I've seen on this subject! I like to shoot full frame and crop sensor - it just depends on circumstances! Thanks for another great video.
Love the information. One thing that is great about new features for post processing is you can adjust and manipulate different factors of an image that takes away the need for some of the hardware we would need for those purposes. I bought a crop sensor camera in 2018 and have shot everything and made a business with that one camera. All the new updates to lightroom and photoshop have expanded how easily and quickly I can get very creative. And have my work stand out without buying expensive equipment. All I have is 3 lenses, 2 powerful strobes and 3 modifiers. And a 6 year old camera. And my customers are always blown away by my work. All thanks to post processing. I never feel bad standing next to someone with a full frame camera and 20k worth of lenses.
I needed to listen to this video again. Everyone else just talk about their own kind of photography. It is hard finding someone like you who understand that different kinds of photography work different and some characterisrics of the gear are more or less important than in other generes.
It's always nice to see someone explaining this in an honest manner and cutting through the bad info that has been spread for years. I think the DOF issue is such a big one that lingers out there.
The DoF arguments may be the best illustration of people's failure to understand the whole process. Any given lens produces the exact same image regardless of what's behind it. It's the choices of where to shoot from, what settings to use, and how to crop the image that determine the things so many people claim are caused by the sensor.
Simon, you nailed the question you pinned 8 minutes ago. I subscribed to your channel recently because of your effective delivery of photography concepts. Watching this video of yours was another revelation. Now I have a holistic view of crop sensors, and it provides a closer view of the subject but with a better pixel spread, depending on the camera specs being used. Thanks for sharing. Absolutely great learning. Keep up the excellent work. Thank you.
Brilliant lecture about Pros and Cons of different sensor sizes! Agree with every point you make Simon! I changed several times from mFT to full frame and back again. Three years ago I settled for Nikon's Z full frame system, and I am happy in every respect. Image quality is definetely better, which is important in landscape photography. I also can transform the full frame camera into an APS-C camera by cropping the files (DX- mode), which stretches the reach of my lenses.
I am trying EF lens on a 90D. They work well, and I may invest in a full frame. Maybe a used 5D MK iv, but I am in no hurry. I am getting great results off the 90D.
For me as an architect, I like my M4/3-Camera for it's transportability and small ultra wide lenses. And for private photos of nature, the same camera is good for a bigger depth of field. This is the reason, macros turn out better. I personally see no advantage of an full-frame-camera for me and my work.
Thanks for this. Very informative and clear for those who need to know. I used to only have crop sensor cameras. But I started longing for a shallower depth of field for subjects/objects closer to me. So I finally switched to full frame a few years ago. It's been amazing. I'm definitely getting better dynamic range too.
Wow, finally I found someone who explains things in a simple but professional way. Thank you, I have become a big fan of yours after only two videos! Keep up the good work.
I upgraded from APS-C to full-frame and I did not regret the choice for one second. It's hard to put in words and maybe it's a bias, but I like my full-frame images much more.
Former and current Nikon user. But when it comes to birds and wildlife, instead of replacing my D850 with a Z9 - and a monster 400 or 600 mm lens - I bought the OM1 and paired it with the 150-400mm (300-800mm ffe) 4.5 TC pro. Haven’t looked back. The combination of reach up to 1000mm at 5.6 and portability, as well as the speed and capabilities of the OM1, make this combo the premier bird and wildlife package on the market today. And I’m an old guy with lots of money - more money than brains, in fact - so cost is not a factor. And, contrary to the full frame fanboys, the IQ is fantastic, especially with the software available today. At first I hesitated to push ISO. But ETTR and high ISO cleans up beautifully - I have a chickadee take-off photo using pro-capture at 25600. Hope you give it a test drive, Simon. I think you will be surprised in the best of ways. Smaller, lighter, cheaper, better is the way to go.
I have a friend who has your same Olympus set up and his bird photos are phenomenal. He waited a while on a few lists to get the lens but it was worth it.
The same here. I had an R5 and 600mm F4. A great set up but the shear size and weight made me less inclined to use it. Photography became a chore. In the end I went for a smaller, lighter system and bought the OM-1 and 150-400mm TC. I'm enjoying my photography again.
Once again - a complex topic with a very clear explanation. I use micro four thirds because of the size, weight and cost of high quality lenses. Hand holding my 200-800mm equivalent lens is enough of a plus for me!
In 2023 is your Micro 4/3 system still lighter and cheaper than a full frame system? After saving for 7 years I decided to not invest into an Olympus setup and went with the Canon R5 and 100-500mm lens which is lighter and cheaper than the Olympus equivalent. The image quality is also A LOT better.
@@grahamfloyd3451 Really? The R5 is currently $3499 and weighs 738 grams (1.6 pounds), the 100-500mm is $2699 and weighs 1365 grams (3 pounds) while the OM-1 currently costs $1999 and weighs 599 grams (1.3 pounds), the 100-400mm (200-800mm full frame equivalent) is $1399 and weighs 1120 grams (2.4 pounds) or the 75-300mm (150-600mm full frame equivalent) is $499 and weighs 423 grams (14.92 oz). Your system cost $6198 and weighs 2103 grams (4.6 pounds) and the Olympus cost $3399 and weighs 1719 grams (3.7 pounds) or $2449 and 1022 grams (2.23 pounds) with the smaller lens. Except for pixel peepers, the difference in image quality won't be noticeable. The only huge advantage the R5 really has is that it's full frame which makes shallow depth of field and wide angle photography easier. Oh, and a lot of pixels for cropping. Edit: Also, a 45mp full frame sensor is going to have similar pixel density as a 20mp 4/3 sensor.
@@grahamfloyd3451 Which lenses are you referring to? The nearest Olympus equivalent is the 75-300mm (which would be 150-600 full frame), which costs about 25% of the price of the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM Len. That lens weighs three times the weight of the Olympus.
@@RoderickJMacdonald maybe he's speaking about comparison to 100-400, since he can crop his 100-500 easily with the high mpx of r5 to get up there to 750+ .
From being a news photojournalist in the 90's using 35mm film SLR, I upgraded to my very first digicam with 1/8" sensor (Olympus Camedia C500) shooting fashion models and insect macro in 2006. I remember clients comparing my nature outdoor shots under the sun with other photographers using bigger sensor cameras. People were hard pressed to tell which was taken with my 1/8 inch sensor camera and the crop sensor or even full frame shots of my friends (mostly Canon and Pentax users) when well lit shots are compared side by side (without pixel peeping of course!). So when it was time for me to buy a proper DSLR in 2010 I chose to go with the APS-C route with the Nikon D90 because of the type of photography that I often shoots - fashion shows that need full body to head-shots of the models on the ramp from the audience seat, close-up of wildlife and birds in-flight, insects macro, sports photography, discreet street photography and telephoto surveillance/ long shot photojournalism. I have several crop sensor DSLR in my arsenal, from Nikon D40, D70, D90 D3000, D300, D7100 and a Canon EOS 600D to play with, until 2019 when I decided to switch to mirrorless system for the portability and less weight baggage consideration. At the moment I'm using the Sony A6400 and an older Sony A6000 as backup body, and boy they could really follow-focus birds in flight in a lightweight package including small handheld standard telephoto zoom lenses! While I enjoy the benefits of crop sensor for tight shots, I might also add full frame system for the low light shooting capability in my indoor and studio photoshoots using ambient continuous lighting (probably the older Sony A9 or A7iii will do when older FX mirrorless bodies get cheaper)
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
What sized sensor are you using and why? I'd love to know! Always looking to know my viewers habits and gear to make better videos!
I went with the Sony a1 (full frame) mostly for fast auto focus and high frame rate. I'm not sure the 50 megapixels are doing me that much good based on last weeks video about affective megapixels. I also have a Sony a6600 for travel. Believe it or not, I absolutely love my small Sony RX 100 VI with a one inch sensor! It's not only very small and can literally fit in a pocket, it takes amazing photos! It does a fantastic job in respect to auto focus and depth of field, even at night. I took photos of Red Square (yes in Moscow, before Russia lost it's mind!) at night using it and they came out like I was a professional. I cropped the images to make them look like they were panorama shots. I then used an AI upscaler program (last weeks video subject) to give them enough detail to print to 8" x 24". I also use it in an underwater housing for scuba diving photos and videos. Once again, it does an amazing job with auto focus and wide depth of field, especially for small subjects and fast subjects. I know it can't match a full frame camera in the hands of a professional, but it makes me look good!!! 😁
I currently own four Canon dslr's. All are crop sensor. I found that crop sensor work fine for my needs and the cost difference between full frame and crop is ridiculous. I've had prints made into 24x36 posters with no loss of detail( to the average person viewing the poster). If I am concerned about sharpness then I'll have the file printed on canvas.
Also I am not limited on which type of lens I can use.
I switched to Fuji APSC a few years ago. On the one hand because of the price/performance ratio. On the other hand because of the weight. Whether at events or on hikes, etc., every gram counts for me. I also like the Fuji sensors and their image quality/look and how they are built. Regards
Full Frame and APS-C. I have a Sony A7 FF CSC and a Sony A77 APS-C DSLR. I love the flexibility of having access to better but more expensive E-mount glass and cheap second hand A-mount glass. The A77 is considerably bigger, but still performs really well and I can pick up excellent used A-mount glass for a fifth the price of equivalent E-mount lenses!
I'm on M43 sensor, because it is cheaper^^
I like this guy. Straight to the point, no obnoxious yelling/loud talking, just simple, concise explanations. Great video!
My photography mentor took me to Kenya (saved up for a year for that trip!) and demonstrated why he only shot crop sensor Nikon bodies. Instead of putting all his money into the newest full-frame gizmos, he put his money into the lenses. He used a Nikkor 400mm 2.8 lens on his crop sensor body and got reach and depth of field the rest of us could only dream of. Using the effective 600mm body/lens combo he grabbed a close-up portrait of a lion mid-roar. That photo was sold to CC Africa for one of their catalogs and paid for his entire trip. The body? A several years-old D200 that he shot until the camera wore out and then he got a D7100. I learned to stop reading internet reviews and megapixel comparisons. The proof was in the images.
TH-cam job is too sell you shit. Period.
The obsession with “gear” is a highly American phenomenon…no different from playing with firearms, invading countries, toppling govts and warmongering.
Its part of the Anglo American culture.
Created by the sneaky American EDWARD BERNAYS who shaped American consumers’ minds.
Great. For landscape it's the opposite: you normally need wide angle lenses to be wide.
Literally wildlife and sports are possibly the only types of photography that crop bodies excel vs full frame
Apart from wildlife & sports - covert & macro photography also prefers crop sensors.
While astro, landscape, real estate, and portrait/social/events photography prefer bigger wider sensors.
The thing that separates Simon from others… He gets to the point. Clear, concise, and thorough.
@fartpooboxohyeah8611 I mean, they are keeping their explanations VERY simple and rather short, so there isn't much leeway on how to explain it. I wouldn't be surprised if they both took their scripts from similar online resources (maybe WIkipedia).
Regarding the bokeh part, it’s the first time I see someone not only understanding but also demystify the concept of « point of confusion » without even mentioning it…
Thumbs up!!!
No kidding, captain obvious!
Usually takes him 1:15 seconds to do so.
Yes.
"Use what you have and go out there and take some amazing photos." That is the best photography advice I have heard in some time. The best way to hone your hobby/craft is best accomplished by doing. Thank you Simon!
Glad it was helpful!
That's ultimately the thing, the best camera will always be the camera that you have with you, even if there is a "better" camera in existence, if it's not in your hands, then it's not better.
This was very true in old times, when photography was something special. Now being an photoamateur is more about gadgets, less about taken photographs. Now every camera is good enough, so sure you can take an old one OM-D or a top one EOS R and take the same, good photo. Or maybe even with a smartphone... But where is the fun? Where is the satisfaction of riding a fiery horse? Nice looking photo? In 2024 when in one day we see more images than our grandparents in one year?
so true. use what you have or what you want/love. it doesnt matter if its a expensive camera or a cheap. just make the right art and have fun. thats it. no bullshit.
I use an a6000 as a hobbyist. I have a different profession that I enjoy, so this is just a hobby for me. Even though the a6000 is older,it is very very usable. I was going to spend over 1000 dollars to upgrade my body. But instead I bought better glass and bought topaz de-noise. I’m very glad I went this route as now I get amazing looking photos. Most of my issues I had were do to my knowledge and not my gear. Thanks to Simon. I am enjoying photography far more than I ever have before.
Another ‘no nonsense’, practical and easy to understand video, full of common sense! Keep up the excellent work Simon. Alun
thanks!
😅 this person is here always to copy paste his previous comment.....
Gotta give you props. As a m4/3 user I have to say that this is the most even-handed comparison of full frame vs crop/.small sensored cameras I've yet to hear/read. Well done.
Thanks very much!
Excellent instructor. Well done!
m4/3 is crap!!!!
@@SayWhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
Better than a cell phone camera and is great for travel.
@@SayWhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatwith the Olympus 300 f4 and the 12-100 pro you can get some very nice, extremely sharp photos. And neither costs ridiculous money either.
I doubt you could tell the difference between full frame and photos from those lenses paired with an om1.
If you shoot in a coal mine and are obsessed with toneh then yeah maybe m43 is crap.
This has to be one of the best explanations of the differences between crop and full size sensors. They need to have this video playing on a big screen in the lens section of every camera store.
There are lots of these channels, but after a few minutes I knew this is my guy. He knows his stuff and is very to the point. I love that.
very kind!
Simon is the best photography teacher on TH-cam.
Dang straight .
This is one if not the best photography channel in my opinion. No bullshit, pure knowledge👍
Too kind!
@@simon_dentremont I second that comment.....The best !
@@simon_dentremont I third it!
@@laninico Thanks very much!
@@rickkwitkoski1976 Thanks!
I started in photography with a sony a7r3 and a 16/35gm in which I exclusively do landscape photography. I do mountaineering and I go to places difficult to reach and high, and the sony in a snow storm suddenly turned off. Since then I sold my sony a6600 and bought the OM1 with the 12/40proII 2.8 and with its 50 megapixel handheld photography it does not detract at all in landscape photography, I also use it in macro with the 60mm and the new 90mm macro, and with the price of a 600 mm in ff buy the 40/150 pro and the 100/400 from Olympus. Nobody disputes the quality of FF but my om1 has been with me in very hostile places, snow storms, rain, at Montblanc, at the Gran Paradiso, etc... and it has never failed me. I barely use my Sony camera anymore. With the weight of this and two objectives I carry a camera and four Olympus objectives.
As explained by Tony Northrup: You get the same image with an APS-C camera by selecting a lens with a ~33% reduction in focal length and in F# (shoot from the same distance). So your 24 to 75mm F4 zoom on a full frame should be replaced with a 17-50 mm F2.8 zoom on an APS-C. The total light landing on the sensor will also be approximately matched. (If the number of pixels is the same on both cameras then the number of photons per pixel will match.) So simple. Unfortunately what Simon did NOT mention is that fast zoom lenses are difficult to find for APS-C cameras. An F4 zoom on an APS-C is a slow lens.
I totally agree with your final word. The best camera is the camera that you have with you and take pictures with.
I never comment on videos. But I must say that it's a pleasure to listen to you and see you explain your points. Densely packed content is appreciated. I skip over a lot of your competitors material trying to get to the point. They like talking more than I like listening. I really appreciate your content.
When I went from DSLR to Mirrorless I moved up from a crop sensor to a 46MP Full-Frame. I feel like with this combo I get the best of both worlds! When I need to crop in to a standard APS-C size, I still get a nice sharp 20 MP image.
That is why I got a Sony A7R4....26mp aps-c mode photos
True, but with a high megapixel APS-C camera, like the Canon R7 (32.5 megapixels, which is equivalent to about 80 megapixels in a full frame), you can take advantage of both worlds. You have the 1.6 crop built in (and still have all your pixels) AND you can crop in post, and still have plenty of pixels. The biggest disadvantage is dynamic range and high ISO noise. But photography is all about tradeoffs.
Why this channel doesn't have over 500k subscribers is one of youtubes great mystery.great accurate description of sensor size differences
I’ve only been at it 10 months! Give me a few more months! haha. thanks.
9:58 I’ve been arguing this with photographers for years. The people I’m arguing with always compare a 50mm full frame lens to a 50mm equivalent APS-C lens, using the same aperture value at the same distance, or just like your example, try to frame the exact same with the same lens using both sensor sizes to try and prove their point. Your video proved literally what I’ve been saying for a long time. Great video as always. I’ll send people to this video anytime that conversation gets brought up.
Yep, Where people get confused regarding depth of field between sensors is that there actually is no difference. Depth of field is determined only by the lens and where it is focused. For a given focal length, f/stop and focusing distance, the depth of field is equal regardless of the sensor size. The confusion lies because field of view of say a 50mm lens is equivalent to 75mm lens on APS-c, but all the other attributes of of the lens remain the same as a 50mm, and therefore not comparable to a full frame 75mm lens which would have a shallower DOF. Its is literally just a crop out the middle of a full frame sensor.
@@samuelsmith6804 which is why people also confuse f/stop with full frame and full frame equivalent with a crop sensor lens. It’s crazy how simple it all is, yet some really over think it too much and make a simple thing very confusing.
Lovely video. I am a terrible photographer because I don't get light/set-up/contrast/subject/depth of field etc, but I have high hopes to become average in 4-5 years. I have invested in the OM1 MKII and a few pro lenses because the other attempts with bridge/street/macro cameras could be junked as the cost was ''acceptable''.
Now I can't leave this alone and it's great fun being tutored on TH-cam with kind experts like you.
Thank you
Glad it was helpful!
The good news is that you know that you suck at so many level at the moment.
But I have faith in you that you will get from 'terrible' to 'quite bad' very soon if you work hard enough. And then, from 'quite bad' to 'people don't leave as many hateful comment when I post my picture on FB'.
And eventually...
One day, you will reach the: 'people pretend I'm good only because I have expensive gear' ranking. And THIS will be an awesome day!
Have fun in the process, life is too short!
Greeting from Montréal
I use an a6000 as a hobbyist. I have a different profession that I enjoy, so this is just a hobby for me. Even though the a6000 is older,it is very very usable. I was going to spend over 1000 dollars to upgrade my body. But instead I bought better glass and bought topaz de-noise. I’m very glad I went this route as now I get amazing looking photos. Most of my issues I had were do to my knowledge and not my gear. Thanks to Simon. I am enjoying photography far more than I ever have before.
Glass is king!
I'm a MFT guy and never regretted it. The majority of trips I do are on foot and the small size is a plus. But what really counts is the weight, or the lack of. Glass is heavy and after a 10Km trip to a location you will be happy about every gramm you don't have to carry back.
Many presenters on TH-cam offer information and opinions with a clear bias. Yours do not, which is something I appreciate. Your presentation on sensor size is a perfect example of your objective approach. You did not, for instance, immediately inform us that bigger is better as some presenters do. Instead, you provided the viewers with relevant information, contextualized it and then left it us to us to decide. Bravo!
Appreciate that
This is by far the best explanation I've seen about crop sensor and full frame. Clear, simple and to the point information.
I’m impressed that Simon cuts to the chase, gets to the point with a minimum of words. This shows high knowledge and experience with his subject matter. We get facts based on practical experience here, which is much more valuable than opinions, based on little or no practical knowledge or experience.
too kind!
Great video and videos. I use all three sensor sizes. If I am traveling by air, or if I am concerned about weather conditions.and know I need to be on foot for a long time...Olympus OMD EM-1 mark II, micro 4/3's. if I'm traveling and don't have a weather concern: I bring my Canon R7 (APS-C) with full frame glass. And if I'm driving to a destination or to an event, and don't have a concern about packing light; I bring the Canon R6 along with my Olympus. Of all the systems, I have kept the Olympus gear the longest. I have shot Sony, Minolta, Nikon Fuji and now Canon, over the past 50 years. I gave up waiting on Nikon years ago when they delayed getting into mirrorless. I owned and used both FF and APS-C Sony, but the ergonomics of the cameras didn't suit me.
Thank you for the very informative video. There is a push from youtubers to convince everyone that real photographer has to use full frame and the crop cameras are inferior. However after switching from MFT to APS-C, I realized that what matters is to have a good camera that you have with you. Just because of bigger and heavier camera and lenses, I missed tons of shots. Just because of that, I switched back to MFT. Now I can carry my camera everywhere and also I can buy many high quality lenses that deliver fantastic results. I have seen many people buying aps-s or full frame camera to just pair it with one single low quality kit lens.
Again, thank you very much for fantastic videos.
I sold my Sony A7III and bought FujiFilm X-T3 and couldn't be happier. I shoot mostly landscapes and shooting with the camera is so much fun. The only difference real difference I perceive between FF and APS-C is that every time I change lenses I have to calculate the focal length equivalents so that I know what fov the lens has.
label maker that info on the hood or caps
For me it is the other way around... I used APSC for about 5 years and got used to it. Now that I upgraded to full frame I have to calculate the focal length equivalents 😅
Same here I sold all my Full Frame Nikon gear and bought a Fuji X-T3 and Fuji EX2. I don't miss FF at all. I also own a print shop and the difference is so small in printing large images nobody can tell what was shot on FF vs Fuji APSC.
Why not X-T5 or X-T4? better battery and ibis, and the AF on the X-T5 is far superior not to mention 40mp.
@@stevenbamford5245 I got the X-T3 before X-T5 came out so that wasn't an option. I don't like the tilt screen and the slightly bigger size of the X-T4 although the ibis is quite a significant upgrade. Battery is really not a problem with X-T3, at least not for me, it usually lasts me a few days. 26 Mpx is plenty and the autofocus is quite good already.
Your objective assessment is one of the things that keeps bringing me back. Just the facts please. Simplicity and accuracy in presentation are a great skill not often seen. Thank you. You make it seem so easy, but so well thought out. I'm an APS-C user which I chose for reasons of cost, size and weight. I'm 70 years old and one-handed. Size and weight are critical issues. I bought the gear a couple of years ago new and have no regrets. Well... weather sealing would have been nice. I cope.
I am a professional multimedia guy at a local university and this was a nice refresher, details escape me over time. Appreciate your education!
After 20 years i'm upgrading my EOS 1D Mark ii to a EOS R6 Mark II. I have some amazing photos with my old camerra and Im very exiting to take it to the next level using my very expesive lenses. Thank Simon for you videos. They are great!
Finally someone said it correctly. I love the fact you do understand both the physics aspects and art of taking photos. I would maybe mention that to simulate same crop you have to have "shorter" lens on your crop sensor - therefore the distortion introduced will be different.
I do family photos, some landscapes and a bit of street. Now with 80D and 18-135 lens. But know internally that my go-to these days would be R5 and RF 24-240 just to have all-in-one package ready to do everything anytime
I am using a couple of Lumix GX8s (micro 4/3) for hobbyist wildlife and landscape photography, the light weight makes it practical to carry 2 of them with different lenses. An undocumented "feature" is that no-one takes much notice of a "toy" camera.
I watched many explanations/debates on the same subject. Your presentation is by far the best, easiest to understand, and best delivery style. Cheers!
I have never before found someone who could explain these things so clearly, without favoring 1 over the other. I really like the "different tools for different jobs" mindset in your videos.
Very nice work!
Glad it was helpful!
The fact that you provide these videos for free is amazing, So much information packed in such a short time and delivered so clearly. Thank you so much!
Glad you like them!
I use M4/3. After having used it as an amature for 10 years I don't think I would change. The small form factor, low cost and features that exceed my skill level make it a really good fit for me.
Would it be good for nature/landscape photography?
While not something I do I have heard it is good for wild life photography. I enjoy hiking/biking/kayaking and the weight and size difference has grown in importance to me over the years. Most lens will fit one to a coat or cargo pants pocket and the body is small enough that with a 20mm (40mm equivalent) prime lens it is very compact and portable (It almost fits in my coat pocket). All this means that I can carry a couple of lenses and the camera on my person without an extra bag or with a small bag at worst. As for quality I have printed my photos as large as 16x20(inches) and they look really good. I could go bigger also but never have needed to. If you are new to photography I would probably recommend you go with a m4/3 over a more expensive platform until you know what you features are most important to you but your mileage may vary.
another benefit of crop sensors : sice you need a smaller focal length to emulate the same angle of view compared to full frame cameras, you can run into situation where the focal lenght is small enough that you could get a very small focus distance, as close focusing capabilities degrade when the focal length increases.
Also there is something I wanna add about the size and weight : Brands are not taking the same approach when it comes to APS-C, and recently it has gotten a bit worse.
Before, in the DSLR days, we had APS-C cameras that could be entry level, with entry level lenses. But we also had pro level cameras that were made specifically to take advantage of a crop sensor (like the 7D line from Canon, D300/D500 cameras from Nikon) as well as prosumer cameras that were the mid/high end of consumer cameras (80D, 90D or the whole D7000 line). What made these cameras such good platforms is that you could use the APS-C glass that was purpose built for them(DX lenses from Nikon, EF-S lenses from Canon), but you could also use the full frame glass on there if you needed more reach or better image quality.
But these times are kinda over. Nowadays, the crop sensor market is a lot more dull compared to what it was 5 years ago. The best contender in the APS-C space by far is Fujifilm, with very high quality APS-C cameras, and purpose-built APS-C glass that is very good whithout breaking the bank like a Sony GM lens would. The problem with that system, is that you're basically locking yourself in APS-C as Fujifilm doesn't have any full frame cameras. In firm second place comes Sony, with a good range of lenses, but aging camera bodies that will limit the potential of the whole system and are just here to be a kickstarter to the E mount ecosystem, ultimately pushing people towards full frame if they want basic prosumer features like dual card slots.
Canon and Nikon have taken the exact same approach witht their mirrorless APS-C cameras as you have pretty decent cameras (especially on Canon's side with the R7 and R10) but you don't have any glass for it except kit lenses, so if you want good quality glass you'll have to get a full frame lens, and at this point you'd give up the advantage in size and weight that those camera systems would offer.
Anyway, this was an outstanding video, with no nonsense and no further confusion added on top of that very controversial subject ! I've been trying to get this right at my level for the last few months and realised that most of the confusion came from youtubers that tried to explain something they didn't fully understand in the first place. You sir, know what you're talking about and it shows!
Great additions!
You could add Pentax, they still have great new APS-C bodies and glass. But of course, it's DSLR only and the speed of development is close to a standstill. Nowadays.
Agree 100% on Fuji...they've taken a really unique approach. The best crop sensor platform, high quality lenses for days, and then skipping right over full frame and going straight to medium format ($$$!) I love the cameras so much that I want to stay with their system but with the kind of photography I do, I'm always going to have one eye on the full frame Nikon Z and Canon R stuff...
The good thing about Canon is that their older EF-S lenses work great on their RF-S cameras. There's great entry level glass available, such as the 24mm 2.8 STM and the 55-250 IS STM. Sure, you need an adapter and they typically aren't as compact as native lenses, but for now, they are a great alternative. I recently switched to an R7, and I only own two R lenses currently (16mm and 18-150mm). For the rest, I am still using adapter EF lenses (24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 10-18mm, 55-250).
One thing to keep in mind with using full frame lenses on APS-C is that a decent FF lens may look terrible on APS-C, due to the much smaller pixel size. Only the sharpest full frame lenses will look good on a high resolution crop camera - the R7 has the same pixel density as a 80+MP full frame camera...
Agreed.that’s why I’m invested in Olympus. Just one sensor size so no crappy lenses for step kid like crop sensor bodies
Excellent presentation and very non-biased. As a long time amateur photographer using Olympus micro four thirds gear, I prefer it for size and cost considerations. But I know the system has both pros and cons as any camera system. At this stage, I'm more concerned about developing my "eye" and post processing skills rather than spending lots of money chasing sensor size and megapixel count. This video is one of the best, if not the best at presenting an overview of the various sensor sizes. Thanks!
Simon’s explanations are much clearer than everyone else’s and correct where many others are wrong or confusing
Content is KING: Your dialog is for learning, your presentation is A++ teacher....a winning combination. I love to learn from you, just like others have said. Me, I am a situational photographer. I see it, I take it, I make sure to sell it. My camera of choice: Fuji X T-5 with 35mm 1.4; 70-300 with 1.4 teleconverter; 16-80mm ; 30mm 2.8 macro. I often go back and relisten so I can absorb more...thank you.
Simon, not sure you'll see this but its worth the effort. Of all the channels I scour to master the craft, you have some of the most illusory videos here, so thank you for your efforts.
I'm a Director and DP in LA, and have been committed to the craft for over 15 years now, and I'm still learning.
My mom is an amatuer wildlife photographer, and in the last 10 years, has progressed far enough that her photos outshine anything I could hope to capture. Im going to show her your channel tomorrow so that she has you a resource, as well as myself. You give us the information we need.
Very welcome!
Dear Simon. Your explanations are like someone asks you and you give the answers to the point without any extra telling and without missing a thing. Thank you very much.
APS-C works fine for me for all the reasons you mentioned - size, weight, cost, and what I use my photography for as an amateur hobbyist. I always enjoy the combination of your narrative and illustration that results in those AHA! moments, even for subjects we have read about and listened to others talk about many times! Great teaching! Thanks!
if you have great light all the time or use flash theyre fine but in low light and high iso theyre garbage.. also i have a newer one and it wont use full frame lenses.. it adds a ring around the picture digitally so it doesnt work.. a crop sensor should be able to use a full frame lens but this one seriously adds a black ring.. thats only supposed to happen if you use a crop sensor lens on a full frame.. and it also wont let me dial in 1/3 stop isos.. wtf..
Lol haha. Not all apsc sensors all garbage. Also panasonic lumix gh6 M4/3 has really good low light performance..
@commendatore2516 I'm actually not that knowledgeable on cameras and lenses so I would suggest you ask Simon!
This is the best explanation of Crop vs Full Frame that I've heard. I imagine it took some time to really figure out how to explain this so concisely. Either that or you're just that natural of a teacher.
You're the clearest, most objective photography teacher I've ever watched. Great video.
I just like to say I REALLY appreciate your patience in explaining full-frame and crop sensor dynamics. Never understood it THIS CLEARLY until now. Thank you, Sir!
What a great video. No fluff, just pure honesty and knowledge. I like that you used examples for why even some professionals would choose crop over full frame!
Simon, this is absolutely the most balanced description on this subject I've seen. I find it faultless. My primary ecosystem is M43, but I have gear in all three main sensor systems. My reasoning for M43 is pretty simple - it takes great pictures, and weighs far less. The only thing I would comment on - M43 has a professional tier of bodies and lenses with all the things you mentioned - great weather sealing, superior optics, etc. I would love to see your take on the OM-1 with one of the nice pro lenses...
I am a retired film photographer, who transitioned to digital only for the last decade. When I say that I mean to a DSLR. I have two APS-C DSLRs but I now prefer a smaller sensor because I can wear it on my belt. Also when I am out shooting no one interrupts me. My favorite now is a recent purchase of a Nikon P310. It is a lot like using an older range finder camera in size and the f stop on the wide is 1.8. I've owned a number of these little cameras but this one with full manual and similar menus to my DSLRs is now my go to. Since impressing people has no meaning now it fulfills what I want when I travel of even when I'm home.
Simon, I found you through Gavin Hardcastle. Finally, a person who doesn't dump all over anyone not using the same camera/sensor size they do! Must be because you're a Maritimer like me. Your attitude is more likely to make me stop and think about what I need to get the results I want rather than jumping from system to system like a frenzied lemming. And you have a great ability to cut through the fog of myth and misinformation that exists out there. Keep up the great content.
Thanks neighbor! And now I owe Gavin more chocolate…
@@simon_dentremont 😂That guy needs to go to chocolate rehab...
You're a natural teacher. Thanks so much. I've been using a crop sensor for years (portability) but have been thinking about full frame. I have a trip to Alaska next year and would love to have a crop sensor on one hip and a full frame / travel tripod on the other. I guess you always want what you don't have.
Glad it was helpful!
Sensor crop factor finally clicked for me. Thank you for such great and easy to understand explanation.
Glad it was helpful!
Full frame is definitely better, I used to think that I'd never own a FF camera because of how good the cropped sensors were, but I was wrong. Granted, I probably couldn't have afforded a full frame sensor anyways, but you get a tremendous amount of flexibility when you have a FF sensor to work with. You can downsize things a bit for noise reduction, or you can crop it at amounts between 1.x and the typical 1.6x that cropped sensors tend to be. And you generally just have more pixels to work with.
This is true. I was m4/3 for 10 years. I upgraded to FF a few months ago and the differences are astounding. Sad thing is that my old 4/3 gear went straight to the garbage. Nobody is going to want to spend more than a few dollars for used m4/3 gear - used market is weak.
This video is gold .my man explains and simplifies what you want only .no filler talks no ads and no nonsense
Your videos are the gold standard.
Awesome take on the topic! I like you don't choose one sensor in the end of the video as most people do. I personally switched from Canon Fullframe to Lumix M43. For example, I have an optically perfect Leica 200/2.8 paired with 1.4x TC, reaching almost 600 mm with the crop factor. Paired with the Lumix G9, the whole setup is weather sealed. It's an extremely good build quality, and all for a fracture of a FF lens + body price. Another great portrait / product lens is Leica 42,5/1.2 which is an absolute treasure for me. There might be quite a noise issue on the higher ISO, but there are many brands as Topaz Labs so I can easily crop it, denoise it, then enlarge it. Or I can also use the 80Mpx mode on the Lumix G9 which really allows me to crop deep in the picture. I'm currently saving up for the new OM 90/3.5 macro which gets up to 2:1 magnification (not 4:1 as often wrongly mentioned), weather sealed, with AF so I can do bracketing right in the camera... I'm happy with this system and that's the most important thing. :-)
I definitely needed this advice, and the rest of your channel has been equally helpful.
As an amateur photographer, my greatest worry has been that my 15-year old crop sensor camera is holding me back from progressing to a professional level.
I've come to realize that gear-wise, the lens is more important than the camera, and technique, practice, and passion will get us far.
As you said, the best camera for you is the one you have in your hand and you use.
Great advice in these videos, thanks for sharing!
Awesome video ! As an amateur enthusiast, I went the M4/3 route for size so traveling was much easier. I also got a M4/3 with weather sealing and a fair bit of pro features like focus stacking. This is the best photography channel, keep up the great content !!
Thanks for sharing!
I have a Lumix GX8 (micro 4/3) that I use for bird photography with a Panasonic/Leica 100-400 lens. With the crop factor the effective focal length is 200-800, and it’s MUCH smaller than the 500 mm lens that Simon showed (much cheaper too, probably). The nicest part is that the OIS on the lens works with the OIS on the camera to practically eliminate camera shake, so I can shoot with a shoulder stock.
@@timmotz2827 I have the same lens I use on my Olympus/OM System bodies and it's jaw-dropping to see that incredibly large 500mm lens Simon uses. I can't imagine lugging that around on a hike for nature photography.
@@gregfeeler6910 Well, he's younger than me and probably in much better shape. 🙂
I once knew a sports photographer who worked carrying two large Nikon bodies with very large telephotos on them draped around his neck. he would shoot handheld and always got awesome images. He was actually a fairly small guy, but again, probably in much better shape.
Would it be good for landscape photography in nature?
Thank you. One of the best videos on this topic.
I too have a Canon 7Dmkii and Canon M50 and absolutely love them. Travelled the world with them and shot everything from wildlife to cityscapes, landscapes, concerts and weddings.
The issue is not the sensor, it is people not understanding the different sensor types and how to get the best out of them, and not being prepared with the correct equipment for what they are doing
I have never seen it explained so well with raw facts and demonstrations. really solidified my choice to stick with crop sensors for wildlife. Thank you for how you do what you do.
I wish I found your channel 13 years ago when I started photography. Everything is explained so clearly with no fuss and complicated theory, exactly what a beginner needs (needed in my case). Keep up the great work. Merci Simon!
I’ve only been at it 10 months! haha
Finally, a video that delivers the information I need without hype and glitz. Thank you!
Your teaching style, demeanor, and delivery are exceptional. Smart. Concise. Correct. Subbed!
I actually bought an APSC camera when I could not afford the fullframe that I really wanted, and bought the fullframe a few years later. Now I have both.
Another great video. Simply explained and factual. Well done.
I don't need prime fixed lens pin sharpness. I can't justify the cost of one, less alone a set of them. Nor do I want to be changing lenses in bad environments. Then again I do mainly 'grab' shots, so fiddling about would mean missed shots and looking with envy at the photo taken on a mobile phone!
My priorities are: photos (rarely video), above average IQ, price and weight.
Here's what I've done:
Canon R (FF 26MP) with RF 24-240mm
Canon R50 (APS-C 24MP) with RF 100-400 (Effective 160- 660)
Canon 430III flash
The two lenses are FF and fully interchangeable with both bodies.
I'm sure other brands can do similar.
Meets my IQ needs. I've been using zooms for decades and not once has anyone said - oh, you took that with a zoom, didn't you! Not once. The two zooms above have received good reviews. My own research convinced me. Bought a Canon budget 50mm prime for portraits. The Tamron set at 50mm outperformed it. A cropped image (as low as 10MP) from an RP + 24-240 outperformed my old 650D (APS-C 18MP)+ Tamron 18-270 (effective 24-450) at any setting, inside and outside. BTW I loved that Tamron.
Meets my budget. Shopping around, circa $AUD5,000 / $USD3,500.
Meets my weight needs. My backpack for this + spare batts, SD cards, flash + bats, USB-A chargers, etc = 3.5Kg / 7.5 pounds. Most planes have 7kg on board limits. Plenty there for other fragile items, etc!
Satisfies all the other debates. FF v APS (C), megapixels v optical cropping by zoom / change lens v cropping in edit.
For the RAW(-C) v JPEG I use the body setting on my 650D and the RP to take both. Increases lag time but rarely bothers me. Always found the JPEGs Ok. No time for RAW-(C) editing etc. Most of the RP JPEGs only need size cropping. Pretty good straight out of the camera. The RP body does lens corrections for me.
Spare battery and 80g portable USB-A charger fixes the 'small' battery issue. Having the same battery helps too.
The Tamron and Canon RP lenses have IS. Great. So no IBIS is not an issue either.
Mirrorless means EVF, so max F-stop does not affect seeing composition.
The down sides?
I can't get the bokah of a f/2.8 85mm prime. Or can I? I can use different zoom settings on one or the other body with one or the other lens and get a very similar effect!
These bodies are not ideal for video, fps, nor some sports and it only has one SD slot. I knew that. No problem because I don't do / need that! Both have enough features for my travels.
Low light with F5.6/8 max open. These days ISOs over 100 are not a real issue. Even 1600 is very good. I come from an era when ISO400 film was grainy (noise). Digital ISO 1600 is fairly comparable to film ISO100.
Thanks for that! I started out with a Nikon D7200 but bought lenses for a full frame camera. When I finally moved up to a full frame D780 I was surprised and mildly disappointed that my reach was diminished with my lenses. To regain that reach I sometimes set the D780 to the smaller DX crop size. Now I know why the images were not as sharp as I had hoped. I'm glad I didn't sell the D7200. It still has a purpose.
Sometimes, I check if this is a Masterclass channel I'm watching. Thank you sir for giving us high quality photography episodes!
Wow, thanks!
Sometimes
Jason, I’m working on a video course for wildlife photography. Can I use your comment in promotional material, with attribution? Thanks
@@simon_dentremont I'd be honoured if you do sir!
Hi Simon. I like the clarity and unbiased nature of your explanations. Thank you - Robin (UK)
Many thanks!
Found your channel and love it for clear reasons: 1. You are smart, know the tech and are not afraid to talk about it on a high level. Astro stuff included. 2. The pacing of your videos are up-tempo and information packed. Keep it fast and dense. Love the channel.
That was by far the hands down best explanation of sensor sizes I've ever seen. I would add only one comment, you can get professional quality in crop sensor cameras. The Nikon D500, Canon 7D, Olympus/OMDS E-M1/OM-1 series, Panasonic GH series (for a long time regarded as one of the best video mirrorless cameras).
this is by far the best explanation on youtube. thank you very much. 👍
Nice video Simon!
The same way in which crop is better for wildlife photography, fullframe is better for almost all other everyday genres including landscapes where we need wide to normal focus ranges. I mean a lot of people after playing with telephoto for some time understand that most of everyday pictures are located within wide and normal ranges. On the other hand for landscapes with crop it's usually enough to set f=8-11 in most situation, but in FF you need to choose between not enough DOF (8) and difraction losses (16-22), if I remember correctly (not an active photographer last few years), so it's always a hard choice.
Anyway I think for some people (including me) FF is just need-to-reach achievement just to experience how it feels to use 35mm, as for many years before the digital era comes :)
In my opinion this "Crop is inferior" mentality comes from the older days, where lenses were made for film and performed poorly on cropped digital sensors, and the noise was a real problem. Nowadays even crop cameras have good dynamic range and high iso capabilites. I use both Fullframe (Eos R) and Crop (80D). FF is good for portraits, events, and really low light, and the Aps-c is really good for macro and for wildlife, because of the crop, and also functions as a secondary body if I shoot weddings or other events.
Thank you. You explained this in a way that makes total sense to me. The big take away for me is I am not at a disadvantage with a crop sensor. Thank you so much for this video.
Glad it was helpful!
Great job, Simon. Yours was the clearest explanation about depth-of-field that I have seen on TH-cam videos, and I've watched a few of them. I'm a real estate photographer and I own both micro 4/3's (Panasonic G9) cameras and a full frame (Panasonic S5). For my job, shallow DOF is not an issue (everything must be in focus), and I don't shoot in low light. Both sizes of cameras perform equally great in these conditions. Plus, I bought a 100-400 mm lens (200 - 800 full frame equivalent) for my G9 to have fun when I go bird watching. It's awesome! But my full frame is definitely better when, for instance, I pull over to the side of the road to shoot a longhorn steer over a fence. For that I want the blurry background.
Edit: As Simon mentioned, focal length is one of the factors in depth of field, so even with a micro 4/3 camera I get shallow DOF (good bokeh!) when shooting with my 100-400mm lens.
Great video, it reminds me that back in the 90's, when I was working on machine vision systems for robotics applications, I got chatting to a Photographer who was disappointed with his Digital Cameras. After years of only using 35mm kit, and getting pretty comfortable with it, he didn't like having to rethink almost everything he did, when using his digital cameras. He couldn't re-use the lenses for his film cameras on his digital camera bodies and expect the same results, every combination had to be thought about.
He asked when the industry would start producing digital cameras with sensors the same size as 35mm film, and I couldn't answer. At the time, the largest sensors I'd worked with were 3/4", but I had researched a 1" square sensor (which used a pair of piezo cells to physically nudge the die, to quadruple the effective resolution) and explained how much more expensive that was. I could explain how silicon lithography processes worked though, and how expensive, relatively speaking, such a large 'chip' would be, and how the likelihood of a single defect ruining a whole sensor die would push up the price even more, but I had no idea that it would take a decade before these problems were solved well enough that full frame cameras would hit the mainstream.
I love how knowledgeable you are, it's incredibly evident in your ability to simply, and efficiently, explain what, at first brush for me, a complicated topic. Thank you for sharing your expertise!
i love the fact you are unbiased on whatever you comment on. thanks, keep it up, im never going to be a great photoghrapher but am interested in getting better. my first experience in SLR was i was a tattooist (this is in the days of film) i bought the most expensive compact camera you could get at the time with the biggest zoom lens but could not get go pics of my tatts so i went into jessops (when they were still on the highstreet) and explained to the assistant my problem. he gave me a knowing look and gave me an SLR and said borrow this for your photos. what an eye opener, it was like night and day obviously i bought the camera (a canon D10) i quickly realised how much more you could do with an SLR. my camera now is a 2000d, yes i still use my phone for photos but it still cant compete with a DSLR
I swear your videos are literally reading my mind and answering all the questions I have. After watching multiple videos on your channel the hardest thing in photography now seems to be the pronunciation of your surname
haha thanks.
Another great video. I went M 4/3 (Lumix G9) when I got back into photography 2 years ago. I did spend the $ to go with a few of the higher-quality Leica lenses. I like the lower weight factor due to some rotator cuff issues. I do miss the nighttime shots but with sports, street and wildlife photography as my main hobby, I'm very happy with my choice. I appreciate the fact you presented this in a non-judgemental way of comparing the variety of types of cameras. It is fun to shoot with the smaller, shorter M4/3 lens and have others look at you and wonder what you're shooting with when it is so much smaller than the full frame lens.
Hello and thank you for an informative compilation of "pros" and "cons" for sensor sized cameras. I have two crop sensor cameras: a Canon APS-C 80D and an Olympus OMD-E1 MkIII. I don't use a full frame camera, not because of it's features, but because of it's weight. I am losing my arm strength due to a very old war injury, so carrying a heavy lens+camera is not possible. I would love to be able to carry and use the larger sized sensor cameras just as you do. I am both a nature and astrophotographer as you. Your work and your TH-cam tutorials and information is excellent.
This is probably the best - and most concise video I've seen on this subject! I like to shoot full frame and crop sensor - it just depends on circumstances! Thanks for another great video.
Love the information. One thing that is great about new features for post processing is you can adjust and manipulate different factors of an image that takes away the need for some of the hardware we would need for those purposes. I bought a crop sensor camera in 2018 and have shot everything and made a business with that one camera. All the new updates to lightroom and photoshop have expanded how easily and quickly I can get very creative. And have my work stand out without buying expensive equipment. All I have is 3 lenses, 2 powerful strobes and 3 modifiers. And a 6 year old camera. And my customers are always blown away by my work. All thanks to post processing. I never feel bad standing next to someone with a full frame camera and 20k worth of lenses.
I have watched so many videos on full frame versus crop sensor and this one was the most informative, helpful and easy to understand. Thank you
I needed to listen to this video again.
Everyone else just talk about their own kind of photography.
It is hard finding someone like you who understand that different kinds of photography work different and some characterisrics of the gear are more or less important than in other generes.
It's always nice to see someone explaining this in an honest manner and cutting through the bad info that has been spread for years. I think the DOF issue is such a big one that lingers out there.
The DoF arguments may be the best illustration of people's failure to understand the whole process. Any given lens produces the exact same image regardless of what's behind it. It's the choices of where to shoot from, what settings to use, and how to crop the image that determine the things so many people claim are caused by the sensor.
Simon, you nailed the question you pinned 8 minutes ago. I subscribed to your channel recently because of your effective delivery of photography concepts. Watching this video of yours was another revelation. Now I have a holistic view of crop sensors, and it provides a closer view of the subject but with a better pixel spread, depending on the camera specs being used. Thanks for sharing. Absolutely great learning. Keep up the excellent work. Thank you.
9:58 is the example & explanation I've been trying to find for years. Thank you!
First time I see a clear and intelligent explanation about the subject.
Congratulations Simon
Brilliant lecture about Pros and Cons of different sensor sizes! Agree with every point you make Simon! I changed several times from mFT to full frame and back again. Three years ago I settled for Nikon's Z full frame system, and I am happy in every respect. Image quality is definetely better, which is important in landscape photography. I also can transform the full frame camera into an APS-C camera by cropping the files (DX- mode), which stretches the reach of my lenses.
Excellent
I am trying EF lens on a 90D. They work well, and I may invest in a full frame. Maybe a used 5D MK iv, but I am in no hurry. I am getting great results off the 90D.
For me as an architect, I like my M4/3-Camera for it's transportability and small ultra wide lenses. And for private photos of nature, the same camera is good for a bigger depth of field. This is the reason, macros turn out better. I personally see no advantage of an full-frame-camera for me and my work.
Thanks for this. Very informative and clear for those who need to know. I used to only have crop sensor cameras. But I started longing for a shallower depth of field for subjects/objects closer to me. So I finally switched to full frame a few years ago. It's been amazing. I'm definitely getting better dynamic range too.
Wow, finally I found someone who explains things in a simple but professional way. Thank you, I have become a big fan of yours after only two videos! Keep up the good work.
Wow, thanks!
I upgraded from APS-C to full-frame and I did not regret the choice for one second. It's hard to put in words and maybe it's a bias, but I like my full-frame images much more.
I found it's the dof for me, a 1.8 has a shallower dof on FF
Bigger pixels equals more gooder pictures.
Former and current Nikon user. But when it comes to birds and wildlife, instead of replacing my D850 with a Z9 - and a monster 400 or 600 mm lens - I bought the OM1 and paired it with the 150-400mm (300-800mm ffe) 4.5 TC pro. Haven’t looked back. The combination of reach up to 1000mm at 5.6 and portability, as well as the speed and capabilities of the OM1, make this combo the premier bird and wildlife package on the market today.
And I’m an old guy with lots of money - more money than brains, in fact - so cost is not a factor.
And, contrary to the full frame fanboys, the IQ is fantastic, especially with the software available today. At first I hesitated to push ISO. But ETTR and high ISO cleans up beautifully - I have a chickadee take-off photo using pro-capture at 25600.
Hope you give it a test drive, Simon. I think you will be surprised in the best of ways. Smaller, lighter, cheaper, better is the way to go.
I have a friend who has your same Olympus set up and his bird photos are phenomenal. He waited a while on a few lists to get the lens but it was worth it.
I can only agree!
The same here. I had an R5 and 600mm F4. A great set up but the shear size and weight made me less inclined to use it. Photography became a chore. In the end I went for a smaller, lighter system and bought the OM-1 and 150-400mm TC. I'm enjoying my photography again.
Once again - a complex topic with a very clear explanation. I use micro four thirds because of the size, weight and cost of high quality lenses. Hand holding my 200-800mm equivalent lens is enough of a plus for me!
Thanks for sharing!
In 2023 is your Micro 4/3 system still lighter and cheaper than a full frame system? After saving for 7 years I decided to not invest into an Olympus setup and went with the Canon R5 and 100-500mm lens which is lighter and cheaper than the Olympus equivalent. The image quality is also A LOT better.
@@grahamfloyd3451 Really? The R5 is currently $3499 and weighs 738 grams (1.6 pounds), the 100-500mm is $2699 and weighs 1365 grams (3 pounds) while the OM-1 currently costs $1999 and weighs 599 grams (1.3 pounds), the 100-400mm (200-800mm full frame equivalent) is $1399 and weighs 1120 grams (2.4 pounds) or the 75-300mm (150-600mm full frame equivalent) is $499 and weighs 423 grams (14.92 oz). Your system cost $6198 and weighs 2103 grams (4.6 pounds) and the Olympus cost $3399 and weighs 1719 grams (3.7 pounds) or $2449 and 1022 grams (2.23 pounds) with the smaller lens. Except for pixel peepers, the difference in image quality won't be noticeable. The only huge advantage the R5 really has is that it's full frame which makes shallow depth of field and wide angle photography easier. Oh, and a lot of pixels for cropping.
Edit: Also, a 45mp full frame sensor is going to have similar pixel density as a 20mp 4/3 sensor.
@@grahamfloyd3451 Which lenses are you referring to? The nearest Olympus equivalent is the 75-300mm (which would be 150-600 full frame), which costs about 25% of the price of the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM Len. That lens weighs three times the weight of the Olympus.
@@RoderickJMacdonald maybe he's speaking about comparison to 100-400, since he can crop his 100-500 easily with the high mpx of r5 to get up there to 750+ .
I've always been thankful that I started my career in the days of 35mm manual-focus cameras.
From being a news photojournalist in the 90's using 35mm film SLR, I upgraded to my very first digicam with 1/8" sensor (Olympus Camedia C500) shooting fashion models and insect macro in 2006. I remember clients comparing my nature outdoor shots under the sun with other photographers using bigger sensor cameras. People were hard pressed to tell which was taken with my 1/8 inch sensor camera and the crop sensor or even full frame shots of my friends (mostly Canon and Pentax users) when well lit shots are compared side by side (without pixel peeping of course!). So when it was time for me to buy a proper DSLR in 2010 I chose to go with the APS-C route with the Nikon D90 because of the type of photography that I often shoots - fashion shows that need full body to head-shots of the models on the ramp from the audience seat, close-up of wildlife and birds in-flight, insects macro, sports photography, discreet street photography and telephoto surveillance/ long shot photojournalism. I have several crop sensor DSLR in my arsenal, from Nikon D40, D70, D90 D3000, D300, D7100 and a Canon EOS 600D to play with, until 2019 when I decided to switch to mirrorless system for the portability and less weight baggage consideration. At the moment I'm using the Sony A6400 and an older Sony A6000 as backup body, and boy they could really follow-focus birds in flight in a lightweight package including small handheld standard telephoto zoom lenses! While I enjoy the benefits of crop sensor for tight shots, I might also add full frame system for the low light shooting capability in my indoor and studio photoshoots using ambient continuous lighting (probably the older Sony A9 or A7iii will do when older FX mirrorless bodies get cheaper)