I currently work with the OM-1 MK II alongside my Sony full-frame gear. Both systems have their merits, but it's important to recognize the inherent relationship between crop factor, focal length, and aperture - this affects not only image characteristics but also the price and size of equipment, which are dictated by physics. If you’re comfortable with the trade-offs, such as a smaller aperture, greater depth of field, and increased noise, crop sensor systems can offer significant advantages in terms of affordability and portability. Ultimately, it’s not just about the sensor size but the synergy between sensor and lens that defines photographic outcomes. See this: th-cam.com/video/f5zN6NVx-hY/w-d-xo.html Noise isn't about pixel size, it depends on the signal-to-noise ratio, which is determined by how much light (signal) is captured versus the inherent noise in the camera. Larger sensors, regardless of pixel density, collect more light due to their size, giving them an advantage in terms of signal-to-noise ratio. However, when factoring in aperture and crop, this can equalize. For example, a 300mm f/2 lens on a crop sensor provides the same SNR as a 600mm f/4 on a full-frame sensor, resulting in the same noise and shutter speed. The OM-1 MK II's base ISO is 200 and you can't get less noise that this on the camera, however, my Sony full-frame gear, at the same base ISO of 200 captures four times the light at any given shutter speed and aperture (exposure) and gets lower noise levels. See this: th-cam.com/video/VSFqCnzIe9M/w-d-xo.html
I bought a Nikon D7500 crop sensor camera this year and the low light performance is outstanding along with the quality of the photos that it takes. The bonus is the fact that many people are selling off their lenses to buy the more expensive ones for their full frame cameras and I can pick up really good used lenses for a reasonable price. As I will never be a professional, a crop sensor camera with the latest technology is perfect for someone like me.
It's likely also influenced by the industry switch to mirrorless. Nikon is basically done with DSLR and going all in on mirrorless so anybody shopping for a new Nikon will likely go mirrorless with Z mount lenses. Sure FTZ exists but most will lean towards native lenses in the long run. The apsc market still seems huge, but it's all shifted to mirrorless now since that's where the newest tech and features are being developed. The D7500 definitely isn't in that category though. Great camera but missing a lot of features the current lineups have (such as pdaf and ibis). I agree with the sensor sentiment though, I never had any issues with low light on my D5600 and that included walking around at 2am taking photos around the city. The size and weight savings were worth it. In fact, I ended up doubling down and selling it last month to go even smaller with micro four thirds lol.
I use the pro series M4/3, but many years ago I finally understood one fundamental thing. 90% of the best photographs don't depend on HW at all, but on good composition, capturing the right moment and also luck. I've seen a lot of great photos taken with second hand digital cameras with resolutions as low as 5Mpix. Since then I don't deal with changing equipment, but I'm learning to take great photos. Even with a mobile phone...
Spot on. I’ve been a photographer for 40 yrs and when digital came along with my first DSLR in 2004 I endlessly chased every technical and sensor upgrade as they were released. But it didn’t make me a better photographer. In fact I started relying on the technology too much and thinking less about seeing the scene and getting good composition. It didn’t mean my photos sucked - just I was less involved leaving it to the technology. Now I’m enjoying using some older (and smaller) cameras with just one or two primes that I can carry everywhere and I’m enjoying photography more again. I even got one of the new Pentax 17 half frame film cameras - so light and very few decisions to be made with controls and a half frame vertical format is totally refreshing. It’s fun and the film images are good. Does the IQ compete with my 36mp full frame? No but I’m enjoying the experience more than I have in years and taking it places
You are falling into the old familiar trap of suggesting that "APS-C/MFT is for hobbyists and that full frame is for pros. This is a generalisation which serves any inexperienced photographer very poorly. I use the APS-C Fuji system for wedding (as a professional) and street photography as well as fine art landscape and architecture photography. Many other pros do as well. Whilst I might miss that little bit of extra low light performance, I have never had a client who has criticised my images for having a bit of noise and advised me to get a full frame system. Most people, unless they are compulsive pixel-peepers, could not tell the difference between an image shot on a modern ff or aps-c sensor. The massive advantage for me is the small size and portability of fuji system cameras an lenses.
So I'm an amateur photographer, for all around photography (landscape, wild life, street & travel, family events, grandchildren sports) would you recommend the XT5, XH2, or XH2s? I'm leaning towards XT5. Have you had any autofocus issues with your Fugi?
@@allenschneider1847 The XH2 and XH2S are designed as hybrid cameras - attractive if you make a lot of video as well as stills. XT5 is more orientated towards photographers in terms of its controls and rear screen. It has the same 40mp sensor as the XH2 and the same processing capabilities. I think the evf is has slightly lower resolution than the XH's. OThe XT5 is no slouch when it comes to video and costs less than the XH's. There are no autofocus issues with Fuji as far as I am aware. I have an XT5 and love it.
And you're making the same old assumption that the word "professional" means you are a better photographer or know more than an "amateur". I have been both. Using both full frame and crop. It doesn't have anything to do with your photos, other than the fact that you have/want to make money doing photography. Fuji works for you? Congrats, keep using it. My setup requires light strong wide angle lenses, and Fujis f1.4 are just as heavy as some of its full frame peers (so those at equivalent f2.0 aperture), so no, thank you. It's a choice, nothing more or less. Full frame has UNDENIABLE technical advantages over crop, there's no arguing about that, as you will agree I am sure.
I moved from FF to APS-C cameras a few years ago. As a hobby photographer of 50 or so years, I started on FF film cameras, which are coming back into fashion with youngsters... I liked my FF digital camera (Old Canon with CCD sensor) but it wasn't that good in low light.... I could take equally as crap photos on that as I can on my modern Sony cameras, but at least nowadays it is just age exhausting me, not the weight of my camera bag! Some folk get a bit tribal over make & format, which makes me chuckle... I just enjoy the hobby. Great video, have a new subscriber.
Thanks for the comment and subscribe. Really appreciate it. It’s been crazy reading the comments and seeing how vicious people are with brand vs brand and full frame vs crop. I run a couple of businesses and so can pretty much pick up whatever photography gear I fancy without worrying about getting it right as photography is my only hobby. I can’t imagine the stress people must be feeling about their purchases to be so vile to other people that they’re right and everyone else is wrong.
LOL have a look at mirrorless. Lighter body and lighter lenses. I'm very happy with weight v quality v price of my RP with RF 24-240. Far lighter than my Ricoh Singlex 35mm film with Tamron zoom from the 80s! I had a Fuji 6MP fixed zoom. Not bad. 'Upgraded' an 18MP mirrored DSLR. Better IQ but I lost so much that mirrorless offers. Got it back with an RP and RF24-240. Love them.
Always a hot topic, but in reality it doesn`t really matter. For beginners it`s irrelevant, once you find your thing in photography you can choose what suits you the best. And it doesn`t have to be fullframe. For example wildlife can benefit from the smaller cropped in sensor to give your lens more reach. Fullframe will always be better in gathering light and usually has the better fast prime lenses. If you want shallow depth of field, fullframe will do best. But APS-C also has some.
I am also an amateur and I use different systems, from full frame, M43 and even smaller sensors. When a photo is good, it is good regardless of the camera used. Weight and volume are very important factors when deciding what, when and how to photograph. And another fundamental thing, the optics, the sensor is not as important as good optics. And prime lenses are still superior to zooms, they are lighter and much cheaper.
bought an s5ii as my first ever camera, i am video first and photo second but i am astonished at how great the photos are and find myself taking more photos then video.
I'm a hobbyist photographer and I had an old DSLR crop sensor Canon. I noticed this year that I'm slowing down because it was old, and I looked at my different options. I eventually decided to buy the Canon r100 and to stay with a crop sensor instead of going full frame. The r100 is so small that I can travel with it effortlessly. Someday I will get a full frame camera just for the experience but I haven't really run into any disqualifying problems with crop sensors. (I'm also really amazed at the ISO range of the r100, considering I spent $237 on it.) Potentially, I might just jump from a crop sensor to medium format at some point.
On the DOF, you are right but I might add that not everybody needs that super blurry bokeh. Most of the times we need some context of where the subject is to tell better story. FF DOF also extremely shallow at F1.2 or below to the point that subject face or head are not even in 100% focus. and I personally find that weird and hard to work with. However, that is a territory APSC will never reach despite personal preference. An APSC great lenses like Viltrox Pro series 75mm F1.2 will do more than enough to blur the background and I doubt anyone can really tell a difference vs FF.
Yep, 100% agree. I’ve taken literally a couple of landscape photos that have benefited from any depth of field (flowers in foreground). Thanks for the comment!
You left out purchasing a used full frame vs. a brand new camera and lens and saving a bunch of money. I look for bargains in used equipment and have not been disappointed.
It's interesting that no one referred to 35mm as 'full frame' in the days of film cameras, when every camera club had at least one bore who looked down on everyone else because he he a Hasselblad or a Mamiya medium format camera, and everyone knows real photographers shot roll film and 35mm was for snaps and amateurs. 35mm became the standard for film photography not because it was some platonic ideal size, but because it allowed for reasonably convenient and portable movie cameras, which in turn meant that 35mm film was produced in vast lengths that could be conveniently packaged in lightproof cannisters for easy loading into stills cameras, which led to the development of the SLR as the ultimate convenient, portable interchangeable-lens camera by the late 80s (just before motor drives, vertical battery grips, and auto focus turned the likes of Canon's EOS series into monsters that challenged 5x4" plate cameras for bulk). These days, 'Full frame' is a marketing phrase: if 35mm is full frame, what does that make medium format, which is even fuller? There are trade-offs: smaller sensors mean smaller lenses for the equivalent field of view and light transmission, while larger sensors make it easier to achieve a shallow depth of field, should you want to do so. Larger sensors also have better high ISO performance, but that's only really relevant at about ISO 12800 (note to the young: in the days of film cameras, ISO 800 was considered pretty fast, and ISO 1200 was specialist fast film and you accepted the visible grain as an artist choice or compromise). Frankly, anyone getting into digital photography as a beginner now who allows themselves to be sold a 35mm sensor camera is either being oversold or wants a status symbol. Get a crop sensor camera (perhaps second hand), find out how and what you like to shoot, and only upgrade to a larger sensor if you really need it because your old gear is limiting in some way. Generally, if you have a half-decent camera (and pretty much all crop sensor cameras that have sold in decent numbers over the last 10-15 years are decent cameras), probably the best way to get better photos with £2500 is to do a course or go somewhere new and inspiring, rather than buying a new and expensive camera and starting again with a new instruction manual. Unless you really need low light performance, you'll probably appreciate smaller gear more than the ability to push up to ISO 25600. That and greater shallow depth of field are limits of smaller sensors dictated by physics, though in fact if you can't achieve pleasing bokeh with even a m43 camera and a F1.7 lens, you probably aren't going to get your money's worth out of a Sony a7 either.
I totally agree I have 4 APS-C cameras 2 are 6 megapixel DSLR CCD cameras from 2005& 2006. 2 cameras 25 megapixel CMOS sensor cameras. The newer cameras have more features and require less editing, higher ISO , faster autofocus. Do they take better pictures not particularly but I do like the better build quality.
They didn't refer to 35mm film as full frame because they just didn't, and so what if it was marketing? 35mm was BY FAR the most common format of film - - it's not even worth a comparison. So when digital cameras first started coming out, the sensors were smaller than what was the absolute industry standard among consumers. It wasn't until about 12-15 years after the first digital cameras came out that the first ones that had sensors the same size as 35mm film that they where simply christened "full frame" because they were the same size as the overwhelmingly most popular format of film on the market. Because up to that point, everything was smaller than that. It makes sense that every format/sensor size is based around what was for decades the most common film format in existence. The crop factor is based on 35mm film - or full frame. It's not a marketing tactic - it's just a standard that was chosen. It would make sense to base the crop factor on the absolute most popular format of film in existence. It has a crop factor of 1. Everything else is based around that. They called full frame sensors "full frame" because they came out LOOOOOOOOONG before medium format and larger digital sensors came out. Full frame was taken. This isn't some evil ploy. It just is what it is, and you are really getting WAY too butt hurt over this. The first digital camera that came out that was equal to the industry standard size of film was called "full frame". It was sort of a feat to make a viable digital sensor that was as large as the industry standard-sized film. Calling it "full frame" isn't nefarious.
@@willoughbykrenzteinburg Thanks for your response. Something can still be a marketing ploy without being nefarious. Sure, the production of a 35mm sensor is a significant technical achievement, and, yes, something for camera manufacturers to be proud of. Full frame sensors are marvels of technology and knock what could be achieved using a 35mm film camera into a cocked hat. The thing is, that's also true of m4/3 and APS-C sensors too. With film, if you wanted to shoot low light you paid a premium for ISO 1200 film and pushed it a a couple of stops (to about 4800) in processing and the results were as grainy as hell but it had a certain style to it. Even a ten-year old m4/3 sensor is capable of giving better low-light results than a 1980s film camera in inexperienced hands. The problem with concentrating on 'full frame' as the only medium for serious photographers is that you are setting the entry level for photography in the £2000+ range, which is totally bogus. True story: a couple of months ago I was in a university town in the UK, taking my son and his girlfriend out for lunch. Waiter in the restaurant, who's a student working part time to finance his studies, notices my camera and we get chatting about it. He says he'd love to get into photography but there's no way he can afford a camera like mine (lumix GX8, bought new with kit lens for about £1000, plus whatever second-hand prime lens I was using at the time). Yet almost certainly he could have picked up a 10-15 year old bridge camera or early mirrorless lumix for around £150 locally second-hand, and the camera would have given him results that would have been top of the range in 2010, and mind- blowing to me when I was learning on second-hand eastern European m42 cameras in the early 90s. Photography and Camera Ownership/Collecting are two separate hobbies. It might have been aspirational to own a Hasselblad or a Contax or an OM4Ti when I was starting, but you could still take pictures with a battered Zenit or even a fixed-focus Haminex point and shoot. Second hand crop-sensor cameras are massively better than what was available 30 years ago, and attempts to persuade people that they need to spend thousands on a new camera to be considered a 'serious photographer' are a marketing ploy. It's understandable why companies would do this (they want to shift their new models), just a little bit strange when members of the public do it for free for them, often talking themselves into overspending on cameras they won't ever make full use of in the process. Am I 'butthurt' about this? I don't think so. Am I a bit chippy after 30+ years of seeing people try to gatekeep a hobby that could be for everyone? A little bit. If you want to be a photographer, grab whatever camera you can, and take photos. Discuss photography with other photographers, and only replace your camera if you've genuinely outgrown the previous one and it's holding you back. If you want to collect cameras or feel that it's important to have *the best* camera at any given time, sure, fill your boots. It's less expensive than collecting cars, probably less expensive than collecting bikes (and certainly requires less storage space). It's a hobby that overlaps with photography, but it's not the same as or necessary to the hobby of photography.
@@chrishowell5718 I really don't know what your point actually is. Full frame cameras are not even marketed to amateur photographers really. If you want to get into photography, you don't generally even go to a store that sells full frame cameras. They go to Target or Wal Mart or Best Buy. You might find them carrying MAYBE one SKU of full frame, but the cropped sensor Canon Rebels and the like. That's the vast majority of stock in these big box stores. If you want to get into professional photography and get a high quality lens and a nice full frame body, you're going to have to go to a photography store. It's not a marketing ploy. It's where you go after you've spent a few hundred bucks on a relatively cheap crop sensor camera, and you have the itch, and you want to step it up a notch. You don't go to Best Buy and get a full frame camera and a $1,500 lens. You go to a store that SPECIALIZES in photography gear, and you wouldn't be in one of those stores if you weren't already in the game a bit. (or you just have a couple thousand bucks burning a hole in your pocket).
Depends on the print, and the heavy weights you want to be carrying on the 10km hikes. 8 out 10 photographers crop their fullframe shots to match the crop cameras anyway. So their MP goes from 40+ to actual 20'ish.
Yep! That’s exactly what I do. I’ve many landscape shots that get cropped to portrait when I get back on the computer because I didn’t do a good job with my composition in the field. That drops them from 60mp to around 15-20mp usually. Thanks for the comment mate.
I started out with the Canon 500D (Rebel) with a 1.6 x crop in 2008. I quickly got fed up with it, mainly because of the poor image quality above iso 800. Switched to the 5D and 1D series and never went back to crop. The 1D was 1.3x crop which was something inbetween. Now I have an R6 and it's iso performance is amazing.
My D5100 16mp sensor gives about the same picture as a 33mp D810, when both need to be cropped for distant subjects like birds, but on a 150-600mm lens when taking aviation pics, the wide end is more useful on a full frame camera. So it depends on your lens, distance to subject/size and sensor pixel density, which is better.
The sweet spot of price, weight and size, the advantages of dof for landscape and macro let choose me undoubtly APS-c. The advantages of fullframe are for me theoretically in most cases. And new editing software makes the difference yet smaller. The few cases in which fullframe would be really a clear better choice for me could not justified by the fact that I have to carry a lot more weight and have to spend a lot more money. That does not make sense to me. For a portrait photographer or professional this might be another choice, but many professionals are working with APS-c, too.
I switched from Nikon Z to fujifilm because the small camera and lenses and the quality of photos. Nowadays both are great. Fujifilm is very professional for portraits and wedding is my experience I use also a Leica Q2 and sometimes I don't see the difference between quality
I went through this whole investigation years ago and I believe my assessment still stands. Crop sensor cameras are basically as good at everything except portrait photography and its not necessarily the fault of the sensor but the availability of lenses that can get full frame results. There are some lenses for crop sensors that get very close to full frame results but due to the engineering challenges required due to less light capture on a crop sensor and more glass needed they are very expensive and so you might as well have just bought a full frame. I think they have an edge in astrophotography also.
They both have there strengths, so it depends on your needs. I use the Canon R7 and the R6. For walk around, shooting wildlife the R7 together with the RF100-500 is my favorite, the 1.6 crop is a big advantage to the R6, also the internal stack function in the R7 is a nice feature. For BIF or If the reach is not needed I use the R6.
It's a Zulu 40 Rucksack by Gregory. Not a photography backpack but does have a front opening on it and so I put a camera cube in there and can access it quickly. I tried a bunch of photography bags and none of them were as good as a proper hiking backpack like the Gregory. Hope that helps.
Regardless of sensor size, all sensors collect the light delivered by the lens. If you ensure that both sensors are equipped with native lenses that have the same angle of view, and the same aperture diameter, you will observe that both sensors collect the same amount of light when shooting the same scene at the same shutter speed. You will also observe that the two images have the exact same depth of field (the depth of field has to do with aperture diameter, angle of view, and focus distance - nothing to do with sensor size).
Modern F4 full frame lenses work great on APSC cameras. I used the Sony F4 20-70 G lens on my a6700 it works great! I have no problem shooting in low light situations with the modern F4 lens. The small and lightweight new F2.8 24mm G lens can produce amazing photos and videos on my a6700. I love this 24mm lens.
Came from Nikon APS-C to Olympus MFT 4 years ago for the exact facts you shared: small, light, and having my hands on the camera, after almost 2 years of not taking photos because I couldn't be asked to bring my camera and lenses (including a sigma 18-35 f1.8) with me. Since then I've got 2 MFT cameras, one became my everyday-carry-with-me, and haven't been happier. Couldn't care more about the never ending and boring FF, 1", MFT, APS-C war than the crash of a bug on a window.
Makes total sense. I know a bunch of landscape photographers that moved to M43’s and now shoot way more and so get better photos regardless of the actual technology.
Glad I came across yourself, new subscriber 🥳 so ever since I lost my old Pentax 35mm film camera in a divorce I’ve been using many lations of Smart phones ( iPhone ) yes most of time in Auto. The most important part is the sensor sizes are way smaller than even micro 4/3 or 1 inch sensors but still manage though clever technology to capture some nice images, APC crop sensor is huge compared to my smart phones sensor lol as as you pointed out I should hopefully be blown away with the better image quality when cropping in for example as my phone gets very noisy. Even the Panasonic 4/3 Om-1 and mark two looks fantastic. Yes I’ve been watching lots and lots of camera reviews to decide on what to buy and price is importance so crop sensors looking like the best deal for one’s pocket, Very much enjoyed your video and look forward to watching many more 🥳🥳🥳
@@Photography-Explained I`ve had the a7R4 but couldn`t live with the colors, it`s autofocus is also outdated. I had the A7CR for a while but found it harsh and digital in it`s rendering. I have the A7CII now and the A1, they look very much alike. The A1 is faster and with better video, the A7CII is lighter with better autofocus. For the money i think the A7CII is a steal.
To me this is clearly case dependent evaluation. I've been using APS-C many long years. Then I did switch to FF because of better IQ and "proper" FL of lenses. Later I did add the medium format (Fuji GFX). Choosing the camera today I would opt for APS-C if I needed long reach for most of my shots. FF for general use and MF for the ultimate IQ.
I haven't personally used a GFX camera and so it's difficult for me to talk about it. For the landscape work I do in the mountains it probably would be "better" but also really heavy.
All I know is technology impacts greatly. My R7 shows less noise than my 1D3 for instance. I go CF because I want the reach. With my EF 100-400ii and 1.4x iii if I crop to 20mpx I get the reach of 1100mm! At F8! And the IQ is very good. So I am in no hurry for a FF body for the occasional wide shot I might want. I got a Metabones 0.71x for that in the mean time and it is awesome
I was just listening to a podcast on astro photography and the guy was saying his sensor is M4/3 sized as he can cool it easier. Interesting stuff! Thanks for the comment.
Owning both full frame and apsc from the same brand I can 100% guarantee FF is better. Capturing in low light, raising shadows or bringing back highlights the FF out performs apsc every single time.
Many PRO shooters use M43 here in Africa. The special abilities of the Oly OM-1 II and the 20-100 and 150-400 PRO lenses are legendary, and that 400 becomes 1000mm equivalent optically, even 2000mm digitally (really lossless) and it makes a huge difference shooting wildlife. Lion don't brush; give them a wide berth.
Forgot two large points. Full frame are usually more ergonomic, and full frame cameras typically have better autofocusing, and other features rhan their aps-c counterparts. It why I went to full frame, no aps-c could match the full frames' autofocus, fps, and even video modes.
Thanks for the comment. Pretty sure Sony's latest APSC cameras have much better autofocus vs my A7R4. Ergonomics is something that I probably underestimate as a landscape photographer as I'm not really hand holding the camera for long periods of time.
This isn't really true. Most major manufacturers have their crop sensor lines and their full frame lines. They make several models from entry level to professional level in both those lines. They will have 4, 5, or 6 crop frame models and about the same in their full frame line. If you compare the feature set of the flagship crop sensor model to the entry level full frame model, the feature set on the crop model will be superior across the board - - - except for sensor size. And a LOT of features (such as auto focusing system) are shared between their crop and full frame models. For example, the 7D mkii (the latest flagship from Canon's DSLR crop sensor camera line) shoots 10 fps. The Canon 6D mk ii (Canon's latest entry-level DSLR model) shoots 6.5 fps. This is just one example. A flagship crop sensor almost always has superior features across the board to full frames on the entry-level end of their full-frame counterparts. The full frames on the lower end of the line surpass the crop sensors on the upper end of the line in one area : sensor size. Otherwise, there would be no need for these manufacturers to make so many cameras. If you value features over sensor size, go for an upper end crop. If you value image quality over features, go for a lower end full frame. It's why manufactures make these cameras. To make just a blanket statement that full frame cameras are better at crop sensors at all these features across the board is just patently false.
With an Olympus camera with Pro lenses you can take better photos than with a full-format camera with standard lenses. Then, as already mentioned, the price and weight are an advantage.
Yeah, good vid. Basically crop sensor means everything can be smaller but you collect fewer light photons, which is the big factor behind fuzzier ISO and worse dynamic range. You can't cheat physics, any more than astronomers can disregard their huge telescopes. I love my crop sensor Fuji X-T5 as it's smaller/lighter than the full frame competition, plus I love the ergonomics. As I'm doing street photos I'm usually using something like f4 aperture (to capture background detail) and a full frame would need to be at f6 to achieve the same depth of field that I need. So I don't especially want to carry a full frame camera with all that weight when I'd be shrinking its aperture so much anyway. Also I feel more comfy carrying a £2800 camera/lenses combo on the street than I would a £5000 full frame combo.
Yep that’s why I picked up the X-T5 too. Lighter, shooting at f6+ most of the time and I really enjoyed the dials on top as most of the time the camera is on a tripod for my landscape work and so I’m looking down on it. Awesome camera.
@@Photography-Explained For street, I get away with using Auto ISO settings during daylight but it's nice to go full manual exposure controls when it gets darker, to squeeze out the best exposure for the chosen subject. The top buttons and front/back control dials make it so easy. (During the day I divert my exposure compensation to the front control dial just to instruct the Auto ISO on the exposure level I'm looking for, which I love because if I depress that dial it effectively locks/unlocks it for me).
You didn't mention sharpness. There are a lot of people who use full-frame lenses on crop sensor camera's. With that combination, you loose sharpness, because a crop-sensor don't utilise the whole area of the front element of the lens, but only the centre part. That would almost be the same as using a telecoverter on a full-frame camera with a full-frame lens.
Exactly backwards. The central field performance of any lens is always better. So a few lens on a crop sensor does the best that lens can do. Prove it to yourself by taking images on your ff camera and cropping to the center and to a corner. Center wins.
The only way I can tell is when I pixel peep You can see the cleaner background with full frame. But without pixel peeping I can't see a difference. Much like when I went from a 1080p TV to a 4k. Although I do sit quite far from my screen. Maybe it's apparent to the person doing the pp but to me it's really hard to see a difference if I view the photo at its intended size.
Thanks for this amaizng video for the people like me who are stuck to choose between APSC Canon R7 vs Full Frame R8 which come with similar price. However, R8 got to be compromised on few features for the price it is coming with. I am a beginner who like both portrait as well as bird photography. While R8 could be best for the former one and R7 for the later. Could you please suggest me which one will be the best considering both the photography and features the two camera offer? And you got ome more subscriber!!
Hey Deepak. I'm not a cannon user so I might not be the best person to ask. R7 has a crop/high res sensor which is going to be much better for birding as it'll have more reach and more megapixels to crop. R7 also has IBIS which is important if you're going to be hand holding your shots for both birding and portraits. The R8 has the bigger sensor which will give better low light but that's countered by the IBIS. R8 has better auto focus which is obviously important for the birding. I think your choice comes more down to lenses. Canon doesn't have many APSC lenses and so you miss out on the benefits of smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses there. I'd try and make the choice of what is more important to you, birding or portraits. BUT both cameras will be perfectly suitable for a beginner. Heck, if I was you I'd get something second hand instead. For the same money you'll get something much higher end.
@@Photography-Explained Thanks a lot for such a detailed explanation! I have two questions. 1. Will FF lenses work better on APSC camera as well? 2. Is it possible to get good bokeh with APSC camera for portrait photography?
1. They may "work better" as you'll be using the center of the image circle and so will be less effected by soft corners at open apertures. But you're also buying and carrying around heavier lenses that you're not really getting the full potential from. 2. Absolutely. I had a 50mm f1.4 crop Fuji lens and that was more than enough to get solid bokeh. In the latest version of light room you can add more artificial bokeh anyway. Don't over think it. Get whatever you think is best and get out and start shooting. Actually taking the photos is the hardest bit, not having the perfect gear.
Try medium format. Even more precious mega pixels. Even less difficult. Even bigger photosites. Or get a large format. Wowzers. You can crop wayyy in and pixel peep for days. Or an 8x10 camera. But only for pros.
Well, that's correct if your FF have almost x1.6 mpx count of your apsc, if not you are loosing detail in comparison. And also a FF lens that really can handle that 40mpx for real, what is mostly a lie out of the pro series
Slightly more too it than that with the R7 having IBIS and much higher resolution. For wildlife it might be the correct option. Thanks for the comment.
@@Photography-Explained As a retired professional now doing a lot of wildlife I haven't as yet been tempted by the R7 though I almost bought a 90D. Instead I can use crop mode, my 5Dsr does around 20mp in crop, about the same as my 7Dii, but I consider the sensor better. I had noticed that crop sensor bodies may produce a softer image as the outperform the lens. Cheers.
If you need to fix something, can you just use one size screwdriver? Different CMOS are really just different size tools. I use NIKON Z and M4/3 at the same time, and take them out on different occasions. In general, it is more advantageous to use a larger CMOS camera, just like the Hasselblad has better image quality than the FF, but when I am traveling and hiking, it has become a question of whether to take it or not.
I'm a 71 y.o. engineer who prizes function over form. I have been a bicycle enthusiast since age 10 and a camera buff since I earned my first paycheck (as a graduate engineer employed in corporate America) in the 1970s. So I've been "getting it done" without ever owning a Campagnolo derailleur or a Nikon camera, so to speak. These days I ride a bike frequently, which has panniers loaded with camera, three lenses, two or three tripods... etc... and you betcha, I favor the miniaturization afforded by the APS-C format. I also get far more bang for my buck, with mirrorless APS-C, than full frame. I can have my cake and eat it too, so to speak, when attempting portraiture... by virtue of "focal length reducers" aka "speedboostes" ... branded as Viltrox and Zhongyui. I haven't "done the math yet" but it seems that high quality optics can restore that DOF advantage enjoyed by a full frame camera and an 85mm lens, while I use my Sony a6000-series camera.
light is light, an f1.2 on a crop sensor is grabbing the same light as f1.2 on full frame (photons are extremely small after all) So, understand that cheap lenses make photography no fun at all. If you cant stretch you budget for the best lenses, then stick with your phone.
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about this. Short answer - you are right - as far as light-gathering capabilities, the same amount of light is hitting the sensor. Here's where the difference comes in : Bokeh - that much sought after blurred background. This blurred background - or the degree to which the background is blurred has to do with how far away you are from the subject in relation to the background. For example, if you focus on a subject 10 feet away, and the background is 30 feet away, then obviously the background is 3 times farther away. If you chose to use a crop sensor, AND keep the same framing on your subject, you have to move backwards. Suppose you have to move so far back that now the subject is 20 feet away, and now the background is 40 feet away - so now only twice as far away (Your distance to background to distance to subject ratio has now gone from 3:1 to 2:1) - ergo, you won't get as nice of bokeh with the crop sensor because you have to move farther away from the subject to get the same framing. Ergo - given the same framing on a particular subject, a crop sensor camera will not give you the same amount of bokeh as a full frame sensor. This is why you DO apply the crop factor to the aperture - - - not because the amount of light is changing, but the amount of bokeh is changing. So given all other factors the same - - - if you want the same bokeh, the same framing of the subject, etc. then the resulting change in background blur can be quantified by the same crop factor that is used in other manners. In other words, if you are shooting at 2.8 with a full frame camera - - - and you want to try that same photo with a crop sensor, you're going to have to move the camera back to get the same framing (or zoom out - - - but the same concept applies - - assume we are using a prime lens for simplicity's sake), but now your background blur is not as soft. To get that same background blur you had with the full frame, you're going to have to open up that aperture some more - - - and on a camera with a crop factor of 1.6, you'd divide that 2.8 aperture on the full frame by 1.6 and you'd get about a 1.8f stop. So, if you want to take a photograph of a subject against a background with the same framing AND same background blur, you have to apply the crop factor to both the focal length AND aperture. Since we want the same framing, we simply move the camera back. To get the same background blur, we set our aperture to 1.8 instead of 2.8. You apply the crop factor to both. In summary - a photograph with a full frame camera 10 feet away from a subject and 30 feet away from the background set at an aperture of f2.8 will give you the same framing and background blur (bokeh) as a photograph with a crop sensor 20 feet away from a subject and 40 feet away from the background set at an aperture of f1.8.
full frame sensor is just based on the size of films. it is never a sensor size standard. it is slightly better in low light and dynamic range but not that much. I have been photographing since I was 8 (that was in 1988). I have had countless of cameras and you know what? technology have come along way that the difference between the 2 is negligible. Ever wonder why fujifilm skipped the full frame format and went directly from APSC to medium format/large format? I have a fuji xt5 and a sony A7IV but i always use my fuji most of the time.
The standard film format size isn't a standard size? This was before my time but I assume that they used the same standard size for digital so there was compatibility with lenses etc. Fujifilm are on record saying they "skipped" FF because they couldn't compete as a niche brand in the same space as the big boys. It was a business decision, not a performance decision.
I have 4 APSC DSLR cameras if I want full frame camera I use my Pentax Spotamatic SP2 film camera I paid little money for it may be old but is a lot cheaper than a new full frame camera
I disagree that a crop sensor lens has a longer reach and is therefore better than full frame. if look at the diagram shown the centre of the full frame image is the same size of the crop centre image and so a crop from a full frame image to apsc gives you the same reach. Having said that I use a Fuji system which is excellent for my needs and wouldn't want the cost and weight of a full frame camera
You are correct. The advantage in real terms is that you are using a smaller image circle on crop cameras and so for the same reach as cropping into full frame you end up with much lighter gear.
@@brugj03 I think if you do photography for living then it is very considerable to use FF. But if you are hobby photographer, then APSC is more than enough :)
Fujii only makes crop sensor and medium format cameras. The crop sensor line is their main line. The majority of their lenses are going to be good. Nikon and Canon on the other hand do not make very good crop sensor lenses. Those lenses are for the beginners and the poor people. Those are for people who only get the camera out every one in a while or maybe a few people who really want to get into photography who can't afford it. Sony might make some good crop lenses but I never hear about them. There's not much profit in budget friendly gear. A lot of Canon apsc lenses are junk. Most are not that sharp. They don't render color that well. I'm sure Fujii has their share of bad lenses as well but they're not competing with a line of full frame gear like everyone else. And not that many Fujii showers are going to have a medium format camera. Prime lenses are the way to go to get performance on a budget. Especially if you don't mind doing the zooming in and out with your feet. If you do street photography you only need maybe one or two lenses. And that's probably the same for landscape. Definitely for milky way photos. You can get the Rokinon 14mm. But it's not always about the sensor size. There's features that are only found on full frame bodies that apsc bodies don't have because they only put those in the pro or semi pro bodies. Those things can improve your work flow. You don't get function buttons on most crop bodies that you can program to do aortic things so you don't have to dive into the menu.
Fuji don’t really make bad lenses. The handful that aren’t great are cheaper primes. The problem with zooming with your feet is that you might walk off the mountain to get the shot. Everything else you said makes sense though. Thanks for sharing your insights.
@Photography-Explained that's my point about Fujii. So if you go with Fujii you will pretty much be buying apsc lenses. That's not the case with Sony, Canon and Nikon. And yes that's true about prime lenses. You may be limited to where you can use them. Third party lenses are your best bet for zoom lenses.
Olympus OM1 and Fuji X100VI are evil laughing rightnow. People that cant even get the besy out of a cellphone straight up disregard how good modern camera sensors are, especially the modern ones.
And yet you fell into the trap of saying "upgrade to full frame" when in reality it's just another tool that provides some benefits while losing others 😉...then again, camera manufacturers want you to believe it's an upgrade.
@@Photography-Explained fair comment. However how many mp is that Sony. You can get a Fuji x-h2 that has 40 mp and 13 stops dynamic range now, I would be curious to see how the Sony file and that file would be side by side.. wasn't a slam btw, just that marketing geniuses live to call things upgrades lol
Surely you only get the crop factor if you put full-frame lenses on a cropped sensor camera? A 17-85 lens designed for a cropped sensor camera is still 17-85 on that cropped sensor.
@@Photography-Explained it's the sweet spot, lenses are cheaper too , dont need to have full frame to produce professional work and low light is a myt. It's all about how you light your scene.
@@rossb48 hmmmm I have zenit 11 with helios 44m-4 , I'm loving it because causes me to appreciate the time and mechanics to take proper photo than digital
Or, is high pixel count sensor better than a very low pixel count sensor? How well does the image from a ZV-E1 compare to the A7R5? What about comparing the ZV-E1's 12mp image to the 26mp image from the Sony a6700. A simple test that requires few words just time to execute: Get a very detailed model, gender doesn't matter. Your child will do find. Take a headshot using the best lens for each camera. Then compare and you will get your answer. Now print it on an 11x14 piece of photo paper and compare? From the right distance looking at each picture, can you tell the difference. All can be done at home. I can tell you that a Sony A7R3's 42mp sensor is sensational. Those extra pixels over the 24mp sensor from the A6600 will show up and stun you, that is, if you are pixel peeping. I choose a person's face as it yields incredible detail from the finest hairs all over a person, the eyes, eyebrow/lashes and the skin itself will give you the answer. In landscape photography you have too many elements to deal with like haze, smoke, etc. Remember to take many photos as some will miss while others are spot on. And since we are not using film, there is no cost in taking as many pictures as you need and trashing all the ones that are no good.
Editing my A7R4 files is much easier than the X-T5. I think it’s the dynamic range that makes the difference. I take them both out with me usually. Fuji with a long lens, Sony with a wide.
You're actually incorrect about depth of field and your picture proved it. You moved the crop sensor further back to get the same field of view which caused greater depth of field for the crop sensor. A proper comparison is between a 25mm MFT, 35mm APSC and 50mm full frame. You'll find vield of view and bokeh is the same on all at the same f stop.
Well, a 25mm mft lens is still a 25mm lens, you will still have the same proportions and the other physical stuff, it just crops in the sensor and It cannot be compared to a 50mm ff lens, the filed of view is the same, but there are many differences
@@DespotRus its true that a 50mm MFT/APSC/FF all have the same distance from the lens optical centre to their sensors but this means different things to different formats. Thats why manufactures sometimes state their equivalent like I have above. We should probably stop calling them "crop" sensors as well since this is a misnomer. Nothing is being "cropped". The entire sensor is being used on each respective system with no loss of available pixels.
Umm lies again. Crop factor is not "feature" but a failure and a lie. Should not be for the love of all holy listed as a feature, its like calling a "feature" that some specific asian ladies have more than advertised in pants regions. Its lens manufacturer lying to consumers. While it is understandable to sell full frame 50mm lens that works on full frame correctly but then gets 1,4 crop factor so 70mm on APSC, nearly 90% of all available lenses are crop sensor only. They are advertised as "50mm* (on full frame)" and yet do not work at all on full frame, produce giant black circle around the photo edges. They literally FALSLY claim 50mm field of view on full frame while producing black arseole and again getting crop factor on APSC. They dont even have the audacity to state actual field of view on the box. Fun fact: Fujifilm lenses are the only ones with correct field of view. When you buy 50mm lens for your Fujifilm camera it is 50mm and not some "full frame equivalent that isn't equivalent because it doesnt work" BS. Bs again. Full frame does not make camera "heavier" and "bulkier". There are quite a lot of rather small full frame cameras especially from sony, there are even medium format cameras that are just as small. It was just common-ish that expensive full frame sensor was build in to all-expense-paid fully-featured 'professional' camera bodies. Manufacturer does not want to sell 10 grand more expensive hatchback with V12 engine, they want to sell you 200grand sports car with 30grand premium on the engine. Simple as that
While I agree with majority of the points made here. I am really sick and tired of the "best camera is the one you have" or "you can take good pictures with your phone" statements. Yes, you can take a good picture with your phone - in decent conditions. You will NOT take as good of a shot of dark-lit place with a phone as you could with full frame camera with proper lense. You will also often not even bother taking your phone out, because you know you will never capture the same thing as you could with a proper camera. So yea, sometimes, even with a good 1inch sensor phone camera, you will just decide not to bother, because you know the limitations of that device.
I think the point I was trying to make was that most people take crap photos no matter what camera they have. The limit isn't how much light they can gather.
Crop sensor does not give extra bit of reach. With the same lens the image from a crop camera is just the same as the cropped center part of the image taken by a full frame camera. Take that image with a full frame camera and cut off the sides - it is not longer focal length.
Crop sensor is a bit of a misnomer, its a smaller sensor, not a crop. Croping reduces pixel count. There is actually a telephoto effect in APSC/MFT compared to the same focal length lens in 35mm.
@@Photography-Explained I feel like the a7iv and two lenses is pretty space efficient. Take a 24-70 and a 70-200 and combined with super 35 mode you have everything you need from wide to portraits to punched in 300mm for distant objects.
Sorry John, I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. I am ignorant to the early history of Nikon and Cannon digital cameras. I've only been shooting for 12-months. This channel and content is for new photographers like myself. I appreciate someone with your level of experience commenting though.
Could you stop calling APS-C or micro 4/3 "crop" sensors ? It is pure marketing speak to make them less appealing. They are just other formats, with their strengths and weaknesses. So called "full frame" is cropped compared to medium format; it should be called "small format".
Can we please stop using the term "crop sensor". APS-C and MFT sensors is no more cropped of a full frame sensor, than a full frame sensor is of a Medium Format sensor.
That's what the industry calls them. Full frame has been the industry standard forever and so I don't think it's unreasonable to call a cropped size to the industry standard "cropped".
@@Photography-Explained is it? I don't see any of the companies using that term about their APS-C or MFT cameras. Not Nikon, not Canon, not Sony, and not Panasonic. They use "full frame", "APS-C", and "MFT". "Crop sensor" is used to talk about APS-C and MFT sensors as something less than full frame. The only time it makes sense, is if one talks about using a lens for a larger format sensor on a smaller sensor. If you use a lens made for an APS-C sensor you're not cropping anything.
@@Photography-Explained and it's also completely incorrect to claim that "full frame has been the industry standard forever". The first digital cameras were APS-C sensors or smaller, except a few APS-H sensors, such as the first Canon 1D cameras.
Yes, and what was the industry standard film size before the small period of digital before they moved to full frame? Yes, I used the term cropped in the context as "something less than full frame" in the video as it's simpler to communicate than to run through all the nuanced sizes of sensor. Yes, the "industry" use the term crop sensor. The industry isn't just the manufacturers. I think if you look at any photography outlet they're all in agreement of the term. Most photographers read blogs, magazines and watch more videos than they do press releases. Not sure why you have a bee in your bonnet over this. I use both crop and full frame systems. It wasn't a political statement lol. Thank you for the engagement.
@@Photography-Explained Nice outro there, let's attack the person instead of his arguments and surmise about his mental state. That's when you know that your arguments are sound.
📷 Want to start taking photos that leave your friends and family speechless? Download our FREE cheat sheets: 👉 photographyexplained.com/cheatsheets/
I currently work with the OM-1 MK II alongside my Sony full-frame gear. Both systems have their merits, but it's important to recognize the inherent relationship between crop factor, focal length, and aperture - this affects not only image characteristics but also the price and size of equipment, which are dictated by physics. If you’re comfortable with the trade-offs, such as a smaller aperture, greater depth of field, and increased noise, crop sensor systems can offer significant advantages in terms of affordability and portability. Ultimately, it’s not just about the sensor size but the synergy between sensor and lens that defines photographic outcomes.
See this: th-cam.com/video/f5zN6NVx-hY/w-d-xo.html
Noise isn't about pixel size, it depends on the signal-to-noise ratio, which is determined by how much light (signal) is captured versus the inherent noise in the camera. Larger sensors, regardless of pixel density, collect more light due to their size, giving them an advantage in terms of signal-to-noise ratio. However, when factoring in aperture and crop, this can equalize. For example, a 300mm f/2 lens on a crop sensor provides the same SNR as a 600mm f/4 on a full-frame sensor, resulting in the same noise and shutter speed. The OM-1 MK II's base ISO is 200 and you can't get less noise that this on the camera, however, my Sony full-frame gear, at the same base ISO of 200 captures four times the light at any given shutter speed and aperture (exposure) and gets lower noise levels.
See this: th-cam.com/video/VSFqCnzIe9M/w-d-xo.html
I bought a Nikon D7500 crop sensor camera this year and the low light performance is outstanding along with the quality of the photos that it takes. The bonus is the fact that many people are selling off their lenses to buy the more expensive ones for their full frame cameras and I can pick up really good used lenses for a reasonable price. As I will never be a professional, a crop sensor camera with the latest technology is perfect for someone like me.
Sound like you've got it nailed!
It's likely also influenced by the industry switch to mirrorless. Nikon is basically done with DSLR and going all in on mirrorless so anybody shopping for a new Nikon will likely go mirrorless with Z mount lenses. Sure FTZ exists but most will lean towards native lenses in the long run.
The apsc market still seems huge, but it's all shifted to mirrorless now since that's where the newest tech and features are being developed. The D7500 definitely isn't in that category though. Great camera but missing a lot of features the current lineups have (such as pdaf and ibis).
I agree with the sensor sentiment though, I never had any issues with low light on my D5600 and that included walking around at 2am taking photos around the city. The size and weight savings were worth it. In fact, I ended up doubling down and selling it last month to go even smaller with micro four thirds lol.
Same for me.
I use the pro series M4/3, but many years ago I finally understood one fundamental thing. 90% of the best photographs don't depend on HW at all, but on good composition, capturing the right moment and also luck. I've seen a lot of great photos taken with second hand digital cameras with resolutions as low as 5Mpix. Since then I don't deal with changing equipment, but I'm learning to take great photos. Even with a mobile phone...
Yep exactly. Phones can't optically zoom enough for things like wildlife but other than that a pro with a phone would beat a beginner with pro gear.
Spot on. I’ve been a photographer for 40 yrs and when digital came along with my first DSLR in 2004 I endlessly chased every technical and sensor upgrade as they were released. But it didn’t make me a better photographer. In fact I started relying on the technology too much and thinking less about seeing the scene and getting good composition. It didn’t mean my photos sucked - just I was less involved leaving it to the technology. Now I’m enjoying using some older (and smaller) cameras with just one or two primes that I can carry everywhere and I’m enjoying photography more again. I even got one of the new Pentax 17 half frame film cameras - so light and very few decisions to be made with controls and a half frame vertical format is totally refreshing. It’s fun and the film images are good. Does the IQ compete with my 36mp full frame? No but I’m enjoying the experience more than I have in years and taking it places
You are falling into the old familiar trap of suggesting that "APS-C/MFT is for hobbyists and that full frame is for pros. This is a generalisation which serves any inexperienced photographer very poorly. I use the APS-C Fuji system for wedding (as a professional) and street photography as well as fine art landscape and architecture photography. Many other pros do as well. Whilst I might miss that little bit of extra low light performance, I have never had a client who has criticised my images for having a bit of noise and advised me to get a full frame system. Most people, unless they are compulsive pixel-peepers, could not tell the difference between an image shot on a modern ff or aps-c sensor. The massive advantage for me is the small size and portability of fuji system cameras an lenses.
Thanks for the feedback. Took a look at your long exposure architecture photography and it's stunning. Congrats!
@@Photography-Explained Many thanks! All done using Fuji X system :)
So I'm an amateur photographer, for all around photography (landscape, wild life, street & travel, family events, grandchildren sports) would you recommend the XT5, XH2, or XH2s? I'm leaning towards XT5.
Have you had any autofocus issues with your Fugi?
@@allenschneider1847 The XH2 and XH2S are designed as hybrid cameras - attractive if you make a lot of video as well as stills. XT5 is more orientated towards photographers in terms of its controls and rear screen. It has the same 40mp sensor as the XH2 and the same processing capabilities. I think the evf is has slightly lower resolution than the XH's. OThe XT5 is no slouch when it comes to video and costs less than the XH's. There are no autofocus issues with Fuji as far as I am aware. I have an XT5 and love it.
And you're making the same old assumption that the word "professional" means you are a better photographer or know more than an "amateur". I have been both. Using both full frame and crop. It doesn't have anything to do with your photos, other than the fact that you have/want to make money doing photography. Fuji works for you? Congrats, keep using it. My setup requires light strong wide angle lenses, and Fujis f1.4 are just as heavy as some of its full frame peers (so those at equivalent f2.0 aperture), so no, thank you. It's a choice, nothing more or less. Full frame has UNDENIABLE technical advantages over crop, there's no arguing about that, as you will agree I am sure.
I moved from FF to APS-C cameras a few years ago. As a hobby photographer of 50 or so years, I started on FF film cameras, which are coming back into fashion with youngsters... I liked my FF digital camera (Old Canon with CCD sensor) but it wasn't that good in low light.... I could take equally as crap photos on that as I can on my modern Sony cameras, but at least nowadays it is just age exhausting me, not the weight of my camera bag!
Some folk get a bit tribal over make & format, which makes me chuckle... I just enjoy the hobby.
Great video, have a new subscriber.
Thanks for the comment and subscribe. Really appreciate it.
It’s been crazy reading the comments and seeing how vicious people are with brand vs brand and full frame vs crop.
I run a couple of businesses and so can pretty much pick up whatever photography gear I fancy without worrying about getting it right as photography is my only hobby.
I can’t imagine the stress people must be feeling about their purchases to be so vile to other people that they’re right and everyone else is wrong.
LOL. I remember when full frame was 120/620 roll films with 2.5" x 3.5" negatives. 35mm (now FF) was the amateur 'toy' format!
@@johnwinter6061 They were the good old days! 2 1/4 square (120) Mamiya TLR with 2 lenses, bliss! (still love my APS-C format!)
LOL have a look at mirrorless. Lighter body and lighter lenses. I'm very happy with weight v quality v price of my RP with RF 24-240. Far lighter than my Ricoh Singlex 35mm film with Tamron zoom from the 80s!
I had a Fuji 6MP fixed zoom. Not bad. 'Upgraded' an 18MP mirrored DSLR. Better IQ but I lost so much that mirrorless offers. Got it back with an RP and RF24-240. Love them.
Always a hot topic, but in reality it doesn`t really matter.
For beginners it`s irrelevant, once you find your thing in photography you can choose what suits you the best.
And it doesn`t have to be fullframe. For example wildlife can benefit from the smaller cropped in sensor to give your lens more reach.
Fullframe will always be better in gathering light and usually has the better fast prime lenses.
If you want shallow depth of field, fullframe will do best. But APS-C also has some.
That makes sense. Thanks for the comment.
Finally, someone with expertise making a common sense comparison that an amateur like me can understand and use in a real world situation. Thank you.
Hey Clancy. Glad you enjoyed the video :D. Thanks for the kind words.
I am also an amateur and I use different systems, from full frame, M43 and even smaller sensors. When a photo is good, it is good regardless of the camera used. Weight and volume are very important factors when deciding what, when and how to photograph. And another fundamental thing, the optics, the sensor is not as important as good optics. And prime lenses are still superior to zooms, they are lighter and much cheaper.
Yep, I totally agree! The photograph itself is the most important thing.
bought an s5ii as my first ever camera, i am video first and photo second but i am astonished at how great the photos are and find myself taking more photos then video.
I'm a hobbyist photographer and I had an old DSLR crop sensor Canon. I noticed this year that I'm slowing down because it was old, and I looked at my different options. I eventually decided to buy the Canon r100 and to stay with a crop sensor instead of going full frame. The r100 is so small that I can travel with it effortlessly. Someday I will get a full frame camera just for the experience but I haven't really run into any disqualifying problems with crop sensors. (I'm also really amazed at the ISO range of the r100, considering I spent $237 on it.)
Potentially, I might just jump from a crop sensor to medium format at some point.
On the DOF, you are right but I might add that not everybody needs that super blurry bokeh. Most of the times we need some context of where the subject is to tell better story. FF DOF also extremely shallow at F1.2 or below to the point that subject face or head are not even in 100% focus. and I personally find that weird and hard to work with. However, that is a territory APSC will never reach despite personal preference. An APSC great lenses like Viltrox Pro series 75mm F1.2 will do more than enough to blur the background and I doubt anyone can really tell a difference vs FF.
Yep, 100% agree. I’ve taken literally a couple of landscape photos that have benefited from any depth of field (flowers in foreground).
Thanks for the comment!
You left out purchasing a used full frame vs. a brand new camera and lens and saving a bunch of money. I look for bargains in used equipment and have not been disappointed.
I bought all my Fuji gear new but my Sony gear is all second hand.
I got F4 £150 with 35to80 D+nikon D700 cheaper than I could imagine
It's interesting that no one referred to 35mm as 'full frame' in the days of film cameras, when every camera club had at least one bore who looked down on everyone else because he he a Hasselblad or a Mamiya medium format camera, and everyone knows real photographers shot roll film and 35mm was for snaps and amateurs.
35mm became the standard for film photography not because it was some platonic ideal size, but because it allowed for reasonably convenient and portable movie cameras, which in turn meant that 35mm film was produced in vast lengths that could be conveniently packaged in lightproof cannisters for easy loading into stills cameras, which led to the development of the SLR as the ultimate convenient, portable interchangeable-lens camera by the late 80s (just before motor drives, vertical battery grips, and auto focus turned the likes of Canon's EOS series into monsters that challenged 5x4" plate cameras for bulk).
These days, 'Full frame' is a marketing phrase: if 35mm is full frame, what does that make medium format, which is even fuller? There are trade-offs: smaller sensors mean smaller lenses for the equivalent field of view and light transmission, while larger sensors make it easier to achieve a shallow depth of field, should you want to do so. Larger sensors also have better high ISO performance, but that's only really relevant at about ISO 12800 (note to the young: in the days of film cameras, ISO 800 was considered pretty fast, and ISO 1200 was specialist fast film and you accepted the visible grain as an artist choice or compromise). Frankly, anyone getting into digital photography as a beginner now who allows themselves to be sold a 35mm sensor camera is either being oversold or wants a status symbol. Get a crop sensor camera (perhaps second hand), find out how and what you like to shoot, and only upgrade to a larger sensor if you really need it because your old gear is limiting in some way. Generally, if you have a half-decent camera (and pretty much all crop sensor cameras that have sold in decent numbers over the last 10-15 years are decent cameras), probably the best way to get better photos with £2500 is to do a course or go somewhere new and inspiring, rather than buying a new and expensive camera and starting again with a new instruction manual. Unless you really need low light performance, you'll probably appreciate smaller gear more than the ability to push up to ISO 25600. That and greater shallow depth of field are limits of smaller sensors dictated by physics, though in fact if you can't achieve pleasing bokeh with even a m43 camera and a F1.7 lens, you probably aren't going to get your money's worth out of a Sony a7 either.
Thanks for the comment.
I totally agree I have 4 APS-C cameras 2 are 6 megapixel DSLR CCD cameras from 2005& 2006. 2 cameras 25 megapixel CMOS sensor cameras. The newer cameras have more features and require less editing, higher ISO , faster autofocus. Do they take better pictures not particularly but I do like the better build quality.
They didn't refer to 35mm film as full frame because they just didn't, and so what if it was marketing? 35mm was BY FAR the most common format of film - - it's not even worth a comparison. So when digital cameras first started coming out, the sensors were smaller than what was the absolute industry standard among consumers. It wasn't until about 12-15 years after the first digital cameras came out that the first ones that had sensors the same size as 35mm film that they where simply christened "full frame" because they were the same size as the overwhelmingly most popular format of film on the market. Because up to that point, everything was smaller than that. It makes sense that every format/sensor size is based around what was for decades the most common film format in existence. The crop factor is based on 35mm film - or full frame. It's not a marketing tactic - it's just a standard that was chosen. It would make sense to base the crop factor on the absolute most popular format of film in existence. It has a crop factor of 1. Everything else is based around that.
They called full frame sensors "full frame" because they came out LOOOOOOOOONG before medium format and larger digital sensors came out. Full frame was taken. This isn't some evil ploy. It just is what it is, and you are really getting WAY too butt hurt over this. The first digital camera that came out that was equal to the industry standard size of film was called "full frame". It was sort of a feat to make a viable digital sensor that was as large as the industry standard-sized film. Calling it "full frame" isn't nefarious.
@@willoughbykrenzteinburg Thanks for your response. Something can still be a marketing ploy without being nefarious. Sure, the production of a 35mm sensor is a significant technical achievement, and, yes, something for camera manufacturers to be proud of. Full frame sensors are marvels of technology and knock what could be achieved using a 35mm film camera into a cocked hat. The thing is, that's also true of m4/3 and APS-C sensors too. With film, if you wanted to shoot low light you paid a premium for ISO 1200 film and pushed it a a couple of stops (to about 4800) in processing and the results were as grainy as hell but it had a certain style to it. Even a ten-year old m4/3 sensor is capable of giving better low-light results than a 1980s film camera in inexperienced hands. The problem with concentrating on 'full frame' as the only medium for serious photographers is that you are setting the entry level for photography in the £2000+ range, which is totally bogus. True story: a couple of months ago I was in a university town in the UK, taking my son and his girlfriend out for lunch. Waiter in the restaurant, who's a student working part time to finance his studies, notices my camera and we get chatting about it. He says he'd love to get into photography but there's no way he can afford a camera like mine (lumix GX8, bought new with kit lens for about £1000, plus whatever second-hand prime lens I was using at the time). Yet almost certainly he could have picked up a 10-15 year old bridge camera or early mirrorless lumix for around £150 locally second-hand, and the camera would have given him results that would have been top of the range in 2010, and mind- blowing to me when I was learning on second-hand eastern European m42 cameras in the early 90s. Photography and Camera Ownership/Collecting are two separate hobbies. It might have been aspirational to own a Hasselblad or a Contax or an OM4Ti when I was starting, but you could still take pictures with a battered Zenit or even a fixed-focus Haminex point and shoot. Second hand crop-sensor cameras are massively better than what was available 30 years ago, and attempts to persuade people that they need to spend thousands on a new camera to be considered a 'serious photographer' are a marketing ploy. It's understandable why companies would do this (they want to shift their new models), just a little bit strange when members of the public do it for free for them, often talking themselves into overspending on cameras they won't ever make full use of in the process. Am I 'butthurt' about this? I don't think so. Am I a bit chippy after 30+ years of seeing people try to gatekeep a hobby that could be for everyone? A little bit. If you want to be a photographer, grab whatever camera you can, and take photos. Discuss photography with other photographers, and only replace your camera if you've genuinely outgrown the previous one and it's holding you back. If you want to collect cameras or feel that it's important to have *the best* camera at any given time, sure, fill your boots. It's less expensive than collecting cars, probably less expensive than collecting bikes (and certainly requires less storage space). It's a hobby that overlaps with photography, but it's not the same as or necessary to the hobby of photography.
@@chrishowell5718 I really don't know what your point actually is. Full frame cameras are not even marketed to amateur photographers really. If you want to get into photography, you don't generally even go to a store that sells full frame cameras. They go to Target or Wal Mart or Best Buy. You might find them carrying MAYBE one SKU of full frame, but the cropped sensor Canon Rebels and the like. That's the vast majority of stock in these big box stores. If you want to get into professional photography and get a high quality lens and a nice full frame body, you're going to have to go to a photography store. It's not a marketing ploy. It's where you go after you've spent a few hundred bucks on a relatively cheap crop sensor camera, and you have the itch, and you want to step it up a notch. You don't go to Best Buy and get a full frame camera and a $1,500 lens. You go to a store that SPECIALIZES in photography gear, and you wouldn't be in one of those stores if you weren't already in the game a bit. (or you just have a couple thousand bucks burning a hole in your pocket).
Superb analysis dear
Hi, in your opinion, what's the best for making STOP MOTION in studio ? full frame or crop sensor ? thanks
A really balanced video, thank you.
Thanks for the kind words Malcolm.
Depends on the print, and the heavy weights you want to be carrying on the 10km hikes. 8 out 10 photographers crop their fullframe shots to match the crop cameras anyway. So their MP goes from 40+ to actual 20'ish.
Yep! That’s exactly what I do. I’ve many landscape shots that get cropped to portrait when I get back on the computer because I didn’t do a good job with my composition in the field.
That drops them from 60mp to around 15-20mp usually.
Thanks for the comment mate.
I started out with the Canon 500D (Rebel) with a 1.6 x crop in 2008. I quickly got fed up with it, mainly because of the poor image quality above iso 800. Switched to the 5D and 1D series and never went back to crop. The 1D was 1.3x crop which was something inbetween. Now I have an R6 and it's iso performance is amazing.
Thanks for sharing your camera history. It's always interesting to see why people make changes.
My D5100 16mp sensor gives about the same picture as a 33mp D810, when both need to be cropped for distant subjects like birds, but on a 150-600mm lens when taking aviation pics, the wide end is more useful on a full frame camera.
So it depends on your lens, distance to subject/size and sensor pixel density, which is better.
The sweet spot of price, weight and size, the advantages of dof for landscape and macro let choose me undoubtly APS-c. The advantages of fullframe are for me theoretically in most cases. And new editing software makes the difference yet smaller. The few cases in which fullframe would be really a clear better choice for me could not justified by the fact that I have to carry a lot more weight and have to spend a lot more money. That does not make sense to me. For a portrait photographer or professional this might be another choice, but many professionals are working with APS-c, too.
I switched from Nikon Z to fujifilm because the small camera and lenses and the quality of photos. Nowadays both are great.
Fujifilm is very professional for portraits and wedding is my experience
I use also a Leica Q2 and sometimes I don't see the difference between quality
I'm very jealous of your Leica. Every now and again I take a look at the Q3 and very quickly realise that I have no actual need for it :).
I went through this whole investigation years ago and I believe my assessment still stands. Crop sensor cameras are basically as good at everything except portrait photography and its not necessarily the fault of the sensor but the availability of lenses that can get full frame results. There are some lenses for crop sensors that get very close to full frame results but due to the engineering challenges required due to less light capture on a crop sensor and more glass needed they are very expensive and so you might as well have just bought a full frame. I think they have an edge in astrophotography also.
Both have their advantages.
Full frame allows more light
Lower megapixels allows more light.
Full allows wider shots.
Crop can allow better zoom
They both have there strengths, so it depends on your needs. I use the Canon R7 and the R6. For walk around, shooting wildlife the R7 together with the RF100-500 is my favorite, the 1.6 crop is a big advantage to the R6, also the internal stack function in the R7 is a nice feature. For BIF or If the reach is not needed I use the R6.
That’s the perfect split between the two sensor sizes. Thanks for sharing.
Hi can You tell us what your is model of backpack You use? Looks very nice and slim?
It's a Zulu 40 Rucksack by Gregory. Not a photography backpack but does have a front opening on it and so I put a camera cube in there and can access it quickly.
I tried a bunch of photography bags and none of them were as good as a proper hiking backpack like the Gregory.
Hope that helps.
Regardless of sensor size, all sensors collect the light delivered by the lens. If you ensure that both sensors are equipped with native lenses that have the same angle of view, and the same aperture diameter, you will observe that both sensors collect the same amount of light when shooting the same scene at the same shutter speed. You will also observe that the two images have the exact same depth of field (the depth of field has to do with aperture diameter, angle of view, and focus distance - nothing to do with sensor size).
Yep that makes sense. Thanks for the comment.
Modern F4 full frame lenses work great on APSC cameras. I used the Sony F4 20-70 G lens on my a6700 it works great! I have no problem shooting in low light situations with the modern F4 lens.
The small and lightweight new F2.8 24mm G lens can produce amazing photos and videos on my a6700. I love this 24mm lens.
That’s awesome. Sony did a good job sharing the mount.
Came from Nikon APS-C to Olympus MFT 4 years ago for the exact facts you shared: small, light, and having my hands on the camera, after almost 2 years of not taking photos because I couldn't be asked to bring my camera and lenses (including a sigma 18-35 f1.8) with me.
Since then I've got 2 MFT cameras, one became my everyday-carry-with-me, and haven't been happier.
Couldn't care more about the never ending and boring FF, 1", MFT, APS-C war than the crash of a bug on a window.
Makes total sense. I know a bunch of landscape photographers that moved to M43’s and now shoot way more and so get better photos regardless of the actual technology.
Glad I came across yourself, new subscriber 🥳 so ever since I lost my old Pentax 35mm film camera in a divorce I’ve been using many lations of Smart phones ( iPhone ) yes most of time in Auto. The most important part is the sensor sizes are way smaller than even micro 4/3 or 1 inch sensors but still manage though clever technology to capture some nice images, APC crop sensor is huge compared to my smart phones sensor lol as as you pointed out I should hopefully be blown away with the better image quality when cropping in for example as my phone gets very noisy. Even the Panasonic 4/3 Om-1 and mark two looks fantastic. Yes I’ve been watching lots and lots of camera reviews to decide on what to buy and price is importance so crop sensors looking like the best deal for one’s pocket, Very much enjoyed your video and look forward to watching many more 🥳🥳🥳
Very useful video. Thank you 🙏🏻
Glad you enjoyed the video Vladd. Thanks for commenting.
With a Sony A7CR you have both worlds in a small camera body: a 60Mp full frame and a 26Mp APS-C 😀
I was really tempted by the A7RC but it isn’t much lighter than the A7R4 and so I ended up with that. Sony are putting out some awesome bodies.
@@Photography-Explained I didn’t choose it over the A7RV for the weight but the smaller size. It fits in my jacket pocket 😀
Makes sense!
@@Photography-Explained I`ve had the a7R4 but couldn`t live with the colors, it`s autofocus is also outdated.
I had the A7CR for a while but found it harsh and digital in it`s rendering. I have the A7CII now and the A1, they look very much alike. The A1 is faster and with better video, the A7CII is lighter with better autofocus.
For the money i think the A7CII is a steal.
The lenses make a big differnce in size and in weight. APSC: Sigma 18-50 2.8 vs. FF Sigma 28-70 2.8. : 290g vs 470g. And it is double the size on FF
To me this is clearly case dependent evaluation. I've been using APS-C many long years. Then I did switch to FF because of better IQ and "proper" FL of lenses. Later I did add the medium format (Fuji GFX).
Choosing the camera today I would opt for APS-C if I needed long reach for most of my shots. FF for general use and MF for the ultimate IQ.
At 2:11 time mark I noted an error
Is the Fuji GFX digital medium format better than full-frame and/or APS-C?
I haven't personally used a GFX camera and so it's difficult for me to talk about it.
For the landscape work I do in the mountains it probably would be "better" but also really heavy.
Not if you do astrophotography. There's no good medium format astro lenses, unless you use tracker.
For some contexts yes, for some no and for the rest doesn’t really matter.
All I know is technology impacts greatly. My R7 shows less noise than my 1D3 for instance. I go CF because I want the reach. With my EF 100-400ii and 1.4x iii if I crop to 20mpx I get the reach of 1100mm! At F8! And the IQ is very good. So I am in no hurry for a FF body for the occasional wide shot I might want. I got a Metabones 0.71x for that in the mean time and it is awesome
Are you shooting birds?
Some of the best photographs I have made, even deep astro shots have been APS-C.
I was just listening to a podcast on astro photography and the guy was saying his sensor is M4/3 sized as he can cool it easier. Interesting stuff!
Thanks for the comment.
@@Photography-Explained Just to add, google the ASI1600 . This a Panasonic M4/3 sensor that amateur astronomers have used for over a decade.
Owning both full frame and apsc from the same brand I can 100% guarantee FF is better. Capturing in low light, raising shadows or bringing back highlights the FF out performs apsc every single time.
Yeah that’s my experience too comparing Fuji to Sony. Thanks for the comment.
Many PRO shooters use M43 here in Africa. The special abilities of the Oly OM-1 II and the 20-100 and 150-400 PRO lenses are legendary, and that 400 becomes 1000mm equivalent optically, even 2000mm digitally (really lossless) and it makes a huge difference shooting wildlife. Lion don't brush; give them a wide berth.
Yep, I agree! In the field there are loads of gear photographers working with crop sensor systems.
Forgot two large points. Full frame are usually more ergonomic, and full frame cameras typically have better autofocusing, and other features rhan their aps-c counterparts. It why I went to full frame, no aps-c could match the full frames' autofocus, fps, and even video modes.
Thanks for the comment.
Pretty sure Sony's latest APSC cameras have much better autofocus vs my A7R4.
Ergonomics is something that I probably underestimate as a landscape photographer as I'm not really hand holding the camera for long periods of time.
This isn't really true. Most major manufacturers have their crop sensor lines and their full frame lines. They make several models from entry level to professional level in both those lines. They will have 4, 5, or 6 crop frame models and about the same in their full frame line. If you compare the feature set of the flagship crop sensor model to the entry level full frame model, the feature set on the crop model will be superior across the board - - - except for sensor size. And a LOT of features (such as auto focusing system) are shared between their crop and full frame models. For example, the 7D mkii (the latest flagship from Canon's DSLR crop sensor camera line) shoots 10 fps. The Canon 6D mk ii (Canon's latest entry-level DSLR model) shoots 6.5 fps. This is just one example. A flagship crop sensor almost always has superior features across the board to full frames on the entry-level end of their full-frame counterparts. The full frames on the lower end of the line surpass the crop sensors on the upper end of the line in one area : sensor size.
Otherwise, there would be no need for these manufacturers to make so many cameras. If you value features over sensor size, go for an upper end crop. If you value image quality over features, go for a lower end full frame. It's why manufactures make these cameras. To make just a blanket statement that full frame cameras are better at crop sensors at all these features across the board is just patently false.
With an Olympus camera with Pro lenses you can take better photos than with a full-format camera with standard lenses. Then, as already mentioned, the price and weight are an advantage.
Yep that makes total sense.
So for general, all around photography, would you prefer an OM1 over an XT5?
I think it depends on the lenses. Fuji don't really make a bad lens and the X-T5 body is smaller than the OM1. Either would be fantastic.
Yeah, good vid. Basically crop sensor means everything can be smaller but you collect fewer light photons, which is the big factor behind fuzzier ISO and worse dynamic range. You can't cheat physics, any more than astronomers can disregard their huge telescopes.
I love my crop sensor Fuji X-T5 as it's smaller/lighter than the full frame competition, plus I love the ergonomics. As I'm doing street photos I'm usually using something like f4 aperture (to capture background detail) and a full frame would need to be at f6 to achieve the same depth of field that I need. So I don't especially want to carry a full frame camera with all that weight when I'd be shrinking its aperture so much anyway.
Also I feel more comfy carrying a £2800 camera/lenses combo on the street than I would a £5000 full frame combo.
Yep that’s why I picked up the X-T5 too. Lighter, shooting at f6+ most of the time and I really enjoyed the dials on top as most of the time the camera is on a tripod for my landscape work and so I’m looking down on it. Awesome camera.
@@Photography-Explained For street, I get away with using Auto ISO settings during daylight but it's nice to go full manual exposure controls when it gets darker, to squeeze out the best exposure for the chosen subject. The top buttons and front/back control dials make it so easy. (During the day I divert my exposure compensation to the front control dial just to instruct the Auto ISO on the exposure level I'm looking for, which I love because if I depress that dial it effectively locks/unlocks it for me).
You didn't mention sharpness. There are a lot of people who use full-frame lenses on crop sensor camera's. With that combination, you loose sharpness, because a crop-sensor don't utilise the whole area of the front element of the lens, but only the centre part. That would almost be the same as using a telecoverter on a full-frame camera with a full-frame lens.
Exactly backwards. The central field performance of any lens is always better. So a few lens on a crop sensor does the best that lens can do. Prove it to yourself by taking images on your ff camera and cropping to the center and to a corner. Center wins.
Great advice thank you 🐶
Glad you enjoyed the video :). Thanks for commenting.
Check, understood
The only way I can tell is when I pixel peep
You can see the cleaner background with full frame.
But without pixel peeping I can't see a difference. Much like when I went from a 1080p TV to a 4k. Although I do sit quite far from my screen.
Maybe it's apparent to the person doing the pp but to me it's really hard to see a difference if I view the photo at its intended size.
That makes sense. I notice if I crop my landscape photos but that's about it.
Thanks for this amaizng video for the people like me who are stuck to choose between APSC Canon R7 vs Full Frame R8 which come with similar price. However, R8 got to be compromised on few features for the price it is coming with. I am a beginner who like both portrait as well as bird photography. While R8 could be best for the former one and R7 for the later. Could you please suggest me which one will be the best considering both the photography and features the two camera offer?
And you got ome more subscriber!!
Hey Deepak. I'm not a cannon user so I might not be the best person to ask.
R7 has a crop/high res sensor which is going to be much better for birding as it'll have more reach and more megapixels to crop.
R7 also has IBIS which is important if you're going to be hand holding your shots for both birding and portraits.
The R8 has the bigger sensor which will give better low light but that's countered by the IBIS.
R8 has better auto focus which is obviously important for the birding.
I think your choice comes more down to lenses. Canon doesn't have many APSC lenses and so you miss out on the benefits of smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses there.
I'd try and make the choice of what is more important to you, birding or portraits.
BUT both cameras will be perfectly suitable for a beginner.
Heck, if I was you I'd get something second hand instead. For the same money you'll get something much higher end.
@@Photography-Explained Thanks a lot for such a detailed explanation!
I have two questions.
1. Will FF lenses work better on APSC camera as well?
2. Is it possible to get good bokeh with APSC camera for portrait photography?
1. They may "work better" as you'll be using the center of the image circle and so will be less effected by soft corners at open apertures. But you're also buying and carrying around heavier lenses that you're not really getting the full potential from.
2. Absolutely. I had a 50mm f1.4 crop Fuji lens and that was more than enough to get solid bokeh. In the latest version of light room you can add more artificial bokeh anyway.
Don't over think it. Get whatever you think is best and get out and start shooting. Actually taking the photos is the hardest bit, not having the perfect gear.
So lenses give same dof but aperture smaller in crop. 28mm on d3500 not f2.8 anymore...
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your comment. Thanks for taking the time to comment though.
You might be right, but full frame pictures are more beautiful, no matter how you slice, pictures taking with full frame are better
That seems to be the consensus in the comments. Thanks for watching.
Try medium format. Even more precious mega pixels. Even less difficult. Even bigger photosites. Or get a large format. Wowzers. You can crop wayyy in and pixel peep for days. Or an 8x10 camera. But only for pros.
You can always buy a full frame camera and CROP in Photoshop. It will give you the same result as a 1.6 crop camera . Guaranty.
That works most of the time. I crop almost all of my landscape photos.
Well, that's correct if your FF have almost x1.6 mpx count of your apsc, if not you are loosing detail in comparison. And also a FF lens that really can handle that 40mpx for real, what is mostly a lie out of the pro series
only if you have 1.6 times the mp
R7 crop sensor £1500, R8 full frame £1000. Also crop isn't a good idea for travel unless you have an extra wide lens and landscapes could be a problem
Slightly more too it than that with the R7 having IBIS and much higher resolution. For wildlife it might be the correct option.
Thanks for the comment.
@@Photography-Explained As a retired professional now doing a lot of wildlife I haven't as yet been tempted by the R7 though I almost bought a 90D. Instead I can use crop mode, my 5Dsr does around 20mp in crop, about the same as my 7Dii, but I consider the sensor better. I had noticed that crop sensor bodies may produce a softer image as the outperform the lens. Cheers.
If you need to fix something, can you just use one size screwdriver? Different CMOS are really just different size tools. I use NIKON Z and M4/3 at the same time, and take them out on different occasions. In general, it is more advantageous to use a larger CMOS camera, just like the Hasselblad has better image quality than the FF, but when I am traveling and hiking, it has become a question of whether to take it or not.
I literally hold up both my crop and full frame cameras in the intro.
@@Photography-Explained yes, it's really a good combination.
Smartphones have crop sensor too
I'm a 71 y.o. engineer who prizes function over form. I have been a bicycle enthusiast since age 10 and a camera buff since I earned my first paycheck (as a graduate engineer employed in corporate America) in the 1970s. So I've been "getting it done" without ever owning a Campagnolo derailleur or a Nikon camera, so to speak. These days I ride a bike frequently, which has panniers loaded with camera, three lenses, two or three tripods... etc... and you betcha, I favor the miniaturization afforded by the APS-C format. I also get far more bang for my buck, with mirrorless APS-C, than full frame. I can have my cake and eat it too, so to speak, when attempting portraiture... by virtue of "focal length reducers" aka "speedboostes" ... branded as Viltrox and Zhongyui. I haven't "done the math yet" but it seems that high quality optics can restore that DOF advantage enjoyed by a full frame camera and an 85mm lens, while I use my Sony a6000-series camera.
How come you travel with multiple tripods?
@@Photography-Explained for camera + each remote speedlight
Ah, makes total sense!
light is light, an f1.2 on a crop sensor is grabbing the same light as f1.2 on full frame (photons are extremely small after all) So, understand that cheap lenses make photography no fun at all. If you cant stretch you budget for the best lenses, then stick with your phone.
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about this. Short answer - you are right - as far as light-gathering capabilities, the same amount of light is hitting the sensor.
Here's where the difference comes in :
Bokeh - that much sought after blurred background. This blurred background - or the degree to which the background is blurred has to do with how far away you are from the subject in relation to the background. For example, if you focus on a subject 10 feet away, and the background is 30 feet away, then obviously the background is 3 times farther away.
If you chose to use a crop sensor, AND keep the same framing on your subject, you have to move backwards. Suppose you have to move so far back that now the subject is 20 feet away, and now the background is 40 feet away - so now only twice as far away (Your distance to background to distance to subject ratio has now gone from 3:1 to 2:1) - ergo, you won't get as nice of bokeh with the crop sensor because you have to move farther away from the subject to get the same framing. Ergo - given the same framing on a particular subject, a crop sensor camera will not give you the same amount of bokeh as a full frame sensor.
This is why you DO apply the crop factor to the aperture - - - not because the amount of light is changing, but the amount of bokeh is changing. So given all other factors the same - - - if you want the same bokeh, the same framing of the subject, etc. then the resulting change in background blur can be quantified by the same crop factor that is used in other manners.
In other words, if you are shooting at 2.8 with a full frame camera - - - and you want to try that same photo with a crop sensor, you're going to have to move the camera back to get the same framing (or zoom out - - - but the same concept applies - - assume we are using a prime lens for simplicity's sake), but now your background blur is not as soft. To get that same background blur you had with the full frame, you're going to have to open up that aperture some more - - - and on a camera with a crop factor of 1.6, you'd divide that 2.8 aperture on the full frame by 1.6 and you'd get about a 1.8f stop.
So, if you want to take a photograph of a subject against a background with the same framing AND same background blur, you have to apply the crop factor to both the focal length AND aperture. Since we want the same framing, we simply move the camera back. To get the same background blur, we set our aperture to 1.8 instead of 2.8. You apply the crop factor to both.
In summary - a photograph with a full frame camera 10 feet away from a subject and 30 feet away from the background set at an aperture of f2.8 will give you the same framing and background blur (bokeh) as a photograph with a crop sensor 20 feet away from a subject and 40 feet away from the background set at an aperture of f1.8.
full frame sensor is just based on the size of films. it is never a sensor size standard. it is slightly better in low light and dynamic range but not that much. I have been photographing since I was 8 (that was in 1988). I have had countless of cameras and you know what? technology have come along way that the difference between the 2 is negligible. Ever wonder why fujifilm skipped the full frame format and went directly from APSC to medium format/large format? I have a fuji xt5 and a sony A7IV but i always use my fuji most of the time.
The standard film format size isn't a standard size? This was before my time but I assume that they used the same standard size for digital so there was compatibility with lenses etc.
Fujifilm are on record saying they "skipped" FF because they couldn't compete as a niche brand in the same space as the big boys. It was a business decision, not a performance decision.
I have 4 APSC DSLR cameras if I want full frame camera I use my Pentax Spotamatic SP2 film camera I paid little money for it may be old but is a lot cheaper than a new full frame camera
Nice one, thanks for sharing.
Today with the canon r8 for cheap, with a 50mm 1.8, you dont have a reason to buy overpriced fuji anymore....I actually sold my fuji for that reason
For portraits? Yep that makes sense.
And ( by comparison ) Medium Format fits in where 🤔
Not sure. I only own APSC and FF and so as an amateur I can only comment on what I have in hand.
It fits in nowhere, it`s just an even bigger, better and more expensive option.
It`s big and heavy, but if you don`t care about that it`s fantastic.
I disagree that a crop sensor lens has a longer reach and is therefore better than full frame. if look at the diagram shown the centre of the full frame image is the same size of the crop centre image and so a crop from a full frame image to apsc gives you the same reach. Having said that I use a Fuji system which is excellent for my needs and wouldn't want the cost and weight of a full frame camera
You are correct. The advantage in real terms is that you are using a smaller image circle on crop cameras and so for the same reach as cropping into full frame you end up with much lighter gear.
Apsc is best value and size for money 🙂
No doubt! Thanks for watching.
Depends, if you skip the step to fullframe you won`t be loosing money. Or you could stick to APS-C and keep it.
@@brugj03Apsc isn't losing money. Just I see it as more travel/hobby/part time work with it. Of course professionals would go straight to ff
@@brugj03 I think if you do photography for living then it is very considerable to use FF. But if you are hobby photographer, then APSC is more than enough :)
@@unperfectcooking Maybe, i have fullframe and mid and i`m not a pro.
I just have really high standards.
I still prefer full frame.
It's funny how one TH-camr starts on a topic and everyone else follows.
I'm not sure the full-frame vs crop debate started on TH-cam.
Why buy a MFT or an APC today, when you can get an Iphone 15 or 16 Pro...
Really Small Size, always in your pocket, and image quality barrely equal.
Fujii only makes crop sensor and medium format cameras. The crop sensor line is their main line. The majority of their lenses are going to be good. Nikon and Canon on the other hand do not make very good crop sensor lenses. Those lenses are for the beginners and the poor people. Those are for people who only get the camera out every one in a while or maybe a few people who really want to get into photography who can't afford it. Sony might make some good crop lenses but I never hear about them. There's not much profit in budget friendly gear. A lot of Canon apsc lenses are junk. Most are not that sharp. They don't render color that well. I'm sure Fujii has their share of bad lenses as well but they're not competing with a line of full frame gear like everyone else. And not that many Fujii showers are going to have a medium format camera. Prime lenses are the way to go to get performance on a budget. Especially if you don't mind doing the zooming in and out with your feet. If you do street photography you only need maybe one or two lenses. And that's probably the same for landscape. Definitely for milky way photos. You can get the Rokinon 14mm. But it's not always about the sensor size. There's features that are only found on full frame bodies that apsc bodies don't have because they only put those in the pro or semi pro bodies. Those things can improve your work flow. You don't get function buttons on most crop bodies that you can program to do aortic things so you don't have to dive into the menu.
Fuji don’t really make bad lenses. The handful that aren’t great are cheaper primes.
The problem with zooming with your feet is that you might walk off the mountain to get the shot.
Everything else you said makes sense though. Thanks for sharing your insights.
@Photography-Explained that's my point about Fujii. So if you go with Fujii you will pretty much be buying apsc lenses. That's not the case with Sony, Canon and Nikon. And yes that's true about prime lenses. You may be limited to where you can use them. Third party lenses are your best bet for zoom lenses.
Olympus OM1 and Fuji X100VI are evil laughing rightnow. People that cant even get the besy out of a cellphone straight up disregard how good modern camera sensors are, especially the modern ones.
Yep 100%. I have loads of great images from my Fuji gear.
And yet you fell into the trap of saying "upgrade to full frame" when in reality it's just another tool that provides some benefits while losing others 😉...then again, camera manufacturers want you to believe it's an upgrade.
Hey Bryan, I have both a Fuji and Sony system. For me, the RAW files from the Sony are an upgrade.
@@Photography-Explained fair comment. However how many mp is that Sony. You can get a Fuji x-h2 that has 40 mp and 13 stops dynamic range now, I would be curious to see how the Sony file and that file would be side by side.. wasn't a slam btw, just that marketing geniuses live to call things upgrades lol
Nikon d700 winner!
You won one?
Surely you only get the crop factor if you put full-frame lenses on a cropped sensor camera? A 17-85 lens designed for a cropped sensor camera is still 17-85 on that cropped sensor.
Yep, makes sense.
Nope, a 17-85 is a 17-85 regardless of what sensor you put behind it.
for bokeh on aps-c camera we can use ttartisan 35 mm f/0.95 to get around 50 mm f.l. and f/1.6~
Fuji all the way, i prefer 35mm film
How come?
How come?
@@Photography-Explained it's the sweet spot, lenses are cheaper too , dont need to have full frame to produce professional work and low light is a myt. It's all about how you light your scene.
@@rossb48 hmmmm I have zenit 11 with helios 44m-4 , I'm loving it because causes me to appreciate the time and mechanics to take proper photo than digital
Or, is high pixel count sensor better than a very low pixel count sensor? How well does the image from a ZV-E1 compare to the A7R5? What about comparing the ZV-E1's 12mp image to the 26mp image from the Sony a6700.
A simple test that requires few words just time to execute:
Get a very detailed model, gender doesn't matter. Your child will do find. Take a headshot using the best lens for each camera. Then compare and you will get your answer. Now print it on an 11x14 piece of photo paper and compare? From the right distance looking at each picture, can you tell the difference. All can be done at home.
I can tell you that a Sony A7R3's 42mp sensor is sensational. Those extra pixels over the 24mp sensor from the A6600 will show up and stun you, that is, if you are pixel peeping.
I choose a person's face as it yields incredible detail from the finest hairs all over a person, the eyes, eyebrow/lashes and the skin itself will give you the answer.
In landscape photography you have too many elements to deal with like haze, smoke, etc. Remember to take many photos as some will miss while others are spot on. And since we are not using film, there is no cost in taking as many pictures as you need and trashing all the ones that are no good.
Editing my A7R4 files is much easier than the X-T5. I think it’s the dynamic range that makes the difference.
I take them both out with me usually. Fuji with a long lens, Sony with a wide.
❤❤❤❤❤
Thanks for the love.
Congrats on the nuptials
Thanks Don :D.
You're actually incorrect about depth of field and your picture proved it. You moved the crop sensor further back to get the same field of view which caused greater depth of field for the crop sensor. A proper comparison is between a 25mm MFT, 35mm APSC and 50mm full frame. You'll find vield of view and bokeh is the same on all at the same f stop.
Thanks for the comment mate.
@@Photography-Explained I feel like a dick for not being nicer now
Hahaha, I run a sales training TH-cam channel which is my real business. People have said much worse to me on there :).
Well, a 25mm mft lens is still a 25mm lens, you will still have the same proportions and the other physical stuff, it just crops in the sensor and It cannot be compared to a 50mm ff lens, the filed of view is the same, but there are many differences
@@DespotRus its true that a 50mm MFT/APSC/FF all have the same distance from the lens optical centre to their sensors but this means different things to different formats. Thats why manufactures sometimes state their equivalent like I have above. We should probably stop calling them "crop" sensors as well since this is a misnomer. Nothing is being "cropped". The entire sensor is being used on each respective system with no loss of available pixels.
Umm lies again. Crop factor is not "feature" but a failure and a lie. Should not be for the love of all holy listed as a feature, its like calling a "feature" that some specific asian ladies have more than advertised in pants regions.
Its lens manufacturer lying to consumers.
While it is understandable to sell full frame 50mm lens that works on full frame correctly but then gets 1,4 crop factor so 70mm on APSC, nearly 90% of all available lenses are crop sensor only. They are advertised as "50mm* (on full frame)" and yet do not work at all on full frame, produce giant black circle around the photo edges. They literally FALSLY claim 50mm field of view on full frame while producing black arseole and again getting crop factor on APSC. They dont even have the audacity to state actual field of view on the box.
Fun fact: Fujifilm lenses are the only ones with correct field of view. When you buy 50mm lens for your Fujifilm camera it is 50mm and not some "full frame equivalent that isn't equivalent because it doesnt work" BS.
Bs again. Full frame does not make camera "heavier" and "bulkier". There are quite a lot of rather small full frame cameras especially from sony, there are even medium format cameras that are just as small. It was just common-ish that expensive full frame sensor was build in to all-expense-paid fully-featured 'professional' camera bodies. Manufacturer does not want to sell 10 grand more expensive hatchback with V12 engine, they want to sell you 200grand sports car with 30grand premium on the engine. Simple as that
While I agree with majority of the points made here. I am really sick and tired of the "best camera is the one you have" or "you can take good pictures with your phone" statements. Yes, you can take a good picture with your phone - in decent conditions. You will NOT take as good of a shot of dark-lit place with a phone as you could with full frame camera with proper lense. You will also often not even bother taking your phone out, because you know you will never capture the same thing as you could with a proper camera. So yea, sometimes, even with a good 1inch sensor phone camera, you will just decide not to bother, because you know the limitations of that device.
I think the point I was trying to make was that most people take crap photos no matter what camera they have. The limit isn't how much light they can gather.
@@Photography-Explained oh lol, yea, that statement is true
1 Inch phone sensor would be bigger than canon apsc, my phones sensor is only 7mm x 6mm
Crop sensor does not give extra bit of reach. With the same lens the image from a crop camera is just the same as the cropped center part of the image taken by a full frame camera. Take that image with a full frame camera and cut off the sides - it is not longer focal length.
Yep, exactly.
Crop sensor is a bit of a misnomer, its a smaller sensor, not a crop. Croping reduces pixel count. There is actually a telephoto effect in APSC/MFT compared to the same focal length lens in 35mm.
is that question like
which is more poweful russian forces or ukrainian forces ?
Not really sure I understand?
The myth has been debunked long ago, so why bring it up again?
Thanks for watching the video Pawel. Means a lot as I try and grow the channel.
So you don’t want exceptional image quality while you’re on that amazing vacation?
Haha depends what I’m taking pictures of I guess.
@@Photography-Explained I feel like the a7iv and two lenses is pretty space efficient. Take a 24-70 and a 70-200 and combined with super 35 mode you have everything you need from wide to portraits to punched in 300mm for distant objects.
It's OK they will be exceptional I'm sure😊 mine come out great too when I'm travelling,
there are better cameras than the A7IV....seems like you don't want exceptional image quality either
Calling any sensor cropped shows your ignorance and history of early Nikon and Cannon digital cameras.
Sorry John, I think you have the wrong end of the stick here.
I am ignorant to the early history of Nikon and Cannon digital cameras. I've only been shooting for 12-months.
This channel and content is for new photographers like myself.
I appreciate someone with your level of experience commenting though.
Who cares…is Just a tool… just go out and enjoy taking pictures
Hi Alan, totally agree and that was the conclusion at the end of the video. Thanks for the comment.
@@Photography-Explained 100% agree with you. Great content
Could you stop calling APS-C or micro 4/3 "crop" sensors ? It is pure marketing speak to make them less appealing. They are just other formats, with their strengths and weaknesses.
So called "full frame" is cropped compared to medium format; it should be called "small format".
I'm just trying to use the language that everyone understands. Thanks for your comment.
Next blabla video no one needs... 😝
Thanks for taking the time to comment on my video.
Can we please stop using the term "crop sensor". APS-C and MFT sensors is no more cropped of a full frame sensor, than a full frame sensor is of a Medium Format sensor.
That's what the industry calls them. Full frame has been the industry standard forever and so I don't think it's unreasonable to call a cropped size to the industry standard "cropped".
@@Photography-Explained is it? I don't see any of the companies using that term about their APS-C or MFT cameras. Not Nikon, not Canon, not Sony, and not Panasonic. They use "full frame", "APS-C", and "MFT".
"Crop sensor" is used to talk about APS-C and MFT sensors as something less than full frame. The only time it makes sense, is if one talks about using a lens for a larger format sensor on a smaller sensor. If you use a lens made for an APS-C sensor you're not cropping anything.
@@Photography-Explained and it's also completely incorrect to claim that "full frame has been the industry standard forever". The first digital cameras were APS-C sensors or smaller, except a few APS-H sensors, such as the first Canon 1D cameras.
Yes, and what was the industry standard film size before the small period of digital before they moved to full frame?
Yes, I used the term cropped in the context as "something less than full frame" in the video as it's simpler to communicate than to run through all the nuanced sizes of sensor.
Yes, the "industry" use the term crop sensor. The industry isn't just the manufacturers. I think if you look at any photography outlet they're all in agreement of the term. Most photographers read blogs, magazines and watch more videos than they do press releases.
Not sure why you have a bee in your bonnet over this. I use both crop and full frame systems. It wasn't a political statement lol.
Thank you for the engagement.
@@Photography-Explained Nice outro there, let's attack the person instead of his arguments and surmise about his mental state. That's when you know that your arguments are sound.