I have A6600 and the A7IV, I enjoy shooting landscape and bird photography. Despite the advantage of low light for full frame, I'm constantly taking my A6600 for birding trips and landscape photography. Being a lighter setup enables me to be less "scary" looking holding a big camera/lens. I can say its true that the full frame is not 2 or 3 times better, maybe just 20 to 30 % better, usually in iso performance. As such I'm now considering very seriously to sell all my full frame and go back to apsc (A6600 + A6700)
I think there are a few points to highlight here: APSC f1.4 is equivalent to full-frame f2.1 in terms of bokeh - therefore the background separation is significantly different in my opinion. Also, most of the shots you took were around ISO 100. Full frame widens the gap from crop sensor at higher ISO values ..... the one scenarios where you had higher ISO values - the full-frame at ISO8000 was significantly better than the APS-C at ISO6400. These may be the deciding factors for a lot of people and therefore should be highlighted properly.
All true. On the other hand, the additional "reach" of a high resolution APS-C camera (like the Canon R7) might be just what you need for capturing shy little songbirds. Not only does the 1.6 "crop factor" get you "closer " with the same lens, but the high megapixel density (higher than the R5) will allow you to crop additionally in post. Also, APS-C is a fine economical choice for documenting family outings, vacations etc. There is no universal "right" choice.
If I’m correct this is untrue. Crop factor has no effect on aperture. So a 56mm f1.4 lens on APSC has similar depth of field and bokeh effect as a 85mm f1.4 lens on full frame. Feel free to educate me because I don’t know the physics that would prove either way.
@@isblijkbaarnodig Bokeh is still impacted as we can see from the video. Bokeh is combination of parameter - Aperture (same for both - 1.4) - The focal length of the lenses (different - 56 vs 85) (Even if FOV is the same) - Distance from the subject So IMHO, I would say a 56mm f1.4 lens on APSC should be closer to the bokeh of 56mm f1.4 on FF (positioned at the same distance from the subject) The FF would have a wider FOV and the subject would seems to be futher away. but the amount of bokeh should be similar Test would be needed
I have both and I reach for the A6400 with the Sigma trio setup more often due to the size and weight advantage and the results are soo close. You helped me realize that. Another great video and service for the community. Thank you!
@@DennisDey Yes and no, definitely a difference after ISO 3200 but noise reduction software like DXO has gotten soo good at reducing noise making it less of an issue. There's more background blur with shorter focal lengths with FF but the lenses are more expensive. So there's give and take.
Every time I get trapped in sales or full-frame love youtube videos, I come back to your channel and take my A6500 and go out so happy to take some shots. Thank you for another great video 🙌
Yeah, as was shown in the video and what a lot of people are saying in the comments, low light is definitely the huge difference here. As somebody whose favorite genre is astrophotography, low light performance is among the most important aspects of a camera. I started with the a6000 and Rokinon 12mm f/2.0, but once I had the budget to move to an a7s and Rokinon 18mm f/2.8 the difference was incredible, and that difference increased even more once I got the Sony 20mm f/1.8. Only big downside of the a7s is that autofocus is garbage, but I *still* like to use the a7s more for action shots (sports) regardless, because it just functions so much better in low light situations. I use my a6000 for basketball sometimes, because it's closer-up than when I shoot soccer and so I can use the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, but for most of the rest it's worth dealing with the crappy AF. It just means I have to be more careful about timing, since continuous AF + burst shooting is unbelievably terrible.
As someone who has the Sony A6600, and have had the A6100 for years, thanks for making me feel better about sticking with the APSC line :)! I prefer the 30 mm Sigma because I like not having to be so far away from the subject when shooting, and then just use the zoom 18-108mm or the 70-350mm (both sonys) if I want other views. It's always fun and SO satisfying when reviewers challenge the status quo as well as "sacred cows" that people hold dear as to which is better. One thing that the APSC line kills the full frame, besides price, is size, portability, weight, and general usability, especially for travelers. Smaller less conspicuous cameras get used much more than the larger bulky cameras---it just feels weird to attend MOST social gatherings or events local to your home and carry big cameras, almost no one does!
Interesting comparison but, FF can be done much cheaper and for more reasons than you might think. I will compare your $1000 setup to my $1200 Sony FF setup and why I chose it and what I miss. First of all, Sony A7ii with Sony 85mm f/1.8. Yes the lens is slower but still faster (more bokeh) if you convert the aperture. I think this is a better, more interesting comparison than the A7c with a very pricey Art lens. Advantages A7ii for me. -Much larger and brighter EVF -EVF in the centre which as a left eye shooter is so much better -2 control dials for manual shooting -IBIS -Magnesium build and better ergonomics (more buttons lol) -Better dynamic range and low light performance (not my main reason) Advantage A6100 -Lighter and smaller -fantastic eye AF, better AF all around (I do wish I had this) -faster shot rate -Usually cheaper and lighter lenses for the same job. -Better video (I have yet to use any of my cameras to shoot video) I chose the A7ii for the IBIS, low light but mainly build and ergonomics for me. I use 3 lenses with it, Tamron 28-200 f/2.8-5.6, Sony 85 f/1.8 and Sony 50 f/1.8. It is my carry everywhere do everything camera.
The cost savings continue to add up as you introduce additional lenses, too. The Sony 70-350mm, Tamron 17-70mm, Tamron 11-20mm, Sony 10-18mm, and the Sigma Trio (16, 30, & 56mm)…all far cheaper than full frame equivalent lenses. So, as you build out your collection of lenses, the cost savings will continue to grow. If you have the money, or you’re making enough income off your work, then go full frame or even medium format (if you’re really making the big bucks). Otherwise, APSC has come a long way.
Most of the equivalent lenses are the same price or slightly more expensive. The Tamron 11-20 f/2.8 isn't much less than a 16-35 f/4, which has the benefit of OIS. The Sigma 56mm f/1.4 is currently $430USD and the Sony 85mm f/1.8 is $550 but lets in more total light on a full frame sensor, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is $290 and the Sony 50mm f/1.8 is $250, the Sigma 16mm is the notable exception as the cheapest first party option for Sony is the 24mm f/1.8 Zeiss T* at double the price.
I actually have the 70-350 on the way as we speak. Should show up on Tuesday so I can get some crisp mountain goat shots. And one thing that I like about the APSC line is they will only improve, unless Sony ditches it altogether, which seems highly unlikely. After all, imo, they have to beat out the Fujifilm XT4 if they're a serious camera brand.
I think it's important to point out that the composition of the images are just as important as the body/lens setup; if you're a hobbyist and just like taking pictures where the only thing that matters is the sharpness of the subject in center, then the APS-C setup with the 56mm is perfect for you. The 56mm DC DN is seriously so sharp and such a steal at that price point. However, if you're doing professional paid work, and the "bluriness" of the background is just as important as the subject, then you need to get the full frame setup. That 85mm Art lens is obviously just as sharp as the 56mm (if not sharper in some instances) but comes with the advantage of having more depth of field than the APS-C lens. There were a couple of times when Arthur thought the 56mm was sharper than the 85mm, but that's because the 56mm f1.4 equates to about an 84mm f2.1's depth of field (not light gathering capabilities) in full-frame terms, meaning more of the subject will be in focus. Is it worth the extra $800 just to get a little more depth of field if you're a hobbyist or just casually taking photos? Of course not. But when the whole image matters for paying clients, then that extra creamy background blur from the full-frame setup will be worth the investment. Equally important to note is that when you start stopping down both lens to f4.0 or 5.6, then the difference of background blur and sharpness becomes moot because both lens perform admirably in terms of corner-to-corner sharpness. If you don't need the background blur or bokeh in the kind of photography that you shoot, such as landscape, studio photography or real estate, save yourself the money and get the aps-c setup since you'll probably be shooting around those aperture settings anyways.
Here is the same Aperture, for the same Aperture, same ISO. The brightness must be the same, the only different is the number of pixel. For those reason that the photo is better because of retified by the internal computer, iphone instead of camera is a better choice for you.
Nice video and comparison. APS-C's have gotten so good that the differences are minimal until pushed to the extremes where F.F. has the edge. If you are a pro, go F.F. without question. However, for casual weekend Dad shooters like me, APS-C is an amazing package. My A6400 has served me well and I have no need to go F.F. Both those 85mm and 56mm are outstanding lenses.
"APS-C's have gotten so good that the differences are minimal until pushed to the extremes where F.F. has the edge." Absolutely! Especially in terms of super high dynamic range situations and low light/high iso situations. I don't know how the A6400 and the newer versions of sony aps-c function in the real world, but in situations where my lighting is sufficient and controlled, its incredibly difficult to tell the difference between my a6000 and a7iii. Especially if not using a higher end prime on the a7iii, there are times where the crop sensor camera performs better. However, in situations where i need to significantly bring down highlights, bring up shadows, or use a higher ISO, the a7iii blows my a6000 outta the water. Noise is much more well controlled and looks better (less color noise) and have used shots at like 12,000 ISO where there is no way i could have with my a6000. With things like cost and weight factored in, I almost feel like I coulda just kept using my crop sensor camera with quality lighting, instead of spending the money on a new FF camera and much more expensive glass. Having a joystick is a lifesaver for me though
Well said, I share the sentiment. If pro (or a spare few $1k around), go FF. Otherwise, APSC is adequate. I fall in the APSC. That being said, I still dream of getting a FF set-up (just lacking the extra $)....one-day
I have been using the 56mm and a6100 combo for over a year now, the images it produces are incredible and in my opinion the best value one can get, great video!
The thing that is not close and obvious in every shot is that the full frame setup always has a more out of focus background for the same f stop. This is because you need to convert the equivalent aperture when moving from full frame to APSC just as you convert the equivalent focal length. An APSC f1.4 is not equal to a full frame f1.4 it is equivalent to an f2.1. To have the same background blur as the full frame f1.4 you would need an APSC lens close to f0.9.
After watching my A7R2 rapidly fall behind more recent generations I am now pursuing APSC lenses to round out my kit. Cropped mode on my camera gives 18MP, which is adequate if we are honest, so I appreciate your emphasis on APSC Sony options. Good video, I like the results from the 56mm a lot.
I like the sigma 105mm for my a7iii and like you said I'm not a fan of the noise on the smaller sensor. Limits my ability at night. So it's a no brainer for me. But you better start lifting some weights to Lug around that Sigma 105 mm
Thanks for this review. I mostly simply take family photos of course non-professionally. I have an APSC set up but youtube videoes make me dream of a full-frame. However, I will simply save the money for something like a house.
I liked the colors better sometimes on the aps-c but the bokeh looked noticeably better on the full-frame. If you have the money go with the full-frame but I don’t think you’ll be disappointed with the aps-c setup.
Fullframe can get really expensive, but I don’t think you lose too much going for f1.8 lenses, which are priced similarly to aps-c lenses but offer more light while keeping a small profile closer to aps-c
I myself have been using the 85mm f/1.8 (amazing sharpness), the 20mm f/1.8 (my favorite lens hands down), and the 35mm f/1.8 (it’s alright). Bought them used, but even new that’s $1996 in lenses. They’re all very small, compact lenses that are just pleasant to use. The 85mm f/1.4, 24mm f/1.4, and 35mm f/1.4 G Master lenses are currently going to set you back $4300. They’re much larger lenses, and cost considerably more. That 85mm in particular is pretty chunky
I have the Sony 85 and 50 in f/1.8. I also have the Tamron 35 f/2.8 and 28-200. The 85 is amazing, the 50 is OK but slow to focus. The 35 is insanely sharp and the 28-200 blows my mind for a super zoom. I carry the zoom and the 50 in a tiny shoulder bag smaller than my wife’s purse. It’s always in the truck ready to go. It’s a great setup.
yeah modern apsC can do professional work too. full frame is mere hype and overkill at this point. for the size and price it demands, its not that much better than apsC; most of the time they look close enough some light editing can pick up the slack. and unless you're cropping a lot, or have some other niche ass use case, apsC is the smart choice
Great comparisons. The APS-C is definitely a good camera matched with the Sigma. I would NOT spend the extra on the A7C and expensive lens. One might think that people would not want really really sharp portraits anyway, right? One observation I had was that I was amazed how your wife was able to duplicate her poses. you can tell when your kid is in the shots cause he is looking at different places in his shots but your wife isn't. Very professional!
Got a6100+56mm and im happy with it, but in this video I see that FF + Sigma Art is a lot better, not only skin tones, shades, colors but even sharpness! If I see it in blurred and compressed YT video then in RAW it will be even more difference, this comparison makes me want to buy FF! If I were professional I would not hesitate and insta buy A7C + sigma 85 atm cause its huge upgrade.
Here's a little fun fact: technically, full frame does not produce better bokeh. Practically, it almost always does. If you get this Sigma 85mm, you'll have the same exact bokeh on APS-C as you do on full frame. However, the amount of background blur (not the quality) depends on how far away you're focussed. Because of the crop, you need to be further away from your subject to fill the frame in the same way as on full frame. Being further away means you'll focus further away, so you get less bokeh. But if you're focussed at 50cm on full frame and 50cm on APS-C, you'll get the same bokeh!
That is correct but like you said to get the same perspective you have to step back. So in the real world you do get less bokeh in most circumstances. Plus the compression. An 56mm is a 56m. Not matter what crop you get. An 85mm is an 85mm no matter what.
I feel this is the same as saying that a 24mm lens can get you the same shot of a bird as a 800mm lens, "all you have to do" with the 24mm lens is get superclose to the bird but otherwise you get the same picture. For the same composition you have to use a much wider aperture on a smaller sensor to get the bokeh, so a big with a lens with a very wide aperture on full frame cannot be trumped by an aps-c camera in the bokeh-fuzzyness department.
From the numbers perspective you are correct. But the most important detail was left out. If I perfectly frame a subject for a portrait photoshoot with a 56mm FF, it is physically impossible to take the picture from the same distance with apsc 56mm due to the crop factor. Therefore I have to step back, and bokeh is reduced. It’s that simple. Full frame’s main advantage is that its wider
To accurately compare the bokeh ‘appearance’ between full frame and APS-C images you also need to multiply the aperture value by 1.5x. Our 56mm f/1.2 is the full frame equivalent of an 84mm f/1.8 lens. But don’t panic it still provides the light transmission value of a f/1.2 aperture!
I own a Fuji film, XT5 and I can honestly say this thing competes very closely with most full frame cameras. I could post these photos on any full frame page and people would not know if I did not state the camera.
The thing for me which I noticed is the low light performance since I do take more photos at night upgrading from my A6000 to the Sony A7III was a good idea plus doing time-lapse is much easier on the A7III. Mind you the upgrade from the a6000 to the a7III was a massive leap all in all so it made more sense for me.
I love, love the sony a6000 and I bought it 3 years ago based on your videos. What I would love from you, as I choose my next camera, is to compare photos taken only at night. I'm going Tokyo and would love to take bokeh pictures in lower light conditions which is why I'm thinking of getting the A7C but not sure if the full frame is worth it. Please do a video on the same camera comparison but with night photography.
I think another thing to consider is cropping, highest crop sensor map camera is the r7 at 32 MP which allows you to crop more, but normally I wouldn’t suggest not setting up your scene with with a crop sensor. Also the full frame camera depending on brand allows you to go between lenses. Also dual sd cards, features etc. Even though i believe every release cameras are becoming closer and closer, the r10 for 800 bucks shoots like 15 fps a second for sports. I think if you want high res Full frame and weather seal etc, if you want good photos that get the job done m there is nothing at all wrong with a crop sensor. Also if you are considering line of work. A lot of employers, clients get kind of interested in what you are using. I had a Fuji x-t3 that was amazing but jobs wanted canon/Sony.
I film weddings with an A7 iii and an A6400. Have both Sigmas 16mm and 30mm f1.4... They are amazing, whatever body you go for (crop or ff), no bride or groom have ever complained about the films. We start the day with Sony's F4s lenses, and when the night comes, we switch to Sigmas.
Thanks for taking the time to make the side by side comparison. I think this will help me justify the lens purchases before I step into a full frame body.
Fantastic video, thanks for doing this comparison. I'm on the fence to upgrade to full frame, but after seeing this, I'm going to keep my A6000 and my Sigma 56. I can see how lucky I am to have them and no need for spending another $2K. I do think the full frame is better, but not for my needs. This was a video I never imagined I needed, so well done, thank you for doing this!
I appreciate these videos so much. Hardly any channels really go with in depth comparisons between FF and crop cameras. They always overtly or subtly trying to push FF. I am willing to bet that 95% or more the people would never notice the difference. Save the money and use it for travel or other things.
I just bought my Sony a7iii a few months ago and I can definitely say it is a better camera than Sony a6000 I had before. Also my new lenses are a lot better! I love the bokeh, colours are better by my opinion too and low light performance as well! But if you have the same amount of megapixels on full- frame and APSC you don't see a big difference in detail. And this video is a proof of it!
Nice comparison, except for one thing. You shot with both lenses mostly at f1.4, ignoring the "aperture" crop factor. That is why the APSC shot always looked under exposed compared to the full frame. It would make sense to compare both the cameras with the art lens, using a speed booster with APSC.
Arthur, I'm not saying this to say Full frame is far superior than the Apsc or anything... But the full frame cameras shallow depth of field is noticeably more than the Apsc which can also effect sharpness 🤷♂️ If you stopped down to f/2.0 on full frame the sharpness will likely increase a bit and the background bokeh would me more similar as well. Can't go wrong with either setup if you know what you are doing .
For portrait photography, you always want to be able to capture more detail so a full-frame camera is a natural choice. The APS-C setup you are using is a very strong contender but the difference is the price is well justified. I would take an APS-C camera for landscape shots as I stop down significantly for such photos anyways.
It's not just the cost that puts APS-C at a strong advantage, it's the size and weight of the equipment. I bought an R5 about 2 years ago and I have some really nice glass to go with it, but I never took it with me it was too heavy. On the other hand, I have a Sony a5100 with the Sony 35mm 1.8 and it fits in my front pocket no problem at all. It doesn't have as good low light performance as my a6600, but it's fine for outdoors photography and that's where I would be carrying it anyway. I got the a5100 with a kit lens for less than $300. I got the lens on eBay for $275.
Hi Arthur, thanks. Main thing I am wondering about is that ff versus aps-c will not matter that much during the day, but if you use it during the evening and night, there is a major difference. I owned the A6000 and A6600 and currently own the Sony A7RIV (bit unfair, major difference in detail). I also noticed that the dynamic range is much better with ff (i.e. while shooting directly into the sun).
Actually preferred most of the APSC photos; on a technical side the FF likely best, but this is TH-cam and its more about how it looks on a smaller screen. Both were nice and regardless very close. Well done!
I totally agree with you. For casual users, the APS-C setup is great, but if you want that extra wow factor, get the full-frame. It's like NASCAR racing, if your car was slightly better than it is, you may have won the race.
While the differences aren't huge I do think they are clear and should be considered an upgrade. The biggest difference (except minor white balance values that are not related to the sensor size) is definitely depth of field, with blurrier background and access to smoother skin on full frame (for example less details on her forehead in the first shot). Sharpness in this comparison is very equal but larger sensor in an advantage for lens design as it requires the lens to resolve less detail over the same sensor area to create an equally sharp image. Then of course there's the noise difference which I think matters less as long as you shoot in good light. Less quantifiable though is that I do think the FF image looks more three-dimensional, if you look at her face zoomed in it seems to have more depth to me.
The interesting detail that jumped out to me on the full frame vs crop debate is that the price spread between 1.8 and 1.2 or 1.4 glass these days is bigger than the price spread between a full frame or crop sensor body (especially with canon, and ESPECIALLY when you’re looking at multiple lenses and a single body down the road). If I spend $500 on a crop sensor canon and $1,300 on a 50mm F1.2 lens it’ll roughly match the FOV/DOF of a $999 EOS RP with a $400 85mm F1.8 lens and $99 adapter. If I put a $199 50mm F1.8 on the RP it looks (roughly) like a 35mm F1.2 would on a crop sensor. If I put an 85mm F1.2 or F1.4 on a crop sensor it can roughly match the look of a 135mm F2 on a full frame, but an 85mm F1.2 (in canon land) costs $1,000 more than a 135mm F2. Throw three of these lenses in your kit next to one body and the $500-$700 saved getting a crop sensor body is moot next to the $2000-$3000 spent on 1.2-1.4 glass over 1.8 glass. It’s the weirdest math problem which completely flipped around my previous belief that it always makes more sense to buy the best glass. These days when asked for camera advice (from barbers and stylists who want to focus on portraiture) I tell them to get the cheapest 85mm prime they can find and the cheapest full frame body they can find. Slap a used EF 85mm F1.8 on a used 6D original and you’ve got portraits that would cost twice as much to roughly match with a crop sensor.
Thank you, Arthur, for these amazing reviews! To me the Sigma 56mm appeared slightly punchier with more contrast, the Sigma 85mm was flatter, but a bit sharper even at 1-stop "effectively" wider aperture. What I noticed is that you were comparing both lenses at identical apertures - in such case APS-C will have more DoF, so if it's necessary to compare FF vs APS-C lenses at "equal" settings from DoF/bokeh perspective, I always compare with APS-C lens at 1-stop wider aperture (say Sigma 85mm f2 vs Sigma 56mm f1.4). That way it better shows what would be the sharpness difference in real life when shooting with specifically chosen amount of background blur that you're after.
I currently have an A6000 that I bought in 2014 and an A7C that I bought in summer of 2021. I've been thinking about selling both and buying an A6100 or A6400. I find that I often prefer the color in the A6000 to the A7C. But there are many things I love about the A7C that makes it hard to let go of and many things I probably still could learn more of from it.
If both lenses are at f4, you will indeed see more bokeh on the full frame lens. Just as the focal length is subject to the crop factor, so is the aperture. F4 on a crop sensor is equivalent to F6 on full frame. It would have been interesting to see the results of the 80mm on the crop sensor and the 50mm on the full frame.
You are the man who cleared the doubt of buying APS-C camera compared to Fullframe. Finally someone to support the APS-C where everyone brags about fullframe 😍😍
Photography is my hobby and I bought a6600 after following Arthur's suggestion. I have kit lens, sigma 16mm and sigma 56mm. The photos those I've taken so far.... are impressive. Even you push the limits in low light,the results are great. For video, it needs gimbal; but for photo it is good setup for good price. I've never used full frame; but if it is hobby, I think it is better to spend the price difference to diffetent lenses like tele photo lens.
There are differences in sharpness but because of the lens used and not because of the aps c sensor. if we put the same objective in aps c there will be no differences. where if there are many differences it is in the price. Aps c and full frame in price is a huge difference and in my opinion it is not worth spending so much since this sony a7c is a complete decal of the a6600 💁🏻♂️. Excellent video greetings 👍🏼😄
I'v discovered a very nice (and obvious) trick for APS-C and 4/3 if you need more bokeh - simply take your model further from the background. The same scene side by side will have more bokeh on FF and it's obvious. But if you have aps-c or 4/3 you can also have a very nice bokeh. You have different tools so don't try to use them the same way as FF and expect same results. BTW - this trick also works even with 1/2.3" cameras with long zoom. And the answer is - both setups did excellent job.
What I’d love to see is a Sony APS-C with a full frame body. Something comparable to the Fuji XT-4. One thing I’ve fallen in love with my A7RIV has been just how nice a larger camera with more dials and exposure control is to use. And considering I use a lot of my APS-C lenses on it in crop mode (still has 26mp) it almost functions like a full feature APS-C. If we could get that kind of a body layout, and add 4K @60 I’d be all over it. Dual card slots, the large battery, better viewfinder, overall better control for manual shooting.
The colors between the two are interesting. Sometimes I like the skin tones on the A7c, and then other times the a6100. I currently shoot an a6600 with the Sigma 56mm. Good stuff as always Arthur!
It's a trick. He's changing the white balances to try to throw people off, and obviously people gravitate to the warmer white balances as better. But all he's doing is crippling one image to make the other look more preferable. At 1:1 with the same white balance, the full frame wins every time. So he's trying to equivocate white balance to distract from image quality, as if the white balance changing means that the image quality must not be a big enough difference. But since we see color and contrast in colors, bad color rendering can naturally make a superior quality image look bad in comparison. But once you account for if the full frame wasn't crippled by a thrown off white balance, it would always edge out.
The colors between the two are the result of a couple items not being addressed. The 85mm lens being longer will require the light to travel a bit further, therefore, there's about a 1/3 f/stop difference. You notice it the most when the shutter speeds and iso are the same, the 85mm will appear more saturated in color. On some of the shots where the colors are more equal, the shutter data on the 85mm lens reads about 1/3 slower or the iso will be higher by 30% to compensate for the light loss. Both lenses produce beautiful images and would certainly be an asset in anyone's camera kit.
The Sigma 56mm F1.4 is a great lens, no doubt. When comparing both lens on day time, where light is sufficient, the difference isn't much, definitely not worth 3x money for extra smooth background, however in lowlight situations, the A7C will definitely outperform A6100, the combination of FF sensor + IBIS will gives you a cleaner shot(less noise) with better dynamic range, very useful if you need to do some post processing. If your camera or lens doesn't have IBIS/OSS, you will had a harder time to get a sharp image with slower shuttle speed handheld, not an issue for day time shooting.
The great advantage of a full-frame matrix is precisely in the post-processing and final image. Greater dynamic range, softer transition between color gradients. Great iso value with a clean picture. Still, there is a difference for the eye. and if you are shooting a landscape, then in addition to a full-frame matrix, you also need a good resolution of the matrix.
I own the a6600. The main reason I want to move to full frame is for the a7IV. If it has better rolling shutter and a side flip screen, that’s all I want tbh.
It’s similar to comparing shooting with a full frame camera and an f1.4 lens vs a full frame camera and an f2.0 len’s. Yes in many situation f2 is fine, but we need to recognise the clear value of that more expensive f1.4 as well. Also noise will be less and sharpness will be higher regardless of that. There will be a low light threshold where one camera passes the no-go limit while the other one is still going strong.
Thank you. I was confused earlier. Full frame or APSC which is better for me. I found my answer. I learned a lot from your comparisons. APSC is best for me. Thank you again
Battery life is another factor. Those FF sensors draw a lot more power. I bought a used A7mk2 and it’s crazy how it goes through batteries compared to the A6000.
I looked at all photos closely again. To my Eyes: ALL ff photos (on Left) are sharper and more detailed !! I guess that on a 36 MP or 42 MP ff you get even more quality and detail on ff. However, if we DO NOT compare photos side by side, than the difference is hard to spot. The a6100 quality is excellent. I use and love the a6000 and now I see that there IS a point to upgrade someday to FF ! Thank you Arthur, for this very good informing video !!
In my own experience, the difference in iso performance when comparing my A7C to my previous A6400 & A6600 is night and day. For daytime photography or with 1.4 lenses on the aps-c, it’s perfect. I don’t see myself going back to aps-c though. Even though I still have an old a6000 with the sigma 56mm to bring places where I dont have to be careful.
@@eddewhurst7662 If you’re out at night you might have to! Also, I was referring to sensor performance in general with the 6400 and 12800 iso comment. The guy was asking what did he mean by night and day and I tried to expound on the level of performance the a7iii/c have. I also speak from the perspective of someone who’s owned an a6600, X pro 2, Gfx 50r and now is building out my full frame e mount lens collection while I wait for the a7iv and renting bodies for shoots in the mean time.
@@earthlingtheaaron21 It just seemed a strange comment in the context of portrait photography, I have been shooting for over 50 years and cannot remember ever using anything above base ISO. In the film days 400 asa was far to grainy for portraits. Though each to their own.
That APS-C sensor is generations older compared to the one on the A7C. Hope Sony releases the next iterations with a new BSI APSC without the AA filter.
@@ArthurR do you have the raw files as well? It'd be interesting to see how close they are when you manually match noise reduction color balance etc. The main difference is likely going to just be the different rending from the lens and focal length.
@@cweb1988 I too am keeping my trusty A6000 for now. I hope Sony releases a professional APS-C body with solid weather sealing, two card slots, fast read out BSI sensor, some advanced and fun features like Live Composite, a good IBIS. Fast touch sensitive screen. That would be awesome.
The answer is APSC is NOT a disadvantage. Your lenses and knowledge matter more than anything else. But definitely buy FF if you need better low light stills and the shallower DOF.
Thanks Arthur. Because of you I got the a6400 and sigma 56 1.4 a while back. Great advice. Since then I thought the a7c would be my next move (full frame whilst keeping the flip out screen) but this video has proven there's not a big need after all.
amazing comparison. We can rely on crop sensors easily. Can you guys make a comparison video between Sigma 56 mm 1.4 vs Sony FE 85mm 1.8? Should We Take advantage of taking Full frame lens over Sigma 56 in the future? For this what should I compromise for that? For Sony 85 we are getting better bokeh + Future upgradation. For this, Have I sacrificed some image sharpness?
I can tell the difference in the depth of field in these photos. As we know bigger sensor makes us move nearer the subject where as aps c makes us stand further if we are using the same focal lengh on each cameras. That said composition and good lightning whether its aps c or full frame can make photo look gorgeous or really ugly
Hey Arthur, its nice that you point out that full frame isn't everything. A lot comes down to lenses and a lot of apsc lenses can get very simular results. Keep in mind that judging sharpness when shooting at slower shutterspeeds isn't ideal, neither the 56mm or the A6100 has stabalisation, also setting your whitebalance helps with consitency of the colors. Anyway, i think that the Sigma 56mm is a bargain, but the A6100 is pretty expensive in europe. Hopefully it helps people making the right choice, because full frame isn't the only good option.
I don't know why many photographers focus on sharpness only. You can get sharp images with different camera and lens setups, and that's when you have understood how to use light on your subject, and how to set manually the colors in your camera. Here you can clearly see that the FF setup is way better than the APS-C in terms of depth of field and low-light. In addition, you spend $3000, not to get sharper images, but to have a pro camera setup with better battery life (try to shoot 12 hours straight with APS-C and tell me how many batteries you need), less noise in higher ISO, better ergonomics, etc. Clearly, it's about what you can afford, and what's the purpose for choosing this setup over the other.
I’m impressed with how well the APS-C performed against the full frame. I wonder how much difference there is between the contemporary and the art lenses. Again I am impressed with how well the contemporary performed against the art lens. When I bought my APS-C camera I figured that I could go with a loaded APS-C instead of an entry level full frame. I’m happy that I went that route. Thank you for doing this comparison.
For the majority of amateur photographers APS-C just makes more sense. In a addition to fairly marginal differences in IQ nowadays, mostly at very high ISOs or shallow depth of field there is the difference in expense, portability and weight to consider.
The difference in the final results aint absolutely enough to justify such a major price gap. Im a casual shooter and my A6000 + TTartisan 50mm F1.2 set-up produces photos that easily satisfie me! It all depends on our work/hobby priorities.
@@MarioPalomera Hi Mario, not really actually, since that lens is suitable for portraits so u r supposed to take those kind of pics and the subject is quite immobile most of the time, plus I love manual lenses in general. That being sad, youre goin to miss optical stabilization much more instead, but if you get used to it, its all fun from that moment
Amazing comparison. I was torn between the two lenses. Yes I started from the lenses to work my way backwards. I decided to go apsc. Suits my needs better.
Thank you so much Arthur for showcasing so many sample pictures side by side! In 2024 it's really hard to decide if with 2k someone should buy APSC and a cornucopia of lenses or buy one of the cheaper FF 😅 for family / travel with small primes, but thankfully I also do only 99.9% family photos that we only print 3x2" or share to grandparents so I'm glad you help us all understand our use cases better 😂
That Sigma 85mm is a stunner. Thanks for the demo of that. Regarding the APS-C, low light noise is the deal breaker for me. Color can always be improved in post.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
I have A6600 and the A7IV, I enjoy shooting landscape and bird photography. Despite the advantage of low light for full frame, I'm constantly taking my A6600 for birding trips and landscape photography. Being a lighter setup enables me to be less "scary" looking holding a big camera/lens. I can say its true that the full frame is not 2 or 3 times better, maybe just 20 to 30 % better, usually in iso performance. As such I'm now considering very seriously to sell all my full frame and go back to apsc (A6600 + A6700)
I think there are a few points to highlight here: APSC f1.4 is equivalent to full-frame f2.1 in terms of bokeh - therefore the background separation is significantly different in my opinion. Also, most of the shots you took were around ISO 100. Full frame widens the gap from crop sensor at higher ISO values ..... the one scenarios where you had higher ISO values - the full-frame at ISO8000 was significantly better than the APS-C at ISO6400. These may be the deciding factors for a lot of people and therefore should be highlighted properly.
How often do you really use such high ISO numbers?
This just makes it clear that you only NEED full frame when you are focusing on night photography.
All true. On the other hand, the additional "reach" of a high resolution APS-C camera (like the Canon R7) might be just what you need for capturing shy little songbirds. Not only does the 1.6 "crop factor" get you "closer " with the same lens, but the high megapixel density (higher than the R5) will allow you to crop additionally in post. Also, APS-C is a fine economical choice for documenting family outings, vacations etc.
There is no universal "right" choice.
If I’m correct this is untrue.
Crop factor has no effect on aperture.
So a 56mm f1.4 lens on APSC has similar depth of field and bokeh effect as a 85mm f1.4 lens on full frame.
Feel free to educate me because I don’t know the physics that would prove either way.
@@isblijkbaarnodig
Bokeh is still impacted as we can see from the video.
Bokeh is combination of parameter
- Aperture (same for both - 1.4)
- The focal length of the lenses (different - 56 vs 85) (Even if FOV is the same)
- Distance from the subject
So IMHO,
I would say a 56mm f1.4 lens on APSC should be closer to the bokeh of 56mm f1.4 on FF (positioned at the same distance from the subject)
The FF would have a wider FOV and the subject would seems to be futher away. but the amount of bokeh should be similar
Test would be needed
I have both and I reach for the A6400 with the Sigma trio setup more often due to the size and weight advantage and the results are soo close. You helped me realize that. Another great video and service for the community. Thank you!
I find the Apsc Fuji cameras better than the Sony apsc ones. Socc are better with color science fantastic. I would buy Fuji over Sony.
I have been considering upgrading from a6400 to a7iii to move to full frame. Is it a significant upgrgade?
@@DennisDey do it. A7iii only like $1,700
@@DennisDey Yes and no, definitely a difference after ISO 3200 but noise reduction software like DXO has gotten soo good at reducing noise making it less of an issue. There's more background blur with shorter focal lengths with FF but the lenses are more expensive. So there's give and take.
What an incredible value in the sigma 56mm. That might just be the next lens I purchase. Great analysis, thank you!
So true, I had one for my Canon M50 and I still miss it to this day.
Every time I get trapped in sales or full-frame love youtube videos, I come back to your channel and take my A6500 and go out so happy to take some shots. Thank you for another great video 🙌
I also have the 6500 with my friends encouraging me to buy the A7iii. I think I'll stick with what I have. Glad to read your comment.
Yeah, as was shown in the video and what a lot of people are saying in the comments, low light is definitely the huge difference here. As somebody whose favorite genre is astrophotography, low light performance is among the most important aspects of a camera. I started with the a6000 and Rokinon 12mm f/2.0, but once I had the budget to move to an a7s and Rokinon 18mm f/2.8 the difference was incredible, and that difference increased even more once I got the Sony 20mm f/1.8.
Only big downside of the a7s is that autofocus is garbage, but I *still* like to use the a7s more for action shots (sports) regardless, because it just functions so much better in low light situations. I use my a6000 for basketball sometimes, because it's closer-up than when I shoot soccer and so I can use the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, but for most of the rest it's worth dealing with the crappy AF. It just means I have to be more careful about timing, since continuous AF + burst shooting is unbelievably terrible.
As someone who has the Sony A6600, and have had the A6100 for years, thanks for making me feel better about sticking with the APSC line :)! I prefer the 30 mm Sigma because I like not having to be so far away from the subject when shooting, and then just use the zoom 18-108mm or the 70-350mm (both sonys) if I want other views. It's always fun and SO satisfying when reviewers challenge the status quo as well as "sacred cows" that people hold dear as to which is better. One thing that the APSC line kills the full frame, besides price, is size, portability, weight, and general usability, especially for travelers. Smaller less conspicuous cameras get used much more than the larger bulky cameras---it just feels weird to attend MOST social gatherings or events local to your home and carry big cameras, almost no one does!
Well said
Interesting comparison but, FF can be done much cheaper and for more reasons than you might think. I will compare your $1000 setup to my $1200 Sony FF setup and why I chose it and what I miss. First of all, Sony A7ii with Sony 85mm f/1.8. Yes the lens is slower but still faster (more bokeh) if you convert the aperture. I think this is a better, more interesting comparison than the A7c with a very pricey Art lens.
Advantages A7ii for me.
-Much larger and brighter EVF
-EVF in the centre which as a left eye shooter is so much better
-2 control dials for manual shooting
-IBIS
-Magnesium build and better ergonomics (more buttons lol)
-Better dynamic range and low light performance (not my main reason)
Advantage A6100
-Lighter and smaller
-fantastic eye AF, better AF all around (I do wish I had this)
-faster shot rate
-Usually cheaper and lighter lenses for the same job.
-Better video (I have yet to use any of my cameras to shoot video)
I chose the A7ii for the IBIS, low light but mainly build and ergonomics for me. I use 3 lenses with it, Tamron 28-200 f/2.8-5.6, Sony 85 f/1.8 and Sony 50 f/1.8. It is my carry everywhere do everything camera.
The cost savings continue to add up as you introduce additional lenses, too. The Sony 70-350mm, Tamron 17-70mm, Tamron 11-20mm, Sony 10-18mm, and the Sigma Trio (16, 30, & 56mm)…all far cheaper than full frame equivalent lenses. So, as you build out your collection of lenses, the cost savings will continue to grow.
If you have the money, or you’re making enough income off your work, then go full frame or even medium format (if you’re really making the big bucks). Otherwise, APSC has come a long way.
Most of the equivalent lenses are the same price or slightly more expensive. The Tamron 11-20 f/2.8 isn't much less than a 16-35 f/4, which has the benefit of OIS. The Sigma 56mm f/1.4 is currently $430USD and the Sony 85mm f/1.8 is $550 but lets in more total light on a full frame sensor, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is $290 and the Sony 50mm f/1.8 is $250, the Sigma 16mm is the notable exception as the cheapest first party option for Sony is the 24mm f/1.8 Zeiss T* at double the price.
I actually have the 70-350 on the way as we speak. Should show up on Tuesday so I can get some crisp mountain goat shots. And one thing that I like about the APSC line is they will only improve, unless Sony ditches it altogether, which seems highly unlikely. After all, imo, they have to beat out the Fujifilm XT4 if they're a serious camera brand.
I think it's important to point out that the composition of the images are just as important as the body/lens setup; if you're a hobbyist and just like taking pictures where the only thing that matters is the sharpness of the subject in center, then the APS-C setup with the 56mm is perfect for you. The 56mm DC DN is seriously so sharp and such a steal at that price point. However, if you're doing professional paid work, and the "bluriness" of the background is just as important as the subject, then you need to get the full frame setup. That 85mm Art lens is obviously just as sharp as the 56mm (if not sharper in some instances) but comes with the advantage of having more depth of field than the APS-C lens. There were a couple of times when Arthur thought the 56mm was sharper than the 85mm, but that's because the 56mm f1.4 equates to about an 84mm f2.1's depth of field (not light gathering capabilities) in full-frame terms, meaning more of the subject will be in focus.
Is it worth the extra $800 just to get a little more depth of field if you're a hobbyist or just casually taking photos? Of course not. But when the whole image matters for paying clients, then that extra creamy background blur from the full-frame setup will be worth the investment. Equally important to note is that when you start stopping down both lens to f4.0 or 5.6, then the difference of background blur and sharpness becomes moot because both lens perform admirably in terms of corner-to-corner sharpness. If you don't need the background blur or bokeh in the kind of photography that you shoot, such as landscape, studio photography or real estate, save yourself the money and get the aps-c setup since you'll probably be shooting around those aperture settings anyways.
I feel like the tangible advantage full frame has, is how much better it does in low light. If shooting in great light, your setup matters far less.
iPhone portrait tricks can hang w/ them in good light too, at least for social media
Yeah, that's the concept of photography, drawing with light. The more light you have, the easier it is to get better picture.
Yep, 100 percent. It’s worth it IF you’re the type of person that needs it.
Here is the same Aperture, for the same Aperture, same ISO. The brightness must be the same, the only different is the number of pixel. For those reason that the photo is better because of retified by the internal computer, iphone instead of camera is a better choice for you.
WOW YOU DISCOVERED HOW TO COOK CUP RAMEN.
Nice video and comparison.
APS-C's have gotten so good that the differences are minimal until pushed to the extremes where F.F. has the edge.
If you are a pro, go F.F. without question. However, for casual weekend Dad shooters like me, APS-C is an amazing package. My A6400 has served me well and I have no need to go F.F.
Both those 85mm and 56mm are outstanding lenses.
"APS-C's have gotten so good that the differences are minimal until pushed to the extremes where F.F. has the edge."
Absolutely! Especially in terms of super high dynamic range situations and low light/high iso situations. I don't know how the A6400 and the newer versions of sony aps-c function in the real world, but in situations where my lighting is sufficient and controlled, its incredibly difficult to tell the difference between my a6000 and a7iii. Especially if not using a higher end prime on the a7iii, there are times where the crop sensor camera performs better.
However, in situations where i need to significantly bring down highlights, bring up shadows, or use a higher ISO, the a7iii blows my a6000 outta the water. Noise is much more well controlled and looks better (less color noise) and have used shots at like 12,000 ISO where there is no way i could have with my a6000.
With things like cost and weight factored in, I almost feel like I coulda just kept using my crop sensor camera with quality lighting, instead of spending the money on a new FF camera and much more expensive glass. Having a joystick is a lifesaver for me though
Well said, I share the sentiment. If pro (or a spare few $1k around), go FF. Otherwise, APSC is adequate. I fall in the APSC. That being said, I still dream of getting a FF set-up (just lacking the extra $)....one-day
I love the Sigma 56mm for my Sony a6000 photoshoot behind the scenes!
That‘s why I always prefer sony's APS-C (A6500) for hobby use. So easy to carry around, budget friendly and delivers amazing photos.
I have been using the 56mm and a6100 combo for over a year now, the images it produces are incredible and in my opinion the best value one can get, great video!
The thing that is not close and obvious in every shot is that the full frame setup always has a more out of focus background for the same f stop. This is because you need to convert the equivalent aperture when moving from full frame to APSC just as you convert the equivalent focal length. An APSC f1.4 is not equal to a full frame f1.4 it is equivalent to an f2.1. To have the same background blur as the full frame f1.4 you would need an APSC lens close to f0.9.
After watching my A7R2 rapidly fall behind more recent generations I am now pursuing APSC lenses to round out my kit. Cropped mode on my camera gives 18MP, which is adequate if we are honest, so I appreciate your emphasis on APSC Sony options. Good video, I like the results from the 56mm a lot.
Didn't regret buying the 56mm. It's a beast of a lens.
That was my favourite crop sensor lens by quite a bit. So damn sharp
same here man, i got it as a gift and its been producing bangers ever since
I like the sigma 105mm for my a7iii and like you said I'm not a fan of the noise on the smaller sensor. Limits my ability at night. So it's a no brainer for me. But you better start lifting some weights to Lug around that Sigma 105 mm
I have the 56 but enjoy the 16 way more. I find the 56 impractical in most situations but is very sharp too.
@@donquique1 i always have the 16mm and love it too. i have to say it gives a very interesting look to a photo yk
Thanks for this review. I mostly simply take family photos of course non-professionally. I have an APSC set up but youtube videoes make me dream of a full-frame. However, I will simply save the money for something like a house.
I liked the colors better sometimes on the aps-c but the bokeh looked noticeably better on the full-frame.
If you have the money go with the full-frame but I don’t think you’ll be disappointed with the aps-c setup.
@@JL-fh4qw Just close down the aperture then.
Fullframe can get really expensive, but I don’t think you lose too much going for f1.8 lenses, which are priced similarly to aps-c lenses but offer more light while keeping a small profile closer to aps-c
Agreed. I have the Sony 85mm 1.8 which was really affordable used and is just perfect for portraits
for ppl sticking to 1 body, telephoto becomes massively bulkier when going telephoto
I myself have been using the 85mm f/1.8 (amazing sharpness), the 20mm f/1.8 (my favorite lens hands down), and the 35mm f/1.8 (it’s alright). Bought them used, but even new that’s $1996 in lenses. They’re all very small, compact lenses that are just pleasant to use.
The 85mm f/1.4, 24mm f/1.4, and 35mm f/1.4 G Master lenses are currently going to set you back $4300. They’re much larger lenses, and cost considerably more. That 85mm in particular is pretty chunky
I have the Sony 85 and 50 in f/1.8. I also have the Tamron 35 f/2.8 and 28-200. The 85 is amazing, the 50 is OK but slow to focus. The 35 is insanely sharp and the 28-200 blows my mind for a super zoom. I carry the zoom and the 50 in a tiny shoulder bag smaller than my wife’s purse. It’s always in the truck ready to go. It’s a great setup.
With post production, I think either would work with wedding photography. Not often are raw images sold as final product. Just my opinion
yeah modern apsC can do professional work too. full frame is mere hype and overkill at this point. for the size and price it demands, its not that much better than apsC; most of the time they look close enough some light editing can pick up the slack. and unless you're cropping a lot, or have some other niche ass use case, apsC is the smart choice
Great comparisons. The APS-C is definitely a good camera matched with the Sigma. I would NOT spend the extra on the A7C and expensive lens. One might think that people would not want really really sharp portraits anyway, right? One observation I had was that I was amazed how your wife was able to duplicate her poses. you can tell when your kid is in the shots cause he is looking at different places in his shots but your wife isn't. Very professional!
Ha ha ha. You are rightly so... You are spot on...
Got a6100+56mm and im happy with it, but in this video I see that FF + Sigma Art is a lot better, not only skin tones, shades, colors but even sharpness! If I see it in blurred and compressed YT video then in RAW it will be even more difference, this comparison makes me want to buy FF!
If I were professional I would not hesitate and insta buy A7C + sigma 85 atm cause its huge upgrade.
Here's a little fun fact: technically, full frame does not produce better bokeh. Practically, it almost always does. If you get this Sigma 85mm, you'll have the same exact bokeh on APS-C as you do on full frame. However, the amount of background blur (not the quality) depends on how far away you're focussed. Because of the crop, you need to be further away from your subject to fill the frame in the same way as on full frame. Being further away means you'll focus further away, so you get less bokeh. But if you're focussed at 50cm on full frame and 50cm on APS-C, you'll get the same bokeh!
TIL!
That is correct but like you said to get the same perspective you have to step back. So in the real world you do get less bokeh in most circumstances. Plus the compression. An 56mm is a 56m. Not matter what crop you get. An 85mm is an 85mm no matter what.
I feel this is the same as saying that a 24mm lens can get you the same shot of a bird as a 800mm lens, "all you have to do" with the 24mm lens is get superclose to the bird but otherwise you get the same picture.
For the same composition you have to use a much wider aperture on a smaller sensor to get the bokeh, so a big with a lens with a very wide aperture on full frame cannot be trumped by an aps-c camera in the bokeh-fuzzyness department.
From the numbers perspective you are correct. But the most important detail was left out. If I perfectly frame a subject for a portrait photoshoot with a 56mm FF, it is physically impossible to take the picture from the same distance with apsc 56mm due to the crop factor. Therefore I have to step back, and bokeh is reduced. It’s that simple. Full frame’s main advantage is that its wider
To accurately compare the bokeh ‘appearance’ between full frame and APS-C images you also need to multiply the aperture value by 1.5x. Our 56mm f/1.2 is the full frame equivalent of an 84mm f/1.8 lens. But don’t panic it still provides the light transmission value of a f/1.2 aperture!
You don’t say, Captain Obvious! Everyone knows this, Arthur, too….
I own a Fuji film, XT5 and I can honestly say this thing competes very closely with most full frame cameras. I could post these photos on any full frame page and people would not know if I did not state the camera.
The thing for me which I noticed is the low light performance since I do take more photos at night upgrading from my A6000 to the Sony A7III was a good idea plus doing time-lapse is much easier on the A7III. Mind you the upgrade from the a6000 to the a7III was a massive leap all in all so it made more sense for me.
I love, love the sony a6000 and I bought it 3 years ago based on your videos. What I would love from you, as I choose my next camera, is to compare photos taken only at night. I'm going Tokyo and would love to take bokeh pictures in lower light conditions which is why I'm thinking of getting the A7C but not sure if the full frame is worth it. Please do a video on the same camera comparison but with night photography.
well maybe you could borrow an a7c for your trip and decide afterwards?
@@valentinfrei6054 good idea. Can I borrow yours?
Haha I don"t have one, sorry 😋 I Was thinking to rent one for money
I think using the sigma trio will eliminate any issue for night photography
@Oh hi
I don't think that it is so simple.
I think another thing to consider is cropping, highest crop sensor map camera is the r7 at 32 MP which allows you to crop more, but normally I wouldn’t suggest not setting up your scene with with a crop sensor. Also the full frame camera depending on brand allows you to go between lenses. Also dual sd cards, features etc. Even though i believe every release cameras are becoming closer and closer, the r10 for 800 bucks shoots like 15 fps a second for sports. I think if you want high res Full frame and weather seal etc, if you want good photos that get the job done m there is nothing at all wrong with a crop sensor. Also if you are considering line of work. A lot of employers, clients get kind of interested in what you are using. I had a Fuji x-t3 that was amazing but jobs wanted canon/Sony.
I film weddings with an A7 iii and an A6400. Have both Sigmas 16mm and 30mm f1.4... They are amazing, whatever body you go for (crop or ff), no bride or groom have ever complained about the films. We start the day with Sony's F4s lenses, and when the night comes, we switch to Sigmas.
Thanks for taking the time to make the side by side comparison. I think this will help me justify the lens purchases before I step into a full frame body.
Fantastic video, thanks for doing this comparison. I'm on the fence to upgrade to full frame, but after seeing this, I'm going to keep my A6000 and my Sigma 56. I can see how lucky I am to have them and no need for spending another $2K. I do think the full frame is better, but not for my needs. This was a video I never imagined I needed, so well done, thank you for doing this!
I appreciate these videos so much. Hardly any channels really go with in depth comparisons between FF and crop cameras.
They always overtly or subtly trying to push FF. I am willing to bet that 95% or more the people would never notice the difference.
Save the money and use it for travel or other things.
I just bought my Sony a7iii a few months ago and I can definitely say it is a better camera than Sony a6000 I had before. Also my new lenses are a lot better! I love the bokeh, colours are better by my opinion too and low light performance as well! But if you have the same amount of megapixels on full- frame and APSC you don't see a big difference in detail. And this video is a proof of it!
Nice comparison, except for one thing. You shot with both lenses mostly at f1.4, ignoring the "aperture" crop factor. That is why the APSC shot always looked under exposed compared to the full frame. It would make sense to compare both the cameras with the art lens, using a speed booster with APSC.
Arthur, I'm not saying this to say Full frame is far superior than the Apsc or anything... But the full frame cameras shallow depth of field is noticeably more than the Apsc which can also effect sharpness 🤷♂️
If you stopped down to f/2.0 on full frame the sharpness will likely increase a bit and the background bokeh would me more similar as well.
Can't go wrong with either setup if you know what you are doing .
For portrait photography, you always want to be able to capture more detail so a full-frame camera is a natural choice. The APS-C setup you are using is a very strong contender but the difference is the price is well justified. I would take an APS-C camera for landscape shots as I stop down significantly for such photos anyways.
Horses for courses. This is by far the most objective comment. Couldn't agree more.
Best comparison between APSC vs FF on youtube. APSC FTW!
It's not just the cost that puts APS-C at a strong advantage, it's the size and weight of the equipment.
I bought an R5 about 2 years ago and I have some really nice glass to go with it, but I never took it with me it was too heavy. On the other hand, I have a Sony a5100 with the Sony 35mm 1.8 and it fits in my front pocket no problem at all. It doesn't have as good low light performance as my a6600, but it's fine for outdoors photography and that's where I would be carrying it anyway.
I got the a5100 with a kit lens for less than $300. I got the lens on eBay for $275.
Hi Arthur, thanks. Main thing I am wondering about is that ff versus aps-c will not matter that much during the day, but if you use it during the evening and night, there is a major difference. I owned the A6000 and A6600 and currently own the Sony A7RIV (bit unfair, major difference in detail). I also noticed that the dynamic range is much better with ff (i.e. while shooting directly into the sun).
The A7RIV is definitely the way to go...the problem is that it is about 5k just for the body here lol
Yes it's a common thing to do portrait photography at night 😂 Dude you missed the point of the video.
Good comparison. The A7C has eye focus- advantage. Has better Bokeh- advantage. Lower noise-advantage. Better color science- advantage.
I love the concept for this video before even watching it.
Actually preferred most of the APSC photos; on a technical side the FF likely best, but this is TH-cam and its more about how it looks on a smaller screen. Both were nice and regardless very close. Well done!
I totally agree with you. For casual users, the APS-C setup is great, but if you want that extra wow factor, get the full-frame. It's like NASCAR racing, if your car was slightly better than it is, you may have won the race.
The skin tones with A7c are crazy good. Sony is doing some magic..
Tbh I found them awful. She looks like a corpse 80% of the time.
@@nolejd50 poetic & optimal
long life APS-C !
thanks for another great video.
Happy 2022 to you and your whole family. Blessings
Many thanks. Im impressed of the capabilities of the Sigma 56 1.4 and Sony A6400 Combo. That´s more than enough for a hobby photographer.
How about more photos when there is much less natural light? For example indoors
He should have compared an iphone 12. With his sneaky reviews the iphone would have more detail than these
That’s absolutely an easy win for full frame. Full frame is king in low light
Disappointed with your purchase?
While the differences aren't huge I do think they are clear and should be considered an upgrade. The biggest difference (except minor white balance values that are not related to the sensor size) is definitely depth of field, with blurrier background and access to smoother skin on full frame (for example less details on her forehead in the first shot). Sharpness in this comparison is very equal but larger sensor in an advantage for lens design as it requires the lens to resolve less detail over the same sensor area to create an equally sharp image. Then of course there's the noise difference which I think matters less as long as you shoot in good light. Less quantifiable though is that I do think the FF image looks more three-dimensional, if you look at her face zoomed in it seems to have more depth to me.
The interesting detail that jumped out to me on the full frame vs crop debate is that the price spread between 1.8 and 1.2 or 1.4 glass these days is bigger than the price spread between a full frame or crop sensor body (especially with canon, and ESPECIALLY when you’re looking at multiple lenses and a single body down the road). If I spend $500 on a crop sensor canon and $1,300 on a 50mm F1.2 lens it’ll roughly match the FOV/DOF of a $999 EOS RP with a $400 85mm F1.8 lens and $99 adapter. If I put a $199 50mm F1.8 on the RP it looks (roughly) like a 35mm F1.2 would on a crop sensor. If I put an 85mm F1.2 or F1.4 on a crop sensor it can roughly match the look of a 135mm F2 on a full frame, but an 85mm F1.2 (in canon land) costs $1,000 more than a 135mm F2. Throw three of these lenses in your kit next to one body and the $500-$700 saved getting a crop sensor body is moot next to the $2000-$3000 spent on 1.2-1.4 glass over 1.8 glass. It’s the weirdest math problem which completely flipped around my previous belief that it always makes more sense to buy the best glass. These days when asked for camera advice (from barbers and stylists who want to focus on portraiture) I tell them to get the cheapest 85mm prime they can find and the cheapest full frame body they can find. Slap a used EF 85mm F1.8 on a used 6D original and you’ve got portraits that would cost twice as much to roughly match with a crop sensor.
Thank you, Arthur, for these amazing reviews!
To me the Sigma 56mm appeared slightly punchier with more contrast, the Sigma 85mm was flatter, but a bit sharper even at 1-stop "effectively" wider aperture.
What I noticed is that you were comparing both lenses at identical apertures - in such case APS-C will have more DoF, so if it's necessary to compare FF vs APS-C lenses at "equal" settings from DoF/bokeh perspective, I always compare with APS-C lens at 1-stop wider aperture (say Sigma 85mm f2 vs Sigma 56mm f1.4). That way it better shows what would be the sharpness difference in real life when shooting with specifically chosen amount of background blur that you're after.
I currently have an A6000 that I bought in 2014 and an A7C that I bought in summer of 2021. I've been thinking about selling both and buying an A6100 or A6400. I find that I often prefer the color in the A6000 to the A7C. But there are many things I love about the A7C that makes it hard to let go of and many things I probably still could learn more of from it.
If both lenses are at f4, you will indeed see more bokeh on the full frame lens. Just as the focal length is subject to the crop factor, so is the aperture. F4 on a crop sensor is equivalent to F6 on full frame. It would have been interesting to see the results of the 80mm on the crop sensor and the 50mm on the full frame.
You are the man who cleared the doubt of buying APS-C camera compared to Fullframe.
Finally someone to support the APS-C where everyone brags about fullframe 😍😍
Photography is my hobby and I bought a6600 after following Arthur's suggestion. I have kit lens, sigma 16mm and sigma 56mm. The photos those I've taken so far.... are impressive. Even you push the limits in low light,the results are great. For video, it needs gimbal; but for photo it is good setup for good price. I've never used full frame; but if it is hobby, I think it is better to spend the price difference to diffetent lenses like tele photo lens.
There are differences in sharpness but because of the lens used and not because of the aps c sensor. if we put the same objective in aps c there will be no differences. where if there are many differences it is in the price. Aps c and full frame in price is a huge difference and in my opinion it is not worth spending so much since this sony a7c is a complete decal of the a6600 💁🏻♂️. Excellent video greetings 👍🏼😄
I'v discovered a very nice (and obvious) trick for APS-C and 4/3 if you need more bokeh - simply take your model further from the background. The same scene side by side will have more bokeh on FF and it's obvious. But if you have aps-c or 4/3 you can also have a very nice bokeh. You have different tools so don't try to use them the same way as FF and expect same results.
BTW - this trick also works even with 1/2.3" cameras with long zoom.
And the answer is - both setups did excellent job.
What I’d love to see is a Sony APS-C with a full frame body. Something comparable to the Fuji XT-4.
One thing I’ve fallen in love with my A7RIV has been just how nice a larger camera with more dials and exposure control is to use. And considering I use a lot of my APS-C lenses on it in crop mode (still has 26mp) it almost functions like a full feature APS-C. If we could get that kind of a body layout, and add 4K @60 I’d be all over it. Dual card slots, the large battery, better viewfinder, overall better control for manual shooting.
The colors between the two are interesting. Sometimes I like the skin tones on the A7c, and then other times the a6100. I currently shoot an a6600 with the Sigma 56mm. Good stuff as always Arthur!
It's a trick. He's changing the white balances to try to throw people off, and obviously people gravitate to the warmer white balances as better. But all he's doing is crippling one image to make the other look more preferable. At 1:1 with the same white balance, the full frame wins every time. So he's trying to equivocate white balance to distract from image quality, as if the white balance changing means that the image quality must not be a big enough difference. But since we see color and contrast in colors, bad color rendering can naturally make a superior quality image look bad in comparison. But once you account for if the full frame wasn't crippled by a thrown off white balance, it would always edge out.
The colors between the two are the result of a couple items not being addressed. The 85mm lens being longer will require the light to travel a bit further, therefore, there's about a 1/3 f/stop difference. You notice it the most when the shutter speeds and iso are the same, the 85mm will appear more saturated in color. On some of the shots where the colors are more equal, the shutter data on the 85mm lens reads about 1/3 slower or the iso will be higher by 30% to compensate for the light loss. Both lenses produce beautiful images and would certainly be an asset in anyone's camera kit.
Try Canon for skin tone and you will be blown away in comparison to Sony.
@@peoplez129 a 9:45 he says that all the images are straight out of camera with no editing.
@@peoplez129 it's not a trick, it's AWB being different between cameras.
superb comparison, i will retain my apsc set up.
Excellent comparison Arthur! Thank you.
The warmer tones from the APSC set up is very surprising !
Those Sigma lenses do make a huge difference compared to "other" lenses. I had better start saving to get that 56mm Sigma! Great video. Thx.
The Sigma 56mm F1.4 is a great lens, no doubt. When comparing both lens on day time, where light is sufficient, the difference isn't much, definitely not worth 3x money for extra smooth background, however in lowlight situations, the A7C will definitely outperform A6100, the combination of FF sensor + IBIS will gives you a cleaner shot(less noise) with better dynamic range, very useful if you need to do some post processing. If your camera or lens doesn't have IBIS/OSS, you will had a harder time to get a sharp image with slower shuttle speed handheld, not an issue for day time shooting.
The great advantage of a full-frame matrix is precisely in the post-processing and final image. Greater dynamic range, softer transition between color gradients. Great iso value with a clean picture. Still, there is a difference for the eye. and if you are shooting a landscape, then in addition to a full-frame matrix, you also need a good resolution of the matrix.
I own the a6600. The main reason I want to move to full frame is for the a7IV. If it has better rolling shutter and a side flip screen, that’s all I want tbh.
Yes, agree, side flip screen is better.
i feel like my man is just admiring his wife in many of the clips lol
As he should she let's him buy all these toys
It’s similar to comparing shooting with a full frame camera and an f1.4 lens vs a full frame camera and an f2.0 len’s. Yes in many situation f2 is fine, but we need to recognise the clear value of that more expensive f1.4 as well. Also noise will be less and sharpness will be higher regardless of that. There will be a low light threshold where one camera passes the no-go limit while the other one is still going strong.
Thank you. I was confused earlier. Full frame or APSC which is better for me. I found my answer. I learned a lot from your comparisons. APSC is best for me. Thank you again
Long time watcher of your videos and this one just saved me some serious cash. Thank you for the comparison, truly perfect video.
Battery life is another factor. Those FF sensors draw a lot more power. I bought a used A7mk2 and it’s crazy how it goes through batteries compared to the A6000.
Very true. It's even noticeable going from the A6000 to the A6100.
I looked at all photos closely again.
To my Eyes:
ALL ff photos (on Left) are sharper and more detailed !!
I guess that on a 36 MP or 42 MP ff you get even more quality and detail on ff.
However, if we DO NOT compare photos side by side, than the difference is hard to spot.
The a6100 quality is excellent.
I use and love the a6000 and now I see that there IS a point to upgrade someday to FF !
Thank you Arthur, for this very good informing video !!
In my own experience, the difference in iso performance when comparing my A7C to my previous A6400 & A6600 is night and day. For daytime photography or with 1.4 lenses on the aps-c, it’s perfect. I don’t see myself going back to aps-c though. Even though I still have an old a6000 with the sigma 56mm to bring places where I dont have to be careful.
what u mean night and day more specifics pls
@@a55tech 6400 is clean and 12800 is very much usable. Full frame with f1.4 is akin to having night vision lol.
So you shoot portraits at 12800 with a 1.4 lens? Why would you choose to do that?
@@eddewhurst7662 If you’re out at night you might have to! Also, I was referring to sensor performance in general with the 6400 and 12800 iso comment. The guy was asking what did he mean by night and day and I tried to expound on the level of performance the a7iii/c have. I also speak from the perspective of someone who’s owned an a6600, X pro 2, Gfx 50r and now is building out my full frame e mount lens collection while I wait for the a7iv and renting bodies for shoots in the mean time.
@@earthlingtheaaron21 It just seemed a strange comment in the context of portrait photography, I have been shooting for over 50 years and cannot remember ever using anything above base ISO. In the film days 400 asa was far to grainy for portraits. Though each to their own.
That APS-C sensor is generations older compared to the one on the A7C. Hope Sony releases the next iterations with a new BSI APSC without the AA filter.
This. Thats the exciting part. APSC performance is already so close, with an updated sensor, that would be amazing.
if they ever do it.....been waiting for a legit upgrade to my 6300 for forever.....none of the new models are worthy upgrading to yet.
@@ArthurR do you have the raw files as well? It'd be interesting to see how close they are when you manually match noise reduction color balance etc. The main difference is likely going to just be the different rending from the lens and focal length.
@@cweb1988 I too am keeping my trusty A6000 for now. I hope Sony releases a professional APS-C body with solid weather sealing, two card slots, fast read out BSI sensor, some advanced and fun features like Live Composite, a good IBIS. Fast touch sensitive screen. That would be awesome.
The answer is APSC is NOT a disadvantage. Your lenses and knowledge matter more than anything else.
But definitely buy FF if you need better low light stills and the shallower DOF.
Thanks Arthur. Because of you I got the a6400 and sigma 56 1.4 a while back. Great advice. Since then I thought the a7c would be my next move (full frame whilst keeping the flip out screen) but this video has proven there's not a big need after all.
amazing comparison. We can rely on crop sensors easily. Can you guys make a comparison video between Sigma 56 mm 1.4 vs Sony FE 85mm 1.8? Should We Take advantage of taking Full frame lens over Sigma 56 in the future? For this what should I compromise for that? For Sony 85 we are getting better bokeh + Future upgradation. For this, Have I sacrificed some image sharpness?
As a professional full frame is very important so you can use a zoom lens and still be good enough in low light and bokeh
I can tell the difference in the depth of field in these photos. As we know bigger sensor makes us move nearer the subject where as aps c makes us stand further if we are using the same focal lengh on each cameras. That said composition and good lightning whether its aps c or full frame can make photo look gorgeous or really ugly
A very useful explanation for APS-C and FF, thank you.
Yep
That Sigma 56 is exelent! Definitely my next buy.
Very interesting comparison. Thanks for doing the video.
Hey Arthur, its nice that you point out that full frame isn't everything. A lot comes down to lenses and a lot of apsc lenses can get very simular results. Keep in mind that judging sharpness when shooting at slower shutterspeeds isn't ideal, neither the 56mm or the A6100 has stabalisation, also setting your whitebalance helps with consitency of the colors. Anyway, i think that the Sigma 56mm is a bargain, but the A6100 is pretty expensive in europe. Hopefully it helps people making the right choice, because full frame isn't the only good option.
I stumbled upon this channel looking for a7C content but now I'm hooked on your a6100 setup.
Great video as always Arthur
This is the kind of presentation that does some good. Great job.
I don't know why many photographers focus on sharpness only. You can get sharp images with different camera and lens setups, and that's when you have understood how to use light on your subject, and how to set manually the colors in your camera. Here you can clearly see that the FF setup is way better than the APS-C in terms of depth of field and low-light. In addition, you spend $3000, not to get sharper images, but to have a pro camera setup with better battery life (try to shoot 12 hours straight with APS-C and tell me how many batteries you need), less noise in higher ISO, better ergonomics, etc. Clearly, it's about what you can afford, and what's the purpose for choosing this setup over the other.
I’m impressed with how well the APS-C performed against the full frame. I wonder how much difference there is between the contemporary and the art lenses. Again I am impressed with how well the contemporary performed against the art lens. When I bought my APS-C camera I figured that I could go with a loaded APS-C instead of an entry level full frame. I’m happy that I went that route. Thank you for doing this comparison.
For the majority of amateur photographers APS-C just makes more sense. In a addition to fairly marginal differences in IQ nowadays, mostly at very high ISOs or shallow depth of field there is the difference in expense, portability and weight to consider.
I have the same apsc combo and couldnt be more pleased with the results
The difference in the final results aint absolutely enough to justify such a major price gap. Im a casual shooter and my A6000 + TTartisan 50mm F1.2 set-up produces photos that easily satisfie me! It all depends on our work/hobby priorities.
Do you miss AF at all with that setup?
@@MarioPalomera I do having the 7artisans 25mm f1.8 but is ok for kind of street landscape at f8-16 an "hyperfocal"
@@MarioPalomera Hi Mario, not really actually, since that lens is suitable for portraits so u r supposed to take those kind of pics and the subject is quite immobile most of the time, plus I love manual lenses in general. That being sad, youre goin to miss optical stabilization much more instead, but if you get used to it, its all fun from that moment
That was the best comparison I've seen yet. Honest and concise. Thanks.
As far as i know there is no ibis in 6100, did you use tripod while taking these photos? A6100 with sigma 56 looks really sharp!
Amazing comparison. I was torn between the two lenses. Yes I started from the lenses to work my way backwards. I decided to go apsc. Suits my needs better.
The Sigma 56mm is a true game changer! I had one for my Canon M50 and it was a game changer and so, so much fun to use.
Thank you so much Arthur for showcasing so many sample pictures side by side! In 2024 it's really hard to decide if with 2k someone should buy APSC and a cornucopia of lenses or buy one of the cheaper FF 😅 for family / travel with small primes, but thankfully I also do only 99.9% family photos that we only print 3x2" or share to grandparents so I'm glad you help us all understand our use cases better 😂
Good video. In almost every case I thought the FF was sharper than the APSC just using her eyes to make that evaluation.
You'd hope so for a lens that is over 2x the cost
That Sigma 85mm is a stunner. Thanks for the demo of that. Regarding the APS-C, low light noise is the deal breaker for me. Color can always be improved in post.
Great review as always, Arthur! Are you going to review the new Tamron 18-300mm?