Find used cameras at MPB and support the channel by using the affiliate links: MPB EU, prf.hn/l/lQByyLQ MPB UK, prf.hn/l/q3qa8Ne MPB US, prf.hn/l/kVBOOlv
Yes, exactly true. Pick up a camera. Look through it intil you see a picture. Press the button. Do you like the image? Do your friends like the image? Regardless of the answer keep takng pictures as long as it makes you happy.
The expression "full frame" is for those without any knowledge of origin in the last or even prior centuries. It came up with digital imaging struggling to get any adequate sensor size. Market introduction (around year 2000) first done with some drawbacks. The drawbacks were called "crop factor" due to marketing reasons.
I have just spent my whole day-off watching Mattias Burling uploads, and while I have gained much, the one thing that stands out for me after an extraordinary journey, is that it is in fact the man that maketh the camera.
A point that I feel gets missed and that I probably should have made clear in the video is as follows. A beginner needs not to occupy their brain with a bunch of nonsense on how to use their lens to match the look of a system they don’t own. They should learn their own system and how to expose and frame. Thats all photography is. Veterans already know what lens does what from what distance. The notion that they need to know that their 25mm is n fact a ”50mm in case you have the same generation camera and a similar pixel density given by resolution and are able to adjust the shutter speed (via tripod if needed) and/or shutter speed without ruining the integrity of the shot as you planed it”, is just ridiculous to me. Nowhere in old photography books do I see that kind of stuff. Should we also print the equivalence of APS-C on the box full frame glass? Or maybe the smartphone equivalence, or oil paintings ;)
The problem is with positive versus negative presence (positive mean existing, and negative meaning non-existing). All the artists are too busy making art. But the critics are busy here (not making art) complaining, arguing over details, technical specs, and decimals. Then the replies, message board, forum, social media, etc. all look very negative, like everyone is evil, as if you had to understand everything before you can make art, and that one fatal flaw in your knowledge base disqualifies you from being a worthy contributor. (i can go in much more detail as much of this phenomenon has to do with extremem biases of digital and digitization, social hierarchy, hyperspace, capitalism, and scientism, but I'll spare everyone and just say, fuck everyone and just make art, and the chips will fall where they may) Hendrix didn't know ANYTHING about impedence, ohms, and voltage running through his amps and effects and he made better art than nearly anyone else. You don't have to know technicalities, but then again, technecalities draw in clicks, serve as launching pads for debates, as opposed to artistic opinions, feelings, and perspectives--which are repellant to the tech-y specs-memorizing idiots who don't have one drop of artistic talent in their entire body. Make art. Fuck the rest.
I only bother converting focal length of my M4/3 lenses when I'm chatting with my friend, Heather. She uses a Canon 5d mark iv and doesn't really understand crop factor, so when I talk about shooting with my 25mm I just call it a 50. Just shooting for myself, I know what I want to shoot with and roll with it.
As someone who has only ever used an Apsc sized camera, I agree with you completely. Full frame equivalent means absolutely nothing to me since my feel for how a given focal length and aperture behaves is based entirely on APSC. Indeed, if I ever did get a full frame camera, I would at first be using Apsc equivalent as my mental reference when choosing a lens, not the other way around - but only until I got the hang of the full frame behaviour at which point I wouldn't care any more. Ditto if I had a micro 4 thirds or one inch sensor camera etc.
I get your point. My first real system is MFT, I find myself trying to use the reciprocal rule for shutter speed but keeping in mind the crop factor... then compensating for a few stops of sensor shift stabilization added to it. It's kind of stupid to base my personal camera off of a system I do not own.
I don't agree with some parts of the technical explanation, but I definitely agree with the conclusion that everyone should use what he / she has and not be concerned about things like crop factor.
Love your videos! I personally didn't see anything wrong with the technical explaination, I was wondering with what you disagreed with. Not to start an argument, I'm just curious incase I'm missing some knowledge!
The hilarious thing is I have seen a ton of technically correct photos that just sucked because the subject was lackluster or the framing was boring and generic. Some people focus on the technical aspects so much they lose sight of the art part of photography.
Those people would be called other photographers mainly in facebook groups or forums. Everyone is so quick to tell you what you did wrong instead of what you did right. And it’s people who feel they are being threatened out of work that do it. Sad.
I think the best comment you made was "I sometimes apply crop factor in my head to the focal length" so you can work out what you expect compared to what you usually shoot. Crop factor conversions are simply tools that help you visualize what your results will likely be. It should not be used as a discussion point for "my camera is better than yours" - which is why this is such an abrasive topic. These tools simply allow you to consider what the field of view, DOF, or noise may be when switching back or forth. I don't think people need to think about this with every photo they take, but as someone who switches a lot between full frame and aps-c - I find myself using these tools to get acquainted with the camera again and to troubleshoot when I am not getting the effect I want. Regardless - you are always better to get to know the camera and focus subject, story, and composition. Great video as always.
Well said. Depth of field is an optical property and therefore is independent of sensor size. This is easy to understand if you do the following thought experiment: take a full frame camera with a certain lens. The lens projects an image on the sensor with a certain depth of field defined by aperture, distance to subject and focal length of the lens. Now, while not changing anything else, remove the sensor from this camera and replace it with a cropped sensor. The image is the same, in this case because the sensor is smaller than the previous one it will capture less of the scene but the sensor is just there to capture the image and depth of field was already determined optically and cannot change! I guess this will be the analogy that Mattias used with cropping printed photos to a smaller size.
The scene on 4:20 is so beautiful. Remember coming across this video last year when I began learning technical camera concepts. My interest was dying out on photography cause of the talking down on anything non full-frame on the internet, until I saw this video 'rubbishing' it & other things since. Thanks Mattias!
I've had the Pentax QS-1 for a year now. It has a sensor size of 1/1.7" giving it a crop factor or 4.7. The Pentax Q series are some of the most underrated cameras. They're a pixel peeper's nightmare but the pictures are great. One advantage is that you can adapt almost any lens to it as the flange distance is so short. I recently adapted a 2.8mm m12 lens giving an interesting fisheye effect for around $2. The camera is guaranteed to put a smile on your face.
Great video. It's all about language, in a funny sort of way. I was always taught at school, that if I was trying to speak a foreign language, I should learn to 'think' in that language, rather than thinking in my native tongue - English in my case - and translating to the new language. It's exactly the same in photography, as you say here, only the language is all to do with a knowledge of field of view. It's about knowing which focal length lens I might need to use to fill a frame with a subject from the distance I want to take the picture from, without thinking of it in full frame terms and then converting back. In other words, people need to learn that in the languages of MFT, APS and FF, 25mm, 35mm, and 50mm all mean effectively the same thing in the three different 'languages' ie they all represent what might be perceived as a standard lens in each language.
The thing with crop factor is you only crop the picture which means you are getting a smaller picture. The compression because of the focal length is always the same. Doesn't matter what sensor size you have a 28mm f2 is going to give you the exact same compression and bokeh, you are only getting less or more in your picture depending on the sensor size. Same amount of light, same bokeh, and also same compression.
It's more logical to think of it this way. A 28mm F2 on a micro 4/3s is not a 56mm F4 equivalent it's a 28mm F2 which has been cropped by half the picture area.
I really enjoy when you're being snarky like this, actually - it's very entertaining as a change of pace from the usual calm and well composed-feeling style. Just as informative as ever, just from a different angle, and that's fun!
I look forward to the Q video. I don't have to worry about buying, I already have a Q10 and a Q-S1 as well as all of the autofocus lenses in the system. I actually learned on that camera system, after getting a deal on a Q10 kit on woot.com back in 2012.
Jason Mueller I think I might get a Q-s1 just for the sake of collecting. I adore the Q and it does everything I need it to. But it would be fun to own the first and last in the system.
It's significantly better for autofocus. It has Ricoh's contrast detect AF system instead of Pentax's so it's much snappier and easier. It's quite difficult to nail manual focus adjustments on the low resolution back screen, but you can trust the focus on the Q-S1. I also adore the Q system. Many of my favorite photos I've ever taken were taken on it.
I picked up a Nikon 1 J1 with the new kit lens and I love it. The colors are so good for an older camera and sensor. It's not the most robust camera though but it has silent shutter and is so small. It performs so well for what it is.
Mattias Burling I have a bunch of cameras but I usually have a sony a5000 with me for its smaller size. I love the image quality but the focus and shutter sound is a bit slow and relatively loud and Sony isn't the best when it comes to color accuracy but the little Nikon was a pleasant surprise even at night. The active vr is impressive in my opinion.
"Just a bunch of BS anyway". Well said. I don't care about crop factor or sensor size. The only thing that matters is what you see though the view finder and what the image turns out like.
I just found this video! I've only been shooting for a year and a half and I wish i would have seen this last year. I came to this realization on my own...but only after watching dozens of useless TH-cam videos about crop factor/full frame vs. APS-C over the last year or so. I'm saving this video to share whenever someone says they "need the full frame look"!
I am so glad I'm not the only one that believes this! I had the choice between an A7ii and xt2 and I went with XT2 even though it was aps-c, the images out of that camera are simply nicer for what I shoot. I have found that camera snobs are the only ones that care about this. If you like the way your shots look NO ONE is going to know if youre shooting APS-C, full-frame or MFT. Thank you for this video Mattias this was awesome! :)
I tried to pay attention but then i saw the GXR(!) and had to go find the video you made about that first, once sated, I came back and enjoyed this brief respite of common sense in the photography world before going back out into the harsh glare of the world.
I salute you for doing this vid, you can apply crop factor to aperture to lenses on cropped bodies IF and there is a FF body taking the same picture and you want to keep the DOF and focal distance same between the 2 images, this RARELY happens and if you are just using a FF or 35mm format lens on a cropped sensor, there the no change in DOF, on the image when compared to the image taken by same lens on a FF body. DOF is independent of the sensor size and dependent on the lens property.
Hey, what about lenses meant for smaller sensors for example you can't deny an IPhone's f1.8 lens with its small censor can't capture the same amount of light as a full frame f1.8 set up.
Larger sensors require larger lenses. Technically the larger lenses are gathering more light but the larger sensors need that same amount of extra light. So exposure will be exactly the same. Noise levels would be lower on the bigger sensors on average. But that also depends on the Signal-to-Noise ratio of the camera among other things.
The first ASP-C camera I bought I put on a 50mm 1.4 Canon to check the depth of field. There was no difference so I forgot all about crop factor from that point on. The other day I was doing a shoot with a 24-105 f4 L on a 70 D. Another photographer said: you can't use that lens on that body. I said why not, I like it. You can use anything you want as long as you get a result.
Mattias, I'd love a list or vid of your favorite ISO's on different cameras you have used. I remember being surprised you like to use those Fuji's in the 5000 range. I never felt like getting a pentax Q, cause I have a Pentax MX-1, which has a dandy of a built in zoom and the same-ish sensor I think. Brass too. :)
00:45 - "Full-Frame, or as we say in Swedish, very tiny picture..." Hillarious. This is a great line for those people suffering from "comparisonitus" Why do we need to compare every image sensor to a certain "standard" (often 35mm film camera)? Why not consider "full-frame" as being a cropped sensor compared to 4x5 or even 8x10? It is so ridiculous. As for depth-of-field... Shoot an image. If you want more or less, open/stop down your aperture or adjust your camera to subject distance to achieve your desired result. Lets not over complicate photography but rather enjoy it. Great video. Cheers.
Should have waited for Mattias' review before I sold my Pentax Q on eBay. Still have many Pentax Q adapters for sale though. Also an old Pentax 110 with a lovely lens.
* sees Pentax Q * * breaks hand trying to tap video fast enough * Still have and love mine. I still take it on paid gigs. Its brilliant as a street camera AND with flash at events and parties. I learned photography on it. I need to track down that wide zoom lens tho. I think Ricoh had it wrong marketing it as a consumer camera when it was designed like a compact camera enthusiasts would love.
Angle of view would be a far better term to use than crop factor. The whole language around "full frame" is designed to make you want to "upgrade" to "full frame" from the "crop sensor" by marketing people. They are different tools for different purposes.
I like to buy APS-C lenses for my APS-C camera, this way I don't think in terms of crops, but in terms of this is the image this lens produce. Also it's less weight to carry. I got some time to save money for a full frame, but then I would need more time for a single good lens for a full frame. I just spent all the money in APS-C lenses and the odd full frame prime for portraits.
I agree! Finally a kindred spirit! I shoot Minox to P67 plus aps-c. I remember when 35mm was referred to as “miniature!” If the output is excellent, is all the tech & math really necessary? Not for me...slows me down and I miss the shot. Thanks Matthias! I like the way you did this!
You nailed it. I am tired about hearing the talk equivalence of aperture and focal length implying that unless you MOVE to FF you will always have substandard results - but, when you apply the equivalence becomes almost acceptable...
Thanks for this! I can't remember how many times I've had this discussion since going full m43 in 2012. F2.8 is F2.8 is F2.8. Period. Done deal. Shoot the same lens in front of different sensor sizes at the same distance to subject, or no sensor at all, and the light gathering will be the same as will the exposure given the same shutter speed and ISO. The crop will be different of course. I've tried to explain it so many times but your explanation with the printed photo and a pair of scissors will be my go to explanation now, it's spot on perfect! I know this video will do nothing to end the discussion, haters are gonna hate and "elitists" who spend more time with technical discussions rather than shooting will still say small format is the best there ever was (of course, it is now, in order to sell better, called full frame). Bra video, bra poäng som vanligt, tack! /Rasmus
Super. So, I keep my RX10 because it has a 24-200mm 2,8 Zoom, and I sell all the big sized sensor stuff with these huge lenses I don´t need no more. Still a bit wondering why it geting always faster dark in the RX10 viewfinder compared to the big boys?!
Great thoughts and that never ending discussion! I never got it why full frame is called that, when there are larger formats ... and full frame is already a crop. So what is the cropfactor from large or medium format to fullframe ? In the end, as you said, it does not matter that much.
Brilliant. Could you do a video on microscopically viewing pictures and commenting on corner sharpness. In all my years of taking photographs no one has ever commented on a slightly soft twig in the right hand corner or even slight chromatic aberrations on a telephone wire. They usually tell me what the picture does for them or what emotion it stirs. I have never sold a picture of a brick wall either. What is wrong with me? :-))
I am with you 100% here. Just know what your camera will do with a given lens and don't worry about all these numbers. I simply don't have time to sit and do calculations in my head while my shot gets away from me -- especially if the light is changing. Just bracket your aperture, your focus, and your ISO if you're worried about it. It's really not that hard. In short: know your gear and you won't have to worry about all this.
Very interesting point of view and refreshing video. The one generally focusing on the sensor size are generally the same focusing on the size or creaminess of the bokeh. I really don’t understand that stupid sensor size war! And as mentioned in your video Full Frame is a small sensor size compared to medium format, 645, 4x5 or 8x10. The difference between medium format and FF is far bigger than the difference FF and APSC. But the war is more between FF, APSC or m4/3. What all those fighting for such a useless thing as pointed here just forget, is that what matter is the one behind the camera no matter the size of the sensor with his skill to take a great shot because he know the gear he is using. Most of the people follow a trend without knowing what they’re talking about, the reasons they’re taking pictures, what bring them there as a photographer. If the answer is the sensor size m, then they for sure miss the point and will all time fight for that non sense. That why such video is useful to remind people what really matter, what is important. Know your camera, your lenses, and all other gear up to the point that you don’t have to think about all that crap to take the best shot to tell your story in the best possible way.
I love it how this information is so easy to wrap your head around, and channels with 1m subs get it wrong, mind blowing :D All that 2.8 is 4 on a crop, holly hell...
I had a Pentax Q but sold it since I no longer use it after getting a LUMIX GM5 for $199 brand new. I love that little guy with the 15mm which I also got cheap lol.
Great video and I can not agree with you more ! I am not a pixel peeper and quite annoyed when people comparing and arguing which camera/sensor produces the best image. As far as I understand, bigger sensor naturally has higher pixel count, doesn't mean higher 'resolution' or higher pixel density, the same thing for film, 35mm and media format film are basically made with the same material thus the same 'pixel density', it is only the print size matters how the image looks, bigger doesn't mean better. After all photography is the mix of technology and art, high tech camera not necessary produces good image !
Nice vid. You are right. Beginners don't need to memorize all that stuff - just learn with what they have. Then, if they buy something different then they can start thinking about it. The only reason I love full frame or medium format digital is because I love shooting at night where noise becomes a problem especially when boosting the ISO. (It's really like audio gear: S/N (Sound to Noise) ratio is inherent in all electronics.)
Thank you for this video. I have struggled to understand one you tube expert who says that sensor size alters the exposure. He seems to say that if your sensor is half the size it is only gathering half the light... the light per unit area is the same. So each pixel can’t tell the difference. The only consideration If all else is equal might be pixel size. Smaller pixels might saturate sooner so perhaps underexposing might save your highlights. But I think this is all taken care of by the processing engine. The difference between full frame and APSC performance is smaller because of work on sensor design and processing algorithms. The best larger sensors became possible because of the best smaller ones. Your video fits the reality of exposure and sensor size properly. We had the same film speed whether we shot medium format or 35mm the light hitting per unit area was the same in both cases so we used the same light meter and set the same exposure values on each. I need to listen to this expert again I might have missed some nuance in his argument. He seems to say it a lot. When someone called him on it he fluffed and fumbled his way through an argument which still seemed full of existential holes. He is a great teacher otherwise. He even said that Canon was getting 9% less light because it used 1.6 instead of 1.5 as its crop factor. Curious. The truth isn’t that far out there.
Christopher Ward You haven’t missed any nuance...that guy is just wrong! Your experience (and mine) with different film formats is correct. Whether you had a half frame camera or a 6 x 6 then the exposure was the same!
Aperture no, but ISO yes. The light gathering is compensated for by gain, isn't it? So the smaller the sensor the less usable it is at lower ISO. So the noise of iso 1600 on FF, will more or less be the noise of iso 800 on aps-c. I wanted to switch to M4/3 but I like to go up to iso 1600 without it looking fuzzy with colour noise.
People need to be careful with outthinking the experience. It's digital - shoot ! then look, do you have enough DoF , if not up the f-stop. Too much DoF ? lower the f-stop... It's really simple - confirm your results. the crop x lens maybe gives you an angle of view reference... good vid Mattias, as always :)
You nailed it with this video! Also I immediately clicked on this because I saw the Pentax Q in the thumbnail. I horribly regret selling mine as it was actually the camera I learned photography on. Gonna have to hunt one down soon.
Mattias, when you shoot with Fuji and Leica cameras (to get their great colors and looks) do you use out of camera JPEGS or do you edit their raw files?
This is the video that made me subscribe to you. I think this video is quite important amidst all the full frame craze nowadays. Everytime I hear one of my video friends apply some full frame compensation to anything,I show them this.
Mattias you are awesome, one of the best. You are applying common sense not just theory and "bigger is better" shallow thinking. I still use my Xpro1 and I won't let it go soon.
Thomas Hill Its about workable distances to the subject, lens size, lens quality, etc and so forth. As you can see in the video I have four different sizes and there are strength and weaknesses to all of them.
Great video as always Mattias. A quick question though; In a previous video you mentioned using a Focal reducer to adapt medium format lenses to a full frame Sony a7. Would that be a situation where you WOULD apply crop factor to aperture? or is aperture still constant?
Great job. if you did a 'backward' test and simply showed viewers random shots from different cameras using different lenses we would never be able to guess what was what without you telling us. I've seen RED owners improperly guessing GH5 shots to be RED (different lenses to get same 'look'), and a 10yr old Canon 1080P shot looking identical to a new one with 50mm lens.
Find used cameras at MPB and support the channel by using the affiliate links:
MPB EU, prf.hn/l/lQByyLQ
MPB UK, prf.hn/l/q3qa8Ne
MPB US, prf.hn/l/kVBOOlv
Yes, exactly true. Pick up a camera. Look through it intil you see a picture. Press the button. Do you like the image? Do your friends like the image? Regardless of the answer keep takng pictures as long as it makes you happy.
Chuck Moser So right and true! 👍
"Full frame, or what we call in Swedish 'tiny picture'"... LOL! Classic :D
Well Sweden is the home of Hasselblad so totally correct while also being hilarious.
@@toddysurcharge771 , in German it's also "Kleinbild", which translates to tiny picture.
In Poland we have "małoobrazkowy" - the same as tiny picture as well Xd
The expression "full frame" is for those without any knowledge of origin in the last or even prior centuries.
It came up with digital imaging struggling to get any adequate sensor size.
Market introduction (around year 2000) first done with some drawbacks.
The drawbacks were called "crop factor" due to marketing reasons.
in hungarian it is called small-film format, but this term is mostly used by guys who shot on film
I have just spent my whole day-off watching Mattias Burling uploads, and while I have gained much, the one thing that stands out for me after an extraordinary journey, is that it is in fact the man that maketh the camera.
"and if you don't know what crop factor is then... and enjoy life". Simply genious
“...turn this video off and enjoy life...”
Truer words have never been spoken 😂 good video as always!
A point that I feel gets missed and that I probably should have made clear in the video is as follows.
A beginner needs not to occupy their brain with a bunch of nonsense on how to use their lens to match the look of a system they don’t own. They should learn their own system and how to expose and frame. Thats all photography is.
Veterans already know what lens does what from what distance.
The notion that they need to know that their 25mm is n fact a ”50mm in case you have the same generation camera and a similar pixel density given by resolution and are able to adjust the shutter speed (via tripod if needed) and/or shutter speed without ruining the integrity of the shot as you planed it”, is just ridiculous to me. Nowhere in old photography books do I see that kind of stuff.
Should we also print the equivalence of APS-C on the box full frame glass? Or maybe the smartphone equivalence, or oil paintings ;)
The problem is with positive versus negative presence (positive mean existing, and negative meaning non-existing).
All the artists are too busy making art. But the critics are busy here (not making art) complaining, arguing over details, technical specs, and decimals.
Then the replies, message board, forum, social media, etc. all look very negative, like everyone is evil, as if you had to understand everything before you can make art, and that one fatal flaw in your knowledge base disqualifies you from being a worthy contributor.
(i can go in much more detail as much of this phenomenon has to do with extremem biases of digital and digitization, social hierarchy, hyperspace, capitalism, and scientism, but I'll spare everyone and just say, fuck everyone and just make art, and the chips will fall where they may)
Hendrix didn't know ANYTHING about impedence, ohms, and voltage running through his amps and effects and he made better art than nearly anyone else.
You don't have to know technicalities, but then again, technecalities draw in clicks, serve as launching pads for debates, as opposed to artistic opinions, feelings, and perspectives--which are repellant to the tech-y specs-memorizing idiots who don't have one drop of artistic talent in their entire body.
Make art. Fuck the rest.
This was a good read, thanks for sharing!
I only bother converting focal length of my M4/3 lenses when I'm chatting with my friend, Heather. She uses a Canon 5d mark iv and doesn't really understand crop factor, so when I talk about shooting with my 25mm I just call it a 50. Just shooting for myself, I know what I want to shoot with and roll with it.
As someone who has only ever used an Apsc sized camera, I agree with you completely. Full frame equivalent means absolutely nothing to me since my feel for how a given focal length and aperture behaves is based entirely on APSC. Indeed, if I ever did get a full frame camera, I would at first be using Apsc equivalent as my mental reference when choosing a lens, not the other way around - but only until I got the hang of the full frame behaviour at which point I wouldn't care any more. Ditto if I had a micro 4 thirds or one inch sensor camera etc.
best comment so far.. I laughed so hard because of this.. XD. It is so true.
I get your point. My first real system is MFT, I find myself trying to use the reciprocal rule for shutter speed but keeping in mind the crop factor... then compensating for a few stops of sensor shift stabilization added to it. It's kind of stupid to base my personal camera off of a system I do not own.
Your dog has more beautiful portrait shots than me, or all of my family
Haha, well said!
I don't agree with some parts of the technical explanation, but I definitely agree with the conclusion that everyone should use what he / she has and not be concerned about things like crop factor.
Love your videos! I personally didn't see anything wrong with the technical explaination, I was wondering with what you disagreed with.
Not to start an argument, I'm just curious incase I'm missing some knowledge!
One thing I completely agree with this video is that this knowledge has nothing to do with your photography skills.
Went to the comments expecting riots. Pleasantly surprised by the positive response. Is there hope for the internet?
You should see some of the filtered comments ;)
Like the saying goes...if people ignore the subject in your photo and instead critique the noise/bokeh/etc...your photo sucks...
Raymond Leung true!
So the saying should be: People suck ? :P
The hilarious thing is I have seen a ton of technically correct photos that just sucked because the subject was lackluster or the framing was boring and generic. Some people focus on the technical aspects so much they lose sight of the art part of photography.
Those people would be called other photographers mainly in facebook groups or forums. Everyone is so quick to tell you what you did wrong instead of what you did right. And it’s people who feel they are being threatened out of work that do it. Sad.
I think the best comment you made was "I sometimes apply crop factor in my head to the focal length" so you can work out what you expect compared to what you usually shoot. Crop factor conversions are simply tools that help you visualize what your results will likely be. It should not be used as a discussion point for "my camera is better than yours" - which is why this is such an abrasive topic. These tools simply allow you to consider what the field of view, DOF, or noise may be when switching back or forth. I don't think people need to think about this with every photo they take, but as someone who switches a lot between full frame and aps-c - I find myself using these tools to get acquainted with the camera again and to troubleshoot when I am not getting the effect I want. Regardless - you are always better to get to know the camera and focus subject, story, and composition. Great video as always.
Wow a crop of 5x! I'm never complaining about the bmpcc anymore :D
still love to use this camera in 2018!
I think HyperFocal's downloads will have a great bump too!
Well said. Depth of field is an optical property and therefore is independent of sensor size. This is easy to understand if you do the following thought experiment: take a full frame camera with a certain lens. The lens projects an image on the sensor with a certain depth of field defined by aperture, distance to subject and focal length of the lens. Now, while not changing anything else, remove the sensor from this camera and replace it with a cropped sensor. The image is the same, in this case because the sensor is smaller than the previous one it will capture less of the scene but the sensor is just there to capture the image and depth of field was already determined optically and cannot change! I guess this will be the analogy that Mattias used with cropping printed photos to a smaller size.
The scene on 4:20 is so beautiful.
Remember coming across this video last year when I began learning technical camera concepts. My interest was dying out on photography cause of the talking down on anything non full-frame on the internet, until I saw this video 'rubbishing' it & other things since. Thanks Mattias!
I've had the Pentax QS-1 for a year now. It has a sensor size of 1/1.7" giving it a crop factor or 4.7. The Pentax Q series are some of the most underrated cameras. They're a pixel peeper's nightmare but the pictures are great. One advantage is that you can adapt almost any lens to it as the flange distance is so short. I recently adapted a 2.8mm m12 lens giving an interesting fisheye effect for around $2. The camera is guaranteed to put a smile on your face.
eggaweb true, its a bringer of joy.
I struggeling not to pick up a Q7 or Q-s1 just for the sake of collecting.
I never think about a crop, I just look down the lens and bam that’s the look I take the shot, now I get paid job done!
Great video. It's all about language, in a funny sort of way. I was always taught at school, that if I was trying to speak a foreign language, I should learn to 'think' in that language, rather than thinking in my native tongue - English in my case - and translating to the new language. It's exactly the same in photography, as you say here, only the language is all to do with a knowledge of field of view. It's about knowing which focal length lens I might need to use to fill a frame with a subject from the distance I want to take the picture from, without thinking of it in full frame terms and then converting back. In other words, people need to learn that in the languages of MFT, APS and FF, 25mm, 35mm, and 50mm all mean effectively the same thing in the three different 'languages' ie they all represent what might be perceived as a standard lens in each language.
Great take
The thing with crop factor is you only crop the picture which means you are getting a smaller picture. The compression because of the focal length is always the same. Doesn't matter what sensor size you have a 28mm f2 is going to give you the exact same compression and bokeh, you are only getting less or more in your picture depending on the sensor size. Same amount of light, same bokeh, and also same compression.
It's more logical to think of it this way. A 28mm F2 on a micro 4/3s is not a 56mm F4 equivalent it's a 28mm F2 which has been cropped by half the picture area.
I really enjoy when you're being snarky like this, actually - it's very entertaining as a change of pace from the usual calm and well composed-feeling style.
Just as informative as ever, just from a different angle, and that's fun!
Lovely video as are all your videos Mattias, you inspired me to take the extra step in my photography thank you so much!
I look forward to the Q video. I don't have to worry about buying, I already have a Q10 and a Q-S1 as well as all of the autofocus lenses in the system. I actually learned on that camera system, after getting a deal on a Q10 kit on woot.com back in 2012.
Jason Mueller I think I might get a Q-s1 just for the sake of collecting. I adore the Q and it does everything I need it to. But it would be fun to own the first and last in the system.
It's significantly better for autofocus. It has Ricoh's contrast detect AF system instead of Pentax's so it's much snappier and easier. It's quite difficult to nail manual focus adjustments on the low resolution back screen, but you can trust the focus on the Q-S1. I also adore the Q system. Many of my favorite photos I've ever taken were taken on it.
Woohoo! Pentax Q you say? I have two, and I love them. Can't wait!
LennyG2006 its so much fun :)
I just won my auction today! Joining the club!
Also got 2. Most fun camera ever!
Us really old guys who are so used to 35mm photography, Crop factor is just stuck in our heads by rote.
I picked up a Nikon 1 J1 with the new kit lens and I love it. The colors are so good for an older camera and sensor. It's not the most robust camera though but it has silent shutter and is so small. It performs so well for what it is.
That also seems like a fun camera.
Mattias Burling I have a bunch of cameras but I usually have a sony a5000 with me for its smaller size. I love the image quality but the focus and shutter sound is a bit slow and relatively loud and Sony isn't the best when it comes to color accuracy but the little Nikon was a pleasant surprise even at night. The active vr is impressive in my opinion.
Brilliant. I LOVE the "get a pair of scissors" example.
I'm a videographer and photographer
I'm always saying that u can't crop the light that hits ur sensor
But no body believes me
Which was that you where using on your phone?
I've had so many discussions about this, but I'm totally on your side here!! Exactly my thoughts! Great video.
You still get the same depth of field on any crop factor. Just don't step back.
Or change lens.
As someone who's lately using his smartphone for photography more often.. i never thought of that little sensor in my mobile.. nor the fixed f#
"Just a bunch of BS anyway". Well said. I don't care about crop factor or sensor size. The only thing that matters is what you see though the view finder and what the image turns out like.
I just found this video! I've only been shooting for a year and a half and I wish i would have seen this last year. I came to this realization on my own...but only after watching dozens of useless TH-cam videos about crop factor/full frame vs. APS-C over the last year or so. I'm saving this video to share whenever someone says they "need the full frame look"!
I am so glad I'm not the only one that believes this! I had the choice between an A7ii and xt2 and I went with XT2 even though it was aps-c, the images out of that camera are simply nicer for what I shoot. I have found that camera snobs are the only ones that care about this. If you like the way your shots look NO ONE is going to know if youre shooting APS-C, full-frame or MFT. Thank you for this video Mattias this was awesome! :)
I tried to pay attention but then i saw the GXR(!) and had to go find the video you made about that first, once sated, I came back and enjoyed this brief respite of common sense in the photography world before going back out into the harsh glare of the world.
Did you see this video as well?
Lots of GXR shots in it: th-cam.com/video/pSieKAMEf7U/w-d-xo.html
I salute you for doing this vid, you can apply crop factor to aperture to lenses on cropped bodies IF and there is a FF body taking the same picture and you want to keep the DOF and focal distance same between the 2 images, this RARELY happens and if you are just using a FF or 35mm format lens on a cropped sensor, there the no change in DOF, on the image when compared to the image taken by same lens on a FF body. DOF is independent of the sensor size and dependent on the lens property.
I have both full frame and crop canon, all I do is swap and change lenses as I feel required for what I am shooting. Am I worried or bothered no.
Hey, what about lenses meant for smaller sensors for example you can't deny an IPhone's f1.8 lens with its small censor can't capture the same amount of light as a full
frame f1.8 set up.
The iPhone has a bigger sensor than the Pentax Q in this video. So you can just watch the images I show and decide for yourself :)
Larger sensors require larger lenses. Technically the larger lenses are gathering more light but the larger sensors need that same amount of extra light. So exposure will be exactly the same. Noise levels would be lower on the bigger sensors on average. But that also depends on the Signal-to-Noise ratio of the camera among other things.
The first ASP-C camera I bought I put on a 50mm 1.4 Canon to check the depth of field. There was no difference so I forgot all about crop factor from that point on. The other day I was doing a shoot with a 24-105 f4 L on a 70 D. Another photographer said: you can't use that lens on that body. I said why not, I like it. You can use anything you want as long as you get a result.
Exactly!
Your voice makes me want to come and live in Sweden. It invokes the feeling of Hygge. Therapeutic to most ears.
Mattias, I'd love a list or vid of your favorite ISO's on different cameras you have used. I remember being surprised you like to use those Fuji's in the 5000 range.
I never felt like getting a pentax Q, cause I have a Pentax MX-1, which has a dandy of a built in zoom and the same-ish sensor I think. Brass too. :)
2:22 is when i automatically press subscribe and noti button. What an amazingly educational video
00:45 - "Full-Frame, or as we say in Swedish, very tiny picture..." Hillarious. This is a great line for those people suffering from "comparisonitus" Why do we need to compare every image sensor to a certain "standard" (often 35mm film camera)? Why not consider "full-frame" as being a cropped sensor compared to 4x5 or even 8x10? It is so ridiculous. As for depth-of-field... Shoot an image. If you want more or less, open/stop down your aperture or adjust your camera to subject distance to achieve your desired result. Lets not over complicate photography but rather enjoy it. Great video. Cheers.
I have a terrible headache after watching this video Mattias. Will have a full glass of something to calm down.
Your video prompted me to seek your “Hyperfocal” in the iPhone App. Store.
A thoughtful informative video. Many thanks. 😎
the iphone Hyperfocal App is made by someone different and poorly reviewed. Any luck finding a good iPhone version?
Does xt20 has better low light performance than A7?
Pentax Q hoarding begins...
Should have waited for Mattias' review before I sold my Pentax Q on eBay. Still have many Pentax Q adapters for sale though. Also an old Pentax 110 with a lovely lens.
I've got 4!
I love this and it really means a lot that you explained it like that
I have a Pentax Qs-1 with the #1 prime #2 standard zoon and the #6 tele. Love it to death!
This is why I wish field of view was described rather than focal length, such a more useful and relevant figure in my opinion.
* sees Pentax Q *
* breaks hand trying to tap video fast enough *
Still have and love mine. I still take it on paid gigs. Its brilliant as a street camera AND with flash at events and parties. I learned photography on it. I need to track down that wide zoom lens tho.
I think Ricoh had it wrong marketing it as a consumer camera when it was designed like a compact camera enthusiasts would love.
Bryan Rollins Its been love from the first picture. Such a fun system.
Still using mine actually just bought another used one for a hundred bucks
Just saw this. What is the app you are using when you are talking about the Leica’s DOF with the 35mm lens?
A refreshing look at it all. Thanks.
Thank you sir..always wondered about the aperture and crop factor!👍🏽
Do you have an opinon on the fuji xe1 paired with olympus 50mm 1.8....
+Rene Lesch Haven't used it but Im sure its great.
Wonderful! Thank you! So good to hear common sense from a photographer instead of the usual nonsense from internet forum know-it-alls!
Angle of view would be a far better term to use than crop factor. The whole language around "full frame" is designed to make you want to "upgrade" to "full frame" from the "crop sensor" by marketing people. They are different tools for different purposes.
I like to buy APS-C lenses for my APS-C camera, this way I don't think in terms of crops, but in terms of this is the image this lens produce. Also it's less weight to carry. I got some time to save money for a full frame, but then I would need more time for a single good lens for a full frame. I just spent all the money in APS-C lenses and the odd full frame prime for portraits.
I agree! Finally a kindred spirit! I shoot Minox to P67 plus aps-c. I remember when 35mm was referred to as “miniature!” If the output is excellent, is all the tech & math really necessary? Not for me...slows me down and I miss the shot. Thanks Matthias! I like the way you did this!
You nailed it. I am tired about hearing the talk equivalence of aperture and focal length implying that unless you MOVE to FF you will always have substandard results - but, when you apply the equivalence becomes almost acceptable...
Thanks for this! I can't remember how many times I've had this discussion since going full m43 in 2012. F2.8 is F2.8 is F2.8. Period. Done deal. Shoot the same lens in front of different sensor sizes at the same distance to subject, or no sensor at all, and the light gathering will be the same as will the exposure given the same shutter speed and ISO. The crop will be different of course. I've tried to explain it so many times but your explanation with the printed photo and a pair of scissors will be my go to explanation now, it's spot on perfect!
I know this video will do nothing to end the discussion, haters are gonna hate and "elitists" who spend more time with technical discussions rather than shooting will still say small format is the best there ever was (of course, it is now, in order to sell better, called full frame).
Bra video, bra poäng som vanligt, tack!
/Rasmus
Love this video and your reasoning Mattias, I now no longer feel inferior using M43 lol. Great video keep them coming
Super. So, I keep my RX10 because it has a 24-200mm 2,8 Zoom, and I sell all the big sized sensor stuff with these huge lenses I don´t need no more. Still a bit wondering why it geting always faster dark in the RX10 viewfinder compared to the big boys?!
A 24mm f2.8 will bi just as light/dark as a 28mm f2.8 an a full frame if the shutter and iso is the same.
wich ricoh camera were you using? it looks like a GR but with interchangeable lenses?
th-cam.com/video/QuC6HdF5rqI/w-d-xo.html
woud be very inetrested in a pentax q review. isnt it considered the smalest interchangeable lens system?
+PhotoshopFotoDesign it is :)
Great thoughts and that never ending discussion!
I never got it why full frame is called that, when there are larger formats ... and full frame is already a crop.
So what is the cropfactor from large or medium format to fullframe ? In the end, as you said, it does not matter that much.
3:34 WOW!! What an amazing photo!
Brilliant. Could you do a video on microscopically viewing pictures and commenting on corner sharpness. In all my years of taking photographs no one has ever commented on a slightly soft twig in the right hand corner or even slight chromatic aberrations on a telephone wire. They usually tell me what the picture does for them or what emotion it stirs. I have never sold a picture of a brick wall either. What is wrong with me? :-))
Thats a great topic for a video.
I always loved this one: th-cam.com/video/yk4woeP08LI/w-d-xo.html
Mattias Burling Thanks Mattias great video you pointed me to.
I am with you 100% here. Just know what your camera will do with a given lens and don't worry about all these numbers. I simply don't have time to sit and do calculations in my head while my shot gets away from me -- especially if the light is changing. Just bracket your aperture, your focus, and your ISO if you're worried about it. It's really not that hard. In short: know your gear and you won't have to worry about all this.
I sold my Pentax Q years ago and regret it. such a fun camera to shoot with.
dacasman its pure joy.
Very interesting point of view and refreshing video.
The one generally focusing on the sensor size are generally the same focusing on the size or creaminess of the bokeh. I really don’t understand that stupid sensor size war! And as mentioned in your video Full Frame is a small sensor size compared to medium format, 645, 4x5 or 8x10. The difference between medium format and FF is far bigger than the difference FF and APSC. But the war is more between FF, APSC or m4/3.
What all those fighting for such a useless thing as pointed here just forget, is that what matter is the one behind the camera no matter the size of the sensor with his skill to take a great shot because he know the gear he is using.
Most of the people follow a trend without knowing what they’re talking about, the reasons they’re taking pictures, what bring them there as a photographer. If the answer is the sensor size m, then they for sure miss the point and will all time fight for that non sense.
That why such video is useful to remind people what really matter, what is important. Know your camera, your lenses, and all other gear up to the point that you don’t have to think about all that crap to take the best shot to tell your story in the best possible way.
I love it how this information is so easy to wrap your head around, and channels with 1m subs get it wrong, mind blowing :D All that 2.8 is 4 on a crop, holly hell...
I had a Pentax Q but sold it since I no longer use it after getting a LUMIX GM5 for $199 brand new. I love that little guy with the 15mm which I also got cheap lol.
+John Glue Yeah I like my gm1 alot. But the Q has a few tricks that the Panasonic cant do.
Great video and I can not agree with you more ! I am not a pixel peeper and quite annoyed when people comparing and arguing which camera/sensor produces the best image. As far as I understand, bigger sensor naturally has higher pixel count, doesn't mean higher 'resolution' or higher pixel density, the same thing for film, 35mm and media format film are basically made with the same material thus the same 'pixel density', it is only the print size matters how the image looks, bigger doesn't mean better. After all photography is the mix of technology and art, high tech camera not necessary produces good image !
Nice vid. You are right. Beginners don't need to memorize all that stuff - just learn with what they have. Then, if they buy something different then they can start thinking about it.
The only reason I love full frame or medium format digital is because I love shooting at night where noise becomes a problem especially when boosting the ISO. (It's really like audio gear: S/N (Sound to Noise) ratio is inherent in all electronics.)
Thank you for this video. I have struggled to understand one you tube expert who says that sensor size alters the exposure. He seems to say that if your sensor is half the size it is only gathering half the light... the light per unit area is the same. So each pixel can’t tell the difference. The only consideration If all else is equal might be pixel size. Smaller pixels might saturate sooner so perhaps underexposing might save your highlights. But I think this is all taken care of by the processing engine. The difference between full frame and APSC performance is smaller because of work on sensor design and processing algorithms. The best larger sensors became possible because of the best smaller ones. Your video fits the reality of exposure and sensor size properly. We had the same film speed whether we shot medium format or 35mm the light hitting per unit area was the same in both cases so we used the same light meter and set the same exposure values on each. I need to listen to this expert again I might have missed some nuance in his argument. He seems to say it a lot. When someone called him on it he fluffed and fumbled his way through an argument which still seemed full of existential holes. He is a great teacher otherwise. He even said that Canon was getting 9% less light because it used 1.6 instead of 1.5 as its crop factor. Curious. The truth isn’t that far out there.
Christopher Ward You haven’t missed any nuance...that guy is just wrong! Your experience (and mine) with different film formats is correct. Whether you had a half frame camera or a 6 x 6 then the exposure was the same!
Aperture no, but ISO yes. The light gathering is compensated for by gain, isn't it? So the smaller the sensor the less usable it is at lower ISO.
So the noise of iso 1600 on FF, will more or less be the noise of iso 800 on aps-c.
I wanted to switch to M4/3 but I like to go up to iso 1600 without it looking fuzzy with colour noise.
+Cassius Grey thats not always the case. Plenty of larger sensors are noisier tgan smaller.
People need to be careful with outthinking the experience. It's digital - shoot ! then look, do you have enough DoF , if not up the f-stop. Too much DoF ? lower the f-stop... It's really simple - confirm your results. the crop x lens maybe gives you an angle of view reference... good vid Mattias, as always :)
That was a really lovely looking vintage cannon lens :D Which mount was that?
You nailed it with this video! Also I immediately clicked on this because I saw the Pentax Q in the thumbnail. I horribly regret selling mine as it was actually the camera I learned photography on. Gonna have to hunt one down soon.
Raul Loza its a very camera indeed :)
Mattias, when you shoot with Fuji and Leica cameras (to get their great colors and looks) do you use out of camera JPEGS or do you edit their raw files?
seacow2001 raw only.
But would that mean you lose their native colors and would be adding in your own color preference?
seacow2001 no the colors are still there. The thought that all raw is equal isnt really true.
Thanks for the answers. Love your videos!
Brilliant - I've always thought that was nonsense. Great video as always and thanks
more or less, I agree. I don't have a counter argument as such, well, not one that is worth noting.
Pentax Q x Nikon V1 please
Most meaningful difference is IBIS on the Pentax.
This is the video that made me subscribe to you. I think this video is quite important amidst all the full frame craze nowadays. Everytime I hear one of my video friends apply some full frame compensation to anything,I show them this.
Mattias you are awesome, one of the best. You are applying common sense not just theory and "bigger is better" shallow thinking. I still use my Xpro1 and I won't let it go soon.
So what exactly are the advantages of larger sensors? Resolution?
Thomas Hill Its about workable distances to the subject, lens size, lens quality, etc and so forth. As you can see in the video I have four different sizes and there are strength and weaknesses to all of them.
Right, thank you. Hugely enjoy your channel.
So we are all opening eBay right now huh? :)))
Great video. Again. I gotta step up!
Using focal length to measure field of view was a mistake from the start.
03:08 - Is it my eyes or the trees in the background are getting more blurry as the sensor size increases? :)
Serkan Reis its a softer lens. Either way it wouldn't be because the sensor size increases but the focal length.
Great video as always Mattias. A quick question though; In a previous video you mentioned using a Focal reducer to adapt medium format lenses to a full frame Sony a7. Would that be a situation where you WOULD apply crop factor to aperture? or is aperture still constant?
Andrew Lentz then I might but its basically semantics.
Ok, thanks for the response!
Great job. if you did a 'backward' test and simply showed viewers random shots from different cameras using different lenses we would never be able to guess what was what without you telling us.
I've seen RED owners improperly guessing GH5 shots to be RED (different lenses to get same 'look'), and a 10yr old Canon 1080P shot looking identical to a new one with 50mm lens.
Thank you! This is the only video I found that explains the whole subject correctly!
Please keep up this video.
This video remind me when I bought myself Canon A-1 on eBay with several different lenses . Then I got adapter for DSLR ......
great job mattias. must have been a ton of work on this vid
I understand very little but im going to absorb this info anyways for a later stage in my photography
All you have to know is to not worry about it :)
@@gearreallydoesntmatter namaste
Medium format shooters: Full frame? Oh you mean that little guy?