I've been arguing the whole FF vs APS-C thing forever. I'm an APS-C shooter. I remember when I got hired under contract for editorial automotive photography. In the job description they stated "must have Full Frame Camera". I figured, nah, I'll let my images speak for themselves. Long story short, when they saw my samples, they immediately asked which FF camera I was using, was it Nikon or Canon. When I told them it was an APS-C Pentax, they couldn't believe it. I had my camera with me so I showed them. They still couldn't believe that I matched their shooting template with no FF camera. I told them if you know what you're doing, the camera format doesn't matter. This was a great explanation Tony, you nailed it!
@@DarkPa1adin Yup. I mostly see the following. " Must have Full Frame Nikon or Canon". "Must shoot Canon". "Must shoot Nikon". "Must have Full Frame Camera". They get very specific which is too bad since it limits the talent they can get. Just because the hardware matches the description doesn't mean you're a good photographer. But you know the saying... "Wow! That's a nice camera! It must take really nice pictures!"
Kobie... Good for you... But... :) you actually did not produce the same images with aps-c, as that's, physics-wise, impossible... What you DID do was produce outstanding images that were good enough for the employer. I agree that the finished image is all about the photographer... But all else being equal, if you had used a full-frame camera, the image would have been better (more bokeh, less noise). We all just need to be aware of how good an image needs to be, and not just assume that we have to use a full frame camera to produce acceptable images.
@@Bill-NM , automotive photography typically requires a DoF deep enough to engulf the vehicle, and often a few background objects, and sometimes a foreground object. Trust me, one does not need an F-type for that, and he probably nailed it thoroughly. I know no automotive photographers who shoot F-type at f/4 or wider, except in very rare instances. Even very bokehlicious images can be taken with an f/4 lens on an APS-C body, and f/2.8 is far more than enough.
This is honestly THE BEST tutorial I've seen on this very topic. I found myself constantly pausing and rewinding to soak in all this fundamental knowledge which was explained so well!! Thanks a lot for this Tony!
@@TonyAndChelsea Hi Tony, you confused me when you said that the image from the 50mm lenses is the same size for each sensor size, that they are just the same size cut-outs of the FF, @2:25. First, you said they look magnified then you said that they are not. Yet wildlife photographers use APS-C sensors because it gives them more reach for a smaller lens due to the crop factor. I understand the image cast on the sensor is the same size for the same focal length lens for those three cameras but it changes by the amount of the crop factor when the image is viewed on the computer screen. Is this correct?
@@ninelaivz4334 you can think of smaller sensors as just cropping the image of larger sensors to “zoom in”. However high end aps-c cameras will have higher pixel density than full frame cameras, allowing for an image that’s more “zoomed in” but still of high quality
you realise Tony Balongi fooled you with this little puppet dad (who cut him off) you can't get the same results with a real person cause you need to take a huge 4 meter distance to fit a person into a cropped sensor camera (just for a portrait) so by the time you reach the distance the perspective compression kicks in, no bokeh and the person may appear fatter
Because larger sensors produce less noise because they have more area for gathering light, therefore a FF camera at ISO 1600 produces about the same amount of noise as a M4/3 camera at ISO 400 because it has about 4x the area for gathering light.
@@marcg3923 the brightness is the same for all sizes of sensor (if same exposure) so its the same brightness per square MM on the sensor or whatever area measurement use,,,,,its just with a bigger sensor there are more square MM of the same brightness ..so adds up to more light overall
This is hands down the best photography tutorial I have ever encountered! The most thorough, honest, conprehensive and methodologically sound tutorial ever. This is pure gold! Well done!
@@hjer731 And there are some, who shot medium format, or even large format. Everybody should use that camera, what suited well for the actual job, and fits into the budget. Argue about sensor size leads nowhere. Pick up that camera which you like to use, and take pictures. If the result is good, nobady will ask, what gear you used (maybe some room phothographer, who sitting behind the monitor and read DxO scores).
I also shoot with an A6000 crop sensor, another reason I wouldn't got for a larger sensor is the photo file size being twice the size at around 43mb per shot rather than 22mb haha.
@@2NeedForSpeed2 It's the resolution, not the pixel size that affects file size. You can have a 32.5 megapixels aps-c camera which produces larger photos than something like a 24 megapixel full frame.
Totally untrue. When I made the jump full-time from 35mm film to a DSLR I went with a APS-C camera, and have been totally happy and content with the results I can get, especially when using older, "vintage" glass. Someday I'll most likely upgrade to a full camera body, but I'm in no rush at all.
I mean ... it was blurry but did you see this man's house? I'm sure he'll live why don't you give some money to food banks instead they need it these days.
What difference between full frame and APS-C I want to knows these things because I love full frame everywhere is focus I believe full frame is this because I really really need a photo.
Because I have watched not all the videos but I see APS-C IS GOOD compared but I want a picture for example in pictures it have 10 people I want all them is showing good and I want a picture everywhere is showing because it needed when a people Is working like all there tools they use is showing well for knows which tool they have or use too and all other there tools they have too in these cameras focus all things in the pictures to shows all things like this or for example in a picture of a showroom where sell lot of technologies take a photo but they are not only take human picture but other like all these technologies too what you suggest us to use full frame or APS-C .ME I WILL do an album of lot of picture but massively lot of picture for my mother because she has been missing me a lot and lot I believe every pictures of me for her will ease her crying because like 20 years she has not seen but in these 20years she met me she only care for me .
This is the first video I've seen from Tony, but I'm blown away. Learned more about photography in the last 20 minutes then I have in hours of other videos and reading. THANK YOU! SUBSCRIBED!
Can you feel that? That electric sensation in the air? That's the emotional tension of 10 000 gear nerds anticipating the tiniest perceived mistake as Tony talks about crop factor.
IHe did make a mistake twice, -the same mistake, in about a two second window- but I will not even bring it up, as it is immaterial to the entire video. Wonder who will first bring it up? On a different topic, I disagree on the Edison thing, and I can say why, but it is also immaterial, as it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.“Crop factor” is a brand new term. The old term was “Enlargement factor.” Same issues, different values. That's all.
I own Micro 4/3rd's, APS-C, and FF cameras. In more than 90% of the photos I take, there is no real difference to me. But when I want to go with a really wide-angle lens, or I want minimal depth of field, or really low light, I dig out the full frame gear. But that isn't as often as it once was. When I want the smallest kit for travel, or maximum telephoto "reach" without breaking the bank, Micro 4/3rd's gets the nod. The APS-C camera is used 100% for work shots and videos, and as a backup body for use with my Nikon FF lenses. Truthfully, these days, if I had to choose one system, only for what I really do now, it would probably be my Olympus Micro 4/3rd's gear, even knowing the limitations it may have.
I have the same setup as you Tom. My conclusion is horses for courses. In general, my experience is FF for paid jobs with clients' presence. For pleasure, I will take my MFT gear. MFT with fast prime lenses also great for low light environment requiring deeper depth of field. A picture with great bokeh is not the only thing that result in high emotional impact.
@@cfagil What? How is MFT good in low light when you require more DoF? Did you watch the video? You're not just getting more DoF, it's the same image as stopping down on full frame.
Exactly, each camera system has its advantages. If I'm traveling I would not want to lug around a FF system, but if I need bokeh and picture quality nothing beat the FF.
Best explanation of crop factor ever. I know the video stayed away from pixel counts, but one point in favor of large sensors if they have lots of pixels that isn't mentioned is the increased capability to enlarge and crop. Here's an extreme example. While editing I've found subjects in nature photos that went unnoticed when I took the photo, but because the photo was taken with a large format, high-pixel-count camera, I was able to make a good image at 1620 x 1080 pixels out of an image that started at 7952 x 5304 pixels. Not great for printing, but beautiful on-screen where we see most of our photos these days. If I'm doing the math right, that resulted in a 5 x zoom factor. That took my 124mm exposure and presented a 620mm onscreen image.
This is, by far, the best explanation of crop factor that I have ever seen. Next time a friend asks me about it, instead of trying a bumbling explanation I'll just give them the link to this video :)
The lens takes in an image as light and focuses it in a circle, the sensor sits inside the middle this circle. Given the same lens, the sensor size will determine how much of the circle is recorded in the image, giving the appearance that the image is zoomed in.
I use micro four-thirds and APS-C sensor cameras. I don't think going to a "full frame" camera will make me a better photographer, especially if I sit in all day watching TH-cam videos.
It always depends on what you're shooting and your budget. I bought my first full frame camera since I wanted to be able to shoot very wide and I was being limited by the 1.6 crop factor on my 20D. The 5D had just been released and it was a "budget" full frame camera (at the time anyway) so I went for it. At this point I'm just used to full frame, and there are so many "cheap" options available that I have no reason to go back to a crop sensor.
any camera will do the job its true . im not a camera snob at all .. i love my d7200s . tough as hell great dynamic range ( so iv heard) but having the use of a d850 with pro lenses lately has really made a big difference to my wildlife photos ..
dont do it ! get out snapping . theres plenty of places to mooch around , kind of makes me laugh , how many people have spent money on the latest lenses they dont need after watching youtube vids , some of these sales reps would sell sand to Arabs ,
And then the full framers are wondering if they need to go Medium Format... To be fair you are not going to be able to get lenses on the smaller framed cameras to match as the physics just wouldn't let you. For example you can't get an 85mm f1.2 full frame on a cropped...
You really don't need to worry about the math unless you are intentionally trying to replicate with one format the results of another. That's the real hook in the whole "Full-Frame vs. Crop" debate - it doesn't actually matter. If I'm shooting with my Nikon D7500, (APS-C sensor), I'm not worrying about matching up the resulting shot with what I could get with my Canon 35mm, or a full-frame body. I'm looking to capture the best photo I can get with the 7500, so I frame the shot accordingly.
Y'all gonna be surprised when you see Complex Numbers. In engineering, mathematics is pretty much EVERYTHING! For real though, it's inevitable that you're always gonna end up forced to take the hard way in life. That's just how the world works
@@looneyburgmusic EXACTLY what I was thinking this entire time. "Why are we even talking about this? Just know that anything smaller than a full frame has a crop factor....position yourself accordingly". This shouldn't even cross a person's mind unless they commonly shoot both type cameras, back to back.
Not everyone can afford a full frame. They are expensive. But you'd probably be better off investing in a full frame and less lenses up front than spending money on several lenses and getting a cropped sensor.
So what is your overall opinion? I'd say your budget is going to be the biggest factor but I'm pretty confident that I am correct that you can't ever really get the benefits of a full frame simply by using shorter lenses. It simply doesn't work that way. It's like someone telling you how to defeat the house at gambling.
As always, complex things appear simple to the real experts. And you do have a phenomenal talent to teach. This makes this video so valuable. It is informative, and enjoyable at the same time. Thank you!
By far, one of the most helpful videos on the internet today discussing crop factor conversions. So well delivered and love that cinematic look with great lighting in this video!
Great video. We love to talk about this stuff as gear heads, but this video is the bottom line truth and very informative -- more helpful than just arguing for one sensor or system over another.
I also love the absence of an (unnecessary) intrusive musical background and the addition of printed on screen information, which enables one to pause and study. Very professional.
I don’t need full frame for my use. I sold my 6D last year to buy a M5. I don’t forget the math you also explain in your old video. APS-C works great for me, light and compact ! Perfect for traveling. Have a good day. From France !
I'd love to use "full frame" format, but the price, size and weigth make it a bad travel companion. Specially when travelling hand luggage only. I'll keep my RX10. Greetings from Brazil.
@@ToxicGopher I dropped my D800e and D500 for to invest further into Olympus. I have 2 kids and love to go birding. I can tell you that neither suffered. I feel that I have become more into photography as of late. My D500 and 200-500mm just sat there on my desk for months until the change. It is so easy to throw my 100-400mm combo into the car every day and take it out when and if I need/want to.
@@ToxicGopher When it will be in second hand shop, I will replace my EF40 for this EF-M32 for sure. Currently my set up is 18-150 + 22 + 28 macro + 40 (for portrait). But I'll need a 11-22 and a Laowa 9 f2.8 to complete my gear.
This is the best video I have come across on this nerdy topic and behold it was as crystal as could be, without missing a single point. Amazes me that you didn't read it out of a script ! Couldn't be better. Extremely well done ! Watch this alone multiple times so you don't ever get confused about it lest forget it !
What a great and informative tutorial this is. I love that you used actual DATA to support your statements and gave unbiased feedback about all different sensor sizes. Thank you so much.
There have been a lot of tutorials online on this same subject. This one is simply the best. Illustration with different gears and results and very well explained. Thank you.
Nope, you can skip the math regardless of which crop factor camera you have, as long as you only have one crop factor. If you have a Micro-4/3, you get used to the angle of view that each of your lenses gives you. Who cares what the same focal length gives on a 35mm camera? Have you ever worried about the angle of view of a 90mm lens on a 4" x 5" view camera? Didn't think so. Only when you are COMPARING camera types and lenses do you need the math.
Actually you need more maths. You need to do maths to save much more to be able to get the lens, you need to do lots of maths to calculate how much can you carry with you for the amount of distance you have to walk... Crop sensor?? that's a piece of cake, you will need the maths for the rest. FF has a lot of advantages, but maths is not one.
there are pros who use MFTs and they make a living from photography as well and they don't gnaw on the hunger cloth either or only deliver inferior quality 😉😉😉😉😉
Tony, this is my first comment ever on TH-cam. This video has clarified the crop factor conundrum for me. I have watched the many videos, including the one you did a while ago that started the heavy and sometimes nasty debate. Being an owner of a Canon 80D, I was concerned I had made a mistake in my purchase, but now I have this large weight lifted from me and has also reinstated my trust in you. Thanks so much.
Great explanation and recommendations Tony. I have been shooting with APS-C and getting great results, having been told that I am not getting what full frame would give me, but I always tend to think and feel that I work with what I have and make the best of it. You explain it so well and to the point of how the results can and should be the same at the end, if you do everything correctly or to the best of your abilities. Thank you. Great review and explanation.
Agreed. Also, Tony and Chelsea are superb teachers. They know the material, and put in the time to explain it correctly for all of us. They are a treasure
What difference between full frame and APS-C I want to knows these things because I love full frame everywhere is focus I believe full frame is this because I really really need a photo.
It's bad one cause it ain't reflecting one small factor. Size isn't the only tech factor in sensors. see mobile sensors - much smaller vs M43 and see what a huge step they made. 4D Sensors will come soon to MFT and It will be a different world for small sensors.
Thank you for breaking this down in a way that is unbiased, factual, and explains the math. For myself it helped me know how to appreciate the gear that I have, and just make technical adjustments, versus feeling like I have to buy all new gear to achieve the look of FF.
Excellent video! For a trip to Alaska my wife bought me a Sony Alpha A100 with the APS-C sensor. I was not given the opportunity to give input into her buying decision, instead she talked to the guy at the camera store. I was very please with the gift, but when I researched it and learned about sensor size I was surprised that she didn't get a full-frame sensor. The talk online in those days was almost shaming people who didn't have full-frame sensor cameras. Well, yesterday I ordered a new camera with a 1" sensor as I wanted a lighter P&S camera for a trip to South Africa. I am amazed at all the features in bridge cameras! I've got over a year to get use to it.
Great video. My initial move to full frame though, was based on cost. Coming from micro four thirds, I found that wide angle lenses were incredibly expensive. The Sony Alpha 900 with legacy Minolta lenses was MUCH less expensive. Now I’ve moved to 1” sensor with a bridge camera that while certainly NOT the quality of full frame, it’s far cheaper than an interchangeable lens kit of equivalent focal range, and the quality is fine FOR ME.
This is seriously the best explanation comparison video I've seen! So many others' videos just aren't up to par with Tony's in-depth and technical coverage.
Extremely well said, Tony. I’m an experienced photographer and have been following you for forever as well as all other TH-cam photographer channels and you’re the only one-I repeat the only one explaining this accurately. Every crop guy on the web thinks they’re equivalent to full frame and they talk as if they’re full frame when referencing apertures etc. like you’ll see people making comparisons against a 35mm FF lens and a 35mm crop lens etc etc. they fail to do the math! And the math goes across the board for all merits. And you’re right the limitations are when you start getting into exotic FF glass. The scale starts to get out of bounds for crop cameras as far as lenses go. For example that Kamlan 0.85 lens that recently came out for crop.. all that is is a 50 1.2 equivalent. But people are talking about it as if it’s the fastest lens in the world. In terms of f stop maybe, but actual results? FF has been getting those results for decades with their 1.2 FF lenses. But you already know this but it’s good to get the information out there. I always tell people there are no free rides! It’s also worth mentioning canon appears to be addressing some crop sensor handicaps by patenting their own speed booster (focal reducer) which when you think about it is simply a teleconverter reversed. That’s another way for crop users to get FF-like results. Keep up the great videos. You’re the only photographer on TH-cam or otherwise I take completely serious when it comes to gear knowledge. And I don’t say that lightly!
DPReview has excellent articles about all these, too. Definitely, Tony Northrup videos are the easiest to understand. Checkout, however, 54 guys didn't like the show, so, still there are a number of guys who cannot understand all these. Honestly, most photographers doesn't have powerful enough processor to comprehend equivalency; and that is not a problem, just take good pictures.
There is another person who explains it just as well, Gerald Undone. His video was my favourite explanation on the subject, now it's joint first with this gem from Tony!
Sure, but he did seem to forget to mention that the "scales go out of bounds" the other way as well, that is the reason smaller sensor camera system actually are smaller. The equivalent lens of the smallest ones on lets say mFT doesn't exist on FF. There fore the system actually is smaller in the real world.
you just saved my sanity! i was going nuts trying to figure out which size DSLR camera to go with! i can not believe how you have taken the complex and made it simple! incredible! thank you SIR
This is the video the photography world has needed for about 15 years! Thanks Tony, if there are haters who still don’t think you understand or correctly explained this topic, they’re completely fooling themselves. It’s been clear to me you’ve understood this from the get go and people who think they know better don’t realise that you completely understand (and often share) their point of view, it’s just that they’ve misinterpreted some tiny thing you said. Great job! 👍✅
@olysonic m43 «…who still don’t think you understand or correctly explained this topic….» It is not about disagreement; it is about not listening. For example, I listened to tony, and I know that his maths and physics is on point. I just don't think that most people buy f/0.03 -I know, made up number, not the point- lenses for the razor-thin DoF, but for the light-gathering capability, ergo, the minimum f-number is about exposure values, not DoF values. I further think it would be easier to explain that exposure is based on a ratio of focal length to iris diameter, or F-Number, while DoF is based on iris diameter, or aperture. In my case, none of the differences which I may have with Tony has anything to do with his understanding, nor his science, nor his computations, nor the accuracy of his explanations, ergo, I am not a hater. Tony and I agree. I still don't think thin DoF is a big factor -and I can say why I think that, but it is immaterial to this video.
If they don’t agree, then they’ve misunderstood his point. On the point he’s making (and he’s articulated from the beginning), on using the calculation to create equivalent images in angle of view, depth of field and noise performance with a given crop factor, he is completely correct. You can argue how to go about explaining that to the photography community, but to ‘disagree’ is to misunderstand his completely correct point.
@@WilliamJohnston , my reply was to olysonic, who appears to have deleted his post. He was asking why you called people “haters” just because they disagree. I was pointing out that a “hater” is more than just someone who disagrees. I actually agree with Tony on his point, his maths, his science, etc., I have an issue with his method, -not that his method is wrong or inefficient, just not as elegant as I believe mine to be- in one area, and one opinion he gave, -not a fact nor tautology. It could be argued that I disagree with Tony on a couple of things, but it neither means that I failed to understand him, nor that I am a hater. I LOVE the guy, and understand him quite well. As I said, my issues are immaterial to the video, and only mentioned to illustrate that the people you are speaking of are indeed haters, and it is not because they disagree, but because they fail to understand a simple and correct explanation of an issue.
Karim Hosein happy to replace haters for a softer word, but I’ll add to my point that if people understand what he means but criticise him in a pointless, unhelpful way (not including you, it sounds like you have a well thought through explanation), then it comes across as more of some sort of personal attack or negative criticism for the sake of it.
this is a video that needs to be watched by many, as I'm often asked about whether I prefer mirrorless or full frame, as if the two are related at all-even by the "pros." this is very informative and by all means a well explained, through video. thanks guys!
Alan Nexus do you know that mirrorless have nothing to do with sensor size? So I’ll assume that you wanted to say “... prefer crop or full frame...”. Quite some time now that Sony for instance is doing full frame mirrorless camera for professional
@@jeanchindeko5477 lol. You didn't understand what Alan Nexus is saying.. Yes mirrorless has nothing to do with sensor size but his friends or the people around him ask Alan if he prefers mirrorless or full frame which is funny....
wood nymph that the problem! It’s like comparing Apple 🍏 and mango 🥭. People are using word without knowing what that mean, just because it’s sound nice, smart or just following the buzz word of the moment! But don’t worry I get it. My point was just to highlight this funny comparison
In my experience I have found that the high end lenses from each company perform (much) better then their kit lenses. For my type of shooting, the lens is far more important than the sensor size. In general, using my Pan-Leica lenses on MTF will give me much more desirable results then a kit lens on a full frame camera. Getting the equivalent high quality lens on a FF camera makes the weight to way up. So comparing a good quality MTF lens to a kit FF lens isn't really an accurate comparison from my prospective. I get the math and the logic of this, and thank you for the great explanation, but love the ability to carry high quality glass to the top of a mountain and get stunning images. If my main shooting was portrait, low light or astro, I would definitely have FF.
EXCELLENT VIDEO !!!! How many times I’ve seen people say crop sensors are crap compared to full frame .. wish they would know we get off our butts and back up and actually use composition lol
I think it's more because you don't have to deal with so much math and uncertainties with the crops, while the full frames you know from get-go what lens to use, know what u get from said lens AND a full frame has way more features lenses and support. Now I'm not saying crop= bad, there are professional crop bodies out there BUT if you want to do anything professionally having a full frame is so much easier to deal with than a crop IMO.
I shot a lot of 35mm film back in the day and acquired a lot of legacy glass. The reason I bought a full frame digital camera is to give me the same benefits I got from those lenses so that I could continue to use those same lenses (which I still do, to this day). I also have an Olympus OMD, which I think is a fantastic camera. Some of the shots I have taken with it have got me exactly the result I needed. Indeed, I use that camera with a Zuiko 45mm/f1.8 lens (equivalent to a 90mm/f3.6), that produces absolutely superb and crisp shots with lots of depth and contrast. If I want to go for "that" particular look, I will use that camera and that lens, rather than try to replicate it on the full frame.
Very nice tutorial. The only thing I might add would be distortion. By discarding the image that would fall on a full frame sensor we are discarding the portions of the image with the most visible distortion. A feature where cropped sensors may be better. Of course better lenses minimize this. And cameras with distortion correction for given lenses can certainly help that along. I have to agree, unless one needs full frame for specific reasons a crop sensor can be great. My Canon 60D never lets me down.
This is an amazing video. Thank you so much with teaching the actual crop factor conversions. Very well explained. It's a little too fast for me to digest so I may have to watch it over a few times and try doing the math myself for practice.
I've been shooting for a few years with an APSC camera but I never though that you would apply the crop factor to the f-stop as well. Seeing it in the video makes so much sense, loved the video
Great info, Tony! Am surprised you didn't also point out that shooting with faster f/ stops makes the focal plane thinner, plus there can be noticeably different optical characteristics when a lens is more "open" [less contrast most notably]. Both of these things can significantly affect image quality and are a trade off to achieving background blur equivalent to Full Frame. Regardless of crop factor, the "focal plane characteristics" of a lens at any given f stop are still the same. This is visible in your example pics at 5:30 in the video; most notably the Micro 4/3 pic shot at f/2 - which shows the image characteristics of the lens actually being at f/2 while being used on a Micro 4/3 sensor with a crop factor that DOES impact things accordingly as you demonstrated.
Man, bravo Tony! This explanation is 👌. I just picked up my first full frame camera, the EOS R with the RF 24-105mm f/4 but was a little hesitant because it’s f/4. After some shots though, the bokeh is actually pretty good, even though most TH-camr’s will have you thinking you need a $2,200 f/2.8 for bokeh. My RF f/4 bokeh is similar to my crop sensor f/2.8’s and that just didn’t make sense, so I came to TH-cam and found your video. I’ve always understood full frame vs. crop factor with focal length, but had no idea about it applying to aperture too! This video was super helpful in giving a clear and proper explanation of the difference between full frame and crop sensor. 👍
Wow! All my years of photography and I admittedly didn't fully understand this. Thank you for helping explain this as the typical explanation of "bigger sensor, more light" is only partially true. I guess size isn't always everything.
Bigger sensor doesnt mean more light, lol. Tony just dont undestand that.. bigger sensor mostly means bigger pixels, bigger pixels gather more light which means less noise. a MTF camera with the same pixel size of the D850 will produce the same noise as the D850.
@@jacobgaysawyer337 no it will not. Pixel per pixel, sure, at 100% scale they'll have the same noise. But when you view the whole image the higher resolution full frame sensor will produce a cleaner overall image.
@@jacobgaysawyer337 Please point out exactly where I did that. A 20mp MFT sensor and an 80mp FF sensor will have the same signal to noise ratio pixel for pixel, but across the entire image the FF sensor will have 4x the signal to noise ratio because it has 4x the amount of pixels and 4x the amount of area on the sensor to gather light.
Tony... this was just the perfect video for me. You are a great teacher... thank you for your support and efforts putting such information together! I am learning! )))
Dear Tony, First of all, thank you for the valuable knowledge that you constantly spread across TH-cam for all of the photographers in the world. I have always found your videos so valuable thanks to the simplicity in which you explain different things and the examples you use while doing so. The latest camera I bought was the Canon 5D Mark 4 full frame DSLR with the 24-70mm f/4 kit lens, in order to be confident that I don't need to worry about the conversions and formulas you explained, as I am not good at all in mathematics, and want the best image and video quality I can afford. Also, as you mentioned, the 35mm film equivalent full frame sensor is the industry's standard used by all pro photographers except for those who shoot medium format photographs for printing a wall sized posters to stick them onto a building, those who use the likes of the Hasselblad for this purpose. I have chosen the full frame sensor over the APSC cropped sensor or the micro four thirds, simply because it gathers more light and the photo sites where the individual pixels sit are larger in the full frame sensor, resulting in a better low light performance. Moreover, as you explained when comparing different sized lenses, if you take three lenses with the same aperture and focal length but differ from each other in sensor size compatibility (one full frame, one APSC, and one micro four thirds), you'll get better results from the full frame lens although they all have the same aperture (much deeper bokeh effect and larger coverage of the scene), which means you'll need to buy better performing lenses for your smaller sized sensors if you want to get "similar" results to those of the full frame lens, and not to mention that you'll have to raise the ISO in those smaller sensor cameras to maintain the brightness, which results in higher noise levels. And finally, there are bokeh levels that you cannot simply achieve with smaller sensor lenses compared to the wide aperture full frame lenses, as the crop factor formula will give you results of apertures that don't exist in lenses such as f/0.X for maintaining the same level of background blur you achieved with your full frame lens and body.
The best lesson (if you can call it that) concerning APS-C and Full Frame comparison. I have no problem with the maths. Excellent presentation! Thank you.
Math is good. I've owned a D800, D800e, D600, D610, 70d and various primes and zooms. All extremely excellent cameras. I also have owned Olympus as a supplemental camera system because of portability. Throw my EM5 and a 20mm panny in my wife's purse and we were all set. I notice when going on a trip to Mexico with my D500 (an amazing camera) and a OMD EM1 - I ended up carrying the OMD around and leaving the D500 at the hotel room. I was able to get several amazing images of birds and wildlife with my 75-300mm Lumix lens with good light (yes a weakness of m43) that rivaled my D500/200-500mm combo. Olympus was not the first to bring the mirrorless format, but they were the first to bring it to the populous. Now everyone has mirrorless. I think that in the future you will find enough AI advancements that the gap between full frame and 43 will be even less than it is now. Yes, your 8lb brick strapped to your neck will give you superior DOF but not necessarily superior images. I do not own a 300mm M.Zuiko, but I do own a 100-400mm and it out resolves my old 200-500mm and 150-600mm lenses at 1/3 the weight.
I love the way you showed the alignment of the focal length on all the sensors. That's going to help a lot of people understand. If I may, let me offer a different perspective. All this math and numbers never helped me at all. From a motion picture perspective, there was 35mm and 16mm film frame. I find that for the most part video, film and motion picture background people think in terms of the way it looks on whatever format they're using. You don't see Super 16mm filmmakers wondering what something looks like on a Super 35mm camera, because it doesn't matter to them. At that time you were shooting on 16mm because it was all you could afford. Only the big movie studios could afford 35mm motion picture film frame. But today is different a lot of photographers are using smaller form factors than they ever did. The language is a little different. They don't get the look they knew so well. They have to translate because video is not their native artistic language. That's what the maths help do: translate. But for me my native artistic language is motion picture, so, I really don't need the maths. I know what focal lengths I need based on the way it looks on whatever camera, lens combination I'm using. Also given that Micro 4/3 is 70% bigger than 16mm film frame, 50% bigger than Super 16mm, this is a boon to every 16mm format shooter from yesteryear. Couple this with a speedbooster and now you have a 35mm film frame field of view. APS-C is dead between 35mm and Super 35mm. In other words the maths don't mean much at all. It only matters what it looks like on the camera you'r using at the moment. Otherwise you're just pulling your hair out with too much data, not enough actual in the field knowledge.
SUPERBLY well explained, Tony ! As a professional photographer and photographic/technological educator, with over 40 years experience, I've often found found myself trying to explain this "equivalence" issue to camera enthusiasts. Now, thanks to your great video, Tony, we have a go-to explanation. Personally, I love Micro-4/3rds, as well as loving truly Large format 10x8. It's a case of horses for courses. Much of my work is described as Extreme Conditions Photography -- such as expeditions down dark and extremely wet caverns -- where the size and weight benefits of MICRO-4/3rds has to be offset against the M4/3rds' relatively poor light-gathering capability. Tony, as (for many people) math isn't their favourite subject, wouldn't it be wonderful if the camera manufacturers factored in the conversion factor and started calling lenses like Olympus's superb 300mm f/4 PRO (in M4/3rds) a 600mm f/8, and actually used the converted f-stop numbers in the camera's viewfinder? That way we'd be working with a meaningful, standardized, system that avoids all this confusion. Tony, you've put across this crucial information in a very well balanced and informative way. Thank you for investing your time in explaining why the strengths and weaknesses of the various options. Rick Bear (Professional photographer in the UK)
The equivalence is kind of a dumb idea. I'm not sure why people still do that decades after the first practical dSLRs hit the market. Early on it kind of made sense as the people they were marketing to had previous experience with 35mm cameras, or possibly the 110 format, and probably not medium or large formats. But, once cameras like the Rebel hit the market and you could get a decent dSLR for something that less serious amateurs could afford, there cased to be much reason for the equivalency These lenses were never equivalent in any other way than the area of coverage. They still behaved like the lens they were, they just gave a smaller portion of the image. Really, the term was always crop factor and people failing to use the term just caused confusion. My 1.6x crop factor camera bodies just cropped that much out by virtue of only covering that portion of the circle of light. That's it.
...will you stop puking on the internet? You act as if the debate is all about a handful of abstract technical terms. The debate is about 3 things. Plain and simple. Bulk, IQ and cost. Convenience vs IQ, really.
This is actually a great explanation of crop factor. The only thing I would mention is that when all the math is said and done, you're still limited by what lenses currently exist for each system. Just like you did the math on the 105mm f1.4 and there is no equivalent for micro 4/3 or APS-C. You can similarly do the math on the aperture and focal length for a lens like the Olympus 9-18mm wide angle, or the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 / f4-5.6, or Leica 50-200 2.8-4, and there are no full frame lenses out there that are comparable in equivalent focal length, aperture and physical size/weight. These things go both ways when size/weight is included as a factor. Believe me when I'm hiking through the wilderness and have my camera around my neck or on my backpack strap I'd absolutely love to have a mythical 16-35mm f4-5.6 (or even slower) full frame lens that would be sharp for landscapes...but they doesn't exist.
I can certainly emphasize with a decision to use a crop sensor body for hiking. The size and weight benefits are why I added a Fuji mirrorless to my kit. I use it for backpacking and lightweight travel. My larger, heavier Nikon APS-C and full-frame DSLR bodies are used in other scenarios. I would go so far as to say these kinds of specialized situations often render equivalence a rather trivial consideration. Yes, all other factors being equal, a photographer will tend to choose the kit that delivers optimal optical performance. However, practical considerations such as cost, size, weight and particularly an intuitive feel of the camera in the hands will often outweigh whatever subtle differences there may be in equivalent focal length or f-stop.
I've shot w/M43 since it came out. W/good light, either natural or artificial, I prefer M43 over anything because of the ease getting sharp exposures. For landscapes, that's great. But the frosting on that cake is that the best M43 lenses are just beyond insanely good.
I couldn`t agree more 👍😊 by the way even in analog times many Olympus lenses had reference status for serious pro lens testers by which other manufacturers had to be measured, even Leica and Zeiss, and many lenses have failed miserably, even then, Olympus was very popular with ambitious amateur photographers, I know that because that's when I started as an enthusiastic hobby photographer and "strobist", I owned an Olympus OM-4Ti mainly because of its outstanding "Fully synchronous" lightning measuring system means that with matching speelites (F280) you could use flash synch times between 1/60 and 1/2000 sec which was unique that time
All cameras these days can take great photographs. There is a price to be paid for whichever system you choose, but there are also advantages. I have both a FF Nikon & M43 system and love them equally. I love traveling though and find myself reaching for the M43 system most often due to it’s portability. I usually shoot in the daytime so I don’t have any issues with my images. If I require more Bokeh or want to shoot in low light situations, I can still get excellent results by pairing the camera with the correct lens and using the IBIS to keep the ISO low. I’m not constantly thinking about the crop factor, instead I’m thinking about what kind of results does this particular camera with these settings and this lens give me. Recently, it seems that too many people are caught up with defending their particular sensor size, whether it be FF, APS-C or M43 (not many people mention MF). They all come with compromises, whether it be size, price or performance. You need to decide on your desired results, your budget and also the enjoyability of the system. Whichever system you choose will be the right one for you. Don’t worry too much about what others think. This was a very articulate and rational explanation of the 3 most popular sensor sizes by Tony. Well done!
It took me quite a while to really understand how the math works, and how manufacturers trying to mislead photographers (especially by saying, that you only need to multiply the focal legth and they say you get the same light gathering, which is not really true due to the different ISO performance). This is the best video to summarize this topic, very well thought out. It will definitely help a lot of people.
Okay so, first of all, thank you for pointing out these differences so splendidly, i think you addressed all these aspects very elaborately, Now after switching from the NikonD7000 to the sony a7iv, when switching to full-frame I would highlight this input from the video: try to picture your aspired foto of interest first, then try to reach it with an aps-c camera or smartphone camera, then you try to reach your maximum quality that you can produce, learn every while post editing your pictures and then you reach a limit that you can only overcome by making a more expensive purchase, eventually leading to the purchase of a full-frame camera. Ultimately, full frame cameras will enable you to take pictures more easily, too.
I started out with an APS-C camera a few months ago, and I've been debating back and forth with going full-frame the past few weeks. After immersing myself into the field and learning everything I could about fstops, apertures, and crop factors, I was left not knowing what I should do and just feeling confused. This video FINALLY made everything click! I now know exactly what I want to do, and I feel totally confident about it. Thank you so much for uploading this!!
I've been shooting mostly with Canon APS-C sensor cameras since I bought my T3i in 2012. I do have a 5D mark III that I soon plan to sell. I discovered I like the smaller lighter camera bodies. I finally went mirrorless and got a Canon R7 as my A camera and my 90D is now my B roll camera. I also use a Canon Vixia R300 camcorder for behind the scenes and to more easily video while driving. Today Tony you taught me things I never knew about using my crop framed sensors. I now undetstand for the first time the math needed to convert my regular EF lenses better on my crop framed systems. You made it easy for me to understand. Thank You!
Great video with clear explanations. One point unaddressed re crop sensors though is the fact they provide an instant boost in magnification for macro photography which is one advantage of not going full frame if this is your main interest when shooting. Basically the reverse of the calculations gives you the increased magnification ratio you will achieve.
This is a good explanation, thanks for making it. I feel there are two aspects you discuss a few times that could benefit from some clarification / addition: 1) At the 12:20 point about the 300/600 F4 lenses, you are talking about light gathering capability not being equal. But in fact, relative to the required light needing to hit the sensor, these two lenses gather the same amount of light at F4, that's exactly what you say at the beginning and at the end again - exposure is the same at the same settings regardless of crop factor. My thought here is, there is a difference in applying the crop factor towards a) the resulting depth of field, and b) the light passing through the lens in total, and c) the light passing through the lens relative to the sensor size. You are right with your statements concerning a) and b), but what about c)? 2) Secondly, for a) this is where the 600 F4 full frame lens has an advantage. This however, is only true depending on whether the photographer actually *wants* shallow depth of field. There are many cases where you want a lot of depth of field, i.e. architecture or landscape. In this case, you need to stop down the full frame camera to a higher F number, and correspondingly need to adjust shutter speed or ISO to achieve the same exposure, both possibly introducing disadvantages. Maybe these thoughts are useful to someone considering their options.
Bravo Tony! It's too bad that misunderstandings over your prior videos have forced you to have to clarify things with new explanations, BUT you knocked it out of the park with THIS one I think! The only thing you didn't do is repeat what you've well explained before about downscaling apparent grain/noise of say a full frame high MP image to that of a lower MP full frame image simply by displaying both images at the same size and/or at the resolution of the lower MP image. I've tried to be patient arguing things on Ken Wheeler's channel in support of what you've offered but maybe your video here will finally put a period on that sentence so to speak. It might be different if he or someone else provided some sort of better/corrected math to the very useful, practical math that you already have and that I thus have to assume IS already as correct as it needs to be. More importantly you are saving people from wasting $. I ALMOST wasted $ buying temporarily into information (mostly from Ken's channel) that ran counter to yours regarding the consideration of larger photosites (not that that consideration is totally irrelevant, and you have well explained that too, as for capturing video, etc.). I've sent many customers at a camera gear store to your channel!
I just wasted some time watching a video there, he say's one thing, then contradicts it in the next breath! At least Tony gives the formula to go and work it for your self, that other Cock womble gives nothing but contradictions!
What's it to blue? Just kidding. I'm a camera gear salesman (besides other things such as having had a long career in the IT industry and now working on photofinishing apps, and unpublished technical e-books related to photography and videography from where I will send readers to my "friendly competition" Tony and Chelsea. Maybe even to Ken as well for some things).
It’s nice to see the discussion of ISO equivalence. While it’s true that manufacturers of small sensor cameras do not like to mention the “equivalent” full-frame f-stop of their lenses, it is also true that manufacturers of full-frame cameras do not like to mention that small sensor cameras have an advantageous equivalent ISO. As Tony correctly points out, this means that for a given depth of field - an equivalent “look” - low light noise is actually broadly independent of sensor size (because small sensor cameras operate at a numerically smaller f-stop and lower ISO to obtain the same depth of field)
I use this a lot on Micro4/3 shooting hyper-focal shots or anything where I want to maximize depth of field rather than minimize it. In low dawn or dusk light I can stop down to f/8, leave my ISO at 800 and have a DoF comparable to a Full Frame at f/16 (good long DoF before worrying about diffraction). For the Full Frame that small aperture can extend the shutterspeeds to the point a tripod is needed to avoid any handheld motion blur or if shooting windy objects a slightly blurred image. The m4/3's is usually still shooting fast enough to be handheld or to freeze annoying windblown trees and grass. The FF camera would have to increase the ISO to 3200 to get back down to the same shutter speed. Of course then you're comparing ISO performance of a ISO800 m4/3 and ISO3200 FF sensor and the FF can still do pretty dang good but it becomes a sensor comparison at that point and not lens.
We all love Tony for what he does, Chelsea for what she does, and we all love you for what you do, and others for what they do. I personally respect you for this exact comment, because what you're making very clear, is that you're not a smartass know-it-all. What you bring to the table is intention, ambition, style, method, honesty, artistic approach and focus, and you're an inspiring go-getter. Another thing you show everyone who understand, is that there are a lot of photographers out there that shoot beautiful and sexy women, but then that's really all that's in the photo ... You shoot stunning and interesting photos of beautiful and sexy women. There's a big difference. Their photos are only as stunning as the model's beauty allow them to be, where your photos will always be stunning, allowing any model to be as beautiful as they can be. You explain so much so well by exemplifying.
that guy is an arrogant marketing tool :) and a snowflake :) I remember when he said something like 'if you don't have the latest tech, your not in the game!' and I laughed when he blabbed about using wifi on a camera for file transfer? eh? you can't send RAW files and he always shoots Raw right? :)
"GET OFF THE TRACKS." "Wow, this pic is amazing, wait, you are using nice GEAR, OFCOURSE ITS AMAZING, ANYTHING WITH THAT SETUP WILL COME OUT AMAZING, IT SHOOTS ITSELF" LOL!
You can do the math all day but I only look at results and I have seen BIF eagles from that 300 f4 that are some of the best BIF eagles I have ever seen. So the best system is what will get you out there shooting. The difference in background blur from those original pics is minuscule. If you are a pro shooting portraits probably it is enough to matter, but for 99% of the photography world it doesn't and no one notices at all. Even a pro taking portraits I bet the customer would not notice only other obsessed portrait photographers notice. Listening to the camera world these days is like listening to a bunch of audiophile dudes in the 70s. They had some supersonic hearing and were the only people on the planet who could hear the differences between the equipment they debated until you wanted to shoot yourself. I think all photographers should spend less time whining about the equipment and more time out shooting. All the equipment out there is fricken amazing even with their quirks hell just not being stuck with 24 or 36 exposures at the worst possible time is golden.
I used to think that the oly 300mm f4 pro with the e-m1 ii is probably the best of both worlds for wildlife in terms of mobility vs image quality. But if you think about it, the sony a6500 or a6400 with a sony 100-400mm yields even better results for the same price and weight. Or the nikkor 300mm f4 pf with an 1.4x tc and the nikon d500... And both of these options have much better c-af. Unfortunately all the m43 high end gear is overpriced if you want the system to make sense from a financial point of view. There are unique combos, like the oly 12-100mm pro or the 60mm macro with the e-m1 ii which will beat everything other systems offer for the price- but unfortunately a 300mm f4 for $2000 on a $1500 camera really doesn't. I have been thinking for a while that Olympus needs to cut costs by 20% to offer a valid reason to go high end m43. the e-m1x goes completely against the e-m1x ethos too. Of course some people will keep buying olympus gear because of brand loyalty and the lenses are amazing quality. But they are losing in the innovation armsrace vs fuji and sony, hard.
yeah BUT: There are some instances that the difference is bigger and noticeable. People may not know that your sensor is cropped, but the FF usually looks better in some cases, like sports.
Tatiacha great reply. My photography teacher once told us when the question was asked. “What is the best camera to have? He replied; “The one in your hands!”
I've been watching your videos for a short time now and I really enjoy them, but this one especially. I suck at math and have a learning curve due to dyslexia, but the way you explain the specs and limitations made total sense to me and I was at your pace following along. Thank you so very much for taking the time and energy to make your videos and sharing your perspective and wealth of knowledge with the world. You're an asset to photographers at every level. Greatly appreciate your content and teaching method! Best wishes - Kainoa
Much needed clarity on this topic. Extremely well presented technical explanation, while shedding light on marketing distortion. The importance of considering both sides of the equation, not commonly noted. Thanks! In regard to brief discussion of individual pixels, that would benefit from further exploration. Design differences/changes/improvements in sensors can affect the output significantly. And of course manufacturers can more easily fit more (and/or larger) pixels in a larger sensor. Great explanation! Thanks, again.
I've been arguing the whole FF vs APS-C thing forever. I'm an APS-C shooter. I remember when I got hired under contract for editorial automotive photography. In the job description they stated "must have Full Frame Camera". I figured, nah, I'll let my images speak for themselves. Long story short, when they saw my samples, they immediately asked which FF camera I was using, was it Nikon or Canon. When I told them it was an APS-C Pentax, they couldn't believe it. I had my camera with me so I showed them. They still couldn't believe that I matched their shooting template with no FF camera. I told them if you know what you're doing, the camera format doesn't matter. This was a great explanation Tony, you nailed it!
Lol job description features a format?
@@DarkPa1adin Yup. I mostly see the following. " Must have Full Frame Nikon or Canon". "Must shoot Canon". "Must shoot Nikon". "Must have Full Frame Camera". They get very specific which is too bad since it limits the talent they can get. Just because the hardware matches the description doesn't mean you're a good photographer. But you know the saying... "Wow! That's a nice camera! It must take really nice pictures!"
Kobie... Good for you... But... :) you actually did not produce the same images with aps-c, as that's, physics-wise, impossible... What you DID do was produce outstanding images that were good enough for the employer. I agree that the finished image is all about the photographer... But all else being equal, if you had used a full-frame camera, the image would have been better (more bokeh, less noise). We all just need to be aware of how good an image needs to be, and not just assume that we have to use a full frame camera to produce acceptable images.
@@Bill-NM , automotive photography typically requires a DoF deep enough to engulf the vehicle, and often a few background objects, and sometimes a foreground object.
Trust me, one does not need an F-type for that, and he probably nailed it thoroughly. I know no automotive photographers who shoot F-type at f/4 or wider, except in very rare instances.
Even very bokehlicious images can be taken with an f/4 lens on an APS-C body, and f/2.8 is far more than enough.
'must have FF camera' doesn't mean you have to take it along on the shoot, as long as you have one.
This is honestly THE BEST tutorial I've seen on this very topic. I found myself constantly pausing and rewinding to soak in all this fundamental knowledge which was explained so well!! Thanks a lot for this Tony!
Glad it was helpful!
@@TonyAndChelsea
Hi Tony, you confused me when you said that the image from the 50mm lenses is the same size for each sensor size, that they are just the same size cut-outs of the FF, @2:25. First, you said they look magnified then you said that they are not. Yet wildlife photographers use APS-C sensors because it gives them more reach for a smaller lens due to the crop factor.
I understand the image cast on the sensor is the same size for the same focal length lens for those three cameras but it changes by the amount of the crop factor when the image is viewed on the computer screen. Is this correct?
@@ninelaivz4334 you can think of smaller sensors as just cropping the image of larger sensors to “zoom in”. However high end aps-c cameras will have higher pixel density than full frame cameras, allowing for an image that’s more “zoomed in” but still of high quality
you realise Tony Balongi fooled you with this little puppet dad (who cut him off) you can't get the same results with a real person cause you need to take a huge 4 meter distance to fit a person into a cropped sensor camera (just for a portrait) so by the time you reach the distance the perspective compression kicks in, no bokeh and the person may appear fatter
Bc.
I’m an optical engineer and lens designer. Everything you said was exactly correct. Kudos! 👍
he said size of sensor does not affect brightness then why did he divide the iso also?
Marc G a full frame sensor has more dynamic range but not necessarily more brightness.
Because larger sensors produce less noise because they have more area for gathering light, therefore a FF camera at ISO 1600 produces about the same amount of noise as a M4/3 camera at ISO 400 because it has about 4x the area for gathering light.
@@marcg3923 the brightness is the same for all sizes of sensor (if same exposure) so its the same brightness per square MM on the sensor or whatever area measurement use,,,,,its just with a bigger sensor there are more square MM of the same brightness ..so adds up to more light overall
Marc G He was trying to get the same DOF so he had to change F/#. That changed exposure. So to compensate for that he changed the ISO.
This is hands down the best photography tutorial I have ever encountered! The most thorough, honest, conprehensive and methodologically sound tutorial ever. This is pure gold! Well done!
Every photographer: You don't need full frame, it's you, not the camera. Every photographer: Has a full frame.
There are a few photographers who shoot APS-C and MFT for the small size and weight.
@@hjer731 And there are some, who shot medium format, or even large format. Everybody should use that camera, what suited well for the actual job, and fits into the budget. Argue about sensor size leads nowhere. Pick up that camera
which you like to use, and take pictures. If the result is good,
nobady will ask, what gear you used (maybe some room phothographer, who sitting behind the monitor and read DxO scores).
I also shoot with an A6000 crop sensor, another reason I wouldn't got for a larger sensor is the photo file size being twice the size at around 43mb per shot rather than 22mb haha.
@@2NeedForSpeed2 It's the resolution, not the pixel size that affects file size. You can have a 32.5 megapixels aps-c camera which produces larger photos than something like a 24 megapixel full frame.
Totally untrue. When I made the jump full-time from 35mm film to a DSLR I went with a APS-C camera, and have been totally happy and content with the results I can get, especially when using older, "vintage" glass. Someday I'll most likely upgrade to a full camera body, but I'm in no rush at all.
I feel like I have to buy his book just out of respect. There wasn't even an ad on the video.
There are ads but i like that its photography related and not some random loud music ad for booze or something haha.
Why aren't you on top?
As I read this an ad popped up...
3 ads on mine
I mean ... it was blurry but did you see this man's house? I'm sure he'll live why don't you give some money to food banks instead they need it these days.
Possibly the best, clearest video on this subject.
As a retired professional photographer this is a great video that explains the difference between the different sensor sizes. Good job guys.
What difference between full frame and APS-C I want to knows these things because I love full frame everywhere is focus I believe full frame is this because I really really need a photo.
Because I have watched not all the videos but I see APS-C IS GOOD compared but I want a picture for example in pictures it have 10 people I want all them is showing good and I want a picture everywhere is showing because it needed when a people Is working like all there tools they use is showing well for knows which tool they have or use too and all other there tools they have too in these cameras focus all things in the pictures to shows all things like this or for example in a picture of a showroom where sell lot of technologies take a photo but they are not only take human picture but other like all these technologies too what you suggest us to use full frame or APS-C .ME I WILL do an album of lot of picture but massively lot of picture for my mother because she has been missing me a lot and lot I believe every pictures of me for her will ease her crying because like 20 years she has not seen but in these 20years she met me she only care for me .
This is the first video I've seen from Tony, but I'm blown away. Learned more about photography in the last 20 minutes then I have in hours of other videos and reading. THANK YOU! SUBSCRIBED!
Can you feel that? That electric sensation in the air? That's the emotional tension of 10 000 gear nerds anticipating the tiniest perceived mistake as Tony talks about crop factor.
Hahahahaaaaa
I am sweating nervously as I watch ;-)
Shhhh i can hear them coming
IHe did make a mistake twice, -the same mistake, in about a two second window- but I will not even bring it up, as it is immaterial to the entire video. Wonder who will first bring it up?
On a different topic, I disagree on the Edison thing, and I can say why, but it is also immaterial, as it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.“Crop factor” is a brand new term. The old term was “Enlargement factor.” Same issues, different values. That's all.
I'm just waiting for the "Nothing of this matters! There are more important things than gear."-people.
It was a big mistake not to mention that.
I own Micro 4/3rd's, APS-C, and FF cameras. In more than 90% of the photos I take, there is no real difference to me. But when I want to go with a really wide-angle lens, or I want minimal depth of field, or really low light, I dig out the full frame gear. But that isn't as often as it once was. When I want the smallest kit for travel, or maximum telephoto "reach" without breaking the bank, Micro 4/3rd's gets the nod. The APS-C camera is used 100% for work shots and videos, and as a backup body for use with my Nikon FF lenses. Truthfully, these days, if I had to choose one system, only for what I really do now, it would probably be my Olympus Micro 4/3rd's gear, even knowing the limitations it may have.
I have the same setup as you Tom. My conclusion is horses for courses. In general, my experience is FF for paid jobs with clients' presence. For pleasure, I will take my MFT gear. MFT with fast prime lenses also great for low light environment requiring deeper depth of field. A picture with great bokeh is not the only thing that result in high emotional impact.
I shoot real full frame medium format - 6x7 :p cheaper than any 35mm, APS-C or M4/3 crap
@@cfagil What? How is MFT good in low light when you require more DoF? Did you watch the video? You're not just getting more DoF, it's the same image as stopping down on full frame.
My exact sentiments! I only use my FF for low light/DoF when shooting boudoir. Other than that, MFT for the win!
Exactly, each camera system has its advantages. If I'm traveling I would not want to lug around a FF system, but if I need bokeh and picture quality nothing beat the FF.
The way this man has explained those things is second to none. Perfection
Best explanation of crop factor ever.
I know the video stayed away from pixel counts, but one point in favor of large sensors if they have lots of pixels that isn't mentioned is the increased capability to enlarge and crop. Here's an extreme example.
While editing I've found subjects in nature photos that went unnoticed when I took the photo, but because the photo was taken with a large format, high-pixel-count camera, I was able to make a good image at 1620 x 1080 pixels out of an image that started at 7952 x 5304 pixels. Not great for printing, but beautiful on-screen where we see most of our photos these days. If I'm doing the math right, that resulted in a 5 x zoom factor. That took my 124mm exposure and presented a 620mm onscreen image.
This is, by far, the best explanation of crop factor that I have ever seen. Next time a friend asks me about it, instead of trying a bumbling explanation I'll just give them the link to this video :)
But Tony didn't mention full frame's crop factor next to medium format. I mean might as well go the whole hog right? 😁
It's because medium format "gathers too much light " and needs to beaten down to full frame quotients...
That's how fake news are spread.
The lens takes in an image as light and focuses it in a circle, the sensor sits inside the middle this circle.
Given the same lens, the sensor size will determine how much of the circle is recorded in the image, giving the appearance that the image is zoomed in.
@@JoeMaranophotography Use the same math for medium format.
I use micro four-thirds and APS-C sensor cameras. I don't think going to a "full frame" camera will make me a better photographer, especially if I sit in all day watching TH-cam videos.
no it wont BUT it will give nicer better results with more depth perception , you really do notice the difference on big prints
It always depends on what you're shooting and your budget. I bought my first full frame camera since I wanted to be able to shoot very wide and I was being limited by the 1.6 crop factor on my 20D. The 5D had just been released and it was a "budget" full frame camera (at the time anyway) so I went for it. At this point I'm just used to full frame, and there are so many "cheap" options available that I have no reason to go back to a crop sensor.
any camera will do the job its true . im not a camera snob at all .. i love my d7200s . tough as hell great dynamic range ( so iv heard) but having the use of a d850 with pro lenses lately has really made a big difference to my wildlife photos ..
dont do it ! get out snapping . theres plenty of places to mooch around , kind of makes me laugh , how many people have spent money on the latest lenses they dont need after watching youtube vids , some of these sales reps would sell sand to Arabs ,
And then the full framers are wondering if they need to go Medium Format... To be fair you are not going to be able to get lenses on the smaller framed cameras to match as the physics just wouldn't let you. For example you can't get an 85mm f1.2 full frame on a cropped...
I've been shooting on an APS-C for 6 months, and I was today years old when I learned crop factor applies to aperture as well...
I came here to learn about cameras and this dude tricked me into doing math.😂😂 You slick fox.
I know right......never thought algebra had any use after high school lol
You really don't need to worry about the math unless you are intentionally trying to replicate with one format the results of another.
That's the real hook in the whole "Full-Frame vs. Crop" debate - it doesn't actually matter.
If I'm shooting with my Nikon D7500, (APS-C sensor), I'm not worrying about matching up the resulting shot with what I could get with my Canon 35mm, or a full-frame body. I'm looking to capture the best photo I can get with the 7500, so I frame the shot accordingly.
Y'all gonna be surprised when you see Complex Numbers. In engineering, mathematics is pretty much EVERYTHING!
For real though, it's inevitable that you're always gonna end up forced to take the hard way in life. That's just how the world works
😂😂😂
@@looneyburgmusic EXACTLY what I was thinking this entire time. "Why are we even talking about this? Just know that anything smaller than a full frame has a crop factor....position yourself accordingly". This shouldn't even cross a person's mind unless they commonly shoot both type cameras, back to back.
One more equation: Apply crop factor to your budget. :)
Not everyone can afford a full frame. They are expensive. But you'd probably be better off investing in a full frame and less lenses up front than spending money on several lenses and getting a cropped sensor.
@@gutenbird but also the ff lenses are more expensive than aps-c or m43 lenses...
So what is your overall opinion? I'd say your budget is going to be the biggest factor but I'm pretty confident that I am correct that you can't ever really get the benefits of a full frame simply by using shorter lenses. It simply doesn't work that way. It's like someone telling you how to defeat the house at gambling.
@@gutenbird often FF is cheaper....if you apply crop factor .a FF 24mm F2.8 lens is WAY cheaper than a 12mm F1.4 M43 lens
@@gutenbird i'm so broke i can only get something under 200
As always, complex things appear simple to the real experts. And you do have a phenomenal talent to teach. This makes this video so valuable. It is informative, and enjoyable at the same time. Thank you!
Wow
By far, one of the most helpful videos on the internet today discussing crop factor conversions. So well delivered and love that cinematic look with great lighting in this video!
Finally understood all this after two years learning about photography, I don't know how to thanks you enough, you are amazing.
Great video. We love to talk about this stuff as gear heads, but this video is the bottom line truth and very informative -- more helpful than just arguing for one sensor or system over another.
Clear and well-produced. I hope your dad is appropriately compensated for the use of his image on the bobblehead!
I have recently moved from Crop DSLR to Full frame Mirrorless and have been really appreciating your videos. This one is especially AWESOME. Thank you
The best lens and sensor video ever. Made it so simple and easy to understand the effects of each.
I also love the absence of an (unnecessary) intrusive musical background and the addition of printed on screen information, which enables one to pause and study. Very professional.
I don’t need full frame for my use. I sold my 6D last year to buy a M5.
I don’t forget the math you also explain in your old video.
APS-C works great for me, light and compact ! Perfect for traveling.
Have a good day. From France !
I'd love to use "full frame" format, but the price, size and weigth make it a bad travel companion. Specially when travelling hand luggage only. I'll keep my RX10. Greetings from Brazil.
I like the look of the m5, especially with the that 32mm F1.4
@@ToxicGopher I dropped my D800e and D500 for to invest further into Olympus. I have 2 kids and love to go birding. I can tell you that neither suffered. I feel that I have become more into photography as of late. My D500 and 200-500mm just sat there on my desk for months until the change. It is so easy to throw my 100-400mm combo into the car every day and take it out when and if I need/want to.
@@dangernba You are right, better to take the most of your RX10 and to do your best to get the picture you want :)
@@ToxicGopher When it will be in second hand shop, I will replace my EF40 for this EF-M32 for sure.
Currently my set up is 18-150 + 22 + 28 macro + 40 (for portrait).
But I'll need a 11-22 and a Laowa 9 f2.8 to complete my gear.
This is the best video I have come across on this nerdy topic and behold it was as crystal as could be, without missing a single point. Amazes me that you didn't read it out of a script ! Couldn't be better. Extremely well done ! Watch this alone multiple times so you don't ever get confused about it lest forget it !
What a great and informative tutorial this is. I love that you used actual DATA to support your statements and gave unbiased feedback about all different sensor sizes. Thank you so much.
Truly, explaining things like this is Tony’s distinctive competence. Well done.
There have been a lot of tutorials online on this same subject. This one is simply the best. Illustration with different gears and results and very well explained. Thank you.
There's someone who also is a very good teacher! A pleasure to watch, time and again!
What I learned today is that you can skip your math class if you have a full frame camera.
I thought the SAME EXACT THING!!!
Nope, you can skip the math regardless of which crop factor camera you have, as long as you only have one crop factor. If you have a Micro-4/3, you get used to the angle of view that each of your lenses gives you. Who cares what the same focal length gives on a 35mm camera? Have you ever worried about the angle of view of a 90mm lens on a 4" x 5" view camera? Didn't think so. Only when you are COMPARING camera types and lenses do you need the math.
LOL! This is true.
Actually you need more maths. You need to do maths to save much more to be able to get the lens, you need to do lots of maths to calculate how much can you carry with you for the amount of distance you have to walk... Crop sensor?? that's a piece of cake, you will need the maths for the rest.
FF has a lot of advantages, but maths is not one.
...and take PE or Chiropractor class instead since the full frame gear is gonna be heavier and bad for your back.
I would only use full frame if I were making a living from photography. As I don't, I'm happy with my Nikon D7000, which is an APS-C.
there are pros who use MFTs and they make a living from photography as well and they don't gnaw on the hunger cloth either or only deliver inferior quality 😉😉😉😉😉
Tony, this is my first comment ever on TH-cam. This video has clarified the crop factor conundrum for me. I have watched the many videos, including the one you did a while ago that started the heavy and sometimes nasty debate. Being an owner of a Canon 80D, I was concerned I had made a mistake in my purchase, but now I have this large weight lifted from me and has also reinstated my trust in you. Thanks so much.
Great explanation and recommendations Tony. I have been shooting with APS-C and getting great results, having been told that I am not getting what full frame would give me, but I always tend to think and feel that I work with what I have and make the best of it. You explain it so well and to the point of how the results can and should be the same at the end, if you do everything correctly or to the best of your abilities. Thank you. Great review and explanation.
Agreed. Also, Tony and Chelsea are superb teachers. They know the material, and put in the time to explain it correctly for all of us. They are a treasure
What difference between full frame and APS-C I want to knows these things because I love full frame everywhere is focus I believe full frame is this because I really really need a photo.
Please help me in explaining me these things please I want to knows please please. 🙏
This is probably the best video about this "issue"
It's bad one cause it ain't reflecting one small factor. Size isn't the only tech factor in sensors. see mobile sensors - much smaller vs M43 and see what a huge step they made.
4D Sensors will come soon to MFT and It will be a different world for small sensors.
Ah! THIS explanation is better. I tried explaining this in a video but definitely did not do it as much justice as this! Thanks so much, Tony!
Thank you for breaking this down in a way that is unbiased, factual, and explains the math. For myself it helped me know how to appreciate the gear that I have, and just make technical adjustments, versus feeling like I have to buy all new gear to achieve the look of FF.
Excellent video! For a trip to Alaska my wife bought me a Sony Alpha A100 with the APS-C sensor. I was not given the opportunity to give input into her buying decision, instead she talked to the guy at the camera store. I was very please with the gift, but when I researched it and learned about sensor size I was surprised that she didn't get a full-frame sensor. The talk online in those days was almost shaming people who didn't have full-frame sensor cameras. Well, yesterday I ordered a new camera with a 1" sensor as I wanted a lighter P&S camera for a trip to South Africa. I am amazed at all the features in bridge cameras! I've got over a year to get use to it.
Honestly you understand camera more than any TH-camr I know. 👍👍👍👍
Thank you Tony. We appreciate your expertise, honesty, and objectivity!
That is the most complete explanation of this topic that I have ever heard or read. Great job!
Great video. My initial move to full frame though, was based on cost. Coming from micro four thirds, I found that wide angle lenses were incredibly expensive. The Sony Alpha 900 with legacy Minolta lenses was MUCH less expensive. Now I’ve moved to 1” sensor with a bridge camera that while certainly NOT the quality of full frame, it’s far cheaper than an interchangeable lens kit of equivalent focal range, and the quality is fine FOR ME.
This is seriously the best explanation comparison video I've seen! So many others' videos just aren't up to par with Tony's in-depth and technical coverage.
This is what I like, simple...thank you Tony.
Extremely well said, Tony. I’m an experienced photographer and have been following you for forever as well as all other TH-cam photographer channels and you’re the only one-I repeat the only one explaining this accurately. Every crop guy on the web thinks they’re equivalent to full frame and they talk as if they’re full frame when referencing apertures etc. like you’ll see people making comparisons against a 35mm FF lens and a 35mm crop lens etc etc. they fail to do the math! And the math goes across the board for all merits. And you’re right the limitations are when you start getting into exotic FF glass. The scale starts to get out of bounds for crop cameras as far as lenses go. For example that Kamlan 0.85 lens that recently came out for crop.. all that is is a 50 1.2 equivalent. But people are talking about it as if it’s the fastest lens in the world. In terms of f stop maybe, but actual results? FF has been getting those results for decades with their 1.2 FF lenses. But you already know this but it’s good to get the information out there. I always tell people there are no free rides! It’s also worth mentioning canon appears to be addressing some crop sensor handicaps by patenting their own speed booster (focal reducer) which when you think about it is simply a teleconverter reversed. That’s another way for crop users to get FF-like results. Keep up the great videos. You’re the only photographer on TH-cam or otherwise I take completely serious when it comes to gear knowledge. And I don’t say that lightly!
Agreed 100% with you mate !
DPReview has excellent articles about all these, too. Definitely, Tony Northrup videos are the easiest to understand. Checkout, however, 54 guys didn't like the show, so, still there are a number of guys who cannot understand all these. Honestly, most photographers doesn't have powerful enough processor to comprehend equivalency; and that is not a problem, just take good pictures.
There is another person who explains it just as well, Gerald Undone. His video was my favourite explanation on the subject, now it's joint first with this gem from Tony!
Noooo.. I don't want to believe this.. Our perfect, small, retro, great color science camera is the best camera's humans ever made :(
Sure, but he did seem to forget to mention that the "scales go out of bounds" the other way as well, that is the reason smaller sensor camera system actually are smaller. The equivalent lens of the smallest ones on lets say mFT doesn't exist on FF. There fore the system actually is smaller in the real world.
you just saved my sanity! i was going nuts trying to figure out which size DSLR camera to go with! i can not believe how you have taken the complex and made it simple! incredible! thank you SIR
This is the video the photography world has needed for about 15 years!
Thanks Tony, if there are haters who still don’t think you understand or correctly explained this topic, they’re completely fooling themselves. It’s been clear to me you’ve understood this from the get go and people who think they know better don’t realise that you completely understand (and often share) their point of view, it’s just that they’ve misinterpreted some tiny thing you said.
Great job! 👍✅
@olysonic m43 «…who still don’t think you understand or correctly explained this topic….»
It is not about disagreement; it is about not listening. For example, I listened to tony, and I know that his maths and physics is on point. I just don't think that most people buy f/0.03 -I know, made up number, not the point- lenses for the razor-thin DoF, but for the light-gathering capability, ergo, the minimum f-number is about exposure values, not DoF values. I further think it would be easier to explain that exposure is based on a ratio of focal length to iris diameter, or F-Number, while DoF is based on iris diameter, or aperture.
In my case, none of the differences which I may have with Tony has anything to do with his understanding, nor his science, nor his computations, nor the accuracy of his explanations, ergo, I am not a hater. Tony and I agree. I still don't think thin DoF is a big factor -and I can say why I think that, but it is immaterial to this video.
If they don’t agree, then they’ve misunderstood his point. On the point he’s making (and he’s articulated from the beginning), on using the calculation to create equivalent images in angle of view, depth of field and noise performance with a given crop factor, he is completely correct. You can argue how to go about explaining that to the photography community, but to ‘disagree’ is to misunderstand his completely correct point.
@@WilliamJohnston , my reply was to olysonic, who appears to have deleted his post. He was asking why you called people “haters” just because they disagree. I was pointing out that a “hater” is more than just someone who disagrees. I actually agree with Tony on his point, his maths, his science, etc., I have an issue with his method, -not that his method is wrong or inefficient, just not as elegant as I believe mine to be- in one area, and one opinion he gave, -not a fact nor tautology.
It could be argued that I disagree with Tony on a couple of things, but it neither means that I failed to understand him, nor that I am a hater. I LOVE the guy, and understand him quite well. As I said, my issues are immaterial to the video, and only mentioned to illustrate that the people you are speaking of are indeed haters, and it is not because they disagree, but because they fail to understand a simple and correct explanation of an issue.
Karim Hosein happy to replace haters for a softer word, but I’ll add to my point that if people understand what he means but criticise him in a pointless, unhelpful way (not including you, it sounds like you have a well thought through explanation), then it comes across as more of some sort of personal attack or negative criticism for the sake of it.
this is a video that needs to be watched by many, as I'm often asked about whether I prefer mirrorless or full frame, as if the two are related at all-even by the "pros." this is very informative and by all means a well explained, through video. thanks guys!
Alan Nexus do you know that mirrorless have nothing to do with sensor size? So I’ll assume that you wanted to say “... prefer crop or full frame...”. Quite some time now that Sony for instance is doing full frame mirrorless camera for professional
@@jeanchindeko5477 lol. You didn't understand what Alan Nexus is saying.. Yes mirrorless has nothing to do with sensor size but his friends or the people around him ask Alan if he prefers mirrorless or full frame which is funny....
wood nymph that the problem! It’s like comparing Apple 🍏 and mango 🥭.
People are using word without knowing what that mean, just because it’s sound nice, smart or just following the buzz word of the moment!
But don’t worry I get it. My point was just to highlight this funny comparison
In my experience I have found that the high end lenses from each company perform (much) better then their kit lenses. For my type of shooting, the lens is far more important than the sensor size. In general, using my Pan-Leica lenses on MTF will give me much more desirable results then a kit lens on a full frame camera. Getting the equivalent high quality lens on a FF camera makes the weight to way up. So comparing a good quality MTF lens to a kit FF lens isn't really an accurate comparison from my prospective. I get the math and the logic of this, and thank you for the great explanation, but love the ability to carry high quality glass to the top of a mountain and get stunning images. If my main shooting was portrait, low light or astro, I would definitely have FF.
Earl Teigrob how long did the obvious take you to figure out?
Also, astrophotography is WIDELY recognized as better with APS-C
You are an excellent presenter and very smooth in your delivery of speech. Amazing.
If people watch this video and still deny the truth, nobody can help them. Perfectly explained.
I admire you for finding the energy to record the same video over and over again.
@ Which is wierd, because i consider the nr of likes to be proof of that.
Hussard TV Yep, he is on a mission with this subject.
😂😂😂
@ Somehow i seem to be able to get through life without "crop ISO" and "crop aperture"...
If you produce a video over and over again and get 150 k views each time, I will call that a big success.
EXCELLENT VIDEO !!!! How many times I’ve seen people say crop sensors are crap compared to full frame .. wish they would know we get off our butts and back up and actually use composition lol
I think it's more because you don't have to deal with so much math and uncertainties with the crops, while the full frames you know from get-go what lens to use, know what u get from said lens AND a full frame has way more features lenses and support.
Now I'm not saying crop= bad, there are professional crop bodies out there BUT if you want to do anything professionally having a full frame is so much easier to deal with than a crop IMO.
I shot a lot of 35mm film back in the day and acquired a lot of legacy glass. The reason I bought a full frame digital camera is to give me the same benefits I got from those lenses so that I could continue to use those same lenses (which I still do, to this day). I also have an Olympus OMD, which I think is a fantastic camera. Some of the shots I have taken with it have got me exactly the result I needed. Indeed, I use that camera with a Zuiko 45mm/f1.8 lens (equivalent to a 90mm/f3.6), that produces absolutely superb and crisp shots with lots of depth and contrast. If I want to go for "that" particular look, I will use that camera and that lens, rather than try to replicate it on the full frame.
Very nice tutorial. The only thing I might add would be distortion. By discarding the image that would fall on a full frame sensor we are discarding the portions of the image with the most visible distortion. A feature where cropped sensors may be better. Of course better lenses minimize this. And cameras with distortion correction for given lenses can certainly help that along. I have to agree, unless one needs full frame for specific reasons a crop sensor can be great. My Canon 60D never lets me down.
This is an amazing video. Thank you so much with teaching the actual crop factor conversions. Very well explained. It's a little too fast for me to digest so I may have to watch it over a few times and try doing the math myself for practice.
I've been shooting for a few years with an APSC camera but I never though that you would apply the crop factor to the f-stop as well. Seeing it in the video makes so much sense, loved the video
Great info, Tony! Am surprised you didn't also point out that shooting with faster f/ stops makes the focal plane thinner, plus there can be noticeably different optical characteristics when a lens is more "open" [less contrast most notably]. Both of these things can significantly affect image quality and are a trade off to achieving background blur equivalent to Full Frame. Regardless of crop factor, the "focal plane characteristics" of a lens at any given f stop are still the same. This is visible in your example pics at 5:30 in the video; most notably the Micro 4/3 pic shot at f/2 - which shows the image characteristics of the lens actually being at f/2 while being used on a Micro 4/3 sensor with a crop factor that DOES impact things accordingly as you demonstrated.
By the way this is my new favorite photography channel
Man, bravo Tony! This explanation is 👌. I just picked up my first full frame camera, the EOS R with the RF 24-105mm f/4 but was a little hesitant because it’s f/4. After some shots though, the bokeh is actually pretty good, even though most TH-camr’s will have you thinking you need a $2,200 f/2.8 for bokeh. My RF f/4 bokeh is similar to my crop sensor f/2.8’s and that just didn’t make sense, so I came to TH-cam and found your video. I’ve always understood full frame vs. crop factor with focal length, but had no idea about it applying to aperture too! This video was super helpful in giving a clear and proper explanation of the difference between full frame and crop sensor. 👍
Best video on the subject! Awesome job!
I did not learn anything new in this video other than what an excellent tutor you are. Thoroughly enjoyed it.
Wow! All my years of photography and I admittedly didn't fully understand this. Thank you for helping explain this as the typical explanation of "bigger sensor, more light" is only partially true.
I guess size isn't always everything.
Bigger sensor doesnt mean more light, lol. Tony just dont undestand that.. bigger sensor mostly means bigger pixels, bigger pixels gather more light which means less noise. a MTF camera with the same pixel size of the D850 will produce the same noise as the D850.
@@jacobgaysawyer337 no it will not. Pixel per pixel, sure, at 100% scale they'll have the same noise. But when you view the whole image the higher resolution full frame sensor will produce a cleaner overall image.
@@TechnoBabble you contradicted yourself..
@@jacobgaysawyer337 Please point out exactly where I did that. A 20mp MFT sensor and an 80mp FF sensor will have the same signal to noise ratio pixel for pixel, but across the entire image the FF sensor will have 4x the signal to noise ratio because it has 4x the amount of pixels and 4x the amount of area on the sensor to gather light.
Tony... this was just the perfect video for me. You are a great teacher... thank you for your support and efforts putting such information together! I am learning! )))
Dear Tony,
First of all, thank you for the valuable knowledge that you constantly spread across TH-cam for all of the photographers in the world.
I have always found your videos so valuable thanks to the simplicity in which you explain different things and the examples you use while doing so.
The latest camera I bought was the Canon 5D Mark 4 full frame DSLR with the 24-70mm f/4 kit lens, in order to be confident that I don't need to worry about the conversions and formulas you explained, as I am not good at all in mathematics, and want the best image and video quality I can afford.
Also, as you mentioned, the 35mm film equivalent full frame sensor is the industry's standard used by all pro photographers except for those who shoot medium format photographs for printing a wall sized posters to stick them onto a building, those who use the likes of the Hasselblad for this purpose.
I have chosen the full frame sensor over the APSC cropped sensor or the micro four thirds, simply because it gathers more light and the photo sites where the individual pixels sit are larger in the full frame sensor, resulting in a better low light performance.
Moreover, as you explained when comparing different sized lenses, if you take three lenses with the same aperture and focal length but differ from each other in sensor size compatibility (one full frame, one APSC, and one micro four thirds), you'll get better results from the full frame lens although they all have the same aperture (much deeper bokeh effect and larger coverage of the scene), which means you'll need to buy better performing lenses for your smaller sized sensors if you want to get "similar" results to those of the full frame lens, and not to mention that you'll have to raise the ISO in those smaller sensor cameras to maintain the brightness, which results in higher noise levels.
And finally, there are bokeh levels that you cannot simply achieve with smaller sensor lenses compared to the wide aperture full frame lenses, as the crop factor formula will give you results of apertures that don't exist in lenses such as f/0.X for maintaining the same level of background blur you achieved with your full frame lens and body.
Why everything he just said? 👀
The best lesson (if you can call it that) concerning APS-C and Full Frame comparison. I have no problem with the maths. Excellent presentation! Thank you.
Math is good. I've owned a D800, D800e, D600, D610, 70d and various primes and zooms. All extremely excellent cameras. I also have owned Olympus as a supplemental camera system because of portability. Throw my EM5 and a 20mm panny in my wife's purse and we were all set. I notice when going on a trip to Mexico with my D500 (an amazing camera) and a OMD EM1 - I ended up carrying the OMD around and leaving the D500 at the hotel room. I was able to get several amazing images of birds and wildlife with my 75-300mm Lumix lens with good light (yes a weakness of m43) that rivaled my D500/200-500mm combo. Olympus was not the first to bring the mirrorless format, but they were the first to bring it to the populous. Now everyone has mirrorless. I think that in the future you will find enough AI advancements that the gap between full frame and 43 will be even less than it is now. Yes, your 8lb brick strapped to your neck will give you superior DOF but not necessarily superior images. I do not own a 300mm M.Zuiko, but I do own a 100-400mm and it out resolves my old 200-500mm and 150-600mm lenses at 1/3 the weight.
I love the way you showed the alignment of the focal length on all the sensors. That's going to help a lot of people understand.
If I may, let me offer a different perspective. All this math and numbers never helped me at all. From a motion picture perspective, there was 35mm and 16mm film frame. I find that for the most part video, film and motion picture background people think in terms of the way it looks on whatever format they're using. You don't see Super 16mm filmmakers wondering what something looks like on a Super 35mm camera, because it doesn't matter to them. At that time you were shooting on 16mm because it was all you could afford. Only the big movie studios could afford 35mm motion picture film frame.
But today is different a lot of photographers are using smaller form factors than they ever did. The language is a little different. They don't get the look they knew so well. They have to translate because video is not their native artistic language. That's what the maths help do: translate.
But for me my native artistic language is motion picture, so, I really don't need the maths. I know what focal lengths I need based on the way it looks on whatever camera, lens combination I'm using.
Also given that Micro 4/3 is 70% bigger than 16mm film frame, 50% bigger than Super 16mm, this is a boon to every 16mm format shooter from yesteryear. Couple this with a speedbooster and now you have a 35mm film frame field of view. APS-C is dead between 35mm and Super 35mm. In other words the maths don't mean much at all. It only matters what it looks like on the camera you'r using at the moment. Otherwise you're just pulling your hair out with too much data, not enough actual in the field knowledge.
SUPERBLY well explained, Tony !
As a professional photographer and photographic/technological educator, with over 40 years experience, I've often found found myself trying to explain this "equivalence" issue to camera enthusiasts. Now, thanks to your great video, Tony, we have a go-to explanation.
Personally, I love Micro-4/3rds, as well as loving truly Large format 10x8. It's a case of horses for courses. Much of my work is described as Extreme Conditions Photography -- such as expeditions down dark and extremely wet caverns -- where the size and weight benefits of MICRO-4/3rds has to be offset against the M4/3rds' relatively poor light-gathering capability.
Tony, as (for many people) math isn't their favourite subject, wouldn't it be wonderful if the camera manufacturers factored in the conversion factor and started calling lenses like Olympus's superb 300mm f/4 PRO (in M4/3rds) a 600mm f/8, and actually used the converted f-stop numbers in the camera's viewfinder? That way we'd be working with a meaningful, standardized, system that avoids all this confusion.
Tony, you've put across this crucial information in a very well balanced and informative way. Thank you for investing your time in explaining why the strengths and weaknesses of the various options.
Rick Bear
(Professional photographer in the UK)
I guess that your 40 years of trying wasn't a complete waste, then
The equivalence is kind of a dumb idea. I'm not sure why people still do that decades after the first practical dSLRs hit the market. Early on it kind of made sense as the people they were marketing to had previous experience with 35mm cameras, or possibly the 110 format, and probably not medium or large formats. But, once cameras like the Rebel hit the market and you could get a decent dSLR for something that less serious amateurs could afford, there cased to be much reason for the equivalency
These lenses were never equivalent in any other way than the area of coverage. They still behaved like the lens they were, they just gave a smaller portion of the image. Really, the term was always crop factor and people failing to use the term just caused confusion. My 1.6x crop factor camera bodies just cropped that much out by virtue of only covering that portion of the circle of light. That's it.
...will you stop puking on the internet? You act as if the debate is all about a handful of abstract technical terms. The debate is about 3 things. Plain and simple. Bulk, IQ and cost.
Convenience vs IQ, really.
Came here to answer the question. YES. I need a Full Frame camera. Amazingly informative by the way. Thank you.
This is actually a great explanation of crop factor. The only thing I would mention is that when all the math is said and done, you're still limited by what lenses currently exist for each system. Just like you did the math on the 105mm f1.4 and there is no equivalent for micro 4/3 or APS-C. You can similarly do the math on the aperture and focal length for a lens like the Olympus 9-18mm wide angle, or the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 / f4-5.6, or Leica 50-200 2.8-4, and there are no full frame lenses out there that are comparable in equivalent focal length, aperture and physical size/weight. These things go both ways when size/weight is included as a factor.
Believe me when I'm hiking through the wilderness and have my camera around my neck or on my backpack strap I'd absolutely love to have a mythical 16-35mm f4-5.6 (or even slower) full frame lens that would be sharp for landscapes...but they doesn't exist.
I can certainly emphasize with a decision to use a crop sensor body for hiking. The size and weight benefits are why I added a Fuji mirrorless to my kit. I use it for backpacking and lightweight travel. My larger, heavier Nikon APS-C and full-frame DSLR bodies are used in other scenarios.
I would go so far as to say these kinds of specialized situations often render equivalence a rather trivial consideration. Yes, all other factors being equal, a photographer will tend to choose the kit that delivers optimal optical performance. However, practical considerations such as cost, size, weight and particularly an intuitive feel of the camera in the hands will often outweigh whatever subtle differences there may be in equivalent focal length or f-stop.
I've shot w/M43 since it came out.
W/good light, either natural or artificial, I prefer M43 over anything because of the ease getting sharp exposures. For landscapes, that's great.
But the frosting on that cake is that the best M43 lenses are just beyond insanely good.
I couldn`t agree more 👍😊
by the way even in analog times many Olympus lenses had reference status for serious pro lens testers by which other manufacturers had to be measured, even Leica and Zeiss, and many lenses have failed miserably, even then, Olympus was very popular with ambitious amateur photographers, I know that because that's when I started as an enthusiastic hobby photographer and "strobist", I owned an Olympus OM-4Ti mainly because of its outstanding "Fully synchronous" lightning measuring system means that with matching speelites (F280) you could use flash synch times between 1/60 and 1/2000 sec which was unique that time
This explanation was the best one I've heard so far! Thank you!
It is sooo rare that a video actually teaches me something this essential that I wouldn't have known to look for
Been shooting APS-C for 9 years now. I started with the Nikon D60 and bought a D7000 in 2013, I haven't needed a new camera since.
All cameras these days can take great photographs. There is a price to be paid for whichever system you choose, but there are also advantages. I have both a FF Nikon & M43 system and love them equally. I love traveling though and find myself reaching for the M43 system most often due to it’s portability. I usually shoot in the daytime so I don’t have any issues with my images. If I require more Bokeh or want to shoot in low light situations, I can still get excellent results by pairing the camera with the correct lens and using the IBIS to keep the ISO low. I’m not constantly thinking about the crop factor, instead I’m thinking about what kind of results does this particular camera with these settings and this lens give me. Recently, it seems that too many people are caught up with defending their particular sensor size, whether it be FF, APS-C or M43 (not many people mention MF). They all come with compromises, whether it be size, price or performance. You need to decide on your desired results, your budget and also the enjoyability of the system. Whichever system you choose will be the right one for you. Don’t worry too much about what others think. This was a very articulate and rational explanation of the 3 most popular sensor sizes by Tony. Well done!
I fully agree with you - thats why i have both M43 and FF systems. but mostly i use the M43 i think IQ is gap is very low in real life.
"I can still get excellent results by pairing the camera with the correct lens and using the IBIS to keep the ISO low." what is the "IBIS"?
@ Jeffrey David Goldberg IBIS is an acronym which stands for ‘In Body Image Stabilization’.
@@johnkilmerstone thanks for responding
I would like to say with a open mind, with different systems it give people new opportunity to explorer different results, it would be challenging .
It took me quite a while to really understand how the math works, and how manufacturers trying to mislead photographers (especially by saying, that you only need to multiply the focal legth and they say you get the same light gathering, which is not really true due to the different ISO performance).
This is the best video to summarize this topic, very well thought out. It will definitely help a lot of people.
Okay so, first of all, thank you for pointing out these differences so splendidly, i think you addressed all these aspects very elaborately,
Now after switching from the NikonD7000 to the sony a7iv, when switching to full-frame I would highlight this input from the video: try to picture your aspired foto of interest first, then try to reach it with an aps-c camera or smartphone camera, then you try to reach your maximum quality that you can produce, learn every while post editing your pictures and then you reach a limit that you can only overcome by making a more expensive purchase, eventually leading to the purchase of a full-frame camera. Ultimately, full frame cameras will enable you to take pictures more easily, too.
You are a great teacher. I learned a lot. Thank you brother
please kid, tell me how much a camera lens with f2.4 costs?
I started out with an APS-C camera a few months ago, and I've been debating back and forth with going full-frame the past few weeks. After immersing myself into the field and learning everything I could about fstops, apertures, and crop factors, I was left not knowing what I should do and just feeling confused. This video FINALLY made everything click! I now know exactly what I want to do, and I feel totally confident about it. Thank you so much for uploading this!!
What are you gonna do?
Tell us!
Finally an accurate informative video. Thank you for making the world a better, less ignorant place ❤️
I've been shooting mostly with Canon APS-C sensor cameras since I bought my T3i in 2012. I do have a 5D mark III that I soon plan to sell. I discovered I like the smaller lighter camera bodies. I finally went mirrorless and got a Canon R7 as my A camera and my 90D is now my B roll camera. I also use a Canon Vixia R300 camcorder for behind the scenes and to more easily video while driving. Today Tony you taught me things I never knew about using my crop framed sensors. I now undetstand for the first time the math needed to convert my regular EF lenses better on my crop framed systems. You made it easy for me to understand. Thank You!
Thanks Tony for consistently clearing this up :)
@@bluecomposite I don't get the point. Could you expand a bit please?
At 4:04 you show that it's the slr magic 25mm t0.95 so why at 9:19 do you show a different lens that's twice as expensive as the slr magic?
Great video with clear explanations.
One point unaddressed re crop sensors though is the fact they provide an instant boost in magnification for macro photography which is one advantage of not going full frame if this is your main interest when shooting.
Basically the reverse of the calculations gives you the increased magnification ratio you will achieve.
This is a good explanation, thanks for making it. I feel there are two aspects you discuss a few times that could benefit from some clarification / addition:
1) At the 12:20 point about the 300/600 F4 lenses, you are talking about light gathering capability not being equal. But in fact, relative to the required light needing to hit the sensor, these two lenses gather the same amount of light at F4, that's exactly what you say at the beginning and at the end again - exposure is the same at the same settings regardless of crop factor.
My thought here is, there is a difference in applying the crop factor towards a) the resulting depth of field, and b) the light passing through the lens in total, and c) the light passing through the lens relative to the sensor size. You are right with your statements concerning a) and b), but what about c)?
2) Secondly, for a) this is where the 600 F4 full frame lens has an advantage. This however, is only true depending on whether the photographer actually *wants* shallow depth of field. There are many cases where you want a lot of depth of field, i.e. architecture or landscape. In this case, you need to stop down the full frame camera to a higher F number, and correspondingly need to adjust shutter speed or ISO to achieve the same exposure, both possibly introducing disadvantages.
Maybe these thoughts are useful to someone considering their options.
Tony this was very helpful man. One of the best videos ever made!! This was my 3rd time watching this. Excellent tutorial bro!! 👍🏾📷😎
Bravo Tony! It's too bad that misunderstandings over your prior videos have forced you to have to clarify things with new explanations, BUT you knocked it out of the park with THIS one I think! The only thing you didn't do is repeat what you've well explained before about downscaling apparent grain/noise of say a full frame high MP image to that of a lower MP full frame image simply by displaying both images at the same size and/or at the resolution of the lower MP image.
I've tried to be patient arguing things on Ken Wheeler's channel in support of what you've offered but maybe your video here will finally put a period on that sentence so to speak. It might be different if he or someone else provided some sort of better/corrected math to the very useful, practical math that you already have and that I thus have to assume IS already as correct as it needs to be.
More importantly you are saving people from wasting $. I ALMOST wasted $ buying temporarily into information (mostly from Ken's channel) that ran counter to yours regarding the consideration of larger photosites (not that that consideration is totally irrelevant, and you have well explained that too, as for capturing video, etc.). I've sent many customers at a camera gear store to your channel!
I just wasted some time watching a video there, he say's one thing, then contradicts it in the next breath! At least Tony gives the formula to go and work it for your self, that other Cock womble gives nothing but contradictions!
What's it to blue? Just kidding. I'm a camera gear salesman (besides other things such as having had a long career in the IT industry and now working on photofinishing apps, and unpublished technical e-books related to photography and videography from where I will send readers to my "friendly competition" Tony and Chelsea. Maybe even to Ken as well for some things).
It’s nice to see the discussion of ISO equivalence. While it’s true that manufacturers of small sensor cameras do not like to mention the “equivalent” full-frame f-stop of their lenses, it is also true that manufacturers of full-frame cameras do not like to mention that small sensor cameras have an advantageous equivalent ISO. As Tony correctly points out, this means that for a given depth of field - an equivalent “look” - low light noise is actually broadly independent of sensor size (because small sensor cameras operate at a numerically smaller f-stop and lower ISO to obtain the same depth of field)
True tell that DxO and their listing of sensor "low-light performance". Very misleading. ISO performance =/= low-light performance.
I use this a lot on Micro4/3 shooting hyper-focal shots or anything where I want to maximize depth of field rather than minimize it. In low dawn or dusk light I can stop down to f/8, leave my ISO at 800 and have a DoF comparable to a Full Frame at f/16 (good long DoF before worrying about diffraction).
For the Full Frame that small aperture can extend the shutterspeeds to the point a tripod is needed to avoid any handheld motion blur or if shooting windy objects a slightly blurred image.
The m4/3's is usually still shooting fast enough to be handheld or to freeze annoying windblown trees and grass. The FF camera would have to increase the ISO to 3200 to get back down to the same shutter speed. Of course then you're comparing ISO performance of a ISO800 m4/3 and ISO3200 FF sensor and the FF can still do pretty dang good but it becomes a sensor comparison at that point and not lens.
My favourite photographers on utube. Expert advice great watching from UK
It's not easy to keep my attention for 20 minutes. You rocked the house w/ this one! ;)
I wish I could explain it this good!
Don't need to, just link to this video
Manny Ortiz next time you shoot with an XT3 don’t tell anyone, then see how many notice.
We all love Tony for what he does, Chelsea for what she does, and we all love you for what you do, and others for what they do.
I personally respect you for this exact comment, because what you're making very clear, is that you're not a smartass know-it-all. What you bring to the table is intention, ambition, style, method, honesty, artistic approach and focus, and you're an inspiring go-getter.
Another thing you show everyone who understand, is that there are a lot of photographers out there that shoot beautiful and sexy women, but then that's really all that's in the photo ... You shoot stunning and interesting photos of beautiful and sexy women. There's a big difference. Their photos are only as stunning as the model's beauty allow them to be, where your photos will always be stunning, allowing any model to be as beautiful as they can be.
You explain so much so well by exemplifying.
Torben Lysholm I really appreciate that Torben. Thank you
Don't worry manny, I'm sure you can explain how to make mofongo better than Tony.. I don't know about Chelsea though lol 🇵🇷👌
I feel like I’m watching Jared Polin, minus the yelling.
same,and i don't really like him
HAHAHA
And the sniffing
that guy is an arrogant marketing tool :) and a snowflake :) I remember when he said something like 'if you don't have the latest tech, your not in the game!' and I laughed when he blabbed about using wifi on a camera for file transfer? eh? you can't send RAW files and he always shoots Raw right? :)
"GET OFF THE TRACKS." "Wow, this pic is amazing, wait, you are using nice GEAR, OFCOURSE ITS AMAZING, ANYTHING WITH THAT SETUP WILL COME OUT AMAZING, IT SHOOTS ITSELF" LOL!
Tony, this is the best explanation I have EVER HEARD! I'm going to purchase all your books right now. Dang you make this easy.
Will there be a full review AND tutorial for the Fuji XT3?
You can do the math all day but I only look at results and I have seen BIF eagles from that 300 f4 that are some of the best BIF eagles I have ever seen. So the best system is what will get you out there shooting. The difference in background blur from those original pics is minuscule. If you are a pro shooting portraits probably it is enough to matter, but for 99% of the photography world it doesn't and no one notices at all. Even a pro taking portraits I bet the customer would not notice only other obsessed portrait photographers notice. Listening to the camera world these days is like listening to a bunch of audiophile dudes in the 70s. They had some supersonic hearing and were the only people on the planet who could hear the differences between the equipment they debated until you wanted to shoot yourself. I think all photographers should spend less time whining about the equipment and more time out shooting. All the equipment out there is fricken amazing even with their quirks hell just not being stuck with 24 or 36 exposures at the worst possible time is golden.
I used to think that the oly 300mm f4 pro with the e-m1 ii is probably the best of both worlds for wildlife in terms of mobility vs image quality. But if you think about it, the sony a6500 or a6400 with a sony 100-400mm yields even better results for the same price and weight. Or the nikkor 300mm f4 pf with an 1.4x tc and the nikon d500... And both of these options have much better c-af. Unfortunately all the m43 high end gear is overpriced if you want the system to make sense from a financial point of view. There are unique combos, like the oly 12-100mm pro or the 60mm macro with the e-m1 ii which will beat everything other systems offer for the price- but unfortunately a 300mm f4 for $2000 on a $1500 camera really doesn't. I have been thinking for a while that Olympus needs to cut costs by 20% to offer a valid reason to go high end m43. the e-m1x goes completely against the e-m1x ethos too.
Of course some people will keep buying olympus gear because of brand loyalty and the lenses are amazing quality. But they are losing in the innovation armsrace vs fuji and sony, hard.
On the other hand, its that minuscule amount of difference that separates the pros from the also ran.
yeah BUT: There are some instances that the difference is bigger and noticeable. People may not know that your sensor is cropped, but the FF usually looks better in some cases, like sports.
Omg
Tatiacha great reply. My photography teacher once told us when the question was asked. “What is the best camera to have? He replied; “The one in your hands!”
I've been watching your videos for a short time now and I really enjoy them, but this one especially.
I suck at math and have a learning curve due to dyslexia, but the way you explain the specs and limitations made total sense to me and I was at your pace following along.
Thank you so very much for taking the time and energy to make your videos and sharing your perspective and wealth of knowledge with the world.
You're an asset to photographers at every level. Greatly appreciate your content and teaching method!
Best wishes - Kainoa
Much needed clarity on this topic. Extremely well presented technical explanation, while shedding light on marketing distortion. The importance of considering both sides of the equation, not commonly noted. Thanks! In regard to brief discussion of individual pixels, that would benefit from further exploration. Design differences/changes/improvements in sensors can affect the output significantly. And of course manufacturers can more easily fit more (and/or larger) pixels in a larger sensor. Great explanation! Thanks, again.