With over half a century behind the viewfinder, I know that my APS-C format cameras are all I need. There's always something; we've been told at different times that "real experts" use full frame cameras/mirrorless cameras/shoot everything at f/1.2/use a certain brand to take photos of their cat ('cos press photographers use it too)... You probably remember that this was going on in the 70s, too!
.... or "real photographers" only use prime lenses or shoot B&W, etc.. I remember getting a Nikon camera in the 1980s and thinking I had finally become a real photographer. Admittedly, it can be difficult to NOT get caught up in the hype for the latest and greatest thing.
Good rundown on the evolution of digital sensors. I shoot with the Sony a6700, a phenomenal camera that has an aps-c sensor. The images that come from that camera are beautiful. Knowing how to shoot to get the maximum from your camera is more important than worrying about the camera having a full frame or aps-c sensor.
I Agree. I think the key is knowing what your camera can (and cannot) do when it comes to your photography needs. And if you NEED a full frame camera, by all means - get one. But I am an advocate for spending your money wisely and getting what you need, not what you (or someone else) thinks you want.
I have a full frame Nikon D810 DSLR. It has collected dust for the last few years as I prefer my Fuji X series cameras. Only reason I did not sell it is I am sentimental about my gear. I still break it out once and a while just for the hell of it.
@@wgkpublicsafetyimages9153 no, I was very happy with my OM-D EM5 II. This hobby just ran its course for me. Carrying any extra amount of gear became a hassle. I have a good camera in my phone, and photography is mostly about the composition anyway.
It's just physics. A larger sensor can gather more light. If you can deal with the price, size and weight, a larger sensor is simply better. Do you need it as a hobbyist? No of course not. Smartest car to drive is a Toyota Camry. It's good enough for anyone as a form of transportation If you want to argue your Camry gets you from a to b. That's fine. I'd still rather drive a Corvette.
But not more light per unit of area. The image projected onto a full-frame sensor is no brighter than a crop sensor. If the sensors are the same resolution, the individual pixel cells can be larger on a full-frame camera and thus each pixel can absorb more light. But we're seeing these super high resolution full frame sensors that get 45-60 + mp which isn't really much better than 20-30 mp crop sensors. The main advantage is that you get more detail from enlarging a larger source image. This is why larger film formats were preferred. But in the film days, it was much easier to compare film sizes because the film stock was the same. It would be easier to compare full frame and apsc sensors if they were all cut from the same sensor material and all had identical optical, electrical, and mechanical properties (ie, the same photo cell size and density).
I admit the full size sensors may have a technical advantage over APS-C sensors, but I think your Camry analogy is right on. I would like a Corvette too, but the reality is I would probably never drive even close to its full capabilities. So if I am not going to use the cars capabilities, I might as well stick with my Camry (and FYI, I do drive a Camry).
Yes, it can gather more light, however the light normalized by the size will be identical. There are two things that make Full Frame better, in my books. 1. Typically, you get higher speced sensors and lenses. If you compare Sony Full Frame and APS-C lenses, the FF lenses are of higher quality. Ok, you can mount them to an APS-C body but then you lose compactness. 2. I am mainly into landscapes and cityscapes. On a cropped sensor camera, it is often hard to find lenses that are wide enough. On the other hand, the negatives can be positives for you. With cropped sensor cameras, you can save money and space and if you are, e.g., into bird photography, you get a closer reach.
Folks need to remember that the 'crop factor' of APS-C lenses impacts the length AND aperture. That means an APS-C 50 mm f2 lens is more like 75mm f3 lens. Longer reach, but smaller aperture. So its pretty difficult for an APC-S to compete with a full frame f2-ish lens on that level. I would also agree that both Nikon and Sony APS-C lenses may not be the greatest because they have an incentive to drive you towards their full frame cameras and lenses. That's not the case for Fujifilm. Fuji glass is excellent and their lenses come in three qualities, good (XC), better (XF) and best (XF Red Badge) and they are all 'reasonably priced'.
@@wgkpublicsafetyimages9153 That's not completely accurate. I get where you're coming from, but no, technically a smaller sensor (and cropping a large image down) doesn't affect the focal length or the aperture. The properties of the lens haven't changed, only the area recording the image from it. Now, I get that there are adjustments to be made in order to get similar framing, and its these adjustments that have us taking into account our smaller sensor size when choosing focal lenths, and that shorter focal lengths and/or changing the distance to our subject affects depth of field. We really need to get out of this comparison mindset and just accept that lenses are what they are and describe their inherent optical properties as is and simply learn to feel them on different sized sensors. Because whether you're on APS-c or 35mm format, f/2 is f/2 and your exposure is the same regardless.
With over half a century behind the viewfinder, I know that my APS-C format cameras are all I need.
There's always something; we've been told at different times that "real experts" use full frame cameras/mirrorless cameras/shoot everything at f/1.2/use a certain brand to take photos of their cat ('cos press photographers use it too)...
You probably remember that this was going on in the 70s, too!
.... or "real photographers" only use prime lenses or shoot B&W, etc.. I remember getting a Nikon camera in the 1980s and thinking I had finally become a real photographer. Admittedly, it can be difficult to NOT get caught up in the hype for the latest and greatest thing.
Good rundown on the evolution of digital sensors. I shoot with the Sony a6700, a phenomenal camera that has an aps-c sensor. The images that come from that camera are beautiful. Knowing how to shoot to get the maximum from your camera is more important than worrying about the camera having a full frame or aps-c sensor.
I Agree. I think the key is knowing what your camera can (and cannot) do when it comes to your photography needs. And if you NEED a full frame camera, by all means - get one. But I am an advocate for spending your money wisely and getting what you need, not what you (or someone else) thinks you want.
I have a full frame Nikon D810 DSLR. It has collected dust for the last few years as I prefer my Fuji X series cameras. Only reason I did not sell it is I am sentimental about my gear. I still break it out once and a while just for the hell of it.
D810 is a sweet camera. My last full frame one too. I moved to MFT, then abandoned photography 😂
That's kinda of sad ending. Hopefully it wasn't a crop sensor that drove you away from photography.
@@wgkpublicsafetyimages9153 no, I was very happy with my OM-D EM5 II. This hobby just ran its course for me. Carrying any extra amount of gear became a hassle. I have a good camera in my phone, and photography is mostly about the composition anyway.
It's just physics. A larger sensor can gather more light. If you can deal with the price, size and weight, a larger sensor is simply better. Do you need it as a hobbyist? No of course not.
Smartest car to drive is a Toyota Camry. It's good enough for anyone as a form of transportation If you want to argue your Camry gets you from a to b. That's fine. I'd still rather drive a Corvette.
But not more light per unit of area. The image projected onto a full-frame sensor is no brighter than a crop sensor. If the sensors are the same resolution, the individual pixel cells can be larger on a full-frame camera and thus each pixel can absorb more light. But we're seeing these super high resolution full frame sensors that get 45-60 + mp which isn't really much better than 20-30 mp crop sensors. The main advantage is that you get more detail from enlarging a larger source image. This is why larger film formats were preferred. But in the film days, it was much easier to compare film sizes because the film stock was the same. It would be easier to compare full frame and apsc sensors if they were all cut from the same sensor material and all had identical optical, electrical, and mechanical properties (ie, the same photo cell size and density).
I admit the full size sensors may have a technical advantage over APS-C sensors, but I think your Camry analogy is right on. I would like a Corvette too, but the reality is I would probably never drive even close to its full capabilities. So if I am not going to use the cars capabilities, I might as well stick with my Camry (and FYI, I do drive a Camry).
Yes, it can gather more light, however the light normalized by the size will be identical. There are two things that make Full Frame better, in my books. 1. Typically, you get higher speced sensors and lenses. If you compare Sony Full Frame and APS-C lenses, the FF lenses are of higher quality. Ok, you can mount them to an APS-C body but then you lose compactness.
2. I am mainly into landscapes and cityscapes. On a cropped sensor camera, it is often hard to find lenses that are wide enough.
On the other hand, the negatives can be positives for you. With cropped sensor cameras, you can save money and space and if you are, e.g., into bird photography, you get a closer reach.
Folks need to remember that the 'crop factor' of APS-C lenses impacts the length AND aperture. That means an APS-C 50 mm f2 lens is more like 75mm f3 lens. Longer reach, but smaller aperture. So its pretty difficult for an APC-S to compete with a full frame f2-ish lens on that level. I would also agree that both Nikon and Sony APS-C lenses may not be the greatest because they have an incentive to drive you towards their full frame cameras and lenses. That's not the case for Fujifilm. Fuji glass is excellent and their lenses come in three qualities, good (XC), better (XF) and best (XF Red Badge) and they are all 'reasonably priced'.
@@wgkpublicsafetyimages9153 That's not completely accurate. I get where you're coming from, but no, technically a smaller sensor (and cropping a large image down) doesn't affect the focal length or the aperture. The properties of the lens haven't changed, only the area recording the image from it. Now, I get that there are adjustments to be made in order to get similar framing, and its these adjustments that have us taking into account our smaller sensor size when choosing focal lenths, and that shorter focal lengths and/or changing the distance to our subject affects depth of field.
We really need to get out of this comparison mindset and just accept that lenses are what they are and describe their inherent optical properties as is and simply learn to feel them on different sized sensors. Because whether you're on APS-c or 35mm format, f/2 is f/2 and your exposure is the same regardless.