If you don't agree, that's fine! Let's talk in the comments👇🏻 Just be nice. I'm nice. My subscribers are all super nice... I just want everyone to be nice to each other... 🤷🏻♂️Mkay? Thanks! 😎🙏🏻
Actually I subscribed to your channel because of this video, I totally agree with what you're saying, and the advise at the end regarding lenses is SUPER, a lot of issues regarding low light for example can be fixed using better lenses.. date the camera and marry the lens!
Excellent video. Thanks for posting this! I'm a working pro shooting FF and crop, depending on the circumstances and the client. Everyone is always happy. Life is good.
I love this so much. When I was first getting started people are used to try to do a gear flex on me. Just because they had the most expensive gear. I shot with a crop body for a long time before upgrading to a full frame I’ve even shot on point and shoot because that’s what I had with me and believe it or not I’ve sold professional shots from my point and shoot just because I had the eye for a shot and the subject I was shooting loved them and wanted to use them commercially. I think people tend to forget that a lot of what you do as a photographer is based on learning how to use any camera you have, having an eye for what you’re shooting, and knowing how to get the shot. As a professional today I still see folks trying to do that gear flex on new photographers and I’m always willing to talk to new photographers and tell them to shoot with what they have and get good at shooting with what they have. You don’t need to have the most expensive new camera as soon as it comes out. Invest in great glass, bodies come and go, the glass will sustain itself.
Spot on Diane. Somehow folks tend to talk about a cameras shortcomings rather than it’s strengths. I’m willing to bet you’ve taken som great shots from your phone as well. Haven’t we all? Lol.
This video and this comment by Diane is pure golden truth. I feel that alot of people trained and untrained to the eye, professional and beginner will find that unless they are doing large prints, and even if so sometimes, still may not be able to tell which of the two cameras took the photos, as far as the technology itself goes, when looking at a finished product... Lenses truly are so important. The bodies do really come and go. As far as the bodies, just try to make sure it has the features you may need for the style/type of photos/subjects you will be interested in taking pictures of in my opinion. The lenses in my opinion do the heavy lifting, they carry the work, and they get the rest done. Don't underestimate the power of your lenses. I believe it's your skill and ability first, your lenses second, and the body third...contrary to what many believe.. The lense is the extension to the body, the bodies limbs. The lenses are what reaches for the bodies goals.. the body can have all the technology in the world yet still no potential at all without the lens. Pick a body that have settings for your line of work and pick lenses, compensate, compliment, and accomplish what you are going for..it's really about the lenses..people are putting some pretty big lenses over some pretty cropped sensors....it's not about the size, it's about the motion of the ocean... Especially if you're a beginner; why buy a 1000cc Supersport when you can't even fully harness and push a 600cc super sport to its maximum potential on the tarmac?...to be skilled and proficient enough to push a 600cc sport bike to its limits is more fun and freeing, than to have more power than you know what to do with, and not skilled enough to fully and competently control and hone. Power you can't even utilize... I believe it is the same with any trade/art...what is a $100 paint brush to someone who can not paint, is the equivalency of $20 brush. It's not that either type of cameras is better than the other, necessarily, they just go about things differently. They solve math equations differently. I hear beginners Trump themselves all the time by going off of what they hear and have a mentality of "full frame or nothing" and it's truly a limiting and misguided misconception. If that be the reason some curious kid doesn't pick up a camera and start a hobby; that saddens me...and equally, if it be a reason someone is slowing down on starting a new entry level career. I know many others that use cropped, and make thousands of buckos a month delivering professional grade batch, work, lol.. they are not even professionals themselves............ To get a desired effect, you just have to accept that you need to do different math with your lenses.. every camera in the world is limited to its lens no matter what, anyway.... This car takes 91, that car takes 93, another car may be happy on 87octane to preform optimal to its combustion rate.. All cameras are great and fun, and pack their own punch!
This is a fact. I absolutely SUCK at having an eye for a picture. My buddy, uses his cell phone and captures amazing pictures because he has an eye for it. I am definitely trying to learn, but its a talent to some degree that I hope I can figure out someday.
@@DarikStone if u ya talkin photography… yeah. However, video is a whole diff story. Full frames usually have better codecs, fps, etc. There is no 10 bit in Sony apsc, you only get it if you go full frame. For pics, apsc is almost as capable as full frame. Not so much if we talkin video
@@luismoracmyk yes, with that I agree! There's isn't really anything that will make up for that. I would sway someone to full frame if they were getting into any kind of cinematography, or needed a good hybrid, for sure. Great call!
Couple of additions from a fellow-pro: (1) when you compare sensors, make sure you compare same generations. A 10y old full-frame sensor may indeed not have better low-light performance compared to a brand-new designed aps-c sensor. Same for medium format compared to full-frame. Note that most sensor manufacturers focus R&D on full-frame first, and then apply that to aps-c later. (2) the advantage of ‘not using the full image-circle’ with an aps-c sensor is only valid when you buy and use full-frame lenses on an aps-c camera. E.g. Fuji XF and Canon EOS-M lenses are designed for aps-s and have a smaller image-circle, so these lack that advantage compared to e.g. Nikon, Sony and Leica. By the way, when using full-frame lenses on an aps-c camera, you largely loose the size/weight/cost advantage of aps-c. (3) the shallower DoF of full-frame is due to the difference in focal lenght when applying the same field of view. So an aps-c lens of 56mm (85mm) equiv. has a DoF associated with a 56mm lens compared to the shallower DoF of a native 85mm full-frame lens. The longer the focal lenght, the shallower the DoF, assuming same aperture and distance to subject. So, when comparing apples with apples, a full-frame camera has indeed better low-light performance (or higher resolution), better dynamic range, greater tonality and shallower DoF compared to an aps-c camera. Consequently a medium format camera usually does even better on these things than a full-frame. I fully agree that many enthusiast don’t buy what they need and loose themselves in pixel peeping at 200%, rather than develop their creative skills. The camera industry thrives on that ;-)
Buying APS-C lenses almost doesn't make sense anymore. You can't use them on full frame cameras, whereas the opposite is not true. Unless you are absolutely positive that you are never going to switch to full frame, and for that matter, that manufacturers are going to continue making APS-C cameras that you can replace your current one with, you are kind of rolling the dice if you invest heavily at all in APS-C lenses.
Life was great when we all had 35mm cameras (cheap rangefinders to SLRs like Canon and Nikon). We chose from Tri-X, Plus-X and Panatomic-X for black and white photos. For color, we usually chose Kodachrome 25 or 64. Life was so simple then.The difference between them is the speed of the film and how tight the grain is. But I didn't care. I had fun taking photos for work and for pleasure. No one cares, no one pixel peeps. People just like to see pictures of themselves and family members, especially babies.
I would say just for IQ overall first Canon full frame Canon 5D is to me better than ANY! aps-c to date in terms of pure image quality and color depth and pixel sharpnes.. and it's since 2005 if I am not wrong.
Point 2 is not correct, unless you tested the apsc lens on a full frame camera. I used to think the same thing untill i saw some Pentax da (crop lenses) could actually be used on the Pentax k1 (full frame) without cropping too much so depending on the design apsc lenses can have a larger image circle. It's not strictly true and is dependent on the lens.
I went for Sony's APSC lineup...even though I really liked a friend's A7C. I'm pretty sure I'll stick to APSC since I take it with me when hiking and camping which often entails me climbing up over mountains. The size and weight savings definitely helps and the cheaper body and lens cost helps me save some money to go towards my outdoor gear.
In the film era, I shot small format, medium format, and large format. In the beginning of the digital era, my first digital cameras had thumbnail size sensors. Later, I began shooting cameras with a larger micro 4/3 size sensor. Next, I used cameras with APS-C size sensors. Lastly, I used cameras with full-frame sensors. For me, the difference in image quality between the APS-C and the full-frame is insignificant to nonexistent.
I agree, it's not about image quality from the sensor. For a long time, Canon and Nikon and Sony don't really make "great" APSC lenses, they make all the L or GM or whatever lenses full frame. Canon and Sony seem to also mostly make the higher end tech only in FF cameras. Especially Canon, if you want the top tier lenses and tech, it's all in FF. But for landscape in daytime? My 80D APSC was very good.
Tokina makes some boss mode crop sensor lenses that run $300… while I like my rf 15-35, it’s totally not even close to being worth $2200…. Lessons learned
A good photographer will be a good photographer regardless of APSC or full-frame. The differences in the formats are about specific use cases where the limitations are more apparent. You can even consider pixel pitch as a useful difference that is often in favour of APSC.
I’m using my m50 for professional video work and only shooting in 1080. As long as the lighting is good the quality is great and the clients like it. No one has asked me what camera I’m using 🤷🏼♂️
@@JorisHermans good glass is more important, you could do a video showing how different lenses make different images. Rubbish glass on a full frame v good glass on the m50 😁
Ferari Volkswagen analogy is good too. An economical car for daily usage and a super sport car to race are different levels. Bigger sensor gives better low light performance and shallow depth of field for object isolation. Smaller sensor gives more zoom capability in same diameter lenses and more depth of field which is useful on macro photography. So apsc better for photography which needs more zoom or macro shots. To shoot birds from distance apsc gives more zoom with crop factor in same diameter lenses. Or when someone shoot macro photograpy the eyes and the legs of the bee must be clear. and Apsc has advantage. But in low light conditions if somone shoot a wedding in night time fullframe has advantage. Also if someone want to shoot portraits and need object isolation, fullframe is better.
Many people are Fuji users and love shooting with it whether an Instagramer, enthusiast or a “professional”. So it goes back to what you need and will work for you. Lighting is key, but if you shoot low light situations then a full frame might work better for your needs. Otherwise, an APS-C will work just fine. Invest in a good piece of glass and you can get some great shots.
Great video. Nothing wrong with using APSC or M43 for professional work. People were using far inferior equipment not so long ago to even the entry level stuff today and getting incredible shots. Learn the craft first and then get the system that suits your needs and complements your needs. Stop reading forums and watching videos on all the latest equipment and instead go out there and practice. You will know what gear you need when you start honing your craft.
I agree, some of my best images come from my Olympus camera's...but for my pro work I need a FF body, it is just more workable in DR, crop ability, and details for large commission and weddings when you often don't have idea scenario's. Although I have gotten some great wedding and portrait captures with apsc as a backup to a full framer. I have even got some adorable wedding images with a phone! :)
Finally someone that knows what they are talking about when comparing APS-C vs fullframe! The only time you will see a major difference when you zoom in 200% into your picture, and even then, the difference is really small and not sometimes not noticeable.
Unfortunately, ours is an expensive passion, and the majority of amateur photographers don't have anything near the financial resources to acquire their dream kit. The good news is that passion for photography, combined with lots of practice (a combination that is often referred to as skill) is everything when it comes to enjoying the fruits of your efforts. Open your eyes, follow your soul, get lost in the moment, and hone your technique. Above all else, shoot for your own gratification; don't judge your results on what you think other people will like. This is my humble opinion.
Used full frame all my life until recently switched to Fuji aps-c. For my current needs, nothing is better than a MODERN aps-c. I have great image quality, less weight, less costs, less volume, ok low-light performance.
I agree, my Fuji's APSC is fine for my hobby work and as a back up, but not for serious weddings and large commissions. I still get all of the above with a FF with top rated DR and low light abilities, for just a bit more dinero...it's about the glass too.
@@nellatrab Man, I and everyone else used to shoot wedding on film with 100-400 ISO, manual focus and no exposimeter. No one needs fullframe for weddings.
@@Nessunego 100%. I’m too young to have actually used film in its hay day however I do a lot of street photography on film and recently sold all my full frame Sony gear and invested in Fuji. So far I don’t regret my choice at all and I want to go out and shoot on my Fuji a lot more. I’ve used my full frame gear for plenty of professional work and I have absolutely no doubts my new Fuji gear will perform just as well.
After years of playing with different cameras and systems, I eventually stuck with Fuji. Works the best for my style, but I will admit that to me a 50mm on a FF just has a certain look that I love.
Just sold all my full frame gear and completely switched to APSC, the Fuji xt4. I understand the limitations of the apsc sensor but they’re really not as limiting as you think. Having a system specifically designed around APSC like Fuji is the best choice as now I have access to super nice glass that’s specifically designed for apsc and as such is smaller, lighter but still just as premium as full frame glass. It just makes sense to me and it makes no sense that 95% of the newer photographers I meet seem to be aiming towards eventually upgrading to full frame. Apsc is absolutely good enough for professional work and for some photographers, the better choice.
i did the same switch from canon ff to fuji xf 8 years ago and never looked back. enjoy the light weight and performacne of the fuji xf system. none of my clients really noticed the difference. that said i still enjoy shooting 120 on a hasselblad 500 sometimes ;)
Just moved to an Aps-c Canon Camera, from a Full frame because I wanted a lighter-weight / cheaper set-up and you have answered all the queries I had about the differences - Thank you. Plus, you answered some considerations I hadn't thought about.!! Your style is great and I like your humour. So all I need to do is move slightly further away from the subject - no problem and probably an advantage in not crowding a subject. Keep it up.!
Advantages like better IBIS (APSC sensors are easier to stabilise), smaller cameras with less weight and the additional reach you get from telephoto lenses make APSC camera significantly better for certain applications. Like travel, sports & wildlife photography. Full frame is better for portraits, higher resolution large format printing & some product work. But Joris is right, the differences are far less than you'd expect.
The little difference on a print or a portrait because of dof will make the difference for sure. Some super high level professional portrait photographers working in the fashion industry will NEVER use an apsc
Shot APSC for years! Back then there was a huge difference between full frame and APSC. I switched to Sony full frame a few years ago and didn’t notice the difference because APSC technology caught up. I then switched back to Fuji and have been happy ever since. Their new XH2s is now on par with full frame cameras for video.
@@gavinjenkins899 I wasn’t speaking from a physical standpoint. I was talking about the gap between the quality of the image between APSC and Full Frame. Back then there was a huge difference that was noticeable and most people even someone brand new getting into photography could see the difference. Now the APSC quality is so good that arguing full frame is so much better is just not true. There are advantages, but the quality is there in APSC
This absolutely spot-on. I don't think anyone has explained it better. I was guilty of going full frame when possibly I should have considered aps-c. My only redemption was that I didn't buy a new body, although the glass was new. I was shooting with film previously, then after taking a break I moving to digital. But it's like a drug, you're always searching to gain the satisfaction you feel when you see the end result. Maybe it's just one picture you've taken that day, and it turns out even better than when you reviewed it on your camera.
The car analogy I always make, is that everyone keeps telling me to buy the Porsche, because it is the faster car, despite the fact that the the speed limit is 120km/h, the Porsche has no seat to speak of in the back, eats tyres, guzzles gas, makes an immense racket and drains your wallet as far as road tax is concerned, while the other car gets me there in a comfortable, affordable and safe way. Maybe I like to listen to music when I am driving, undisturbed by engine and tyre noise. So, after all, maybe the Porsche is not the car for me.
Sure until you do low light situation then cameras cry for help, no natural look if you add in artificial light, No offense FUJI are really good and I've used one the XT3 but decided to ditch it for the EOS R coz Lowlight sucks. But for me as a Videographer that shoots wedding its not the best run&Gun, but for the price though its great.
The desire for background blur is what normally drive people to buying full frame and more expensive lenses, sometimes without having the necessary money to do it. This is what happened to me, but I ended up almost never shooting portraits. For landscape APS-C is good enough, and I actually prefer because it weights less.
I shot apsc when l started, then upgraded to full frame because it seemed more professional!😂 but l actually just switched back to apsc after 5 years of shooting on full frame cameras. Traded my A7iii for an XT5. Mostly for the fun of fuji! But lm actually so happy with what the camera offers. I thought l would see a bit of a downgrade but have been surprised
As an analogue photographer primarily, I'll say one key advantage of full frame bodies is the ability to use (and capture the character of) vintage lenses. Sure, you CAN put a Helios-44 on a APS-C, but you won't get the same bokeh effect. On APS-C, a vintage 20mm will not be a wide-angle at all, it will just be a "bad" lens, inferior to kit 18-55mm in every way. For other use cases, crop factor can be APS-C's greatest advantage. Put a 500mm lens + 2xTC on a APS-C, and you are at 1500mm for free.. For photographing moon, I'd pick my APS-C camera over full frame anyday.
As I understand it - and I am no professional by any means - depending what sensor size gap you're trying to close, you can have the same or similar field of view as well as depth of field* *but* with totally different sharpness fall off, also known as the mystical entity of "3D pop". I visualize - I could be totally off with this, though - the sharp area as a flattened egg sorta shape, laying on its side - with blurry edges. And that's where full frame and smaller sensors are different. On full frame, the "sharpness egg" has less blurry edges, meaning it goes from completely out of focus to completely in focus, keeps the sharpness and then plops off again, hence the 3D pop. On a mft sensor on the other hand, the egg is rather blurry, meaning less 3D pop, since in order for the subject to be entirely in focus, it needs a bigger space that goes from meh bokeh to meh sharpness. It's still a matter of taste and purpose, though. I like both, I actually prefer less 3D pop though, since you can easily get way too used to it and then end up over doing it. It can be pretty unnatural and distracting. * using a focal reducer/speedbooster
Good video. I have had no issues with APS-C cameras for my shoots. Neither does my client. They love the videos and I am getting better with them everyday. Good video and here's to the upgrade of Full Frame. 😉
Nice review, just like many, I've used APS-c and full frame cameras. If you try the DP review studio scene comparator, you will find a clear low light ISO advantage on a full frame sensor compared to the same generation sensor on an APS-c camera. If you are a low light photographer, generally, the full frame provides clear advantages. If you shoot in ample light, then an APS c camera provides a far lighter package, as does your phone camera.
Great video! I just hate the marketing push sony or canon are putting on FF; they failed miserably vs fuji or even MFT with their APS-C lineups so now theyre making FF 'affordable', so they get some of that sub-$2000 market back. People should understand how this is mostly marketing ripoff.
which APSC mirrorless would you suggest which is bang for every buck? It will be my first camera and don't want to spend too much for FF just yet. I might little bit professional work if I get.
I think your absolutely correct. I Shoot with FF Canon R6 and also Fujifilm crop XT4, 20 megapixel FF vs 26megapixel crop sensor. Both are amazing and they both have there pros and cons. I mainly use the Canon as the main camera for my weddings as the AF is much superior and more reliable, but also love using the Fuji along side which has sharper lenses and better colors. Both have amazing dynamic range and great low light Image Quality. The Fujis X trans sensor is interesting because it doesn’t use the Anti Aliase filter over the sensor helps in sharper images and more vivid colors. These days with current technology ur not going to see much difference with both systems, even phone cameras can take some Great pics.
Another thing to know about crop factors: It changes with aspect ratio. 16:9 images cropped from 3:2 sensors will have a 5% crop added. This makes Canon's APS-C crop in video 1.7x.
I use an olympus omd em1 mk III. Fantastic camera. Granted it doesn't have the low light performance of an ff and to get really good bokeh requires a good prime lens, but the Ibis combined with features like live ND and starry af, means I basically only ever have to lug the body and lens around. Plus the focal length means wildlife photography is easier to afford. It's great! M43 is hugely underrated and if the system should ever disappear in the future (it won't) it basically spells the end of affordable photography. Great video btw, I hate the FF vs aps c vs m43 argument. Every system has a unique advantage.
I agree about the M43 cameras . I have an Olympus EM5 Mii and it's a fantastic travel camera. Rugged, weather resistant, great stabilization, ergonomic with a great lens lineup. I actually prefer it to my Sony a6300 for travel. I should note, however, that I should stills, rarely video when travelling.
there is a precision to be made, because you got a little bit confused here : A lens will always have the same redition of an image, what ever the sensor size is. If you slap the same 35mm lens on a full frame or an APS-C camera, the depth of field, bokeh rendition etc will be the exact same. The angle of view will change. What make people think that depth of field is bigger on APS-C cameras is because we're talking in equivalent focal lenght. Depth of field is related to the focal lengh of a lens. The bigger the focal lenght, the shallower the depth of field is. A 35mm lens at f4 will have considerably bigger depth of field than an 85mm lens at the same f stop (we can't really say the same aperture since the "f" number is tied to the focal lenght as well, that's another subject) So if we're talking about equivalent focal length, let's say 50mm. On a full frame camera you'll use let's say a 50mm f/1.8 lens. On an APS-C camera you'll use a 35mm f/1.8 with an equivalent focal length of 52.5mm. You'll have the same viewing angle, but the actual focal length is different betweent the two cameras, and depth of field being related with focal lenght, the camera with the bigger focal lenght will have the shallower depth of field, thus the saying "you have shallower depth of field on full frame cameras". if you were to put a 50mm lens on an APS-C camera, you'd get the same depth of field as a full frame with the same lens (maybe even shallower thanks to the pixels being smaller, if the resolution is the same) If you got blurrier background with the same lens on both cameras, it's because you try to match the frame, but the full frame camera has a wider angle of view so you need to get closer. And the closer to the lens it is, the smaller the depth of field is, that's how optics work
I like Both full frame and APS-c. They work well for different things. My very favorite lens "for some unknown reason" is my old Canon 10-18mm ultra wide. I LOVE what I can do with it. But on an APS-C I lose 6 or 7 MM on it, and for a WA lens, that is a huge amount. But with my 24-70 on the APS-C, i get additional length, so that's great. I think it's perfect to have Full Frame, and then an APS-C as a backup and for getting those altered MMs....Great video, joris!
I do not get your argument of losing 6-7 mm. Are you comparing to some imaginary 10 mm FF lens? Canon does have 11-24 mm for full frame. It just costs ten times what the 10-18 mm does. Closest to the 10-18 mm on full frame is 16-35 mm f/4. It costs three times as much.
The 10-xx APS-C ultrawide are equivalent to 16-xx mm ultrawide on full frame. Those are the affordable and common ultrawide lenses on full frame. The rare 11-xx mm Ultrawides cost easily twice what a compareable f-stop 15/16-xx mm ultrawide costs. Even the new RF 15-35/2.8 is cheaper than the EF 11-24/4.
I'm thinking of getting a full frame camera because I thought the most common social media work was gonna be better but this video made me realize that it's not about the body only but the good quality full frame lens you're gonna use! Thanks a lot ! 🙌🏼
Full frame camera is better than APSC, fact. Crop is not bad, these days is brilliant actually, but again, full frame is better. “Full frame is not better than APSC” is a beautiful song for people who do not want to or do not have budget for expensive gear. You can get awesome deals on entry level full frames, like Canon 6D. In the end, give it a try, and decide for yourself. Full frame being better than APSC is not BS!
@@raffkatvideo So a Canon 5D FF Mk 1 with 12MP sensor is better than my APS-C with a 24MP sensor? Never. Full frame being better than APSC is NOT always true! OLDER sensors have other circuitry between the light collectors. Modern APS-C sensors have have the other circuitry in CMOS layers beneath the light collectors. So the light collectors can be the same area even though the APS-C sensor is smaller than FF sensors.
Agree to a good extent. I am just an enthusiast specially into bird photography and Sony A6400 + 70-350 mm lens gives me 525mm equivalent and unless its very early in the morning (when sun is still near horizon); I am having a perfect combo at a price which is cheaper than any FF camera body only.
Nice I have the same set up. The only thing I don't like about that lens is not a fixed aperture when zooming in. I also do some bird photography and am thinking on getting the arii and use the aspc mode with the lens and see what I get.
NO! You don't get a 525mm equivalent - you get 350mm. You can't change the laws of physics. A 350mm lens will produce an image of a bird of the same size at the same distance, no matter what size the sensor is. It's a CROPPING factor, not a magnification factor.
@@migranthawker2952 But an APS-C sensor has a much higher pixel density than a FF sensor would at the same total number of pixels. So an APS-C image is not "just a crop" of a same-megapixel FF image, as that would imply that the APS-C image somehow looses resolution, which it doesn't. It's a full-resolution image, just "zoomed in" to cover just the central part of what the lens sees. Which is basically the same as magnification. Hence, the usefulness of equivalent focal lengths as a measure in the first place.
@@migranthawker2952 You can also think of it like this: a 32 megapixel APS-C image with a cropping factor of 1.6 (like on a Canon 90D) would be the same as a central crop of a 32*(1.6^2) = 82 megapixel FF image on the same lens. Unless you find a FF camera with 82 megapixels (Canon's FF DSLR's top out at 51 megapixels, for example), you simply won't be able to reproduce the APS-C image by cropping a FF image. In other words, an APS-C image on a 350 mm lens really is "more zoomed in" than any FF image on the same lens could ever be. (Specifically, by 1.6 times if we compared APS-C and FF sensors with the same total pixel count. If a small bird covers 200x200 pixels on a FF sensor, it would cover 320x320 pixels on an APS-C sensor using the same lens, assuming a cropping factor of 1.6 and the same sensor megapixel count.)
Great explanation. Refreshing common sense from a professional. The question I first asked myself in choosing my first DSLR was what am going to use it for (taking pictures obviously)! However it was about the field of photography that determined my choice. I also had to ensure that I could afford good quality lenses. I use both full frame and APS-C formats and print to A3 size. No one who has looked at my work can tell the difference. Listen to this guy before you buy!
Wise words here on the vid and in the comments. I have a Fuji xt4 and x100v and I spent the last 4-6 weeks going round in circles about buying a Leica Q2 for FULL FRAME (maybe replacing the x100v). Having eventually talked myself out of that I then looked hard at the new x-2H. However, I love the traditional lay out of the xt4 so decided to get better lenses, 33mm f1.4 future-proofed just arrived wit the new 56 1.2 WR on order. I’ll wait for the xt5 next year which might well have a 40 mp sensor. Get the best lenses, chose the system that works best for you, go out and take pictures!
I've been using APS-C since 2002. I now mostly use full frame. I do like that apsc cameras are generally lighter, but full frame just has so many more benefits.
💯 I use both APS-C and Medium format. APS-C for everyday leave in the bag shooting and Medium Format for ultimate quality on dedicated photo sessions… Both are excellent for their purpose.
Actually for me my preference towards APSC is the price of the lenses. An 85mm full frame lens from the same manufacturer could be double the price of a 55mm equivalent in APS-C.
@@domtomas1178 actually I was wondering about that, and would love to hear an explanation of why the background separation is different. Though, Arthur R did a pretty good comparison of the Sigma 56mm f1.4 and the Viltrox 75mm f1.2
Something that needs to be considered is size. I got my first 35mm SLR when I was 15 in 1969 but throughout the years I migrated to a 110 camera which used 16mm film and basically looked like a James Bond spy camera. Fact is I have so many photos that never would have been taken if all I had was my SLR because I just wouldn't have been lugging it around in those situations. Even when digital photography began to take over in the late 90's I stayed with the small point and shoot cameras like the Nikon Coolpix line. Of course that genre has been supplanted by the cellphone now but I still hung on with an APSC DSLR because of the portability although it honestly is not so much a difference from a full frame. So in that regard it probably just comes down to cost.
I've printed plenty 60/60cm (approx 23,6/23,6 inches) for exhibitions and clients works from some 24 mpix APS-C cameras, and it always came fine. I've done some portrait work and weddings as well, and as long as I stayed in the capabilities of my cameras it was always sufficient. Before that, I was convinced that Full Frame war far superior, because it was the case in 2009. But now, full frame is just slightly superior, and APS-C and even MFT can produce amazing results in most cases. And during exhibitions, as my prints are big and mostly squares, two frequent questions I had were : "Which film do you use?", and "Is this medium format ?".
@@photographer8486 every micro4/3 and aps-c cameras can produce professional results. Look for a sturdy camera with good af, and wide aperture lenses. You can’t go wrong with fuji xt line, and the new pentax k3iii seems to be great but this brand is behind the others in terms of modern lenses ( but there are plenty of great vintage options).
@@baptistepayendessinphoto I was looking into cameras. I found FF Canon RP is cheaper than Xt3 and also has dual card slots plus a completely rotating display. What do I do now? Also FF Sony A7 m2 is about the same.
@@photographer8486 canon rp is a great camera but fuji xt3 has a far better construction. Lenses for canon r mount are heavier and bigger. FF can achieve thinner depth of field than Apsc, so if you’re looking for great bokeh effects it’s cheaper to go full frame with entry level cameras and some fast primes.
@@baptistepayendessinphoto its so difficult to decide :( I want the smallest lightest value for money camera than I can keep with myself 24x7. I guess FF significantly adds to the size and weight of camera so I will have to restrict myself to APSC. And even get APSC lenses only. Probably a6000 is the only good choice?
I like both camera types, aps-c and FF. My current aps-c camera is the Sony a6600. Soon I realized I wanted a FF body, not just any body. So I saw a good deal for a new A7R3. I wasn't going to add another 24mp body, I was going 42mp. The reason for the R3 is the crop factor, yes, crop factor. I can crop away and still maintain an excellent photo. This comes in handy when photographing small birds, like a hummingbird. I still get a crips photo, something I would not get with a 24mp sensor. On the other hand, when with family for various events, I take my a6600 and a Sigma 16mm 1.4 lens. It's perfect. The R3 with lens is HEAVY and cumbersome in a crowed situation where the much smaller and lighter aps-c works better. I get great photos from each, but each has its own mission.
I use viltrox speed booster + canon 50mm STM lens. I use it for photography and small video. There's this disadvantage of mirrorless is you can't see your subject when using strobe light or flash in studio. I have to crank up ISO to view my subject to fix focus then again come down to take a snap. You are absolutely right about sensors and the image they give out in specific size. I never go above 18 x 15 inch with M50.
Turn the exposure simulation (Expo.simulation) off from the third submenu of the shooting menu. The Canon EF-M 32 mm f/1.4 is likely sharper than the speedbooster + 50 mm. Sigma has also comparable 30 mm f/1.4.
There is so much misinformation about photography on the net. it's so pleasant to come across someone who actually knows what they are talking about. great video.
Was a Sony shooter for years, and then sold my A7IV after my girlfriend bought me a Fujifilm x100V for my bday. The colors fuji produce straight outta camera are wonderful! I also noticed very little difference in IQ, Dynamic range, tonality (if any at all). And after using her XT-4, I plan on buying the the X-H2 40 megapixel version in fall.
Don't leave out Micro Four Thirds! My Olympus and Lumix cameras are still going strong. You can get good glass for less money (not to mention less bulk and weight) this way, and that's important. If you really need something closer to that full-frame aesthetic, you can adapt glass. I have a Viltrox EF-M2 0.71x speedbooster and a Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 ART lens attached to my Lumix G85. It ends up being equivalent to a 26-50mm f2.4 in full frame. My next lens purchase might either be the Sigma 50-100mm f1.8 (71-142mm f2.4 equivalent) ART or the Olympus 45mm f1.2 (90mm f2.4 equivalent) PRO.
I have made 36x24 inch prints and 40 inch prints from images captured on a 12 megapixel APS-C sensor. They look great! I used a bicubic fractal plug-in to gradually up-res the pixel count, apply strategic sharpening, anti-aliasing, de-noise, etc… and the images look fantastic! Part of that is being selective in the print process, using high quality, coated water color paper from Hannemuhle and the best ink sets, color profile… etc.
I use both a Canon EOS 90D (aps-c) and a Canon R6 (full frame). Both give absolutely phenomenal results! Despite being a DSLR with a crop sensor, the 90D is a beast! I mean it has a 32.5 MP sensor, great low light performance and impressive auto-focus tracking. I do landscape photography with that one all the time, while the R6 is meant for portraits and professional gigs. The landscape photos from the 90D are extremely sharp and because of the high amount of MP, they have great dynamic range. I do a lot of focus stacking, HDR, and panoramas for those landscape shots. No one can tell they were shot with an aps-c format sensor.
@@spirg Yep! It's a fantastic camera. I've been using my 90D since 2021 and haven't had a single issue whatsoever. Is it cutting edge like the latest mirrorless cameras? No. That doesn't make it a terrible choice, though. In 2023 photographers could still use it and shouldn't have any problems. Even professionals can use the 90D. Just because it's aps-c format doesn't mean anything. I've done product photography with that camera and not one company has complained. It's more than enough to get the job done.
so glad you brought up the different use cases for each type of sensor and not just specs! personally i film and upload videos in 4K so the minor differences in image quality *do* matter to me, but for vloggers or people who only post standard quality images/videos they won't see any of the benefits they paid for. sometimes it's not about how "good" your gear is, just how well you use it :)
I agree with you. Even accepting than in low light a FF is better, for instance, 1 stop better than a 1.5 cropped sensor of the same generation, when you need depth of field, you must stop down that stop in the FF. For instance, you may take a cropped picture at f/5.6 ISO 800, and at FF you must do it at F/8 ISO1600 for the same shutter speed... The results are the same in quality... This is true in real professional world... In wedding photography, for example. And when you take the budget in account, and you must have a backup camera, that doubles the already doublet budget.
On the flip side, for shallow depth of field pictures you need to stop down a lot less with full frame,in fact you might need a very fast lens for aps-c to achieve the same effect which can be very expensive and large/heavy.
It's a fact that full frame sensors is better in low light :) You have to compare sensors from the same day and age! But even old fullframe sensors outperforms new crop sensors, for the most part.
@@bartden9668 I like crop sensors as well 😊 The one in my Fujifilm Xpro3 is amazing.. but it's a fact that in low light fullframe is about 1 stop better. Just physics..
I agree that you can produce amazing images with either APS-C or Full Frame cameras, or even with M4/3 or a smartphone camera, but I also think that (as someone who has shot with many sensor sizes) for the most part having a larger sensor is objectively better if you compare concurrent generations. I would even recommend buying a ten year old full frame camera over a modern APS-C camera if you're not interested in video. I recently purchased a Nikon D800 for just $700 as a backup camera to my Z6, and the pictures it produces are mind blowing. It's 36MP so I can tons of latitude for cropping, I'd only recommend APS-C to someone who wants to shoot video on a budget, or if they like the experience of shooting with Fuji's control system, but in either case the smaller sensor size doesn't provide a benefit to the actual performance of the camera.
There’s also a case to be made for the size/weight advantage. Sure, my XT4 body isn’t that much smaller than an a7iv, but the lenses are half the size/weight. As someone who shoots both for fun where I want to travel light and professionally, having one system that caters for both uses is really damn useful. Granted, if it wasn’t for my Fuji x100v completely changing the way I viewed photography with its manual controls and amazing SOOC images, I’m not sure I’d have ever switched from my full frame setup to say Sony APSC or Nikon or canon etc. Now if Fuji could just fix their damn autofocus for video it would be the perfect system for me.
My two main cameras (I have used Sony a7r3 and a9, a6400, and previously Olympus m4/3) are Leica CL and SL2. I get equal results, depending on output, from both of them. So I agree with your argument. When I print an urban landscape out at 1m x 1m or larger, I get luckier with the SL2. Obviously, FB or Igram, CL or SL2 are the same. One thing, however, with the SL2 (and previously the a7r3) was cropping down a shot that had too short a lens when I took the pic. I do a lot of travel photography and sometimes the 35mm is just too short on an APS-C. But that's a very specific issue.
You don't have to calculate the crop factor if you begin with an apsc sensor and stick to it. You get used to the field of view of a specific focal distance and you refer to it when you switch lenses. The reference to full frame was relevant when cropped sensors appeared or is when you transition from crop to FF or any other size.
exactly !!!! As an APS-C shooter, full frame equivalence means nothing to me in practice. I relate to the lens focal lengths as they behave on my (APS-C) cameras, not on how they would behave on a full frame camera which I don't own and never have. if I ever bought a full frame camera I would need to think the other way (APS-C equivalence) until I developed a feel for the full frame camera's field of view.
I am beginner at TH-cam, have been posting videos since a year and I started with Insta360 Go2, now using combination of iPhone and Insta 360go2, very excited for ordering a Sony ZV E10 (APSC) Camera to improve the quality! Great video! ☺️👏
Great video! Less than a year ago (we are now in 2024), I bought a Canon R7 (APSC) after having considered the similarly priced R8 (full frame). The thing is... the R7's cropped sensor is 32.5 MP whereas the R8's full frame sensor is 24 MP. Therefore, it is not always the case that full frame cameras offer a better resolution. Of course, full frame sensors offer other advantages, but since I am mostly interested in landscape photography, I have little use for shallow depth of field (I generally want everything in focus) or low light performance (I can generally use a tripod for longer exposition or exposure bracketing to compensate for APSC's lower dynamic range). I'll probably get a full frame camera some day for more specialized applications, but I could probably get away with an older (and cheaper) model like the Canon RP.
I've been using APS-C cameras for nearly 5 years. Now I'm with my Canon M50. The reason why I'm sticking to M50 is, Canon has super affordable lenses (I have a 50MM prime and planning to buy a 24MM pancake which is an APS-C lens, again affordable). This Camera helps me to get the job done. But in the future, I'd like to use Sony or Blackmagic for better image quality, low light performance and dynamic range. Canon M50 is a good APS-C camera which will give us good results if the lighting is correct.
which APSC mirrorless would you suggest which is bang for every buck? It will be my first camera and don't want to spend too much for FF just yet. I might little bit professional work if I get.
This content is worth 9mins of my life! Totally agree on everything you said! I am torn on switching / upgrading systems from Sony A7s (FULL FRAME) to Fujifilm XT4 (APSC) and this enlighten me! Thanks Joris! I subbed!
I was torn between the XT-4 and Z6II. I ended up getting the Z6II, Fuji is the prettiest and really capable but the Nikon has more functions. Both in Mexico are priced the same and so are the lenses. I still might get the Fuji latter purely because of coolness factor
which APSC mirrorless would you suggest which is bang for every buck? It will be my first camera and don't want to spend too much for FF just yet. I might little bit professional work if I get.
@@alfredconqueror4422 wait Z6ii and Xt-4 are priced the same? why? same as XT4 price or Z6ii? this is weird. And what coolness factor is there with Fuji? Which APSC mirrorless would you suggest which is bang for every buck? It will be my first camera and don't want to spend too much for FF just yet. I might little bit professional work if I get.
LOVE this video Joris!!! A+ advice, I have a Sony a6400 and absolutely love it, but have been eyeing the Sony A7RIV full frame for a bit. I think your video really made the difference in my decision. I’m going to cop those full frame lenses first, learn how to use them on APS-C, then make the switch when I’m ready. Thanks for the upload!!!
This is the best and very clear explanation of full frame and Aps lens. Now, I just be content with my mirrorless camera. Thank you for sharing this video. One of your supporter now.
I shoot classic/vintage lenses, for that reason I bought a full frame Sony A7II because all lenses are sharper toward the center you lose a lot of the character that those lenses produce. The best example I can give is that it's harder to get a Helios 44-2 lens to swirl on a cropped sensor than it is on a full frame. If you don't care about such minute detail, go APS-C of even micro 4/3.
For years I shot black and white film because I could develop it myself and therefore afford it. I dreamed of a medium format and still do. As a hobbyist it was always about the creativity, quality of composition and joy in seeing progress in these areas. Still is. We still enjoy the quality of photos from the past. Technology is not a limitation in true art.
I don't agree entirely, but you have good points. I've had several cameras, but most recently swapped my Nikon d750 (FF) for Fuji Xt-3 (APS-c) - mostly because I love the fuji brand and I needed some better video specs. What I will say, is that I'd rather have a top-spec APS-c than a budget FF, but as much as I love my XT-3 (and I do) the stills can't compare to what I got from my D750. It's harder to get wide without distortion, and there seems to be a bit of bittiness to the images that some might like, but I don't - it's a bit more instagram, a bit less commercial - if that makes sense. I'm still not sure what it is and could just be my lack of skill (I'm not a pro, just a serious hobbyist with the occasional paid job). The Xt-3 delivers beautiful images, of course - but not as good as the D750 - that thing made my jaw drop sometimes and I often wonder if I shouldn't try to get a budget used one for stills again. I believe the smartest choice when buying is deciding on the lens-system you want to buy into - and when buying used I'm very pro Nikon as you can buy incredible lenses for very cheap. Secondly, I would look at the features of the camera - flash sync, focus peaking, silent modes, focus stacking - the kinds of things that open up new possibilities for you to create. Here, the fuji is exceptional - amazing 'pro' features for a lower budget. So while I would say my APS-c is a much better camera, the images from my FF were better. But it all depends on your use case. Just remember to budget for lights, they add more to your toolset than a lens or better body. Hope this all makes sense - and I hope I also sound like a nice guy. I really am :)
I also bought a Fuji X-T3 with the intention of selling my D750 (and D810) and Nikon lenses, but as much as I absolutely LOVE my X-T3, both in terms of use and image quality, I couldn’t give up the image quality of my Nikon cameras, so now I kept both systems, the Fuji for travel and general lightness & convenience, and my Nikon cameras for occasions when the image quality for large print (or cropping) is a requirement.
The most honest photographer I've ever known! In my country, we have a well-known saying: All roads lead to Full-frame. But you know, I think that's so shallow. The naive people just comprehend that with herd-y tendency. As you said, they buy what you want, not what they need. So that's why I've loved my 80D with 35mm f1.4L badly. Actually, I've got my countless masterpieces with that combo. Thank you so much once again!
Here's my advice for amateur photographers: If you've no ambition to become a professional photographer, then forget about full frame and stay with APS-C. Unless, of course, you're rich. And of course, before buying a lens, always watch reviews. And most importantly: Before buying a full frame lens for your APS-C camera, be sure to watch reviews where that particular lens is tested on an APS-C body! Because often full frame lenses aren't quite sharp enough for the higher pixel density of an APS-C sensor. Especially the more affordable full frame lenses can be a problem. And where do you find such reviews? There are probably several options, but Christopher Frost makes loads of lens reviews, and he always test full frame lenses on both sensor sizes.
Your recommendation regarding FF lenses on an APS-C camera is well taken. I recently purchased the new Sigma 100-400mm DG DN OS FF lens for my lowly A6000. The reviews of this lens were unanimously great, as were the many sample images posted on various photo sites. But when I used it on my A6000, I was less than impressed. I wasn't seeing the sharpness I expected. I like both landscape and surfing photography, and honestly, other than the reach, this lens wasn't performing as well as my 18-135mm lens. I figured it was a bad copy, so I went back to the shop. After a lengthy discussion on whether it was a problem with the camera, I decided to buy the 70-350mm lens, which also got good reviews. The results surprised me. Despite the Sigma being a technically superior lens in virtually every way (the exception being the weather sealing on the Sony), it did not produce as good results. I have tried in every lighting condition, and in various environments, and I cannot get the Sigma to provide as consistently sharp images as the Sony. And I really wanted the Sigma to be the better lens, and I really wanted the extra 50mm reach for surfing photos. Anyway, the results are what they are, and the Sigma is going back, and the Sony has a new home. And the $200 I am saving will go towards an upgrade to a 6500 or 6600 :-)
@@tvm2209 Anyone who wants a relatively affordable mirrorless dslr that takes terrific photos, arguably performs better than any of the A7 lineup below the A7III, shoots 11 fps, has a great EVF, can accept a wide range of lenses, does very good video, is weather sealed, has a built in flash, has IBIS, and all comes in an incredibly small form factor. In other words, pretty much anyone other than a professional photographer.
after watching what feels like hundreds of videos on APS-C vs. Full Frame, I decided that there were other reasons to buy one camera over another. Sensor size is only one part of the equation. I bought the Sony a6600 (APS-C) for the unlimited video capability, something the A7III can't do.
@@namjitharavind Not when using a tripod or fast shutter speeds. A fast shutter speed is almost guaranteed in bright daylight. You can use additional lighting indoors which will allow fast shutter speeds.
I 100% Agree with this, I did digital media in university, and to get me through it I bought a Canon 77D. It was a good size, light, and did everything I needed at the time. As I got more and more serious about photography I started pouring money into better lenses (Lenses make far more difference than bodies towards image quality). Honestly some of the pictures I took with the camera I was shocked at and still am. As I had the perception of this is a "lower-end camera". Since then I have moved onto a Canon R6 for a few reasons, mainly to have 1080@120 / 4k60, dual card slots, and eye-tracking. I am currently getting more into video and wanted to get a camera that was all round more serious. In terms of image quality though I couldn't tell a difference really. It really is a matter of needs and what area you wanna focus on, just do plenty of research and you'll be golden :D
One element that gets forgotten a lot with these kind of videos: FF bodies tend to be treated as more professional bodies by camera manufacturers, and therefore are outfitted with more professional features. For example, FF bodies tend to get more buttons/knobs/recall options a bigger screen, higher resolution viewfinder, better weather sealing, more features/tech etc. There are also usually more online resources/users who know what they're doing for you to learn from, and sometimes more lens support as well. There are also wide shots you straight up can't get due to the crop factor. Let's be real. No one is buying a FF body over a crop sensor JUST because of the slight increase in image quality. People with these bodies tend to need the functionality that comes along with the sensor. You don't need to be doing large format prints to reap the benefits of a full frame body, just maybe a knowledgeable enough photographer to benefit from the extra bells and whistles. Of course there's nothing at all wrong with smaller sensors, they're insanely capable these days, but don't forget you're buying way more than just a slightly larger sensor.
PREACH!! For the average TH-camr who’s not shooting professionally, that Volkswagen works just fine. And anyway it’s not just about the gear but what you can do with it. 💪
And even for a lot of pros a volkswagen is fine... just depends on what your profession is. In case you're a racecar driver... a racecar will work better for you 😅💥🙏🏻
@@k-perspective if you have a Ferrari but dunno how to drive it, you’re gonna crash anyway 🤷🏻♀️ the point is: start with the basics and learn your way up from there. It’s not about the gear but what you can do with it.
Bokeh addict is the novice, and after he has spent mosto of his revenue in ff camera and lenses he come to the conclusion that is pure bullshit. Buy a telephoto for an aps-c and you’ll get all the bokeh you want for 1/3 of the price. And then start stopping it down becouse photos are not organic but only very annoying for your eyes with too much blurriness
After a decade of using Fuji bodies for work & play, I started using Sony FF and very quickly fell in love with the image quality, dynamic range, video focus tracking, build quality etc etc. I don’t think it’s enough to just say they are “different”.
i did some comparison between fuji and nikon and this was so impressing, i will never change to fuji. i can't see any real advantage using the fuji. it's not even smaller if you compare it in a fair way.
Excellent video! Good video! I’ve shot a lot of full frame but got sick of the weight and cost. I’ve shot APS-C (Fuji and Sony) since 2018, and my portraits have been published in many magazines from LA Magazine to WIRED. Editors don’t care like they used to (I am 53, and remember they wanted medium format!). These days most people look at content on a phone! I’ve also printed some of my crop sensor images and it’s beautiful. Really depends on the lens, and the skill of the photographer!
Thanks for sharing... Interesting comments... I only use my D500 crop sensor camera & happy with the results... Haven't considered changing for now....cheers..
Full frame is objectively better under every circumstance, except if you need range or small form factor. That being said - It doesn't really matter. If you're new, young or broke. Get APS-C. If you got money, is a professional or rich, get Full Frame. Also, I'd rather have a newer Sony APS-C because of the features than an older Full Frame lacking newer features. I use A7rIV and a6400 profesionally. Both are great. Clients can't tell the difference - but full frame produce better results (more dynamic range, less noise, more depth of field).
Great comment! I've been using ff for past 15 plus years but recently picked up a apsc camera for travel. I'm getting old and as much as I like f1.2 lens, I'm bot carrying those for travel and street
This made me feel proud to use Crop sensor camera. I have over 5 years only used that and even with my new camera is a crop sensor and I love it. Thanks
I loved, and very much still miss my Canon 1d MkII N with its APS-C sensor. It did a great job for sports photography, which is what I was shooting the most of at the time. However, I had no problem with shooting portraits or events with it. Sadly one day it became critically ill, and it was so old that no one could do anything to save it, and it died. Since I was doing more event photography I next got a Canon 5d Mk3 full frame body. Yeah, it does the job for me, but I've never fallen in love with it like I loved my 1d MkII N. I'll probably try out one of Canon's mirrorless bodies next.
Hi Joris. Thank you for video, totally agree with you. For example, I have Canon 90D APS-C camera with Sigma 18-35mm/1.8 and 50-100mm/1.8 lenses. The low aperture will compensate the crop factor disadvantage, so it will give almost the same quality as full-frame
Use the tool that works best for the job at hand. Everything else being equal (like megapixels, lenses), an APS-C camera is going to get you closer to elusive wildlife and birds, while a full frame is going to give you a more impressive landscape or Milky Way shot. Otherwise, a lot of the inherent differences, such as noise and low light performance issues, can be greatly mitigated by firmware and post software.
True on traditional cameras but many modern full frame cameras have very high megapixel counts. Remember it is the pixel density, not the crop factor that matters as one can always crop in post.
@@okaro6595 True, but many APS-C cameras are pretty high megapixel as well, meaning you have the advantage of cropping PLUS the advantage of being (seemingly) closer to begin with. An example, the Canon R5 in APS- C mode gives you about 17 megapixels. Not much more cropping can be done. The R7 is already "cropped" to APS- C size and gives you 32.5 megapixels. Quite a bit more cropping can be done. Also, an APS-C camera, even one with a fair amount of megapixels is going to be way cheaper than a super high megapixel full frame. I generally like having both a full frame and an APS-C in my bag. Another consideration is file size. 45, 50, 60, 80 megapixel files become increasingly more difficult to work on, requiring more computing power and more and bigger hard drives. Maybe not a concern for a professional, but certainly can be for a hobbyist.
I think it depends on your needs. I shoot videos where I work with my hands on fairly small things, and the 1.5 crop is ideal in these conditions. You simply won't have enough magnification on your 24-70 at full frame and you'll still have to either switch to crop mode or use lenses like Sony 90mm macro or Sigma 105mm. But I would say that it won't be enough. Wider field of view makes perspective distortion If you move the camera closer to the object, so you have to leave your camera at one position to get right perspective. So my FF 28-70 on a 1.5 crop sensor is a absolutely outstanding at this situation. I'm still thinking about Sigma 105mm Macro to shoot me working with a really small things on video.
"They are just different. " Exactly what I've saying for years. I have shot FF and APS-C. Just sold my 80D to buy a MFT Panasonic G9 for video. Keep shooting.
@@RameezRazaRiaz99 for me lower mp is a plus I’ve 26x30 prints for people and family and they have been brilliant. Sadly the next sensor for m4/3 is rumored to be either 26 or 30mp. I don’t need it and if it’s good enough for canons full frame top of the line dslr that came out last year it’s plenty for me.
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
If you don't agree, that's fine! Let's talk in the comments👇🏻
Just be nice. I'm nice. My subscribers are all super nice... I just want everyone to be nice to each other... 🤷🏻♂️Mkay? Thanks! 😎🙏🏻
It's more like saying, apples are better than oranges! Good video
@@Geert890 Exactly! 😄🙏🏻
@@Geert890 I agree
Actually I subscribed to your channel because of this video, I totally agree with what you're saying, and the advise at the end regarding lenses is SUPER, a lot of issues regarding low light for example can be fixed using better lenses.. date the camera and marry the lens!
Excellent video. Thanks for posting this! I'm a working pro shooting FF and crop, depending on the circumstances and the client. Everyone is always happy. Life is good.
I love this so much. When I was first getting started people are used to try to do a gear flex on me. Just because they had the most expensive gear. I shot with a crop body for a long time before upgrading to a full frame I’ve even shot on point and shoot because that’s what I had with me and believe it or not I’ve sold professional shots from my point and shoot just because I had the eye for a shot and the subject I was shooting loved them and wanted to use them commercially. I think people tend to forget that a lot of what you do as a photographer is based on learning how to use any camera you have, having an eye for what you’re shooting, and knowing how to get the shot. As a professional today I still see folks trying to do that gear flex on new photographers and I’m always willing to talk to new photographers and tell them to shoot with what they have and get good at shooting with what they have. You don’t need to have the most expensive new camera as soon as it comes out. Invest in great glass, bodies come and go, the glass will sustain itself.
Spot on Diane. Somehow folks tend to talk about a cameras shortcomings rather than it’s strengths. I’m willing to bet you’ve taken som great shots from your phone as well. Haven’t we all? Lol.
This video and this comment by Diane is pure golden truth.
I feel that alot of people trained and untrained to the eye, professional and beginner will find that unless they are doing large prints, and even if so sometimes, still may not be able to tell which of the two cameras took the photos, as far as the technology itself goes, when looking at a finished product...
Lenses truly are so important. The bodies do really come and go. As far as the bodies, just try to make sure it has the features you may need for the style/type of photos/subjects you will be interested in taking pictures of in my opinion.
The lenses in my opinion do the heavy lifting, they carry the work, and they get the rest done. Don't underestimate the power of your lenses.
I believe it's your skill and ability first, your lenses second, and the body third...contrary to what many believe..
The lense is the extension to the body, the bodies limbs. The lenses are what reaches for the bodies goals.. the body can have all the technology in the world yet still no potential at all without the lens.
Pick a body that have settings for your line of work and pick lenses, compensate, compliment, and accomplish what you are going for..it's really about the lenses..people are putting some pretty big lenses over some pretty cropped sensors....it's not about the size, it's about the motion of the ocean...
Especially if you're a beginner; why buy a 1000cc Supersport when you can't even fully harness and push a 600cc super sport to its maximum potential on the tarmac?...to be skilled and proficient enough to push a 600cc sport bike to its limits is more fun and freeing, than to have more power than you know what to do with, and not skilled enough to fully and competently control and hone. Power you can't even utilize...
I believe it is the same with any trade/art...what is a $100 paint brush to someone who can not paint, is the equivalency of $20 brush.
It's not that either type of cameras is better than the other, necessarily, they just go about things differently. They solve math equations differently.
I hear beginners Trump themselves all the time by going off of what they hear and have a mentality of "full frame or nothing" and it's truly a limiting and misguided misconception. If that be the reason some curious kid doesn't pick up a camera and start a hobby; that saddens me...and equally, if it be a reason someone is slowing down on starting a new entry level career. I know many others that use cropped, and make thousands of buckos a month delivering professional grade batch, work, lol.. they are not even professionals themselves............
To get a desired effect, you just have to accept that you need to do different math with your lenses.. every camera in the world is limited to its lens no matter what, anyway....
This car takes 91, that car takes 93, another car may be happy on 87octane to preform optimal to its combustion rate..
All cameras are great and fun, and pack their own punch!
This is a fact. I absolutely SUCK at having an eye for a picture. My buddy, uses his cell phone and captures amazing pictures because he has an eye for it. I am definitely trying to learn, but its a talent to some degree that I hope I can figure out someday.
@@DarikStone if u ya talkin photography… yeah. However, video is a whole diff story. Full frames usually have better codecs, fps, etc. There is no 10 bit in Sony apsc, you only get it if you go full frame. For pics, apsc is almost as capable as full frame. Not so much if we talkin video
@@luismoracmyk yes, with that I agree! There's isn't really anything that will make up for that. I would sway someone to full frame if they were getting into any kind of cinematography, or needed a good hybrid, for sure. Great call!
Couple of additions from a fellow-pro:
(1) when you compare sensors, make sure you compare same generations. A 10y old full-frame sensor may indeed not have better low-light performance compared to a brand-new designed aps-c sensor. Same for medium format compared to full-frame. Note that most sensor manufacturers focus R&D on full-frame first, and then apply that to aps-c later.
(2) the advantage of ‘not using the full image-circle’ with an aps-c sensor is only valid when you buy and use full-frame lenses on an aps-c camera. E.g. Fuji XF and Canon EOS-M lenses are designed for aps-s and have a smaller image-circle, so these lack that advantage compared to e.g. Nikon, Sony and Leica. By the way, when using full-frame lenses on an aps-c camera, you largely loose the size/weight/cost advantage of aps-c.
(3) the shallower DoF of full-frame is due to the difference in focal lenght when applying the same field of view. So an aps-c lens of 56mm (85mm) equiv. has a DoF associated with a 56mm lens compared to the shallower DoF of a native 85mm full-frame lens. The longer the focal lenght, the shallower the DoF, assuming same aperture and distance to subject.
So, when comparing apples with apples, a full-frame camera has indeed better low-light performance (or higher resolution), better dynamic range, greater tonality and shallower DoF compared to an aps-c camera. Consequently a medium format camera usually does even better on these things than a full-frame.
I fully agree that many enthusiast don’t buy what they need and loose themselves in pixel peeping at 200%, rather than develop their creative skills. The camera industry thrives on that ;-)
Buying APS-C lenses almost doesn't make sense anymore. You can't use them on full frame cameras, whereas the opposite is not true. Unless you are absolutely positive that you are never going to switch to full frame, and for that matter, that manufacturers are going to continue making APS-C cameras that you can replace your current one with, you are kind of rolling the dice if you invest heavily at all in APS-C lenses.
Very well said, I wonder why he was talking so generally while technicalities are involved.
Life was great when we all had 35mm cameras (cheap rangefinders to SLRs like Canon and Nikon). We chose from Tri-X, Plus-X and Panatomic-X for black and white photos. For color, we usually chose Kodachrome 25 or 64. Life was so simple then.The difference between them is the speed of the film and how tight the grain is. But I didn't care. I had fun taking photos for work and for pleasure. No one cares, no one pixel peeps. People just like to see pictures of themselves and family members, especially babies.
I would say just for IQ overall first Canon full frame Canon 5D is to me better than ANY! aps-c to date in terms of pure image quality and color depth and pixel sharpnes.. and it's since 2005 if I am not wrong.
Point 2 is not correct, unless you tested the apsc lens on a full frame camera. I used to think the same thing untill i saw some Pentax da (crop lenses) could actually be used on the Pentax k1 (full frame) without cropping too much so depending on the design apsc lenses can have a larger image circle.
It's not strictly true and is dependent on the lens.
I went for Sony's APSC lineup...even though I really liked a friend's A7C. I'm pretty sure I'll stick to APSC since I take it with me when hiking and camping which often entails me climbing up over mountains. The size and weight savings definitely helps and the cheaper body and lens cost helps me save some money to go towards my outdoor gear.
Video: Full frame vs aps-c
the conclusion i get: volkswagen is good
I... guess... 🤔😅
In the film era, I shot small format, medium format, and large format.
In the beginning of the digital era, my first digital cameras had thumbnail size sensors. Later, I began shooting cameras with a larger micro 4/3 size sensor. Next, I used cameras with APS-C size sensors. Lastly, I used cameras with full-frame sensors.
For me, the difference in image quality between the APS-C and the full-frame is insignificant to nonexistent.
I agree, it's not about image quality from the sensor. For a long time, Canon and Nikon and Sony don't really make "great" APSC lenses, they make all the L or GM or whatever lenses full frame. Canon and Sony seem to also mostly make the higher end tech only in FF cameras. Especially Canon, if you want the top tier lenses and tech, it's all in FF. But for landscape in daytime? My 80D APSC was very good.
Tokina makes some boss mode crop sensor lenses that run $300… while I like my rf 15-35, it’s totally not even close to being worth $2200…. Lessons learned
A good photographer will be a good photographer regardless of APSC or full-frame. The differences in the formats are about specific use cases where the limitations are more apparent. You can even consider pixel pitch as a useful difference that is often in favour of APSC.
I’m using my m50 for professional video work and only shooting in 1080. As long as the lighting is good the quality is great and the clients like it. No one has asked me what camera I’m using 🤷🏼♂️
Exactly my point! I’ve used my M50 for some client work too (photography) Looked great! 🤷🏻♂️
@@JorisHermans good glass is more important, you could do a video showing how different lenses make different images. Rubbish glass on a full frame v good glass on the m50 😁
@@whahehsushsusksn4884 buy extra battery...im using m50 with extra battery
I had that but there is no good superwides for that camera
@@whahehsushsusksn4884 Battery Grip for Canon M50 oder for Canon RP.
The analogy should be like:
Comparing F1 to Rally. Both are cars that races, but on different field.
Makes more sense 😄
yeh i didn’t like the ferrari Vs VW reference either, kinda opposed exactly what he was saying
Almost the whole video needed more precision and technical comparisons.
Ferari Volkswagen analogy is good too. An economical car for daily usage and a super sport car to race are different levels.
Bigger sensor gives better low light performance and shallow depth of field for object isolation.
Smaller sensor gives more zoom capability in same diameter lenses and more depth of field which is useful on macro photography.
So apsc better for photography which needs more zoom or macro shots. To shoot birds from distance apsc gives more zoom with crop factor in same diameter lenses. Or when someone shoot macro photograpy the eyes and the legs of the bee must be clear. and Apsc has advantage.
But in low light conditions if somone shoot a wedding in night time fullframe has advantage. Also if someone want to shoot portraits and need object isolation, fullframe is better.
Many people are Fuji users and love shooting with it whether an Instagramer, enthusiast or a “professional”. So it goes back to what you need and will work for you. Lighting is key, but if you shoot low light situations then a full frame might work better for your needs. Otherwise, an APS-C will work just fine. Invest in a good piece of glass and you can get some great shots.
Great video. Nothing wrong with using APSC or M43 for professional work. People were using far inferior equipment not so long ago to even the entry level stuff today and getting incredible shots. Learn the craft first and then get the system that suits your needs and complements your needs. Stop reading forums and watching videos on all the latest equipment and instead go out there and practice. You will know what gear you need when you start honing your craft.
I agree, some of my best images come from my Olympus camera's...but for my pro work I need a FF body, it is just more workable in DR, crop ability, and details for large commission and weddings when you often don't have idea scenario's. Although I have gotten some great wedding and portrait captures with apsc as a backup to a full framer. I have even got some adorable wedding images with a phone! :)
It matters more how well the camera works for you. I love my olympus for how it handles. Does the job really well.
The only problem I have had with M43 is the grain and the low lighting. It stinks but everything else about it I love.
Finally someone that knows what they are talking about when comparing APS-C vs fullframe!
The only time you will see a major difference when you zoom in 200% into your picture, and even then, the difference is really small and not sometimes not noticeable.
Unfortunately, ours is an expensive passion, and the majority of amateur photographers don't have anything near the financial resources to acquire their dream kit. The good news is that passion for photography, combined with lots of practice (a combination that is often referred to as skill) is everything when it comes to enjoying the fruits of your efforts. Open your eyes, follow your soul, get lost in the moment, and hone your technique. Above all else, shoot for your own gratification; don't judge your results on what you think other people will like. This is my humble opinion.
Thank you so much ❤️ !!
Pete, you are so right in your assessment.
Used full frame all my life until recently switched to Fuji aps-c.
For my current needs, nothing is better than a MODERN aps-c. I have great image quality, less weight, less costs, less volume, ok low-light performance.
I agree, my Fuji's APSC is fine for my hobby work and as a back up, but not for serious weddings and large commissions. I still get all of the above with a FF with top rated DR and low light abilities, for just a bit more dinero...it's about the glass too.
@@nellatrab Man, I and everyone else used to shoot wedding on film with 100-400 ISO, manual focus and no exposimeter. No one needs fullframe for weddings.
@@Nessunego 100%. I’m too young to have actually used film in its hay day however I do a lot of street photography on film and recently sold all my full frame Sony gear and invested in Fuji. So far I don’t regret my choice at all and I want to go out and shoot on my Fuji a lot more. I’ve used my full frame gear for plenty of professional work and I have absolutely no doubts my new Fuji gear will perform just as well.
@@nellatrab wtf are you talking about. Aps c is more than enough for weddings lol
Not less cost because you bought a new camera!
(Only joking)
After years of playing with different cameras and systems, I eventually stuck with Fuji. Works the best for my style, but I will admit that to me a 50mm on a FF just has a certain look that I love.
Just sold all my full frame gear and completely switched to APSC, the Fuji xt4. I understand the limitations of the apsc sensor but they’re really not as limiting as you think. Having a system specifically designed around APSC like Fuji is the best choice as now I have access to super nice glass that’s specifically designed for apsc and as such is smaller, lighter but still just as premium as full frame glass. It just makes sense to me and it makes no sense that 95% of the newer photographers I meet seem to be aiming towards eventually upgrading to full frame. Apsc is absolutely good enough for professional work and for some photographers, the better choice.
i did the same switch from canon ff to fuji xf 8 years ago and never looked back. enjoy the light weight and performacne of the fuji xf system. none of my clients really noticed the difference. that said i still enjoy shooting 120 on a hasselblad 500 sometimes ;)
fuji xt4 user here, we will prove them wrong watch us🤟🏼🤟🏼
As an amateur photographer, the Fuji xt3 meets most of my needs.
Just moved to an Aps-c Canon Camera, from a Full frame because I wanted a lighter-weight / cheaper set-up and you have answered all the queries I had about the differences - Thank you. Plus, you answered some considerations I hadn't thought about.!! Your style is great and I like your humour. So all I need to do is move slightly further away from the subject - no problem and probably an advantage in not crowding a subject. Keep it up.!
Advantages like better IBIS (APSC sensors are easier to stabilise), smaller cameras with less weight and the additional reach you get from telephoto lenses make APSC camera significantly better for certain applications. Like travel, sports & wildlife photography. Full frame is better for portraits, higher resolution large format printing & some product work. But Joris is right, the differences are far less than you'd expect.
Thanks for your input, Tom! Exactly my point. 🙏🏻💥
The little difference on a print or a portrait because of dof will make the difference for sure. Some super high level professional portrait photographers working in the fashion industry will NEVER use an apsc
Shot APSC for years! Back then there was a huge difference between full frame and APSC. I switched to Sony full frame a few years ago and didn’t notice the difference because APSC technology caught up. I then switched back to Fuji and have been happy ever since. Their new XH2s is now on par with full frame cameras for video.
@@gavinjenkins899 I wasn’t speaking from a physical standpoint. I was talking about the gap between the quality of the image between APSC and Full Frame. Back then there was a huge difference that was noticeable and most people even someone brand new getting into photography could see the difference. Now the APSC quality is so good that arguing full frame is so much better is just not true. There are advantages, but the quality is there in APSC
One of the best videos explaining this because it skips the technicalities and gets to the point. Good job buddy
This absolutely spot-on. I don't think anyone has explained it better. I was guilty of going full frame when possibly I should have considered aps-c. My only redemption was that I didn't buy a new body, although the glass was new.
I was shooting with film previously, then after taking a break I moving to digital.
But it's like a drug, you're always searching to gain the satisfaction you feel when you see the end result. Maybe it's just one picture you've taken that day, and it turns out even better than when you reviewed it on your camera.
The car analogy I always make, is that everyone keeps telling me to buy the Porsche, because it is the faster car, despite the fact that the the speed limit is 120km/h, the Porsche has no seat to speak of in the back, eats tyres, guzzles gas, makes an immense racket and drains your wallet as far as road tax is concerned, while the other car gets me there in a comfortable, affordable and safe way. Maybe I like to listen to music when I am driving, undisturbed by engine and tyre noise. So, after all, maybe the Porsche is not the car for me.
True! I always thought that full-frame was better until I bought the Fuji X-T4. This camera has changed my photography skills in a positive way.
Why?
Sure until you do low light situation then cameras cry for help, no natural look if you add in artificial light, No offense FUJI are really good and I've used one the XT3 but decided to ditch it for the EOS R coz Lowlight sucks. But for me as a Videographer that shoots wedding its not the best run&Gun, but for the price though its great.
@@exogendesign4582 I agree on that! This is why I kept my 1DX3. 😉
The desire for background blur is what normally drive people to buying full frame and more expensive lenses, sometimes without having the necessary money to do it. This is what happened to me, but I ended up almost never shooting portraits. For landscape APS-C is good enough, and I actually prefer because it weights less.
I bought a 6D because it performs better at low light at higher ISO's.
@@Fernandosampaio_ 6d is a beast for astro
I shot apsc when l started, then upgraded to full frame because it seemed more professional!😂 but l actually just switched back to apsc after 5 years of shooting on full frame cameras. Traded my A7iii for an XT5. Mostly for the fun of fuji! But lm actually so happy with what the camera offers. I thought l would see a bit of a downgrade but have been surprised
As an analogue photographer primarily, I'll say one key advantage of full frame bodies is the ability to use (and capture the character of) vintage lenses. Sure, you CAN put a Helios-44 on a APS-C, but you won't get the same bokeh effect. On APS-C, a vintage 20mm will not be a wide-angle at all, it will just be a "bad" lens, inferior to kit 18-55mm in every way. For other use cases, crop factor can be APS-C's greatest advantage. Put a 500mm lens + 2xTC on a APS-C, and you are at 1500mm for free.. For photographing moon, I'd pick my APS-C camera over full frame anyday.
As I understand it - and I am no professional by any means - depending what sensor size gap you're trying to close, you can have the same or similar field of view as well as depth of field* *but* with totally different sharpness fall off, also known as the mystical entity of "3D pop". I visualize - I could be totally off with this, though - the sharp area as a flattened egg sorta shape, laying on its side - with blurry edges. And that's where full frame and smaller sensors are different. On full frame, the "sharpness egg" has less blurry edges, meaning it goes from completely out of focus to completely in focus, keeps the sharpness and then plops off again, hence the 3D pop. On a mft sensor on the other hand, the egg is rather blurry, meaning less 3D pop, since in order for the subject to be entirely in focus, it needs a bigger space that goes from meh bokeh to meh sharpness.
It's still a matter of taste and purpose, though. I like both, I actually prefer less 3D pop though, since you can easily get way too used to it and then end up over doing it. It can be pretty unnatural and distracting.
* using a focal reducer/speedbooster
Good video. I have had no issues with APS-C cameras for my shoots. Neither does my client. They love the videos and I am getting better with them everyday.
Good video and here's to the upgrade of Full Frame. 😉
Nice review, just like many, I've used APS-c and full frame cameras. If you try the DP review studio scene comparator, you will find a clear low light ISO advantage on a full frame sensor compared to the same generation sensor on an APS-c camera. If you are a low light photographer, generally, the full frame provides clear advantages. If you shoot in ample light, then an APS c camera provides a far lighter package, as does your phone camera.
Great video! I just hate the marketing push sony or canon are putting on FF; they failed miserably vs fuji or even MFT with their APS-C lineups so now theyre making FF 'affordable', so they get some of that sub-$2000 market back. People should understand how this is mostly marketing ripoff.
Marketing ripoff... yes! 🙏🏻💥
which APSC mirrorless would you suggest which is bang for every buck? It will be my first camera and don't want to spend too much for FF just yet. I might little bit professional work if I get.
I think your absolutely correct. I Shoot with FF Canon R6 and also Fujifilm crop XT4, 20 megapixel FF vs 26megapixel crop sensor. Both are amazing and they both have there pros and cons. I mainly use the Canon as the main camera for my weddings as the AF is much superior and more reliable, but also love using the Fuji along side which has sharper lenses and better colors. Both have amazing dynamic range and great low light Image Quality. The Fujis X trans sensor is interesting because it doesn’t use the Anti Aliase filter over the sensor helps in sharper images and more vivid colors. These days with current technology ur not going to see much difference with both systems, even phone cameras can take some
Great pics.
Another thing to know about crop factors: It changes with aspect ratio. 16:9 images cropped from 3:2 sensors will have a 5% crop added. This makes Canon's APS-C crop in video 1.7x.
Generally on video one considers the width. It would make little sense to say that full fed e ggas crop.
You speak from the heart bro, i like how you throw everything together. Much appreciated 😂
I use an olympus omd em1 mk III. Fantastic camera. Granted it doesn't have the low light performance of an ff and to get really good bokeh requires a good prime lens, but the Ibis combined with features like live ND and starry af, means I basically only ever have to lug the body and lens around. Plus the focal length means wildlife photography is easier to afford. It's great! M43 is hugely underrated and if the system should ever disappear in the future (it won't) it basically spells the end of affordable photography.
Great video btw, I hate the FF vs aps c vs m43 argument. Every system has a unique advantage.
Thanks for your comment! 🙏🏻💥
I agree about the M43 cameras . I have an Olympus EM5 Mii and it's a fantastic travel camera. Rugged, weather resistant, great stabilization, ergonomic with a great lens lineup. I actually prefer it to my Sony a6300 for travel. I should note, however, that I should stills, rarely video when travelling.
there is a precision to be made, because you got a little bit confused here : A lens will always have the same redition of an image, what ever the sensor size is. If you slap the same 35mm lens on a full frame or an APS-C camera, the depth of field, bokeh rendition etc will be the exact same. The angle of view will change.
What make people think that depth of field is bigger on APS-C cameras is because we're talking in equivalent focal lenght.
Depth of field is related to the focal lengh of a lens. The bigger the focal lenght, the shallower the depth of field is. A 35mm lens at f4 will have considerably bigger depth of field than an 85mm lens at the same f stop (we can't really say the same aperture since the "f" number is tied to the focal lenght as well, that's another subject)
So if we're talking about equivalent focal length, let's say 50mm. On a full frame camera you'll use let's say a 50mm f/1.8 lens. On an APS-C camera you'll use a 35mm f/1.8 with an equivalent focal length of 52.5mm.
You'll have the same viewing angle, but the actual focal length is different betweent the two cameras, and depth of field being related with focal lenght, the camera with the bigger focal lenght will have the shallower depth of field, thus the saying "you have shallower depth of field on full frame cameras". if you were to put a 50mm lens on an APS-C camera, you'd get the same depth of field as a full frame with the same lens (maybe even shallower thanks to the pixels being smaller, if the resolution is the same)
If you got blurrier background with the same lens on both cameras, it's because you try to match the frame, but the full frame camera has a wider angle of view so you need to get closer. And the closer to the lens it is, the smaller the depth of field is, that's how optics work
No: th-cam.com/video/hi_CkZ0sGAw/w-d-xo.html
I like Both full frame and APS-c. They work well for different things. My very favorite lens "for some unknown reason" is my old Canon 10-18mm ultra wide. I LOVE what I can do with it. But on an APS-C I lose 6 or 7 MM on it, and for a WA lens, that is a huge amount. But with my 24-70 on the APS-C, i get additional length, so that's great. I think it's perfect to have Full Frame, and then an APS-C as a backup and for getting those altered MMs....Great video, joris!
It's true that if you like super wide, FF is a better option. Just have to find what works for you 🤷🏻♂️🙏🏻💥
I do not get your argument of losing 6-7 mm. Are you comparing to some imaginary 10 mm FF lens? Canon does have 11-24 mm for full frame. It just costs ten times what the 10-18 mm does. Closest to the 10-18 mm on full frame is 16-35 mm f/4. It costs three times as much.
The 10-xx APS-C ultrawide are equivalent to 16-xx mm ultrawide on full frame. Those are the affordable and common ultrawide lenses on full frame. The rare 11-xx mm Ultrawides cost easily twice what a compareable f-stop 15/16-xx mm ultrawide costs. Even the new RF 15-35/2.8 is cheaper than the EF 11-24/4.
5:21 what a example, now i understand everything.😊
I'm thinking of getting a full frame camera because I thought the most common social media work was gonna be better but this video made me realize that it's not about the body only but the good quality full frame lens you're gonna use! Thanks a lot ! 🙌🏼
Full frame camera is better than APSC, fact. Crop is not bad, these days is brilliant actually, but again, full frame is better.
“Full frame is not better than APSC” is a beautiful song for people who do not want to or do not have budget for expensive gear.
You can get awesome deals on entry level full frames, like Canon 6D.
In the end, give it a try, and decide for yourself.
Full frame being better than APSC is not BS!
@@raffkatvideo So a Canon 5D FF Mk 1 with 12MP sensor is better than my APS-C with a 24MP sensor? Never.
Full frame being better than APSC is NOT always true!
OLDER sensors have other circuitry between the light collectors. Modern APS-C sensors have have the other circuitry in CMOS layers beneath the light collectors. So the light collectors can be the same area even though the APS-C sensor is smaller than FF sensors.
Agree to a good extent. I am just an enthusiast specially into bird photography and Sony A6400 + 70-350 mm lens gives me 525mm equivalent and unless its very early in the morning (when sun is still near horizon); I am having a perfect combo at a price which is cheaper than any FF camera body only.
Nice I have the same set up. The only thing I don't like about that lens is not a fixed aperture when zooming in. I also do some bird photography and am thinking on getting the arii and use the aspc mode with the lens and see what I get.
NO! You don't get a 525mm equivalent - you get 350mm. You can't change the laws of physics. A 350mm lens will produce an image of a bird of the same size at the same distance, no matter what size the sensor is. It's a CROPPING factor, not a magnification factor.
@@migranthawker2952 You seem like a Nazi.
@@migranthawker2952 But an APS-C sensor has a much higher pixel density than a FF sensor would at the same total number of pixels. So an APS-C image is not "just a crop" of a same-megapixel FF image, as that would imply that the APS-C image somehow looses resolution, which it doesn't. It's a full-resolution image, just "zoomed in" to cover just the central part of what the lens sees. Which is basically the same as magnification. Hence, the usefulness of equivalent focal lengths as a measure in the first place.
@@migranthawker2952 You can also think of it like this: a 32 megapixel APS-C image with a cropping factor of 1.6 (like on a Canon 90D) would be the same as a central crop of a 32*(1.6^2) = 82 megapixel FF image on the same lens. Unless you find a FF camera with 82 megapixels (Canon's FF DSLR's top out at 51 megapixels, for example), you simply won't be able to reproduce the APS-C image by cropping a FF image. In other words, an APS-C image on a 350 mm lens really is "more zoomed in" than any FF image on the same lens could ever be. (Specifically, by 1.6 times if we compared APS-C and FF sensors with the same total pixel count. If a small bird covers 200x200 pixels on a FF sensor, it would cover 320x320 pixels on an APS-C sensor using the same lens, assuming a cropping factor of 1.6 and the same sensor megapixel count.)
Great explanation. Refreshing common sense from a professional. The question I first asked myself in choosing my first DSLR was what am going to use it for (taking pictures obviously)! However it was about the field of photography that determined my choice. I also had to ensure that I could afford good quality lenses. I use both full frame and APS-C formats and print to A3 size. No one who has looked at my work can tell the difference. Listen to this guy before you buy!
Wise words here on the vid and in the comments. I have a Fuji xt4 and x100v and I spent the last 4-6 weeks going round in circles about buying a Leica Q2 for FULL FRAME (maybe replacing the x100v). Having eventually talked myself out of that I then looked hard at the new x-2H. However, I love the traditional lay out of the xt4 so decided to get better lenses, 33mm f1.4 future-proofed just arrived wit the new 56 1.2 WR on order. I’ll wait for the xt5 next year which might well have a 40 mp sensor. Get the best lenses, chose the system that works best for you, go out and take pictures!
I've been using APS-C since 2002. I now mostly use full frame. I do like that apsc cameras are generally lighter, but full frame just has so many more benefits.
💯 I use both APS-C and Medium format. APS-C for everyday leave in the bag shooting and Medium Format for ultimate quality on dedicated photo sessions… Both are excellent for their purpose.
Agree 100% Thanks for watching 🙏🏻💥
Actually for me my preference towards APSC is the price of the lenses. An 85mm full frame lens from the same manufacturer could be double the price of a 55mm equivalent in APS-C.
right. but if you need the same background separation you'll have to get a 55mm f1.2 or a 85mm f2, which one will actually be cheaper?
@@domtomas1178 actually I was wondering about that, and would love to hear an explanation of why the background separation is different. Though, Arthur R did a pretty good comparison of the Sigma 56mm f1.4 and the Viltrox 75mm f1.2
Something that needs to be considered is size. I got my first 35mm SLR when I was 15 in 1969 but throughout the years I migrated to a 110 camera which used 16mm film and basically looked like a James Bond spy camera. Fact is I have so many photos that never would have been taken if all I had was my SLR because I just wouldn't have been lugging it around in those situations. Even when digital photography began to take over in the late 90's I stayed with the small point and shoot cameras like the Nikon Coolpix line. Of course that genre has been supplanted by the cellphone now but I still hung on with an APSC DSLR because of the portability although it honestly is not so much a difference from a full frame. So in that regard it probably just comes down to cost.
Amen, I bought a Ricoh GRIII to complement my Canon 750d... It has all but replaced it, the DSLR has only gone out for trips where wildlife was my aim
I've printed plenty 60/60cm (approx 23,6/23,6 inches) for exhibitions and clients works from some 24 mpix APS-C cameras, and it always came fine. I've done some portrait work and weddings as well, and as long as I stayed in the capabilities of my cameras it was always sufficient.
Before that, I was convinced that Full Frame war far superior, because it was the case in 2009. But now, full frame is just slightly superior, and APS-C and even MFT can produce amazing results in most cases.
And during exhibitions, as my prints are big and mostly squares, two frequent questions I had were : "Which film do you use?", and "Is this medium format ?".
which is a APSC camera that is a bang for every buck? I am looking for my 1st camera and might do little bit professional work if I get :)
@@photographer8486 every micro4/3 and aps-c cameras can produce professional results. Look for a sturdy camera with good af, and wide aperture lenses. You can’t go wrong with fuji xt line, and the new pentax k3iii seems to be great but this brand is behind the others in terms of modern lenses ( but there are plenty of great vintage options).
@@baptistepayendessinphoto I was looking into cameras. I found FF Canon RP is cheaper than Xt3 and also has dual card slots plus a completely rotating display. What do I do now? Also FF Sony A7 m2 is about the same.
@@photographer8486 canon rp is a great camera but fuji xt3 has a far better construction. Lenses for canon r mount are heavier and bigger.
FF can achieve thinner depth of field than Apsc, so if you’re looking for great bokeh effects it’s cheaper to go full frame with entry level cameras and some fast primes.
@@baptistepayendessinphoto its so difficult to decide :(
I want the smallest lightest value for money camera than I can keep with myself 24x7.
I guess FF significantly adds to the size and weight of camera so I will have to restrict myself to APSC. And even get APSC lenses only.
Probably a6000 is the only good choice?
I like both camera types, aps-c and FF. My current aps-c camera is the Sony a6600. Soon I realized I wanted a FF body, not just any body. So I saw a good deal for a new A7R3. I wasn't going to add another 24mp body, I was going 42mp. The reason for the R3 is the crop factor, yes, crop factor. I can crop away and still maintain an excellent photo. This comes in handy when photographing small birds, like a hummingbird. I still get a crips photo, something I would not get with a 24mp sensor. On the other hand, when with family for various events, I take my a6600 and a Sigma 16mm 1.4 lens. It's perfect. The R3 with lens is HEAVY and cumbersome in a crowed situation where the much smaller and lighter aps-c works better. I get great photos from each, but each has its own mission.
I use viltrox speed booster + canon 50mm STM lens. I use it for photography and small video. There's this disadvantage of mirrorless is you can't see your subject when using strobe light or flash in studio. I have to crank up ISO to view my subject to fix focus then again come down to take a snap. You are absolutely right about sensors and the image they give out in specific size. I never go above 18 x 15 inch with M50.
I have done tons of studio work with my mirrorless camera and I can see subjects with no issue at all through the EVF when using flash.
Turn the exposure simulation (Expo.simulation) off from the third submenu of the shooting menu. The Canon EF-M 32 mm f/1.4 is likely sharper than the speedbooster + 50 mm. Sigma has also comparable 30 mm f/1.4.
There is so much misinformation about photography on the net. it's so pleasant to come across someone who actually knows what they are talking about. great video.
Was a Sony shooter for years, and then sold my A7IV after my girlfriend bought me a Fujifilm x100V for my bday. The colors fuji produce straight outta camera are wonderful! I also noticed very little difference in IQ, Dynamic range, tonality (if any at all). And after using her XT-4, I plan on buying the the X-H2 40 megapixel version in fall.
Me too!
Don't leave out Micro Four Thirds! My Olympus and Lumix cameras are still going strong.
You can get good glass for less money (not to mention less bulk and weight) this way, and that's important. If you really need something closer to that full-frame aesthetic, you can adapt glass. I have a Viltrox EF-M2 0.71x speedbooster and a Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 ART lens attached to my Lumix G85. It ends up being equivalent to a 26-50mm f2.4 in full frame. My next lens purchase might either be the Sigma 50-100mm f1.8 (71-142mm f2.4 equivalent) ART or the Olympus 45mm f1.2 (90mm f2.4 equivalent) PRO.
The reason I don't mention m43 is because I have absolutely no experience shooting with it. But I've been told it's great! 😊
I have made 36x24 inch prints and 40 inch prints from images captured on a 12 megapixel APS-C sensor. They look great! I used a bicubic fractal plug-in to gradually up-res the pixel count, apply strategic sharpening, anti-aliasing, de-noise, etc… and the images look fantastic! Part of that is being selective in the print process, using high quality, coated water color paper from Hannemuhle and the best ink sets, color profile… etc.
What is that bicubic fractal plug-in? Please elaborate a bit about it. How to use that and where can I find it ?
I use both a Canon EOS 90D (aps-c) and a Canon R6 (full frame). Both give absolutely phenomenal results! Despite being a DSLR with a crop sensor, the 90D is a beast! I mean it has a 32.5 MP sensor, great low light performance and impressive auto-focus tracking. I do landscape photography with that one all the time, while the R6 is meant for portraits and professional gigs. The landscape photos from the 90D are extremely sharp and because of the high amount of MP, they have great dynamic range. I do a lot of focus stacking, HDR, and panoramas for those landscape shots. No one can tell they were shot with an aps-c format sensor.
Using 90 D also, Beast is right!!!! And FAST
@@spirg Yep! It's a fantastic camera. I've been using my 90D since 2021 and haven't had a single issue whatsoever. Is it cutting edge like the latest mirrorless cameras? No. That doesn't make it a terrible choice, though. In 2023 photographers could still use it and shouldn't have any problems. Even professionals can use the 90D. Just because it's aps-c format doesn't mean anything. I've done product photography with that camera and not one company has complained. It's more than enough to get the job done.
I’m considering the 90d over mirrorless. Anyone know how the sigma 24-70 2.8 does on the 90d?
Superb! You are so on the money. I see so much gear snobbery, by people that do not understand these simple facts.
Thanks for watching! 🙏🏻💥
so glad you brought up the different use cases for each type of sensor and not just specs! personally i film and upload videos in 4K so the minor differences in image quality *do* matter to me, but for vloggers or people who only post standard quality images/videos they won't see any of the benefits they paid for. sometimes it's not about how "good" your gear is, just how well you use it :)
I agree with you. Even accepting than in low light a FF is better, for instance, 1 stop better than a 1.5 cropped sensor of the same generation, when you need depth of field, you must stop down that stop in the FF. For instance, you may take a cropped picture at f/5.6 ISO 800, and at FF you must do it at F/8 ISO1600 for the same shutter speed... The results are the same in quality... This is true in real professional world... In wedding photography, for example. And when you take the budget in account, and you must have a backup camera, that doubles the already doublet budget.
On the flip side, for shallow depth of field pictures you need to stop down a lot less with full frame,in fact you might need a very fast lens for aps-c to achieve the same effect which can be very expensive and large/heavy.
It's a fact that full frame sensors is better in low light :) You have to compare sensors from the same day and age! But even old fullframe sensors outperforms new crop sensors, for the most part.
interesting ....
@@bartden9668 I like crop sensors as well 😊 The one in my Fujifilm Xpro3 is amazing.. but it's a fact that in low light fullframe is about 1 stop better. Just physics..
Ehm… no
Better AT WHAT in low light?
@@Nessunego about 1 EV stop better or half the nnoise.A fullframe sensors is 2,3 times larger than a croped one.
Aside from this great advice. You made me laugh many times. I love the way you explain that so clear with that style. Thank you, Joris!
I agree that you can produce amazing images with either APS-C or Full Frame cameras, or even with M4/3 or a smartphone camera, but I also think that (as someone who has shot with many sensor sizes) for the most part having a larger sensor is objectively better if you compare concurrent generations. I would even recommend buying a ten year old full frame camera over a modern APS-C camera if you're not interested in video. I recently purchased a Nikon D800 for just $700 as a backup camera to my Z6, and the pictures it produces are mind blowing. It's 36MP so I can tons of latitude for cropping,
I'd only recommend APS-C to someone who wants to shoot video on a budget, or if they like the experience of shooting with Fuji's control system, but in either case the smaller sensor size doesn't provide a benefit to the actual performance of the camera.
There’s also a case to be made for the size/weight advantage. Sure, my XT4 body isn’t that much smaller than an a7iv, but the lenses are half the size/weight. As someone who shoots both for fun where I want to travel light and professionally, having one system that caters for both uses is really damn useful.
Granted, if it wasn’t for my Fuji x100v completely changing the way I viewed photography with its manual controls and amazing SOOC images, I’m not sure I’d have ever switched from my full frame setup to say Sony APSC or Nikon or canon etc. Now if Fuji could just fix their damn autofocus for video it would be the perfect system for me.
My two main cameras (I have used Sony a7r3 and a9, a6400, and previously Olympus m4/3) are Leica CL and SL2. I get equal results, depending on output, from both of them. So I agree with your argument. When I print an urban landscape out at 1m x 1m or larger, I get luckier with the SL2. Obviously, FB or Igram, CL or SL2 are the same.
One thing, however, with the SL2 (and previously the a7r3) was cropping down a shot that had too short a lens when I took the pic. I do a lot of travel photography and sometimes the 35mm is just too short on an APS-C. But that's a very specific issue.
You don't have to calculate the crop factor if you begin with an apsc sensor and stick to it. You get used to the field of view of a specific focal distance and you refer to it when you switch lenses. The reference to full frame was relevant when cropped sensors appeared or is when you transition from crop to FF or any other size.
Volkswagen: native English speakers usually say "voalks-wagon" but the German pronounciation is closer to "follks-vahgen"
Crop factor is relative to a persons previous experience. To a person who has never shot full frame there is no crop factor in regards to APS-C.
exactly !!!! As an APS-C shooter, full frame equivalence means nothing to me in practice. I relate to the lens focal lengths as they behave on my (APS-C) cameras, not on how they would behave on a full frame camera which I don't own and never have. if I ever bought a full frame camera I would need to think the other way (APS-C equivalence) until I developed a feel for the full frame camera's field of view.
like me too poor for full frame camera although thinking getting over decade old Canon legendary D5 used
@@gabithemagyarhow about in regards to how the lens performs in relation to what the specs say. For Example a 35mm, 2.8?
I am beginner at TH-cam, have been posting videos since a year and I started with Insta360 Go2, now using combination of iPhone and Insta 360go2, very excited for ordering a Sony ZV E10 (APSC) Camera to improve the quality! Great video! ☺️👏
You are simply the best mythbuster of filmmaking on TH-cam, thank you! 🙏
Agree!
Great video! Less than a year ago (we are now in 2024), I bought a Canon R7 (APSC) after having considered the similarly priced R8 (full frame). The thing is... the R7's cropped sensor is 32.5 MP whereas the R8's full frame sensor is 24 MP. Therefore, it is not always the case that full frame cameras offer a better resolution. Of course, full frame sensors offer other advantages, but since I am mostly interested in landscape photography, I have little use for shallow depth of field (I generally want everything in focus) or low light performance (I can generally use a tripod for longer exposition or exposure bracketing to compensate for APSC's lower dynamic range). I'll probably get a full frame camera some day for more specialized applications, but I could probably get away with an older (and cheaper) model like the Canon RP.
I've been using APS-C cameras for nearly 5 years. Now I'm with my Canon M50. The reason why I'm sticking to M50 is, Canon has super affordable lenses (I have a 50MM prime and planning to buy a 24MM pancake which is an APS-C lens, again affordable). This Camera helps me to get the job done. But in the future, I'd like to use Sony or Blackmagic for better image quality, low light performance and dynamic range. Canon M50 is a good APS-C camera which will give us good results if the lighting is correct.
which APSC mirrorless would you suggest which is bang for every buck? It will be my first camera and don't want to spend too much for FF just yet. I might little bit professional work if I get.
This video is brilliant. You make me laugh 😂 And I love how honest you are.
This content is worth 9mins of my life! Totally agree on everything you said! I am torn on switching / upgrading systems from Sony A7s (FULL FRAME) to Fujifilm XT4 (APSC) and this enlighten me! Thanks Joris! I subbed!
One of the most underrated comments. ❤️
I was torn between the XT-4 and Z6II. I ended up getting the Z6II, Fuji is the prettiest and really capable but the Nikon has more functions. Both in Mexico are priced the same and so are the lenses. I still might get the Fuji latter purely because of coolness factor
which APSC mirrorless would you suggest which is bang for every buck? It will be my first camera and don't want to spend too much for FF just yet. I might little bit professional work if I get.
@@alfredconqueror4422 wait Z6ii and Xt-4 are priced the same? why? same as XT4 price or Z6ii? this is weird.
And what coolness factor is there with Fuji?
Which APSC mirrorless would you suggest which is bang for every buck? It will be my first camera and don't want to spend too much for FF just yet. I might little bit professional work if I get.
@@photographer8486 i currently switch from Sony A7s (fullframe) to a Fujifilm XT4 and man it was worth it!!!
World the best cameras sencer knowledge in this video .....💕
LOVE this video Joris!!! A+ advice, I have a Sony a6400 and absolutely love it, but have been eyeing the Sony A7RIV full frame for a bit. I think your video really made the difference in my decision. I’m going to cop those full frame lenses first, learn how to use them on APS-C, then make the switch when I’m ready. Thanks for the upload!!!
This is the best and very clear explanation of full frame and Aps lens. Now, I just be content with my mirrorless camera. Thank you for sharing this video. One of your supporter now.
I shoot classic/vintage lenses, for that reason I bought a full frame Sony A7II because all lenses are sharper toward the center you lose a lot of the character that those lenses produce. The best example I can give is that it's harder to get a Helios 44-2 lens to swirl on a cropped sensor than it is on a full frame. If you don't care about such minute detail, go APS-C of even micro 4/3.
Thanks for the comment 🙏🏻
For years I shot black and white film because I could develop it myself and therefore afford it. I dreamed of a medium format and still do. As a hobbyist it was always about the creativity, quality of composition and joy in seeing progress in these areas. Still is. We still enjoy the quality of photos from the past. Technology is not a limitation in true art.
I don't agree entirely, but you have good points. I've had several cameras, but most recently swapped my Nikon d750 (FF) for Fuji Xt-3 (APS-c) - mostly because I love the fuji brand and I needed some better video specs. What I will say, is that I'd rather have a top-spec APS-c than a budget FF, but as much as I love my XT-3 (and I do) the stills can't compare to what I got from my D750. It's harder to get wide without distortion, and there seems to be a bit of bittiness to the images that some might like, but I don't - it's a bit more instagram, a bit less commercial - if that makes sense. I'm still not sure what it is and could just be my lack of skill (I'm not a pro, just a serious hobbyist with the occasional paid job). The Xt-3 delivers beautiful images, of course - but not as good as the D750 - that thing made my jaw drop sometimes and I often wonder if I shouldn't try to get a budget used one for stills again. I believe the smartest choice when buying is deciding on the lens-system you want to buy into - and when buying used I'm very pro Nikon as you can buy incredible lenses for very cheap. Secondly, I would look at the features of the camera - flash sync, focus peaking, silent modes, focus stacking - the kinds of things that open up new possibilities for you to create. Here, the fuji is exceptional - amazing 'pro' features for a lower budget. So while I would say my APS-c is a much better camera, the images from my FF were better. But it all depends on your use case. Just remember to budget for lights, they add more to your toolset than a lens or better body. Hope this all makes sense - and I hope I also sound like a nice guy. I really am :)
You have been ‘nice guy’ approved! 😄💯
I also bought a Fuji X-T3 with the intention of selling my D750 (and D810) and Nikon lenses, but as much as I absolutely LOVE my X-T3, both in terms of use and image quality, I couldn’t give up the image quality of my Nikon cameras, so now I kept both systems, the Fuji for travel and general lightness & convenience, and my Nikon cameras for occasions when the image quality for large print (or cropping) is a requirement.
The most honest photographer I've ever known! In my country, we have a well-known saying: All roads lead to Full-frame. But you know, I think that's so shallow. The naive people just comprehend that with herd-y tendency. As you said, they buy what you want, not what they need. So that's why I've loved my 80D with 35mm f1.4L badly. Actually, I've got my countless masterpieces with that combo. Thank you so much once again!
I bet you’ll like my matest video too 😉 just dropped it 💥
@@JorisHermans definitely!
Here's my advice for amateur photographers:
If you've no ambition to become a professional photographer, then forget about full frame and stay with APS-C. Unless, of course, you're rich.
And of course, before buying a lens, always watch reviews. And most importantly: Before buying a full frame lens for your APS-C camera, be sure to watch reviews where that particular lens is tested on an APS-C body! Because often full frame lenses aren't quite sharp enough for the higher pixel density of an APS-C sensor. Especially the more affordable full frame lenses can be a problem.
And where do you find such reviews? There are probably several options, but Christopher Frost makes loads of lens reviews, and he always test full frame lenses on both sensor sizes.
Your recommendation regarding FF lenses on an APS-C camera is well taken. I recently purchased the new Sigma 100-400mm DG DN OS FF lens for my lowly A6000. The reviews of this lens were unanimously great, as were the many sample images posted on various photo sites. But when I used it on my A6000, I was less than impressed. I wasn't seeing the sharpness I expected. I like both landscape and surfing photography, and honestly, other than the reach, this lens wasn't performing as well as my 18-135mm lens. I figured it was a bad copy, so I went back to the shop. After a lengthy discussion on whether it was a problem with the camera, I decided to buy the 70-350mm lens, which also got good reviews. The results surprised me. Despite the Sigma being a technically superior lens in virtually every way (the exception being the weather sealing on the Sony), it did not produce as good results. I have tried in every lighting condition, and in various environments, and I cannot get the Sigma to provide as consistently sharp images as the Sony. And I really wanted the Sigma to be the better lens, and I really wanted the extra 50mm reach for surfing photos. Anyway, the results are what they are, and the Sigma is going back, and the Sony has a new home. And the $200 I am saving will go towards an upgrade to a 6500 or 6600 :-)
@@don7117 who is the a6500 good for in 2021?
@@tvm2209 Anyone who wants a relatively affordable mirrorless dslr that takes terrific photos, arguably performs better than any of the A7 lineup below the A7III, shoots 11 fps, has a great EVF, can accept a wide range of lenses, does very good video, is weather sealed, has a built in flash, has IBIS, and all comes in an incredibly small form factor. In other words, pretty much anyone other than a professional photographer.
Thanks, Joris, I just found your channel and really enjoyed this!
after watching what feels like hundreds of videos on APS-C vs. Full Frame, I decided that there were other reasons to buy one camera over another. Sensor size is only one part of the equation. I bought the Sony a6600 (APS-C) for the unlimited video capability, something the A7III can't do.
That's what I got the A6400 for. But mainly shooting portraits lately lol
@@purestress2 Lack of stabilization makes any issue on photograph’s?
@@namjitharavind Not when using a tripod or fast shutter speeds. A fast shutter speed is almost guaranteed in bright daylight. You can use additional lighting indoors which will allow fast shutter speeds.
I 100% Agree with this, I did digital media in university, and to get me through it I bought a Canon 77D. It was a good size, light, and did everything I needed at the time. As I got more and more serious about photography I started pouring money into better lenses (Lenses make far more difference than bodies towards image quality). Honestly some of the pictures I took with the camera I was shocked at and still am. As I had the perception of this is a "lower-end camera". Since then I have moved onto a Canon R6 for a few reasons, mainly to have 1080@120 / 4k60, dual card slots, and eye-tracking. I am currently getting more into video and wanted to get a camera that was all round more serious. In terms of image quality though I couldn't tell a difference really. It really is a matter of needs and what area you wanna focus on, just do plenty of research and you'll be golden :D
One element that gets forgotten a lot with these kind of videos: FF bodies tend to be treated as more professional bodies by camera manufacturers, and therefore are outfitted with more professional features.
For example, FF bodies tend to get more buttons/knobs/recall options a bigger screen, higher resolution viewfinder, better weather sealing, more features/tech etc. There are also usually more online resources/users who know what they're doing for you to learn from, and sometimes more lens support as well. There are also wide shots you straight up can't get due to the crop factor.
Let's be real. No one is buying a FF body over a crop sensor JUST because of the slight increase in image quality. People with these bodies tend to need the functionality that comes along with the sensor. You don't need to be doing large format prints to reap the benefits of a full frame body, just maybe a knowledgeable enough photographer to benefit from the extra bells and whistles.
Of course there's nothing at all wrong with smaller sensors, they're insanely capable these days, but don't forget you're buying way more than just a slightly larger sensor.
Very true!!
It's about lens options and camera features.
My Canon m50 and Sigma 16mm f-1.4 lense is the best choose for my TH-cam channel!
I love this camera so much! And I'm very happy!
Thank You!
PREACH!! For the average TH-camr who’s not shooting professionally, that Volkswagen works just fine. And anyway it’s not just about the gear but what you can do with it. 💪
And even for a lot of pros a volkswagen is fine... just depends on what your profession is. In case you're a racecar driver... a racecar will work better for you 😅💥🙏🏻
@@JorisHermans I'd race you in a VW. LOL.
@@jaimetan then get ready to loose against ferrari forever .....lol
@@k-perspective if you have a Ferrari but dunno how to drive it, you’re gonna crash anyway 🤷🏻♀️ the point is: start with the basics and learn your way up from there. It’s not about the gear but what you can do with it.
Brilliant Sir!; thats made things a lot clearer regards the differences between the two formats !; thank you !
If you’re a bokeh addict then sure go full frame...i still use a 6d but i have no problem going back to apsc again
That would be me but then again I increase bokeh in post
Bokeh addict is the novice, and after he has spent mosto of his revenue in ff camera and lenses he come to the conclusion that is pure bullshit. Buy a telephoto for an aps-c and you’ll get all the bokeh you want for 1/3 of the price. And then start stopping it down becouse photos are not organic but only very annoying for your eyes with too much blurriness
Every time people say better. I just say "better" is a subjective word
After a decade of using Fuji bodies for work & play, I started using Sony FF and very quickly fell in love with the image quality, dynamic range, video focus tracking, build quality etc etc. I don’t think it’s enough to just say they are “different”.
i did some comparison between fuji and nikon and this was so impressing, i will never change to fuji. i can't see any real advantage using the fuji. it's not even smaller if you compare it in a fair way.
Love how you’ve explained it so well! 🙏🏽🙌🏽
His explanation is very precise, convincing, and educational..
Excellent video! Good video! I’ve shot a lot of full frame but got sick of the weight and cost. I’ve shot APS-C (Fuji and Sony) since 2018, and my portraits have been published in many magazines from LA Magazine to WIRED. Editors don’t care like they used to (I am 53, and remember they wanted medium format!). These days most people look at content on a phone! I’ve also printed some of my crop sensor images and it’s beautiful. Really depends on the lens, and the skill of the photographer!
I upgraded from aps-c to micro 4/3 :P
Thanks for sharing... Interesting comments... I only use my D500 crop sensor camera & happy with the results... Haven't considered changing for now....cheers..
I feel like for a lot of people, FF is like a status symbol... but hey... who am I? 😅
Full frame is objectively better under every circumstance, except if you need range or small form factor. That being said - It doesn't really matter. If you're new, young or broke. Get APS-C. If you got money, is a professional or rich, get Full Frame. Also, I'd rather have a newer Sony APS-C because of the features than an older Full Frame lacking newer features. I use A7rIV and a6400 profesionally. Both are great. Clients can't tell the difference - but full frame produce better results (more dynamic range, less noise, more depth of field).
Great comment! I've been using ff for past 15 plus years but recently picked up a apsc camera for travel. I'm getting old and as much as I like f1.2 lens, I'm bot carrying those for travel and street
This made me feel proud to use Crop sensor camera. I have over 5 years only used that and even with my new camera is a crop sensor and I love it. Thanks
I loved, and very much still miss my Canon 1d MkII N with its APS-C sensor. It did a great job for sports photography, which is what I was shooting the most of at the time. However, I had no problem with shooting portraits or events with it. Sadly one day it became critically ill, and it was so old that no one could do anything to save it, and it died. Since I was doing more event photography I next got a Canon 5d Mk3 full frame body. Yeah, it does the job for me, but I've never fallen in love with it like I loved my 1d MkII N. I'll probably try out one of Canon's mirrorless bodies next.
Hi Joris. Thank you for video, totally agree with you. For example, I have Canon 90D APS-C camera with Sigma 18-35mm/1.8 and 50-100mm/1.8 lenses. The low aperture will compensate the crop factor disadvantage, so it will give almost the same quality as full-frame
90d plays very well with topaz too!
@@07wrxtr1 What is topaz?
Use the tool that works best for the job at hand. Everything else being equal (like megapixels, lenses), an APS-C camera is going to get you closer to elusive wildlife and birds, while a full frame is going to give you a more impressive landscape or Milky Way shot. Otherwise, a lot of the inherent differences, such as noise and low light performance issues, can be greatly mitigated by firmware and post software.
True on traditional cameras but many modern full frame cameras have very high megapixel counts. Remember it is the pixel density, not the crop factor that matters as one can always crop in post.
@@okaro6595 True, but many APS-C cameras are pretty high megapixel as well, meaning you have the advantage of cropping PLUS the advantage of being (seemingly) closer to begin with. An example, the Canon R5 in APS- C mode gives you about 17 megapixels. Not much more cropping can be done. The R7 is already "cropped" to APS- C size and gives you 32.5 megapixels. Quite a bit more cropping can be done. Also, an APS-C camera, even one with a fair amount of megapixels is going to be way cheaper than a super high megapixel full frame. I generally like having both a full frame and an APS-C in my bag.
Another consideration is file size. 45, 50, 60, 80 megapixel files become increasingly more difficult to work on, requiring more computing power and more and bigger hard drives. Maybe not a concern for a professional, but certainly can be for a hobbyist.
I think it depends on your needs. I shoot videos where I work with my hands on fairly small things, and the 1.5 crop is ideal in these conditions. You simply won't have enough magnification on your 24-70 at full frame and you'll still have to either switch to crop mode or use lenses like Sony 90mm macro or Sigma 105mm. But I would say that it won't be enough. Wider field of view makes perspective distortion If you move the camera closer to the object, so you have to leave your camera at one position to get right perspective. So my FF 28-70 on a 1.5 crop sensor is a absolutely outstanding at this situation. I'm still thinking about Sigma 105mm Macro to shoot me working with a really small things on video.
Take my +1 EV dynamic range and give me that half sized lenses.
"They are just different. " Exactly what I've saying for years. I have shot FF and APS-C. Just sold my 80D to buy a MFT Panasonic G9 for video. Keep shooting.
Man! No love for us m4/3 shooter, lol!
There, I gave you a heart 😅 No, I’ve never used m4/3 so I feel like I’m not the right person to talk about it then...
It’s great. Same performance as apsc but lower mp is a con but then again ibis is a plus as most 4/3 have ibis.
@@RameezRazaRiaz99 for me lower mp is a plus I’ve 26x30 prints for people and family and they have been brilliant. Sadly the next sensor for m4/3 is rumored to be either 26 or 30mp. I don’t need it and if it’s good enough for canons full frame top of the line dslr that came out last year it’s plenty for me.