If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, you'll realize IBIS and optical stabilization are myths. Canon EOS R amzn.to/47dWZ52 Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 (Links are in Bigfoot's tree house) Instagram instagram.com/vegetablepolice/ All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com/shop/vegetablepolice Topaz Video AI for enhancing and slowing down footage! www.topazlabs.com/topaz-video-ai/ref/1640/
I switched from the Fuji X-H2 to the Nikon Z8, but I still feel like APS-C is a better compromise. More reach than FF for wildlife, but still more background blur and better image quality than Micro four thirds, for other things. If Nikon were to release a stacked APS-C camera with the AF system of the Z8/Z9, I'd definitely get one as a second body.
I use my Fuji xh2 professionally and is there a huge difference in image quality between the xh2 and z8? I also have the gfx system and the image quality for landscape and portraits is amazing but for fast moving images like weddings I sometimes struggle with the Fuji system and the white balance is always a bit crap
@@Pixelpeeps-69 I would say so. I pretty much only shoot wildlife, and despite going from 750mm FF equivalent (500mm Tamron) to 600mm on FF, there's much more detail in the images and the camera pretty much always nails the focus, which wasn't the case with the Fuji.
I see the biggest advantages of APS-C similar, plus lenses are cheaper (10-20 vs 16-35, 17-55 vs 24-105, 50mm vs 100mm macro,...) and you get in the tele range a 1,5 or 1,6x Teleconverter without additional optical losses. A good full frame camera with usable video and wildlife specs was not affordable yet and the R7 was for me the best compromise to keep the price low enough, get more reach and at least 1080p120 and 4k60.
Fuji IBIS is clearly optimized for photography, and pretty impressive for that purpose. You can easily do 1/4th shots that come out sharp, depending on lens. But it is jerky for vlogging. As someone who does not do vlogging, fuji APS-C is the better travel camera for me. I can fit 3-4 lenses and the body in a very small camera bag. Love it.
I actually came to the conclusion that APS-C (or Fuji rather because any other APS-C system is half arsed like you pointed out!)... is the sweet spot. I've shot all 3 digital sensor formats, for sure the larger the sensor the better IQ bla bla, but all of that comes at a cost in terms of price, weight and size. I do all my professional work on the XH2S and have fast prime and zoom lenses that are a fraction of the cost and weight of FF equivalents (I never liked using 70-200's on FF, huge lenses but the XF50-140 is a dream lens). The drop in IQ, dynamic range and toneh on APS-C is an acceptable trade for the benefits (and no client has ever asked for higher IQ, dynamic range or toneh). I simply would like Canikony to up there APS-C game so that I could have some CHOICE. If you want APS-C then realistically you only have one place to go and that's Fuji, the rest SUCK on this sensor size.
Canon APS-C user here. I really like the system, but i enjoy a lot of adapted EF or vintage glass and only one APS-C lens, the old 17-55 IS USM. I dont see at least canon too bad for APS-C, you just have to know what you are doing with. On many occasions my R7 is also used in 4k60 crop mode (basically smaller than 1" sensor then), and thats the reason for many APS-C cameras in general.... range extender/teleconverter. Therefor i dont even mind the high pixel densities of 32 and 40MP on APS-C, nice performance if you crop a lot and more details left if you denoise it in post.
@@harrison00xXx Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the use of the EF adapter with EF glass nerf the potential of the R7 quite a fair bit? The electronic contacts for the R7 are 12, the adapter 8, that's 4 electronic points doing nothing when adapting glass vs using native RF glass. I think Jordan from PetaPixel (or then DPreview) touched upon this briefly, stating AF was nowhere near as good with the EF adapter. I'm guessing the redundant 4 electronic points that are not being utilized with an adapter and EF glass are performance based. So then if you want to build 'a proper' RF system (exploiting the system fully), the only RF-S glass currently seems extremely thin, basically a bunch of slow travel glass, and all the fast glass for RF is FF with jaw dropping price tags (that actually also don't perform that well on APS-C sensors). It saddens me to see companies like Sirui release new fast and affordable f1.2 primes for every APS-C platform but Canon. I seriously would have invested in a R7 already, to adapt my current Sigma 18-35 as well as take advantage of 3rd party glass like this. Their closing off the mount was a seriously bad move, especially seeing as they have done nothing in terms of serious RF-S development. The contrast of glass available (and prices) from Fuji just blows them out of the water, which is why I see Fuji ASP-C being really the best option if that is your sensor of choice (Sony second).
@@SummersSnaps When it comes to synced Stabiliser, yes it nerfs the R7s performance a lot (a main selling point, IBIS is pretty useless then except for video) But unstabilised glass, no matter which kind from about 16-150mm, profits a lot from the R7 IBIS. Little real world example: My Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM... has something like a first gen IS, and the R7 doesnt allow to use IBIS instead, so i have to stick with an old optical stabiliser. A Sigma 17-50mm 2.8, unstabilised glass on the other hand, is better stabilised via IBIS than the old EF-S lens. For Autofocus, all i can say is, most DSLR lenses have improved a lot on Canon Mirrorless, except some (probably intentional) issues with some well known 3rd party lenses (Sigma 150-600C/S heavy AF-C issues, Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 and 3.5 version freaking out IBIS,...)
@@SummersSnaps Jordan from PP is not the best tester when comes to AF review. He just adapts ONE RF 85mm f1.8, found it slow and call it a day. There's plenty of youtubers testing EF on R7, the bottom line is running late EF lenses, especially EF Ls will give performance close to RF.
This gives me relief in the professional world. I just bought the xh2s for client work and personal use. It was either this or the Sony a7iv. But the video capabilities of dual stacked sensor and 40 fps with enough dynamic range and pleasing iso I decided on Fuji. Plus 4k 120 fps. It’s tough decision. Took me 3 weeks of research
The main problem with APS-C is that the main manufacturers (Canon, Sony, Nikon) herd their customers towards full frame. If they had kept investing in APS-C, it would still be a great alternative for low cost high quality pictures.
@@PatrickWithCamera Totally. When Sony started the APS-C line, it was the ultimate affordable lightweight high quality system. Going full frame just increased the weight and the price -- yet most people couldn't tell the difference between APS-C images and full frame images.
@@audioupgrades Sony's full frame compact cameras keep calling me like a siren song, but while the bodies can be compact, the lenses are definitely not compact no matter how you slice them. I could stuff a Fujifilm X-T2 with an 18-135mm lens into my travel tote while still having space for a lot of other stuff. Try stuffing a Sony 24-240mm in the same bag. Even with the A7C the results would be hilarious.
@@Moonstone-Redux There are a few small primes but oyher than that, yeah, Sony reneged on the promise of compact full frame. Their FE lenses are often larger than the DSLR equivalents.
@@audioupgrades And that's not to mention the compromises Sony made to make their cameras compact. Sure, the A7c with no lens weighs about the same as the X-T2 with no lens, but Sony ripped out so many controls from the A7c to make the weight that it takes away so much of the usability.
APS-C is best balance. I can have large fast zooms, I can have long telephotos and I can have very small light setup if I want. And output is right there. Better than M4/3 and breathing on FF back. And unless you are willing to invest a LOT into FF and carry larger heavier lenses, APS-C is the winner. Fuji continues with former Pentax strategy of having APS-C for general usage and then medium format for those who want the most resolution. Canon R7 is the first interesting Canon, but yes they lack lenses. Nikon APS-C is joke without IBIS and deserves no attention. Sony has nice A6700, but they lack body comparable to Fuji X-H2. And I'm staying with Pentax APS-C for general use and small M4/3 Olympus for travelling light.
absolutely. I have now the R7, APS-C and had as well enjoyed before the EOS RP, full frame. For a while i had both cameras and it was a nice combo to be honest, but on the R7 only the Sigma 150-600C lived on and on the RP the RF 50 1.8 exclusively more or less. In the end i decided to sell the RP + RF 50 1.8, as nice and awesome this little combo was. Except for a few nice full frame primes, there is nothing even close to "worth its price" in the RF lineup. The 200-800 might change something, but 2500$ is still pretty hefty despite its pretty nice zoom range. Also the soon shipped RF-S 10-18 wide angle sounds very interesting, especially its price is NICE, lets see how sharp and good it is in overall
That's why I move from MFT. Letting go my Leica 200/2.8 and 42,5/1.2 and I will be able to get several lens just from selling these. The new Canon 200-800 mounted on R7 basically declassified PanLeica 100-400 as well as the big white Olympus 150-400. For a fraction of price.
@@michalsiegel6717 fraction of a price? 200-800 might be an AWESOME lens especially on R7 (on FF you can get away with RF 800 F11), but its still pricy and you are better aware of canons low build quality on their lower budget/consumer market lenses, its NOT an L lens.
I'd say they are quite comparable. The sweet spot lies somewhere between the two. What's great about Micro Four Thirds (M43) is the competition between two manufacturers-it has led to a very comprehensive and complete lens lineup. Fujifilm is developing nicely, but it isn't quite there yet. Also, instead of a Fujifilm XF50-140mm F2.8, one could use a full-frame (FF) 70-200mm F4. Same dimensions, similar weight, but the FF lens projects onto a significantly larger sensor. In the M43 realm, one can use very convenient, small yet high-quality prime lenses for such tasks. These can be obtained for approximately EUR/USD 300.
@@harrison00xXx compare Olympus 150-400 and Canon 200-800 and you will see a huge difference. Sure, Olympus has IP 53 protections so if you need to be in those extreme conditions it might be the way to go. Anyway the letter L on the Canon lens isn't that important as well as as Leica name on Panasonic's lens which I learnt the hard way. As someone who used to shoot on Canon EF I can tell the L doesn't always make the lens better in build quality.
What do movies have to do with filming youtube videos? 1 man crew vs a team of people rigging up a giant cinema camera with massive cinema lenses, gimbals and dedicated colourists to make it look good. Because ARRI has super 35 cameras, youtubers with a basic aps-c mirrorless cameras should expect the same?
dont listen to the consipiracy guy, it has everything to do with movies! i want to shoot cinematic even if i dont have a crew and a 100.000$ setup, why would it matter otherwise, for youtube videos?🤣🤣 thank you panda guy!
Sony A6700 with 70-350mm is a good crop combo for traveling....1 kg with decent reach. Can we get some more wildlife soon from the deep forests of Canada?
Question: Are arms better than legs? I'm looking to upgrade my arms to legs, but I heard Gary Wanderdump's arms are trending right now. There's even a McKinnon version, but my budget is $2. Canadian. Also, my life is aimless and I've forgotten how to change my underwear. Death to arms. Arms are stoopid.
For my needs apsc is the perfect balance (mainly shooting in golden hour and daytime, street shots with some landscape so apsc 1.4 is perfect dof for me, nice size and easier to get longer reach)
With all else being same, a larger sensor will have more DR, simply due to better noise performance and thus, detail in the shadows. Obviously all are not created equally. The Fuji XH2S had a 14bit ADC in comparison to 12bit on pretty much all other consumer cameras, and thus was able to match FF DR. The Canon FF cameras have DR comparable to older MFT cameras, simply due to poor highlight retention. MFT cameras like the G9II and GH6 have DR boost (called DGO in Arri and Canon cinema cameras) come very close to matching FF in DR. The C70 uses both the technologies mentioned (14 bit and DGO) and thus is able to beat most FF cameras in DR.
If I'm not mistaken, resolution makes a slightly bigger difference for DR than sensor size. Reduces aliasing, too. Shoot at the highest res your storage capacity can handle even if you're going to drag it onto a 1080 timeline :)
I don’t shoot video currently but if I ever get my skills up I’d love to try Panasonic to see what all the hoopla is about. For me Fuji aps-c is perfect: lighter-weight and more affordable to get into the hobby than the other options, with lots of good lenses to choose from.
Yeah full frame is better but you get diminishing returns the larger and more expensive you go. The new Sony aps-c lineup is good enough that unless you have cave lighting conditions it’s harder to justify the tradeoff.
My eyes are so spoiled with cameras that when I put glasses on my eyes for the first time in a few years I looked outside and my porch seemed extremely HDR vomity and oversharpened. At the end of the day it was light, very contrasty light, but still
I tend to agree, m4/3 and FF are both great for different reasons, but APS-C is just a very mediocre awkward middle ground. It can still be really good and deliver great results, but when it's no cheaper than FF and not typically significantly lighter/smaller, what's the point?
I have a Canon M6 M2 and OM Systems OM5 (that I got on for a bargain price on Amazon) Surprisingly the M43 is just as good with still photography (even with a smaller sensor) and blows the Canon away with video. The image stabilization is amazing and I don't even have a top tier model.
@@harrison00xXx Even playing field for 16mm as both cameras have Sigma primes. In a crunch and in low light the Canon wins in stills (but not by much) but the M43 excels in video.
I love M4/3. Now with OM5 I'm satisfied for my casual photo...But OM System needs to bring something else to the market. OM1 was also Olympus product. OM5 is EM1 Mark III in small body (so nothing new) and The new TG-7 is just updated Tg-6. With some new lenses it is not enough. They need to bring a new product. Maybe try to make some FF camera (L Mount). And not just their wildlife direction. Why not Street/casual photo? Pen F was fantastic. Or little 10 line. Then small (1.8) lenses, but weathersealed. There is no point to have weather sealed bodies and not their great small lenses... I'm afraid they will no survive if.....
I’ve been using APS-C pretty much exclusively since I started shooting and it’s never stopped me from shooting weddings or doing head shots or doing zoo photos. As far as APS-C goes, Fuji is pretty amazing.
Zv-e10 small light camera with smaller way cheaper lenses. Smaller gimbals. So an argument can be made for APS-C. I only use prime lenses so I can get the dynamic range and background blur of a full frame using slower lenses.
I remember when Nikon released the D500. This was their last “professional grade” APS-C camera. That was also after years of releasing professional level FF cameras like the D5, D6 and D850. I suspect Nikon will eventually release a pro level APS-C camera. But for now there is more money to be made funneling consumers to higher priced, lower spec FF options that will need to be upgraded more frequently.
I do not buy the 'need to be upgraded more frequently' conspiracy theory tbh. It just so happens that margins in FF are higher. There is no velocity of product cycle change.
@@POVwithRC Your margin can be higher but the amount sold less so the total profit may be less. The issue with Nikon is not margin, but short term financial profit, as Nikon has a loyal fanbase that Sony doesn’t. This loyal fanbase will buy Nikon despite having better bodies in other brands. Hence Nikon is focused to push this loyal fanbase to higher priced bodies, so they can achieve the short term financial profits. Sony at another hand is playing a long term strategy by releasing lower price bodies with features that even their higher priced bodies don’t have. Sony is simply trying to get more users into their system. Nikon knows they cannot beat Sony. Many Sony user are younger age the Nikon users. On the long run the old age Nikon users will die and the younger age Sony users will get older having more money to buy more expensive cameras. Sony management said it clearly during their financial statement, they want to be the nr 1 camera manufacturer within 10 years. It is the same as Panasonic S5, S5II and S5IIx, all are under €2500 bodies. Panasonic is also trying to get customer into their system focus on entry level FF, as they also don’t have a big old user base as Nikon and Canon.
I used to shoot with Nikon D600 - stunning images, but after a few years got tired of carrying 3+ pounds around. Im happy with my fuji xt2 now. With their lenses like 16 mm f1.4 and 56 mm f1.2 the image quality is really good and if not 100 percent as good as FF the smaller size makes it worthwhile.
I've been shooting ff exclusively since the first full frame digital camera came out and 35mm film before. I honestly have been thinking about going to apsc. The 6700 looks very tempting. I got a 6000 for my wife years ago and every time i pick it up it makes me smile. It's just so compact and light. It's a nice change over my heavy ass gear.
I kind of agree with this. My reasoning is... To get the flagship cameras and lenses in FF you pay a fortune and they are heavier then heck...or you have to get the dumbed down entry cameras and carp lenses to loose the price and weight. With MFT (om1), I get a flagship camera with features that even the top cameras do not have and pro lenses with a much lower weight and price. MFT has been a bit behind the latest FF cameras in AF but I just tested the firmware 1.7 and my biggest grip with bird subject detect has been totally fixed. I also like the fact that when the OM System engineers implement something, they do it right the first time. Pro capture is a example of this that everyone now has but none match the OM1. Plus I get Live ND, Live composite, HHHR, Live GND, Star Focus, Focus Stacking that works with Flash, 12 stops of Exposure comp... and more. Nothing else comes close... (and yes, I realize there are compromises as well)
This. I can't really find a zoom with FOV similar to 70-200s with not 'cheap lens' rendering (especially in out of focus areas) that also weighs like a kit telephoto so that I can carry it without major inconveniences. The 35-100 is a pretty good contender for this. The 28-200/70-300 do seem fairly nice though. APS-C all they do is release some 2.8 16-55 and then claim 'we got good lightweight zooms that beat M43/FF'. No you don't with only one type of range.
Canon had a great thing going with their compact EF-M series cameras and lenses but they seem hellbent on developing the dead-on-arrival RF-S system. An M6 mark iii with good ibis and some more development from Canon along the lines of their 22 f/2, 32mm f/1.4, or Sigma’s DC DN lenses are what we want.
The thing with the EF-M system... its a Canon system. Name me one moment in time of digital cameras Canon cared in any way about the APS-C lineup? There were here and then moments such as the 24mm EF-S, the early 50mm 1.8 full frame primes were also great on APS-C for a reasonable price, 17-55 2.8 EF-S is still a great allrounder if its not dead/broken yet,... but if you realized, ALL of those big moments are long gone, and the EF-M system turned out to be the only digital APS-C system canon ever cared about, at least for a while. I guess EF-M users switched too much to 3rd party glass, 2nd hand etc, so the EOS-M system doesnt make financially sense anymore, especially since they packed in the EOS-M system really nice performance for "little" money. If i would buy the EOS-M system nowadays, i would look for a whole set 2nd hand/private and for a good price where all the interesting/wanted EF-M lenses are included. camera or lenses alone have still some value on the market, but sets especially "outdated" ones like a M6 II + some lenses are horrendous low in price.
@@harrison00xXx I think they never really gave it a chance. I’d definitely be interested in Canon lenses that matched the lenses Sigma makes. The first M camera having slow autofocus set the system back and one of the best APS-C cameras still made to this day got mostly negative reviews because they released it with crippled firmware and by the time they fixed it it was old news and no one was reviewing it. If I was looking at a a travel camera today to replace my M6ii I sure as shit wouldn’t look at any Canon RF-S cameras. The Sony a6xxx cameras are just as good if not better than any RF-S camera and still compact like the M6ii.
The key thing to understand is that Canon’s target market is professional users. I have the 17-55 f2.8 and I waited for Canon to meet my expectations as an amateur for a long time. I resorted to full frame and actually thought that lens would work on a 5D III. More disappointment. I should have read the fine print. I then waited for an EOS-R FF camera with great stabilisation , video specs including uncapped recording but gave up with the R6 failed to remove the cap. Bought a LUMIX G9. My future cameras are likely to be LUMIX. They basically pack as much as is technically possible into their cameras: they don’t play product/ market segmentation games or or cripple hammers. My lesson is that if we stop expecting Canon to meet the needs and expectations of amateurs and enthusiasts, the world is a happier place. We just need to move to a brand that does.
@@Democratiser I mean, to realize the 17-55 2.8 isnt full frame is not that hard, EF-S (S!!!!) I avoided this lens as APS-C user for over 10 years because of the ridiculous price even for old, abused 2nd hand ones, and it wasnt anyways in my interest as i got my first fullframe EOS, the EOS RP. But as i had the R7 already (MUCH better camera, despite being APS-C!!!) i found a good deal on the 17-55, and its basically the ONLY (!!!) fast zoom lens for APS-C from canon, EVER! And its not too bad, only the Sigma 18-35 1.8 beats it in corner sharpness and image quality, but for substantial downsides such as no optical IS and very heavy/big. I hope Canon or any 3rd party make a RF-S equivalent some day, better now than later. Probably even a bit shifted like 20-80 2.8 or 14-45mm 2.8, but compact and better stabilized than the aged, nearly "vintage" EF-S 17-55. Btw depending on your EOS R you had, you could have used the 4k video mode on the 17-55 "uncropped" since the 4k video crop on some EOS R cameras such as R and RP are pretty much exactly APS-C sized. But i can understand you how dissapointed you must have been realizing this nice little 2.8 pesudo L (glass....) plastic boy is just APS-C. Alternatively you could have also used it without electrical connections (so no AF, no stopping down...) to use the full imaging circle which is nearly filling full frame, but with heavy vignette and horrendous corner sharpness (as expected...)
I got the X-S20 and as much as I love it, the moment I saw the G9 Mark II announced, i kind of regret having gone for the Fuji. Love it for photography, but for video the G9 Mark II would have been better due to the much better IBIS. Also no Multishot on the Fuji. Bottom line: Fuji needs better IBIS and AF.
Can't agree more. From my humble, hobo-like experience, I can't really use Fuji for close range sports with it's kit lens, unlike Canon and Nikon DSLR (APSC of course) (X-T200 vs SL2 and D5500)
The g9 mark 2 is $1000 more than x-s20 at $2500 with kit where as x-s20 is $1400 with kit with sales coming this month xs20 could be a better buy but at $2500 for g9 ii I would rather get a full frame Sony a7c ii or a canon r6/r8 ?
i love ur channel,, but i gotta say,, not only were ya off on the ZV-E1 vs FX30 pricing ( which you caught in the edit) but the S35 mode on the ZV-E1 will not be as good as the FX30.. because the ZV-E1 only does 1080p in S35 mode and because of the lower megapixel count in that full frame sensor.., your really cutting it down when you do S35 / APSC.. I bought the ZV-E1 wanting to be able to use S35 cinema glass with a PL adapter AND to use the Laowa Nanomorph S35 anamorphic lenses with it.. so the work around is.. keep it in full frame 4k mode and just use the clear image zoom feature to capture that smaller S35 area of the sensor.. or having it on like dynamic active mode.. anyhow,, at least you can stay in 4k mode that way
I'd be interested in the sony a6700 for the aps-c for my next upgrade, it's specs seem to give me everything I use, some I don't, and a few improvements to what I have. Or I'd be looking at Lumix FF S5II. They finally got autofocus and stability usable.
I've had great success with my A6300 mated with Sigma, Sony, Rokinon, and Tamron lenses. I sell large and small prints (so far up to 48"x24"), cards, calendars, stock video, real estate shoots . . . but I guess, at least according to the introductory text to this video, I'm not a pro since I don't use full frame. I look forward to getting the A6700. I'm not a fanboy of Sony, I bought into their ecosystem because it works for me.
The cumulative tech-and-use knowledge gained from this channel is immense, pretty accurate, and entertainably beneficial. But the fur on your chest impresses the most! Seriously, the lav sounds great even when you ride the board. What deadcat is that? How does it stay on? Mine fly off in the wind... after sounding terrible. Specifics please, how-to and shopping list.
From photography perspective, we can do tiny of math to proof. Let's start from sensor size: FF 36*24=864 APSC 24*16=384 M43 18*14=252 Then we need to calculate relative sensor size multiplier: FF-APSC 864/384=2.25 APSC-M43 384/252=1.52 FF-M43 864/252=3.42 That multiplier shows us there is not to much sense to go from m43 to aps-c. But there is huge IQ grow from m43 to FF or significant from aps-c to FF. As result: - aps-c good enough as single camera system to start from something, it's not good in anything at combines lacks from both of FF and m43. There is compromises but no advantages, but again it might be balanced starting point. - m43 and FF work very well in combination where you can pick system per your goal. So yes, crop is the worst, but it's brilliant to start from.
Chelsea and Tony Northrup just did a wildlife video with some MFT love; but the end result was an APSC system (Canon R7) that was much less expensive, smaller and lighter than an OM1 system. Results tended to favor the OM1, but not always by much. I’m a MFT fan, but some of the Sony APSC options do look appealing; not as heavy or big as Panasonics, and often lenses pretty much same size..though stab generally less and likely not as weatherproof. On the video side both strong.
I gave up on shaky footage. I just use an A6600 with a Sony 11mm on a Crane M3 gimbal. It’s light enough, not Pocket 3 light, but better quality. I never use slowmo while vlogging, so I don’t need a do it all camera. I have different cameras for different purposes, but that is my vlogging setup.
I'm disgusting, shooting everyday on a6700. Love it when it works, hate it when it don't work. For sure colour science got improved a lot, before with a6600 when recording nature I didn't like colors almost in every clip, some weird greens and reds, now with a6700 it happens only sometimes, but in most cases colours are pleasing.
Literally came to the exact same conclusion. Whenever I use APS-C it kills me that it's not my R8 full-frame, and there are no APS-C lightweight lenses good enough to be worth the loss. For travel I have a M43rds G100 (underrated gem for photography) with the magical 14-140 travel superzoom which is an amazing combo, weighing less in total than an FF telephoto. To make APS-C worthwhile it needs to be an A6700-sized body or smaller, with a lightweight, small and crisp f4.5 superzoom either 8x or 10x. That would replace a lot of what makes M43 great without bumping into lightweight FF like the R8 and A7C.
APS-C does seem like an afterthought a lot of the time with Canon and Nikon. Though, that's the format I tend to use for video due to cost. Currently a Sony A6000 as a webcam I got for cheap. A used Nikon Z30 for my video rig after moving on from Canon EF-M recently. I pretty much only use a GoPro for vlogging and POV style content so not too concerned with the lack of IBIS in my big cameras. Plus a Nikon Z5 for photos but decent enough for video as needed.
I shoot on Fuji, just bc I'm into cinematography, stills, and wildlife video, but no vlogging, so I like the reach for wildlife, the S35 size for cinema, and idc what sensor size I have for stills. XH2s bc for my own work, I don't even care about still megapixels or video fps beyond 120...just that sweet, sweet dynamic range and xtrans beauty.
Gosh - you were almost controversial! I don’t fetishise over sensor size. It’s not the format - it’s the photo. No one has ever asked me about the sensor type in my cameras. People either like the results, or they don’t. In addition, post processing is now so sophisticated that a crappy photo can be transformed into a “work of art.”
The thing about video that keeps me from doing it is my nightmares about editing. It seems like way too much work. So, what I want is a system with which I can just shoot a video, maybe add an audio track, a few titles/text and insert an image here and there. I don't want to be bogged down with color grading for hours on end. I can't sit in a chair that long. I'd rather be outside with my camera doing photography. Besides, like you have mentioned using funny comments in many videos, it's the content that matters more. So, I want to know how to create video content with the least editing possible. Question: I may have missed this mentioned in a video, but what happened to your thoughts of moving? Today I though maybe you did because that neighborhood looked new to me. Have a rockin' day! Thanks for the info, enjoy the rest of the weekend!
It's about as much work as you want it to be. You can record in LOG and spend lots of time grading colors, or use something that's quite pleasing out of camera like Sony's S-Cinetone. But you are right about video editing generally being more time consuming than photo editing.
@@nesneojrurab6491Since I have a Fuji X-T3 I can easily use one of the simulations to shoot video. I also have my old GoPro Hero 5 Black which I have used once or twice. And, of course, there's always the phone. Just need to do it and stop thinking about it I guess!
@@charliejg yeah give it a go and see if you like it. You could start doing something with longer takes and less B-roll, then it shouldn't be a long process. I've heard good things about Fuji simulations, so I'm guessing it'll look quite good right out of camera. If you haven't found your editing software yet then I'd suggest Davinci Resolve. There's a free version (which only lacks a couple of features from the paid one). I bought the studio version after a day or two of trying it, it's in my opinion the best piece of creative software on the market.
If you want the least editing, then Fuji with its SOCC Film Sims is most convenient. Fuji sims allows you to view a well color graded right out of camera yet it still allows you to fully color grade its raw files. The XH2s is one such cam and even the X-T3 is a value deal. Try Fuji you will like it.
@@maggiem1323My camera is a Fuji X-T3. I have started to experiment with it using the simulations. I did have a problem. When I tried to import the video file from the X-T3 into Resolve I got an error message saying "media offline"
I had 8 minutes to transfer some files, what as relief, a 8min CC new video 🙂 One of my best (and worst, but still best) experience with APS-C being better than FF and m4/3 was with Foveon sensors. EDIT : I take photos, not videos.
I have an R7. It works for me. I'm a still photographer who does some video projects on the side. I went with the R7 due to budget constraints, but also because I did want the IBIS as well as the larger battery. My plan is to add an R6 II to my kit at some point. In the mean time, I'll be collecting nice lenses to use. I'm not afraid to use full-frame lenses on crop sensor bodies.
I love L-Mount and mFT. i wish, Pana release a GX8 II, but who knows. However, both systems matches perfect together - you grab the cam, you need and walk!
But CC, you were the one who convinced me that the Sony e-mount was too small for full frame IBIS. Also you seem to oscillate between full frame and action cam, not micro 4 thirds. Also you seem to have a secret crush on the Nikon Z30.
Totally agree. Just compare 1) m43 + FF with 2) APS-C + MF. 1) covers every imaginable aspect of photography (now even wild life photographers can shoot hand-held!). 2) is quite interesting regarding Fujifilm APS-C but not regarding MF - the latter is expensive (think of the lenses) and offers hardly anything additional. I have been using m43 and Nikon FF for 10+ years and could not be happier.
You're right about aps-c, and the major shortcoming, the red-headed stepchild and simultaneous elephant in the room, no good lenses. There is one useful Canon camera, though. The Canon EOS 90D is a wildlife sleeper. You have to use full frame glass but you get the 1.5 times multiplier for the lenses and the 32.5MP resolution gives fantastic detail. So a lens like the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS II USM becomes 150-600mm effectively. The Fuji X-H2 might also be a good wildlife camera, but I doubt if there's the equivalent of the Canon L glass for it. Of course, with gigantic full frame lenses hanging off the front, there's no weight advantage. The only thing you gain is effective reach. If you look at the eBay prices, you will see that the 90D is in high demand.
To be honest, Sony a6600 + Sony 70-350 lens is not a bad combo for wildlife shooting. I guess a6700 would be even better (cause of the 4k 120p and 10 bit and a way better focusing system), just haven't decided to buy it yet. The IBIS is crappy, so handhelding is not an option (at least not a good one), but the setup is lightweight, so I tried using it with a gimbal - Zhiyun Crane 2 - and it worked surprisingly well. Of course you should need to rebalance gimbal eveytime you change your zoom, but since I'm focused on shooting birds or small flowers and insects anyway, I just balance it at 350 mm position and am good to go. Usually I am shooting at 1080p 100 fps/100 mb/s mode. Never tried any of the 3/4 cameras though. And maybe something like ZV E1 or A7SIII would work even better, they do have an APSC mode after all, just am talking about things I have tried. For wildlife photo though I'm using my A7III with Sony 200-600 lens. You need to rise the ISO high to be able to get a decent shutter speed for fast moving animals (1/1000 at least), but high ISO with APS-C matrix brings too much noise to enjoy the picture. Using 200-600 lens for video is only possible with a tripod in my opinion.
I've got a6700 + 70-350mm, its super lightweight and compact, but 350mm is a bit too short for wildlife, to get reasonable reach I more often take tamron 150-500 or 200-600 but both huge and heavy, dreaming that sony release a 100-500mm but 500g lighter and a bit shorter.
MFT is a dying standard. This was like watching a guy hyping Betamax over VHS in the 80s. Yes. I was one of those idiots that bought a Betamax. Not going to do that again.
You're totally right. Full frame is the best in certain categories, and MFT is the best in certain other categories. APSC isn't the best of any category.
Depends what you pay for. An Arri Alexa 35 has an APS-C sensor with 17 stops of dynamic range. My lowly FX30 has a little more than 14. Very big $ diff. The FX30 IBIS works extrwmely well. Snap on an OSS lense & it's super, super smooth.
X-T5, with a ton of excellent primes, and a couple zooms. Cheaper, lighter, and image quality that matched my Sony A7IV. Couldn’t be happier. But that said, I don’t do video at all, so may not be impacted by the issues you have with stabilization.
There are great cameras for every different type of shooting available in the market right now. I'm a commercial shooter and for better or worse lots of clients now want Fujifilm GFX 100s ii or Canon R5 (even sometimes phase one back 150). I am in the Canon system (R5 with a mix of Canon and Zeiss lenses) but really love shooting the GFX. I don't think about weight since I started with film and shot Mamiya RZ67 and Sinar P2 4x5 and on travel jobs too. Digital is like walking around with a helium ballon compared to how much my kit weighed back then.
It sucks when you go full frame and it spoils APSC forever. I was happy with micro 4/3 and APSC until I got the Sony A7IV. Then the ZVE1 made me realize 12 megapixels is so beautiful Only thing I miss is the reach of micro 4/3.
How so? I had full frame for 3 years and enjoyed it, but the only things i miss since the "downgrade" to APS-C: - 50mm being 50mm (i have/had much 50mm glass) - telescope...same issue, i have a 750mm F4 newtonian, framing works for most interesting objects, but on APS-C the 1200mm are too tight. - compactness... my EOS RP/full frame was smaller than my actual APS-C, the R7, especially with the RF 50 1.8.
@@harrison00xXxWhen I try to use APSC, I get caught up in my head about comparing the lowlight and shallow depth of field capabilities of full frame. I know it’s stupid.
When I sold my m 4/3 gear and went Sony I missed it immediately and switched back. I now shoot both systems, I like the A7IV but still prefer and grab my OM-1. Better grip, not as heavy ( the small rig ad's some extra weight, my pinky falls off the bottom of the A7IV) The features are just more fun in the OM-1. The sony is like a one trick pony. Takes great images, but does not have pro capture, built in ND filter, IBIS is not as good ( IMO) love live composite and so on etc.
I came to the same conclusion, I run M43 olympus, Canon and Sony Full Frame and Fuji GFX, I cant see any point in apsc.. I replaced all my Canon M gear with a A7CR, its a leap ahead with quality and user experience.
Thanks for this vid. I remember when every dslr was a cropped sensor. I had fun with my D80/D90 etc. Now that everything is going mirrorless and new mount type I've been wondering do i upgrade to full frame or a lighter micro 4/3. Would be cool if they made a 1 inch camera with changeable lenses. I haven't upgraded my cameras in a while as I've been using my phone for now.
Agree about APS-C bodies. With the release of cameras like the A7CR and ZVE1 they are kind of irrelevant. APS-C lenses however are very handy, particularly the telephoto ones.
This title is an outrage, good sir! APS-C is the way to be, so cheap it's almost free. ( Feel free to contact me for marketing rights on that, just made it up. )
Best decent apsc lens: pentax. And with K3 monochrome : no question about color science. 😂 And i am the crazy guy who uses some of their apsc lens on full frame K1: some are good enough!
Agreed, I'd use APSC for a travel cam, like the XT5. But for professional work there's nothing apsc is doing better than the other two sensors. Now, Sony could make a global shutter apsc FX camera and it would probably hit that sweetspot, but I feel like the apsc sensor will retire in vlog cameras and ultimately be phased out.
I bought a FF Canon d5 Mii for $300 and found EF lenses cheap, two are new. My whole rig Cam, five lenses cost under $1000. I think older cams are going to get even cheaper now that Canon is going to the RF mount and discontinuing their EF line. I'll stick with my old heavy rig because it works well for the landscape/seascape photography.
The Canon R7 does have what is labeled as Sensor-Shift 5-Axis Image Stabilization. I only know that because I am considering a newer camera body, and I have older EF L glass with no IS. I don't know how well it works with video. It does have 4K 60FPS, but some of Canons mirrorless bodies have overheating issues recording video according to some of the reviews I have read. New, they only cost $1400.00, way less than full frame.
I believe it is more prevalent in the R5 and R6 MK II, from people that try to use the cameras for pro video jobs. Overheating and the unforgivable shutting down for 30 minutes stretches when they do. I believe the R5 C has a cooling fan built in for around $5000.00@@aquaticborealis4877
So... I guess no one is going to talk about the 1/1.28 sensor size that just shot the entire Apple Event? 🤷🏽♂ Sensor size is becoming irrelevant each year as technology pushes on! The debate about sensor size maybe 10 years ago actually meant something however, that's no longer the case. Lastly, we must also realize that picture quality is not the end all be all in film or even vlogging. Just like sensor size, it's beginning to mean less and less as even the lowest QUALITY sensors are "good enough". Currently if you have Medium Format, Full Frame, APS-C, Micro4/3 or even 1/1.28 the question is, what are you doing with that sensor? Are you making memories with it, creating content with it.. or debating over which is better? My encouragement to everyone is to USE whatever you have to it's fullest (by learning lighting, composition, editing, color grading and story-telling) and it TRULY (in most cases) won't even matter and no one will care or even be able to tell. (just like the Apple event!) (This is my opinion)
Full Frame sensors make sense, because there were plenty of 35mm autofocus lenses made for film cameras that could be used on digital cameras. APS was a failed film format that never caught on and never had any interchangeable lens systems to speak of. Even when it was film, photographers were like WTF is APS good for? The slides don't fit my projector. Also, I have to sit closer. This sucks.
APS-C back in the Dslr days usually had higher fps for wildlife and action like a Canon 7D or Nikon D500. Both would still fit full frame lens. The aps c lens were meant as a budget alternative.
I shoot Olympus micro 4/3 with 14/20/45mm lenses, Fuji APS-C with 16/23/56mm lenses, and Leica full-frame digital cameras with 21/35/90mm lenses. My Fuji works well for me. My Olympus and Leica break too often.
Canon R kit lenses are surprisingly good, albeit without much Toneh. It seems though that most of their customer base isn’t into background obliterating Toneh anyway.
I think Canon FF and ASPc users are buying the same lenses, they just get different crops to serve their purpose. So I think if you own or plan to own a good selection of RF and RFL glass then you will probably end up with both bodies as some point so your glass collection can basically grow without buying any more glass.
I was shooting GH2 and was dying for an upgrade. But when the GH3 launched, I thought Lumix lost the plot. The size difference was too much for contemplate. In the end, I got an A7 instead. Smaller body, larger sensor.
What brand of camera clips are on your chest straps? I love my pro capture clip but it does not look as wide as yours. Mine struggles on often the best part of the strap since it's usually the fattest part of the strap.
If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, you'll realize IBIS and optical stabilization are myths.
Canon EOS R amzn.to/47dWZ52
Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 (Links are in Bigfoot's tree house)
Instagram instagram.com/vegetablepolice/
All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com/shop/vegetablepolice
Topaz Video AI for enhancing and slowing down footage! www.topazlabs.com/topaz-video-ai/ref/1640/
give steve jobs back his turtle neck
you should embrace the baldness and stop running from the inevitable
I switched from the Fuji X-H2 to the Nikon Z8, but I still feel like APS-C is a better compromise. More reach than FF for wildlife, but still more background blur and better image quality than Micro four thirds, for other things. If Nikon were to release a stacked APS-C camera with the AF system of the Z8/Z9, I'd definitely get one as a second body.
I use my Fuji xh2 professionally and is there a huge difference in image quality between the xh2 and z8? I also have the gfx system and the image quality for landscape and portraits is amazing but for fast moving images like weddings I sometimes struggle with the Fuji system and the white balance is always a bit crap
@@Pixelpeeps-69 I would say so. I pretty much only shoot wildlife, and despite going from 750mm FF equivalent (500mm Tamron) to 600mm on FF, there's much more detail in the images and the camera pretty much always nails the focus, which wasn't the case with the Fuji.
I see the biggest advantages of APS-C similar, plus lenses are cheaper (10-20 vs 16-35, 17-55 vs 24-105, 50mm vs 100mm macro,...) and you get in the tele range a 1,5 or 1,6x Teleconverter without additional optical losses.
A good full frame camera with usable video and wildlife specs was not affordable yet and the R7 was for me the best compromise to keep the price low enough, get more reach and at least 1080p120 and 4k60.
@@harrison00xXxwe don't talk about money in here. Everyone's rich, before slapped with poor financial decision 😌
Less reach than M43 for wildlife, lenses weigh more than M43, less background blur and less image quality than FF.
Either APS-C is in no-man's land or the perfect middle ground.
For me it's the perfect middle ground!
To me it`s the worst of both worlds.
@@brugj03 didnt ask
Using Pentax APS-C for 20 years. All great. And when I need really portable I use the LUMIX LX100.
Fuji IBIS is clearly optimized for photography, and pretty impressive for that purpose. You can easily do 1/4th shots that come out sharp, depending on lens. But it is jerky for vlogging. As someone who does not do vlogging, fuji APS-C is the better travel camera for me. I can fit 3-4 lenses and the body in a very small camera bag. Love it.
I actually came to the conclusion that APS-C (or Fuji rather because any other APS-C system is half arsed like you pointed out!)... is the sweet spot. I've shot all 3 digital sensor formats, for sure the larger the sensor the better IQ bla bla, but all of that comes at a cost in terms of price, weight and size.
I do all my professional work on the XH2S and have fast prime and zoom lenses that are a fraction of the cost and weight of FF equivalents (I never liked using 70-200's on FF, huge lenses but the XF50-140 is a dream lens). The drop in IQ, dynamic range and toneh on APS-C is an acceptable trade for the benefits (and no client has ever asked for higher IQ, dynamic range or toneh).
I simply would like Canikony to up there APS-C game so that I could have some CHOICE. If you want APS-C then realistically you only have one place to go and that's Fuji, the rest SUCK on this sensor size.
Canon APS-C user here. I really like the system, but i enjoy a lot of adapted EF or vintage glass and only one APS-C lens, the old 17-55 IS USM.
I dont see at least canon too bad for APS-C, you just have to know what you are doing with. On many occasions my R7 is also used in 4k60 crop mode (basically smaller than 1" sensor then), and thats the reason for many APS-C cameras in general.... range extender/teleconverter. Therefor i dont even mind the high pixel densities of 32 and 40MP on APS-C, nice performance if you crop a lot and more details left if you denoise it in post.
@@harrison00xXx Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the use of the EF adapter with EF glass nerf the potential of the R7 quite a fair bit? The electronic contacts for the R7 are 12, the adapter 8, that's 4 electronic points doing nothing when adapting glass vs using native RF glass. I think Jordan from PetaPixel (or then DPreview) touched upon this briefly, stating AF was nowhere near as good with the EF adapter. I'm guessing the redundant 4 electronic points that are not being utilized with an adapter and EF glass are performance based. So then if you want to build 'a proper' RF system (exploiting the system fully), the only RF-S glass currently seems extremely thin, basically a bunch of slow travel glass, and all the fast glass for RF is FF with jaw dropping price tags (that actually also don't perform that well on APS-C sensors).
It saddens me to see companies like Sirui release new fast and affordable f1.2 primes for every APS-C platform but Canon. I seriously would have invested in a R7 already, to adapt my current Sigma 18-35 as well as take advantage of 3rd party glass like this. Their closing off the mount was a seriously bad move, especially seeing as they have done nothing in terms of serious RF-S development. The contrast of glass available (and prices) from Fuji just blows them out of the water, which is why I see Fuji ASP-C being really the best option if that is your sensor of choice (Sony second).
@@SummersSnaps When it comes to synced Stabiliser, yes it nerfs the R7s performance a lot (a main selling point, IBIS is pretty useless then except for video)
But unstabilised glass, no matter which kind from about 16-150mm, profits a lot from the R7 IBIS.
Little real world example: My Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM... has something like a first gen IS, and the R7 doesnt allow to use IBIS instead, so i have to stick with an old optical stabiliser.
A Sigma 17-50mm 2.8, unstabilised glass on the other hand, is better stabilised via IBIS than the old EF-S lens.
For Autofocus, all i can say is, most DSLR lenses have improved a lot on Canon Mirrorless, except some (probably intentional) issues with some well known 3rd party lenses (Sigma 150-600C/S heavy AF-C issues, Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 and 3.5 version freaking out IBIS,...)
@@SummersSnaps Jordan from PP is not the best tester when comes to AF review. He just adapts ONE RF 85mm f1.8, found it slow and call it a day. There's plenty of youtubers testing EF on R7, the bottom line is running late EF lenses, especially EF Ls will give performance close to RF.
This gives me relief in the professional world. I just bought the xh2s for client work and personal use. It was either this or the Sony a7iv. But the video capabilities of dual stacked sensor and 40 fps with enough dynamic range and pleasing iso I decided on Fuji. Plus 4k 120 fps. It’s tough decision. Took me 3 weeks of research
The main problem with APS-C is that the main manufacturers (Canon, Sony, Nikon) herd their customers towards full frame. If they had kept investing in APS-C, it would still be a great alternative for low cost high quality pictures.
Agree, dreaming that sony would bring some aps-c G lenses like 150-500, 70-200 & one macro lens, then sony aps-c would be terrific deal for me.
@@PatrickWithCamera Totally. When Sony started the APS-C line, it was the ultimate affordable lightweight high quality system. Going full frame just increased the weight and the price -- yet most people couldn't tell the difference between APS-C images and full frame images.
@@audioupgrades Sony's full frame compact cameras keep calling me like a siren song, but while the bodies can be compact, the lenses are definitely not compact no matter how you slice them. I could stuff a Fujifilm X-T2 with an 18-135mm lens into my travel tote while still having space for a lot of other stuff. Try stuffing a Sony 24-240mm in the same bag. Even with the A7C the results would be hilarious.
@@Moonstone-Redux There are a few small primes but oyher than that, yeah, Sony reneged on the promise of compact full frame. Their FE lenses are often larger than the DSLR equivalents.
@@audioupgrades And that's not to mention the compromises Sony made to make their cameras compact. Sure, the A7c with no lens weighs about the same as the X-T2 with no lens, but Sony ripped out so many controls from the A7c to make the weight that it takes away so much of the usability.
APS-C is best balance. I can have large fast zooms, I can have long telephotos and I can have very small light setup if I want. And output is right there. Better than M4/3 and breathing on FF back. And unless you are willing to invest a LOT into FF and carry larger heavier lenses, APS-C is the winner.
Fuji continues with former Pentax strategy of having APS-C for general usage and then medium format for those who want the most resolution.
Canon R7 is the first interesting Canon, but yes they lack lenses. Nikon APS-C is joke without IBIS and deserves no attention. Sony has nice A6700, but they lack body comparable to Fuji X-H2.
And I'm staying with Pentax APS-C for general use and small M4/3 Olympus for travelling light.
absolutely.
I have now the R7, APS-C and had as well enjoyed before the EOS RP, full frame.
For a while i had both cameras and it was a nice combo to be honest, but on the R7 only the Sigma 150-600C lived on and on the RP the RF 50 1.8 exclusively more or less.
In the end i decided to sell the RP + RF 50 1.8, as nice and awesome this little combo was. Except for a few nice full frame primes, there is nothing even close to "worth its price" in the RF lineup.
The 200-800 might change something, but 2500$ is still pretty hefty despite its pretty nice zoom range. Also the soon shipped RF-S 10-18 wide angle sounds very interesting, especially its price is NICE, lets see how sharp and good it is in overall
The funny things is that APSC cameras and lenses are actually cheaper than M43's
That's why I move from MFT. Letting go my Leica 200/2.8 and 42,5/1.2 and I will be able to get several lens just from selling these. The new Canon 200-800 mounted on R7 basically declassified PanLeica 100-400 as well as the big white Olympus 150-400. For a fraction of price.
@@michalsiegel6717 fraction of a price? 200-800 might be an AWESOME lens especially on R7 (on FF you can get away with RF 800 F11), but its still pricy and you are better aware of canons low build quality on their lower budget/consumer market lenses, its NOT an L lens.
I'd say they are quite comparable. The sweet spot lies somewhere between the two. What's great about Micro Four Thirds (M43) is the competition between two manufacturers-it has led to a very comprehensive and complete lens lineup. Fujifilm is developing nicely, but it isn't quite there yet. Also, instead of a Fujifilm XF50-140mm F2.8, one could use a full-frame (FF) 70-200mm F4. Same dimensions, similar weight, but the FF lens projects onto a significantly larger sensor. In the M43 realm, one can use very convenient, small yet high-quality prime lenses for such tasks. These can be obtained for approximately EUR/USD 300.
This. The good lenses for m4/3 are expensive. The kit lens on the Om system is trash. I owned one for less then a month and sold it
@@harrison00xXx compare Olympus 150-400 and Canon 200-800 and you will see a huge difference. Sure, Olympus has IP 53 protections so if you need to be in those extreme conditions it might be the way to go. Anyway the letter L on the Canon lens isn't that important as well as as Leica name on Panasonic's lens which I learnt the hard way. As someone who used to shoot on Canon EF I can tell the L doesn't always make the lens better in build quality.
Even Hollywood does not use full frame. Avengers Endgame was shot on APSC (super 35). I don't know why RUclipsrs are obsessed with full frame.
What do movies have to do with filming youtube videos? 1 man crew vs a team of people rigging up a giant cinema camera with massive cinema lenses, gimbals and dedicated colourists to make it look good. Because ARRI has super 35 cameras, youtubers with a basic aps-c mirrorless cameras should expect the same?
@@cameraconspiraciesFair point. When are you reviewing Osmo Pocket 3?
dont listen to the consipiracy guy, it has everything to do with movies! i want to shoot cinematic even if i dont have a crew and a 100.000$ setup, why would it matter otherwise, for youtube videos?🤣🤣 thank you panda guy!
Fair. But Marvel slop is not exactly know for quality or good cinematography
APS-C works for me! I have become a Fuji APS-C fanboy!
Which cameras / lenses?
I love APS-C as an alternative to teleconverter on my FF glass.
Sony A6700 with 70-350mm is a good crop combo for traveling....1 kg with decent reach. Can we get some more wildlife soon from the deep forests of Canada?
True I had Zv e10 with 70-350 G, damn that lens is sharp
Question: Are arms better than legs? I'm looking to upgrade my arms to legs, but I heard Gary Wanderdump's arms are trending right now. There's even a McKinnon version, but my budget is $2. Canadian.
Also, my life is aimless and I've forgotten how to change my underwear.
Death to arms. Arms are stoopid.
Apsc is fine, i have the a6000 and it does the job. Not as well as my A7iii BUT its absolutely capable and im seriously considering that a6700
For my needs apsc is the perfect balance (mainly shooting in golden hour and daytime, street shots with some landscape so apsc 1.4 is perfect dof for me, nice size and easier to get longer reach)
I might be wrong but full frame doesn't have more dynamic range just by being full frame. Fuji has an advantage when it comes to that.
Yea Fuji Xtrans and F-log2 is magic. XT4 even had more dynamic range than Canon EOS R when I tested it.
With all else being same, a larger sensor will have more DR, simply due to better noise performance and thus, detail in the shadows.
Obviously all are not created equally. The Fuji XH2S had a 14bit ADC in comparison to 12bit on pretty much all other consumer cameras, and thus was able to match FF DR. The Canon FF cameras have DR comparable to older MFT cameras, simply due to poor highlight retention. MFT cameras like the G9II and GH6 have DR boost (called DGO in Arri and Canon cinema cameras) come very close to matching FF in DR.
The C70 uses both the technologies mentioned (14 bit and DGO) and thus is able to beat most FF cameras in DR.
@@Wildridefilms👏👏👏👏👏👏
If I'm not mistaken, resolution makes a slightly bigger difference for DR than sensor size. Reduces aliasing, too. Shoot at the highest res your storage capacity can handle even if you're going to drag it onto a 1080 timeline :)
@@MWB_FoolsParadisePictures Your answer makes me regret not shooting most of my videos in 6k... but I'm wondering if resolution actually affects DR.
I don’t shoot video currently but if I ever get my skills up I’d love to try Panasonic to see what all the hoopla is about.
For me Fuji aps-c is perfect: lighter-weight and more affordable to get into the hobby than the other options, with lots of good lenses to choose from.
Yeah full frame is better but you get diminishing returns the larger and more expensive you go. The new Sony aps-c lineup is good enough that unless you have cave lighting conditions it’s harder to justify the tradeoff.
Waiting for your Osmo Pocket 3 review before I pull the trigger ... When are you dropping the video?
shot PENTAX for 10yrs and loved those cameras , the colours were great, the ergonomics were excellent as was the build quality.
My eyes are so spoiled with cameras that when I put glasses on my eyes for the first time in a few years I looked outside and my porch seemed extremely HDR vomity and oversharpened. At the end of the day it was light, very contrasty light, but still
Yeah, right..........................
I tend to agree, m4/3 and FF are both great for different reasons, but APS-C is just a very mediocre awkward middle ground. It can still be really good and deliver great results, but when it's no cheaper than FF and not typically significantly lighter/smaller, what's the point?
I have a Canon M6 M2 and OM Systems OM5 (that I got on for a bargain price on Amazon) Surprisingly the M43 is just as good with still photography (even with a smaller sensor) and blows the Canon away with video. The image stabilization is amazing and I don't even have a top tier model.
Olympus pictures can look amazing, I dont even know why 🙂
Blows the Canon away? That's surprising
@@smashingfables6307 I guess a good MFT lens on MFT vs a bad full frame (or APS-C) lens on canon :D
@@harrison00xXx Even playing field for 16mm as both cameras have Sigma primes. In a crunch and in low light the Canon wins in stills (but not by much) but the M43 excels in video.
Have you taken pictures under low light conditions?
I love M4/3. Now with OM5 I'm satisfied for my casual photo...But OM System needs to bring something else to the market. OM1 was also Olympus product. OM5 is EM1 Mark III in small body (so nothing new) and The new TG-7 is just updated Tg-6. With some new lenses it is not enough. They need to bring a new product. Maybe try to make some FF camera (L Mount). And not just their wildlife direction. Why not Street/casual photo? Pen F was fantastic. Or little 10 line. Then small (1.8) lenses, but weathersealed. There is no point to have weather sealed bodies and not their great small lenses... I'm afraid they will no survive if.....
Swap lenses outdoors in SE Asia, then tell me about weather sealing. It's become a fetish, IMHO.
I’ve been using APS-C pretty much exclusively since I started shooting and it’s never stopped me from shooting weddings or doing head shots or doing zoo photos. As far as APS-C goes, Fuji is pretty amazing.
Zv-e10 small light camera with smaller way cheaper lenses. Smaller gimbals. So an argument can be made for APS-C. I only use prime lenses so I can get the dynamic range and background blur of a full frame using slower lenses.
I remember when Nikon released the D500. This was their last “professional grade” APS-C camera. That was also after years of releasing professional level FF cameras like the D5, D6 and D850. I suspect Nikon will eventually release a pro level APS-C camera. But for now there is more money to be made funneling consumers to higher priced, lower spec FF options that will need to be upgraded more frequently.
I do not buy the 'need to be upgraded more frequently' conspiracy theory tbh. It just so happens that margins in FF are higher. There is no velocity of product cycle change.
@@POVwithRC Your margin can be higher but the amount sold less so the total profit may be less. The issue with Nikon is not margin, but short term financial profit, as Nikon has a loyal fanbase that Sony doesn’t. This loyal fanbase will buy Nikon despite having better bodies in other brands. Hence Nikon is focused to push this loyal fanbase to higher priced bodies, so they can achieve the short term financial profits. Sony at another hand is playing a long term strategy by releasing lower price bodies with features that even their higher priced bodies don’t have. Sony is simply trying to get more users into their system. Nikon knows they cannot beat Sony. Many Sony user are younger age the Nikon users. On the long run the old age Nikon users will die and the younger age Sony users will get older having more money to buy more expensive cameras. Sony management said it clearly during their financial statement, they want to be the nr 1 camera manufacturer within 10 years. It is the same as Panasonic S5, S5II and S5IIx, all are under €2500 bodies. Panasonic is also trying to get customer into their system focus on entry level FF, as they also don’t have a big old user base as Nikon and Canon.
@@POVwithRC You buy it, for sure, you just dont know it yet
D500 is a tank, slapped it with Sigma 150-600mm and I'm happy as a clam 😊
0:12 justice is done^^. the apsc heretics leaf was faster than the canon cripplehammer
I just skipped full frame altogether because medium format is best for image quality and size doesn’t matter
1 inch and medium format are so much better than ff and m4/3
I have only ever sold APSC gear. Everything full frame and M43 has been a keeper.
I used to shoot with Nikon D600 - stunning images, but after a few years got tired of carrying 3+ pounds around. Im happy with my fuji xt2 now. With their lenses like 16 mm f1.4 and 56 mm f1.2 the image quality is really good and if not 100 percent as good as FF the smaller size makes it worthwhile.
Very interesting, I've been thinking about getting either an OM1 or an XT5. I'm concerned about reported issues with Fugi Continuous Auto Focus.
I've been shooting ff exclusively since the first full frame digital camera came out and 35mm film before. I honestly have been thinking about going to apsc. The 6700 looks very tempting. I got a 6000 for my wife years ago and every time i pick it up it makes me smile. It's just so compact and light. It's a nice change over my heavy ass gear.
GX9 II of they ever release it. Love my GX9 and m43’s crazy expansive lineup of lenses.
@@whereismylifeI also love my GX but I wish they could have same AF as Sony, then it would destroy everything in the market, like the S5II in FF.
I kind of agree with this. My reasoning is... To get the flagship cameras and lenses in FF you pay a fortune and they are heavier then heck...or you have to get the dumbed down entry cameras and carp lenses to loose the price and weight. With MFT (om1), I get a flagship camera with features that even the top cameras do not have and pro lenses with a much lower weight and price. MFT has been a bit behind the latest FF cameras in AF but I just tested the firmware 1.7 and my biggest grip with bird subject detect has been totally fixed. I also like the fact that when the OM System engineers implement something, they do it right the first time. Pro capture is a example of this that everyone now has but none match the OM1. Plus I get Live ND, Live composite, HHHR, Live GND, Star Focus, Focus Stacking that works with Flash, 12 stops of Exposure comp... and more. Nothing else comes close... (and yes, I realize there are compromises as well)
This. I can't really find a zoom with FOV similar to 70-200s with not 'cheap lens' rendering (especially in out of focus areas) that also weighs like a kit telephoto so that I can carry it without major inconveniences. The 35-100 is a pretty good contender for this. The 28-200/70-300 do seem fairly nice though. APS-C all they do is release some 2.8 16-55 and then claim 'we got good lightweight zooms that beat M43/FF'. No you don't with only one type of range.
Am I right to understand that APS-C is kind a like a glass half filled with water? 😅 You can see it either negatively or positively.
Agree 100% with Kasey. I shoot FF and MFT. Sold APS-C.
Cillian, congratulations on your ten years of youtube! 🏆🎉🥳
That monkey was so hilarious 😂😂😂
Canon had a great thing going with their compact EF-M series cameras and lenses but they seem hellbent on developing the dead-on-arrival RF-S system. An M6 mark iii with good ibis and some more development from Canon along the lines of their 22 f/2, 32mm f/1.4, or Sigma’s DC DN lenses are what we want.
This🎉
The thing with the EF-M system... its a Canon system. Name me one moment in time of digital cameras Canon cared in any way about the APS-C lineup?
There were here and then moments such as the 24mm EF-S, the early 50mm 1.8 full frame primes were also great on APS-C for a reasonable price, 17-55 2.8 EF-S is still a great allrounder if its not dead/broken yet,... but if you realized, ALL of those big moments are long gone, and the EF-M system turned out to be the only digital APS-C system canon ever cared about, at least for a while.
I guess EF-M users switched too much to 3rd party glass, 2nd hand etc, so the EOS-M system doesnt make financially sense anymore, especially since they packed in the EOS-M system really nice performance for "little" money.
If i would buy the EOS-M system nowadays, i would look for a whole set 2nd hand/private and for a good price where all the interesting/wanted EF-M lenses are included. camera or lenses alone have still some value on the market, but sets especially "outdated" ones like a M6 II + some lenses are horrendous low in price.
@@harrison00xXx I think they never really gave it a chance. I’d definitely be interested in Canon lenses that matched the lenses Sigma makes. The first M camera having slow autofocus set the system back and one of the best APS-C cameras still made to this day got mostly negative reviews because they released it with crippled firmware and by the time they fixed it it was old news and no one was reviewing it.
If I was looking at a a travel camera today to replace my M6ii I sure as shit wouldn’t look at any Canon RF-S cameras. The Sony a6xxx cameras are just as good if not better than any RF-S camera and still compact like the M6ii.
The key thing to understand is that Canon’s target market is professional users. I have the 17-55 f2.8 and I waited for Canon to meet my expectations as an amateur for a long time. I resorted to full frame and actually thought that lens would work on a 5D III. More disappointment. I should have read the fine print.
I then waited for an EOS-R FF camera with great stabilisation , video specs including uncapped recording but gave up with the R6 failed to remove the cap. Bought a LUMIX G9. My future cameras are likely to be LUMIX. They basically pack as much as is technically possible into their cameras: they don’t play product/ market segmentation games or or cripple hammers.
My lesson is that if we stop expecting Canon to meet the needs and expectations of amateurs and enthusiasts, the world is a happier place. We just need to move to a brand that does.
@@Democratiser I mean, to realize the 17-55 2.8 isnt full frame is not that hard, EF-S (S!!!!)
I avoided this lens as APS-C user for over 10 years because of the ridiculous price even for old, abused 2nd hand ones, and it wasnt anyways in my interest as i got my first fullframe EOS, the EOS RP. But as i had the R7 already (MUCH better camera, despite being APS-C!!!) i found a good deal on the 17-55, and its basically the ONLY (!!!) fast zoom lens for APS-C from canon, EVER! And its not too bad, only the Sigma 18-35 1.8 beats it in corner sharpness and image quality, but for substantial downsides such as no optical IS and very heavy/big.
I hope Canon or any 3rd party make a RF-S equivalent some day, better now than later. Probably even a bit shifted like 20-80 2.8 or 14-45mm 2.8, but compact and better stabilized than the aged, nearly "vintage" EF-S 17-55.
Btw depending on your EOS R you had, you could have used the 4k video mode on the 17-55 "uncropped" since the 4k video crop on some EOS R cameras such as R and RP are pretty much exactly APS-C sized.
But i can understand you how dissapointed you must have been realizing this nice little 2.8 pesudo L (glass....) plastic boy is just APS-C. Alternatively you could have also used it without electrical connections (so no AF, no stopping down...) to use the full imaging circle which is nearly filling full frame, but with heavy vignette and horrendous corner sharpness (as expected...)
Feature film productions use cameras with Super 35/ APS-C sensors. But, misinformation can be funny, I guess.
And look at all the gear they attach to it to make it useable. We're talking about 1 man crew youtube stuff here.
Gotta say, blogging while skateboarding …. That’s next level… especially when you making so much sense.
I got the X-S20 and as much as I love it, the moment I saw the G9 Mark II announced, i kind of regret having gone for the Fuji. Love it for photography, but for video the G9 Mark II would have been better due to the much better IBIS. Also no Multishot on the Fuji. Bottom line: Fuji needs better IBIS and AF.
Can't agree more. From my humble, hobo-like experience, I can't really use Fuji for close range sports with it's kit lens, unlike Canon and Nikon DSLR (APSC of course) (X-T200 vs SL2 and D5500)
The g9 mark 2 is $1000 more than x-s20 at $2500 with kit where as x-s20 is $1400 with kit with sales coming this month xs20 could be a better buy but at $2500 for g9 ii I would rather get a full frame Sony a7c ii or a canon r6/r8 ?
There are film nerds that prefer Super 35 to Full frame when it comes to video
there are also people that prefer APS-C over full frame because of price, range, better video specs for the same money,...
i love ur channel,, but i gotta say,, not only were ya off on the ZV-E1 vs FX30 pricing ( which you caught in the edit) but the S35 mode on the ZV-E1 will not be as good as the FX30.. because the ZV-E1 only does 1080p in S35 mode and because of the lower megapixel count in that full frame sensor.., your really cutting it down when you do S35 / APSC..
I bought the ZV-E1 wanting to be able to use S35 cinema glass with a PL adapter AND to use the Laowa Nanomorph S35 anamorphic lenses with it.. so the work around is.. keep it in full frame 4k mode and just use the clear image zoom feature to capture that smaller S35 area of the sensor.. or having it on like dynamic active mode.. anyhow,, at least you can stay in 4k mode that way
I'd be interested in the sony a6700 for the aps-c for my next upgrade, it's specs seem to give me everything I use, some I don't, and a few improvements to what I have. Or I'd be looking at Lumix FF S5II. They finally got autofocus and stability usable.
Love my a6700. But don’t could still be better at ibis and stop relying on active stabe
I've had great success with my A6300 mated with Sigma, Sony, Rokinon, and Tamron lenses. I sell large and small prints (so far up to 48"x24"), cards, calendars, stock video, real estate shoots . . . but I guess, at least according to the introductory text to this video, I'm not a pro since I don't use full frame. I look forward to getting the A6700. I'm not a fanboy of Sony, I bought into their ecosystem because it works for me.
What about the Fuji x-s20?
The cumulative tech-and-use knowledge gained from this channel is immense, pretty accurate, and entertainably beneficial. But the fur on your chest impresses the most! Seriously, the lav sounds great even when you ride the board. What deadcat is that? How does it stay on? Mine fly off in the wind... after sounding terrible. Specifics please, how-to and shopping list.
Markuspix has great videos on this.
From photography perspective, we can do tiny of math to proof.
Let's start from sensor size:
FF 36*24=864
APSC 24*16=384
M43 18*14=252
Then we need to calculate relative sensor size multiplier:
FF-APSC 864/384=2.25
APSC-M43 384/252=1.52
FF-M43 864/252=3.42
That multiplier shows us there is not to much sense to go from m43 to aps-c. But there is huge IQ grow from m43 to FF or significant from aps-c to FF.
As result:
- aps-c good enough as single camera system to start from something, it's not good in anything at combines lacks from both of FF and m43. There is compromises but no advantages, but again it might be balanced starting point.
- m43 and FF work very well in combination where you can pick system per your goal.
So yes, crop is the worst, but it's brilliant to start from.
Chelsea and Tony Northrup just did a wildlife video with some MFT love; but the end result was an APSC system (Canon R7) that was much less expensive, smaller and lighter than an OM1 system. Results tended to favor the OM1, but not always by much. I’m a MFT fan, but some of the Sony APSC options do look appealing; not as heavy or big as Panasonics, and often lenses pretty much same size..though stab generally less and likely not as weatherproof. On the video side both strong.
They didn't show any video footage. Would be cool to see the 300mm f4 prime vs the 600mm f11.
I gave up on shaky footage. I just use an A6600 with a Sony 11mm on a Crane M3 gimbal. It’s light enough, not Pocket 3 light, but better quality. I never use slowmo while vlogging, so I don’t need a do it all camera. I have different cameras for different purposes, but that is my vlogging setup.
I'm disgusting, shooting everyday on a6700. Love it when it works, hate it when it don't work.
For sure colour science got improved a lot, before with a6600 when recording nature I didn't like colors almost in every clip, some weird greens and reds, now with a6700 it happens only sometimes, but in most cases colours are pleasing.
I know its not the best but ive fallen in love with my olympus om d e m10 mark iii and adapting vintage glass to it.
Literally came to the exact same conclusion. Whenever I use APS-C it kills me that it's not my R8 full-frame, and there are no APS-C lightweight lenses good enough to be worth the loss. For travel I have a M43rds G100 (underrated gem for photography) with the magical 14-140 travel superzoom which is an amazing combo, weighing less in total than an FF telephoto.
To make APS-C worthwhile it needs to be an A6700-sized body or smaller, with a lightweight, small and crisp f4.5 superzoom either 8x or 10x. That would replace a lot of what makes M43 great without bumping into lightweight FF like the R8 and A7C.
APS-C does seem like an afterthought a lot of the time with Canon and Nikon. Though, that's the format I tend to use for video due to cost.
Currently a Sony A6000 as a webcam I got for cheap. A used Nikon Z30 for my video rig after moving on from Canon EF-M recently. I pretty much only use a GoPro for vlogging and POV style content so not too concerned with the lack of IBIS in my big cameras. Plus a Nikon Z5 for photos but decent enough for video as needed.
Im a Sony APS-C D-bag fanboy and I love them lol. I have a5100, a6000,ZV-E10 and a6700. Absolutely love them 😂.
I shoot on Fuji, just bc I'm into cinematography, stills, and wildlife video, but no vlogging, so I like the reach for wildlife, the S35 size for cinema, and idc what sensor size I have for stills. XH2s bc for my own work, I don't even care about still megapixels or video fps beyond 120...just that sweet, sweet dynamic range and xtrans beauty.
Gosh - you were almost controversial! I don’t fetishise over sensor size. It’s not the format - it’s the photo. No one has ever asked me about the sensor type in my cameras. People either like the results, or they don’t. In addition, post processing is now so sophisticated that a crappy photo can be transformed into a “work of art.”
The thing about video that keeps me from doing it is my nightmares about editing. It seems like way too much work. So, what I want is a system with which I can just shoot a video, maybe add an audio track, a few titles/text and insert an image here and there. I don't want to be bogged down with color grading for hours on end. I can't sit in a chair that long. I'd rather be outside with my camera doing photography. Besides, like you have mentioned using funny comments in many videos, it's the content that matters more. So, I want to know how to create video content with the least editing possible. Question: I may have missed this mentioned in a video, but what happened to your thoughts of moving? Today I though maybe you did because that neighborhood looked new to me. Have a rockin' day! Thanks for the info, enjoy the rest of the weekend!
It's about as much work as you want it to be. You can record in LOG and spend lots of time grading colors, or use something that's quite pleasing out of camera like Sony's S-Cinetone. But you are right about video editing generally being more time consuming than photo editing.
@@nesneojrurab6491Since I have a Fuji X-T3 I can easily use one of the simulations to shoot video. I also have my old GoPro Hero 5 Black which I have used once or twice. And, of course, there's always the phone. Just need to do it and stop thinking about it I guess!
@@charliejg yeah give it a go and see if you like it. You could start doing something with longer takes and less B-roll, then it shouldn't be a long process. I've heard good things about Fuji simulations, so I'm guessing it'll look quite good right out of camera.
If you haven't found your editing software yet then I'd suggest Davinci Resolve. There's a free version (which only lacks a couple of features from the paid one). I bought the studio version after a day or two of trying it, it's in my opinion the best piece of creative software on the market.
If you want the least editing, then Fuji with its SOCC Film Sims is most convenient. Fuji sims allows you to view a well color graded right out of camera yet it still allows you to fully color grade its raw files. The XH2s is one such cam and even the X-T3 is a value deal. Try Fuji you will like it.
@@maggiem1323My camera is a Fuji X-T3. I have started to experiment with it using the simulations. I did have a problem. When I tried to import the video file from the X-T3 into Resolve I got an error message saying "media offline"
I had 8 minutes to transfer some files, what as relief, a 8min CC new video 🙂 One of my best (and worst, but still best) experience with APS-C being better than FF and m4/3 was with Foveon sensors. EDIT : I take photos, not videos.
I have an R7. It works for me. I'm a still photographer who does some video projects on the side. I went with the R7 due to budget constraints, but also because I did want the IBIS as well as the larger battery. My plan is to add an R6 II to my kit at some point. In the mean time, I'll be collecting nice lenses to use. I'm not afraid to use full-frame lenses on crop sensor bodies.
Instead of getting R6ii, get the RF14-35L will do
Ideally both. The lens will likely come first.
I love L-Mount and mFT. i wish, Pana release a GX8 II, but who knows. However, both systems matches perfect together - you grab the cam, you need and walk!
But CC, you were the one who convinced me that the Sony e-mount was too small for full frame IBIS. Also you seem to oscillate between full frame and action cam, not micro 4 thirds. Also you seem to have a secret crush on the Nikon Z30.
Totally agree. Just compare 1) m43 + FF with 2) APS-C + MF. 1) covers every imaginable aspect of photography (now even wild life photographers can shoot hand-held!). 2) is quite interesting regarding Fujifilm APS-C but not regarding MF - the latter is expensive (think of the lenses) and offers hardly anything additional. I have been using m43 and Nikon FF for 10+ years and could not be happier.
I remember the days when our fearless leader wasn't independently wealthy.
Yep. I mean the channel is still good but I do feel a bit of charm is missing.
He's total cap and full of himself it seems and lacks any humility or self awareness..
You're right about aps-c, and the major shortcoming, the red-headed stepchild and simultaneous elephant in the room, no good lenses. There is one useful Canon camera, though. The Canon EOS 90D is a wildlife sleeper. You have to use full frame glass but you get the 1.5 times multiplier for the lenses and the 32.5MP resolution gives fantastic detail. So a lens like the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS II USM becomes 150-600mm effectively. The Fuji X-H2 might also be a good wildlife camera, but I doubt if there's the equivalent of the Canon L glass for it. Of course, with gigantic full frame lenses hanging off the front, there's no weight advantage. The only thing you gain is effective reach. If you look at the eBay prices, you will see that the 90D is in high demand.
90D suffers from the DSLR focus shift....R7 all the way
To be honest, Sony a6600 + Sony 70-350 lens is not a bad combo for wildlife shooting. I guess a6700 would be even better (cause of the 4k 120p and 10 bit and a way better focusing system), just haven't decided to buy it yet.
The IBIS is crappy, so handhelding is not an option (at least not a good one), but the setup is lightweight, so I tried using it with a gimbal - Zhiyun Crane 2 - and it worked surprisingly well.
Of course you should need to rebalance gimbal eveytime you change your zoom, but since I'm focused on shooting birds or small flowers and insects anyway, I just balance it at 350 mm position and am good to go.
Usually I am shooting at 1080p 100 fps/100 mb/s mode.
Never tried any of the 3/4 cameras though. And maybe something like ZV E1 or A7SIII would work even better, they do have an APSC mode after all, just am talking about things I have tried.
For wildlife photo though I'm using my A7III with Sony 200-600 lens. You need to rise the ISO high to be able to get a decent shutter speed for fast moving animals (1/1000 at least), but high ISO with APS-C matrix brings too much noise to enjoy the picture. Using 200-600 lens for video is only possible with a tripod in my opinion.
I've got a6700 + 70-350mm, its super lightweight and compact, but 350mm is a bit too short for wildlife, to get reasonable reach I more often take tamron 150-500 or 200-600 but both huge and heavy, dreaming that sony release a 100-500mm but 500g lighter and a bit shorter.
MFT is a dying standard. This was like watching a guy hyping Betamax over VHS in the 80s. Yes. I was one of those idiots that bought a Betamax. Not going to do that again.
You're totally right. Full frame is the best in certain categories, and MFT is the best in certain other categories. APSC isn't the best of any category.
I'm actually impressed by the digital stabilizing on that Canon R.
Depends what you pay for. An Arri Alexa 35 has an APS-C sensor with 17 stops of dynamic range. My lowly FX30 has a little more than 14. Very big $ diff. The FX30 IBIS works extrwmely well. Snap on an OSS lense & it's super, super smooth.
X-T5, with a ton of excellent primes, and a couple zooms. Cheaper, lighter, and image quality that matched my Sony A7IV. Couldn’t be happier. But that said, I don’t do video at all, so may not be impacted by the issues you have with stabilization.
There are great cameras for every different type of shooting available in the market right now. I'm a commercial shooter and for better or worse lots of clients now want Fujifilm GFX 100s ii or Canon R5 (even sometimes phase one back 150). I am in the Canon system (R5 with a mix of Canon and Zeiss lenses) but really love shooting the GFX. I don't think about weight since I started with film and shot Mamiya RZ67 and Sinar P2 4x5 and on travel jobs too. Digital is like walking around with a helium ballon compared to how much my kit weighed back then.
It sucks when you go full frame and it spoils APSC forever. I was happy with micro 4/3 and APSC until I got the Sony A7IV. Then the ZVE1 made me realize 12 megapixels is so beautiful Only thing I miss is the reach of micro 4/3.
How so?
I had full frame for 3 years and enjoyed it, but the only things i miss since the "downgrade" to APS-C:
- 50mm being 50mm (i have/had much 50mm glass)
- telescope...same issue, i have a 750mm F4 newtonian, framing works for most interesting objects, but on APS-C the 1200mm are too tight.
- compactness... my EOS RP/full frame was smaller than my actual APS-C, the R7, especially with the RF 50 1.8.
@@harrison00xXxWhen I try to use APSC, I get caught up in my head about comparing the lowlight and shallow depth of field capabilities of full frame. I know it’s stupid.
When I sold my m 4/3 gear and went Sony I missed it immediately and switched back. I now shoot both systems, I like the A7IV but still prefer and grab my OM-1. Better grip, not as heavy ( the small rig ad's some extra weight, my pinky falls off the bottom of the A7IV) The features are just more fun in the OM-1. The sony is like a one trick pony. Takes great images, but does not have pro capture, built in ND filter, IBIS is not as good ( IMO) love live composite and so on etc.
I came to the same conclusion, I run M43 olympus, Canon and Sony Full Frame and Fuji GFX, I cant see any point in apsc.. I replaced all my Canon M gear with a A7CR, its a leap ahead with quality and user experience.
Thanks for this vid. I remember when every dslr was a cropped sensor. I had fun with my D80/D90 etc. Now that everything is going mirrorless and new mount type I've been wondering do i upgrade to full frame or a lighter micro 4/3. Would be cool if they made a 1 inch camera with changeable lenses. I haven't upgraded my cameras in a while as I've been using my phone for now.
I still love my nikon D80 from 2008 colors😍
Agree about APS-C bodies. With the release of cameras like the A7CR and ZVE1 they are kind of irrelevant. APS-C lenses however are very handy, particularly the telephoto ones.
This title is an outrage, good sir! APS-C is the way to be, so cheap it's almost free. ( Feel free to contact me for marketing rights on that, just made it up. )
Best decent apsc lens: pentax. And with K3 monochrome : no question about color science. 😂 And i am the crazy guy who uses some of their apsc lens on full frame K1: some are good enough!
Nikon Mimic Monkey Technology !!!!! awesome, I hope to see it more alongside the hammer, pony of hope and the assassins !
In the beginning of the video you look like your roller skating where they trip those guys in the movie big daddy 😂 “who put that stick there?”
Agreed, I'd use APSC for a travel cam, like the XT5. But for professional work there's nothing apsc is doing better than the other two sensors. Now, Sony could make a global shutter apsc FX camera and it would probably hit that sweetspot, but I feel like the apsc sensor will retire in vlog cameras and ultimately be phased out.
I bought a FF Canon d5 Mii for $300 and found EF lenses cheap, two are new. My whole rig Cam, five lenses cost under $1000. I think older cams are going to get even cheaper now that Canon is going to the RF mount and discontinuing their EF line. I'll stick with my old heavy rig because it works well for the landscape/seascape photography.
The Canon R7 does have what is labeled as Sensor-Shift 5-Axis Image Stabilization. I only know that because I am considering a newer camera body, and I have older EF L glass with no IS. I don't know how well it works with video. It does have 4K 60FPS, but some of Canons mirrorless bodies have overheating issues recording video according to some of the reviews I have read. New, they only cost $1400.00, way less than full frame.
The R7 doesn’t have the overheating issue from what I’ve heard
I believe it is more prevalent in the R5 and R6 MK II, from people that try to use the cameras for pro video jobs. Overheating and the unforgivable shutting down for 30 minutes stretches when they do. I believe the R5 C has a cooling fan built in for around $5000.00@@aquaticborealis4877
Appreciate your thoughts Have not upgraded yet Like your presentation style too Thanks bro
So... I guess no one is going to talk about the 1/1.28 sensor size that just shot the entire Apple Event? 🤷🏽♂
Sensor size is becoming irrelevant each year as technology pushes on! The debate about sensor size maybe 10 years ago actually meant something however, that's no longer the case.
Lastly, we must also realize that picture quality is not the end all be all in film or even vlogging. Just like sensor size, it's beginning to mean less and less as even the lowest QUALITY sensors are "good enough".
Currently if you have Medium Format, Full Frame, APS-C, Micro4/3 or even 1/1.28 the question is, what are you doing with that sensor? Are you making memories with it, creating content with it.. or debating over which is better?
My encouragement to everyone is to USE whatever you have to it's fullest (by learning lighting, composition, editing, color grading and story-telling) and it TRULY (in most cases) won't even matter and no one will care or even be able to tell. (just like the Apple event!)
(This is my opinion)
A7R V is APS-C and full frame all in 1, (just ignore the rolling shutter)
Full Frame sensors make sense, because there were plenty of 35mm autofocus lenses made for film cameras that could be used on digital cameras. APS was a failed film format that never caught on and never had any interchangeable lens systems to speak of. Even when it was film, photographers were like WTF is APS good for? The slides don't fit my projector. Also, I have to sit closer. This sucks.
hey need to release an update to the GM1 but with more dials and buttons....
Great video, thanks. What strength of Glimmeringlass did you use?
1.
thanks@@cameraconspiracies
Nice video style, Don Valley trails were quiet today
My first “serious” digital cameras were Olympus 4/3 dslr’s. They were really good. I never wished I had a bigger sensor.
APS-C back in the Dslr days usually had higher fps for wildlife and action like a Canon 7D or Nikon D500. Both would still fit full frame lens. The aps c lens were meant as a budget alternative.
How was the Z30? Has it blown your mind, yet? Or something else?
I shoot Olympus micro 4/3 with 14/20/45mm lenses, Fuji APS-C with 16/23/56mm lenses, and Leica full-frame digital cameras with 21/35/90mm lenses. My Fuji works well for me. My Olympus and Leica break too often.
Nothing wrong with L lenses on a aps-c. Plus you get the added reach. Fantastic on the good old Canon 80d
hes talking about Rf mount, where you live in a cave and use Ef lenses? do you also use film on them ? ahahah
They’re just HUGE when you can get the same performance out of a Canon M6 mark ii with an ef-m lens while carrying it in your pocket.
Canon R kit lenses are surprisingly good, albeit without much Toneh. It seems though that most of their customer base isn’t into background obliterating Toneh anyway.
if Toneh is needed, those RF cheap primes will do the job
I think Canon FF and ASPc users are buying the same lenses, they just get different crops to serve their purpose. So I think if you own or plan to own a good selection of RF and RFL glass then you will probably end up with both bodies as some point so your glass collection can basically grow without buying any more glass.
I was shooting GH2 and was dying for an upgrade. But when the GH3 launched, I thought Lumix lost the plot. The size difference was too much for contemplate. In the end, I got an A7 instead. Smaller body, larger sensor.
Gigantic lenses.
I thought the Osmo pocket 3 destroyed the ZV-E1 now?
What brand of camera clips are on your chest straps? I love my pro capture clip but it does not look as wide as yours. Mine struggles on often the best part of the strap since it's usually the fattest part of the strap.
Affiliate link to the rescue www.ulanzi.com/products/falcam-f38-quick-rlease-backpack-strap-clip?aff=595
@@cameraconspiracies those style clips are one of the best gear choices I’ve ever made. Guess I can have 2 now like you sir.
@2:08 great German Shepherd running there. You are lucky it didn't eat you!