Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Forget Full-Frame: This is the Ultimate APS-C Low Light Lens
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 авг 2024
- GET THE LENSE HERE (affiliate) - bit.ly/3Y0OFEy
f1.2 AUTOFOCUS ALTERNATIVES (affiliate) - geni.us/iDHQ1T or geni.us/RPA8d
APS-C Camera (affiliate) - geni.us/BfPfUSt or geni.us/6oXXa
Full Frame Camera (affiliate) - or geni.us/0icoz or geni.us/3deXcAQ
Full Frame Lens (affiliate) - geni.us/G2FotH
GEAR I USED TO MAKE THIS VIDEO
[VIDEO GEAR] (affiliate links)
BTS Camera on the Street (night shots) - geni.us/c4UQ
A Camera - geni.us/fCo6 or howl.me/ckVm0lD1bLa
A Lens - geni.us/sKvSYgw or howl.me/ck41FnUiazg
B Camera (Table Top) - geni.us/FOSOn or howl.me/clacKmmiIpL
B Lens - geni.us/z0GG3y or howl.me/clacIJ2PzXk
On Camera monitor - geni.us/t7Fc or howl.me/clacMGXabwL
My off camera monitor - geni.us/AHOu or howl.me/clacNMVLO3E
The LUTS I used for this video - bit.ly/42Q58uQ
[AUDIO GEAR] (affiliate links)
Microphone (in shot) - geni.us/SAQ4uk7 or geni.us/PgtBlmS
Boom Microphone (out of shot) - geni.us/Tj8RI or howl.me/claeFm6CC9K
Cheaper alternative to boom mic (sounds just as good) - geni.us/0rN8FO or howl.me/claeF96KLvM
XLR Audio Recorder - geni.us/yDUf or geni.us/PgtBlmS
USB Audio Interface - geni.us/ZdN1a or howl.me/claeyKnGHYn
Wireless Microphone (out of studio) - geni.us/FPC4s or geni.us/j4Wdr
Podcast/Voice Over Mic - geni.us/SAQ4uk7 or geni.us/PgtBlmS
In Shot Mic Arm - geni.us/J7Fp or howl.me/claeHeGSgTP
Editing Headphones - geni.us/WmwFC or howl.me/claeI1mcuEm
Editing Speakers (super cheap but awesome) - geni.us/wfLkz
Stand for Boom Mic and Overhead Camera - geni.us/8O8UtdY
[LIGHTING] (affiliate links)
Main Light (Key Light) - geni.us/nQQ10
Main Softbox - geni.us/GysBN or howl.me/claeZmiRVXD
Light Stand (for Key/Main light) - geni.us/y4HuK4R
Hair Light - geni.us/waB7lTp or howl.me/clae0ZXBNf6
Background Light - geni.us/xFjA or howl.me/clae13MRGt4
Light Tubes (behind my monitor) - Small - geni.us/5Lvl Large - geni.us/4QPjp
[COMPUTER AND EDITING] (affiliate links)
Monitor - geni.us/lLrTKSZ or howl.me/clae6ljgAjk
Computer - geni.us/rOHA or howl.me/clae7xrpHw1
Dock (one plug for power, audio, monitor, and 6 hard drives) - geni.us/lwJDmz
Keyboard - geni.us/bA16W or howl.me/clae8BToiuQ
Touchpad - geni.us/PLaLMh or howl.me/clae9zb8HB3
Editing Software I Use - www.apple.com/au/final-cut-pro/
Awesome Free Editing Software (Pros use it!) - www.blackmagicdesign.com/prod...
* Some links are affiliate links, you do not pay any extra, but I may get a small commissions. Using these links allows me to make more videos like this one.
00:00 - Sensor Size vs Lens
01:26 - The Camera/Lenses Used
02:02 - Why Choose APS-C Over Full Frame
04:38 - Video Comparison
05:10 - Disadvantages
06:58 - More Image Samples
Looking for the ultimate low light lens for your APS-C camera? Check out this review of the Mitakon Speedmaster 20mm f/0.95! See how this high-quality lens can make your APS-C camera perform as well as a full-frame one.
GET THE LENSE HERE (affiliate) - bit.ly/3Y0OFEy
f1.2 AUTOFOCUS ALTERNATIVES (affiliate) - geni.us/iDHQ1T or geni.us/RPA8d
APS-C Camera (affiliate) - geni.us/BfPfUSt or geni.us/6oXXa
Full Frame Camera (affiliate) - or geni.us/0icoz or geni.us/3deXcAQ
Full Frame Lens (affiliate) - geni.us/G2FotH
I'm sad brightinstar makes thier .95 lenses in every format except in f mount.
Got to add, quality ND filter would be great on sunny day tour shutter speed can hit the limit.
I would rather buy Viltrox 27mm f/1.2. Having autofocus is much more useful than going from f/1.2 to f/0.95. Also, Viltrox 27mm f/1.2 is optically perfect
I have the viltrox. It is a beast. I mean it looks big on the X-T50 but just as capable
Viltrox also make a crazy sharp f1.4 13mm lens that's pretty sweet. The 23mm is not as impressive and I can't speak to the 27mm but I own several of their lenses and they're very good
Those Viltrox 1.2’s make me a very jealous Canon apsc user. Maybe one day we’ll get Viltrox lenses, but I don’t think it will be soon with the whole cease and desist thing Canon had with Viltrox.
I’ll just enjoy those Sigma primes for now! 😊
The minimum focus distance on Viltrox lenses tends to be disappointing.
@@nickscott8488 on the 75mm it's not great, but the wider lenses it's pretty standard
This channel is unbelievably realistic and practical. Thanks for the information.
I always enjoy listening to your analysis and insights. Many thanks.
For me, the biggest difference between most crop bodies and full frame bodies is the features. Because the crop sensor was introduced as a more affordable, entry level format, most crop bodies skimp on features and functionality. Quite honestly, if not for the lack of features, I may not have ever upgraded to a full frame. Things like a built-in intervalometer, better ISO range (plus more specific ISOs in that range), better write speeds, customizable white balance (vs presets), the list goes on, but all those features make the camera more usable, and therefore more enjoyable. If I can control more settings in camera that improve my images, and thereby have to spend less time editing, it's totally worth it to invest in a full frame.
My D500 APS-C still can outperform new entry to mid level full-frame camera. Why spend 2000usd for new full-frame if a 500usd used camera can perform the same.
Sounds like pushing into the territory of diminishing returns. Spend a lot more money for what...a 1% improvement no one is realistically going to notice.
My Leica full-frame low-light rangefinder lens kit is:
21mm f/1.4
35mm f/1.4
90mm f/2
My Nikon full-frame low-light SLR lens kit is:
24mm f/2
35mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.4
My Fuji APS-C low-light mirrorless lens kit is:
16mm f/1.4
23mm f/1.4
56mm f/1.2
All three low-light kits perform well. I am very satisfied with all three.
There is always the insanity options for Fuji the XF50mm F1 or the Voigtlander 35mm F0.9.
This makes so much sense ! Love from South Africa 🇿🇦
Good to know, thank you
Mark, I've been watching you since your M-50 days. Insane to see the growth you've had these past few years. So happy for you!
So kind of you, thanks.
You are one of rare YT contributors in photo/video sphere that I can still watch (and with pleasure I might add). Almost all of those self proclaimed YT pro's and expert's
either don't know what they are talking about, or their "honest" opinions are not quite honest because it's paid for. You on the other hand are genuine, with advice people
can actually benefit from. And 100% agree with you on sensor size topic, I have owned and used all three common sizes, and in my experience it is much faster & easier to make
a great shot using m4/3 then Full Frame sensor, more stability, more versatility if you are using zoom lens, more lenses to choose from, and if you put on m4/3 anything
below f2 there is no quality difference to FF footage. For video of course not photos.
You're the lens guru.
I really enjoy these f/.95 manual lenses - but they are a bit of a commitment, in terms of both weight and optical quirks. In terms of sheer usability though, I think it's hard to beat the APS-C and f/1.4 combo, which still has some credible low light performance, especially if the APS-C camera in question has in-body stabilization. Sigma's trio of crop-sensor f/1.4 primes (16, 30 and 56mm) are probably the best all around compromise for a very reasonable price, while still keeping it so much smaller and lighter than a full-frame setup with comparable performance.
That said, I'm excited about these manual super low-light beasts. They're fun and the fact they're getting wider (20mm is already very respectable) is also great.
O own the Mitakon Speedmaster 35mm f/0.95 II on my xpro3 and is a crazy lens to use and razor sharp wide open. I was wishing that those release a wider lens but, honestly, today it seems to me that a 20mm (30mn FF) f/0.95 does not make so much sense. 35mm APSC being 50mm FF makes a lot of sense for portrait and subject isolation. At 20mm APSC you need to be really close to a subject to get a background blur. I own a Fujifilm 18mm f/1.4 and I use it most for events, I need the AF, I need to keep the best shutter speed and low ISO. I’m not counting in getting background blur at any lens wider than 35mm APSC as I can’t see the usage of manual focus today at a lens with such aperture when most of us use manual lenses on digital bodies for a more relaxed type of photography such as street or documentary where traditionally we use apertures between f/5.6 to f/8 thus, smaller and lighter lenses. I own a manual TT Artisan 25mm f/2 lens for street, the TT Artisan 17mm f/1.4, a SMC Takumar 24mm f/3.5 and all of them are used > f/4. On modern cameras, some higher ISO is easily fixed on post and if someone goes with manual lenses, some vintage look is also part of the fun. I love Mitakon lenses but I guess I will pass on this one for the mentioned reasons. Sure it must be a great lens but makes no sense to me to carry so much weight in this case “just” for shooting with lower ISO when the subject isolation is pointless at this focal range.
Yeah, I'd say I agree with the points you mentioned
BUT , and this is a big but, some people shoot using an f1.2 lense on a full frame body
To get a similar performance on a crop sensor camera you'd need an f0.8 lense
But, this is a big but. Some people are used to shooting fast lenses on medium format. So go home :)
Mark already answered this point: they are sooooooooooooooooo expensive. If you are no professional this is ridiculous. Why bother?
@@13DCR Oh I see money is the point in question. So we’ve all agreed full frame is a bargain for hobbies use?
I’m just trolling obviously. But people get so hung up on their own justifications for what not. Me included probably :)
I need to understand APS-C lens vs. Full frame, I have Nikon Z6 and Z7, what would you recommend if I am on a budget. I love the 24-70 kit that came with my Nikon but would like to get more kick on the blurred background. Thank you in advance for reply.
Tbf an APSC .95 lens should be compared with a 1.4 full frame lens since they are equivalent after the crop factor conversion. 1.4 full frame lenses have more optical issues than 1.8 lenses
Please review the ultra expensive Voightlander f0.8 for mft
I would actually go for a f1.4 crop lens, because of size and weight. Difference in light gathering between 1.2 and 1.4 is small. F 0.95 is kinda niche lens, wide open is soft, manual focus only and it isn't good for astrophotography. Viltrox 13mm f1.4 and Sigma 56mm f1.4 are two great options for aps-c cameras!
I'm liking the new 'off-brand' APS-C offerings coming out now. It's good for competition and ultimately good for us.
Just one comment on this video.
The f/0.95 would be an equivalent to a f/1.4 on full frame so why was the comparison made to an f/1.8 that is considerably smaller and lighter than it's f/1.4 sibling?
The Viltrox f/1.2 AF lens mentioned at the end would be a closer comparison (f/1.2 APS-C ---> f/1.8 Full Frame).
The aperture difference is only in depth of field, in light gathering FF and APS-C lenses are equal (almost). A Sony f1.4 FF lens mounted on APS-C will still be f1.4 in terms of light.
He made the comparison because a FF camera (not lens) will have about a 2 stops better performance than an APS-C. He didn't intend it that way, am sure but it's kind of misleading.
It’s just a simple math problem. For FF vs APS equivalent lenses, if the APS lens is a 20mm f/0.95, then the FF equivalent would be a 30mm f1.4. (Why did you use an f/1.8?) These would have same FOV, same bokeh ball size, and same low-light performance (grain) if shot with same exposure time. To do that, the FF would have to set 1 stop higher ISO, hence the same grain. For lens size, the APS would be shorter (20mm vs 30mm), but both lenses would have the same diameter (20/0.95 = 21mm vs 30/1.4 = 21mm). The aperture diameters being equal, coupled to the same FOV, means both lenses are putting the same number of photons per time onto their respective sensors. That’s why the low-light performance is equivalent. I’m not sure why you used an f/1.8 lens other than availability maybe? But you got a smaller lens for that choice. So your conclusion that the APS lens is bigger is not valid. Compare the size to a FF 30mm f/1.4 instead, please. I think the lenses will be similar size, but the APS a little smaller in length, unless an exotic lens design gets in the way. Anyway, I do agree completely with the conclusion that APS can be good in low light when using a fast lens, and it will likely save money.
It’s a bit more complicated than that, I use to repeat that same math equation. It’s a bit of a rabbit hole once you go down it. A full frame sensor actually has 2.3 times the area of APS-C, so for light gathering the 1.5 factor does not hold. Then there is the number of photo-sites, sensor technology, it goes on. So I just did a simple practicable comparison with real results that people could see, that was really the purpose of the video.
@@markwiemels The square root of 2.3 is 1.5. That is why the 1.5 factor does hold. The math is correct. Yes, sensor technology does change with time, but for the sake of this analysis, we must consider the sensors to be of same or similar technology. And, in fact, for the two cameras you chose, the sensors have very similar technology despite the mild gap in their vintage. You need to fix your video and either compare the APS 20/0.95 to FF 30/1.4 or compare the FF 30/1.8 to APS 20/1.2. The most common comparison I’ve seen on RUclips is the APS 56/1.2 vs FF 85/1.8. Please note the 1.5 factor.
@@swagonman Why would you calculate the square root when the light falls on the total area? Would something with 2.3 times the area not collect 2.3 times the light?
@@markwiemels The aperture area collects the photons. Area of a circle is A = pi*r^2, where r is the aperture radius. That is where the squared / square root term comes from. It is same for the sensor. If a sensor is 1.5x bigger in both x and y, then its area is 1.5^2 = 2.25 times bigger. Again, a squared term. The confusion comes because “photographers” (vs astronomers) mistakenly call the “aperture” as “f0.95”. That is not the aperture; it’s the “focal ratio”. The Aperture is f/0.95 = 20mm/0.95 = 21mm diameter, where f is the focal length and the / means divide. That is the aperture. (Telescopes are specified by their aperture diameter.) If the diameter is 21mm, then the radius is 10.5mm, and the aperture area is 346mm^2. For a 35mm/1.8, the diameter is also 21mm, so it has the same opening, which means your comparison isn’t completely wrong. But you are getting a narrower FOV because your sensor crop factor is not 35mm/20mm = 1.75. Your sensor crop factor is 1.5. So a 30mm f/1.4 would be the equivalent lens in every way. So you’ve made a reasonable experiment to show low-light capability, but your conclusions on the lens size are not valid since you are using non-equivalent focal lengths. Basically, if sensor/lens combo gives equivalent FOV, then if aperture area (and consequently radius and diameter) are exactly equal, then the lens opening is capturing the same number of photons and placing them at the same image scale on the sensors. And BTW, the ISO is not technically pet of the exposure. It is a gain term to normalize the exposure. So equivalent ISO for APS is half that of FF. APS ISO100 is equivalent to FF ISO200, which would result in same exposure times for APS 20/0.95 vs FF 30/1.4 lenses.
@markwiemels You are right, the amount of light gathered by the lens is proportional to the area. However, as @wagonman said, if you apply the crop factor to both the focal length and the f-number, you will have the exact same angle of view, and the exact same aperture diameter. Consequently, you will have the exact same aperture area and the lenses will gather the exact same amount of light. Assuming that the image circle is sized for the sensor size, you will therefore get the exact amount of light on the two sensors, and therefore the (almost) exact same signal to noise ratio (assuming modern cameras where noise is mostly shot noise). You will however need an ISO 2.25 times higher on the FF camera to achieve the same image brightness because the intensity of light (as opposed to total quantity of light) is inversely proportional to the area of the sensor.
If photographers were ditching the concepts of focal length, f-number and ISO, replacing them by angle of view, aperture diameter, and image brightness, it would be a lot simpler: to get identical images, use identical angle of view, identical aperture diameter, identical shutter speed, and let the camera adjust the gain to achieve identical brightness. This would sound obvious to everyone and nobody would notice that sensor size is not mentioned at all.
Am a Fjui shooter and I think this comparison is kind of biased toward APS-C
For a little bit of context, I am a community manager working a lot on dance and theatre plays in very dimly lit enviroments, working sometimes with other photographers, some with FF equipement.
From my real world experience, FF sensors offer a better preformance of about one stop on same ISO AND can easely go 1 to 2 stops higher in ISO with comparable result. So with FF, you gain 2 to 2,5 stops compared to APS-C, with same aperture.
Yes, you can almost negate that with a 0.95 aperture, but i wont ever use a manual 0.95 to shoot a dance play. then there's other problems with flare, ghosting, etc that you will always have to deal with in plays AND lower IQ. Plus, FF (Sony, Canon and Nikon) tend to focus better in general but even more in low light...
The viltrox 27 f1.2 is not really an option (too big and too wide), so I have a few fixed f1.4, and the 50 to 140 f2.8 Fuji, but you can very easily find equivalent for all those lenses in FF. Then you gain 2 stops more with FF.
All of this is with my X-T4 compared to Sony A7 III or Canon R6, so sensors that appeared around same time, but newer sensors (the 40mpx and the stacked sensor) from Fuji have the same (to even worst) ISO performance in fact. It's almost the same for FF, the tech has not really been pushed in that department lately, from what I heard, so no big deal. But still: 2 to 2,5 stops better.
But I'll stick with my Fuji cuz I often need images quick (so without post-processing) and I do have a small, easy to carry and cheap set-up, since it offers me images that are just enough for low light (for what I do) as it's about the same as the live viewing experience (or maybe just a little bit better with f1.4 lenses). But, my FF colleagues have way better lit images with the choice to have high shutter speeds without headaches...
So, the 50mm f1.8 for aps c image circle are smaller than the 50mm f1.8 for full frame image circle???
You are right, but people who promote full frame are also right. Though, not for the reason you might think: because like you said, a camera has little influence on low light performance. While there are increasingly more fast lenses for APSC and MFT coming out, theres no comparison to the extensive catalog of cheap/small/fast FF DSLR lenses. Sure, you might be able to buy these newer cheaper lenses but I think for normal people used DSLR lenses are easier to find. Id rather have a canon 6D & 28mm 1.8 which would be around half the price of that XS20. But of course theres more dollars and promotions flying around for new gear than there is for old gear :)
Try an A7s (original) vs most apsc or M43 cameras... A used A7s costs about $450 US...Cheers
I'm lately full-manual-focus practice with my mighty X-T2 and your channel has been my fave source of recomendations, thanks!! I'm with a 1.4 35mm Meike for now as an "entry-level manual focus" and loving it, but wanna upgrade soon, some ergonomics of the Meike bugs me (aperture ring way too loose). I'm really diggin into the Mitakon speedmaster line (mostly the 35mm 0.95), but it's not cheap at all -- is it worth the cost? Is it somehow better than the "average" Chinese brands?
I have only tested this specific lens from them. It’s new, so it may be better than their older releases, I’m don’t know, but optically, it’s the best f0.95 lens I have tested, and by some margin.
Considering you want lightweight max performance at night or bokeh, this is it.
I will add a nice surprise, 21:9 stills are usavle from fullframe too.
I like autofocus more, but going for cheap light performance, this is better. Using f0.95 21:9 at 20mm on fullframe will make great wide shots.
0:10 the first thing I mention is aperture in mm NOT FOCAL RATIO even though it's part of it.
I built a f/5.5 lens with a 127mm aperture and the thing will smoke any f/5.5 lens with a smaller aperture, there is only so much light coming in no matter what sensor you have, it's making efficient use of that light that is important.
If you are a tripod person and like prime lenses I'd say grab a telescope, they tend to be well corrected and just have great low light performance without the issues of slamming your focal ratio into the ground .
The autofocus on the Sony setup is infinitely faster than on Fuji/Mitakon setup.
Practical thinking analysis. Unlike most DPREVIEW junkies.
Awesome Mark, I really think the Sirui Sniper are the King at value, low light and performance, and AF. I just bought the 33 and I really couldn't find a cheaper AF lens that does F1.2. I don't see that you have any reviews of these lens. They are all 58mm thread, cine glass. Maybe I just found a good deal? Approx $279US
I have been meaning to try those.
@@markwiemels after watching a few reviews they are indeed a low end budget lens with some flaws
Oops, after watching some reviews and issues with softness, Chromatic Aberrations and focus hunting I cancelled my order
I see two missed factors. For example, with the Canon RP+RF 35/1.8 I would achieve the same results for a lower price. Also, the size factor of the sensor area and the related generated electricity in the photosensitive elements play a significant role, and here again FF is at an advantage. More power less amplification. More power for less money because of the size.
This does not mean that the crop sensor is not sufficient. But it is not automatically a cheaper solution. I have long term experience with crop Fujifilm and FF Canon.
Have you performed any T-Stop comparisons with these f/0.95 lenses. I'm curious to see which lens(es) transmit the most light onto the sensor.
I have not, and since I own many of them on different mounts, making an accurate comparison would be challenging.
Manually focusing an F 0.95 is not gonna be an easy task for most situations. You will have good light but soft images.
Love your videos
Thanks, the 20mm isn’t too bad, as it gives a deeper DOF. The 35 and 50’s get harder.
@@markwiemels good point 🤔
…let me put it this way: Fortunately, I successfully sold my APS-C equipment. Thank you.
did that comment deleted?
How do these compare to the Mieke f0.95 lenses?
I have not tested the Mieke, but this is by far the best f0.95 lens I have tested, optically, but it’s also more expensive.
For me ultimate apsc lens for lowlight is the Sigma 16mm 1.4. That lens is unmatched in term of image quality and sharpness.
Yes, the lens matters, but sensor size matters as well. Noise and contrast performance scales up proportionally with sensor size. A full-frame at 4000 ISO has similar image quality to an APS-C at 1600 ISO, or a MFT at 1000. That's about 1.3 step advantage over APS-C and 2 steps over MFT.
Can you compensate with a brighter lens? To an extent, but two issues:
1- Full frame lenses with wide apertures also exist, APS-C lenses don't top out at a wider aperture than full frame lenses
2- the wider the aperture, usually the softer the image quality, producing a sharp f1.2 lens seems to be way more difficult than producing a sharp f1.8 lens, regardless of the light circle coverage.
f0.95 lenses really need AF. All APS-C example pictures are pretty soft. It might be the lack of optics quality or because of back/front focusing.
About the price between FF and APS-C, you can get a new Sony A7 mark III for 1300 Euro after rebates + FE 35mm 1.8 lens for 500 Euro, which is only 1800 Euro in total and is about the same what you will pay for the X-S20 and and this manual 0.95 lens.
You can go down the rabbit hole of older full frame, or even used, but you can do the same with APS-C. You always end up cheap with APS-C, often 1/2 the price. Not sure what you are seeing in the soft images, they are indistinguishable in my viewing, maybe a different focus point. It’s only when you crop heavily that the difference can be seen.
Well there is a fujinon 50mm f1 lens out there and it's autofocus, but then your price argument kinda falls down ;c)
Besides the impact of the aperture, what is the impact of filter size? Like 58mm vs 82mm? To me it seems a lot more/wider glass to get more light in.
Filter thread in itself don't mean much. Filter thread is size at the begining of the lens, you'll have to compare it to size at the end of the lens and way light travel inside the lens wich is kind of what aperture is. I know, not really, this is a gross oversimplification but it kind of work and also kind of explain why at the same focal length, faster lenses tend to become bigger in size and filter thread.
@@showdaKOs got it. Thanks. Aperture being the focal length versus diameter of glass at entrance.
I just use FF lens on my apsc camera
I have the speedmaster 35mm, a very fun lens. That being said, despite being f0.95, it's light performance isn't that great. I think it performs similar to a first party f1.4 lens. It's a pretty old lens though, maybe they redesigned their system with the 20mm one.
the brighten star, meike, ttartisan or 7artisans 0.95 lenses are all smaller than the one in the video, and smaller than most FF lenses.
That’s a great point! I was thinking of this new class of higher end f0.95 lenses, but you are absolutely correct, those lenses are nice and compact.
The channel doth protest too much! You can do a lot with APS-C and it absolutely is good enough for most people and many situations. The big, BIG difference you can't away from is the perspective given a fixed field of view and distance, as shown in your close-up shots. That said, one isn't better than the other, they are just tools to get a job done and some tools work better in some situations than others.
I just sold off all my Fuji gear, it felt like a toy camera after getting / using the Nikon ZF paired with the 50mm 1.8 S. I don’t know anymore about all these RUclips channels saying forget full frame! Certainly apsc has its advantages, smaller bodies, smaller lenses. But if you’re going to carry around a huge lens for your apsc body, it defeats the purpose of having a smaller body. I used to love my XT2, maybe I shoulda kept that, but the XT5 sucked in low / moderate light.
OK I want it in EF mount........
Yah, I wish they have that! I could use it on so many more cameras.
My opinion is that people compare the APSC with the Full Frame ignoring the depth of field. At same depth of field, the two cameras are shooting the same noise at the same aperture. Only you need to close your aperture on the Full Frame. The only advantage the Full Frame have is the capability to shoot wider when depth of field is not important or not wanted. We loose resolution through: over exposure, under exposure, noise, motion blur, crop, wrong focus but also through bokeh (depth of field). APSC have the advantage of shooting wider open to get the same depth of field on the same framed image. That means that when you shoot a 35mm on Full Frame, you get the angle of view of a 23mm on APSC. If you shoot this view say at f2 on the APSC, you need to shoot it at about a stop and a third slower on the Full Frame for the same depth of field. That means that APSC can shoot more often wide open then FF. So they have a bigger sensor and bigger lenses, yet they can't make use of it most of the time. Unless they are used for portraiture and bokeh is the main goal. Yet nowadays post processing can make do of much of this concern.
In my opinion the real advantage Full Frame always have on APSC is the color bit rate of their sensor. APSC tend to be 10 bit on high resolution X-T5 versus 13 on Sony A7IV. But also medium format have this advantage over medium format where 16 bit is on the Fujifilm GFX 100. Their is certainly a wow factor access on such images when everything is also right. But then you also have to deal with the cumbersomeness and surely would give for a much more setup oriented type of photography. All of which will give support to the wow. And it will be well deserved at that point to help with the bills. In studio work, the advantage of the large sensor to ease bokeh is not relevant since the background can be fully controlled. For other genre like landscape the color bit rate is certainly relevant for image intended for large print, exposition or 4k/8k high quality videos. But given that most people look at an image just a few seconds at best, on mediocre lighting, network or monitor, to provide such quality may actually be of use only once in a life time for the best among photographers surrounded by a crew of such achievers.
I would think that to scout for the perfect images should be better done with the APSC camera, and then when found, renting the medium format with the specific focal length needed in the preferable lighting should be the best way to go. Otherwise you end up driving a car worth less then your camera gear and having to pound it for replacements of lost, obsolete and damaged gear.
In the case of this video, the brighter APSC lens offer access to what FF fast lenses do in terms of bokeh. When they are designed for APSC they are a fraction of the weight but they also tend to not be sharp in the corners with more chromatic aberrations compared to FF ones. When using a FF such lens, you gain an improvement on image quality by using the center of the lens projection only. You are not gaining on weight and cumbersomeness, but on image quality. But you are also shooting a narrower angle of view... In such case where this angle of view is important, stepping away will improve bokeh compared to the Full Frame camera.
I respectfully disagree with your conclusion in general having been a very long time shooter of both full frame and APSC systems, incidentally currently owning the A74 from Sony and the X-T3 from Fujifilm + many other, however nobody can argue the price factor.
I wonder how it compares to the laowa argus 25 0.95. can someone help me out here?
I tested the Argus a year or so ago, and this one seems much better optically, especially at f0.95.
Full frame is way to go, 1.2 on apsc is expensive and its equivalent to 1.8 which is cheaper on full frame
Yep i tell this story for long time but all those kiddies do not understand, i shoot night with 1" sensor and f/1.4 lens
0:28 *PRICE IS LENS AND CAMERA
I bought a RED!"
"Nice did you get a lens?"
"No I couldn't afford one yet".
1995
"Chris we got you a Super nintendo!"
"OMG this is the best gift EVER! What game did you get?"
"It needs a game?"
*tears of pain I feel today
I heard this statement a thausand of times but I just dont understand it. Why has a bigger sensor a better low light performance than a small one? In my opinion it should not depend on sensor size but on the quality of the sensor. In a full frame camera more light will enter the camera body through the lens but it will be spread out over a bigger area. Aps will get less light into the body but it does not have to cover a big sensor so this should equal out. A proof for that should be apsc mode in full frame cameras. Maybe I missed something but I never heard that you have suddenly a bad low light performance because you enabled apsc mode. Why should the image get darker just because the camera does not read out the outer pixels any more???
Sensor size and aperture are equally important for low light performance. Low light performance depends on total amount of light that hits the sensor. Total amount of light depends on exposure and sensor size. Exposure depends on aperture and shutter speed. Therefore, sensor size, aperture and shutter speed are equally important.
Getting a full frame camera is still better for image quality because it will have less noise at base ISO and greater dynamic range.
If you look at full frame vs APS-C, and then compare that to, for example, a kit lens vs f0.95 or f1.4, you will find the lens has the bigger influence, but it is the combination that gives the final results.
This is true, a photo from APS-C will have a poorer SNR than the same photo from a FF when aperture and shutter speed is equal, because of the higher gain on the APS-C. As an example, a photo with base/100 ISO on APS-C will be similar to the FF version with maybe ISO 500-1000. ISO 100 on FF will be the cleanest because of higher signal to noise ratio (SNR). This ties into how ISO on digital cameras is “fake”, because base ISO varies between sensor size and manufacturers. My way of combatting this is to ETTR to get a better SNR when pulling exposure down in post. Seems like Mark didn’t understand your point.
@@kristiangurholt59 It's all about the total amount of light that hits the sensor. If the shutter speed and aperture is the same, larger sensor will receive more light. It's like building a dam on a narrow but fast river or on a wide but slow river. The only thing that matters is the total amount of water that goes through it, or in the case of cameras, the light that hits the sensor
@@branimirteodorovic2297 Yes. The way camera companies combat the lower light-input on smaller sensors is to increase the gain behind base ISO. If it were not for this, smaller sensors would produce darker images. Instead, they produce noisier ones.
I think newer APSC models are doing a lot better in low light than older models. More importantly, AI has made noise and grain more and more irrelevant. That said, I agree with you that in general FF will perform better in low light but Mark is also right in saying that good lenses & camera combination will make the gap a lot less apparent and, in my opinion, could be negligible in most cases. Exception might be astrophotography.
f0.95 manual focus almost guarantees you'll get an out of focus shot always
It's not actually that hard if you have some distance to the subject, as you get a deeper DOF, especially with a 20mm. The closer you get, and/or the longer the focal length, the harder it becomes.
Anyone heard of DxO lol
Full frame still the sweet spot. Also most of 0.95 are manual focus lens and heavy
Goodness, I cringe every time I see any comparison that involves full-frame versus APS-C sensors. All the old crap about crop factors resurfaces and I am truly tired of listening to it. (I am not saying that you said anything about it, Mark... but it'll be in the comments.)
One commenter mention F/0.95 versus T/0.95 and that's a valid point. But it is also something I just don't worry about anymore.
I used to chase the technology, looking for "the best" camera, best lens, best... induct. I'm an engineer and that is the engineer's curse -- always optimizing. After spending a s*&!load of money and time, I quit. I buy a new camera after several generations and no longer chase "the best" lenses. I have a collection of Fuji lenses that work for my application. I buy a new Fujinon now and again if I want something to play with or have a particular problem to solve. (Vis a vis your low-light example.)
Case in point, I bought a X-T5 last year. I had been using my X-T1 and an X100S as my primary cameras and decided it was time to upgrade. So, I bought the T5 and found an X100V. Both were a nice improvement, even if I don't need the 40MP sensor of the X-T5.
I do some night shooting as well. The X100V will have some noise/grain. Meh... it's part of the experience.
I bought a Sony A7Sii body last year and have a battery of legacy glass that I love to shoot with. The character of vintage glass offers me something that the clinical look of modern glass doesn't. I even started shooting film again this year.
In conclusion, I love your point -- shoot what you have, what you like, and add a f/0.95 manual focus lens if you want a little better low-light performance (and the razor thin depth of field wide open). If the results have some quirks because of the extreme optics, embrace them. They are part of the process and can be put to creative use.
Most of all, have fun with your camera system and enjoy the photographic experience.
Well done!
Low light? That would be Medium Format with the lowest resolution. Simple!
I usually like your video's, but the showcase you choose here made you lose your way . Image quality (good or low light) is all about pixel size - 21mp on APS-C equals 45mp FF.
Depth of filed is also one stop difference so 23mm 1.2 AF APS-C lens would have been better showcase for the 35/1.8 FF (and you could skip the whole Manual Focus and 0.95 lecture).
There are lots of ways to gain or loose this one stop difference between FF and APS-C i.e The sensor technology can compromise this stop using less MP on APS-C specially for 4K (12MP sensor) video shooters, B&W sensor have one stop advantage over color sensor, good knowledge in lightning or digital post editing software are worth more than one stop , and maybe living in a sunny area or get an interesting subject and there are lots more that I can't think of right now.
at the end it's all about budget and knowledge and whether you got a paying customer. Photography is more about ecosystem and needs then specs, A Pro shooter will spend his money on a million other things then upgrading his FF camera to a new model.
Sorry for my BAD English .. Keep on the good work and all the best.
These are all things I know and agree with. The purpose of this video was to supply a real world comparison, of two well known cameras. There are SO many factors to low light performance, but the lens is by far the biggest one. When you look at full frame vs aps-c this is nothing compared to a kit lens at f5.6 vs f1.4 or 0.95 (for pure low light purposes). The lens should be the obvious first thing to address, but it is a combination of all factors in the end.
@@markwiemels The one stop difference between APS-C and FF is a total waste of time when you don't have a paying customer and knowledge.. more about GAS syndrome (and click bits) than real needs. I got into DSLR (canon 40D) and lenses back at 2008 when it had a real benefit over little sensors (phones or pocket cameras). But today, If an amateur skip the full Eco system, he better keep his Iphone or get something like DJI pocket 3.
Disagree on few things.
1) If price is a consideration, no point considering mirrorless options in general.
2) APS-C has limited lens choice on wider side.
Wider&faster (to make up for the crop-factor) alternatives are:
- usually pricier
- naturally less sharp
- naturally have more various aberrations
So again if price is a consideration, APS-C isn't the best choice quality/price-wise.
3) No surprise 18-50 is smaller than 28-70, 35 smaller than 50 etc.
But that doesn't mean "FF requires big lenses".
30mm should not be viewed as 50mm just because you have a cropped sensor. 30mm lens is still 30mm lens.
This is very simple: put that 30mm onto your FF camera. Crop or enable crop mode. Voila, same result. Less megapixels, but we're not pixel peepers, are we?
On that 20/.95 lens: I don't think spending $400 more is worth it if you struggle with low light, with lack of shallowness in DOF. Because for $400 you can arrange an upgrade to a full-frame and get more lens choice and cheaper lens choice. Like for Nikon DSLR compare 28/2.8 MF for $90 vs 20/2.8 AF for $900 (acts as 30/4.2 fov/dof equivalence, I don't want to pay $800 for AF and worse DOF, for $800 I'd rather upgrade to FF).
That being said, I'm not saying we all need to use FF. APS-Cs are great. I'm saying it's more economical to upgrade to FF rather than trying to approach FF by buying some special lenses.
Good luck manually focusing it.
That is not a comparison. You should compare Full Frame to Mucr Four Thirds. Now that would a real comparison!!