Visit my curated Fiverr store here - fvrr.co/8b497 and use the code "DUNNA" to receive 15% off your order. Thank you to Fiverr for sponsoring this video!
The FF isn't really better at low light in itself, but rather makes it easier to make equally bright lenses. For example, on FF an f/1.8 would be like an f/1.2 on APS-C, and it's easier to make good f/1.8 optics than good f/1.2 optics.
It's just a bogus claim that the technology does not influence your images greatly. You've got a much greater keeper range with better equipment. Sure, a camera for $100 might produce good images but only in controlled settings or with many many more that are deleted right after the scene was photographed. It's comparative to the claim that "Depression can be cured by happy thoughts". Happy thoughts (i.e. your skill) helps a lot but sometimes you just need therapy/medication and that's the reason holding you back. Simple as that.
Full frame has its benefits just like APS-C has it's benefits, it's down to the users specific needs as to whether they need full frame or not, full frame would be better if you're a wedding photographer or portrait photographer
Right tool right job still believe that to be true. Sometimes the tool is micro four thirds, apsc, full frame, medium format range finder whatever I think you get the point. There are professional photographers who shoot with all of these formats and the format they use works for them. I own apsc micro four thirds full frame and a point and shoot. I am not a business photographer who sells their work so I am the client and I use what I want and I do use them all . If I chose to make photography a business I know some of my gear is not durable enough for constant use such as my thrift store tripod I payed $5 for or my cheap walmart flash.
Great video, and thanks for making it clear that APS-C is not a "downgrade." I made a very good living shooting APS-C for many years and my clients were always happy (and even now when I shoot both APS-C and FF, my clients cannot tell the difference).
I own Sony Full frame A7iii and Sony A6400.I highly recommend to buy full frame camera.(Unless you do video).If you are trying to save money, buy APS-C camera.
tx for this, been really thinking I need the a7iii for my studio but honestly it'd be better for my night-time stuff at events. Now talk me out of buying a Black Magic Pocket Cinema 6K please...
@Derpimuss Do you ever sell anything you buy? Or even have money saved up for spending? Maybe you got medical bills or something but it could also be paying way more in rent.
YAY! You'll love it I'm sure! I'm not saying it's bad by any means... I love mine. Its just overkill for a lot of people, but sometimes overkill is fun 😉
OfficialCentrificProductions Germany - yup. Overkill... it means “more than what was needed” and for a lot of people, full frame and all the wonderful glory and power of the a7iii is probably overkill. Most people could do with their phone, or a point and shoot or if they really want interchangeable lenses then apsc would work.
And yeah I'm already aware that apsc is better for vlogging and travel cause its "more handy and small" but there are like people who just buy this cam for vlogging or other small things that could be handled by a apsc camera and I'm like "weird flex bro"
OfficialCentrificProductions Germany Well full frame could be better for vloging more weight is good to warm up your muscle and no crop on full frame helps get wider lenses.
Since I'm not a professional, I use apsc to get nice portraits with a fun 50mm lense. I have a x100t for street photography, daily life photography. For wide stuff I just use my phone, which has 60mp and a great wide angle.
Agreed, I guess another reason for full frame is the dynamic range. In theory the ful frame sensor should give you a higher range to recover details in blacks and whites / burnt out areas and totally dark areas. But I would be fine with the a6300, if only it had 2 card slots. I want two slots because when doing client work I need that backup for my peace of mind.
For most photographers going from APS-C to FF is like going from a car that goes 200mph to one that goes 225 mph because it's "better" even tho you only use your car for shopping.
Fact is no one but other photographers care about your gear..you can get paid clients on a full frame..or a point and shoot...if it's for work..people just want it done to their request..if you're doing it for art..agian no one cares...so always get the one you think is cool..if you like it..you'll like using it..and thats all that matters...because like everything..its just manufactures making you think new stuff is a need...when you can be a pro photographer with a camera from 2010
I don't now why there's this gear fetishisation in photography. No one insists you need a certain instrument to make beautiful music or a certain pigment to produce a beautiful painting. Full frame may make it easier to produce professional results but that's not to say you can't with crop sensors, it depends on what you're going for and the type of photography you're doing. This obsession with the tech distracts from the art of it, and I can refute the claim you can't work professionally with crop-sensors as I know a number of folks in the community working professionally that work exclusively with the format.
Snooty Films ah ah ahhhh you’re not deep enough into the guitar community, I think the electric guitar community is even worse than photography considering gear fetishisation... amps are body’s, guitars are lenses, but all the pedals have no way be compared in photography equipment ( mayyybe gimbals hehe)
I have been happy with my APSC gear for years until I walked into a gallery in Prescott Arizona a couple of weeks ago. There were gigantic prints on metal that were as sharp as a tack! Made me feel like a beginner.
People used to make massive prints before the gear we have today existed. 300DPI at the minimum focusing distance of an eye may make sense for a cell phone, but billboards may only be 10 DPI and look fine. People usually don't look at massive prints from a foot away
@@dunnadidit It was a weird situation, I´ll try to cut it short, in Argentina there are two values for the dollar, the official one is lower than the black market one, Sony sells its cameras at the same price as in the US, 1800 dollars for the A7C but you pay in Pesos, our local currency, at the official exchange rate you pay 170.000 pesos but if you sell your dollar bills in the black market to get 170.000 pesos you only need to sell 1.100 dollars so you effectively pay US$1.1100 for the A7C or US$2.200 for the A7SIII or US$2.000 for the A7RIV. The only dissadvantage is that the price of our services are way lower than in first world countries so it offsets the lower prices of equipment. But if you live in the US or UK and come here with dollars you can build a full kit of E-Mount equipment for about half as much as in the US or Europe
I am upgrading, from Nikon full frame to Sony APS-C. The A6600 combined with the Sigma f1.4 "trinity" make the best bang-for-buck setup on the market today. Add Sony's 10-18 and/or the Sony 70-350 if you have needs in those areas. Compact, lightweight, relatively affordable, and incredibly capable.
I am a photographer. I use a6000 with sigma 56mm f1. 4 for portrait work. Works great. I have compared it with pictures on full frame. To be honest the image quality difference is not worth upgrading to a full frame. I spent money on buying the right lens and proper lighting equipment and it works great. If light is not great, you aren't going to produce decent results whether it is full frame or aps-c. Greetings from India
Got me second guessing if I really need this A7iii or should I switch to the A6500. Probably a bit over kill, as a hobbyist, to shoot with a $3k+ setup
Why the 6500? Get the 6600 for that 5 axis better af, and MUCH better battery. Or get 6400 for same thing except battery and axis stabilizer. (Honestly the stabilization isn't noticeable)
depends on how much you use it as a hobbyist....I just bought an a7iii to replace my last 3500$ set up that I bought 7 years ago. I did the math and found out that each photo cost me 0.7 cents per photo that I took. I also managed to recoup 500$ with some freelance stuff. If you spend the money....use it as much as you can and also consider using it to help others out.
The high ISO performance is one of the main reasons I upgraded. Many of my clients I film for are music producers, when they have shows. In this type of environment, where I have little to no control over the lighting, the A7iii ability to produce a usable image up to ISO 12800 is worth it to me Definitely miss the price of APSC lenses though
Yeah I hear that, I shoot a lot of things like that for my business and having full frame has definitely been helpful... I was getting by fine before but my image is cleaner now for sure!
It's more about the lens than the sensor. Slapping a slow lens on FF doesn't make the result less noisy than with a fast lens on APS-C. Just as with focal length and aperture you have to use equivalent ISO. The FF ISO 12800 has APS-C equivalent ISO 5700. One system isn't really better than the other, it's about the availability of equivalent lenses and ISO values. For example, if you use 24mm F/1.8 at ISO 400 on an APS-C you will get the same field of view, depth of field, image noise, and exposure (basically the same image in every way) as 36mm F/2.7 at ISO 900 on a FF.
Get both. I have a Sony a850 (ff a mount), an a65 (crop a mount), an a7 (ff e mount) and an a6000 (crop e mount). I shoot a lot of vintage lenses and use all of the bodies for that. I also like that I can use a full-frame lens on a crop body and get one third more reach, making the lenses more versatile. My Sony 55-300mm zoom thus becomes an 82.5-450mm and becomes much more useful when photographing birds, for example. I bought the a850 used, and the other cameras were on sale when I purchased them, so I probably spent about $2500 over a decade on bodies.
Excellent intro... funny, yet insightful.... and the rest of the video was just as good! You really understand the mind of your audience, which makes the video so much relatable and better!
One thing I think you may have touched on but probably not enough is that the full frame lenses are usually bigger and heavier. To get a good quality zoom or fast prime lens on full frame, the lens is gonna be big and heavy. Well worth it for the potential image quality, but I often wish for the smaller lenses of the APS-C world.
I choose APS-C for proffesional corporate filmmaking and I have great results. With a good lighting setup and some prime lenses everything is fine. Also I don't have to use large and heavy gimbals . Everything is lighter, cheaper and more compact. The only thing I missing is the wide prespective of the full frame when shooting hotels and the two card slots.
I've had an a6500 for a little bit and have been really impressed with the results I can get. I'm constantly torn between going to the a7iii (which I drool over often) and just going nuts and fully kitting out my aps-c camera. I've already put some money into glass and lights because I really love video and want to get quality results and I feel like pound for pound the a7iii offers some killer features for me... but so far I've gotten more value out of taking the price difference and investing it in more prime lenses and lights... so... por que no los dos?
Yes, for sure - plus for me, the battery life and overheating time for the AK6500 when doing video is not great. The A7iii was such an improvement, rarely needing another battery or having to cut a take / lose a take due to overheating.
I have a question about this topic. I'm a pensioner who has take up photography in retirement. I have a A6400 and the following lenses, a Sony 15 55 and 70-350 zoom lens and the three Sigma primes 16/30/56 plus the Samyang 12 2.0 (all APS-C but only one with OSS). I'm very happy with this set up. I have noticed that the lack of IBIS limits my low light pictures. A friend has offered to sell me a Sony A7R2. The other option is to upgrade to a A6600 trading in my A6400. The A7 is the cheaper option but not much. Would I get a similar performance from the A7 in APS-C mode to the A6600? What is the better option?
That’s a tough one, if it were an a7r3 it might be more obvious but the r2 is a bit long in the tooth. You’ll definitely be taking a step back in terms of autofocus and some other newer features. But then you do have the full frame sensor and all those megapixels. I think I’d personally go to the a6600 and stick with newer tech.
@@dunnadidit Dunna thank you I shall. I'll trade in my old A6000 and 55 210 lense. My wife and I had our honeymoon in BC and Alberta and had a great time.
In the case of Sony cameras, one thing I really like about the aps-c system that you can't have with the full frame cameras, is the rangefinder position of the viewfinder. I much appreciate not having my nose against the screen.
I would appreciate this more if I didn’t learn on a smartphone/a5100 where you only have a screen 😂 I hate when I smudge my screen with my nose on the A7III though 😂
SatanSupimpa on my 6400 I’m using the EVF 90+% of the time. Even with a bright screen it’s often hard to see in sunlight. Plus, using a view finder just seems like a “real” camera vs smart phone.
As someone who started with the 5d mkiii and now shoots on the sony6300, I can say that I am glad I made the move. apsc iso technology has gotten so good it is almost impossible to see any difference these days for most projects unless for some ungodly reason you are just shooting in pure darkness (because you can't afford any lighting) then yeah maybe.
Let's pull this apart; You're trying to save money on full frame, and buy an aps-c, then you say "because you can't afford lighting?" Maybe when you made the switch, low-light performance was comparable, but the A73 for example allows me to shoot in naturally lit environments, and not because I can't afford lighting, I have that kit and it's fantastic, but I don't need it when sitting around a camp fire with my mates, or when I'm in a dimly lit dining room, or other low-light scenario. I have tons of room as far as ISO which has improved a lot in full frame cameras over the last few years, and plenty of speed with large aperture lenses. Compared to my 5D mk4, I'm able to pump the ISO much farther up without getting into noise territory. There isn't an APS-C camera that can come close to performing as well in these environments, and I have tried a few. There's a reason M43 is dying out, and things seem to be consolidating to full frame; Smaller parts are easier to come by, people are realizing that in order to make up for compromises with small sensors you need bigger glass, and the price difference shrinks. People are getting better and better results with phones, so there are fewer new hobbyists than there used to be, and professionals are getting great results with even older gear, while trying to feel out where this whole market is going.
Well put ThreepE0! I always found, when I shot apsc exclusively from the sony a6500 and a6400, that I was covered really well with their low light performance in about 85-90% of the situations I was in. But now with the A7ii that number has gone up to 95-99% of the situations I'm in. Its definitely better but I'm still pretty impressed with the low light capabilities of the aps-c series. ALL THAT SAID... the stuff I was shooting was for youtube, not client work. So my level of acceptable quality was lower than what I would allow for a paid job for sure.
Yeah, I lusted after the Sony Full Frame for a while, but after I demoed an A6400 in the store, I bought it and never looked back. It's basically 90% of what the bigger more expensive full-frame cameras can offer (for me), and I needed it for travel, throwing it in my backpack with a couple of lenses is SMALLER and lighter than my old Nikon DSLR without any lenses, haha! Crazy! Love the formfactor, and I wish they would even make a smaller camera.
I'm 100% photography. Mostly portraits, weddings, senior photos, etc.. as a part time "hobby" - and I don't do video much, if at all. I jumped from the A6000 to the A7iii, and I'm SO happy with it. I "grew into" the A7iii - it's just where my photography was headed. I do miss the price of the lenses on APS-C, but I'm in absolute love with my full-frame, and I dig the size and weight of it, too. Anything in the Sony lineup is going to be great for whatever use-case you need. I just love these cameras.
Dunna Did It absolutely. I loved my A6000, too. I just can’t say enough good things about the Alpha line, no matter which sensor. The only acceptable answer is to have both 😂
Also, if more control over dof for the same composition or frame is what you want, full frame gives your more control. 1.4f on a full frame is 1.4x1.5=2.1f on aps-c. If you want the 1.2f effect on aps-c, it will be hard finding a 0,9f lens!
I have the A6000 with the 18-105mm G f4. Best kit ever! Everytime I think about going full frame can't find a reason why, to switch, this camera and lens gives me awesome results and when traveling it's the only thing I need. Plus an extra battery.
I chose the Fuji X T3 over the Sony A7 3. It's a camera for everyone , the features, lenses and quality will amaze you. Just get OIS Fuji lenses. If you shot weddings, the Sony A7 series is a good choice.
The XT-3 is a perfect example of a camera that outperforms a lot of full frame cameras. Like all cameras, it has its pros/cons, but it’s really great overall.
@@dunnadidit the think Fuji is missing for me is IBIS. I rented a EM-1x for a trip to europe, love the size (even though I have big hands), I basically carried it in my hands all day. I have never been the most stable shooter going back to when I was young shooting film. But bottom line on your vid. Know your real "needs" and what fits those.
Thank you for your good comments. I have both full frame and APSC Sony cameras. I only use full frame machine only in special occasions. 90% of my picture were taken in APSC one. Almost same perfect results in normal light conditions. In low light condition, full frame definitely wins.
I'm not understanding things. I bought 100mm prime lens for full frame and used in on aps-c body. I get the same view as my 55-210mm at 100m setting so where is the 150mm reach?
Your 55-210mm lens has the same field of view as an 82.5 - 315mm lens. The mm marking doesn’t actually change between apsc made lenses and full frame lenses. So even when buying apsc lenses you still have to apply the crop factor. If you put that 100mm lens on a full frame then it would look wider than it does on your apsc body.
Depends on what your goal is, but I wouldn't recommend APS-C unless you're buying into the Fuji system. Most manufacturers treat their APS-C lines as an afterthought with products primarily geared toward the consumer level. Because of this, all of the best lenses from companies like Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc. are released for their full frame bodies. Even if you get into third party lenses, companies like Sigma still release their best lenses for full frame, too. Fuji, however, doesn't have a full frame line and until their relatively recent push into medium format, APS-C was what they solely focused on so their APS-C lenses are absolutely fantastic. So if image quality is really important to you (your lens is going to be a huge determining factor in image quality), then you probably want to skip APS-C altogether and just buy a lower end (or previous generation) full frame body. If you're pretty sure you're never going to want to leap to full frame, I would argue that Micro-4/3 is a better option than APS-C in most instances. It's even more compact and there are fantastic optics for it. Olympus doesn't make APS-C or full frame cameras so their best lenses are released in Micro-4/3 format and just about every video shooter ought to be familiar with Panasonic's GH-series cameras. With full frame cameras coming down in price (Canon's EOS RP is $1000 brand new as of this writing), it's getting more difficult to rationalize purchasing an APS-C camera in my opinion.
It's not necessarily true that full-frame camera makers offer better lenses. Sony's kit 28-70mm full-frame lens, designed to be used on its A7-series cameras, is actually a fairly mediocre lens. Sony sells that lens in an effort to reduce the financial bite of buying into their full-frame system and thus make it more attractive to people on a budget. I personally predict that APS-C is going to go the way of the dodo bird in the next few years anyway, for several reasons. One is that there are too many cameras on the market now, regardless of format, chasing too few consumer dollars. As a result, there is too much segmentation. Smart phone cameras are becoming more capable, and this is another reason. The improvements in smart phone cameras and segmentation have cut deeply into industry profits. In fact, these two factors alone were enough to cause Olympus to sell its camera division to a third party. Finally, it makes much more sense, both from a marketing standpoint and an economic standpoint, to make one type of camera and one type of lens system - namely, full-frame. What the camera makers need to do is spend more money on R & D to find out how to make full-frame cameras and lenses cheaper and thus more affordable, without giving up quality. The consumer will also benefit because buying cameras will become a simple thing again, without a myriad of confusing options. Making a full-frame camera that appeals to people who want simple a point-and-shoot camera shouldn't be that hard. If Pentax could make a nearly full-auto 35mm SLR back in the 1970s and 1980s that sold well, then it shouldn't be difficult for any other manufacturer to do the same.
For Sony you can get a LOT of compact, light weight full frame Lenses that works great on Sony APSC Cameras, so no problems for Sony. Fuji is is too expensive being APSC size !
For most, crop sensor is fine. Newer faster lenses and cheaper costs overall is enough to stay crop. Fuji X-mount system is a great example of a pro series that can go toe to toe with the full frame guys with the right glass combo and color science!
I have both APS (Sony a6500) and a full frame Nikon Z6. Up to 30x19 prints, the photo quality is virtually the same. I can't lift a heavy camera/lens combo because of a surgically repaired total rotator cuff. One primary purpose is airshow photography; for this my Sony a6500/70/350 lens combination is workable handheld. I tried the Nikon Z6 with the Nikon 200-500 zoom, and that combo is too heavy.
You have the money you get all of them! At the end they are just the tools that help us to make money. They is no perfect camera. It depends on what type of task we need to do! Different tools have different functions! Most of the time when I am not doing clients work I just shoot with my iPhones. That way I can just post the videos or photos on the social media instantly and share with my friends.
The Canon EOS RP is a great choice too. A full frame camera with strong autofocus and a flippy screen for $999. Only a 100 dollars more expensive than the mentioned Sony A6400 (APS-C sensor). The EOS RP includes an adapter so you can use any good old Canon lens to start with or go for the new amazing RF lenses (the 35mm f1.8 is both relatively affordable and amazing).
For it's between the a6400 and the eos to. They're both basically the same price now. I'd be using it for narrative cinema style filming. Which do you think is best. I'm new to this and would be having to buy lenses as well.
I started off years ago with sony a5000, then moved to a6000, now I have a6600, I only have 4 lenses but I love them sigma 16mm, sigma 30mm, sony 18-105 f4, sony 70-350, and for all practical purposes the camera and lenses meet my needs, only lense I've the about buying is new sigma 18-50 f2.8
Unpopular opinion: bigger cameras gives you more credibility when shooting. Its basic human behaviour. For example, a well fitted suit gives you more credibility than t shirt and jeans .Unless you have a good portfolio, when client see you with a point and shoot, you lose credibility . On that subject, it is undeniable that your raw skills are the most important factors.
I hear you, its so funny because cameras are getting smaller and smaller. So if you want to "appear" professional, you gotta create a gigantic rig around your tiny camera lol.
Yep I was shooting with an old 50D with big bulky lens the other day and I got more attention from bystanders than the guy with a small sony a camera 😆😆, even though his camera was way newer and better 😆😆
Hey Dunna, I am really confused between the apsc n full frame because of one reason which is the low light. Iam a night shooter, however is there a big a difference or a little
if you are invested in apsc lenses then makes sense to stay with apsc, plus there are info leaks about new apsc coming so maybe wait a bit? A7c is great - similar to A7iii, A7S3/FX3 is best for video
I'm super satisfied with my APS-C, don't feel like I'm missing anything YET :) What you said about the auto focus is interesting though. It would be amazing if you could do a video about focus comparison, best focus settings, differences with photo/video, etc!
If you don’t make a living with photography apsc is good enough and you safe money. Family, friends, landscape, city trips, can all be done. I would go with a6600.
It does! I had x-t2 for some time, and switched BACK to a7ii because the photos does look better. I also do video and the 4k is kinda heavy to proces on my macbook so sony’s top quality 1080p is good enough for me
Aleksej Barcelona Allright? I was talking about x-t2 and a7ii, but i do think the x-t2 is better than a7ii if you look specs, exept lowlight performance. But a7ii is also like 2 years older.
Bardzo pomocny film w którym wiele objaśniłeś w prostych słowach. Dla mnie zmiana na FF to ogromny wydatek, zwłaszcza, że mam sporo obiektywów do APS-C. Jedyne co mi brakuje w mojej s6300 to stabilizacja, no i może jeszcze obracany ekran. Moja A6300 jest w klatce SmallRig która go powiększa, daje możliwość montażu akcesoriów i chroni przed uderzeniami. Nie zarabiam na filmach i zdjęciach więc zostaję z APS-C. Dzięki wielkie :)
I think you really have to take a very hard look at what's important to you. There will be tradeoffs no matter what choice you make. I recently decided my Nikon d7100 was getting a little long of tooth so I spent a lot of time and effort evaluating options. There are so many seductive choices out there, it was really hard. I finally decided that the most important features for me were that the camera be small and light enough to travel with me easily on trips where photography wasn't the primary purpose of the trip and that it take really sharp pictures meaning that it had really good lenses and dead-on autofocus. I ended up getting an a6600 with a 16-55 lens and also a 70-350 lens. I knew I'd have to put up with Sony's horrible menu structure and tiny and sparse buttons and dials and I'd have to give up the much-preferred dials and amazing color science on the Fuji XT-4. I wouldn't have full-frame low-light performance and bokeh or a fully articulating screen. I'd have to give up focus shifting/bracketing (that one hurt) and have a small EVF. And I wouldn't have the super everything (including super expensive and super heavy) on something like the Canon R5. But so far I'm really happy with my purchase. The a6600 is in fact small, light and easy to travel with, the autofocus is amazing, and the lenses I got are incredibly sharp. But I really mean it. Figure out what's most important to you, because you can't have everything.
Fantastic point and when I really think about it... kind of the underlying message of this whole video too. It’s not that I’m saying everyone should buy this and not that. It’s that people get caught up in the hype and they don’t actually take a look at what’s important to them. Glad you’re liking your a6600!
for video yes, for photography depends, if printing later, full frame with high resolution is a must if for publishing on the net only yes, APS-c is enough and the lenses are cheaper
I recently bought a super cheap a5100 as a street photo camera that I could slip into a coat pocket and I'm really surprised at how good the quality of the raw shots are. So much so I'm seriously considering going back to APSC and selling my Sony full frame gear. I don't shoot paid work very much now which lessens the pressure to shoot fullframe and there are so many great fast APSC lenses from Sigma and Viltrox. I've found the only advantage fullframe has is in low light and pushing and pulling raw files, dynamic range and color response is comparible.
Im new at photography, and Im looking for camera and eyeing on a6400 for a long time but the gatekeepers "pro" has do many bad things to say to sony and it make me back out for now.
Idk what they've said... I'm pretty new at photos and videos myself with only about 1 year experience. But I'm already considering switching over completely from both Nikon and Canon to Sony. In terms of photos, Sony is pretty much king I think. For videos, well, Sony needs to throw out the A7IV and A7SIII soon. Their current video specs are great, but could be better.Their competitors are doing a lot better these days.
I shoot Micro Four Thirds, and it's good enough most of the time. Plus, the crop factor helps me get closer to subjects that are far away, like wildlife. But I could certainly use an extra stop or two of ISO performance because I have to use fast shutter speeds to capture action.
With mirrorless systems especially Sony, the weight savings between FF and APS-C in most cases is about a few hundred grams including the lens. You can get a Sony A7iii for $1700 from the Sony store, right now. The lens selection for FE mount is outstanding and if you stay away from the GM lenses, very affordable too. If you shop secondhand the value of FF even gets better. If you really need lightweight or crop factor why not just buy a MFT?
Great Video but your comparison at 05:12 isn't quite right. You can't compare the Sony FE 1.4 lenses to the Sigma 1.4.. we still have to multiply the aperture in addition to the focal length. So a Sigma 56mm 1.4 would have a Aperture of about 2 compared to Full frame.... So a much more cheaper 1.8 FE lens would be the right equivalent to the APSC 1.4 version, yes... Still a almost double the size but also less than half the prize of a FE 1.4 Lens. ✌️😊
Hey Andreas... I hear what you're saying and I appreciate that you're getting picky but its only partially correct. As far as depth of field, yes, you would need to multiply the aputure as well. We could look at the sigma 16mm f1.4 vs the sony Zeiss 24mm f1.8 (the only 24mm f1.8 e mount I could find) and you'd still get $399 vs $1098. But for low light, the f1.4 is still going to be a bit stronger than the f1.8. So its not quite across the board that you multiply the aputure, just when dealing with depth of field, thus making this whole conversation even more complicated but either way... $399 vs $1098 or $399 vs $1398, my point still stands.
I like and have both for different reasons, but it takes time using them to realize there are far more factors to bear in mind. for example, vintage lenses can cost peanuts - and they're all full frame (for 35mm cameras). Stuff like the HELIOS and the beautiful spiral effect will only really come out in it's full glory on a full frame, and the lens can be picked up in car boot sales on old cameras for a tenner. Also, crop sensor cameras require a wider focal length than what is desired in order to achieve the look you want. Wider is just never cheap. That 30mm vintage lens you got for 20 quid on ebay... suddenly becomes like a 45 or so. So in a way - for videography at least... it costs more. I like the idea of certain micro four thirds cameras but with the 2x crop factor... getting a lens as wide as my 14mm full frame samyang is gonna be well... 7mm I guess. crikey!
I'm looking to upgrade from my old Canon T4i (useless POS) and trying to decide between the Sony 6400 with the 16-50 lens or Alpha a7IIK with the 28-70 lens. They would both be great every day cameras with decent low light capability. I'm not a pro so I don't need the latest and greatest features. The prices are identical so it makes the decision much more difficult!
Honestly, if you want to feel like the upgrade to either of those systems is worth it don't waste your time with either or their kit lenses. The a6400 and A7ii are great cameras and will give you better high iso performance along more resolution but paired with their kit lenses then the difference between them and your T4i isn't as big as you think.
Michael Paz - solid point. The kit lenses aren’t terrible but there are much better options out there. That said, if you can’t afford anything else at the moment but want to work towards building a Sony kit, getting the kit lens can be an inexpensive way to get into the universe since it’s usually less than $100 extra to get the kit.
@@16-bit-trip5 Either would be a vast improvement over the T4i if only because the Canon just can't seem to find a focus when I need to grab a fast shot and it's completely useless in video mode, constantly hunting and changing its mind on what to focus on. Manual focus on this camera is tedious and time consuming for photos and nearly impossible in video mode because you have to use the live view instead of the viewfinder. The camera will generally take great photos IF I use a tripod and have a lot of time to set up a shot but for anything else I rely on one of my compact pocket Sony or Canons. Sonys just focus instantly and take a perfectly exposed shot. If I screw up a shot I want it to be my fault, not due to a poorly designed camera. I forgot to add in my first post that I plan on using the kit lens for general everyday shooting but add a good quality wide angle lens later. I also prefer natural lighting to flash and do occasional night sky photos and lapses which is why I don't want anything smaller than an aps-c sensor.
@@bugatti314159 bugatti314159 I agree that the T4i leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to liveview/video AF. The Sony cameras will definitely be better there, especially the a6400 it has a much better AF system than the A7II. Another bonus is that since it is a newer camera the high iso performance is pretty close to the A7II even though it's a smaller sensor. For what you plan to do the a6400 is probably the better choice as it has better specs and tech than the A7II, minus IBIS. If you want to go full frame with Sony then I would recommend an A7RII over an A7II if your budget allows. For the extra money (assuming you are getting it used) it is a better all around camera. Especially in the AF and video departments.
Which is better? A 40 MP FF or a 20 MP APS sensor? Neither as they are equal. What about an 80 MP FF or a 25MP crop? The APS is better in low light than the 80 but the 80 will allow more cropping.
Pixel size is definitely important yes! It depends on which you need more... low light performance and clarity, or cropping capability/being able to make gigantic prints.
Reason I got the 6600 APC is because I will actually have it with me, while my full size always sat at home. I sold my full sized Nikon as it just didn't get used. The 6600 is capable of excellent photos, and with some post processing, can fix any issues. The lenses for Sony APC are really very good, and a lot less $.
Love my 6400... with my 16mm sigma, & sony 90mm macro G lens. Plus a few others, but these 2 lenses rarely leave my camera bag. The images are... exquisite. Cheaper, all I need as a hobbyist. Happy to stop buying and just use this rig. Because i bought the 6400 i could afford the 90 macro as my first lens for it, so Glad I bought the FE 90mm... works great on the 6400, when I use the 90 6400 combo, my description is that the images I capture are what I'll easily call my money shots.
The only reason I'll be getting a FF is to have the exact focal length of my lenses as it is. APS-C sometimes doesn't feel wide enough. But I'll still keep all my APS-C cameras, because why not)
I hear you! I’ve noticed a big difference in how I shoot now that I can go super wide to 16mm full frame. I never used to like that look but its growing on me for certain things
Exact focal length?? Focal length is focal length. It doesn’t change just because you put a different size sensor behind it. Only the perceived focal length changes due to cropping or expanding. You don’t get an exact focal length just because you put a 35mm sensor behind it.
I’ve been running a Sony NEX6 for the past 7 years but having some occasional technical issues. I’m considering finally upgrading to the a6600. It’s funny with these people complaining about the smaller battery life - I’m still using the original battery with never a problem getting through a days photos but I’m quick with shutting it off between shots.
As long as you have a compatible mount system and support for APSC mode, full frame cameras are the best way to shoot APSC. I prefer shooting APSC because its so much more portable. But if you can afford it, get a full frame body. The body size isn't that different, its the lenses that make up bulk of the portability gap. A 2nd hand A7R IV (at least where I am) is the same price as the A6700 new. An A7R IV (for example) will have the same resolution as the new A6700 when shooting at APSC, but also gives you the ability to shoot with full frame lenses. ASPC only bodies can't shoot full frame lenses without a crop factor.
I’m a filmmaker and I just upgraded to full frame. Tbh, it’s the best decision I’ve made. It can do aps-c mode as well so you get the best of both worlds. Way better in low light as well because there’s more room to make bigger pixels.
I shoot with both APSC (A6600) and full-frame (A7iii) and agree with everything you mentioned. PSC is certainly good enough for the vast majority of uses and users. However, the A7iii has some advantages. One advantage is that I like the way that I can adjust shutter speed, f/stop and exposure compensation with the dials physically located around the shutter button.
Tbh I’ve been thinking of upgrading to a 7iii for some time now for its low light capabilities, but I’ve done multiple shoots with the A6300 in low light (not to mention a fast lens) i’m impressed and happy that I have the Camera, but again a camera is a tool. It’s how you use it that will determine it’s greatness.
This is exactly what I have been thinking about. I have the a6300 and use it as a hobbyist camera mostly, but my primary goal for even getting in to photography is (crazy fangirl alert!) because I wanted better pictures when going to concerts. I have brought it for one concert so far, but had not yet learned about the vital importance of a fast lens at that time, so it wasn't what I had hoped. Now I have invested in a much faster prime lens, f1.8 and hopefully it will work better. But I have been eyeballing the a7III... It will be a complete overkill with everything else I use my a6300 for (I LOVE it being small and light) but I worry I might get dissappointed again if the a6300 doesn't suceed at the next concert. (I can take a year to think about it though, since the concert has been postponed for next year.)
Here I am, bought a Fuji x-t4 and a 90MM prime, and I am in heaven. Not going to go back to FF for the forseable future. As a hybrid shooter, I find the system well balanced and I don’t really need that much separation. Most of the time, I shoot around 2-8 - 5.6 aperture which I can get on an APS-C pretty easy:). Maybe one day I’ll switch to Medium Format.
I ended up picking up a full-frame because, as a beginner, it seems like all the focal length recommendations (and lens availability) are targeted toward full-frame shooting. I found the Sony A7 II to be reasonably priced for entry into full-frame shooting as a beginner photographer.
Thanks! Yeah I think a lot of people see full frame as the only option because its so much more easily accessible now but I still reach for my aps-c a lot even having a full frame camera!
I just wish it didn't overheat. I quite loved it but it always overheated and I couldn't get any work done. Swapped to a Canon 200D which has never overheated once even during long takes in summer.
A hobbyist photo/videographer here. Used to have an A6400: the autofocus capabilities were awesome, but the 8-bit footage gave me very little space to grade colors. Especially the greenish skin tones used to be a nightmare. So, I went for the GH5M2 for video and switched back to my old Nikon D5300 for photography. The APS-C (or DX) sensor here is still fantastic (gives 14-bit colors, mind you!) when shooting outdoors, but its performance when it comes to shooting sports indoors is rather poor (yes, I know the sensor's already dated). So far, I have tried many APS-C cameras with wide-aperture lenses for indoor sports, but full frame seems to be the only way to go because the ISO virtually never drops below 6,400. For APS-C sensors, the highest you can go with your ISO is usually 3,200 and even this gives an output that is barely usable.
I'm doing something similar (or considering it). I have the Canon 5d3, which I use for photography, and debating between the following for video: Sony ZVE10 (new $800), Sony AS72 (used $500-$800). If I go with the A7S2, I may lose out on phase-detection zoom, and slow-mo recording is limited compared to the ZVE10.
I have both. The reason why I bought a full frame is to get the maximum benefit out of my Legacy glass. What is the point in owning (as I do) the legendary Zuiko 55mm/f1.2 lens if I am not going to get the maximum benefit of that legendary bokeh? That said, I also own an Olympus OMD-E5 and paired with its proprietary 45mm/f1.8 lens it produces some of the best portraits and landscapes I have ever shot.
I'm actually using an Olympus MFT and a Sony full frame, and I'm perfectly happy with both :) depends on situation where I pick which, like portrait where I drive with my car to the location? Let's go Sony!
You can also just go into aps-c mode on your full frame if you need the 1.5x additional reach. Yes, it is basically just a 'digital zoom' as it only uses the center portion of the full frame sensor, but you get the exact same effect as screwing a full frame lens on an aps-c body. And with an A7RIV the aps-c mode still gives you more MP than the A6600 sensor has and the ability to not zoom in if you don't want to: for example when this lion you were shooting is now walking towards you and you want to zoom out without changing lenses. By the way: I shoot with an aps-c D500 and it is great. One advantage of aps-c that is not mentioned here: less depth of field. Landscape photographers want to have the whole scene in focus and with aps-c you get less DoF without having to close the aperture and introducing defraction.
The main reason why I moved to full frame is because of the full HD quality difference. In the a6xxx line full HD, for slow motion, it's pretty unusable for paid jobs. You did a correct and professional jump in quality ;)
I have been experimenting with 120fps again whereas I pretty much avoided it on my a6500. Haha yup, my upgrade made sense for me... just not for everyone 😉
“Full Frame”... except one 4k 😉 but yes, the EOS R is one heck of a camera still! I kept it to Sony stuff cause that’s what most of my audience seems to want me to talk about 😁
Upscale to 4k and you'll be fine. Or shoot 1080 bc where are you uploading to that the bulk of your audience is seeing it in 4k and not downscale to 1080, or 720.
@@waawaaweewaa2045 no it doesnt. At this point your better off waiting for what canon offers this year than to spend the money on the r. But all of the rf glass to pair with the r is stabilized wich halfway makes up for the camera not having ibis. Also, I have an rp that I love. But the silent shutter is not a global shutter so that's something to be aware of as well
I have a 600D with 70-200 F4L and another 17-40 F4L lens, i took a shot on lowish light, and then put my lenses to an old horse canon 5d mark i, I fell in love with the sharpness and quality in low light conditions. As for good lightning, the APS-C is enough with good lens, FF cameras have better sharpness at higher ISOs , and that 17mm is 17mm on FF, not 27mm on APSC and gets best ranges of focal length from L lens compared to APSC.
I'm a left eye shooter and the range finder format sucks for me. I want a fast APS-C to go with my FF Sony cameras but the last one they made that I can use was the A77ii. I can buy an A7Rii for the price those things go for used. What I really need is an A7iv with support for the EA5 so I can use all of my A glass on it.
Visit my curated Fiverr store here - fvrr.co/8b497 and use the code "DUNNA" to receive 15% off your order.
Thank you to Fiverr for sponsoring this video!
The FF isn't really better at low light in itself, but rather makes it easier to make equally bright lenses. For example, on FF an f/1.8 would be like an f/1.2 on APS-C, and it's easier to make good f/1.8 optics than good f/1.2 optics.
Dunna Did It which lenses do you use on your a6400?
Marcus Sundman full frame sensors are indeed better performing in low light given an aperture size.
Jonas - I use the sigma trio (16,30,56, 18-105 f4) and then my FF lenses too... Tamron 17-28, Tamron 28-75, and a couple others as well.
@@threepe0 Nope, not aperture. Given an F-number, yes, but not given an equivalent lens (which coincidentally has a similar aperture).
Every photographer: You don't need full frame, it's you, not the camera. Every photographer: Has a full frame.
It's just a bogus claim that the technology does not influence your images greatly. You've got a much greater keeper range with better equipment. Sure, a camera for $100 might produce good images but only in controlled settings or with many many more that are deleted right after the scene was photographed.
It's comparative to the claim that "Depression can be cured by happy thoughts". Happy thoughts (i.e. your skill) helps a lot but sometimes you just need therapy/medication and that's the reason holding you back. Simple as that.
Full frame has its benefits just like APS-C has it's benefits, it's down to the users specific needs as to whether they need full frame or not, full frame would be better if you're a wedding photographer or portrait photographer
@@Remer714 yes and no, its meant that you need to use ur camera to the max before upgrading
Also, every pro and sport camera mostly is a full frame (Sony's single digit A7 - A9, Canon 1D, Nikon D5, and so on)
Right tool right job still believe that to be true. Sometimes the tool is micro four thirds, apsc, full frame, medium format range finder whatever I think you get the point. There are professional photographers who shoot with all of these formats and the format they use works for them. I own apsc micro four thirds full frame and a point and shoot. I am not a business photographer who sells their work so I am the client and I use what I want and I do use them all . If I chose to make photography a business I know some of my gear is not durable enough for constant use such as my thrift store tripod I payed $5 for or my cheap walmart flash.
Not having enough money helps with the decision...
It definitely narrows the options for you.
That’s exactly how I did it! =)
"All sony aps-c has flip screen"
Me: cries in a6000
Haha I tried to make sure I said it was just the new lineup (a6100, a6400, a6600). I know how you feel with my a6500, that was why I got the 6400 too.
I brought it recently as I am new to photography... Not regretting it so far ^_^
The a5100 does have a flip screen and it's almost as good as the a6000
A6000 is still a great camera, especially to learn on.
It would not be nearly as bad if Sony upgraded the imaging app. I still use my phone for monitoring myself and composition at home.
You know what... Iam aint buying a camera anymore. Just buying me a saxophone.
Probably a good call
I got a scooter
@@Dangling_Carrot wise decision, bro. You got ur cellphone to shoot. Iam also getting better at saxing
Smartphone camera, and bicycle :-)
😂😂🤣
Great video, and thanks for making it clear that APS-C is not a "downgrade." I made a very good living shooting APS-C for many years and my clients were always happy (and even now when I shoot both APS-C and FF, my clients cannot tell the difference).
I own Sony Full frame A7iii and Sony A6400.I highly recommend to buy full frame camera.(Unless you do video).If you are trying to save money, buy APS-C camera.
Thanks for your input.
What if you do video and photo and want something compact? haha
What do you mean by unless you do a video? :)
Bozhidara Bozhilova To me, APS-C is more compact, light and easy to carry when doing video work.
@@sandro6691 Then buy APS-C. New A7siii is best for video but you will have to pay over $3500.
tx for this, been really thinking I need the a7iii for my studio but honestly it'd be better for my night-time stuff at events. Now talk me out of buying a Black Magic Pocket Cinema 6K please...
Umm... autofocus? 🤷🏻♂️
@@dunnadidit I shoot in manual already since a few times my a6500 kept trying to pull focus from my background
I got nothing then. It seems solid lol. I kinda want one too.
@Derpimuss easy. Sell the products
@Derpimuss Do you ever sell anything you buy?
Or even have money saved up for spending?
Maybe you got medical bills or something but it could also be paying way more in rent.
bought the a7iii 5 minutes ago....
YAY! You'll love it I'm sure! I'm not saying it's bad by any means... I love mine. Its just overkill for a lot of people, but sometimes overkill is fun 😉
@@dunnadidit overkill? Lmao
OfficialCentrificProductions Germany - yup. Overkill... it means “more than what was needed” and for a lot of people, full frame and all the wonderful glory and power of the a7iii is probably overkill. Most people could do with their phone, or a point and shoot or if they really want interchangeable lenses then apsc would work.
And yeah I'm already aware that apsc is better for vlogging and travel cause its "more handy and small" but there are like people who just buy this cam for vlogging or other small things that could be handled by a apsc camera and I'm like "weird flex bro"
OfficialCentrificProductions Germany Well full frame could be better for vloging more weight is good to warm up your muscle and no crop on full frame helps get wider lenses.
Since I'm not a professional, I use apsc to get nice portraits with a fun 50mm lense. I have a x100t for street photography, daily life photography. For wide stuff I just use my phone, which has 60mp and a great wide angle.
Agreed, I guess another reason for full frame is the dynamic range. In theory the ful frame sensor should give you a higher range to recover details in blacks and whites / burnt out areas and totally dark areas. But I would be fine with the a6300, if only it had 2 card slots. I want two slots because when doing client work I need that backup for my peace of mind.
Great point! The difference isn’t huge but it’s there for sure! That two card slots gets a lot of people I think.
100% about the dual card slots.
Yes full frame gives you significant better dynamic range.
For most photographers going from APS-C to FF is like going from a car that goes 200mph to one that goes 225 mph because it's "better" even tho you only use your car for shopping.
Fact is no one but other photographers care about your gear..you can get paid clients on a full frame..or a point and shoot...if it's for work..people just want it done to their request..if you're doing it for art..agian no one cares...so always get the one you think is cool..if you like it..you'll like using it..and thats all that matters...because like everything..its just manufactures making you think new stuff is a need...when you can be a pro photographer with a camera from 2010
Well put Piper!!
Best comment!
Your statement just convince to buy an APS-C and saved my money to buy a prime lense along with it. Thanks from India Bro
I don't now why there's this gear fetishisation in photography. No one insists you need a certain instrument to make beautiful music or a certain pigment to produce a beautiful painting. Full frame may make it easier to produce professional results but that's not to say you can't with crop sensors, it depends on what you're going for and the type of photography you're doing. This obsession with the tech distracts from the art of it, and I can refute the claim you can't work professionally with crop-sensors as I know a number of folks in the community working professionally that work exclusively with the format.
Snooty Films ah ah ahhhh you’re not deep enough into the guitar community, I think the electric guitar community is even worse than photography considering gear fetishisation... amps are body’s, guitars are lenses, but all the pedals have no way be compared in photography equipment ( mayyybe gimbals hehe)
I have been happy with my APSC gear for years until I walked into a gallery in Prescott Arizona a couple of weeks ago. There were gigantic prints on metal that were as sharp as a tack! Made me feel like a beginner.
You might still be able to get that with aps-c. Large prints has more to do with megapixel count than sensor size.
People used to make massive prints before the gear we have today existed. 300DPI at the minimum focusing distance of an eye may make sense for a cell phone, but billboards may only be 10 DPI and look fine. People usually don't look at massive prints from a foot away
@@dunnadidit and the quality of the glass...and of course using the proper settings.
I just bought the Sony A7C for $1100 on sale in my country, to replace my "old" A6300, literally the best of both worlds.
Wow! That’s a killer deal!
@@dunnadidit It was a weird situation, I´ll try to cut it short, in Argentina there are two values for the dollar, the official one is lower than the black market one, Sony sells its cameras at the same price as in the US, 1800 dollars for the A7C but you pay in Pesos, our local currency, at the official exchange rate you pay 170.000 pesos but if you sell your dollar bills in the black market to get 170.000 pesos you only need to sell 1.100 dollars so you effectively pay US$1.1100 for the A7C or US$2.200 for the A7SIII or US$2.000 for the A7RIV. The only dissadvantage is that the price of our services are way lower than in first world countries so it offsets the lower prices of equipment. But if you live in the US or UK and come here with dollars you can build a full kit of E-Mount equipment for about half as much as in the US or Europe
@@AlejandroPirchi so would a tourist in Argentina also need to sell their dollars to the black market
I am upgrading, from Nikon full frame to Sony APS-C. The A6600 combined with the Sigma f1.4 "trinity" make the best bang-for-buck setup on the market today. Add Sony's 10-18 and/or the Sony 70-350 if you have needs in those areas. Compact, lightweight, relatively affordable, and incredibly capable.
Was bam thank you ma’am! Love it!
@@dunnadidit Great video from Peter McKinnon that's related to this topic: ruclips.net/video/N8LOoQxSi8M/видео.html
yea Sigma/a6600 combo is powerful, 1.4 Sigma lenses were an eye opener for me with that magical blur 😵
I am a photographer. I use a6000 with sigma 56mm f1. 4 for portrait work. Works great. I have compared it with pictures on full frame. To be honest the image quality difference is not worth upgrading to a full frame. I spent money on buying the right lens and proper lighting equipment and it works great. If light is not great, you aren't going to produce decent results whether it is full frame or aps-c.
Greetings from India
Have you ever tried ligma blz fs?
Got me second guessing if I really need this A7iii or should I switch to the A6500. Probably a bit over kill, as a hobbyist, to shoot with a $3k+ setup
That’s the idea of this video! Just to get people to think about what they really need!
Why the 6500? Get the 6600 for that 5 axis better af, and MUCH better battery. Or get 6400 for same thing except battery and axis stabilizer. (Honestly the stabilization isn't noticeable)
@@Shakiahjprod they both have stabilization but wasn't aware the battery life was that big of a difference. I'll look into that!
depends on how much you use it as a hobbyist....I just bought an a7iii to replace my last 3500$ set up that I bought 7 years ago. I did the math and found out that each photo cost me 0.7 cents per photo that I took. I also managed to recoup 500$ with some freelance stuff. If you spend the money....use it as much as you can and also consider using it to help others out.
Bárður Joensen -
The high ISO performance is one of the main reasons I upgraded. Many of my clients I film for are music producers, when they have shows. In this type of environment, where I have little to no control over the lighting, the A7iii ability to produce a usable image up to ISO 12800 is worth it to me
Definitely miss the price of APSC lenses though
Yeah I hear that, I shoot a lot of things like that for my business and having full frame has definitely been helpful... I was getting by fine before but my image is cleaner now for sure!
It's more about the lens than the sensor. Slapping a slow lens on FF doesn't make the result less noisy than with a fast lens on APS-C.
Just as with focal length and aperture you have to use equivalent ISO. The FF ISO 12800 has APS-C equivalent ISO 5700.
One system isn't really better than the other, it's about the availability of equivalent lenses and ISO values.
For example, if you use 24mm F/1.8 at ISO 400 on an APS-C you will get the same field of view, depth of field, image noise, and exposure (basically the same image in every way) as 36mm F/2.7 at ISO 900 on a FF.
Really? Video is usable up until iso 12, 800? Damn... Now my Fuji Xt3 being usable until 6,400 sounds not so good
@@marcus3d : just to be clear, "slow" means slow autofocus speed? Or small aperture? Like F4?
Interesting, I've never heard of someone also applying the crop factor to the iso before. I'll have to do some testing with this!
Get both. I have a Sony a850 (ff a mount), an a65 (crop a mount), an a7 (ff e mount) and an a6000 (crop e mount). I shoot a lot of vintage lenses and use all of the bodies for that. I also like that I can use a full-frame lens on a crop body and get one third more reach, making the lenses more versatile. My Sony 55-300mm zoom thus becomes an 82.5-450mm and becomes much more useful when photographing birds, for example. I bought the a850 used, and the other cameras were on sale when I purchased them, so I probably spent about $2500 over a decade on bodies.
Excellent intro... funny, yet insightful.... and the rest of the video was just as good! You really understand the mind of your audience, which makes the video so much relatable and better!
One thing I think you may have touched on but probably not enough is that the full frame lenses are usually bigger and heavier. To get a good quality zoom or fast prime lens on full frame, the lens is gonna be big and heavy. Well worth it for the potential image quality, but I often wish for the smaller lenses of the APS-C world.
I choose APS-C for proffesional corporate filmmaking and I have great results. With a good lighting setup and some prime lenses everything is fine. Also I don't have to use large and heavy gimbals . Everything is lighter, cheaper and more compact. The only thing I missing is the wide prespective of the full frame when shooting hotels and the two card slots.
Absolutely!
I've had an a6500 for a little bit and have been really impressed with the results I can get. I'm constantly torn between going to the a7iii (which I drool over often) and just going nuts and fully kitting out my aps-c camera. I've already put some money into glass and lights because I really love video and want to get quality results and I feel like pound for pound the a7iii offers some killer features for me... but so far I've gotten more value out of taking the price difference and investing it in more prime lenses and lights... so... por que no los dos?
I remember being in your situation. I’m definitely not upset about having the a7iii now, but I could have survived without
Yes, for sure - plus for me, the battery life and overheating time for the AK6500 when doing video is not great. The A7iii was such an improvement, rarely needing another battery or having to cut a take / lose a take due to overheating.
I got an A7R 2 (42 mp) for less than a grand. Has plenty of features if you shoot manual. I would defs go for that camera
Debating on A6600 OR A7C for 4k Automotive RUclips videos, What's your pick? Thanks
Ooh that’s tough. Gotta go A7c though. That camera definitely makes this video a little harder to stand by haha
I have a question about this topic. I'm a pensioner who has take up photography in retirement. I have a A6400 and the following lenses, a Sony 15 55 and 70-350 zoom lens and the three Sigma primes 16/30/56 plus the Samyang 12 2.0 (all APS-C but only one with OSS). I'm very happy with this set up. I have noticed that the lack of IBIS limits my low light pictures. A friend has offered to sell me a Sony A7R2. The other option is to upgrade to a A6600 trading in my A6400. The A7 is the cheaper option but not much. Would I get a similar performance from the A7 in APS-C mode to the A6600? What is the better option?
That’s a tough one, if it were an a7r3 it might be more obvious but the r2 is a bit long in the tooth. You’ll definitely be taking a step back in terms of autofocus and some other newer features. But then you do have the full frame sensor and all those megapixels. I think I’d personally go to the a6600 and stick with newer tech.
@@dunnadidit Dunna thank you I shall. I'll trade in my old A6000 and 55 210 lense. My wife and I had our honeymoon in BC and Alberta and had a great time.
In the case of Sony cameras, one thing I really like about the aps-c system that you can't have with the full frame cameras, is the rangefinder position of the viewfinder. I much appreciate not having my nose against the screen.
Ah yes!! I don’t really use the viewfinder much but I suppose that would be helpful!
I would appreciate this more if I didn’t learn on a smartphone/a5100 where you only have a screen 😂
I hate when I smudge my screen with my nose on the A7III though 😂
SatanSupimpa on my 6400 I’m using the EVF 90+% of the time. Even with a bright screen it’s often hard to see in sunlight. Plus, using a view finder just seems like a “real” camera vs smart phone.
You can always use nose to choose focus point.
Haha!! 👃
As someone who started with the 5d mkiii and now shoots on the sony6300, I can say that I am glad I made the move. apsc iso technology has gotten so good it is almost impossible to see any difference these days for most projects unless for some ungodly reason you are just shooting in pure darkness (because you can't afford any lighting) then yeah maybe.
Thats good to know!! Thanks for sharing!
Let's pull this apart; You're trying to save money on full frame, and buy an aps-c, then you say "because you can't afford lighting?" Maybe when you made the switch, low-light performance was comparable, but the A73 for example allows me to shoot in naturally lit environments, and not because I can't afford lighting, I have that kit and it's fantastic, but I don't need it when sitting around a camp fire with my mates, or when I'm in a dimly lit dining room, or other low-light scenario. I have tons of room as far as ISO which has improved a lot in full frame cameras over the last few years, and plenty of speed with large aperture lenses. Compared to my 5D mk4, I'm able to pump the ISO much farther up without getting into noise territory. There isn't an APS-C camera that can come close to performing as well in these environments, and I have tried a few. There's a reason M43 is dying out, and things seem to be consolidating to full frame; Smaller parts are easier to come by, people are realizing that in order to make up for compromises with small sensors you need bigger glass, and the price difference shrinks. People are getting better and better results with phones, so there are fewer new hobbyists than there used to be, and professionals are getting great results with even older gear, while trying to feel out where this whole market is going.
Well put ThreepE0! I always found, when I shot apsc exclusively from the sony a6500 and a6400, that I was covered really well with their low light performance in about 85-90% of the situations I was in. But now with the A7ii that number has gone up to 95-99% of the situations I'm in. Its definitely better but I'm still pretty impressed with the low light capabilities of the aps-c series. ALL THAT SAID... the stuff I was shooting was for youtube, not client work. So my level of acceptable quality was lower than what I would allow for a paid job for sure.
Yeah, I lusted after the Sony Full Frame for a while, but after I demoed an A6400 in the store, I bought it and never looked back. It's basically 90% of what the bigger more expensive full-frame cameras can offer (for me), and I needed it for travel, throwing it in my backpack with a couple of lenses is SMALLER and lighter than my old Nikon DSLR without any lenses, haha! Crazy! Love the formfactor, and I wish they would even make a smaller camera.
Awesome!!
Thanks man, clear and detailed video. I'm thinking about buying a new camera. Doing some research first...
I'm 100% photography. Mostly portraits, weddings, senior photos, etc.. as a part time "hobby" - and I don't do video much, if at all. I jumped from the A6000 to the A7iii, and I'm SO happy with it. I "grew into" the A7iii - it's just where my photography was headed. I do miss the price of the lenses on APS-C, but I'm in absolute love with my full-frame, and I dig the size and weight of it, too. Anything in the Sony lineup is going to be great for whatever use-case you need. I just love these cameras.
I totally hear you. I love my a7iii as well. Glad to hear you're loving yours!
Dunna Did It absolutely. I loved my A6000, too. I just can’t say enough good things about the Alpha line, no matter which sensor. The only acceptable answer is to have both 😂
Haha nice!
Also, if more control over dof for the same composition or frame is what you want, full frame gives your more control. 1.4f on a full frame is 1.4x1.5=2.1f on aps-c. If you want the 1.2f effect on aps-c, it will be hard finding a 0,9f lens!
Yep! That’s true! I rarely find myself wanting anything that shallow but that’s subjective!
Mitakon 35 0.95 is awesome.
Just bought the A6600 with the all around lense 18-105mm G f4 and im super happy with this setup!! Great results
YAAAASSSSS! Did you get the a6600 already? It's not supposed to ship yet?
I have the A6000 with the 18-105mm G f4. Best kit ever! Everytime I think about going full frame can't find a reason why, to switch, this camera and lens gives me awesome results and when traveling it's the only thing I need. Plus an extra battery.
Nice!
I chose the Fuji X T3 over the Sony A7 3. It's a camera for everyone , the features, lenses and quality will amaze you. Just get OIS Fuji lenses. If you shot weddings, the Sony A7 series is a good choice.
The XT-3 is a perfect example of a camera that outperforms a lot of full frame cameras. Like all cameras, it has its pros/cons, but it’s really great overall.
@@dunnadidit the think Fuji is missing for me is IBIS. I rented a EM-1x for a trip to europe, love the size (even though I have big hands), I basically carried it in my hands all day. I have never been the most stable shooter going back to when I was young shooting film. But bottom line on your vid. Know your real "needs" and what fits those.
Exactly!
Thank you for your good comments. I have both full frame and APSC Sony cameras. I only use full frame machine only in special occasions. 90% of my picture were taken in APSC one. Almost same perfect results in normal light conditions. In low light condition, full frame definitely wins.
Nice! Thanks for sharing!
I'm not understanding things. I bought 100mm prime lens for full frame and used in on aps-c body. I get the same view as my 55-210mm at 100m setting so where is the 150mm reach?
Your 55-210mm lens has the same field of view as an 82.5 - 315mm lens.
The mm marking doesn’t actually change between apsc made lenses and full frame lenses. So even when buying apsc lenses you still have to apply the crop factor. If you put that 100mm lens on a full frame then it would look wider than it does on your apsc body.
@@dunnadidit Thanks Dunna!
My pleasure!!
Depends on what your goal is, but I wouldn't recommend APS-C unless you're buying into the Fuji system. Most manufacturers treat their APS-C lines as an afterthought with products primarily geared toward the consumer level. Because of this, all of the best lenses from companies like Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc. are released for their full frame bodies. Even if you get into third party lenses, companies like Sigma still release their best lenses for full frame, too. Fuji, however, doesn't have a full frame line and until their relatively recent push into medium format, APS-C was what they solely focused on so their APS-C lenses are absolutely fantastic. So if image quality is really important to you (your lens is going to be a huge determining factor in image quality), then you probably want to skip APS-C altogether and just buy a lower end (or previous generation) full frame body.
If you're pretty sure you're never going to want to leap to full frame, I would argue that Micro-4/3 is a better option than APS-C in most instances. It's even more compact and there are fantastic optics for it. Olympus doesn't make APS-C or full frame cameras so their best lenses are released in Micro-4/3 format and just about every video shooter ought to be familiar with Panasonic's GH-series cameras.
With full frame cameras coming down in price (Canon's EOS RP is $1000 brand new as of this writing), it's getting more difficult to rationalize purchasing an APS-C camera in my opinion.
Great points! Thanks for sharing!
It's not necessarily true that full-frame camera makers offer better lenses. Sony's kit 28-70mm full-frame lens, designed to be used on its A7-series cameras, is actually a fairly mediocre lens. Sony sells that lens in an effort to reduce the financial bite of buying into their full-frame system and thus make it more attractive to people on a budget.
I personally predict that APS-C is going to go the way of the dodo bird in the next few years anyway, for several reasons. One is that there are too many cameras on the market now, regardless of format, chasing too few consumer dollars. As a result, there is too much segmentation. Smart phone cameras are becoming more capable, and this is another reason. The improvements in smart phone cameras and segmentation have cut deeply into industry profits. In fact, these two factors alone were enough to cause Olympus to sell its camera division to a third party.
Finally, it makes much more sense, both from a marketing standpoint and an economic standpoint, to make one type of camera and one type of lens system - namely, full-frame. What the camera makers need to do is spend more money on R & D to find out how to make full-frame cameras and lenses cheaper and thus more affordable, without giving up quality.
The consumer will also benefit because buying cameras will become a simple thing again, without a myriad of confusing options.
Making a full-frame camera that appeals to people who want simple a point-and-shoot camera shouldn't be that hard. If Pentax could make a nearly full-auto 35mm SLR back in the 1970s and 1980s that sold well, then it shouldn't be difficult for any other manufacturer to do the same.
For Sony you can get a LOT of compact, light weight full frame Lenses that works great on Sony APSC Cameras, so no problems for Sony. Fuji is is too expensive being APSC size !
For most, crop sensor is fine. Newer faster lenses and cheaper costs overall is enough to stay crop. Fuji X-mount system is a great example of a pro series that can go toe to toe with the full frame guys with the right glass combo and color science!
Totally!
as a non-native english speaker, I wish everyone in the world could speak as well and understandable as you do. Bravo
Thank you so much!
True!
I have both APS (Sony a6500) and a full frame Nikon Z6. Up to 30x19 prints, the photo quality is virtually the same. I can't lift a heavy camera/lens combo because of a surgically repaired total rotator cuff. One primary purpose is airshow photography; for this my Sony a6500/70/350 lens combination is workable handheld. I tried the Nikon Z6 with the Nikon 200-500 zoom, and that combo is too heavy.
That makes perfect sense!
I switched from full frame to Fuji apsc and have some nice f1.2 glass and do pro work on them.
You have the money you get all of them! At the end they are just the tools that help us to make money. They is no perfect camera. It depends on what type of task we need to do! Different tools have different functions! Most of the time when I am not doing clients work I just shoot with my iPhones. That way I can just post the videos or photos on the social media instantly and share with my friends.
Great points for sure!
Different tools have different functions! If you judge the intelligence of dogs by their ability to climb trees, all dogs would seem stupid...
The Canon EOS RP is a great choice too.
A full frame camera with strong autofocus and a flippy screen for $999. Only a 100 dollars more expensive than the mentioned Sony A6400 (APS-C sensor).
The EOS RP includes an adapter so you can use any good old Canon lens to start with or go for the new amazing RF lenses (the 35mm f1.8 is both relatively affordable and amazing).
Great points! The RP looks cool!
For it's between the a6400 and the eos to. They're both basically the same price now. I'd be using it for narrative cinema style filming. Which do you think is best. I'm new to this and would be having to buy lenses as well.
As a sports shoot, I love to have FF and crop cameras with me at the same time. The versatility is fantastic.
I started off years ago with sony a5000, then moved to a6000, now I have a6600, I only have 4 lenses but I love them sigma 16mm, sigma 30mm, sony 18-105 f4, sony 70-350, and for all practical purposes the camera and lenses meet my needs, only lense I've the about buying is new sigma 18-50 f2.8
Is there even one lens wider than 24mm equivalent for this system? I haven't seen one.
10-18
I've been thinking of "upgrading" my a6300 -> a6600 or a7iii, but this just made me realize that my trusty ol' a6300 is still way more than enough.
Marko Isip just sold my a6300 and then saw this 😅
@@dreamkiller189 Just sold my 6500 and saw this haha
Pssht. I shoot everything on my 8x10 camera. #GetOnMyLevel 🤣🤓💪
Nobody listen to this guy... I've heard that... *dun dun dun * he's crazy!
How's the iso performance?
@@JacReviewsStuff it's film, it varies
Gerald Undone
No lag viewfinder😆😆
I’ll stick with the Blackmagic 4K that gives me better quality than all of my local competitors
Unpopular opinion: bigger cameras gives you more credibility when shooting. Its basic human behaviour. For example, a well fitted suit gives you more credibility than t shirt and jeans .Unless you have a good portfolio, when client see you with a point and shoot, you lose credibility . On that subject, it is undeniable that your raw skills are the most important factors.
I hear you, its so funny because cameras are getting smaller and smaller. So if you want to "appear" professional, you gotta create a gigantic rig around your tiny camera lol.
Yep I was shooting with an old 50D with big bulky lens the other day and I got more attention from bystanders than the guy with a small sony a camera 😆😆, even though his camera was way newer and better 😆😆
Hey Dunna, I am really confused between the apsc n full frame because of one reason which is the low light. Iam a night shooter, however is there a big a difference or a little
there's a big difference in low light, I did various tests with FF vs apsc, even vs smaller sensors in cellphone 😬
@@mirrorlessny thanks man 😊
OK... A7c or a 6600?? I have the a6300... all crop lens.. should I upgrade.?
if you are invested in apsc lenses then makes sense to stay with apsc, plus there are info leaks about new apsc coming so maybe wait a bit? A7c is great - similar to A7iii, A7S3/FX3 is best for video
@@mirrorlessny Thank you... I will wait and see if Sony offers up a new APSC camera.
I am still confused about being in the full frame domain and spend extra on everything. Im reconsidering APSC.
I'm super satisfied with my APS-C, don't feel like I'm missing anything YET :)
What you said about the auto focus is interesting though. It would be amazing if you could do a video about focus comparison, best focus settings, differences with photo/video, etc!
Someone in the comments here mentioned that it might have to do with the smaller elements in the lenses. Less to move equals quicker focus maybe?
If you don’t make a living with photography apsc is good enough and you safe money. Family, friends, landscape, city trips, can all be done. I would go with a6600.
Agreed!
Is APSC good enough for a4 print publishing and digital work?
@@RJPhotographicsyes
I use both he A7RIII and A6600. I pick the body that fits the task at hand best. As already said the versatility is fantastic!
Question about your video, what camera did you use, and lens in this specific video?
Full Frame any day, seen so many comparisons and just love the way full frame looks and low light performance is phenomenal!
Nice! It does have a nice look!
It does! I had x-t2 for some time, and switched BACK to a7ii because the photos does look better. I also do video and the 4k is kinda heavy to proces on my macbook so sony’s top quality 1080p is good enough for me
keketin x-t3 way better than Sony a7 ||| ... in photos and videos
Aleksej Barcelona Allright? I was talking about x-t2 and a7ii, but i do think the x-t2 is better than a7ii if you look specs, exept lowlight performance. But a7ii is also like 2 years older.
Bardzo pomocny film w którym wiele objaśniłeś w prostych słowach. Dla mnie zmiana na FF to ogromny wydatek, zwłaszcza, że mam sporo obiektywów do APS-C. Jedyne co mi brakuje w mojej s6300 to stabilizacja, no i może jeszcze obracany ekran. Moja A6300 jest w klatce SmallRig która go powiększa, daje możliwość montażu akcesoriów i chroni przed uderzeniami. Nie zarabiam na filmach i zdjęciach więc zostaję z APS-C. Dzięki wielkie :)
I think you really have to take a very hard look at what's important to you. There will be tradeoffs no matter what choice you make. I recently decided my Nikon d7100 was getting a little long of tooth so I spent a lot of time and effort evaluating options. There are so many seductive choices out there, it was really hard. I finally decided that the most important features for me were that the camera be small and light enough to travel with me easily on trips where photography wasn't the primary purpose of the trip and that it take really sharp pictures meaning that it had really good lenses and dead-on autofocus.
I ended up getting an a6600 with a 16-55 lens and also a 70-350 lens. I knew I'd have to put up with Sony's horrible menu structure and tiny and sparse buttons and dials and I'd have to give up the much-preferred dials and amazing color science on the Fuji XT-4. I wouldn't have full-frame low-light performance and bokeh or a fully articulating screen. I'd have to give up focus shifting/bracketing (that one hurt) and have a small EVF. And I wouldn't have the super everything (including super expensive and super heavy) on something like the Canon R5. But so far I'm really happy with my purchase. The a6600 is in fact small, light and easy to travel with, the autofocus is amazing, and the lenses I got are incredibly sharp. But I really mean it. Figure out what's most important to you, because you can't have everything.
Fantastic point and when I really think about it... kind of the underlying message of this whole video too. It’s not that I’m saying everyone should buy this and not that. It’s that people get caught up in the hype and they don’t actually take a look at what’s important to them. Glad you’re liking your a6600!
for video yes, for photography depends, if printing later, full frame with high resolution is a must if for publishing on the net only yes, APS-c is enough and the lenses are cheaper
I recently bought a super cheap a5100 as a street photo camera that I could slip into a coat pocket and I'm really surprised at how good the quality of the raw shots are. So much so I'm seriously considering going back to APSC and selling my Sony full frame gear. I don't shoot paid work very much now which lessens the pressure to shoot fullframe and there are so many great fast APSC lenses from Sigma and Viltrox. I've found the only advantage fullframe has is in low light and pushing and pulling raw files, dynamic range and color response is comparible.
Im new at photography, and Im looking for camera and eyeing on a6400 for a long time but the gatekeepers "pro" has do many bad things to say to sony and it make me back out for now.
It definitely has some issues, but all cameras do. It really is a great piece of kit.
Idk what they've said... I'm pretty new at photos and videos myself with only about 1 year experience. But I'm already considering switching over completely from both Nikon and Canon to Sony. In terms of photos, Sony is pretty much king I think. For videos, well, Sony needs to throw out the A7IV and A7SIII soon. Their current video specs are great, but could be better.Their competitors are doing a lot better these days.
I shoot Micro Four Thirds, and it's good enough most of the time. Plus, the crop factor helps me get closer to subjects that are far away, like wildlife. But I could certainly use an extra stop or two of ISO performance because I have to use fast shutter speeds to capture action.
It’s all give and take. Both ways. That’s why I wanted to make this video! Too many people trying to convince people full frame is the ONLY way.
If a consumer doesn't know why to buy a Full Frame then yes you are correct they should just buy a APS-C
With mirrorless systems especially Sony, the weight savings between FF and APS-C in most cases is about a few hundred grams including the lens. You can get a Sony A7iii for $1700 from the Sony store, right now. The lens selection for FE mount is outstanding and if you stay away from the GM lenses, very affordable too. If you shop secondhand the value of FF even gets better. If you really need lightweight or crop factor why not just buy a MFT?
Great Video but your comparison at 05:12 isn't quite right. You can't compare the Sony FE 1.4 lenses to the Sigma 1.4.. we still have to multiply the aperture in addition to the focal length. So a Sigma 56mm 1.4 would have a Aperture of about 2 compared to Full frame.... So a much more cheaper 1.8 FE lens would be the right equivalent to the APSC 1.4 version, yes... Still a almost double the size but also less than half the prize of a FE 1.4 Lens. ✌️😊
Hey Andreas... I hear what you're saying and I appreciate that you're getting picky but its only partially correct. As far as depth of field, yes, you would need to multiply the aputure as well. We could look at the sigma 16mm f1.4 vs the sony Zeiss 24mm f1.8 (the only 24mm f1.8 e mount I could find) and you'd still get $399 vs $1098. But for low light, the f1.4 is still going to be a bit stronger than the f1.8. So its not quite across the board that you multiply the aputure, just when dealing with depth of field, thus making this whole conversation even more complicated but either way... $399 vs $1098 or $399 vs $1398, my point still stands.
I just bought an a7III to replace my RX1R and Canon DSLR. The Amazon deal for $1,800 with 15% back was too good to pass...
That’s a great deal! Nice work! I love my a7iii too!
I like and have both for different reasons, but it takes time using them to realize there are far more factors to bear in mind.
for example, vintage lenses can cost peanuts - and they're all full frame (for 35mm cameras). Stuff like the HELIOS and the beautiful spiral effect will only really come out in it's full glory on a full frame, and the lens can be picked up in car boot sales on old cameras for a tenner.
Also, crop sensor cameras require a wider focal length than what is desired in order to achieve the look you want. Wider is just never cheap. That 30mm vintage lens you got for 20 quid on ebay... suddenly becomes like a 45 or so. So in a way - for videography at least... it costs more.
I like the idea of certain micro four thirds cameras but with the 2x crop factor... getting a lens as wide as my 14mm full frame samyang is gonna be well... 7mm I guess. crikey!
Great points!!
I'm looking to upgrade from my old Canon T4i (useless POS) and trying to decide between the Sony 6400 with the 16-50 lens or Alpha a7IIK with the 28-70 lens. They would both be great every day cameras with decent low light capability. I'm not a pro so I don't need the latest and greatest features. The prices are identical so it makes the decision much more difficult!
I’d probably go with the a6400 over the a7ii for sure.
Honestly, if you want to feel like the upgrade to either of those systems is worth it don't waste your time with either or their kit lenses. The a6400 and A7ii are great cameras and will give you better high iso performance along more resolution but paired with their kit lenses then the difference between them and your T4i isn't as big as you think.
Michael Paz - solid point. The kit lenses aren’t terrible but there are much better options out there. That said, if you can’t afford anything else at the moment but want to work towards building a Sony kit, getting the kit lens can be an inexpensive way to get into the universe since it’s usually less than $100 extra to get the kit.
@@16-bit-trip5 Either would be a vast improvement over the T4i if only because the Canon just can't seem to find a focus when I need to grab a fast shot and it's completely useless in video mode, constantly hunting and changing its mind on what to focus on. Manual focus on this camera is tedious and time consuming for photos and nearly impossible in video mode because you have to use the live view instead of the viewfinder. The camera will generally take great photos IF I use a tripod and have a lot of time to set up a shot but for anything else I rely on one of my compact pocket Sony or Canons. Sonys just focus instantly and take a perfectly exposed shot. If I screw up a shot I want it to be my fault, not due to a poorly designed camera. I forgot to add in my first post that I plan on using the kit lens for general everyday shooting but add a good quality wide angle lens later. I also prefer natural lighting to flash and do occasional night sky photos and lapses which is why I don't want anything smaller than an aps-c sensor.
@@bugatti314159 bugatti314159 I agree that the T4i leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to liveview/video AF. The Sony cameras will definitely be better there, especially the a6400 it has a much better AF system than the A7II. Another bonus is that since it is a newer camera the high iso performance is pretty close to the A7II even though it's a smaller sensor. For what you plan to do the a6400 is probably the better choice as it has better specs and tech than the A7II, minus IBIS.
If you want to go full frame with Sony then I would recommend an A7RII over an A7II if your budget allows. For the extra money (assuming you are getting it used) it is a better all around camera. Especially in the AF and video departments.
Which is better? A 40 MP FF or a 20 MP APS sensor? Neither as they are equal. What about an 80 MP FF or a 25MP crop? The APS is better in low light than the 80 but the 80 will allow more cropping.
Pixel size is definitely important yes! It depends on which you need more... low light performance and clarity, or cropping capability/being able to make gigantic prints.
Reason I got the 6600 APC is because I will actually have it with me, while my full size always sat at home. I sold my full sized Nikon as it just didn't get used. The 6600 is capable of excellent photos, and with some post processing, can fix any issues. The lenses for Sony APC are really very good, and a lot less $.
Love my 6400... with my 16mm sigma, & sony 90mm macro G lens. Plus a few others, but these 2 lenses rarely leave my camera bag. The images are... exquisite. Cheaper, all I need as a hobbyist. Happy to stop buying and just use this rig. Because i bought the 6400 i could afford the 90 macro as my first lens for it, so Glad I bought the FE 90mm... works great on the 6400, when I use the 90 6400 combo, my description is that the images I capture are what I'll easily call my money shots.
That’s awesome
“More room to carry around snacks” lol literally me 😂😂
Haha we’re not alone
vs me who carrys around like 5lbs of camera, flash, battery extension, and large redring 50mm with a hood - because it makes me feel kooler.
can you recommend some good, photography snacks?
@@ChrisJones-rd4wb Kooler with a k.
@@Amocles "oh man that guy has 10 lbs in camera gear around his neck, he must be a professional"
The only reason I'll be getting a FF is to have the exact focal length of my lenses as it is. APS-C sometimes doesn't feel wide enough. But I'll still keep all my APS-C cameras, because why not)
I hear you! I’ve noticed a big difference in how I shoot now that I can go super wide to 16mm full frame. I never used to like that look but its growing on me for certain things
Exact focal length?? Focal length is focal length. It doesn’t change just because you put a different size sensor behind it. Only the perceived focal length changes due to cropping or expanding. You don’t get an exact focal length just because you put a 35mm sensor behind it.
This is true, but it’s pretty obvious what they were talking about.
I’ve been running a Sony NEX6 for the past 7 years but having some occasional technical issues. I’m considering finally upgrading to the a6600. It’s funny with these people complaining about the smaller battery life - I’m still using the original battery with never a problem getting through a days photos but I’m quick with shutting it off between shots.
That’s interesting about the battery. I carry 10 batteries with me for 2 cameras at most times (until now cause I have an a7iii and 6600)
Dunna Did It I almost never shoot video, or burst. I frame my shot, quickly adjust settings and focus and shoot, then off.
There you go! Different for everyone! You should get a decent amount of shots like that!
As long as you have a compatible mount system and support for APSC mode, full frame cameras are the best way to shoot APSC.
I prefer shooting APSC because its so much more portable. But if you can afford it, get a full frame body. The body size isn't that different, its the lenses that make up bulk of the portability gap.
A 2nd hand A7R IV (at least where I am) is the same price as the A6700 new. An A7R IV (for example) will have the same resolution as the new A6700 when shooting at APSC, but also gives you the ability to shoot with full frame lenses. ASPC only bodies can't shoot full frame lenses without a crop factor.
I’m a filmmaker and I just upgraded to full frame. Tbh, it’s the best decision I’ve made. It can do aps-c mode as well so you get the best of both worlds. Way better in low light as well because there’s more room to make bigger pixels.
true don't even need to be a pro to see the difference, congrads, aps-c mode is great
I shoot with both APSC (A6600) and full-frame (A7iii) and agree with everything you mentioned. PSC is certainly good enough for the vast majority of uses and users. However, the A7iii has some advantages. One advantage is that I like the way that I can adjust shutter speed, f/stop and exposure compensation with the dials physically located around the shutter button.
Tbh I’ve been thinking of upgrading to a 7iii for some time now for its low light capabilities, but I’ve done multiple shoots with the A6300 in low light (not to mention a fast lens) i’m impressed and happy that I have the Camera, but again a camera is a tool. It’s how you use it that will determine it’s greatness.
Yeah totally! It’s a solid camera. Unless you really need it, the upgrade might not make sense.
Now-a-days, Full Frame turns more and more into a Status symble than being actually needed by the photographer.
That was kind of the thought I had going into this video. Full frame is great, but I think too many people think they need it when they don't.
This is exactly what I have been thinking about. I have the a6300 and use it as a hobbyist camera mostly, but my primary goal for even getting in to photography is (crazy fangirl alert!) because I wanted better pictures when going to concerts. I have brought it for one concert so far, but had not yet learned about the vital importance of a fast lens at that time, so it wasn't what I had hoped. Now I have invested in a much faster prime lens, f1.8 and hopefully it will work better. But I have been eyeballing the a7III... It will be a complete overkill with everything else I use my a6300 for (I LOVE it being small and light) but I worry I might get dissappointed again if the a6300 doesn't suceed at the next concert. (I can take a year to think about it though, since the concert has been postponed for next year.)
Here I am, bought a Fuji x-t4 and a 90MM prime, and I am in heaven. Not going to go back to FF for the forseable future. As a hybrid shooter, I find the system well balanced and I don’t really need that much separation. Most of the time, I shoot around 2-8 - 5.6 aperture which I can get on an APS-C pretty easy:). Maybe one day I’ll switch to Medium Format.
That’s awesome!!
I ended up picking up a full-frame because, as a beginner, it seems like all the focal length recommendations (and lens availability) are targeted toward full-frame shooting. I found the Sony A7 II to be reasonably priced for entry into full-frame shooting as a beginner photographer.
Nifty 50 for a full-frame? Many options and reasonably priced.
Nifty 30-33 for an APS-C? 💩
Great video buddy! Lots of great valid points. Sony’s APS-C are so good you definitely can’t go wrong especially at their price point.
Thanks! Yeah I think a lot of people see full frame as the only option because its so much more easily accessible now but I still reach for my aps-c a lot even having a full frame camera!
When shopping ...indecisive. go home with nothing after looking at options a or b maybe option c....
This is good advice
Because of the flippy screen, I still love my a5100 anytime I'm talking to camera. My A7iii is for photography and everything else. Great vid, Dunna!
Thanks so much!
I love my a5100 too
I just wish it didn't overheat. I quite loved it but it always overheated and I couldn't get any work done. Swapped to a Canon 200D which has never overheated once even during long takes in summer.
A hobbyist photo/videographer here. Used to have an A6400: the autofocus capabilities were awesome, but the 8-bit footage gave me very little space to grade colors. Especially the greenish skin tones used to be a nightmare. So, I went for the GH5M2 for video and switched back to my old Nikon D5300 for photography. The APS-C (or DX) sensor here is still fantastic (gives 14-bit colors, mind you!) when shooting outdoors, but its performance when it comes to shooting sports indoors is rather poor (yes, I know the sensor's already dated). So far, I have tried many APS-C cameras with wide-aperture lenses for indoor sports, but full frame seems to be the only way to go because the ISO virtually never drops below 6,400. For APS-C sensors, the highest you can go with your ISO is usually 3,200 and even this gives an output that is barely usable.
I'm doing something similar (or considering it).
I have the Canon 5d3, which I use for photography, and debating between the following for video:
Sony ZVE10 (new $800),
Sony AS72 (used $500-$800).
If I go with the A7S2, I may lose out on phase-detection zoom, and slow-mo recording is limited compared to the ZVE10.
I have both. The reason why I bought a full frame is to get the maximum benefit out of my Legacy glass. What is the point in owning (as I do) the legendary Zuiko 55mm/f1.2 lens if I am not going to get the maximum benefit of that legendary bokeh? That said, I also own an Olympus OMD-E5 and paired with its proprietary 45mm/f1.8 lens it produces some of the best portraits and landscapes I have ever shot.
I'm actually using an Olympus MFT and a Sony full frame, and I'm perfectly happy with both :) depends on situation where I pick which, like portrait where I drive with my car to the location? Let's go Sony!
Nice! That’s awesome!
just bought a Sony alpha 6000 plus a Sigma 30mm:) I feel good about my decision!
Tamaron allows you to go FF because their
"Holy Trinity" is a third of the price Sony's trinity is.
Good points, I have both and I can definitively tell the difference and I use them accordingly.
You can also just go into aps-c mode on your full frame if you need the 1.5x additional reach. Yes, it is basically just a 'digital zoom' as it only uses the center portion of the full frame sensor, but you get the exact same effect as screwing a full frame lens on an aps-c body. And with an A7RIV the aps-c mode still gives you more MP than the A6600 sensor has and the ability to not zoom in if you don't want to: for example when this lion you were shooting is now walking towards you and you want to zoom out without changing lenses.
By the way: I shoot with an aps-c D500 and it is great. One advantage of aps-c that is not mentioned here: less depth of field. Landscape photographers want to have the whole scene in focus and with aps-c you get less DoF without having to close the aperture and introducing defraction.
The main reason why I moved to full frame is because of the full HD quality difference. In the a6xxx line full HD, for slow motion, it's pretty unusable for paid jobs.
You did a correct and professional jump in quality ;)
I have been experimenting with 120fps again whereas I pretty much avoided it on my a6500. Haha yup, my upgrade made sense for me... just not for everyone 😉
Do I need full frame? No. Do I *want* full frame? Hell yeah I do.
Like fr😂😂😂
Just get the Canon EOS R and have Full Frame Mirrorless with a flip screen and high mgpx count! Not Sony tho
“Full Frame”... except one 4k 😉 but yes, the EOS R is one heck of a camera still! I kept it to Sony stuff cause that’s what most of my audience seems to want me to talk about 😁
@Owain Gwilym That 4k crop though... Even the a6600 does better in 4k than the EOS R.
Upscale to 4k and you'll be fine. Or shoot 1080 bc where are you uploading to that the bulk of your audience is seeing it in 4k and not downscale to 1080, or 720.
yeah but the eos R doesnt have image stabilization which is kind of a big deal, especially since ur dropping 2 grand on a body.
@@waawaaweewaa2045 no it doesnt. At this point your better off waiting for what canon offers this year than to spend the money on the r. But all of the rf glass to pair with the r is stabilized wich halfway makes up for the camera not having ibis. Also, I have an rp that I love. But the silent shutter is not a global shutter so that's something to be aware of as well
I have a 600D with 70-200 F4L and another 17-40 F4L lens, i took a shot on lowish light, and then put my lenses to an old horse canon 5d mark i, I fell in love with the sharpness and quality in low light conditions. As for good lightning, the APS-C is enough with good lens, FF cameras have better sharpness at higher ISOs , and that 17mm is 17mm on FF, not 27mm on APSC and gets best ranges of focal length from L lens compared to APSC.
I'm a left eye shooter and the range finder format sucks for me. I want a fast APS-C to go with my FF Sony cameras but the last one they made that I can use was the A77ii. I can buy an A7Rii for the price those things go for used. What I really need is an A7iv with support for the EA5 so I can use all of my A glass on it.
But honestly lenses > body right? So if we get a Sony A6400 and a good lens, we should be just fine :)
I’ve taken some of my favorite videos and photos with that combo
Great intro. Hilarious 😂
I have the A6300. Looking to upgrade to a6400 soon... Black Friday deal let's gooooo
I'm crossing my fingers for you! Sony isn't known for having crazy deals but maybe this is the year!
I'm currently choosing to buy an A7R3 so pretty curious how it'll be :D
That’s a great camera! So many megapickles(yes I meant to type it like that)
Have both. Use the A7iii, add a few great Minolta lenses and do not stop smiling for months :). Use the Aps-C for regular priced lenses.
Very nice!