@@SergSpaceNo. You can use FF Lenses on APSC but there are many dedicated APSC Lenses like the Tamron 17-70mm F/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD wich i have an love. It's only around 500g. FF would be around double the weigth..
@@YummehPyroFlakes sony 24-105mm f4 is a bit wider, probably better build (?) and weighs 660g. Tamron is 525g according to BH. Size is similar. Sony is also a bit old, i bet new version would/will be smaller.
I shoot "all three", MFT, APS-C, and FF. There's a time and place for each sensor size. An example, on a rainy night, I like to shoot with MFT... a fast prime on MFT (great stabilization with my MFT cameras) will give me a larger depth of field while still being bright enough (bokeh isn't required all the time) and I get better results from the city lights. Really... you don't always have to have bokeh. Sometimes, it makes your pictures look worse. When shooting automobiles at night, in the city... the smaller sensor with a large aperture prime, will give you better results. The greater depth of field of the smaller sensor cameras actually help you in low light, when you need greater depth of field. Almost no one on YT mentions this... and most new photographers are really frustrated by these situations. That's why this "old guy" shoots all three sizes. There are a few situations where smaller is better... and even more when bigger is better.
"The greater depth of field of the smaller sensor cameras actually help you in low light, when you need greater depth of field. Almost no one on YT mentions this... and most new photographers are really frustrated by these situations." Very true. Only professinals really undestands that
I own APSC and FF and have done so for well more than a decade , each has their advantages and disadvantages starting with price but at the end of the day without zooming to 400% most people would be happy with the results from either system from any of the big manufacturers and the weak point in most of the equation today is the user not the gear.
Yes. In This video they compare noise zooming in strongly and cropping the image that much is bullshit it happens almost never. I shoot with ff, fuji x and m43 for photograhy. They all have their pros and cons. Hiking in the hills and mountains with big and heavy ff lenses and tripod no thank you. I do sometimes but then only one lense. A smaller one. M43 for landscape photos has a big advantage and that is the small and much lighter lenses. Double depht of field can be an advantage sometimes.....landscapes....macro I can shoot at lets say f5.6 which is equivalent of f11 ff. 2 stops faster and since ibis is so much better with m43 i might not need a tripod. And a tripod for m43 is much smaller and lighter compared what you would need for ff lenses. For non moving objects in low light m43 can have an advantage because of the longer depth of field and the better ibis compared to ff. The object you take a photo of with the ff camera might need at least f2.8 for needed depth of field and the micro43 can shoot at f1.7 and at faster speed not getting a blurry photo. People not thinking about that. The m43 has also much better ibis. Only If very strong pixel peeping you see more noise in the m43 image or printing super big. I do agree that ff is superior in image quality and If wanting very shallow depth of field. Pros and cons.
@@bluecollar8525yep and interestingly on the denoiser from luminar and lightroom i need 40 in lightroom or low in luminar for my a7iii and 85 to 90 in lightroom or heavy in luminar for my canon r7 . And in the end the ff will look better because denoising also eats up details.
I don't blame people to think that APSC is more the casual option and FF the pro option, FF does have more lens choice and usually the expesive lens is made for FF, all Canon L series lenses are FF, the only option for Canon APSC users to get a lens that is on the quality to a L series is the EF 17-55mm. (I'm talking about the first party lenses only)
Fullframe cameras opened up a new world of photography for me. I had been shooting with my Canon 60D for 10 years, which also have created some great images. But since I live in Sweden, where you barely see the sun for 6 months of the year, photography was not that fun anymore and I only brought my camera in the summers while travelling. But now I bought a Canon 6D full frame, and its amazing how many more situations it can handle! Last three months I have taken more great photos than in the last 5 years or so. So I really recommend to go for a cheaper fullframe, it makes photography much more fun, easy and less frustrating.
Several years ago I decided to upgrade my older MFT camera to go full frame. One reason was for astrophotography. I had got some amazing images with a $500 MFT camera and a $200 12mm F2 lens. I was quite disappointed when I struggled to get comparable night sky photos with a 5 year newer $3000+ Sony camera and a $800 17-28mm F2.8 lens. Don't get me wrong, there are some advantages to full frame, but there are also some advantages to smaller sensors. I now carry both.
I recently bought a used 60d and I’m just getting into photography. Have a kit lens at present and am getting some good photos but wondering what other lenses you found worked well with the 60d? Tack så mycket!
A good photographer can get images regardless of sensor size. My issue is when people who shoot with MFT or APSC say dumb things like “full frame is a waste of money there’s no benefit”. There’s clear benefit, but it doesn’t always mean it’s that much better depending on the person. Every person needs a different setup.
"Full" frame is not a waste of money but it is unnecessarily expensive...for the most part. I do most of my video stuff with a GoPro 10. It´s not about the camera...it´s the way one uses it.
@@knorke3642 true true. I wouldn’t say they’re that much more expensive though. A canon r6 mkii and a Fuji XH2S or r6 mkI and XT5 are very similar in price. But each camera works for a different person. yes it does matter how a person uses it, but there are limits to it. I used an MFT to take my first wedding photos, I’d never go back to it after how bad the photos turned out after the sun went down. In good light it worked great but even at f1.7 and with low shutter speed the photos after sunset were super grainy. The same relative scenario a year later with my a7iii the photos were much better. My skills improved but not so much as to be the only reason the photos looked better. Gear isn’t all that matters, but it does matter a good bit when we’re talking about paid client work.
I went to full frame for the low light capability compared to apsc. I'm happy with my purchase but I do miss the apsc camera I had. Both systems make good images and I took my all time favorite photos on my apsc camera. I literally am not making better photos because I am on full frame, the photos are the same creatively. Just now I can shoot at 12800 iso and be fully satisfied with the grain. But apsc it just bothered me above 6400. So to me the move to full frame was worth it.
As others have remarked, I would also factor in weight of bodies and lenses. About four years ago, I sold all of my Canon full-frame gear including the “L” lenses in favour of a Fujifilm X-T3 and in the last few weeks an X-T5. For me, as primarily a landscape photographer, weight reduction was a significant influence, reducing backpack weight for hiking. In addition the Fuji X-T design ethos of traditional control dials was hugely attractive.
I'm in the same boat. I have my dream setup on canon with 24-70 and 70-200 but it is too heavy and large of a setup for my purposes. I am actually shooting less. Plan to move to fuji and excited to use the dials
APS-C lenses are not smaller or lighter than their full-frame equivalents. Could have bought a Sony a7c, and some small, light full-frame lenses, and achieved the same result.
One point that was not brought up was the size of full frame bodies and lenses. I left FF Sony and moved to Fuji specifically for this. I’m a landscape photographer and hiking with a camera that’s half the weight of a FF makes a big difference! Side note: 40mp on the new Fuji X-T5 is spectacular!
@@greggpedder True. People cite how a similar spec f/2.8FF lens is the same price as Fuji's 16-55 f/2.8, but this is Fuji's top of the line lens, and they compare it to a budget FF option that has worse IQ
@@bluecollar8525 An f2.8 zoom on full frame is not the same as an f2.8 zoom on APS-C. There's a reason the APS-C lens is smaller and less expensive, you can't cheat physics.
@@TechnoBabbleit's not cheating physics if u understand the one distinction . Apsc is never changing the focal length , the changing the focal viewpoint! The reason why apsc lens are smaller is just purely because there is no reason to put extra glass if it's not covering it ! A 16-50 f2.8 ≠ 24-70 f2.8 . Just as example u can take 50mm prime on both apsc and full frame camera and then crop the full frame image to apsc equivalent, both pictures would be identical in terms of bokeh and image compression!
The fundamental reason why people don't get better images by switching from smaller format to full frame is that doing so does not change their capabilities as a photographer. It is also true that people have captured truly great photos with all kinds of cameras including those that are technically inferior to the best modern cameras in almost every way.
Yeah man, I still remember a couple in my beginner photography class that brought along gear that was more expensive than the rest of the class combined, yet their photographs were close to horrible. The girl with the EOS 700D and kit lens brought in jaw-dropping photographs every single time.
Remember when there was a photo mag with a cover shot made on an Olympus point and shoot 35mm? It was a big deal. We still see this effect with these cameras in digit versions. A couple “influencer” videos and the used prices go to double the original price 10 yrs later. Sure, it’s the free market but it’s also greed and, even more, gullibility of the photography consumer. This video isn’t really helpful IMO as Angel could do better with less. As they say, just because something new comes out, that doesn’t make the old become worse.
The better the camera the more demanding it is to the user. With a APS-C and the kit lens you can shoot with P and get decent images. If you have a full frame with a fast prime you need to be very careful about the focus and the depth of field.
@@okaro6595 *The better the camera the more demanding it is to the user* If by "better" you are referring to cameras with larger sensors, the opposite is often true. For example, getting good quality images in low light conditions can be much more demanding with a small sensor camera.
I have actually found that rather than being more demanding, it's more of those who wish to have control choose such "demanding" cameras. Those who can't be bothered to take control, which is fine, buy expensive cameras and put them on program mode. Silly, IMO, but it's apparently common - even if only noted by the many FS ads with the P selected. @@sl-rt5kv
I am a hobbyist. I have a Canon 5D4 and an X100v. I have owned an Olympus MFT and a small sensor lumix. Don’t forget full frame is a marketing gimmick. All cameras fill the frame. When photographers refer to “full-frame” they actually mean 35mm. In the days of film cameras most wedding photographers used medium format. Compared to the 6x6cm negative size of medium format cameras 35mm is cropped. If you’re a hobbyist get whatever you can afford. Most people don’t give a fig for what camera you use, they just look at the results. Also a10 megapixel image is big enough for an A4 sized image in a magazine.
Thank you Tony and Chelsea! Just wanna say I found your channel about 5 years ago and knew nothing about cameras. Now I shoot commercial product photography/videography full time, it wouldn’t have happened without your RUclips channel! P.s. currently using R7 for video work, and d810 for catalog and lifestyle images. All sensor sizes welcome in the workplace! Matt
I am happy with every bit of noise (grain) my Fujifilm X-H1 produces...or my X-T2. If I expose correctly and choose a fitting Film Simulation, get creative with my choice of lenses and compose my shot properly...I do not need or want "full Frame"... I fill the frame with whatever my eye sees and always get results that please my eye. I believe, the whole discussion about "Full Frame" vs. "Crop" is useless. There are countless professional Photographers of all different genres, who earn their money with cameras, regardless of sensor size. Advocating for "Full Frame" over APSC, gets old really fast. I switched back from "Full Frame" Canons to APSC Fujis because it´s not all about the size of the sensor, or the megapixel count...and more about the colors I can get right out of the camera, providing I know how to compose and light the frame. Plus...there is no "better" Bokeh in "Full Frame"...different.. yeah, but not better. Bokeh and its "quality" has also a lot to do with the lenses and their character. And let´s not forget about Micro 4/3... Great cameras, great choice of lenses...or DMF. Full Frame this and Full Frame that, is nothing more than marketing blurp.
@@jblanc_ I used to do Newspapers, Sports...mostly Cars and Horse racing. These days Photography is a Hobby, but I still do weddings, funerals and product photography. Other than that...mostly Landscapes and architecture.
I've shot dirtbike/enduro at NIGHT in Sweden in November with the X-T1, X-H1 paired with the 16 1.4 and the 50-140 2.8. A bit of noise reduction in LR and I'm satisfied.
Something to clarify is that an f2.8 apsc lens let's in the exact same amount of light as an f2.8 full frame lens. The only time people would need to multiply the aperture by the crop factor is when they want to achieve the same "look" aka depth of field as a full frame sensor. But in terms of speed, both lenses are the same. As for low light, to clarify, it's really the pixel density that dictates which one is "better" between apsc and full frame. Technically if both had the exact same pixel density, (using generic examples) they should have the same low light performance. Lastly, if depth of field is not the issue, lets say its just low light performance then it's sometimes a wash. You can use lower apertures with apsc and still have a workable image where the depth of field isn't too shallow, therefore use lower ISO. So it's not really fair to compare the exact same ISO (e.g. 12800) for both, cause in full frame you'd have to stop down your aperture vs in apsc you don't.
Same f stop means same illumination, means same amount of light *per unit area*. Full frame has a bigger sensor so more total photons collected. This means more photons per pixel or more pixels, both lead to lower noise when scaled to same size image. The math checks out for multiplying aperture by crop factor to get equivalent noise (and DoF/bokeh) performance, as do the results demonstrated in the video.
@Ants Aasma yep for DoF and bokeh. But my point is an f2.8 apsc lens is not as "slow" as an f4 full frame lens. Also for what you mentioned above it only makes sense if we're comparing the same # of pixels at two diff sizes. Breaks down if one or the other has more or less pixels, i.e. different pixel densities
@@cdnr6311 the point is that f2.8 can use a stop less ISO, which gives it approximately as much noise improvement as a same megapixeled full frame sensor has from bigger pixels.
@Ants Aasma if both apsc and full frame sensors have the exact same pixel density then yes of course you'll gather more light in totality overall because the sensor is bigger,but per unit area it's the same. So crop in a full frame image with an apsc that has the same pixel density, theoretically they should have the same noise. Hence an f2.8 lens is always an f2.8 lens. DoF and bokeh is a completely diff story though. Both of which we've mentioned above and from original post.
No, the pixel density is irrelevant. The pixel density myth has been debunked by several people including Tony Northrup. It is the sensor size that matters. Pixel density matters only in 1:1 crops with are not a natural way to use images, on normal use especially with post processing the high megapixel bodies are often better in low light.
I recently UPgraded to apsc 😅 dropped my A7III and f2.8 lenses and bought the FX30 and A6600 with f1.4 prime lenses and I couldn’t be more satisfied ! The gap in image quality between apsc and ff is not that big and any recent apsc camera is 10x better that any ff from 10 years ago anyway. I’d say any gear is so good these days it can’t be an excuse for bad results, so I prioritised cost and size/weight
It's all about the application. I would never accept the size and weight of full frame lenses hiking to get that special landscape shot. (and couldn't afford it) I can carry an assortment of M43 lenses in a small sling bag and get great results. FF bodies are getting smaller, but lenses still twice the size and weight of other systems. If you're an indoor low light event photographer most of the time, sure go full frame. But many hobbyists would like to travel light and easy and get good results, like myself and many others.
the best camera is the one you have with you. If APS-C Body and gear is smaller and lighter (e.g. Sony a6xxxx) and you can carry this on hiking, it might have more noise than ff but it is still the one in your hand taking the awesoe shots you would have missed otherwise when keeping your bulky ff camera at home ...
My Fuji setup (XH@ and XH2s) have served me well professionally. My results are about the same as my old Sony setup (A9 and A&RIII) as long as I use the larger aperture lenses available from Fuji and third party manufacturers. Viltrox just dropped a 75mm f1.2 for Fuji that looks amazing. I'm perfectly happy with APSC right now. The lighter weight comes in with the lenses. Makes a big difference when you are shooting for long periods of time. The crop factors make the most difference when it comes to focal length. An f2.8 lens is still letting in the same amount of light whether FF or APSC, it's just the APSC sensor has different pixel density and the FF has larger pixels to capture more of that light.
TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). APS-C lenses are not lighter than full-frame (FF), controlling for quality and price. "An f2.8 lens is still letting in the same amount of light..." No. Given the same transmissiveness of the glass elements, an f/2.8 APSC lens lets in the same amount of light as an f/4 FF lens. This was demonstrated in the video at 4:05.
@@aliendroneservices6621 wrong. When the lens is by itself, a 2.8 lens is still a 2.8 lens. It still is letting the same light. The difference you see is the camera sensor reading that light. The field of view is different but the light stays the same.
@@JET-Photo The field-of-view cannot differ without the total-amount-of-light also differing. If the field-of-view drops by, say, 1/3rd, the total-amount-of-light also drops by 1/3rd. If that were not true, then speed-boosters wouldn't boost speed.
@@djstuc Because the physical aperture enlarges as you zoom in (given a constant-aperture-ratio lens). What you're calling "same aperture" is actually the same aperture-ratio. Aperture-ratio is not aperture. These terms are widely abused, which causes confusion.
It also depends what you do with your photos. Most people see mine on the internet, and more often than not they see them on their phone. It seems a waste of money for me to buy decent kit. I recently dug out my 16 year old 6MP Nikon D40 and took a few shots. In decent light it's not bad, although I couldn't remember how to get the exposure right on my Christmas Day walk on the beach. Mirrorless cameras make it pretty obvious that you need to use the Exposure Comp dial. With the DSLR it's a bit clunky. Goodness knows how I managed 50 years ago with film.
Tony, with regard to your comment about Zooms for MFT remember that Panasonic Leica offers two zooms at F 1.7 aperture that equate to F 3.4 on fill frame which is not far off F 2.8 for DOF.
I have been a Nikon user since 1981, but I wanted something smaller and bought in to Fuji a couple of years ago, I love the feel of the traditional camera, I have no problem crop frame in any regard, except for portraits. I love the compression of the 85mm lenses and on a crop sensor, that takes you too far away and the result is not the same. For that reason, I will stay with fuji, especially for travel for the time being, but I will probably move to the Nikon Z in the future, similar size and weight, but full frame.
@@a.antoniou The compression does not come from the lense being 85mm, it comes from the distance between you and your subject. It will be the same with an 85mm on a full-frame as it will with a 56mm on a 1.5x crop aps-c as long as you move to make the subject take up the same area of the frame.
@@joelb5391 Actually, that is widely misunderstood. Crop factor is not the same as compression. If you take a portrait on a full frame and crop it, to the same field of view as a 56mm on a crop frame, that is not the same compression.
One thing I have noticed is that my full frame works better under low light compared to an APSC using RAW. Higher ISOs can be used with less grain. However under reasonable light, with a good lens there is very little difference in image quality.
I understand what your are saying because I just moved from a Canon m6mii with a 32mp apsc sensor to a Sony a7c with the 24mp FF sensor. even with the 8 less mp i'm still getting cleaner shots out the A7c in matching conditions. but are are right most ppl aren't gonna notice to difference! something about that Full Frame look though
This is the best comparison video I have seen between the sensor sizes. It's more concise than some of your older videos discussing crop factor and bokeh, and this video gets straight to the point of why one sensor size or the other might be better for different users. Nice job!
Accept, they didn’t compare the ISO’s correctly. It should’ve been Fuji ISO 5500; Full Frame (FF)camera ISO 12,800. FF cameras aren’t “better’ in low light, people just don’t do math 🤦♂️
@@thinkingape7655 I´m not sure I´m with you on the math part...since the ISO stetting is but a gain setting of the sensor that kind of amplifies the light that hits the sensor. Since the Pixels on an APSC sensor are more densely "packed" there is a lot of physics involved, as how the sensor deals with that amplification. The ISO dial is supposed to emulate the "Film Speed", but turning the ISO dial kinda only cranks up the power on the sensor and therefore amplifies the ability of the pixels to read and reinterpret more light. Take the latest X-Trans sensor for example...40 Megapixel at high ISO´s...at least in my humble opinion, give a whole new meaning to noise when compared to the same ISO setting on an X-Trans 3 sensor. At base ISO however the 40 Megapixel sensor of the X-T5 and X-H2 can give most "full" frame cameras a run for their money...if your lens can resolve 40 Megapixel, that is.
@@thinkingape7655 ... Sorry Ape, you are not thinking....the very fact that you would compare a FF image at 12800 ISO to a Fujifilm image at 5500... BY DEFINITION, means that that FF is better at higher ISO than APS-C.... a FF sensor gives me at least 1 stop better everything over the APS-C camera.
@@thinkingape7655 The only problem with your hypothetical is that there are no lenses for APS-C that give you that kind of aperture advantage to match the noise levels of full frame. You can't get f1.8 zooms for Fuji, you can't get good quality f1.0 or faster primes in multiple focal lengths. So in low light, when comparing high end gear, full frame always wins.
I LOVE that no matter what question I've had about learning photography you two always seem to have a video for it. You two are awesome! Thank you so much for these videos.
I think in general we can all agree that full frame (in nearly all situations) is giving better image quality. But strong reasons to use APS-C are the weight and to a lesser extend the price. A camera only makes good pictures if you bring it. Especially for travel weight is a big factor. A Sony a6600 with 10-20mm, 16-55mm and 70-350mm set to cover all situations weights 1800 grams. A Sony A7r V with Sigma 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 100-400mm weights 3430 grams. Is that full frame set likely giving better results, absolutely, but it is 90% heavier and 75% more expensive and the difference in quality is nowhere near as big.
I decided to change brands and at the same time go from aps-c to full frame, however, I changed my mind about going full frame. Why? It's good enough. I compared ISO 12800 files from Sony A7II with Fujifilm X-S10. About 6 years separate both cameras where A7II is the older one, and guess what, Fujifilm X-S10 performed better in my opinion. If a full frame just 6 years ago was good enough for a professional work, then a more advanced APS-C with the same or better low light performance is also good enough today.
4:50 there is a f1.8 APS-C zoom lens: the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Art. It is only available on Canon EF-S and Nikon, though. And of course, it looses some zoom range. It is such an amazing lens.
Personally I'm not a Bokeh chaser which is why I switched from full frame DSLR Nikon to APSC Fuji. Occasionally I wish I had more low light capability and considered the canon RP but for my portraits and most events the photos are good enough
As a Fujifilm APS-C shooter, I am happy to recommend this video to anyone deciding between the two formats. The only thing I would add is to be sure to consider the cost, size and weight of FF lenses (especially those "holy trinity" f/2.8 zooms), & not just that of the camera body. If you're still not sure, consider renting one of each, & comparing for yourself before committing to any one system.
The Sigma 24-70 F2.8 is $1099 and 835g, Tamron 28-75 F2.8 is $899 and 540g, Samyang 24-70 f2.8 is $999 and 1000g, Sony 24-70 f2.8 (Gen 1) is $1698 and 886g ..... I believe that the Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8 is $1100 and 655g... There are sufficient choices in lenses and bodies to build a kit for nearly any use case and any price point with FF.... if what I cared about was cost and weight I'd buy the Tamron for the E-mount and save both (wouldn't be giving up anything on IQ either).
@@silvestrocrino3256 You make a good point. I wasn't aware of that Tamron, & it looks to be an excellent lens. Still, while there are clearly some exceptions when comparing a heavy example of an APC-C lens to an exceptionally light FF one, I'd argue that across the board comparing like for like (as far as that is possible) you're likely to find more smaller and lighter lenses for APS-C than you are for FF. I've used the Fujifilm 16-55 f2.8, & while good, it was one of the bulkiest Fujifilm lenses I've ever used. By contrast the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is a mere 290g. Not exactly the same focal range, but close enough if you're looking to compare like for like a light mid range zoom APS-C vs a light FF.
I shoot Sony and Fuji. My Sony gear has its place but my Fuji that covers the same focal length equivalent is so much smaller and lighter that it makes far more sense for EDC or travel. An a7IV with Sigma 24-70 2.8 weighs almost as much and takes up around the same space as a X-T5 with 18-55 and 70-300. Both produce great shot, one is much more practical unless you need the “high res.”
@@daveb6711 Or the low light performance. Don't forget that an A7 IV with an f2.8 lens is going to have half the noise as an APS-C camera with an f2.8 lens, all else being equal.
I miss the point that you don’t tackle is that FF manufactures such as Nikon, Sony and Canon don’t have high quality bodies or lenses for APS-C, as they see the system as a step-up to Full Frame. .It is only Fuji that has high end APS-C lenses and body. So for the users using Sony, Canon and Nikon upgrading means moving to Full Frame.
My problem is primarily the lack of equivalents and the weight/cost/size you have to take on for those that are comparable for aps-c. By the time I built up my last aps-c kit, I could have gotten a lighter full-frame with the range of lenses I needed for less. That's just me of course. But as I try to look for a new mirrorless aps-c kit, there are compromises I don't want to make.
See people think automatically that because they get a FULL FRAME camera the image quality is going to be better, NO, the size of the sensor doesn't have anything to do with the Image Quality. it's a combonation of things, first is the image quality the sensor reads out, weather it's APSC or Full frame, and also the Lens, you could have the best camera that has the best image quality sensor, but if you put a shitty lens on it, it's not going to matter the image quality will be crap. Full Frame doesn't mean you will get better image quality, the only thing you will get out of full frame vs ASPC sensors, is #1, you will get better low light quality. #2 You will be able to blur out the background easier, doesn't mean APSC can't blur out the background, yes it can but you have to take extra steps do get that to work, such as zoom in and get closer to your subject or go 1 stop below in aperture then what the full frame camera was set at.. There is 1 other advantage with full frame as well you can blow up your pictures in closer with less quality loss then with APSC camera's. Because the sensor size is bigger to begin with and also higher megapixels are more common in full frame vs APSC, I don't think there is and APSC sensor camera that has 50 Megapixels or higher, but there is with full frame, and that means you can crop in and blow up your picture a lot more with cleaner images then APSC. So those are the only advantages you get Using Full frame vs APSC. Image Quality with APSC is exactly the same as a full frame camera the sensor size has noting to do with image quality.. Because of price i can get a ton of good lenses for APSC and take just as good pictures and video as with a full frame, and it cost me a lot less.. If your shooting Weddings yes i would say go for the full frame, but if your taking landscape or wild life or fast action shots like sports, then i would say APSC Camera's are just as good. And even portrait in a studio is just as good as well, but if your doing work where you can't control the lighting like weddings or in door activity then Full frame has the advantage. That is why most Wedding photographers rather have full frame then APSC because they can get good exposed pictures in lower light situations.
The price of good lenses on apsc is actually the same (often higher) than the same good lenses on full frame. I've compared them for myself. The reason people think they are cheaper is because they compare the wrong lenses. Eg. They compare f2.8 on apsc to f2.8 on ff, when actually they should be comparing to f4. This ends up doing the same for size and weight too. Apsc lenses aren't actually significantly smaller or lighter, as long as you compare to the actual same lenses on full frame. I did all this testing a while ago, and my full frame setup now is actually smaller, lighter AND cheaper than my apsc fuji kit was before.
Bullsht, FF have a higher dynamic range. You have more Information in your picture compared to apsc! The Tonal Transition, the Details and there way more points were ff is better than apsc. Its Not only about blurring the background.
@@frecheforelle761 your depth of field, dynamic range and image noise will all be completely different though (in favour of FF) so it's not the closest comparison you can make. This is an old argument, but the correct answer is always that you compare f2.8 on apsc, to f4 on FF. As that is how you get comparable end results. Adjusting ISO to then make the brightness match then causes the noise level to (approximately) match also. You then end up with nearly identical images. If you're doing anything else to compare lenses between systems, you're doing it wrong.
Physically, it is all quite obvious: what matters is the amount of light you get on a pixel and how sensitive that pixel is. For the same resolution you need higher pixel density on a smaller sensor, so smaller pixels. You need a "better" i.e. lens to get the same amount of light on the same area. This is why in the test the same lens with the speed booster gives almost the same result. But of course the speed boster contains optical elements so it will take some light add some distortion etc. So physically it is just easier to capture more light with larger pixels so larger sensors. Of course there is a limit when it does not make a difference anymore. And as sensor technology improves this limit comes down.
Another difference is that separation from the background can be much great with the full frame camera. This goes along with the boka test you did at the beginning of the video.
Also, don't disregard older DSLR full frame models, such as Nikon D850, it can be found used for around $1200. Still a great camera with amazing 45mp sensor. Tons of lens choices as well.
I stlll use the Nikon D610, which is 9 years old. It's full frame and you can get decent results at ISO 6400. Although newer full frame cameras are far better at low light, the D610 can match up against most APS-C cameras in low light.
I'm confused (don't agree) where you state that you apply the crop factor multiplier to the aperture. A F1 lens is a F1 lens - the lens aperture (or light transmitted) is unchanged by format size, we are just looking at a smaller window within it. (3 mins in)
Yes and a 50 mm is a 50 mm lens. Nothing changes based on the sensor size but if you are using equivalences to compare between different sensor sizes you must use then to both the focal length and the aperture (and also on the ISO).
Ha Ha There are so many full frame vs M 4/3 comparisons where the “experts” can’t tell the difference between enlargements that are 20”x30”. Certainly bokeh is better in a full frame, and low light condition too, but if you are doing landscape in good lighting, experts can’t tell the difference. Photography is an art, sensor size doesn’t matter.
I think sensor size matters on the extremes of the gear you have. I only own primes 24gm up to 135 gm and an a7iv & a6700 and I find I’m reaching for the a7iv when I want a wider image and reaching for the a6700 when I want more reach. Would I take an a7r V? Maybe but then there’s times I like the smaller body so I would go for the a7cR, but at that stage I’m back to 2 bodies but a hell of a lot less money in my pocket for no gain
The best camera is the camera you carry around with you. It's a bad investment if your camera don't inspire you to take photos with it no matter how good it is on paper. I personally use Fuji APS-C, mainly because I like how tactile it is, and how equivalent (in terms of focal range and sharpness, not necessarily bokeh) lenses are much lighter. Admittedly, Fuji lenses are not cheap, but they're built really nicely and are lighter and smaller than what I would consider if I'm in the Sony or Canon FF ecosystem. That really matters to me. I don't want my photography to become the center of my life/travel, so a small and light setup would greatly increase the likelihood of me bringing my camera and taking pictures. If you're a pro photographer, then you already know what you need (I'd not get an APS-C camera if I shoot a lot of astrophotography or other low-light scenes, nor would I get one if I'm planning on making building-sized prints), but if you're an amateur photographer like most people watching this channel, FF might not be the best choice. We easily fall into this fallacy of image quality and bokeh is everything that matters. No. What really matters is if you enjoy taking photos with your camera enough that it overcomes the inconvenience of taking a dedicated camera and lenses with you rather than using your phone in your pocket. If I would give any advice, it would be to rent a system that you're interested in and see if you notice the image quality difference for the kind of photography you mainly do and then weigh out the pros and cons for you specifically before deciding. Especially if it's your first camera. Maybe you found that you just don't like bringing a heavy hunk of metal and glass with you and phones would work just fine for the kind of photography you want to do. Cameras don't automatically make you a good photographer. Understanding the capabilities and limitations of your tools, and a good understanding of lighting and composition are what really matters.
I couldn't have worded it better. My biggest regret back in the day was buy a heavy F1.4 lens, which caused me to take my gear with me way less often, so I took less photographs. Now there are even lighter FF cameras and I'm having a hard time deciding...
I find it interesting that at the high iso low light comparisons both full frame and apsc are bad. A little more or less noise isn’t a big deal if they both are bad.
Great job Tony and Chelsea, best video I have seen in explaining the pluses and minuses of APS-C and full frame. I mainly shoot wildlife, especially birds in flight, and have been very happy with my Fuji APS-C camera, and it has worked just fine for portraits and even low light situations. So worthwhile to understand what you want to shoot and what works best for your budget.
Great talk Tony. Picked up a Z6 refurb from Nikon and a 24-200 zoom to upgrade from my Z50 with 18-140. After a week I am comfortable withe improvements in the quality of the body, and the lenses. For me the bigger pixels on the sensor and bigger glasses just seem to pass the resolution along much better. I tried maxing out the small sensor with a Sigma 18-35 1.8 and got good results. But that lens weights the same as a Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z. I am sorry but that is the same weight with a lot more flexibility and the more robust optical path. I was going to sell off all the DX stuff but now my wife wants to keep the Z50 for her use. My 70-300 AF-P looks a lot better using the whole lens. Pete
Sigma Art Zooms 18-35mm 1.8f and 50-150mm 1.8f are both miracles for the m4/3. And when combined with a speedbooster AND the 1.8f, that's something I'd LOVE to see you compare here.
Another thing that somewhat levels the playing field, at least for DSLR, is the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 lens. With it on the APS-C and a common f2.8 lens on the full frame you can more easily get full equivalence. I've read where people claimed that the full frame body gave better colors and in particular better colors for portraiture. I'm not able to test that. Upgrading from APS-C to full frame can be very expensive because the full frame lenses will typically cost more
@@greggpedder And it gathers twice as much light when on a full frame camera, what's your point? In a low light situation the full frame setup would have half the noise and also the Sony 24-70 GM2 is definitely optically superior to the Fuji 16-55. You don't have to actually answer, I won't respond again. Given the multiple replies about price it's obvious that you bought Fuji and are trying really hard to justify your purchase, even though nobody cares what you use.
I made the move to Full Frame in 2018 when I purchased a Canon EOS 1D-X, I then bought a 1D-X MKII, I now own an EOS R5, I'll never purchase another Crop Sensor camera again.
I'm a stage photographer using APS-C. For me, the extra reach of APS-C is great. I can zoom in to capture the performers' faces with the extra reach it provides. However, APS-C isn't always the best option since many stages use low light setting to get more dramatic atmosphere. In this case, I always think that it will be nice if I have a Full Frame camera. Well, since stage photographers don't get paid as much as wedding photographers (at least it is the case where I live), I'm still hesitant whether to buy a Full Frame or not. I think I'd still stick to APS-C even some years later because I've invested my money on the lenses.
Not sure how much you're zooming and moving, but if you can I would suggest picking up some primes from Sigma. The 16mm, 30mm and 56mm are all f/1.4, incredibly sharp, and have good autofocus. I personally prefer my Sigma 56mm f1.4 on APS-C over Sony's 85mm f1.8 on full frame.
I love that you say full frame has an advantage in wildlife as you're holding the most ridiculously oversized, heavy, impossible to travel with and literal hell to walk around with for several hours lens 😂
I mainly shoot film, but do have two digital cameras, Nikon Df and D40x. I like the fact that the Df will take almost all old Nikkor lenses, including pre-ai ones, with the same angle of view, and metering works. The image quality on the D40x is pretty good for an entry level camera.
I recently went from the 90D to the R5 - the only real-world difference I've seen are dynamic range that I can push in post processing, Silent Shooting mode & 20 FPS - I haven't seen any difference in low light ability with FF over the Aps-c - I only shoot Wildlife. I wished I'd just saved my money for a longer period & purchased a prime lens instead.
I appreciate your honesty. It's hard to be so honest when you've forked out so much for an item and left a little disappointed. I currently have an M50 mark ii but am considering either a 90D or 7D II in addition to this. Were you happy with the 90D and can you add any advice or commentary on this? I got the camera mainly for my sons sports but have found I am photographing everything and quite enjoy it. The M50 has been superb if I'm honest
If you want an upgrade from your m50 get the m6 II instead of the 90D. They m6 is the mirrorless version of the 90d - I have it and love it. You have to adapt ef lenses though and even the original adapter has some play in it in my case though.
@Askaly I like the M6 but I want a built in viewfinder. I like that the M6 is 32MP vs 24 though. I'm currently using about 7 EF-M and 3 EF lenses. Had Voltrox adapter which was fine but had some play with my latest lens so got the Canon genuine and it works beautifully. I was actually leaning more to a 7D II - I heard alot of 90D owners complain about the 90D and the autofocus since posting this.
@@thetoyota86perspective54 - The 90D is a great camera, in-fact I still prefer it if I'm only doing video. A good lens on the 90D produces great results. Best of luck
I chose a Nikon Z30 and I am loving it. I chose this camera because for the price point it does not crop in at 4k and the availability of 3rd party lenses. I only miss the EVF when using my sb900 flash and I am bouncing the flash from behind…. I cop the flash in the face. The image is still great …. Once I can see again that is 😉😀🖖🏼 I am actually getting better results off the Z30 with the SB 900 than I did off my old D610 and the SB910 that I traded for a motorbike. 😅
Personally MFT or micro four thirds is my favorite format, due to it's amazing capabilities for it's size. I can get images on par or better than full frame cameras due to the added stabilization and compact size.
There are a lot of other scenarios besides weddings and wildlife. There's macro, family, children's sports, travel, etc. For example, when I went to Paris, I took my d500, 17 to 70, and 10 to 24 instead of my d610, 28 to 105, 14 to 24 2.8. That fast wide angle zoom is far superior to the DX alternative but wasn't something I was going to carry all over the place in Paris especially since I wasn't alone. When I went to the Rockies, I took my d610 and 14 to 24.
I think everyone who is an advanced photo enthusiast should own one apsc camera and one full frame camera. That way a shooter can use the right tool for the job. Apsc cameras tend to have smaller equivalent zoom lens and bodies great for travel and wildlife shooters. Full frame will give superior results in image quality and low noise in low light conditions and also better for post processing lifting shadow detail. As either an advanced amateur, semi-pro or pro, most of us will eventually own 2 camera bodies. However If I could only own one, I'd pick full frame for overall image quality in most cases (except maybe for wildlife). However, if shooting in good light during daylight hours, with low ISO, or using fast primes, the difference can be much less. Great review!
With you 100% , I have the R5 and the R7 for that exact reason and use the body that fits what I'm doing and often use both at once for speed and to cut down on the opportunity for dust to cause issues especially when it comes to video .
I have bought two secondhand full-frame cameras -- Canon 5d i and 5D ii -- and they are great. My APS-C cameras (7D i and ii) are for birding and walk around, the full-frame are for people.
My choices were easier as an astro-photographer. I use the APS-C Pentax K3 together with about 30 Pentax lenses spread across from the 1960's till today. Perfect for my wide angle lens and magnified telescope images. But I just use a Canon 6D Full Frame body only when mounted on the telescope for wider angle views. Maybe one day I will actually buy a Canon lens..LOL
Astro-photography is quite different from terrestrial photography. Shooting deep-sky objects, we can gather exposures of several minutes or even hours at high ISO. Noise is statistically handled through software stacking. With planets, we take videos in order to battle the atmospheric disturbances ("seeing") and then process the many thousands of frames with dedicated software that eliminates the distorted frames and stacks the good ones. Images in astro-photography are as good as the telescope's optics allow, combined with the camera sensor's specs. For planets, a sensor with small pixels and a high pixel-density is the best choice. The sensor can be small, as a planet remains a really small projected disk on the optical axis. Deep-sky is mostly different, as many celestial objects are rather large by comparison to planets. There is less magnification and more light-gathering going on. Framing a celestial object depends on its apparent size, measured as an angle, after which we select an appropriate focal length, combined with the sensor proportions (if in prime focus). A full frame sensor can obviously capture more field than a smaller sensor, as long as the telescope's field aperture allows it. I keep using my old Pentax ist*dl DSLR and the Nikon D5000, both APS-C, for deep-sky. For planets, I have a dedicated USB planet-camera, as a DSLR cannot take RAW videos. And RAW-frames is what we want in astro-photography. Always. I bought my second-hand Nikon as a body, without any lens. Only recently, I bought a second-hand zoom-lens for it, just to be able to take terrestrial pictures as well. Because, why not? It's still a good camera for general photography.
I wish there was an astrophotography channel like this. I'd like to get into it and I feel like there is a gap in the language people use and no one cares to explain things from the bottom up. I hate doing something from a book-smart level I want to understand the physics of it to the extent that I could explain it to a child. And EVEN WORSE, the solar hydrogen alpha bros are in a hyper-nerdy bubble talking about their Etalons and how we all need to take out a mortgage to buy 3 of those telescopes.. yuck. I'm a work in progress, I wish someone like smarter every day or Veritasium would do a series on astrophotography. I am however greatful for Ed Ting and Astrobackyard, Astrobuiscuit.
@@danielbrowniel Granted, there is a steep learning curve in amateur-astrophotography. No one in his right mind will claim that it is easy and success is waiting behind the next corner. This is a hobby that will test your patience. As far as I'm concerned, I am patient, I guess. I take this hobby step by step, and these steps are small and are not very frequent, so, progress is hardly discernable during a single year. But, with every attempt, with every session at night under the clear skies, there is another piece of the puzzle that might find its way to support the goal: to become better than before. There is no exam, there is no evaluation to admit you to some esteemed league of proficient elite amateurs. There is only you, committing time and attention to a hobby. Keep an open mind and absorb the knowledge that happens to come your way. There is no perfectly planned roadmap for that. I think I learn much from serious astronomy fora out there, where issues of cameras and filters are discussed. They can often point you to the next level of contemplating issues that you didn't even know they existed in the first place. After some time, I forget some of these details, only to be picked up again later on, when I find the time. There's no pressure here to complete a training course. Treat it with a calm mindset. The rest will follow.
@@danielbrowniel there’s one thing that we astrophotographers sometimes fail to mention… knowing the night sky itself. Gear and imaging technology vary from person to person, but the basic process of how we can pull down an image of light 30,000 light years away (Milky Way photography) or even further like 51million light years away (distance of some galaxies) is similar: longer exposures, a much more complicated imaging process workflow, and love of the night sky. Many of the most beautiful images we take are either over several days of imaging, or taken in dark sites that may or may not have wild animals lurking about. You lose some sleep if you have a day job.
First off, thanks for your videos. They are very helpful. I chose the Canon R7 APS-C body partially based on another video you did. That said, what was lacking here was discussion about video, and other sports photography (i.e. auto racing). I recently shot Formula 1 with both still and video, and was very satisfied with the results of capturing 200 mph cars. I’m totally an amateur, and I only had the camera for a couple weeks. The versatility, and ability to shoot long videos without overheating was a determining factor in my purchase. Bottom line, I like the way you qualify your opinions, and leave room for the pro or amateur to decide what’s right for them.
Good work! Concise and accurate. You get it that f/2.8 on FF is the same as f/2.0 on APS-C. This is important: everything scales (except the noise) (if you've got the lens). But, Ha! As a dedicated full-frame fan/afficionado who turns up his nose at APS-C, I think you haven't defended APS-C enough. In real life, being there and having a camera is way more important than what camera you have. And in terms of photographic composition, from the tiniest cell phone to 8x10 (or larger) view cameras, the projection (image projected on the sensor when printed at the same size) is the same once you've got the focal length scaling right. It's all photography and all wonderful. Like they say: "F/8 and be there!"
As an a9 user, I was tempted to rent the a6600 for a little bit of more reach with the 200-600 lens, but realize after this video that I can easily just crop or use the 1.4TC as well, if there is enough light. Thanks for your thoughts on this subject!
I have FF, APS-C, and M43s cameras, I use different cameras for different applications. I have an A6000 and an A7 and an A7II, the A6000 is great when I don’t want to carry the A7s around.
It’s not an upgrade or downgrade, just use what ever camera or tool that you prefer, whatever system you find inspires you to just go out and shoot and not worry about how big your sensor is. So much more to this gear issue than sensor size and we really need to get over this. The Fuji system has so much going for it and it’s a smaller sensor than say the Sony but who cares if it is the tool that gives you the images your eye sees. I personally have the Sony A9ll at present and have just sold my a7rIV and all my zooms, battery grips and have purchased smaller Zeiss Batis primes, reason being it was all to big, to heavy and hated shooting with it unless was for a commission. Now it’s smaller and lighter although it is still like shooting with a Computer rather than a camera which is why I will be purchasing into the Fuji system with their smaller primes. So it’s a smaller sensor… who cares if it gives me a tool I want to shoot with 😊
"...whatever system you find inspires you to just go out and shoot..." I was thinking about this recently. When I look back through my photos over the years, some of my favorites were shot with a Canon SX520. Not a "great" camera, but it's fun to use, and for a couple of years I was shooting around 50 to 100 photos with it almost every day. Now my photography skills are a little better, so I can take advantage of better gear, but that little 520 taught me a lot, because I used it a lot.
I disagree about the wildlife. A TC can reduce image quality and you could use that same TC on the crop sensor for further reach. Also pixel density somewhat negates a 45mp camera like the R5 compared to a APS-C sensor. Further to that as a wildlife photographer that likes to hike for miles smaller sensors often mean smaller lenses. The kit that doesn't slow me down is the kit that get's me the shots.
Often a smaller sensor doesn't mean smaller lenses. Especially for wildlife. Just look at the Olympus 300mm f/4. Nikons full frame 300mm PF is 1/2 the weight. Even the new 400mm f/4.5 is lighter. The more "professional" the smaller sensor lenses, the less likely that it will be lighter.
@tc2744 You can use bigger lenses but there are plenty of lighter options available. The crop factor allowed me to take an EF 200mm f2.8 and turn into a 320mm equiv or roughly a 450mm f4 with a 1.4xtc. Pretty light set up. Conversely I could use a huge Sigma 150-600. I have the versatility. Tony is constantly backhandidly critical of crop sensor cams. It's odd and non-sensical. That's not to say his points are without merit but that he clearly has a bias that impairs his objective view. I have two full frame cams and 1 crop sensor and use my phone at times. I understand and am familiar with working with many different sensor sizes and cams.
I bet some of your clients have no idea what you’re doing they just love the end result so it doesn’t really matter about you cameras, just enjoy what your doing with them!
You started off by comparing a larger apsc camera and a smaller full frame camera. But in general, it is still true that full frame is bigger, especially when you consider the lens, which obviously you have to do. This is one of the main reasons many people, including me, have stuck with apsc. It would have been good to point this out.
@@TonyAndChelsea Until you go with MFT (Lumix GM5) with 20mm 1.7 pancake is super tiny, there is no equivalent in apsc or full frame for this (i own Sony FF too..)
In the real world (as opposed to the pixel-peeping, lab test-obsessed one), neither "FF" nor APS-C are any better than Micro Four Thirds (crop factor = 2) or even smaller-sensor cameras. In fact, the marginal increase in DR (and that's not even always the case) is more than offset by the many other disadvantages of larger sensors (mainly larger/heavier/more expensive lenses and an increased need for tripods). Also, most MFT lenses are excellent (overkill in terms of IQ and there are so many choices) and for wildlife, the Leica 100-400 (200-800 EFL) MFT lens is superb, and compare the size/weight/cost to anything for a larger-format system. Larger formats also offer less DoF flexibility. WAY more often, you're going to want more, not less DoF. As you show, you can control DoF via aperture, but also by FL and distance to subject/background. I've never had a situation where I couldn't get background (or foreground) blur to suit the image. Super-shallow DoF is way overdone to the point of being cliché, but if I want to go that route, no problem (I get razor-thin DoF with my f/0.95 "normal" lens opened up, so I rarely shoot that wide open). Also, noise is no longer an issue with any digital image, as DxO DeePRIME/XD and Topaz DeNoise completely eliminate that while preserving detail. The most important point is, however, that "IQ" itself is way overrated! The best images are seldom the sharpest/highest-resolution ones and you can easily go overboard in that regard to the point where the viewer will be looking more at the "IQ" than the actual image (only obsessed photographers--the people who actually buy photographs don't notice/care)! Ignore the marketing hype, and save your money (as well as your neck/back)--go MFT (or 1" bridge camera, such as a Lumix FZ1000 or Sony RX10 iii or iv, if you don't want to hassle with changing lenses but are OK not shooting ultra-wide or ultra-long). Your photos will be just as good and you'll take more of them, as you'll carry your camera more of the time and be happier!
Thanks for this. It's worth noting that equivalence goes both ways - for example, in a landscape requiring some good depth of field at a 100mm equivalent focal length, you may use 50mm f/2.8 iso 200 on micro 4/3 to get the right shutter speed, but would need to use a 100mm f/5.6 iso 800 on a 35mm camera. This can make smaller sensors, oddly, better for landscapes - compact kit hikes better, and you get similar printed results. The uncomfortable truth, of course, is the gear barely matters for most people and the limiting factor is the brain behind the viewfinder. I take better photos with small kit because it comes with me, and the lenses are affordable to me.
And, of course, having choice is only a good thing. I wish there was more yet! I'd love a 35mm equivalent sensor with native 4x3 ratio, as I'm mostly printing 4x3 or 4x5 ratio prints.
Equivalence - thank you for highlighting this important factor. I use an OMD OM-1 mft camera and get excellent results both in day and night with good prime lenses.But what makes a good photo is the person behind the camera 😊....however, I would not want to carry that FF 600mm zoom lens around with me all day...but that’s my choice.
@@TechnoBabble that's the point - you can lug a heavy ff kit with 100mm lens and stop it down, potentially with diffraction in some circumstances, or you can use a tiny, light set up and get a near identical result. I miss my little olympus kit sometimes for this reason, and have opted to stick to "compact" full frame lenses - that are still pretty big compared to my old kit, but do give better results sometimes. I'd say maybe 50 percent of the time.
@@theprettydamned Sure, that makes sense if you only shoot that way and are happy with the results otherwise. The only reason it's smaller/lighter is because of the worse technical image quality ceiling. But if it's still above what you want/need, no reason to get heavier and more expensive gear. To call that an advantage though is a bit silly, it's just a different tool and often times you can find smaller aperture full frame lenses that are similar in size and price.
I am happy with my Fuji xt5: I love the external dials. It is the experience of taking pictures, that what you explained in the other video. I fully agree with that. Also -to me- nothing wrong what you said in this video, though. However I use the workaround: no zoon lenses. For the wide angle I have the 16mm f1.4! Also 1/100 of a sec still works ok. Hence enough options to avoid shouting at high iso. I am very proud of the photos I made indoor with a small 35mm all at f2.0.
I shoot with MFT, and since DXO Deepprime Noise Reduction became so incredibly good, I stopped worrying about noise altogether. With their new Deepprime XD (extra detail), the end results are THAT good, that I think the discussion has become moot. It would be great if this processing power one day would become part of the inbody workflow! Computational power will eventually overcome practically all sensor limitations, I guess. If we look at the sensor performance of the extremely little sensors in our phones, then we could some day expect fullframe performance from much smaller sensors. Meanwhile, I enjoy the benefit of a huge lineup of MFT lenses, ranging from extremely small, cheap and stealthy, up to medium sized high end lenses that are still within my financial reach. I do get it that people rave for larger sensors, but based on rational criteria, I doubt whether most buyers are really better off with them. The bulk, weight and financial burden of the lenses seems disproportionate to me.
I often find that noise reduction introduces weird artifacts and strange looking textures, though I can admit that I mostly use topaz and not dxo. Sometimes the results are amazing but I find it time consuming to get the right settings, and I'm often just not able to, so I can never completely stop worrying even with full frame. I too am optimistic for the future though and I agree that big size is not inherently good. Quite the opposite.
@@EmilWall Do try out DXO Deepprime. It's a different beast. Even when pixel peeping, the amount of artifacts is very low and non intruding. They are miles ahead of the competition.
What you'll NEVER want to hear nor accept is I did a ton of tests with a OM-1 Micro 4/3rd camera against the new Sony A7R5. Both using top lenses. While the A7R5 at 61mp does produce a physically larger image as expected, the sharpness and detail was in fact NO better. Noise at ISO3200 was slightly worse with the Sony. Using the OM-1 with a 100-400 and the Sony with their 200-600 the size of the images was nearly equalized. The Stacked BSI sensor in the OM-1 has more advantages along with just as good AI focus capabilities. This would no doubt go against YOUR testing and results. But mine don't lie either. By the way I have a f1.2 Olympus Pro lens in my collection. it IS f1.2 so don't try to say it's not just because it's NOT FF
You're so obviously talking nonsense. You can look up any objective testing and see that the OM-1 not only has significantly more noise at every ISO but the A7R V also captures far more detail, even at high ISOs. Plus the actual low light performance of an f/1.2 lens on MFT is NOWHERE NEAR what you get with an f/1.4 lens on full frame, it doesn't even match f/1.8 lenses on full frame. Even if you did test them side by side, obviously your testing was extremely flawed or purposefully had some bias thrown in, since what you're describing is physically impossible.
@@TechnoBabbleyep, I’ve noticed lots of OM1 fans are driving their preferred narrative. I shot all three formats and my MFT gear is a blast due to size, but a small sensor is a small sensor. I also have an A6400 and A7RV. For me, APSC is the sweet spot and does a better job than MFT, especially with DR. My A7RV is in a whole other league and the OM1 isn’t close, unless you want it to be.
@@joshuaspop8865 Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of people that put thousands into MFT and are trying to justify their purchase to anyone who brings up the downsides, even though nobody really cares what they shoot on. I've shot with MFT, APS-C, and full frame from the likes of Panasonic, Olympus, Nikon, Canon, and Sony. Each jump in sensor size was an immediate, obvious increase in technical quality in similar scenarios, especially low light. With the caveat of a heavier lenses, though I kind of shot myself in the foot with that one by getting a Sigma 40mm f/1.4. But if I didn't need better low light, I can just take along smaller, lighter lenses that have a smaller maximum aperture and would essentially match the results of an APS-C or MFT camera.
Год назад+1
Regarding to APS-C vs FF with image quality context. There is no technical reason why APS-C must have worse quality of dynamic range or color reproduction in dark areas, however usually have. From an electronic point of view, only pixel size matters. Unfortunately people love number of pixels instead of its size. If APS-C format has the same number of pixels as FF, they are just smaller. It means that quality of image in dark areas must be worse - but the same resolution sounds good 😀 These are the usual rules of physics. On the other hand, if user buy expensive FF camera, expects to achieve better results. This is why FF cameras will have newer technologies implemented, before APS-Cs will they have. Better stabilization, better noise pre-reduction, maybe next generation of matrix or they will be mirrorless etc. Generally we talk about marketing, not technical issues.
Interesting video! You guys almost always make think about my choices a bit. I think the important thing is to consider your use case. For me I mostly shoot birds and the occasional family event. I have full frame, APSC, and M43s in the OM-1. I don’t get paid for my work. I used to have a photography company. I did weddings and other events and I found that Nobody but me could see the difference between the full frame ind the M43s except for me. I shot a two day event for a charitable foundation on whose board I sit. One day I used my OM-1 and on day 2 I used the Canon R6i. I just went and looked through the pics from both days and on my 13 inch screen theatre wasn’t much difference. I am older and have a chronic sore shoulder that I damaged in motorcycle crash years ago. The light the gear is the happier I am. I find the OM-1 being my choice most days.
I think these 2 do more to confuse people than to help them. Because if you can’t see the benefits of the full frame camera you probably have advanced far enough.
I‘m old, I‘ve always been shooting full frame. I shoot most of my jobs with digital medium format crop cameras like the fuji gx680 and a phase one back, or a hasselblad h2d, and some with a digital full frame. I own aps crop cams like the 1D MK363737, or a sigma sd1, and I love to use them, but for my work full frame is the way to go cause I‘m too lazy to work with anymore crop factors than my medium format cams have. If I have a 85mm I just have to try how it looks on crop sensors, and that‘s what I‘m too lazy for. I just want to mark my workspace and grab whatever lens I need without having to recalculate and think again. Other than this, small sensor crop cams deliver awesome images, like the fuji xpro like for example.
I have both from Nikon and Canon and MFT from Olymous. My D7200 has better dynamic range @ base iso than my D800, but it is noisier, so are the Canons. I use my D7200 in its 1.3X ( 16mp ) mode for the odd time that I shoot wild life, not very often I must add. I guess a lot of this confusion has been propagated by those photographers who are shall we say ' sponsored ' by the big names in sensor manufacturing, Sony, Fuji come to mind. They have to sell their new products, so they tell everybody that their ' best camera ' of yesterday is no longer any good and one needs to buy their latest. Nonesense as far as I am concerned. Learn to use what you have. Camera is just a tool. It is you, the photographer that matters.
It's curious to me that your post that contains the "sponsored" comment, although absolutely true, didn't get a heart from T&C. I've come to believe that anyone who is sponsored, either directly or indirectly, cannot be completely trusted because they do what they do for profit. (The obsession over money is the downfall of civilization, different topic, yes.)
The D7200 has the best aps-c sensor I've ever seen, and I've owned an a6500, a D500, a D7500, various Fuji's, Ricoh GRII, the 7200 was a noticably better sensor.
@@ultraniusmaximus1536 People have to work to earn their living, like everyone else I guess. Technology moves on and this ' advance ' has a cost that the giant tech companies have to recoup. What I absolutely object to, is this built in obsolescence . It is not just hardware, it is software, its operating systems, processors, memory, etc etc. It is built in incompatibility of editting software with older operating systems. It is that vicious cycle of this new thing has come out, but to get the best of it everything has to be upgraded. We never had this problem during the film era. My Voigtlander Avus of 1929 vintage, is still producing beautiful images. All is needed is a roll of 120 film, and a few chemicals, even coffee and lemon juice would do at a pinch.
@@G95G95 I agree, I think Nikon went for a Toshiba sensor for 7200. I only bought the 7200 because I gave my D300 to my daughter. I am glad I got it. It is a lovely little camera.
The speed booster results were interesting. I think part of what makes the Fuji noisier looking (besides the obviousness of being a crop sensor) is Lightroom isn’t the best at handling Fuji’s “wormy noise” (as others have called it), due to being X-Trans instead of Bayer. I use Capture One for my Fujis and Lightroom for my Nikons.
Yeah there can be a few factors. The speed booster also doesn't have a perfect T-stop so it blocks a bit of light. But it's close enough for the example, which is meant to be more generic than a comparison of two specific cameras.
Yes, the "wormy noise", but also the mushy "water coloring" in distant landscapes, or the "waxy skin", are a burden for X-Trans. Even though C1 mitigates these problems, for many it is just not acceptable to be bullied into having to use a certain software they wouldn't have chosen otherwise. I never understood why Fuji haven't dumped X-Trans the same way they had dumped their "Super CCD" or EXR disasters, for similar reasons. Why did Fuji grant the Bayer privilege only to their GFX line, but are so stubborn regarding their X-Trans misery? That's certainly one of the reasons, why Fuji never gained much market relevance / market share during 10 years, so that now they put their entire digital photography on the back bench (according to CEO statements in Fstoppers' article "Fuji Refocuses Away From Photography" of July 2021).
I'm glad to see someone mentioned this. Lightroom is not capable of properly processing X-Trans raw files, so it can be annoying when the comparison is always made within Lightroom, and I do think the difference is large enough that this is necessary to accommodate for.
@@djstuc The regular complaints about - "wormy noise", - "water coloring", - "waxy skin", - and the pleas to dump X-Trans, are all originated from WITHIN the Fuji user community, discussed within their (sub)forums and groups, i.e. they are original Fuji users' dissatisfactions and their disappointments from their own long-term and in-depth usage experience. These issues are not invented by Canon, Nikon, or Sony users 😉they couldn't care less. It is acceptable though that different people have different demands regarding image quality, nothing wrong with that. For judging photos via the usual small internet resolutions, for example, everything is "good enough" (even smartphones' cameras).
As a weddingphotographer I am happy working with OM1, and the 1.2 trinity 17mm, 25mm & 45mm. I’ve switched from Canon FF and lots of L lenses. For me there is a difference sometimes, but for the customer there is none….
KEH must be pushing hard for the endorsement of all these big photography content creators. My experience with them is that they clearly under represent the condition of your gear so that they can justify offering less than the quote. And they know you'll be tempted to take the offer as opposed to going through the hassle of having the gear returned to you and then selling it yourself. I know I won't deal with them again after rating a bunch of like new condition lenses a few grades low.
Agree, last year I sold them my D7200 and lenses. It was literally out of box nearly perfect condition clean, the amount I got was about 25% less than originally offered.
I met a KEH rep visiting the Boston area doing evaluations. My RP and 24-240 kit lens was evaluated as Like New. When I sent it in, they listed it a bit lower and I got maybe a couple hundred less. I really wanted the R6 and figured I'd make up a little since they had a 10% off promotion using a trade in and that made it easier. However, the Like New R6 I got was an international model and I could not register it on Canon's website. I was wondering how KEH and other sites had so many Like New R6s, which were hot in December of 2021. That's how. They will buy grey market and sell them for a profit. I ended up returning it and bought a refurbished R6(with same warranty as new) from Canon and saved a couple hundred. I do think they undervalue their lenses and I would not hesitate to buy used lenses from them. I got a "bargain" EF 135mm f/2 for pretty low money. And I love that lens. It also looked pretty new to me...
Photography enthusiasts: "Invest in glass, not camera bodies" Also photography enthusiasts: "So here's my bias for full frame over APS-C" Also wish there was a better (objective) quantitative way to evaluate different camera lenses. Brighter lenses doesn't always mean better optics and image quality, which I think ties into the FF vs APSC debate thinking that more is always better. Considering how advanced IBIS and ISO/noise control capabilities have come there's hardly a difference between the two, with the exception of low light situations but even then you aren't dead in the water with APSC, FF just allows you to handle those low light situations easier. If bigger was always better then more people would be shooting medium format
Most pros not shooting on medium format is not a point against "bigger is better". The reason is because the lenses to allow medium format to be better in low light don't really exist. If there were f1.4 primes and f2.8 zooms for medium format I'm sure it would have a larger audience, even though they would be extremely large and expensive. Full frame seems to be the best middle ground where the sensor size allows for large aperture lenses with extremely good optical quality without being absolutely massive or hideously expensive. Medium format sensors seem to big to design those type of lenses for for a reasonable cost and designing good quality lenses for APS-C that have apertures of f/1.0 or faster seems to be proving difficult (see Fuji's expensive and relatively poor performing 50mm f/1.0).
Very nice comparison. I'd love to upgrade to a full frame sensor but I've got a lot of APS lenses and don't want to sell them and replace them with full frame equivalents, it's just too expensive. I also, love the extra reach for wildlife and motorsports. Then again, it would be nice to have a full frame system for landscapes. Maybe some used full frame gear, just for that purpose.
My FF lenses fit my APS-C body. And if I do put an APS-C lens on my FF body the camera auto switches to crop sensor mode…before I bought a FF body I had purchased the FF lenses to smooth the upgrade but I kept my APS-C camera as well.
The size of the sensor is not in top 3 of the most important things you need tbh. WHAT you are going to shoot. HOW this particular thing is shot best. PRACTICE and EXPERIENCE in that field. These are my (interconnected) top 3. The gear thing comes after and typically 'solves itself' when you know what you need and how much money you can afford to put in it.
What I mind annoying is that wildly expensive full frame stuff is ideal for beginners. But if you know what you are doing (especially for wildlife) you can get great results with m43 or APSC
There's so many lenses available for Sony that Full Frame costs less than APS-C and M43 at every focal length. Generally Full Frame costs about half the price of APS-C, for example with Sony third party lenses versus Fujifilm native lenses. And in many cases it's so difficult to get an equivalent lens for APS-C that you'd have to pay thousands for that on APS-C but it's no big deal just some 500 dollar lens on Full Frame.
@@zyxyuv1650 Good point. I’d love some cheaper Tamron or Sigma f2.8 zooms for my Fuji :) Although, not sure that still holds with longer focal lengths for wildlife. An 800mm equivalent would still be super expensive (and heavy) for full frame
I do not see how full frame is ideal for beginners. Full frame with large sensors and faster lenses is more demanding and requires more skill. With APS-C and kit lenses you he easily snapshots.
Hmm, overall very good but you made a small error at 4:00. Both of those lenses let in f/2.8 “amounts” of light, ie: photons per unit area (assuming transmission is the same). In this case you can see that the overall exposure level in both images are the same, however the Fuji just has dramatically worse noise performance and of course less DR, as one would expect from cramming 40MP into an APS-C area. But the light coming in is the same. Your speed booster test shows this as well; it boosted the aperture by one stop, which resulted in a corresponding decrease in ISO of one stop, which improved the noise performance but results in the same exposure. Equivalent aperture only applies to depth of field. This example should have been directed more at noise/DR performance between full frame and APS-C sensors of the same megapixel count but which necessarily have quite different pixel pitches.
No. They got it right. They have a video explaining what's going on, but in simple terms, the light per unit area is the same (as you point out) if the f stop is the same, but the crop sensor collects less light because it's smaller. Less light means less information, means the signal to noise ratio is worse.
@@gasdive that's kind of just paraphrasing what I said. The sensor is the culprit, not the lens. Starting that section off by mentioning "physical" vs "equivalent" aperture was a red herring.
@@TonyAndChelsea It's just my opinion, but you should not have framed that section in terms of the "physical" vs "equivalent" lens aperture of native APS-C lenses, as this is not the proximate cause of the noise. The sensor format is the culprit; the lens can only modulate the results. This might give some viewers the false impression that the lens is the issue, and they might try and "solve" things by using full frame lenses - to no avail. They wont realize that in your example the noise is in large part a factor of fewer photons per pixel, due to your choice to compare two ~40MP sensors from different formats. The uninitiated viewer thus wont gain an understanding of the interplay between pixel density, noise grain size, and sensor format. I think this section could have been framed more clearly to explain that.
Shooting in low light, I really prefer the results from my 12MP Nikon D700 to my 24MP Canon M50, even at the same equivalent f-stop, but a Fuji X-T30 beats both
I hope they're as good as you and the Northrups say. I just placed my first order with KEH today, and I'm looking forward to see if they deliver the goods.
I find these videos from Tony and Chelsea quite frustrating. They’re clearly biased towards full frame Sony and Canon, yet they very occasionally mention they shoot often with the Fujifilm X100V and X-Pro3 for their personal, non-professional. Why is that? Professionals aren’t watching your RUclips videos for gear suggestions but plenty of people new to photography and hobbyists are. These people generally do NOT need to invest in full frame gear and would be just fine with APS-C or even Micro four thirds. Steering them towards professional level camera equipment is ridiculous.
Eh I'm not a professional but use a full Frame Nikon.. I used to use Fuji and I extensively compared the image quality at higher iso and Nikon full frame just wins hands down. By the way both the cameras I was looking at were still around the same price either the xt4 (I wanted to upgrade)or the z6 at the time. I went with the full frame and for all the reasons they mentioned. You don't need to be a pro to use a full frame but Fuji cameras aren't all inexpensive their Top end APS-c cameras and lenses compare to mid range full frame prices
@@geminierica4077 Nobody is arguing that full frame generally doesn't produce better quality images. Again though, it's overkill for the vast majority of hobbyists and newcomers unless you regularly pixel peep or print large.
I've been photographing as a hobbyist shooting with Rebels for years. I feel I'm fairly accomplished as a hobbyist. I got my first full frame a couple of years ago and am totally impressed. Since that first 5D Mark ii, I've had a 6D, 6D Mark ii, 5D Mark iii and an R8. Love em... Still, have an R7 also and that's a very impressive camera. While the R7 is nice, I'm sold on full frame. Got my R7 for sale on Marketplace now to go back to the R8. I will always have a 6D DSLR nearby. They are just fun to shoot with and produce outstanding images.
Two issues should be added / emphasized. HOW GOOD do you need to be? Todays APS easily matches FF from about 10 years ago. I see little difference from my FF pics from a decade ago. No one looking at my images has ever said anything regarding technical quality, even last century when film was still the norm. For the vast majority of users APS is more than enough. SIZE MATTERS for nearly everyone. When working I would suffer with two FF camerae strapped to my neck but it certainly was not pleasant or fun. If not being paid I would much rather have a pleasant to carry and use APS camera. The Sony-Zeiss 16-70mm and Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 are examples of where APS can go with designs optimized for the APS format. There is still a strong need for FF but most folks would be more than happy with APS. (I tried cell phones but they truly are junk, there are just too many negative problems with the ultra small lens.) You put together a fantastic video, very spot on.
Geesh!!! Just what RUclips need again, another APS-C vs Full-Frame Camera. Overall, there is no high gain benefit per say if one uses a modern full-frame camera instead of a modern APS-C camera. As I have stated previously, with computational mathematical formulas and algorithms in cameras today, the advantage of modern full-frame cameras today over modern APS-C cameras is negligible at best. In all honesty, it really depends on the purpose of the photography and the final result one is wanting to capture. Good video as always.
having just upgraded to fullframe, the only thing that i've noticed is that the shallow depth of field is awesome but everything is more expensive and bigger and I was bringing my camera to more places when I was still on smaller apsc cameras
Same here. I just almost never do portraits or wide stuff… For the three times a year though I decided to have some fun. Got me a TTartisan 35mm F0.9 for my R7. It works great for portraits and such. By no means is it a RF50 L on FF, but it soothes the yearning when I do use it.
Thanks Tony & Chelsea. And.. thank you for steering me to KEH and giving a coupon code. I have been using them regularly and it has allowed me to build a good lens line up I would not have been able to do at retail prices! You are right, they are amazing and stand behind their stock.
Having an apsc camera I was starting to feel a little despondent with the first ¾of this video until you got on to wildlife which is my main aspect of photography along with aircraft, which both result in me using the centre of the picture and cropping in post. Now I feel a lot better about my choice. Thanks for explaining the difference clearly and an easy to understand way.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Went from full frame to APSC, much prefer the size and weight of the lenses and you can still get amazing results with some fast primes.
I went from the Fujifilm x-h1 to the Sony A7IV and it gets smaller and lighter ;)
It not just camera size. It’s lenses. If you go longer on full frame they are bigger.
It doesn't make any sense. APS-C cameras use FF camera lenses.
@@SergSpaceNo. You can use FF Lenses on APSC but there are many dedicated APSC Lenses like the Tamron 17-70mm F/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD wich i have an love.
It's only around 500g. FF would be around double the weigth..
@@YummehPyroFlakes sony 24-105mm f4 is a bit wider, probably better build (?) and weighs 660g. Tamron is 525g according to BH. Size is similar.
Sony is also a bit old, i bet new version would/will be smaller.
I think lots of people will get better results by investing in a photo course. A full frame camera is no guarantee for better pictures.
I agree, such as Stunning Digital Photography 😉
Best comment I read today
I shoot "all three", MFT, APS-C, and FF. There's a time and place for each sensor size. An example, on a rainy night, I like to shoot with MFT... a fast prime on MFT (great stabilization with my MFT cameras) will give me a larger depth of field while still being bright enough (bokeh isn't required all the time) and I get better results from the city lights. Really... you don't always have to have bokeh. Sometimes, it makes your pictures look worse. When shooting automobiles at night, in the city... the smaller sensor with a large aperture prime, will give you better results. The greater depth of field of the smaller sensor cameras actually help you in low light, when you need greater depth of field. Almost no one on YT mentions this... and most new photographers are really frustrated by these situations. That's why this "old guy" shoots all three sizes. There are a few situations where smaller is better... and even more when bigger is better.
"The greater depth of field of the smaller sensor cameras actually help you in low light, when you need greater depth of field. Almost no one on YT mentions this... and most new photographers are really frustrated by these situations."
Very true. Only professinals really undestands that
I shoot all three too, Kenny... actually, all four - GFX too! Each system is amazing if you know what to use it for.
Wouldn't a faster aperture cancel out the greater depth of field from a smaller sensor?
Why do you need more depth of field at night?
@@athmaid I am also perplexed
I own APSC and FF and have done so for well more than a decade , each has their advantages and disadvantages starting with price but at the end of the day without zooming to 400% most people would be happy with the results from either system from any of the big manufacturers and the weak point in most of the equation today is the user not the gear.
Yes. In This video they compare noise zooming in strongly and cropping the image that much is bullshit it happens almost never.
I shoot with ff, fuji x and m43 for photograhy. They all have their pros and cons. Hiking in the hills and mountains with big and heavy ff lenses and tripod no thank you. I do sometimes but then only one lense. A smaller one.
M43 for landscape photos has a big advantage and that is the small and much lighter lenses. Double depht of field can be an advantage sometimes.....landscapes....macro
I can shoot at lets say f5.6 which is equivalent of f11 ff.
2 stops faster and since ibis is so much better with m43 i might not need a tripod. And a tripod for m43 is much smaller and lighter compared what you would need for ff lenses.
For non moving objects in low light m43 can have an advantage because of the longer depth of field and the better ibis compared to ff. The object you take a photo of with the ff camera might need at least f2.8 for needed depth of field and the micro43 can shoot at f1.7 and at faster speed not getting a blurry photo. People not thinking about that. The m43 has also much better ibis. Only If very strong pixel peeping you see more noise in the m43 image or printing super big.
I do agree that ff is superior in image quality and If wanting very shallow depth of field. Pros and cons.
Especially of you run images through an AI denoiser
@@bluecollar8525yep and interestingly on the denoiser from luminar and lightroom i need 40 in lightroom or low in luminar for my a7iii and 85 to 90 in lightroom or heavy in luminar for my canon r7 .
And in the end the ff will look better because denoising also eats up details.
I don't blame people to think that APSC is more the casual option and FF the pro option, FF does have more lens choice and usually the expesive lens is made for FF, all Canon L series lenses are FF, the only option for Canon APSC users to get a lens that is on the quality to a L series is the EF 17-55mm. (I'm talking about the first party lenses only)
Fullframe cameras opened up a new world of photography for me. I had been shooting with my Canon 60D for 10 years, which also have created some great images. But since I live in Sweden, where you barely see the sun for 6 months of the year, photography was not that fun anymore and I only brought my camera in the summers while travelling.
But now I bought a Canon 6D full frame, and its amazing how many more situations it can handle! Last three months I have taken more great photos than in the last 5 years or so. So I really recommend to go for a cheaper fullframe, it makes photography much more fun, easy and less frustrating.
Several years ago I decided to upgrade my older MFT camera to go full frame. One reason was for astrophotography. I had got some amazing images with a $500 MFT camera and a $200 12mm F2 lens. I was quite disappointed when I struggled to get comparable night sky photos with a 5 year newer $3000+ Sony camera and a $800 17-28mm F2.8 lens. Don't get me wrong, there are some advantages to full frame, but there are also some advantages to smaller sensors. I now carry both.
such coincidence
i have a 60D and want to get a 6D as well
well i have a Canon 60D right now, and thinking about switching to either A7III or A6700.... still cannot decide whether go with ff or aps-c ;)
@@losiek008 both about the same price. Rent both and see once they're in your hands
I recently bought a used 60d and I’m just getting into photography. Have a kit lens at present and am getting some good photos but wondering what other lenses you found worked well with the 60d? Tack så mycket!
A good photographer can get images regardless of sensor size.
My issue is when people who shoot with MFT or APSC say dumb things like “full frame is a waste of money there’s no benefit”. There’s clear benefit, but it doesn’t always mean it’s that much better depending on the person.
Every person needs a different setup.
"Full" frame is not a waste of money but it is unnecessarily expensive...for the most part. I do most of my video stuff with a GoPro 10. It´s not about the camera...it´s the way one uses it.
@@knorke3642 true true. I wouldn’t say they’re that much more expensive though. A canon r6 mkii and a Fuji XH2S or r6 mkI and XT5 are very similar in price. But each camera works for a different person.
yes it does matter how a person uses it, but there are limits to it.
I used an MFT to take my first wedding photos, I’d never go back to it after how bad the photos turned out after the sun went down. In good light it worked great but even at f1.7 and with low shutter speed the photos after sunset were super grainy. The same relative scenario a year later with my a7iii the photos were much better.
My skills improved but not so much as to be the only reason the photos looked better. Gear isn’t all that matters, but it does matter a good bit when we’re talking about paid client work.
@@knorke3642 in expansion of that, many of the official car ads on youtube/social media are shot on go-pros/small action cams
It’s like when people tell me Trader Joe’s is better than Whole Foods. Different tools for different use cases. I agree
Bingo.
I went to full frame for the low light capability compared to apsc. I'm happy with my purchase but I do miss the apsc camera I had. Both systems make good images and I took my all time favorite photos on my apsc camera. I literally am not making better photos because I am on full frame, the photos are the same creatively. Just now I can shoot at 12800 iso and be fully satisfied with the grain. But apsc it just bothered me above 6400. So to me the move to full frame was worth it.
THIS!!!!!
Why 12800 iso?????
@@chromaticvisuelle because he can
LOL. So you're giving up on a platform for a feature that you'll use 1-2/year? I use both my Leica Q2, m10 and you'll usually find me with my PEN-F.
@@nicolaskrinis7614 i use it more times than that but yes I am giving up on a platform for a platform that better suits my needs.
As others have remarked, I would also factor in weight of bodies and lenses. About four years ago, I sold all of my Canon full-frame gear including the “L” lenses in favour of a Fujifilm X-T3 and in the last few weeks an X-T5. For me, as primarily a landscape photographer, weight reduction was a significant influence, reducing backpack weight for hiking. In addition the Fuji X-T design ethos of traditional control dials was hugely attractive.
Yeah for landscape I love my Fuji. Been wanting to shoot some more wildlife lately though and could use the extra light of a full frame censor...
I'm in the same boat. I have my dream setup on canon with 24-70 and 70-200 but it is too heavy and large of a setup for my purposes. I am actually shooting less. Plan to move to fuji and excited to use the dials
In 2023, the flagship Fuji bodies (xh2/s) are virtually the same size as Sony’s FF bodies…
APS-C lenses are not smaller or lighter than their full-frame equivalents. Could have bought a Sony a7c, and some small, light full-frame lenses, and achieved the same result.
@@Blessbh Sony FE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS II weighs only 794 grams. No APS-C lens can match it.
One point that was not brought up was the size of full frame bodies and lenses. I left FF Sony and moved to Fuji specifically for this. I’m a landscape photographer and hiking with a camera that’s half the weight of a FF makes a big difference!
Side note: 40mp on the new Fuji X-T5 is spectacular!
And the price.
@@greggpedder True. People cite how a similar spec f/2.8FF lens is the same price as Fuji's 16-55 f/2.8, but this is Fuji's top of the line lens, and they compare it to a budget FF option that has worse IQ
@@bluecollar8525 An f2.8 zoom on full frame is not the same as an f2.8 zoom on APS-C. There's a reason the APS-C lens is smaller and less expensive, you can't cheat physics.
It's one of the first things they said in the video, though it was quick.
@@TechnoBabbleit's not cheating physics if u understand the one distinction . Apsc is never changing the focal length , the changing the focal viewpoint! The reason why apsc lens are smaller is just purely because there is no reason to put extra glass if it's not covering it ! A 16-50 f2.8 ≠ 24-70 f2.8 . Just as example u can take 50mm prime on both apsc and full frame camera and then crop the full frame image to apsc equivalent, both pictures would be identical in terms of bokeh and image compression!
The fundamental reason why people don't get better images by switching from smaller format to full frame is that doing so does not change their capabilities as a photographer. It is also true that people have captured truly great photos with all kinds of cameras including those that are technically inferior to the best modern cameras in almost every way.
Yeah man, I still remember a couple in my beginner photography class that brought along gear that was more expensive than the rest of the class combined, yet their photographs were close to horrible. The girl with the EOS 700D and kit lens brought in jaw-dropping photographs every single time.
Remember when there was a photo mag with a cover shot made on an Olympus point and shoot 35mm? It was a big deal. We still see this effect with these cameras in digit versions. A couple “influencer” videos and the used prices go to double the original price 10 yrs later. Sure, it’s the free market but it’s also greed and, even more, gullibility of the photography consumer. This video isn’t really helpful IMO as Angel could do better with less.
As they say, just because something new comes out, that doesn’t make the old become worse.
The better the camera the more demanding it is to the user. With a APS-C and the kit lens you can shoot with P and get decent images. If you have a full frame with a fast prime you need to be very careful about the focus and the depth of field.
@@okaro6595 *The better the camera the more demanding it is to the user* If by "better" you are referring to cameras with larger sensors, the opposite is often true. For example, getting good quality images in low light conditions can be much more demanding with a small sensor camera.
I have actually found that rather than being more demanding, it's more of those who wish to have control choose such "demanding" cameras. Those who can't be bothered to take control, which is fine, buy expensive cameras and put them on program mode. Silly, IMO, but it's apparently common - even if only noted by the many FS ads with the P selected.
@@sl-rt5kv
I am a hobbyist. I have a Canon 5D4 and an X100v. I have owned an Olympus MFT and a small sensor lumix. Don’t forget full frame is a marketing gimmick. All cameras fill the frame. When photographers refer to “full-frame” they actually mean 35mm. In the days of film cameras most wedding photographers used medium format.
Compared to the 6x6cm negative size of medium format cameras 35mm is cropped.
If you’re a hobbyist get whatever you can afford. Most people don’t give a fig for what camera you use, they just look at the results.
Also a10 megapixel image is big enough for an A4 sized image in a magazine.
My takeaway from this is that the lens makes the biggest difference of all. I also took away from this that I should own BOTH and have fun! 😆
Thank you Tony and Chelsea! Just wanna say I found your channel about 5 years ago and knew nothing about cameras. Now I shoot commercial product photography/videography full time, it wouldn’t have happened without your RUclips channel!
P.s. currently using R7 for video work, and d810 for catalog and lifestyle images. All sensor sizes welcome in the workplace!
Matt
I am happy with every bit of noise (grain) my Fujifilm X-H1 produces...or my X-T2. If I expose correctly and choose a fitting Film Simulation, get creative with my choice of lenses and compose my shot properly...I do not need or want "full Frame"... I fill the frame with whatever my eye sees and always get results that please my eye. I believe, the whole discussion about "Full Frame" vs. "Crop" is useless. There are countless professional Photographers of all different genres, who earn their money with cameras, regardless of sensor size. Advocating for "Full Frame" over APSC, gets old really fast. I switched back from "Full Frame" Canons to APSC Fujis because it´s not all about the size of the sensor, or the megapixel count...and more about the colors I can get right out of the camera, providing I know how to compose and light the frame. Plus...there is no "better" Bokeh in "Full Frame"...different.. yeah, but not better. Bokeh and its "quality" has also a lot to do with the lenses and their character. And let´s not forget about Micro 4/3... Great cameras, great choice of lenses...or DMF. Full Frame this and Full Frame that, is nothing more than marketing blurp.
Exactly!
Same here. I even add grain in camera to get the look, even at ISO 160. I Sold my Canon 6D Mark II because I prefered the photos from Fujifilm.
What genre of photography do you shoot?
@@jblanc_ I used to do Newspapers, Sports...mostly Cars and Horse racing. These days Photography is a Hobby, but I still do weddings, funerals and product photography. Other than that...mostly Landscapes and architecture.
On the other hand you can’t deny that FF has the best lenses.
I've shot dirtbike/enduro at NIGHT in Sweden in November with the X-T1, X-H1 paired with the 16 1.4 and the 50-140 2.8. A bit of noise reduction in LR and I'm satisfied.
Can we see photos online maybe?
Something to clarify is that an f2.8 apsc lens let's in the exact same amount of light as an f2.8 full frame lens. The only time people would need to multiply the aperture by the crop factor is when they want to achieve the same "look" aka depth of field as a full frame sensor. But in terms of speed, both lenses are the same.
As for low light, to clarify, it's really the pixel density that dictates which one is "better" between apsc and full frame. Technically if both had the exact same pixel density, (using generic examples) they should have the same low light performance.
Lastly, if depth of field is not the issue, lets say its just low light performance then it's sometimes a wash. You can use lower apertures with apsc and still have a workable image where the depth of field isn't too shallow, therefore use lower ISO. So it's not really fair to compare the exact same ISO (e.g. 12800) for both, cause in full frame you'd have to stop down your aperture vs in apsc you don't.
Same f stop means same illumination, means same amount of light *per unit area*. Full frame has a bigger sensor so more total photons collected. This means more photons per pixel or more pixels, both lead to lower noise when scaled to same size image.
The math checks out for multiplying aperture by crop factor to get equivalent noise (and DoF/bokeh) performance, as do the results demonstrated in the video.
@Ants Aasma yep for DoF and bokeh. But my point is an f2.8 apsc lens is not as "slow" as an f4 full frame lens.
Also for what you mentioned above it only makes sense if we're comparing the same # of pixels at two diff sizes. Breaks down if one or the other has more or less pixels, i.e. different pixel densities
@@cdnr6311 the point is that f2.8 can use a stop less ISO, which gives it approximately as much noise improvement as a same megapixeled full frame sensor has from bigger pixels.
@Ants Aasma if both apsc and full frame sensors have the exact same pixel density then yes of course you'll gather more light in totality overall because the sensor is bigger,but per unit area it's the same. So crop in a full frame image with an apsc that has the same pixel density, theoretically they should have the same noise. Hence an f2.8 lens is always an f2.8 lens. DoF and bokeh is a completely diff story though. Both of which we've mentioned above and from original post.
No, the pixel density is irrelevant. The pixel density myth has been debunked by several people including Tony Northrup. It is the sensor size that matters. Pixel density matters only in 1:1 crops with are not a natural way to use images, on normal use especially with post processing the high megapixel bodies are often better in low light.
I recently UPgraded to apsc 😅 dropped my A7III and f2.8 lenses and bought the FX30 and A6600 with f1.4 prime lenses and I couldn’t be more satisfied ! The gap in image quality between apsc and ff is not that big and any recent apsc camera is 10x better that any ff from 10 years ago anyway. I’d say any gear is so good these days it can’t be an excuse for bad results, so I prioritised cost and size/weight
I shoot both……there nailed it.
Thanks. Listening to these two is annoying anyway 😂
@@CookieMonstro21Why? It seems they live an amazing life, and seem to work so well together, come across as actually happy.
Some people hate happy 🤪
It's all about the application. I would never accept the size and weight of full frame lenses hiking to get that special landscape shot. (and couldn't afford it) I can carry an assortment of M43 lenses in a small sling bag and get great results. FF bodies are getting smaller, but lenses still twice the size and weight of other systems. If you're an indoor low light event photographer most of the time, sure go full frame. But many hobbyists would like to travel light and easy and get good results, like myself and many others.
Plenty of very small FF lenses exist.
the best camera is the one you have with you. If APS-C Body and gear is smaller and lighter (e.g. Sony a6xxxx) and you can carry this on hiking, it might have more noise than ff but it is still the one in your hand taking the awesoe shots you would have missed otherwise when keeping your bulky ff camera at home ...
My Fuji setup (XH@ and XH2s) have served me well professionally. My results are about the same as my old Sony setup (A9 and A&RIII) as long as I use the larger aperture lenses available from Fuji and third party manufacturers. Viltrox just dropped a 75mm f1.2 for Fuji that looks amazing. I'm perfectly happy with APSC right now. The lighter weight comes in with the lenses. Makes a big difference when you are shooting for long periods of time. The crop factors make the most difference when it comes to focal length. An f2.8 lens is still letting in the same amount of light whether FF or APSC, it's just the APSC sensor has different pixel density and the FF has larger pixels to capture more of that light.
TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). APS-C lenses are not lighter than full-frame (FF), controlling for quality and price.
"An f2.8 lens is still letting in the same amount of light..." No. Given the same transmissiveness of the glass elements, an f/2.8 APSC lens lets in the same amount of light as an f/4 FF lens. This was demonstrated in the video at 4:05.
@@aliendroneservices6621 wrong. When the lens is by itself, a 2.8 lens is still a 2.8 lens. It still is letting the same light. The difference you see is the camera sensor reading that light. The field of view is different but the light stays the same.
@@JET-Photo The field-of-view cannot differ without the total-amount-of-light also differing. If the field-of-view drops by, say, 1/3rd, the total-amount-of-light also drops by 1/3rd. If that were not true, then speed-boosters wouldn't boost speed.
@@djstuc Because the physical aperture enlarges as you zoom in (given a constant-aperture-ratio lens). What you're calling "same aperture" is actually the same aperture-ratio. Aperture-ratio is not aperture. These terms are widely abused, which causes confusion.
@@djstuc "All the same shutter speed." Because you failed to control for viewing-angle and image-circle.
It also depends what you do with your photos. Most people see mine on the internet, and more often than not they see them on their phone. It seems a waste of money for me to buy decent kit. I recently dug out my 16 year old 6MP Nikon D40 and took a few shots. In decent light it's not bad, although I couldn't remember how to get the exposure right on my Christmas Day walk on the beach. Mirrorless cameras make it pretty obvious that you need to use the Exposure Comp dial. With the DSLR it's a bit clunky. Goodness knows how I managed 50 years ago with film.
Tony, with regard to your comment about Zooms for MFT remember that Panasonic Leica offers two zooms at F 1.7 aperture that equate to F 3.4 on fill frame which is not far off F 2.8 for DOF.
Exactly! Wanted to write the same reply after hist comment :)
Maybe we should strike the word "upgrade" from the conversation about crop vs FF
Agreed. Tony always shows his true colors ... he does NOT like APS-C
Then you should also remove “upgrade” from any discussion about 1080P vs 4K.
You’re forgetting the more technical, electronic and physics aspects.
I have been a Nikon user since 1981, but I wanted something smaller and bought in to Fuji a couple of years ago, I love the feel of the traditional camera, I have no problem crop frame in any regard, except for portraits. I love the compression of the 85mm lenses and on a crop sensor, that takes you too far away and the result is not the same.
For that reason, I will stay with fuji, especially for travel for the time being, but I will probably move to the Nikon Z in the future, similar size and weight, but full frame.
My first camera is the Fujifilm XT30II and I love how compact it is
Why wouldn't you use a 56mm lense on the aps-c camera then?
@@joelb5391 I do, but even though they are beautiful lenses, I still prefer the compression of the 85mm, after all, it is known as 'the beauty lens'
@@a.antoniou The compression does not come from the lense being 85mm, it comes from the distance between you and your subject. It will be the same with an 85mm on a full-frame as it will with a 56mm on a 1.5x crop aps-c as long as you move to make the subject take up the same area of the frame.
@@joelb5391 Actually, that is widely misunderstood. Crop factor is not the same as compression. If you take a portrait on a full frame and crop it, to the same field of view as a 56mm on a crop frame, that is not the same compression.
One thing I have noticed is that my full frame works better under low light compared to an APSC using RAW. Higher ISOs can be used with less grain. However under reasonable light, with a good lens there is very little difference in image quality.
I understand what your are saying because I just moved from a Canon m6mii with a 32mp apsc sensor to a Sony a7c with the 24mp FF sensor. even with the 8 less mp i'm still getting cleaner shots out the A7c in matching conditions. but are are right most ppl aren't gonna notice to difference! something about that Full Frame look though
This is the best comparison video I have seen between the sensor sizes. It's more concise than some of your older videos discussing crop factor and bokeh, and this video gets straight to the point of why one sensor size or the other might be better for different users. Nice job!
Accept, they didn’t compare the ISO’s correctly. It should’ve been Fuji ISO 5500; Full Frame (FF)camera ISO 12,800. FF cameras aren’t “better’ in low light, people just don’t do math 🤦♂️
@@thinkingape7655 Yes, exactly
@@thinkingape7655 I´m not sure I´m with you on the math part...since the ISO stetting is but a gain setting of the sensor that kind of amplifies the light that hits the sensor. Since the Pixels on an APSC sensor are more densely "packed" there is a lot of physics involved, as how the sensor deals with that amplification. The ISO dial is supposed to emulate the "Film Speed", but turning the ISO dial kinda only cranks up the power on the sensor and therefore amplifies the ability of the pixels to read and reinterpret more light. Take the latest X-Trans sensor for example...40 Megapixel at high ISO´s...at least in my humble opinion, give a whole new meaning to noise when compared to the same ISO setting on an X-Trans 3 sensor. At base ISO however the 40 Megapixel sensor of the X-T5 and X-H2 can give most "full" frame cameras a run for their money...if your lens can resolve 40 Megapixel, that is.
@@thinkingape7655 ... Sorry Ape, you are not thinking....the very fact that you would compare a FF image at 12800 ISO to a Fujifilm image at 5500... BY DEFINITION, means that that FF is better at higher ISO than APS-C.... a FF sensor gives me at least 1 stop better everything over the APS-C camera.
@@thinkingape7655 The only problem with your hypothetical is that there are no lenses for APS-C that give you that kind of aperture advantage to match the noise levels of full frame.
You can't get f1.8 zooms for Fuji, you can't get good quality f1.0 or faster primes in multiple focal lengths. So in low light, when comparing high end gear, full frame always wins.
I LOVE that no matter what question I've had about learning photography you two always seem to have a video for it. You two are awesome! Thank you so much for these videos.
I think in general we can all agree that full frame (in nearly all situations) is giving better image quality. But strong reasons to use APS-C are the weight and to a lesser extend the price. A camera only makes good pictures if you bring it. Especially for travel weight is a big factor. A Sony a6600 with 10-20mm, 16-55mm and 70-350mm set to cover all situations weights 1800 grams. A Sony A7r V with Sigma 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 100-400mm weights 3430 grams. Is that full frame set likely giving better results, absolutely, but it is 90% heavier and 75% more expensive and the difference in quality is nowhere near as big.
I skipped full frame and went straight to Fuji GFX. I got an X100V and a monster Medium Format 50Sii. Go big or go home 😉
I decided to change brands and at the same time go from aps-c to full frame, however, I changed my mind about going full frame. Why? It's good enough. I compared ISO 12800 files from Sony A7II with Fujifilm X-S10. About 6 years separate both cameras where A7II is the older one, and guess what, Fujifilm X-S10 performed better in my opinion. If a full frame just 6 years ago was good enough for a professional work, then a more advanced APS-C with the same or better low light performance is also good enough today.
4:50 there is a f1.8 APS-C zoom lens: the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Art. It is only available on Canon EF-S and Nikon, though. And of course, it looses some zoom range.
It is such an amazing lens.
Personally I'm not a Bokeh chaser which is why I switched from full frame DSLR Nikon to APSC Fuji. Occasionally I wish I had more low light capability and considered the canon RP but for my portraits and most events the photos are good enough
Not to mention, at most events, flash is OK to use...So...It negates it.
As a Fujifilm APS-C shooter, I am happy to recommend this video to anyone deciding between the two formats. The only thing I would add is to be sure to consider the cost, size and weight of FF lenses (especially those "holy trinity" f/2.8 zooms), & not just that of the camera body. If you're still not sure, consider renting one of each, & comparing for yourself before committing to any one system.
The Sigma 24-70 F2.8 is $1099 and 835g, Tamron 28-75 F2.8 is $899 and 540g, Samyang 24-70 f2.8 is $999 and 1000g, Sony 24-70 f2.8 (Gen 1) is $1698 and 886g ..... I believe that the Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8 is $1100 and 655g... There are sufficient choices in lenses and bodies to build a kit for nearly any use case and any price point with FF.... if what I cared about was cost and weight I'd buy the Tamron for the E-mount and save both (wouldn't be giving up anything on IQ either).
@@silvestrocrino3256 You make a good point. I wasn't aware of that Tamron, & it looks to be an excellent lens. Still, while there are clearly some exceptions when comparing a heavy example of an APC-C lens to an exceptionally light FF one, I'd argue that across the board comparing like for like (as far as that is possible) you're likely to find more smaller and lighter lenses for APS-C than you are for FF. I've used the Fujifilm 16-55 f2.8, & while good, it was one of the bulkiest Fujifilm lenses I've ever used. By contrast the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is a mere 290g. Not exactly the same focal range, but close enough if you're looking to compare like for like a light mid range zoom APS-C vs a light FF.
I shoot Sony and Fuji. My Sony gear has its place but my Fuji that covers the same focal length equivalent is so much smaller and lighter that it makes far more sense for EDC or travel. An a7IV with Sigma 24-70 2.8 weighs almost as much and takes up around the same space as a X-T5 with 18-55 and 70-300. Both produce great shot, one is much more practical unless you need the “high res.”
@@daveb6711 Or the low light performance. Don't forget that an A7 IV with an f2.8 lens is going to have half the noise as an APS-C camera with an f2.8 lens, all else being equal.
I miss the point that you don’t tackle is that FF manufactures such as Nikon, Sony and Canon don’t have high quality bodies or lenses for APS-C, as they see the system as a step-up to Full Frame. .It is only Fuji that has high end APS-C lenses and body. So for the users using Sony, Canon and Nikon upgrading means moving to Full Frame.
My problem is primarily the lack of equivalents and the weight/cost/size you have to take on for those that are comparable for aps-c. By the time I built up my last aps-c kit, I could have gotten a lighter full-frame with the range of lenses I needed for less.
That's just me of course. But as I try to look for a new mirrorless aps-c kit, there are compromises I don't want to make.
Agree
See people think automatically that because they get a FULL FRAME camera the image quality is going to be better, NO, the size of the sensor doesn't have anything to do with the Image Quality.
it's a combonation of things, first is the image quality the sensor reads out, weather it's APSC or Full frame, and also the Lens, you could have the best camera that has the best image quality sensor, but if you put a shitty lens on it, it's not going to matter the image quality will be crap.
Full Frame doesn't mean you will get better image quality, the only thing you will get out of full frame vs ASPC sensors, is
#1, you will get better low light quality.
#2 You will be able to blur out the background easier, doesn't mean APSC can't blur out the background, yes it can but you have to take extra steps do get that to work, such as zoom in and get closer to your subject or go 1 stop below in aperture then what the full frame camera was set at..
There is 1 other advantage with full frame as well you can blow up your pictures in closer with less quality loss then with APSC camera's.
Because the sensor size is bigger to begin with and also higher megapixels are more common in full frame vs APSC, I don't think there is and APSC sensor camera that has
50 Megapixels or higher, but there is with full frame, and that means you can crop in and blow up your picture a lot more with cleaner images then APSC.
So those are the only advantages you get Using Full frame vs APSC.
Image Quality with APSC is exactly the same as a full frame camera the sensor size has noting to do with image quality..
Because of price i can get a ton of good lenses for APSC and take just as good pictures and video as with a full frame, and it cost me a lot less..
If your shooting Weddings yes i would say go for the full frame, but if your taking landscape or wild life or fast action shots like sports, then i would say APSC Camera's are just as good.
And even portrait in a studio is just as good as well, but if your doing work where you can't control the lighting like weddings or in door activity then Full frame has the advantage.
That is why most Wedding photographers rather have full frame then APSC because they can get good exposed pictures in lower light situations.
The price of good lenses on apsc is actually the same (often higher) than the same good lenses on full frame. I've compared them for myself.
The reason people think they are cheaper is because they compare the wrong lenses. Eg. They compare f2.8 on apsc to f2.8 on ff, when actually they should be comparing to f4.
This ends up doing the same for size and weight too. Apsc lenses aren't actually significantly smaller or lighter, as long as you compare to the actual same lenses on full frame.
I did all this testing a while ago, and my full frame setup now is actually smaller, lighter AND cheaper than my apsc fuji kit was before.
Bullsht, FF have a higher dynamic range. You have more Information in your picture compared to apsc! The Tonal Transition, the Details and there way more points were ff is better than apsc. Its Not only about blurring the background.
@@StudioNirin youre shutter speed will be the same on both Systems with an aperture of 2.8.
so you cant compare a apsc 2.8 lens to a f4 ff lens
@@frecheforelle761 your depth of field, dynamic range and image noise will all be completely different though (in favour of FF) so it's not the closest comparison you can make.
This is an old argument, but the correct answer is always that you compare f2.8 on apsc, to f4 on FF. As that is how you get comparable end results. Adjusting ISO to then make the brightness match then causes the noise level to (approximately) match also. You then end up with nearly identical images. If you're doing anything else to compare lenses between systems, you're doing it wrong.
Physically, it is all quite obvious: what matters is the amount of light you get on a pixel and how sensitive that pixel is. For the same resolution you need higher pixel density on a smaller sensor, so smaller pixels. You need a "better" i.e. lens to get the same amount of light on the same area.
This is why in the test the same lens with the speed booster gives almost the same result. But of course the speed boster contains optical elements so it will take some light add some distortion etc.
So physically it is just easier to capture more light with larger pixels so larger sensors.
Of course there is a limit when it does not make a difference anymore. And as sensor technology improves this limit comes down.
Another difference is that separation from the background can be much great with the full frame camera. This goes along with the boka test you did at the beginning of the video.
Also, don't disregard older DSLR full frame models, such as Nikon D850, it can be found used for around $1200. Still a great camera with amazing 45mp sensor. Tons of lens choices as well.
I stlll use the Nikon D610, which is 9 years old. It's full frame and you can get decent results at ISO 6400. Although newer full frame cameras are far better at low light, the D610 can match up against most APS-C cameras in low light.
Nikon D850 still in the top for best dynamic range.
I'm confused (don't agree) where you state that you apply the crop factor multiplier to the aperture. A F1 lens is a F1 lens - the lens aperture (or light transmitted) is unchanged by format size, we are just looking at a smaller window within it. (3 mins in)
Yes and a 50 mm is a 50 mm lens. Nothing changes based on the sensor size but if you are using equivalences to compare between different sensor sizes you must use then to both the focal length and the aperture (and also on the ISO).
Ha Ha There are so many full frame vs M 4/3 comparisons where the “experts” can’t tell the difference between enlargements that are 20”x30”. Certainly bokeh is better in a full frame, and low light condition too, but if you are doing landscape in good lighting, experts can’t tell the difference. Photography is an art, sensor size doesn’t matter.
I think sensor size matters on the extremes of the gear you have. I only own primes 24gm up to 135 gm and an a7iv & a6700 and I find I’m reaching for the a7iv when I want a wider image and reaching for the a6700 when I want more reach. Would I take an a7r V? Maybe but then there’s times I like the smaller body so I would go for the a7cR, but at that stage I’m back to 2 bodies but a hell of a lot less money in my pocket for no gain
The best camera is the camera you carry around with you. It's a bad investment if your camera don't inspire you to take photos with it no matter how good it is on paper. I personally use Fuji APS-C, mainly because I like how tactile it is, and how equivalent (in terms of focal range and sharpness, not necessarily bokeh) lenses are much lighter. Admittedly, Fuji lenses are not cheap, but they're built really nicely and are lighter and smaller than what I would consider if I'm in the Sony or Canon FF ecosystem. That really matters to me. I don't want my photography to become the center of my life/travel, so a small and light setup would greatly increase the likelihood of me bringing my camera and taking pictures.
If you're a pro photographer, then you already know what you need (I'd not get an APS-C camera if I shoot a lot of astrophotography or other low-light scenes, nor would I get one if I'm planning on making building-sized prints), but if you're an amateur photographer like most people watching this channel, FF might not be the best choice. We easily fall into this fallacy of image quality and bokeh is everything that matters. No. What really matters is if you enjoy taking photos with your camera enough that it overcomes the inconvenience of taking a dedicated camera and lenses with you rather than using your phone in your pocket.
If I would give any advice, it would be to rent a system that you're interested in and see if you notice the image quality difference for the kind of photography you mainly do and then weigh out the pros and cons for you specifically before deciding. Especially if it's your first camera. Maybe you found that you just don't like bringing a heavy hunk of metal and glass with you and phones would work just fine for the kind of photography you want to do. Cameras don't automatically make you a good photographer. Understanding the capabilities and limitations of your tools, and a good understanding of lighting and composition are what really matters.
I couldn't have worded it better. My biggest regret back in the day was buy a heavy F1.4 lens, which caused me to take my gear with me way less often, so I took less photographs. Now there are even lighter FF cameras and I'm having a hard time deciding...
I find it interesting that at the high iso low light comparisons both full frame and apsc are bad. A little more or less noise isn’t a big deal if they both are bad.
Also, I think lenses make a wayyyy bigger difference than a sensor.
@@justinsphotographyrochestermn good observation
That's what I love about your channel you consider viewers from all walks of life!
Great job Tony and Chelsea, best video I have seen in explaining the pluses and minuses of APS-C and full frame. I mainly shoot wildlife, especially birds in flight, and have been very happy with my Fuji APS-C camera, and it has worked just fine for portraits and even low light situations. So worthwhile to understand what you want to shoot and what works best for your budget.
full frame looks so much noticeably better in every comparison and im an aps-c shooter...ugh
Great talk Tony.
Picked up a Z6 refurb from Nikon and a 24-200 zoom to upgrade from my Z50 with 18-140. After a week I am comfortable withe improvements in the quality of the body, and the lenses. For me the bigger pixels on the sensor and bigger glasses just seem to pass the resolution along much better. I tried maxing out the small sensor with a Sigma 18-35 1.8 and got good results. But that lens weights the same as a Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z. I am sorry but that is the same weight with a lot more flexibility and the more robust optical path.
I was going to sell off all the DX stuff but now my wife wants to keep the Z50 for her use.
My 70-300 AF-P looks a lot better using the whole lens.
Pete
Sigma Art Zooms 18-35mm 1.8f and 50-150mm 1.8f are both miracles for the m4/3. And when combined with a speedbooster AND the 1.8f, that's something I'd LOVE to see you compare here.
Another thing that somewhat levels the playing field, at least for DSLR, is the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 lens. With it on the APS-C and a common f2.8 lens on the full frame you can more easily get full equivalence.
I've read where people claimed that the full frame body gave better colors and in particular better colors for portraiture. I'm not able to test that.
Upgrading from APS-C to full frame can be very expensive because the full frame lenses will typically cost more
The 24-70 GM2 at 4:08 is twice the price of the Fuji 16-55.
@@greggpedder And it gathers twice as much light when on a full frame camera, what's your point? In a low light situation the full frame setup would have half the noise and also the Sony 24-70 GM2 is definitely optically superior to the Fuji 16-55.
You don't have to actually answer, I won't respond again. Given the multiple replies about price it's obvious that you bought Fuji and are trying really hard to justify your purchase, even though nobody cares what you use.
@@TechnoBabble it doesn't gather twice as much light at all. It's exactly the same at f2.8. What you said is just not correct.
I made the move to Full Frame in 2018 when I purchased a Canon EOS 1D-X, I then bought a 1D-X MKII, I now own an EOS R5, I'll never purchase another Crop Sensor camera again.
I'm a stage photographer using APS-C. For me, the extra reach of APS-C is great. I can zoom in to capture the performers' faces with the extra reach it provides. However, APS-C isn't always the best option since many stages use low light setting to get more dramatic atmosphere. In this case, I always think that it will be nice if I have a Full Frame camera. Well, since stage photographers don't get paid as much as wedding photographers (at least it is the case where I live), I'm still hesitant whether to buy a Full Frame or not. I think I'd still stick to APS-C even some years later because I've invested my money on the lenses.
Not sure how much you're zooming and moving, but if you can I would suggest picking up some primes from Sigma. The 16mm, 30mm and 56mm are all f/1.4, incredibly sharp, and have good autofocus.
I personally prefer my Sigma 56mm f1.4 on APS-C over Sony's 85mm f1.8 on full frame.
To get better results as an amateur, get rid of all your lens, keep just the nifty fifty. And shoot shoot shoot. You're welcome
I love that you say full frame has an advantage in wildlife as you're holding the most ridiculously oversized, heavy, impossible to travel with and literal hell to walk around with for several hours lens 😂
I mainly shoot film, but do have two digital cameras, Nikon Df and D40x. I like the fact that the Df will take almost all old Nikkor lenses, including pre-ai ones, with the same angle of view, and metering works.
The image quality on the D40x is pretty good for an entry level camera.
I recently went from the 90D to the R5 - the only real-world difference I've seen are dynamic range that I can push in post processing, Silent Shooting mode & 20 FPS - I haven't seen any difference in low light ability with FF over the Aps-c - I only shoot Wildlife. I wished I'd just saved my money for a longer period & purchased a prime lens instead.
I appreciate your honesty. It's hard to be so honest when you've forked out so much for an item and left a little disappointed.
I currently have an M50 mark ii but am considering either a 90D or 7D II in addition to this. Were you happy with the 90D and can you add any advice or commentary on this? I got the camera mainly for my sons sports but have found I am photographing everything and quite enjoy it.
The M50 has been superb if I'm honest
If you want an upgrade from your m50 get the m6 II instead of the 90D. They m6 is the mirrorless version of the 90d - I have it and love it. You have to adapt ef lenses though and even the original adapter has some play in it in my case though.
@Askaly I like the M6 but I want a built in viewfinder. I like that the M6 is 32MP vs 24 though. I'm currently using about 7 EF-M and 3 EF lenses. Had Voltrox adapter which was fine but had some play with my latest lens so got the Canon genuine and it works beautifully.
I was actually leaning more to a 7D II - I heard alot of 90D owners complain about the 90D and the autofocus since posting this.
@@thetoyota86perspective54 - The 90D is a great camera, in-fact I still prefer it if I'm only doing video. A good lens on the 90D produces great results. Best of luck
@@thetoyota86perspective54 - I rarely have a auto-focus issue's - If I do typically birds in a cluttered background - but so does the R5
I chose a Nikon Z30 and I am loving it. I chose this camera because for the price point it does not crop in at 4k and the availability of 3rd party lenses.
I only miss the EVF when using my sb900 flash and I am bouncing the flash from behind…. I cop the flash in the face. The image is still great …. Once I can see again that is 😉😀🖖🏼
I am actually getting better results off the Z30 with the SB 900 than I did off my old D610 and the SB910 that I traded for a motorbike. 😅
Personally MFT or micro four thirds is my favorite format, due to it's amazing capabilities for it's size. I can get images on par or better than full frame cameras due to the added stabilization and compact size.
There are a lot of other scenarios besides weddings and wildlife. There's macro, family, children's sports, travel, etc. For example, when I went to Paris, I took my d500, 17 to 70, and 10 to 24 instead of my d610, 28 to 105, 14 to 24 2.8. That fast wide angle zoom is far superior to the DX alternative but wasn't something I was going to carry all over the place in Paris especially since I wasn't alone. When I went to the Rockies, I took my d610 and 14 to 24.
I think everyone who is an advanced photo enthusiast should own one apsc camera and one full frame camera. That way a shooter can use the right tool for the job. Apsc cameras tend to have smaller equivalent zoom lens and bodies great for travel and wildlife shooters. Full frame will give superior results in image quality and low noise in low light conditions and also better for post processing lifting shadow detail. As either an advanced amateur, semi-pro or pro, most of us will eventually own 2 camera bodies. However If I could only own one, I'd pick full frame for overall image quality in most cases (except maybe for wildlife). However, if shooting in good light during daylight hours, with low ISO, or using fast primes, the difference can be much less. Great review!
I think you nailed it. As a wildlife shooter I use both an R5 and R7 for the reasons you states above. Horses for courses.
With you 100% , I have the R5 and the R7 for that exact reason and use the body that fits what I'm doing and often use both at once for speed and to cut down on the opportunity for dust to cause issues especially when it comes to video .
I have bought two secondhand full-frame cameras -- Canon 5d i and 5D ii -- and they are great. My APS-C cameras (7D i and ii) are for birding and walk around, the full-frame are for people.
My choices were easier as an astro-photographer. I use the APS-C Pentax K3 together with about 30 Pentax lenses spread across from the 1960's till today. Perfect for my wide angle lens and magnified telescope images. But I just use a Canon 6D Full Frame body only when mounted on the telescope for wider angle views. Maybe one day I will actually buy a Canon lens..LOL
Astro-photography is quite different from terrestrial photography. Shooting deep-sky objects, we can gather exposures of several minutes or even hours at high ISO. Noise is statistically handled through software stacking. With planets, we take videos in order to battle the atmospheric disturbances ("seeing") and then process the many thousands of frames with dedicated software that eliminates the distorted frames and stacks the good ones.
Images in astro-photography are as good as the telescope's optics allow, combined with the camera sensor's specs. For planets, a sensor with small pixels and a high pixel-density is the best choice. The sensor can be small, as a planet remains a really small projected disk on the optical axis. Deep-sky is mostly different, as many celestial objects are rather large by comparison to planets. There is less magnification and more light-gathering going on.
Framing a celestial object depends on its apparent size, measured as an angle, after which we select an appropriate focal length, combined with the sensor proportions (if in prime focus). A full frame sensor can obviously capture more field than a smaller sensor, as long as the telescope's field aperture allows it.
I keep using my old Pentax ist*dl DSLR and the Nikon D5000, both APS-C, for deep-sky. For planets, I have a dedicated USB planet-camera, as a DSLR cannot take RAW videos. And RAW-frames is what we want in astro-photography. Always.
I bought my second-hand Nikon as a body, without any lens. Only recently, I bought a second-hand zoom-lens for it, just to be able to take terrestrial pictures as well. Because, why not? It's still a good camera for general photography.
I wish there was an astrophotography channel like this. I'd like to get into it and I feel like there is a gap in the language people use and no one cares to explain things from the bottom up. I hate doing something from a book-smart level I want to understand the physics of it to the extent that I could explain it to a child. And EVEN WORSE, the solar hydrogen alpha bros are in a hyper-nerdy bubble talking about their Etalons and how we all need to take out a mortgage to buy 3 of those telescopes.. yuck. I'm a work in progress, I wish someone like smarter every day or Veritasium would do a series on astrophotography. I am however greatful for Ed Ting and Astrobackyard, Astrobuiscuit.
@@danielbrowniel Granted, there is a steep learning curve in amateur-astrophotography. No one in his right mind will claim that it is easy and success is waiting behind the next corner. This is a hobby that will test your patience.
As far as I'm concerned, I am patient, I guess. I take this hobby step by step, and these steps are small and are not very frequent, so, progress is hardly discernable during a single year. But, with every attempt, with every session at night under the clear skies, there is another piece of the puzzle that might find its way to support the goal: to become better than before.
There is no exam, there is no evaluation to admit you to some esteemed league of proficient elite amateurs. There is only you, committing time and attention to a hobby. Keep an open mind and absorb the knowledge that happens to come your way. There is no perfectly planned roadmap for that.
I think I learn much from serious astronomy fora out there, where issues of cameras and filters are discussed. They can often point you to the next level of contemplating issues that you didn't even know they existed in the first place. After some time, I forget some of these details, only to be picked up again later on, when I find the time. There's no pressure here to complete a training course. Treat it with a calm mindset. The rest will follow.
@@danielbrowniel there’s one thing that we astrophotographers sometimes fail to mention… knowing the night sky itself. Gear and imaging technology vary from person to person, but the basic process of how we can pull down an image of light 30,000 light years away (Milky Way photography) or even further like 51million light years away (distance of some galaxies) is similar: longer exposures, a much more complicated imaging process workflow, and love of the night sky. Many of the most beautiful images we take are either over several days of imaging, or taken in dark sites that may or may not have wild animals lurking about. You lose some sleep if you have a day job.
I have a pentax k3 but find the iso noise is quite bad with astrophotography. Milky way foregrounds especially look quite muddy and noisy.
First off, thanks for your videos. They are very helpful. I chose the Canon R7 APS-C body partially based on another video you did. That said, what was lacking here was discussion about video, and other sports photography (i.e. auto racing). I recently shot Formula 1 with both still and video, and was very satisfied with the results of capturing 200 mph cars. I’m totally an amateur, and I only had the camera for a couple weeks. The versatility, and ability to shoot long videos without overheating was a determining factor in my purchase. Bottom line, I like the way you qualify your opinions, and leave room for the pro or amateur to decide what’s right for them.
Wouldn’t you use medium format if your primary objection is optimal image quality?
You would, though lens selection is a consideration.
Good work! Concise and accurate. You get it that f/2.8 on FF is the same as f/2.0 on APS-C. This is important: everything scales (except the noise) (if you've got the lens). But, Ha! As a dedicated full-frame fan/afficionado who turns up his nose at APS-C, I think you haven't defended APS-C enough. In real life, being there and having a camera is way more important than what camera you have. And in terms of photographic composition, from the tiniest cell phone to 8x10 (or larger) view cameras, the projection (image projected on the sensor when printed at the same size) is the same once you've got the focal length scaling right. It's all photography and all wonderful. Like they say: "F/8 and be there!"
As an a9 user, I was tempted to rent the a6600 for a little bit of more reach with the 200-600 lens, but realize after this video that I can easily just crop or use the 1.4TC as well, if there is enough light. Thanks for your thoughts on this subject!
Yes you can crop, if you are happy with a 10mp image (as opposed to 24mp).
I have FF, APS-C, and M43s cameras, I use different cameras for different applications. I have an A6000 and an A7 and an A7II, the A6000 is great when I don’t want to carry the A7s around.
It’s not an upgrade or downgrade, just use what ever camera or tool that you prefer, whatever system you find inspires you to just go out and shoot and not worry about how big your sensor is. So much more to this gear issue than sensor size and we really need to get over this. The Fuji system has so much going for it and it’s a smaller sensor than say the Sony but who cares if it is the tool that gives you the images your eye sees. I personally have the Sony A9ll at present and have just sold my a7rIV and all my zooms, battery grips and have purchased smaller Zeiss Batis primes, reason being it was all to big, to heavy and hated shooting with it unless was for a commission. Now it’s smaller and lighter although it is still like shooting with a Computer rather than a camera which is why I will be purchasing into the Fuji system with their smaller primes. So it’s a smaller sensor… who cares if it gives me a tool I want to shoot with 😊
"...whatever system you find inspires you to just go out and shoot..."
I was thinking about this recently. When I look back through my photos over the years, some of my favorites were shot with a Canon SX520. Not a "great" camera, but it's fun to use, and for a couple of years I was shooting around 50 to 100 photos with it almost every day. Now my photography skills are a little better, so I can take advantage of better gear, but that little 520 taught me a lot, because I used it a lot.
I disagree about the wildlife. A TC can reduce image quality and you could use that same TC on the crop sensor for further reach. Also pixel density somewhat negates a 45mp camera like the R5 compared to a APS-C sensor. Further to that as a wildlife photographer that likes to hike for miles smaller sensors often mean smaller lenses. The kit that doesn't slow me down is the kit that get's me the shots.
Often a smaller sensor doesn't mean smaller lenses. Especially for wildlife. Just look at the Olympus 300mm f/4. Nikons full frame 300mm PF is 1/2 the weight. Even the new 400mm f/4.5 is lighter. The more "professional" the smaller sensor lenses, the less likely that it will be lighter.
@tc2744 You can use bigger lenses but there are plenty of lighter options available. The crop factor allowed me to take an EF 200mm f2.8 and turn into a 320mm equiv or roughly a 450mm f4 with a 1.4xtc. Pretty light set up. Conversely I could use a huge Sigma 150-600. I have the versatility. Tony is constantly backhandidly critical of crop sensor cams. It's odd and non-sensical. That's not to say his points are without merit but that he clearly has a bias that impairs his objective view. I have two full frame cams and 1 crop sensor and use my phone at times. I understand and am familiar with working with many different sensor sizes and cams.
I bet some of your clients have no idea what you’re doing they just love the end result so it doesn’t really matter about you cameras, just enjoy what your doing with them!
You started off by comparing a larger apsc camera and a smaller full frame camera. But in general, it is still true that full frame is bigger, especially when you consider the lens, which obviously you have to do. This is one of the main reasons many people, including me, have stuck with apsc. It would have been good to point this out.
Equivalent lenses are the same size. There are many compact FF lenses.
nikon z5 with 28mm 2.8f best combo so far for everything ,HAPPY NEW YEAR
@@TonyAndChelsea Until you go with MFT (Lumix GM5) with 20mm 1.7 pancake is super tiny, there is no equivalent in apsc or full frame for this (i own Sony FF too..)
@@sbgaming4794 there's a 40mm f2.5 and 35 2.8 that are almost as compact with faster equiv. aperture
@@Caracalaba i own both, gm5 with 20mm 1.7 is lighter and fits in jeans pocket. A7c and 40mm 2.5 are heavier and dont fit in a jeans pocket.
In the real world (as opposed to the pixel-peeping, lab test-obsessed one), neither "FF" nor APS-C are any better than Micro Four Thirds (crop factor = 2) or even smaller-sensor cameras. In fact, the marginal increase in DR (and that's not even always the case) is more than offset by the many other disadvantages of larger sensors (mainly larger/heavier/more expensive lenses and an increased need for tripods). Also, most MFT lenses are excellent (overkill in terms of IQ and there are so many choices) and for wildlife, the Leica 100-400 (200-800 EFL) MFT lens is superb, and compare the size/weight/cost to anything for a larger-format system. Larger formats also offer less DoF flexibility. WAY more often, you're going to want more, not less DoF. As you show, you can control DoF via aperture, but also by FL and distance to subject/background. I've never had a situation where I couldn't get background (or foreground) blur to suit the image. Super-shallow DoF is way overdone to the point of being cliché, but if I want to go that route, no problem (I get razor-thin DoF with my f/0.95 "normal" lens opened up, so I rarely shoot that wide open). Also, noise is no longer an issue with any digital image, as DxO DeePRIME/XD and Topaz DeNoise completely eliminate that while preserving detail. The most important point is, however, that "IQ" itself is way overrated! The best images are seldom the sharpest/highest-resolution ones and you can easily go overboard in that regard to the point where the viewer will be looking more at the "IQ" than the actual image (only obsessed photographers--the people who actually buy photographs don't notice/care)! Ignore the marketing hype, and save your money (as well as your neck/back)--go MFT (or 1" bridge camera, such as a Lumix FZ1000 or Sony RX10 iii or iv, if you don't want to hassle with changing lenses but are OK not shooting ultra-wide or ultra-long). Your photos will be just as good and you'll take more of them, as you'll carry your camera more of the time and be happier!
Thanks for this. It's worth noting that equivalence goes both ways - for example, in a landscape requiring some good depth of field at a 100mm equivalent focal length, you may use 50mm f/2.8 iso 200 on micro 4/3 to get the right shutter speed, but would need to use a 100mm f/5.6 iso 800 on a 35mm camera. This can make smaller sensors, oddly, better for landscapes - compact kit hikes better, and you get similar printed results. The uncomfortable truth, of course, is the gear barely matters for most people and the limiting factor is the brain behind the viewfinder. I take better photos with small kit because it comes with me, and the lenses are affordable to me.
And, of course, having choice is only a good thing. I wish there was more yet! I'd love a 35mm equivalent sensor with native 4x3 ratio, as I'm mostly printing 4x3 or 4x5 ratio prints.
Equivalence - thank you for highlighting this important factor. I use an OMD OM-1 mft camera and get excellent results both in day and night with good prime lenses.But what makes a good photo is the person behind the camera 😊....however, I would not want to carry that FF 600mm zoom lens around with me all day...but that’s my choice.
Not sure why you think this is an advantage for the smaller sensor... The photos would end up looking nearly identical.
@@TechnoBabble that's the point - you can lug a heavy ff kit with 100mm lens and stop it down, potentially with diffraction in some circumstances, or you can use a tiny, light set up and get a near identical result. I miss my little olympus kit sometimes for this reason, and have opted to stick to "compact" full frame lenses - that are still pretty big compared to my old kit, but do give better results sometimes. I'd say maybe 50 percent of the time.
@@theprettydamned Sure, that makes sense if you only shoot that way and are happy with the results otherwise.
The only reason it's smaller/lighter is because of the worse technical image quality ceiling. But if it's still above what you want/need, no reason to get heavier and more expensive gear.
To call that an advantage though is a bit silly, it's just a different tool and often times you can find smaller aperture full frame lenses that are similar in size and price.
And one important thing to consider: size of the lenses and weight. When hiking, APS-C system is perfect.
I am happy with my Fuji xt5: I love the external dials. It is the experience of taking pictures, that what you explained in the other video. I fully agree with that. Also -to me- nothing wrong what you said in this video, though. However I use the workaround: no zoon lenses. For the wide angle I have the 16mm f1.4! Also 1/100 of a sec still works ok. Hence enough options to avoid shouting at high iso. I am very proud of the photos I made indoor with a small 35mm all at f2.0.
I shoot with MFT, and since DXO Deepprime Noise Reduction became so incredibly good, I stopped worrying about noise altogether. With their new Deepprime XD (extra detail), the end results are THAT good, that I think the discussion has become moot. It would be great if this processing power one day would become part of the inbody workflow! Computational power will eventually overcome practically all sensor limitations, I guess. If we look at the sensor performance of the extremely little sensors in our phones, then we could some day expect fullframe performance from much smaller sensors. Meanwhile, I enjoy the benefit of a huge lineup of MFT lenses, ranging from extremely small, cheap and stealthy, up to medium sized high end lenses that are still within my financial reach. I do get it that people rave for larger sensors, but based on rational criteria, I doubt whether most buyers are really better off with them. The bulk, weight and financial burden of the lenses seems disproportionate to me.
I often find that noise reduction introduces weird artifacts and strange looking textures, though I can admit that I mostly use topaz and not dxo. Sometimes the results are amazing but I find it time consuming to get the right settings, and I'm often just not able to, so I can never completely stop worrying even with full frame. I too am optimistic for the future though and I agree that big size is not inherently good. Quite the opposite.
@@EmilWall Do try out DXO Deepprime. It's a different beast. Even when pixel peeping, the amount of artifacts is very low and non intruding. They are miles ahead of the competition.
@@lucasthecurious1189 I see they have a 30 day full trial, excited to try it out some time when I feel Topaz just isn't cutting it :)
What you'll NEVER want to hear nor accept is I did a ton of tests with a OM-1 Micro 4/3rd camera against the new Sony A7R5. Both using top lenses. While the A7R5 at 61mp does produce a physically larger image as expected, the sharpness and detail was in fact NO better. Noise at ISO3200 was slightly worse with the Sony. Using the OM-1 with a 100-400 and the Sony with their 200-600 the size of the images was nearly equalized. The Stacked BSI sensor in the OM-1 has more advantages along with just as good AI focus capabilities. This would no doubt go against YOUR testing and results. But mine don't lie either. By the way I have a f1.2 Olympus Pro lens in my collection. it IS f1.2 so don't try to say it's not just because it's NOT FF
You're so obviously talking nonsense. You can look up any objective testing and see that the OM-1 not only has significantly more noise at every ISO but the A7R V also captures far more detail, even at high ISOs. Plus the actual low light performance of an f/1.2 lens on MFT is NOWHERE NEAR what you get with an f/1.4 lens on full frame, it doesn't even match f/1.8 lenses on full frame.
Even if you did test them side by side, obviously your testing was extremely flawed or purposefully had some bias thrown in, since what you're describing is physically impossible.
@@TechnoBabbleyep, I’ve noticed lots of OM1 fans are driving their preferred narrative. I shot all three formats and my MFT gear is a blast due to size, but a small sensor is a small sensor. I also have an A6400 and A7RV.
For me, APSC is the sweet spot and does a better job than MFT, especially with DR.
My A7RV is in a whole other league and the OM1 isn’t close, unless you want it to be.
@@joshuaspop8865 Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of people that put thousands into MFT and are trying to justify their purchase to anyone who brings up the downsides, even though nobody really cares what they shoot on.
I've shot with MFT, APS-C, and full frame from the likes of Panasonic, Olympus, Nikon, Canon, and Sony.
Each jump in sensor size was an immediate, obvious increase in technical quality in similar scenarios, especially low light. With the caveat of a heavier lenses, though I kind of shot myself in the foot with that one by getting a Sigma 40mm f/1.4.
But if I didn't need better low light, I can just take along smaller, lighter lenses that have a smaller maximum aperture and would essentially match the results of an APS-C or MFT camera.
Regarding to APS-C vs FF with image quality context. There is no technical reason why APS-C must have worse quality of dynamic range or color reproduction in dark areas, however usually have. From an electronic point of view, only pixel size matters. Unfortunately people love number of pixels instead of its size. If APS-C format has the same number of pixels as FF, they are just smaller. It means that quality of image in dark areas must be worse - but the same resolution sounds good 😀 These are the usual rules of physics.
On the other hand, if user buy expensive FF camera, expects to achieve better results. This is why FF cameras will have newer technologies implemented, before APS-Cs will they have. Better stabilization, better noise pre-reduction, maybe next generation of matrix or they will be mirrorless etc. Generally we talk about marketing, not technical issues.
Interesting video! You guys almost always make think about my choices a bit. I think the important thing is to consider your use case. For me I mostly shoot birds and the occasional family event. I have full frame, APSC, and M43s in the OM-1. I don’t get paid for my work. I used to have a photography company. I did weddings and other events and I found that Nobody but me could see the difference between the full frame ind the M43s except for me. I shot a two day event for a charitable foundation on whose board I sit. One day I used my OM-1 and on day 2 I used the Canon R6i. I just went and looked through the pics from both days and on my 13 inch screen theatre wasn’t much difference. I am older and have a chronic sore shoulder that I damaged in motorcycle crash years ago. The light the gear is the happier I am. I find the OM-1 being my choice most days.
I think these 2 do more to confuse people than to help them. Because if you can’t see the benefits of the full frame camera you probably have advanced far enough.
I‘m old, I‘ve always been shooting full frame. I shoot most of my jobs with digital medium format crop cameras like the fuji gx680 and a phase one back, or a hasselblad h2d, and some with a digital full frame. I own aps crop cams like the 1D MK363737, or a sigma sd1, and I love to use them, but for my work full frame is the way to go cause I‘m too lazy to work with anymore crop factors than my medium format cams have. If I have a 85mm I just have to try how it looks on crop sensors, and that‘s what I‘m too lazy for. I just want to mark my workspace and grab whatever lens I need without having to recalculate and think again.
Other than this, small sensor crop cams deliver awesome images, like the fuji xpro like for example.
I have both from Nikon and Canon and MFT from Olymous. My D7200 has better dynamic range @ base iso than my D800, but it is noisier, so are the Canons. I use my D7200 in its 1.3X ( 16mp ) mode for the odd time that I shoot wild life, not very often I must add. I guess a lot of this confusion has been propagated by those photographers who are shall we say ' sponsored ' by the big names in sensor manufacturing, Sony, Fuji come to mind. They have to sell their new products, so they tell everybody that their ' best camera ' of yesterday is no longer any good and one needs to buy their latest. Nonesense as far as I am concerned. Learn to use what you have. Camera is just a tool. It is you, the photographer that matters.
It's curious to me that your post that contains the "sponsored" comment, although absolutely true, didn't get a heart from T&C. I've come to believe that anyone who is sponsored, either directly or indirectly, cannot be completely trusted because they do what they do for profit. (The obsession over money is the downfall of civilization, different topic, yes.)
The D7200 has the best aps-c sensor I've ever seen, and I've owned an a6500, a D500, a D7500, various Fuji's, Ricoh GRII, the 7200 was a noticably better sensor.
@@ultraniusmaximus1536 People have to work to earn their living, like everyone else I guess. Technology moves on and this ' advance ' has a cost that the giant tech companies have to recoup. What I absolutely object to, is this built in obsolescence . It is not just hardware, it is software, its operating systems, processors, memory, etc etc. It is built in incompatibility of editting software with older operating systems. It is that vicious cycle of this new thing has come out, but to get the best of it everything has to be upgraded. We never had this problem during the film era. My Voigtlander Avus of 1929 vintage, is still producing beautiful images. All is needed is a roll of 120 film, and a few chemicals, even coffee and lemon juice would do at a pinch.
@@G95G95 I agree, I think Nikon went for a Toshiba sensor for 7200. I only bought the 7200 because I gave my D300 to my daughter. I am glad I got it. It is a lovely little camera.
Loads of great info. Cleared up a lot of questions I had but......I still watch your videos to see Chelsea.
The speed booster results were interesting. I think part of what makes the Fuji noisier looking (besides the obviousness of being a crop sensor) is Lightroom isn’t the best at handling Fuji’s “wormy noise” (as others have called it), due to being X-Trans instead of Bayer. I use Capture One for my Fujis and Lightroom for my Nikons.
Yeah there can be a few factors. The speed booster also doesn't have a perfect T-stop so it blocks a bit of light. But it's close enough for the example, which is meant to be more generic than a comparison of two specific cameras.
Yes, the "wormy noise", but also the mushy "water coloring" in distant landscapes, or the "waxy skin", are a burden for X-Trans. Even though C1 mitigates these problems, for many it is just not acceptable to be bullied into having to use a certain software they wouldn't have chosen otherwise.
I never understood why Fuji haven't dumped X-Trans the same way they had dumped their "Super CCD" or EXR disasters, for similar reasons. Why did Fuji grant the Bayer privilege only to their GFX line, but are so stubborn regarding their X-Trans misery?
That's certainly one of the reasons, why Fuji never gained much market relevance / market share during 10 years, so that now they put their entire digital photography on the back bench (according to CEO statements in Fstoppers' article "Fuji Refocuses Away From Photography" of July 2021).
There's nothing magical about X-Trans. Fuji is simply lying about its image-quality, potential or otherwise.
I'm glad to see someone mentioned this. Lightroom is not capable of properly processing X-Trans raw files, so it can be annoying when the comparison is always made within Lightroom, and I do think the difference is large enough that this is necessary to accommodate for.
@@djstuc The regular complaints about
- "wormy noise",
- "water coloring",
- "waxy skin",
- and the pleas to dump X-Trans,
are all originated from WITHIN the Fuji user community, discussed within their (sub)forums and groups, i.e. they are original Fuji users' dissatisfactions and their disappointments from their own long-term and in-depth usage experience.
These issues are not invented by Canon, Nikon, or Sony users 😉they couldn't care less.
It is acceptable though that different people have different demands regarding image quality, nothing wrong with that.
For judging photos via the usual small internet resolutions, for example, everything is "good enough" (even smartphones' cameras).
As a weddingphotographer I am happy working with OM1, and the 1.2 trinity 17mm, 25mm & 45mm.
I’ve switched from Canon FF and lots of L lenses. For me there is a difference sometimes, but for the customer there is none….
KEH must be pushing hard for the endorsement of all these big photography content creators. My experience with them is that they clearly under represent the condition of your gear so that they can justify offering less than the quote. And they know you'll be tempted to take the offer as opposed to going through the hassle of having the gear returned to you and then selling it yourself. I know I won't deal with them again after rating a bunch of like new condition lenses a few grades low.
Agree, last year I sold them my D7200 and lenses. It was literally out of box nearly perfect condition clean, the amount I got was about 25% less than originally offered.
I met a KEH rep visiting the Boston area doing evaluations. My RP and 24-240 kit lens was evaluated as Like New. When I sent it in, they listed it a bit lower and I got maybe a couple hundred less. I really wanted the R6 and figured I'd make up a little since they had a 10% off promotion using a trade in and that made it easier. However, the Like New R6 I got was an international model and I could not register it on Canon's website. I was wondering how KEH and other sites had so many Like New R6s, which were hot in December of 2021. That's how. They will buy grey market and sell them for a profit. I ended up returning it and bought a refurbished R6(with same warranty as new) from Canon and saved a couple hundred.
I do think they undervalue their lenses and I would not hesitate to buy used lenses from them. I got a "bargain" EF 135mm f/2 for pretty low money. And I love that lens. It also looked pretty new to me...
Photography enthusiasts: "Invest in glass, not camera bodies"
Also photography enthusiasts: "So here's my bias for full frame over APS-C"
Also wish there was a better (objective) quantitative way to evaluate different camera lenses. Brighter lenses doesn't always mean better optics and image quality, which I think ties into the FF vs APSC debate thinking that more is always better. Considering how advanced IBIS and ISO/noise control capabilities have come there's hardly a difference between the two, with the exception of low light situations but even then you aren't dead in the water with APSC, FF just allows you to handle those low light situations easier. If bigger was always better then more people would be shooting medium format
Most pros not shooting on medium format is not a point against "bigger is better". The reason is because the lenses to allow medium format to be better in low light don't really exist. If there were f1.4 primes and f2.8 zooms for medium format I'm sure it would have a larger audience, even though they would be extremely large and expensive.
Full frame seems to be the best middle ground where the sensor size allows for large aperture lenses with extremely good optical quality without being absolutely massive or hideously expensive. Medium format sensors seem to big to design those type of lenses for for a reasonable cost and designing good quality lenses for APS-C that have apertures of f/1.0 or faster seems to be proving difficult (see Fuji's expensive and relatively poor performing 50mm f/1.0).
Very nice comparison. I'd love to upgrade to a full frame sensor but I've got a lot of APS lenses and don't want to sell them and replace them with full frame equivalents, it's just too expensive. I also, love the extra reach for wildlife and motorsports. Then again, it would be nice to have a full frame system for landscapes. Maybe some used full frame gear, just for that purpose.
My FF lenses fit my APS-C body. And if I do put an APS-C lens on my FF body the camera auto switches to crop sensor mode…before I bought a FF body I had purchased the FF lenses to smooth the upgrade but I kept my APS-C camera as well.
The size of the sensor is not in top 3 of the most important things you need tbh. WHAT you are going to shoot. HOW this particular thing is shot best. PRACTICE and EXPERIENCE in that field. These are my (interconnected) top 3. The gear thing comes after and typically 'solves itself' when you know what you need and how much money you can afford to put in it.
What I mind annoying is that wildly expensive full frame stuff is ideal for beginners. But if you know what you are doing (especially for wildlife) you can get great results with m43 or APSC
There's so many lenses available for Sony that Full Frame costs less than APS-C and M43 at every focal length. Generally Full Frame costs about half the price of APS-C, for example with Sony third party lenses versus Fujifilm native lenses. And in many cases it's so difficult to get an equivalent lens for APS-C that you'd have to pay thousands for that on APS-C but it's no big deal just some 500 dollar lens on Full Frame.
@@zyxyuv1650 Good point. I’d love some cheaper Tamron or Sigma f2.8 zooms for my Fuji :) Although, not sure that still holds with longer focal lengths for wildlife. An 800mm equivalent would still be super expensive (and heavy) for full frame
I do not see how full frame is ideal for beginners. Full frame with large sensors and faster lenses is more demanding and requires more skill. With APS-C and kit lenses you he easily snapshots.
Hmm, overall very good but you made a small error at 4:00. Both of those lenses let in f/2.8 “amounts” of light, ie: photons per unit area (assuming transmission is the same). In this case you can see that the overall exposure level in both images are the same, however the Fuji just has dramatically worse noise performance and of course less DR, as one would expect from cramming 40MP into an APS-C area. But the light coming in is the same. Your speed booster test shows this as well; it boosted the aperture by one stop, which resulted in a corresponding decrease in ISO of one stop, which improved the noise performance but results in the same exposure.
Equivalent aperture only applies to depth of field. This example should have been directed more at noise/DR performance between full frame and APS-C sensors of the same megapixel count but which necessarily have quite different pixel pitches.
No. They got it right.
They have a video explaining what's going on, but in simple terms, the light per unit area is the same (as you point out) if the f stop is the same, but the crop sensor collects less light because it's smaller. Less light means less information, means the signal to noise ratio is worse.
Sdp.io/density.
@@gasdive that’s what he said in his comments.
@@gasdive that's kind of just paraphrasing what I said. The sensor is the culprit, not the lens. Starting that section off by mentioning "physical" vs "equivalent" aperture was a red herring.
@@TonyAndChelsea It's just my opinion, but you should not have framed that section in terms of the "physical" vs "equivalent" lens aperture of native APS-C lenses, as this is not the proximate cause of the noise. The sensor format is the culprit; the lens can only modulate the results. This might give some viewers the false impression that the lens is the issue, and they might try and "solve" things by using full frame lenses - to no avail. They wont realize that in your example the noise is in large part a factor of fewer photons per pixel, due to your choice to compare two ~40MP sensors from different formats. The uninitiated viewer thus wont gain an understanding of the interplay between pixel density, noise grain size, and sensor format. I think this section could have been framed more clearly to explain that.
Shooting in low light, I really prefer the results from my 12MP Nikon D700 to my 24MP Canon M50, even at the same equivalent f-stop, but a Fuji X-T30 beats both
KEH my first and second choice to buy from, a quality company.
I hope they're as good as you and the Northrups say. I just placed my first order with KEH today, and I'm looking forward to see if they deliver the goods.
I find these videos from Tony and Chelsea quite frustrating. They’re clearly biased towards full frame Sony and Canon, yet they very occasionally mention they shoot often with the Fujifilm X100V and X-Pro3 for their personal, non-professional. Why is that? Professionals aren’t watching your RUclips videos for gear suggestions but plenty of people new to photography and hobbyists are. These people generally do NOT need to invest in full frame gear and would be just fine with APS-C or even Micro four thirds. Steering them towards professional level camera equipment is ridiculous.
Eh I'm not a professional but use a full Frame Nikon.. I used to use Fuji and I extensively compared the image quality at higher iso and Nikon full frame just wins hands down. By the way both the cameras I was looking at were still around the same price either the xt4 (I wanted to upgrade)or the z6 at the time. I went with the full frame and for all the reasons they mentioned. You don't need to be a pro to use a full frame but Fuji cameras aren't all inexpensive their Top end APS-c cameras and lenses compare to mid range full frame prices
@@geminierica4077 Nobody is arguing that full frame generally doesn't produce better quality images. Again though, it's overkill for the vast majority of hobbyists and newcomers unless you regularly pixel peep or print large.
Exactly
I've been photographing as a hobbyist shooting with Rebels for years. I feel I'm fairly accomplished as a hobbyist. I got my first full frame a couple of years ago and am totally impressed. Since that first 5D Mark ii, I've had a 6D, 6D Mark ii, 5D Mark iii and an R8. Love em... Still, have an R7 also and that's a very impressive camera. While the R7 is nice, I'm sold on full frame. Got my R7 for sale on Marketplace now to go back to the R8. I will always have a 6D DSLR nearby. They are just fun to shoot with and produce outstanding images.
Two issues should be added / emphasized. HOW GOOD do you need to be? Todays APS easily matches FF from about 10 years ago. I see little difference from my FF pics from a decade ago. No one looking at my images has ever said anything regarding technical quality, even last century when film was still the norm. For the vast majority of users APS is more than enough. SIZE MATTERS for nearly everyone. When working I would suffer with two FF camerae strapped to my neck but it certainly was not pleasant or fun. If not being paid I would much rather have a pleasant to carry and use APS camera. The Sony-Zeiss 16-70mm and Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 are examples of where APS can go with designs optimized for the APS format. There is still a strong need for FF but most folks would be more than happy with APS. (I tried cell phones but they truly are junk, there are just too many negative problems with the ultra small lens.) You put together a fantastic video, very spot on.
Another lovely KEH commercial
Geesh!!! Just what RUclips need again, another APS-C vs Full-Frame Camera. Overall, there is no high gain benefit per say if one uses a modern full-frame camera instead of a modern APS-C camera. As I have stated previously, with computational mathematical formulas and algorithms in cameras today, the advantage of modern full-frame cameras today over modern APS-C cameras is negligible at best. In all honesty, it really depends on the purpose of the photography and the final result one is wanting to capture. Good video as always.
I disagree. There is reason most pros prefer full frame. It is not just the sensor size per se but what lenses are available.
having just upgraded to fullframe, the only thing that i've noticed is that the shallow depth of field is awesome but everything is more expensive and bigger and I was bringing my camera to more places when I was still on smaller apsc cameras
I exactly feel the same going from m43 to Fuji APSC, so maybe APSC is the happy middle ground!
I could tell the full frame, means i gotta spend more money
Same here. I just almost never do portraits or wide stuff… For the three times a year though I decided to have some fun. Got me a TTartisan 35mm F0.9 for my R7. It works great for portraits and such. By no means is it a RF50 L on FF, but it soothes the yearning when I do use it.
Thanks Tony & Chelsea. And.. thank you for steering me to KEH and giving a coupon code. I have been using them regularly and it has allowed me to build a good lens line up I would not have been able to do at retail prices! You are right, they are amazing and stand behind their stock.
Having an apsc camera I was starting to feel a little despondent with the first ¾of this video until you got on to wildlife which is my main aspect of photography along with aircraft, which both result in me using the centre of the picture and cropping in post. Now I feel a lot better about my choice. Thanks for explaining the difference clearly and an easy to understand way.
Happy New Year folks, your videos are so great. Very informative. Thank You 📷😊