Being a studio photographer along with shooting weddings, grad. seniors, etc. your explanation about using a light meter was totally a great example. I've used several crop sensor cameras to shoot hundreds of studio shots, and I've used full frame cameras to do the same. Same light, same f stop, same result. Sometimes gear heads can get mired in the muck and don't actually do enough photography, under various conditions, with various cameras (crop vs non cropped sensors) to understand lighting. You did a great job of explaining this to people.
Well said!! The aperture value does not change from APSC to FF. It does not change for brightness/exposure. It is multiplied by the crop factor when calculating a field of view comparable to FF. Using the same lens in an ASPC and FF cameras under the same lighting conditions set to the same exposure triangle will produce an image with the same exposure but different fields of view.
Thank you very much! The explanation was crystal clear. I love that your videos are about user experience followed by the technicalities and theory behind it. I really feel like you're my lecturer giving me online tutorials. I have learned alot. Keep It up!
I’m an optical engineer. I have been paid by governments to build fancy instruments for physics research… I think the key to avoiding confusion in this topic is to distinguish clearly between f-stop and aperture size (basically the physical size of the hole on the front of the camera), and to avoid the ambiguous use of just “aperture”. The amount of light collected by a camera is determined by the aperture size ONLY. Similarly, the depth of field rendered in the image is determined by the aperture size ONLY. Sensor size, focal length or f-stop make no difference to the light collected or the depth of field, for a given aperture size. For a given aperture size and field of view the total amount of light used to construct an image is independent of sensor size, focal length or f-stop. What a photographer needs to know is that in order to record the same image - same field of view and depth of field - they need to use (roughly) one stop numerically smaller f-stop on an aps-c camera than a full frame camera. This is because opening the aperture by one stop makes the aperture size the same in both cameras.
No, depth of field is measured on the final image. The smaller the sensor the more the image is magnified so the smaller the depth of field when using the same lens with the same aperture.
Exceptionally well explained, yes. Aperture multiplied by crop factor generates only a depth of field equivalent in relation to a full frame camera. Exposure is not affected - it stays the same between formats. It's confusing and that's why I always stress this out when I explain this to my students. You can multiply aperture value by crop factor, but realize that what you get is not an exposure value, but a full frame depth of field equivalent. And yes, your explanation is better and clearer:-). Cheers!
The first thing I ask people who are not understand DOF vs FOV and crop vs FF sensor is to find sensor size input on theSeconic light meter. Second most common mistake is D.O.F vs F.O.V and aperture . On apsc image at f4 will be exactly the same as f4 on Full frame but Filed of view will be obviously different due to a crop. Sensor size does not affecting depth of field , distance between sensor and object and apperture does.
How can they ne exactly same when the most important part is entirely different? The sensor size affects the depth of field. Had you actually used DoF calculators you would know. Had actually developed the formulas to calculate it you would know. I have done both. If the sensor is smaller the image has to be magnified more so there is less depth of field. A 50 mm lens at f/4 focused at 5 meters gives DoF 2.52 m (4.04-6.56) on full frame and 1.54 m (4.35-5.89) on Canon APS-C. You' have to stop down to f/6.4 to get same DoF as with full frame (6.4 / 4 = 1.6 i.e. the crop factor). Now of course te fields of view would be different. I am talking about the DoF as an abstract concept, not related to some specific photograph. www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html Do it yourself. I just did it.
Thank you so much. I am a bit dissatisfied with my recent full frame “upgrade”. The lenses are so heavy I had to experience the difference for myself. Going through Lightroom, my favorite photos were all from Sony A6600, not Sony A7IV. I like the EVF on the full frame, but quality of images is nearly identical.
Same boat. I wish I had rented a full frame body before committing to it; I find myself now hunting down equivalent lenses, just to get the same results I was already getting. I'll positively never complain about carrying an aps-c camera again.
Thank you for explaining this in an easy to follow way! Your light meter explanation is the best I've heard. It amazes me how many people cling to the mistaken belief that the *exposure* f/stop is affected by sensor size despite DECADES of handheld light meter use that demonstrates this simply isn't so.
Sir! you have my thanks!, this has been the best explanation video I have found on all YT and, believe me... I have spent hours trying to figure out this on YT
Great commentary on this subject. I shoot full frame Nikon digital as well as Aps-c Fujifilm cameras. The depth of field effect is the only exposure difference between the two. I still occasionally use a hand held light meter in certain situations - sometimes in measuring flash exposure- and have never asked (or told) my Sekonic meter that I was using my Nikon or my Fuji. If I really think about it, I never did that with my first 35mm film camera or my TLR Yashica (or my 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 Speed Graphic) back in the 60s. The only difference might come IF the internal meter in the different camera was reading a slightly different scene due to the focal length disparity from my Nikon to Fuji in very contrast light. But that’s a different story because the meters are reacting to the TTL differences between the two.
Great product knowledge Booray you know what your talking about. With the light meter i sometimes argue with it especially when the background is much brighter than the foreground. Another great and spot on video, thank you.
DOF is determined by not the relative aperture value (like f/2), but by the absolute aperture diameter in mm because the bluring is caused by parallax between side poins of your outermost lens. So f/2 for 23mm crop lens is 11.5 mm real aprture and on FF equivalent lens is 35 mm and it will have almost same DOF on f/3 with real aperture 11.7 mm. With these settings you will get almost identical composition and DOF between crop and FF, but on FF you will use higher ISO or longer exposure because relative aperture is smaller. From the other side if your FF lens has f/1.4 you will need unrealistic f/0.93 on crop for the same bokeh.
But an important thing is that full frame can use the higher ISO without noise getting worse than on the APS-C with the lower noise. There is no free lunch.
Sounds like you’re spot on with your explanation. From my knowledge, (correct me if I’m wrong) a 50mm lens with the same aperture value on a full frame and APS-C camera will give you the same amount of bokeh and depth of field, but obviously the crop factor on the APS-C is going to impact your field of view, which is why using a 50mm EQUIVALENT lens to match the full frame field of view seems to have an impact on the depth of view and bokeh. The only way to match this would be, as you said towards the end of your video, adjust the F/stop to get the same amount of depth of field and bokeh. A landscape photographer on RUclips mentioned that when he went from Fuji APS-C to the medium format GFX 100s, his depth of field was impacted drastically and he had to focus stack images that he normally wouldn’t have done on an APS-C camera with the equivalent focal length. Great video as always. This topic drives me nuts because I know the mechanics and understand the values, but to explain it can turn into an argument at times.
Yes. It is impossible to get the same field of view without changing the focal length or the distance from the subject and either one of those things will impact your depth of field.
They give entirely different images so comparing is hard. If the background is far enough and you shoot further away on APS-C then the bokeh will be same size. Depth of field also will not be similar. You would need to open the APS-C 1 to 1 1/3 f-stops more for the same depth of field. When you do the comparisons you need to specify what you want to keep unchanged. If you change the sensor size something else has to change. It can be the focal length, the distance or the subject. Photographers typically change the distance. However, when it comes to the depth of field formulas the subject is not even part of them so it changes.
A related matter of confusion has to do with magnification of an aps-c lens/sensor combination, I.e. multiply the lens focal length by the crop factor and magically you get closer to your subject than you would be with the same focal length on a full frame camera. Unfortunately the laws of physics don’t allow the sensor size to change the optical characteristics of a lens. Moreover, for a crop sensor camera to produce the same field of view as a full frame camera at the same focus point the distance from that point must be increased; and of course focus distance is one of the determinants of depth of field.
This is a argument you hear a lot from people discussing micro four thirds. M43 has a x2 crop. I have never seen the difference. Good analogy about the light meter
Hey great video ….I’ve gone back to a crop sensor and loving …generally I shoot landscapes at F11 or F10 ….on my APC camera does this mean this is F14.
No, you should use f/7-8. Never go to f/14 on crop. You will ruin your images. In general consider if you need to go even f/8. You need to use small aperture only if there is a clear foreground element. Smaller sensors mean shorter focal lenghts and larger apertures. Many get the second wrong.
THANK YOU ! This was the point of my confusion for sooo long. I understood the depth of field change in APSC vs FF, which I do not much care about. However, everybody cares about capturing less light and was kinda bummed out by that, as I was debating getting a f1.4 lens for my Fujifilm or a f2.0. The f 1.4 is very expensive and I tought to myself... man if I had a full frame f2.0 would be plenty. But now that I know that light gathered is the same the lens decision is easier. Ok, the smaller sensor can be less performant in low light than a FF but still enough for me. The important thing I got out of this video was that cropping your sensor does not affect exposure. Thank you Perry for the explanation, keep it up ! :)
The capturing less light comes from the fact that you must use lower ISO on APS-C to control the noise. The light over the sensor is less but exposure is determined by the light intensity. Nothing changes on the lens when you use an APS-C sensor. This is why I hate when people say 50 mm becomes 80 mm. No it does not. Even worse is to say 50 mm is really 80 mm. No, 50 mm is really 50 mm.
Great video man! I'm looking on purchasing an FX30 as a b-cam to my FX6, and with it being a cropped sensor I was unsure about it because I thought I would have to invest in several more lenses with lower f/stops. This video cleared up a lot of my confusion. Cheers.
Nice job, although I think his argument revolves around using a full frame lens on an APS-C camera so he may still say that there is a difference. There’s not and you’re right. In years long past I used a 210mm f/5.6 lens on both a 4x5 and a 5x7 view camera. The image circle covered both (barely on the 5x7) and exposed the negatives exactly the same even though the larger 5x7 negative had nearly twice the surface area. You may sometimes be ridiculous, as we all are, but not about this.
The only exposure difference I can see in metering through my vintage FF lenses vs. Fuji APSC lenses is a slight one with certain lenses, and may possibly be attributed to internal reflections of the larger FF image circle bouncing back and reflecting off the rear element. In any case that would be unrelated to this video, and the explanation here is still completely valid.
Great Video, there is still one confusing thing for me. Imagine a scene where I match the field of view for the apsc body as well as the full frame camera. Lets say both pictures where shot at f2.8, how comes that the full frame camera captures cleaner images (less noise) then the apsc canera?
It is simple physics. There is no change in depth of field for using a FF sensor or a crop frame sensor at a given mechanical F-stop ratio with the same lens, as long as nothing else is disturbed.. 1. Assume you have a Full Frame 35mm camera that has interchangeable sensors (just like lenses interchange) Set up your ruler and little figurines at various distances. 2. Pick an F-stop (lets say F4) and take a picture using the full frame sensor while leaving a bit of empty space around the figurines. Look at the ruler in the photo to see where the near and far limits of sharpness (DoF) fall on the ruler. 3. Now crop the borders of the picture with your Photoshop, or whatever, and again look at the limits of sharpness on the ruler. 4. Did they change? Of course not. Cropping the borders of the frame does not change the image left in the center. 5. Now gently replace the full frame sensor with an APS-C and take the same shot without disturbing any of the settings on the camera. Look at the near and far limits of sharpness. 4. Did they change? Of course not! Because all the smaller sensor does is mechanically crop the borders of the 35mm frame the same as Photoshop does. The central image remains unchanged. The surrounding unused light is just wasted. "But, but, but?" you sputter, I can prove mathematically that the F -stop ratio changes. Well of course you can because they are using a different focal length on the APS-C camera than on the 35mm (doh 😁) Claiming that using 1.6 ratio to calculate the "equivalent focal length" for APS-C gives you the same picture is baloney. The aspect ratio of the two lenses are different. And of course the depth of focus will be different (shrug). Carry on, gentlemen.
If you crop the image afterwards you of course change everything. It does not matter at what point you crop. The sensor size does affect the depth of field with the same lens. The smaller the sensor the lens depth of field there is because of larger magnification.
A RUclipsr I no longer follow, said it brilliantly. He asked: Why don't external lightmeters have a dial for sensor size? Because of what you just said, sir.
A great explanation,,, I think sometimes people can just get to involved with the workings and the theory of things instead of just going out there and taking the picture they want to,,,, And if you screw up you've always got photoshop to fall back on,,, Its a bit like driving a car,,, how many people know the workings of an engine,,, (unless your a mechanic of course) All most people do is just get in and drive it .The guy who contradicted you,,, ask him if he knows how to work his wifes washing machine. Unless the guy is a purist and everything has to be right in his life. Im just glad im a happy snapper these days. Best Wishes
@@BoorayPerry I’m a 70 year old long time Nikon shooter. I’ve been shooting full frame d850’s and aps-c d500’s for awhile with thought of selling my d850’s and stay with my aps-c d500’s, as I’m pretty much done with weddings. Everything I intend to continue shooting I believe I’m ok with my d500’s such as school sports portraits, family sessions, corporate events, personal wildlife and landscape scenery. I’ll keep a lot of my full frame glass although much of my work will be easily performed with my Nikon 16-80 f2.8-4, 17-55 f2.8. Do you think I’m bonkers?
@@BoorayPerry for me it’s not really about saving money as I already have 4 aps-c lenses and 15 full frame lenses. I’d probably sell 12 full frame lenses and use those I keep for portraits and wildlife. I’d be going from a 45mp full frame to a 21mp aps-c crop sensor. I feel 21mp is plenty for what I need, I’d be carrying less weight, smaller sized gear, put 5k in my pocket from selling lenses I won’t need. I think you’re a Fuji X shooter, ………. if j were to start over jd like yo try that, but I’m nit willing to lose so much $$ in selling everything and starting over with a new system. I’ll keep an eye in your videos trying yo watch them all my fiend. Keep up the good work you do.👋🏻
bigger pixel hit more photons and produce more electricity. resoulting in more powerfull signal. it's bigger graddiant and dynamic range - the most inportant thing in fine photography
It is important not to confuse equivalences with reality. The fact that the lens gets slower is an equivalence not reality. The comparable reality is that on APS-C you cannot raise ISO so high before the noise becomes excessive. Either way APS-C is worse in low light by the same amount. One must keep them separate and not mix and especially not use both at the same to say for example the lens gets slower and in addition you cannot raise ISO. The equivalence gives a tool to compare like what is better f/2.8 on full frame or f/2.0 on APS-C? Without the tool you get on one hand but on the other hand type of speculation. An alternative is to compare the aperture size but this works only if the fields of view are the same.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to explain this. People still don’t get it. I’ve proven this personally. I shoot basketball indoors with my Fuji XH2s and 50-140 f2.8 at 3200 ISO or 6400 depending on which side I’m shooting. People there shooting with full frame and 70-200 2.8 are at the same ISO as I am. Sometimes, they are at higher iso than me. If shooting APSC let’s in less light, I would be at much higher ISO than any of the FF guys.
ISO is about the light intensity, not the amount of light. The larger sensor gathers more light at the same aperture. The images they get at ISO 3200 or ISO 6400 are cleaner than those you get. Roughly they get same at ISO 6400 than you at ISO 3200.
@@okaro6595 ISO is the amplification of light. It is like an amp for a stereo. So yes, it is about the amount. Too much and you get distortion. Make the speakers bigger, like a bigger sensor, and it will not be as noisy/distorted.
Awesome vlog Booray! Don't pay attention to the haters, and complainers...lol. Of course you prob already do that (not pay attention). This makes total sense, but could never explain it. I have a APS-C (D500) and Full frame (Z7ii) and looking to get the X series (still going between H2 and T5) added to my collection. It's funny how certain topics will bring out the folks from the basements that are always wanting to correct others....like how you pronounce "ISO"...lolol...It's just silly. My comment is like "Why does it bother you? But in this case, there is just cold hard facts. Thanks for bringing them out!
Well there are several factors at play there. Pixel size plays a part but I feel like the advances we are making now are more tied to advances in sensor construction and computational A.I.
not really. If you're concerned about how bright your image looks then yes, a F4 lens on an aps-c sensor will look just as bright as an f4 on a FF sensor, but the actual amount of light reaching the sensor is less (since the area is larger). So if you compare the same field of view, eg. a aps-c 33 f1.4 and a ff 50 f1.4 they'll give you the same exposure, but the aps-c gets less light and thus gives you more noise. If your calculation is about how bright your image looks then you're correct, but if you're interested in image quality that's not the case. It'd be the same thing as saying a f1.4 lens and a f2 lens are just as good for low light since you can just pump the iso.
Totally agree. For an apsc sensor to get the same picture quality as a full frame (assuming same megapixel count and sensor tech), each pixel on apsc sensor needs more intense light (more light per period of time). To achieve this you will need an apsc lens with larger apature. For example, a full frame 50mm f1.8 with iso 1600 will result in similar image quality as an apsc 33mm F1.2 with iso 1000. 33mm f1.8 with iso 1600 will result in the same image with same exposure level, but with more noise (unless you use an apsc sensor that has the same pixel density as the full frame).
So it apires that if you use lens f4 on 35mm it is equivalent of f6 on APSC, but I think that is wrong, since for background blur and amount of light for f4 on 35mm, you do need f2.8 on APSC, and the DOF calculator sugests f6, but then APSC is much light/DOF efficient than lenses for 35mm? I dont get how smaller lens needs less light for same effect 🙂.
If you use 35 mm on both you get the same blur with the same aperture if tyhe background is far enough. It will be different but the size of the blur on the focal plane is the same. If you use a shorter focal length on APS-C then you must use wider aperture.
Could you clarify for example, is my f1.8 apsc lens still an f1.8 regarding light reaching the sensor on my FF? I know DOP is affected, but is my low light lens still a low light lens on my FF?
Hey Booray, great video as usual. After watching it I have what might be the "stupid question" of the day. I've been shooting with a Nikon D500 DSLR with an 18-300 DX lens for some time. I recently photographed groups of children at a vacation bible school and what I noticed is that what I saw in the view finder when composing the shot was not what I saw in the resulting photo. The groups seemed farther away than what I saw in my composition. I've noticed this previously in other photos and didn't really understand why this was occurring. I'm questioning now if it's due to the crop sensor?
DSLR's seldom show you the entire frame. Something about the mechanics involved with the mirrors and all meant that you always saw 95% or so of the actual frame.
@@dennisjones5579 Most people never notice it. I have an old DSLR for my photobooth and I always have to remember to zoom in a little tighter because the print will be wider. :)
Likely just how things look different from the viewfinder than as the image. That has a 100% viewfinder coverage. Sure you may have some weird setting. Reset the camera if it is a problem.
So lets see if I have this straight, I like to do night time 4k walks, on these walks I want to have the maximum DOF, In this situation where a shallow DOF is my enemy an APC format and by extension mft format will actually be advantageous to a full frame camera. This is of course assuming all other factors in the sensor quality and software are equal.
Another way to look at it is if you find yourself with a full frame camera often shooting wide so that you can get more depth of field and then cropping it later in post then an APS-C camera just crops it for you.
Did people act this crazy about cameras when all we had were film-based cameras like the Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Minolta 35mm cameras? My friends and I would jab each other by the name on the camera body but we just enjoyed shooting. Having 35mm film evened the field perfectly.
With film every one basically had the same film size so that it was not an issue. The exceptions were Instamats etc. Those who used them did not care of such technical stuff. Another exception was medium format and they did not compare to the 35 mm.
Agree but… somehow performance of a let’s say f2.8 is better in full frame than APSC. Could it be because for same resolution you have bigger pixels and they are able to gather more light? Or manage better. There’s more dynamic range, less noise, for sure. Is the same amount of light, YES. The result is equivalent, NO. I would say is half a stop or 1 stop difference. This is why a 50mp f1.8 sensor of a mobile phone cannot beat in low light a f2.0 26mp APSC camera, for instance. Am I wrong?
The physical dimension of pixels will vary. A full frame sensor is dimensionally 24mm x 36mm. If the size of the pixel is reduced more pixels will fit on the sensor. The smaller the pixel, the higher the resolution so not sure you can equate sensor to f-stop in your example.
I disagree. I have been shooting indoor basketball at a local college with a Fuji XH2s and 50-140 f2.8 (75-210 FF) at lower ISO than some people there shooting with FF and 70-200 f2.8 lenses. Shot the same games with the 40mp XH2 camera and my ISO was about the same. Maybe a stop higher. Both rendered very little noise at 3200 ISO. I don’t see major noise pop up until 6400 and even then it’s manageable. However, if I use the SOOC JPEGs with high iso NR enabled, I get clean images up to 6400 ISO.
No one is saying that an APS-C will beat a top-tier FF camera at dynamic range and noise. Bigger sensors with bigger pixels will usually outperform smaller sensors if the pixel count is the same. For me it's about value. The APS-C sensors are producing images at high ISO that are "good enough." There will always be better cameras but will they be smaller? Will they be less expensive? These factors count too. It's like, I could get a big V8 engine in my car and I would be faster but would it really be worth it?
@@JET-Photo You were very sure to note you know what iso everyone there is shooting at, but you didn't make any mention if everyone was using the same shutter speed.
are you not wasting 40 % of light on apsc vs full frame as such your loosing ight as the image circle on full frame is aimed at the whole sensor but apsc wastes much of the light ?
That analogy with rain and the boxes just seems way off to me. Because there is also a time element aka duration. If it rains for say 1 hour the smaller box it actually have more water in it because the surface area is smaller so less to fill. Where as the larger box will have a much larger/wider surface area to fill as there is more water to distribute.
The boxes (sensors) must be exactly the same size and exactly the same quality (leak the same). Because we all know camera manufacturers put the same flagship quality sensors in their aps-c cameras.
Personally, I think we need to stop talking about crop factor. It confuses the masses and obviously many RUclips "teachers" don't understand it either. The size of the sensor doesn't change depth of field or exposure. Depth of field is controlled by f'stop, focal length and distance to subject. Good video, Booray.
The sensor size does affect the depth of field. If you knew anything you would know it. Just pick a depth of field calculator and do some calculations.
OK, explain this: I can use my Nikon Z6 II at ISO 6400 and get fairly clean images. If I use my Panasonic GX85 with a Micro 4/3 sensor at ISO 6400, the images are very noisy. Why the difference?
Because the "pixel pitch" is different between the two cameras. An individual pixel on the Nikon sensor is roughly double the size as that on the GX85. Hence, to really compare the two you need to shrink the GX85 pictures by 2x so that you're comparing apples to apples. This has nothing to do with the size of the sensor, rather it's the size of each pixel on the sensor. You could put pixels the size of the Nikon Z6 II on the GX85 sensor, but it'd have about 4x less of them and be 4MP in resolution rather than 16MP.
"How an APS-C Crop Sensor affects F-Stop!" - It doesn't. Unless you are for some reason comparing with, or converting to, 35mm/Full-Frame equivalent. Something there is really no reason to do in 99.997959% of circumstances.
Being a studio photographer along with shooting weddings, grad. seniors, etc. your explanation about using a light meter was totally a great example. I've used several crop sensor cameras to shoot hundreds of studio shots, and I've used full frame cameras to do the same. Same light, same f stop, same result. Sometimes gear heads can get mired in the muck and don't actually do enough photography, under various conditions, with various cameras (crop vs non cropped sensors) to understand lighting. You did a great job of explaining this to people.
Thanks :)
The boxes analogy really helped my brain…. 🙏 great video.
Yep. A lot of people have a poor understanding of concepts but are really good at parroting what they heard from their favourite youtuba
Well said!! The aperture value does not change from APSC to FF. It does not change for brightness/exposure. It is multiplied by the crop factor when calculating a field of view comparable to FF. Using the same lens in an ASPC and FF cameras under the same lighting conditions set to the same exposure triangle will produce an image with the same exposure but different fields of view.
I just debating this very topic yesterday, but your explanation is far better than mine.
Thank you very much! The explanation was crystal clear. I love that your videos are about user experience followed by the technicalities and theory behind it. I really feel like you're my lecturer giving me online tutorials. I have learned alot. Keep
It up!
That's so nice of you to say! Thank you!
Love the rain analogy! Great job Booray!
I’m an optical engineer. I have been paid by governments to build fancy instruments for physics research… I think the key to avoiding confusion in this topic is to distinguish clearly between f-stop and aperture size (basically the physical size of the hole on the front of the camera), and to avoid the ambiguous use of just “aperture”. The amount of light collected by a camera is determined by the aperture size ONLY. Similarly, the depth of field rendered in the image is determined by the aperture size ONLY. Sensor size, focal length or f-stop make no difference to the light collected or the depth of field, for a given aperture size. For a given aperture size and field of view the total amount of light used to construct an image is independent of sensor size, focal length or f-stop. What a photographer needs to know is that in order to record the same image - same field of view and depth of field - they need to use (roughly) one stop numerically smaller f-stop on an aps-c camera than a full frame camera. This is because opening the aperture by one stop makes the aperture size the same in both cameras.
Just to clarify, shutter speed also affects light in camera and distance from the subject affect depth of field... but I get what you are saying.
No, depth of field is measured on the final image. The smaller the sensor the more the image is magnified so the smaller the depth of field when using the same lens with the same aperture.
Exceptionally well explained, yes. Aperture multiplied by crop factor generates only a depth of field equivalent in relation to a full frame camera. Exposure is not affected - it stays the same between formats. It's confusing and that's why I always stress this out when I explain this to my students. You can multiply aperture value by crop factor, but realize that what you get is not an exposure value, but a full frame depth of field equivalent. And yes, your explanation is better and clearer:-). Cheers!
It also gives the equivalency in noise when you include the ISO equivalence.
The first thing I ask people who are not understand DOF vs FOV and crop vs FF sensor is to find sensor size input on theSeconic light meter. Second most common mistake is D.O.F vs F.O.V and aperture . On apsc image at f4 will be exactly the same as f4 on Full frame but Filed of view will be obviously different due to a crop. Sensor size does not affecting depth of field , distance between sensor and object and apperture does.
How can they ne exactly same when the most important part is entirely different?
The sensor size affects the depth of field. Had you actually used DoF calculators you would know. Had actually developed the formulas to calculate it you would know. I have done both.
If the sensor is smaller the image has to be magnified more so there is less depth of field.
A 50 mm lens at f/4 focused at 5 meters gives DoF 2.52 m (4.04-6.56) on full frame and 1.54 m (4.35-5.89) on Canon APS-C. You' have to stop down to f/6.4 to get same DoF as with full frame (6.4 / 4 = 1.6 i.e. the crop factor). Now of course te fields of view would be different. I am talking about the DoF as an abstract concept, not related to some specific photograph.
www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
Do it yourself. I just did it.
Thank you so much. I am a bit dissatisfied with my recent full frame “upgrade”. The lenses are so heavy I had to experience the difference for myself. Going through Lightroom, my favorite photos were all from Sony A6600, not Sony A7IV. I like the EVF on the full frame, but quality of images is nearly identical.
Same boat. I wish I had rented a full frame body before committing to it; I find myself now hunting down equivalent lenses, just to get the same results I was already getting. I'll positively never complain about carrying an aps-c camera again.
Absolutely right !
Thank you for explaining this in an easy to follow way! Your light meter explanation is the best I've heard. It amazes me how many people cling to the mistaken belief that the *exposure* f/stop is affected by sensor size despite DECADES of handheld light meter use that demonstrates this simply isn't so.
Yeah, that's my go-to example when people talk about it. :)
Sir! you have my thanks!, this has been the best explanation video I have found on all YT and, believe me... I have spent hours trying to figure out this on YT
You're welcome 😀📷
Timely for my needs
Great commentary on this subject. I shoot full frame Nikon digital as well as Aps-c Fujifilm cameras. The depth of field effect is the only exposure difference between the two. I still occasionally use a hand held light meter in certain situations - sometimes in measuring flash exposure- and have never asked (or told) my Sekonic meter that I was using my Nikon or my Fuji. If I really think about it, I never did that with my first 35mm film camera or my TLR Yashica (or my 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 Speed Graphic) back in the 60s.
The only difference might come IF the internal meter in the different camera was reading a slightly different scene due to the focal length disparity from my Nikon to Fuji in very contrast light. But that’s a different story because the meters are reacting to the TTL differences between the two.
I had to watched it twice :) Thanks because i always had this wrong thinking my f.2 lens on my Fuji XT3 was in fact a f.3 because of the crop :)
Yes it an f3 worth of DOF and f2 worth of light (though you should check t stop for it) 😊
Your who this video is for! :)
@@BoorayPerry Heck yeah, i like this technical stuff :)
Great product knowledge Booray you know what your talking about. With the light meter i sometimes argue with it especially when the background is much brighter than the foreground. Another great and spot on video, thank you.
Thanks🙂
DOF is determined by not the relative aperture value (like f/2), but by the absolute aperture diameter in mm because the bluring is caused by parallax between side poins of your outermost lens. So f/2 for 23mm crop lens is 11.5 mm real aprture and on FF equivalent lens is 35 mm and it will have almost same DOF on f/3 with real aperture 11.7 mm. With these settings you will get almost identical composition and DOF between crop and FF, but on FF you will use higher ISO or longer exposure because relative aperture is smaller. From the other side if your FF lens has f/1.4 you will need unrealistic f/0.93 on crop for the same bokeh.
Thank you, Professor. Now please go and see if you can fix the boat before Gilligan messes it up further.
But an important thing is that full frame can use the higher ISO without noise getting worse than on the APS-C with the lower noise. There is no free lunch.
Got it … thanks!
Sounds like you’re spot on with your explanation. From my knowledge, (correct me if I’m wrong) a 50mm lens with the same aperture value on a full frame and APS-C camera will give you the same amount of bokeh and depth of field, but obviously the crop factor on the APS-C is going to impact your field of view, which is why using a 50mm EQUIVALENT lens to match the full frame field of view seems to have an impact on the depth of view and bokeh. The only way to match this would be, as you said towards the end of your video, adjust the F/stop to get the same amount of depth of field and bokeh.
A landscape photographer on RUclips mentioned that when he went from Fuji APS-C to the medium format GFX 100s, his depth of field was impacted drastically and he had to focus stack images that he normally wouldn’t have done on an APS-C camera with the equivalent focal length.
Great video as always. This topic drives me nuts because I know the mechanics and understand the values, but to explain it can turn into an argument at times.
Yes. It is impossible to get the same field of view without changing the focal length or the distance from the subject and either one of those things will impact your depth of field.
They give entirely different images so comparing is hard. If the background is far enough and you shoot further away on APS-C then the bokeh will be same size. Depth of field also will not be similar. You would need to open the APS-C 1 to 1 1/3 f-stops more for the same depth of field.
When you do the comparisons you need to specify what you want to keep unchanged. If you change the sensor size something else has to change. It can be the focal length, the distance or the subject. Photographers typically change the distance. However, when it comes to the depth of field formulas the subject is not even part of them so it changes.
A related matter of confusion has to do with magnification of an aps-c lens/sensor combination, I.e. multiply the lens focal length by the crop factor and magically you get closer to your subject than you would be with the same focal length on a full frame camera. Unfortunately the laws of physics don’t allow the sensor size to change the optical characteristics of a lens. Moreover, for a crop sensor camera to produce the same field of view as a full frame camera at the same focus point the distance from that point must be increased; and of course focus distance is one of the determinants of depth of field.
Yes. I have a video about that. :)
Excellent video 😊!
Thanks!
This is a argument you hear a lot from people discussing micro four thirds. M43 has a x2 crop. I have never seen the difference. Good analogy about the light meter
Thanks! The light meter is the mic drop of this discussion. :)
Great explanation 🎉
Absolutely brilliant video.
So my sigma 18-35mm f1.8 still gas an f-stopr value of 1.8, but the DOF is higher at approx f2.8.
Thanks again.
It's higher as long as you are taking the same composition.
Of course it is f/1.8 what else could it be. It gives similar results as 28-55 mm f/2.8 would on a full frame.
Well explained. Very interesting video, thanks.
Ur splendid,great description...
Love this and your channel! This was great and such a good explanation of depth of field vs f stop in APSC.🎉❤
Well thank you!
Well said !!!!!
Great video 🙏 I was sent here by a future video of yours and it answered my question about light meters and crop sensors
Hey great video ….I’ve gone back to a crop sensor and loving …generally I shoot landscapes at F11 or F10 ….on my APC camera does this mean this is F14.
f14 depth of field but not f14 light. :)
No, you should use f/7-8. Never go to f/14 on crop. You will ruin your images. In general consider if you need to go even f/8. You need to use small aperture only if there is a clear foreground element.
Smaller sensors mean shorter focal lenghts and larger apertures. Many get the second wrong.
THANK YOU !
This was the point of my confusion for sooo long. I understood the depth of field change in APSC vs FF, which I do not much care about. However, everybody cares about capturing less light and was kinda bummed out by that, as I was debating getting a f1.4 lens for my Fujifilm or a f2.0.
The f 1.4 is very expensive and I tought to myself... man if I had a full frame f2.0 would be plenty. But now that I know that light gathered is the same the lens decision is easier. Ok, the smaller sensor can be less performant in low light than a FF but still enough for me. The important thing I got out of this video was that cropping your sensor does not affect exposure. Thank you Perry for the explanation, keep it up ! :)
I'm glad I can help. It's a very common misconception 🙂📷
The capturing less light comes from the fact that you must use lower ISO on APS-C to control the noise. The light over the sensor is less but exposure is determined by the light intensity.
Nothing changes on the lens when you use an APS-C sensor. This is why I hate when people say 50 mm becomes 80 mm. No it does not. Even worse is to say 50 mm is really 80 mm. No, 50 mm is really 50 mm.
Perfect explanation. Thanks again for sharing your photography knowledge.
Thanks for watching!
"How dare you, Sir? How dare you?" What a lovely moment!
Lol... Thank you🙂
I’ve never noticed my images change exposure/brightness when I crop them. 🤷
Great video man! I'm looking on purchasing an FX30 as a b-cam to my FX6, and with it being a cropped sensor I was unsure about it because I thought I would have to invest in several more lenses with lower f/stops. This video cleared up a lot of my confusion. Cheers.
Glad I could help! Thanks for commenting. :)
Nice job, although I think his argument revolves around using a full frame lens on an APS-C camera so he may still say that there is a difference. There’s not and you’re right. In years long past I used a 210mm f/5.6 lens on both a 4x5 and a 5x7 view camera. The image circle covered both (barely on the 5x7) and exposed the negatives exactly the same even though the larger 5x7 negative had nearly twice the surface area. You may sometimes be ridiculous, as we all are, but not about this.
The only exposure difference I can see in metering through my vintage FF lenses vs. Fuji APSC lenses is a slight one with certain lenses, and may possibly be attributed to internal reflections of the larger FF image circle bouncing back and reflecting off the rear element. In any case that would be unrelated to this video, and the explanation here is still completely valid.
Great Video, there is still one confusing thing for me. Imagine a scene where I match the field of view for the apsc body as well as the full frame camera. Lets say both pictures where shot at f2.8, how comes that the full frame camera captures cleaner images (less noise) then the apsc canera?
If they both have the same pixel count, then the pixels are bigger on the FF camera which means less noise.
Because the image is magnified less. The more you magnify the more errors will show up.
It is simple physics. There is no change in depth of field for using a FF sensor or a crop frame sensor at a given mechanical F-stop ratio with the same lens, as long as nothing else is disturbed..
1. Assume you have a Full Frame 35mm camera that has interchangeable sensors (just like lenses interchange) Set up your ruler and little figurines at various distances.
2. Pick an F-stop (lets say F4) and take a picture using the full frame sensor while leaving a bit of empty space around the figurines.
Look at the ruler in the photo to see where the near and far limits of sharpness (DoF) fall on the ruler.
3. Now crop the borders of the picture with your Photoshop, or whatever, and again look at the limits of sharpness on the ruler.
4. Did they change?
Of course not. Cropping the borders of the frame does not change the image left in the center.
5. Now gently replace the full frame sensor with an APS-C and take the same shot without disturbing any of the settings on the camera. Look at the near and far limits of sharpness.
4. Did they change?
Of course not!
Because all the smaller sensor does is mechanically crop the borders of the 35mm frame the same as Photoshop does. The central image remains unchanged. The surrounding unused light is just wasted.
"But, but, but?" you sputter, I can prove mathematically that the F -stop ratio changes.
Well of course you can because they are using a different focal length on the APS-C camera than on the 35mm (doh 😁)
Claiming that using 1.6 ratio to calculate the "equivalent focal length" for APS-C gives you the same picture is baloney. The aspect ratio of the two lenses are different.
And of course the depth of focus will be different (shrug).
Carry on, gentlemen.
If you crop the image afterwards you of course change everything. It does not matter at what point you crop.
The sensor size does affect the depth of field with the same lens. The smaller the sensor the lens depth of field there is because of larger magnification.
A RUclipsr I no longer follow, said it brilliantly. He asked: Why don't external lightmeters have a dial for sensor size?
Because of what you just said, sir.
I use my light meter for film photography and there is no difference in measured light for my Bronica 6x4,5 and 35 mm Nikon).
Very interesting thanks, still getting my head straight. 🤣
Excellent description! Thank you! Your “vlogs” are very entertaining and informative.
Thanks! :)
A great explanation,,, I think sometimes people can just get to involved with the workings and the theory of things instead of just going out there and taking the picture they want to,,,, And if you screw up you've always got photoshop to fall back on,,, Its a bit like driving a car,,, how many people know the workings of an engine,,, (unless your a mechanic of course) All most people do is just get in and drive it .The guy who contradicted you,,, ask him if he knows how to work his wifes washing machine. Unless the guy is a purist and everything has to be right in his life. Im just glad im a happy snapper these days. Best Wishes
I like your videos and appreciate your knowledge.
Thanks Kenny!
@@BoorayPerry I’m a 70 year old long time Nikon shooter. I’ve been shooting full frame d850’s and aps-c d500’s for awhile with thought of selling my d850’s and stay with my aps-c d500’s, as I’m pretty much done with weddings. Everything I intend to continue shooting I believe I’m ok with my d500’s such as school sports portraits, family sessions, corporate events, personal wildlife and landscape scenery. I’ll keep a lot of my full frame glass although much of my work will be easily performed with my Nikon 16-80 f2.8-4, 17-55 f2.8. Do you think I’m bonkers?
@@kennypringle4580 Of course not. It's all about value. If APS-C can do the job for you then save the money.
@@BoorayPerry for me it’s not really about saving money as I already have 4 aps-c lenses and 15 full frame lenses. I’d probably sell 12 full frame lenses and use those I keep for portraits and wildlife. I’d be going from a 45mp full frame to a 21mp aps-c crop sensor. I feel 21mp is plenty for what I need, I’d be carrying less weight, smaller sized gear, put 5k in my pocket from selling lenses I won’t need. I think you’re a Fuji X shooter, ………. if j were to start over jd like yo try that, but I’m nit willing to lose so much $$ in selling everything and starting over with a new system. I’ll keep an eye in your videos trying yo watch them all my fiend. Keep up the good work you do.👋🏻
bigger pixel hit more photons and produce more electricity. resoulting in more powerfull signal. it's bigger graddiant and dynamic range - the most inportant thing in fine photography
It is important not to confuse equivalences with reality. The fact that the lens gets slower is an equivalence not reality. The comparable reality is that on APS-C you cannot raise ISO so high before the noise becomes excessive. Either way APS-C is worse in low light by the same amount. One must keep them separate and not mix and especially not use both at the same to say for example the lens gets slower and in addition you cannot raise ISO.
The equivalence gives a tool to compare like what is better f/2.8 on full frame or f/2.0 on APS-C? Without the tool you get on one hand but on the other hand type of speculation. An alternative is to compare the aperture size but this works only if the fields of view are the same.
In other words, both sensors will collect the same about of light per square mm of sensor surface area.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to explain this. People still don’t get it. I’ve proven this personally. I shoot basketball indoors with my Fuji XH2s and 50-140 f2.8 at 3200 ISO or 6400 depending on which side I’m shooting. People there shooting with full frame and 70-200 2.8 are at the same ISO as I am. Sometimes, they are at higher iso than me. If shooting APSC let’s in less light, I would be at much higher ISO than any of the FF guys.
ISO is about the light intensity, not the amount of light. The larger sensor gathers more light at the same aperture. The images they get at ISO 3200 or ISO 6400 are cleaner than those you get. Roughly they get same at ISO 6400 than you at ISO 3200.
@@okaro6595 ISO is the amplification of light. It is like an amp for a stereo. So yes, it is about the amount. Too much and you get distortion. Make the speakers bigger, like a bigger sensor, and it will not be as noisy/distorted.
The F number changes mean to compensate the depth of field.
my sekonic flash meter gave me over exposure f stop reading when using the z50 nikon. it is my flash meter broken or i use it wrong?
Awesome vlog Booray! Don't pay attention to the haters, and complainers...lol. Of course you prob already do that (not pay attention). This makes total sense, but could never explain it. I have a APS-C (D500) and Full frame (Z7ii) and looking to get the X series (still going between H2 and T5) added to my collection. It's funny how certain topics will bring out the folks from the basements that are always wanting to correct others....like how you pronounce "ISO"...lolol...It's just silly. My comment is like "Why does it bother you? But in this case, there is just cold hard facts. Thanks for bringing them out!
lol... Thanks for watching! :)
Thanks!
Thank YOU! :)
What about high ISO performance? Is that mostly determined by pixel size?
Well there are several factors at play there. Pixel size plays a part but I feel like the advances we are making now are more tied to advances in sensor construction and computational A.I.
No, by the sensor size. Of course there are other variables.
No, the sensor size.
not really. If you're concerned about how bright your image looks then yes, a F4 lens on an aps-c sensor will look just as bright as an f4 on a FF sensor, but the actual amount of light reaching the sensor is less (since the area is larger). So if you compare the same field of view, eg. a aps-c 33 f1.4 and a ff 50 f1.4 they'll give you the same exposure, but the aps-c gets less light and thus gives you more noise. If your calculation is about how bright your image looks then you're correct, but if you're interested in image quality that's not the case. It'd be the same thing as saying a f1.4 lens and a f2 lens are just as good for low light since you can just pump the iso.
Totally agree. For an apsc sensor to get the same picture quality as a full frame (assuming same megapixel count and sensor tech), each pixel on apsc sensor needs more intense light (more light per period of time). To achieve this you will need an apsc lens with larger apature. For example, a full frame 50mm f1.8 with iso 1600 will result in similar image quality as an apsc 33mm F1.2 with iso 1000. 33mm f1.8 with iso 1600 will result in the same image with same exposure level, but with more noise (unless you use an apsc sensor that has the same pixel density as the full frame).
i agree to the they make head want to explode comment 😂
So it apires that if you use lens f4 on 35mm it is equivalent of f6 on APSC, but I think that is wrong, since for background blur and amount of light for f4 on 35mm, you do need f2.8 on APSC, and the DOF calculator sugests f6, but then APSC is much light/DOF efficient than lenses for 35mm? I dont get how smaller lens needs less light for same effect 🙂.
You do not need a different aperture on APSC for amount of light. Only DOF is affected by sensor size.
@@BoorayPerry Ok, if same lens used, but to achieve DOF of f4 on 35mm you need f2.8 on APSC designed lens and not f6 like DOF calculates?
@@MilutinLabudovic Correct. You need a wider aperture to get the same DOF if the compositions are identical.
If you use 35 mm on both you get the same blur with the same aperture if tyhe background is far enough. It will be different but the size of the blur on the focal plane is the same.
If you use a shorter focal length on APS-C then you must use wider aperture.
Well said!
Clearly the A7IV FF out perform the A6700 APSC camera in low light
I imagine it does
Could you clarify for example, is my f1.8 apsc lens still an f1.8 regarding light reaching the sensor on my FF?
I know DOP is affected, but is my low light lens still a low light lens on my FF?
That is correct. I made a video about it because so many people get confused. :)
ruclips.net/video/_V_9sAXNC80/видео.html
Of course f/1.8 is f/1.8. Neither the focal length nor the aperture actually change to anything.
Hey Booray, great video as usual. After watching it I have what might be the "stupid question" of the day. I've been shooting with a Nikon D500 DSLR with an 18-300 DX lens for some time. I recently photographed groups of children at a vacation bible school and what I noticed is that what I saw in the view finder when composing the shot was not what I saw in the resulting photo. The groups seemed farther away than what I saw in my composition. I've noticed this previously in other photos and didn't really understand why this was occurring. I'm questioning now if it's due to the crop sensor?
DSLR's seldom show you the entire frame. Something about the mechanics involved with the mirrors and all meant that you always saw 95% or so of the actual frame.
@@BoorayPerry That's an interesting fact I never knew. Thanks so much.
@@dennisjones5579 Most people never notice it. I have an old DSLR for my photobooth and I always have to remember to zoom in a little tighter because the print will be wider. :)
@@BoorayPerry Great lesson to learn. Thanks
Likely just how things look different from the viewfinder than as the image. That has a 100% viewfinder coverage. Sure you may have some weird setting. Reset the camera if it is a problem.
So lets see if I have this straight,
I like to do night time 4k walks, on these walks I want to have the maximum DOF, In this situation where a shallow DOF is my enemy an APC format and by extension mft format will actually be advantageous to a full frame camera.
This is of course assuming all other factors in the sensor quality and software are equal.
Another way to look at it is if you find yourself with a full frame camera often shooting wide so that you can get more depth of field and then cropping it later in post then an APS-C camera just crops it for you.
Or you could stop down the full frame to get almost the same result. .
Did people act this crazy about cameras when all we had were film-based cameras like the Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Minolta 35mm cameras? My friends and I would jab each other by the name on the camera body but we just enjoyed shooting. Having 35mm film evened the field perfectly.
With film every one basically had the same film size so that it was not an issue. The exceptions were Instamats etc. Those who used them did not care of such technical stuff. Another exception was medium format and they did not compare to the 35 mm.
Agree but… somehow performance of a let’s say f2.8 is better in full frame than APSC. Could it be because for same resolution you have bigger pixels and they are able to gather more light? Or manage better. There’s more dynamic range, less noise, for sure. Is the same amount of light, YES. The result is equivalent, NO. I would say is half a stop or 1 stop difference. This is why a 50mp f1.8 sensor of a mobile phone cannot beat in low light a f2.0 26mp APSC camera, for instance. Am I wrong?
The larger sensor simply rendors the light better
The physical dimension of pixels will vary. A full frame sensor is dimensionally 24mm x 36mm. If the size of the pixel is reduced more pixels will fit on the sensor. The smaller the pixel, the higher the resolution so not sure you can equate sensor to f-stop in your example.
I disagree. I have been shooting indoor basketball at a local college with a Fuji XH2s and 50-140 f2.8 (75-210 FF) at lower ISO than some people there shooting with FF and 70-200 f2.8 lenses. Shot the same games with the 40mp XH2 camera and my ISO was about the same. Maybe a stop higher. Both rendered very little noise at 3200 ISO. I don’t see major noise pop up until 6400 and even then it’s manageable. However, if I use the SOOC JPEGs with high iso NR enabled, I get clean images up to 6400 ISO.
No one is saying that an APS-C will beat a top-tier FF camera at dynamic range and noise. Bigger sensors with bigger pixels will usually outperform smaller sensors if the pixel count is the same. For me it's about value. The APS-C sensors are producing images at high ISO that are "good enough." There will always be better cameras but will they be smaller? Will they be less expensive? These factors count too. It's like, I could get a big V8 engine in my car and I would be faster but would it really be worth it?
@@JET-Photo You were very sure to note you know what iso everyone there is shooting at, but you didn't make any mention if everyone was using the same shutter speed.
are you not wasting 40 % of light on apsc vs full frame as such your loosing ight as the image circle on full frame is aimed at the whole sensor but apsc wastes much of the light ?
Nope. :)
Exposure is determined by the intensity of the light. The fact that you lose light at the edges does not affect the exposure.
That analogy with rain and the boxes just seems way off to me. Because there is also a time element aka duration. If it rains for say 1 hour the smaller box it actually have more water in it because the surface area is smaller so less to fill. Where as the larger box will have a much larger/wider surface area to fill as there is more water to distribute.
Duration isn't a factor if both boxes are exposed for the same length of time. My analogy is good. :)
The boxes (sensors) must be exactly the same size and exactly the same quality (leak the same). Because we all know camera manufacturers put the same flagship quality sensors in their aps-c cameras.
LOL! Your critic obviously has never had the experience of shooting film and switching between a 35mm Nikon and a 6 x 6 Rolleiflex.
Using an aps - c sensor changes your field of view it does not change depth of field nor does it magnify the lens its the same focal length..
It changes your depth of field if your composition is the same.
It changes the depth of field.
Camera needs to be a closer to host. I can't see the face.
Personally, I think we need to stop talking about crop factor. It confuses the masses and obviously many RUclips "teachers" don't understand it either. The size of the sensor doesn't change depth of field or exposure. Depth of field is controlled by f'stop, focal length and distance to subject. Good video, Booray.
The sensor size does affect the depth of field. If you knew anything you would know it. Just pick a depth of field calculator and do some calculations.
@@okaro6595 indirectly it does, but the three things that effect DOF are aperture, distance to subject and focal length. That is the facts.
OK, explain this: I can use my Nikon Z6 II at ISO 6400 and get fairly clean images. If I use my Panasonic GX85 with a Micro 4/3 sensor at ISO 6400, the images are very noisy. Why the difference?
Because the "pixel pitch" is different between the two cameras. An individual pixel on the Nikon sensor is roughly double the size as that on the GX85. Hence, to really compare the two you need to shrink the GX85 pictures by 2x so that you're comparing apples to apples. This has nothing to do with the size of the sensor, rather it's the size of each pixel on the sensor. You could put pixels the size of the Nikon Z6 II on the GX85 sensor, but it'd have about 4x less of them and be 4MP in resolution rather than 16MP.
The MFT image is magnified more so noise becomes visible. Magnification always brings up errors.
Sensor size has no effect on the F-stop. Depth of field is, however, affected by the magnification of the image on the sensor and the chosen aperture.
You need to state your name and channel faster.
Get two cameras and compare... real life test.
It only change the bokeh, got it.
"How an APS-C Crop Sensor affects F-Stop!" - It doesn't. Unless you are for some reason comparing with, or converting to, 35mm/Full-Frame equivalent.
Something there is really no reason to do in 99.997959% of circumstances.