I'm right there with you. I've concluded that I'll use f4 or f8 for group portraits and 1.4-2.8 for individual portraits just because I'm afraid of the shallow depth of field for groups.
fuji 56 f 1.2, 23 f1.4, 16 f 1.4 or 8? the 56 is magnificent. Fuji works for me, switched from 30 years of nikon and have not regretted it for a minute. The raws through capture one are smooth with amazing detail. The new fuji sensors work well in low light too.
So by listening to your statement using a full frame camera for low light provide the same clear image as with an APSC camera since exposure is unchanged. So why everybody says that FF camera are better for low light? for intance A7IV vs A6700
The math is that you simply apply the crop factor (1.5x) to the f# to get the equivalent DOF. For example, Fuji 56mm f/1.2 is equivalent to full frame 84mm f/1.8. What that means is that the aperture expresses as a diameter of lens opening is identical. 56mm/1.2 = 47mm diameter. And 84mm/1.8 = 47mm diameter. So both are letting in the same amount of light photons per second. That seems confusing to photographers because the 84mm at f/1.8 will need a longer shutter speed to get the same exposure. But you can instead use a slightly higher ISO (by 1.5x higher) on the full-frame and keep the same shutter speed. And then, as you probably know, full frame noise at 1.5x higher ISO will be about the same as APS noise (assuming sensors of similar vintage/technology). So then the images have matching FOV, DOF, exposure time, and noise. BTW, Tony Northrop did a good video on this with experimental proof, but hordes of photographers vehemently disagreed. I’m an amateur photog, but a professional engineer that has studied optics, and I find Tony’s video to be obviously correct, and mathematically correct per the physics in text books. Your estimate of about 1 stop is pretty close since 1 stop is 1.414x. But it is the crop factor of 1.5x. In the result, that’s splitting hairs.
About 30 years ago, in the medium format film days, nearly every photo taken, whether an individual or a group of people, was done using either f/5.6 or f/8.
Finally, someone uses real life example to analyse the bokeh debate for apsc vs full frame. Very very good video and hope more new photographer can watch your video..thumbs up👍🏻
So, you are saying longer distance does not create more depth of field? And also saying moving the camera closer to the subject won't create less depth of field?
helpful. thoughtfully presented. the addendum about adding a f1.4 prime (or even a f1.8 or f2 prime) is helpful for those event portraits that need a shallower dof. again, thank you for the effort and the sharing. thumbs up.
If I understand this correctly, a 7.5mm f2 aps-c lens will have similar field of view and depth of field as a 11mm f2.8 ff lens (Both shot wide open)? On top of that, the aps-c lens by virtue of being an f2 lens will let in more light? (disregarding noise and resolution). I'm about to purchase a 7.5mm f2 aps-c lens for my full frame camera in aps-c mode just for that brighter capability, I don't need to crop in post so I don't care about resolution as much.
As you consider Fuji bodies: I think you'll find the ergonomics of the X-H1 will serve you better with the larger glass (vs the X-T3). The deeper grip, the better button placement (esp back-button AF) and the shutter release on top of the grip (vice on top of body) will make life more comfortable. And there's IBIS and weather sealing. The AF isn't as fast as the X-T3, but plenty fast for your needs. I even shoot birds in flight with the H and I do just fine (though I'm not a pro). Maybe the X-H2 will be out in coming months which will offer the best of the XT and XH worlds.
Yeah I see what you mean. All I know is that I zoomed out until they matched and i was at 70mm. I don't know where the original file is or I would check it. Maybe I mis-read the focal langth?
@@BoorayPerry Bigger sensor get more light. Is it because APS-C use some type of lenses that gather as much light as Full Frame lenses, but they focus it on a smaller area??? 🤔 People talk, but nobody explains it well.
@@lelouchlamperouge5910 Bigger sensors do not get more light. The amount of light hitting the sensor is determined by the light source and the aperture of the lens, not the sensor size. If you have a child and an adult standing in the sun they will get equally tan. :)
While the exposure comment is correct in one way, it is not as simple if you judge iso quality. Yes, f/2.8 is f/2.8 regardless of sensor size. But on a smaller sensor, overall iso noise is higher. All other things being equal, only sensor size different, you need that additional light compare to f/4 in order to get the same amount of noise. Or to put it more simply, I think crop factor should not only applied to equivalent focal length but also to equivalent aperture. (Exposure settings are different but I talk about the outcome.) It gets even more complex. Lenses are usually sharper if stopped down, so fullframe cameras compare to crop still have an advantage in terms of actual resolution. (I am an APS-C user, both Fujifilm and Nikon.)
I learned the lesson in a reverse manor. I usually shoot with a crop sensor camera wide open. I recently shot a newborn with a full frame 50mm lens at f/3.5. Since I was within 4 feet of the child, my depth of field was too shallow. There is a danger of going back and forth between Full and Crop sensors. You have to think!
The main purposes for me using my Fuji trinity of red badge zooms is for events (many of them low light) that demand no flash. What I like about using f/2.8 on APSC is that if the lens is a good one there is a better chance for sharp images edge to edge with increased DoF for the exposure that I need to capture the shot the way I need to. That being said, my favorite event photography lens is the Fuji 16 f/1.4 - that lens is a special lens in the Fuji line-up, very close focusing and still sharp at f/1.4 which makes getting events with me in the action possible.
I love the sample shots between the full frame and crop sensors along with the different apertures. Great explanation. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. :)
And yes, you noticed what I also noticed: In dark rooms, having a fullframe cam does not help. I want some DOF so I stop down. Even with DX, I have to stop down! Very good video, clearing up one of the fullframe misconceptions.
Great video Booray. Loved the explanation about the depth of field and not exposure. So clear and succint versus so much FUD that is spread around. I don't shoot pro but adore my Fuji system. Also considering to supplment it with a Z6. Seems great ergos and glass.
Thanks! I often wonder if I should put more graphics and charts in when I explain something but in truth I'm just too lazy to create them. I just use my hands and hope people get it. Otherwise, I might not make a video at all. :)
I am about to make the switch from fuji's APS-C to the new Sony A7R IV's Full frame. I know that the A7R can also shoot APS-C and was wondering about how it affects the camera and the lens; you helped me put a lot of my questions to rest, thanks!
@@BoorayPerry Put a grip on the X100F like this one: www.amazon.com/Meike-MK-X100FG-Aluminum-Release-Fujifilm/dp/B07RY7D4N3/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=X100F+grip&qid=1578150421&sr=8-3 Meike grips are very nice and cheaper than the OEM.
I came from Canon ff to Fuji crop, what you really need to be worried about and it’s not shallow depth it’s colour fidelity in low light! The Fuji images are sharp obviously depends on lens choices as well, they have plenty resolution and although the noise is a bit more obvious in low light it’s not an issue and easily tweaked in post, but i found the colour in challenging low light is very desaturated, and you can try add saturation and colour vibrancy in your edit it may help but it’s not the same as FF, I ended up investing in extra Godox speedlights and setting them up around wedding receptions to help get richer colour,
No I don’t regret it because that’s pretty much the only negative with the Fuji system compared with FF is the color in low light, but who knows i reckon this is something they will fix with newer sensors in the future. otherwise I find Fuji more fun, AF more accurate, lighter system and more discrete. I am not sure about most of u? but i see the depth of field differences a bonus not a negative going from FF to crop, I prefer more depth of field (more in focus) especially in low when your down to 3200iso. My style is more documentary street style, To give u an example if i am shooting inside a dark venue and want both bride and groom in focus, i can usually achieve this at around f2 lets say for example using Crop sensor, On Full frame i will need to go to F2.8 which means what happens to my iso? Exactly that would need to be doubled. Not everyone wants shallow depth. Even when i was shooting FF doing head shots for magazine covers i was always hovering around f5.6 to F8 sorry to burst your bubbles but the art directors want the whole face in focus from tip of nose to behind the ears.
I shoot indoors in church a lot as at events, baptisms, pageants, and regular services using an X-T2 and X-T3, the 16-55 f/2.8 and the 40-150 f/2.8. I recommend you evaluate thoughtfully the low light capabilities of the APS-C sensor and see if it matches your needs as a professional. Most of my photos end up on social media and my Fuji output is more than good enough, but your wedding and bar mitzvah needs may differ. Take a look at the work of UK Fuji wedding photographer Kevin Mullins, who shoots only with primes (which offer wider apertures than f/2.8 zooms) on his Fuji cameras. Thanks for your informative videos.
I respect and admire the people who shoot using only prime lenses but for me to switch at this point in my career would be such a drastic change in my style.
I’m looking to switch from Canon pro full size gear to all Fuji. Anyone want to buy a boatload of Canon 5D’s and 6D’s, 8-10 580exii flashes, and a truckload of lenses? I want to switch my entire team to Fuji after a week of shooting Fuji.
daveydangr One can compensate with a higher aperture and the use of faster lenses. It reduces the need for the higher iso. Yes, the lenses are than bigger again and you loose the advantage of APSC, and these lenses are often similar in price compared to the slower full frame brother.
DOF, bokeh etc.. on FF and apsc is the same if you use the same focal length. The apsc just takes a crop of the FF pic because of the smaller sensor so your field of view will change. If you want to mimic (so same field of view) a FF pic with a apsc camera you have to use shorter focal length. In that case the DOF will not be the same. Or something hehe😄
@@BoorayPerry Great😄😄. Yes that is what the video is about for sure. But do you have any idea how confusing it can be for many people? My colleague is a student at a Photo Academy but still struggles with the FF vs apsc discussion. He ordered online an apsc lens for his FF sony alpha and now he is trying to get a refund.😅😅😅😅😅.
Stumbled on your video when it popped up as recommended. After watching it, instantly added it to a saved list for later retrieval! This is the best video I've seen actually "visually" showing what I learned long ago and why never jumped on the FF bandwagon. The need was not there for me and what I shoot. It gets old fast trying to explain my camera choice after stating I don't need a FF body. We can already create the same DoF, grain level, etc with the right lens on crop as FF when needed with lens choices and camera settings instead. Switching would offer me nothing, only resulting in even more money spent on longer lens to replace the extra framing lost. Although, only thing not mentioned is.. People want more MP's on FF so they have more pixel density for detail. We already have more pixel density with a crop body now, even with a 20mp or 24mp sensor, as they get by spending $1000's on a new camera. The size of the sensor doesn't make one a better photographer in the end, knowledge does. Now.. All need to do is link your video instead, and type "Watch and learn". Linking will save my fingers and get you views. It may not convince the "Gear Junkies" or "FF die hard's" but, will give me a breather while they watch. I call that a win win ;)
That's a great review Jeff and I really appreciate it. You're correct that it all comes down to what you need for your work. Yes, full frame gives you more options for dof but for most people it's really not an issue.
Exactly. The proper lens choice negates the DOF issue 95-98% of the time. If spending money on the few times it doesn't would boil down to how often it is actually a problem for the photographer or not, instead of what others need.
Same with grain. Had a hard time convincing a FF Die Hard that I can produce cleaner photos using my DX with a F1.8 lens than he could with his FX using his F4 lens, actually ~1 stop cleaner in low light recently. Is FF better? It can be but, "Compared to what?" is the real question. ;)
Switching to Fujifilm APSC is a fantastic idea. I am often tempted to just shoot in JPEG Velvia,,,,,well I have . An experience pro. as yourself would easily adapting. Yes, you would have to work for bokah, but the advantages will still be on the APSC side.
great video, its kinda funny with so many videos talking about this topic and sometimes they might not miss important stuff but just explain in a way that is harder to understand in practical use cases. and in this case it SEEMS for now that the benefits of having smaller lens has a GREATER benefit than having that slightly more blurry back ground. I say smaller lens because if you go check all the mirrorless cameras you maybe surprise to see that fuji isnt exactly smaller than the full frame competition nikon/canon/sony at this point and I was surprised too BUT even though the camera bodies are closely the same size the lens for APSC and full frame are definitely different and the biggest pros for the APSC for being smaller and lighter to use.
What had surprised me in my research is discovering that the smaller bodies are actually harder for me to use (see my video about the X-T3). Still waiting for that lighter camera that feels good and firm in the have all day and balances well. 📷📷🙂🙂
Mr. B Ray Perry.......I have a question for you. It is not meant to be I know something special or have an interest in some long string of exchanges. Me.....I am, in the “categories” a “photo enthusiast”. This helps establish I do not rely on my gear to support my habit. However, I take my gear and what I learn seriously. Having dealt with clients with a wide range of needs and demands, I do somewhat understand what concerns look like. I have spent many years as an independent consultant to companies needing a turn around plan due to their financial challenges; so a different set of needs. There have been a couple occasions where friends or family have talked me into photographing events. I hated it. So I cant imagine what it is like to balance, hair, finger nails, dress, mothers, friends, self image and a multitude of variables that come into play. So, the question is.......do your customers really care about bokeh, DoF, where you stand, etc?My sense is they dont. What matters is your product to them, in the end. Someone handed me a Fuji X100S, years ago. In a matter of weeks, all my Nikon gear was gone. I now own an X100F, XPro2, 3 prime lenses and a body free of pain. For 5 years in a row, I have only taken an X100 series on vacation for as much as 6 weeks at a time to cities like London, Paris, Vienna, Prague, Ireland and others. Not once did I ever think that crop sensor was a poor choice. Ok, I am done. Love your work and videos. Regards....Wayne
There's two answers to your question :) 1. My customers care, they just don't know why they care. I have booked many clients who have mentioned that my "party pics' are better than most... this is because I can shoot at high ISO and know how to light a room. People will be drawn to portraits more if they have a shallow depth of field... they may not no that's the reason but it's one of the reasons to be sure. Shallow depth of field is one of the ways that we can separate ourselves from the cellphone cameras. 2. I care. No one becomes a pro because they think they will get rich. They do it because they love the craft. Picking gear is a constant struggle between using what you know is the most versatile and using was is economical or lighter or simply weighs less because you aren't getting any younger :) Crop sensors are fine cameras but a full frame sensor will always out-perform it in some areas, mainly depth of field and low-light performance. The question is whether I'm willing to trade that performance for lighter gear and possibly something that is simply more fun to use. I'll have to test them against each other to decide. :)
Booray Perry Thank you. This was very helpful. There is so much conversation about gear, bokeh, what matters, etc. Getting older has dictated virtually all of my choices. As I said earlier, I have the luxury of not relying on my choices to support my profession. I sincerely appreciated your videos. W
A great in depth review. A lot of people incorrectly think the light input for exposure also changes when you switch to crop, and don't realize it only affect depth of field. Having used fuji 2.8 zooms I am pretty confident you will be thrilled with the quality and will have no regrets. A positive is the slight decrease in weight between Fuji X-T3 + the f2.8 zooms. If you do shoot primes, the XF 56 f1.2 and XF 90 f2 will give you a tighter depth of field if you ever would need it and allow more light. I may have missed if you only shoot zooms. When paired with X-T3 I find the XF56 to be an amazing combo, as the new body brings new life into that "older" lens as it used to be pretty slow focusing on the older bodies.
I shoot only zooms because my wedding work is just too frantic for primes in most cases (I know there are prime wedding shooters but it doesn't suit my style of shooting).
There are a lot of theories people are sharing online about crop sensors just affecting depth of field, but not many are form credible sources. I've tried to find a clear comprehensive answer on that question and the most compelling argument I found was made by Optical Limits (www.opticallimits.com/Reviews/986-equivalence). It's in the paragraph named "Equivalent Speed". I believe Optical Limits, formerly known as photozone.de, is a credible source, but I would be interested reading an article explaining how crop sensors don't affect light gathering. Would you have a link? Thanks!
Yes, a crop camera will give you the same exposure as a full frame camera (when using the same ISO, f-stop, and shutter speed settings). But your images will be noisier. Fortunately, wedding photography is more forgiving with noise artistically speaking.
@@texshooter7411 Oh, I don't know... I never have to shoot at 3200 ISO when doing portrait work but I do at weddings all the time. Noise is always a factor for me at weddings.
Since you often have to shoot at ISO 3200, if I were you, I would practice shooting at ISO 8000 with your Canon and see if you can get those noiser shots to look good in Photoshop before you switch to Fuji. Because full frame ISO 3200 is equivalent to Fuji 1.53X cropped at ISO 7490 (theoretically). Math here... ruclips.net/video/DtDotqLx6nA/видео.html
Well... there are other drawbacks to APS-C... low light performance is not as good as full-frame and dynamic range can be worse as well. But the new sensors are closing those gaps quickly. On the plus side you cut a lot of weight and size. If you need that super shallow depth of field you can always get a fast prime. :)
@@BoorayPerry Well yeah, if you only shoot in the dark like most Sony users..lol. The DR on every camera on the market is now very very usable, far from worse unless you just don't know how to expose properly..So back to the user, not the camera.
Shallow DOF is highly overrated. But it looks great, doesn't it? LOL. If you are more into portraits and shooting in good light, go Fuji. I envy some of the features to be honest. But, if you're ever going to work in low light, sony has a definite edge in image quality. I switched from Canon to Sony less than a year ago and haven't looked back. Nice video.
I shoot with Nikon d7200 crop sensor bodies and Nikon d810/d800 35mm full frame bodies. I would’ve sold off my full frame 35mm gear awhile ago if it weren’t that one particular wedding photography business who I shoot for requires me to use full frame equipment. With the improvement in sensors, cameras and lenses I could be very happy with smaller, lighter, less expensive crop sensor gear. I’d like to get a few Fuji X-T3 bodies and 5 lenses and call it good. Maybe next year ........... if I no longer shoot for this particular wedding photography business🤔 I enjoy your vidios👍
Well, the APS-C vs FF difference is not about the depth of field. It's about different amounts of light. People think that depth of field is the main difference only because they are easy to fool by rather relative and meaningless numbers like the F-stop and ISO. Aperture does not control the amount of light. It controls light intensity. The amount of light = intensity * time * area. And here goes the misconception number two - the ISO. Crop and FF ISO performance differences are the same at both high and low ISOs. And here is the solution - If you are not afraid to switch to APS-C, then WHY are you afraid to crank up your FF ISO by 1 stop!? (let's say there's exactly one full stop of light difference between FF and crop, for comparison purposes). You crank up the ISO (FF performs full stop better in that regard anyways), you use one stop slower lenses (which tend to be even smaller and cheaper than their true crop alternatives), you don't need to switch to anything (unless trading your F2.8 lenses for F4 lenses and getting some money back) and suddenly the depth of field is just the way you want it. This whole FF-phobia is such an overhyped nonsense really. You don't have to buy the largest lens compatible with your camera. Use what works best for you. Buy Fuji if you like it, not my business. But, please, do not preach lies like APS-C is as good as FF (or close), or cheaper than FF, of even much smaller than FF. Because it really isn't.
@@BoorayPerry They do Samyang Zeiss Mitakon and Viltrox has just brought out an 85mm 1.8 af Because Fujis glass is so good and affordable sigma and Tamron won't try to compete. Don't get me wrong I shoot Nikon full-frame and fuji I just find I am picking up fuji more often.
Images these days are far too sharp anyhow imho. I don't really need to be able to see someone's DNA in every image... Art not science! Great video, thanks for posting.
it's out of service. They will only service a piece of equipment for seven or eight years and then they sell all of the parts and refuse to fix it. I was told that even if they had the screws to fix it they would not.
FF are useless for 98% of people. Shallow depth is nearly always a bad thing, not a good thing. More DOF with APS-C is very useful and beneficial for several reasons. The only downside of APS-C is lack of good zoom lenses, I hope manufactures catch up soon.
I've been shooting a fuji x-t2 for several years now and, not being much of a portrait tog, have settled on the unholy trinity of 16-55/f2.8; 50-140/f2.8 & 100-400 + 1.4 t/c for my eclectic range of landscape, sport, event & lifestyle photography. This enables me to get to wherever I need to be, with all three lenses, in just a Lowepro 202 sling bag with monopod attached. I don't even notice the weight & bulk, which can be seriously important when the location is a remote beach, mucky woodland et al - and I don't need to put the bag down to get at the gear. I regularly shoot alongside full-framers & don't envy them one bit - especially the tripod & gimbal needed for the big guns: I have full coverage (f/f equivalent) from 24mm to 800mm & only need the monopod for long hours shooting surf competitions. When I do portrait work I find the 50-140 is magical: I just don't get the purpose of having the subject's eye in focus, but her ear & tip of her nose not so! Bokeh is the most overrated fad in photography & I'll be glad when the obsessives find something else to preach.
Well though out. Whichever brand you go to be sure to check out the professional support. I have heard several pros complain about Fuji support for pros.
I believe that you say "crop sensor doesn't have anything below f/4", and that's not true. Fujifilm (and Sony) have several 1.2, 1.4 and 1.8 lenses for APS-C which equivalents to 1.8, 2 and 2.8.
@@BoorayPerry At about 06:18 you say "I can get f/4 bokeh with a crop sensor body, but I can't get f/3.5, f/3.2 and f/2.8 depth of field with a crop sensor camera. I can't get the same depth of field as I can with a full frame camera". You can get this with a wider aperture lens, but maybe you mention something else and I misunderstood? 🙈😁 I'll gladly revise my comment if that's the case 😊 Thanks for the video!
Because I usually do my videos in one take, it's not unusual for there to be some misunderstanding. 🙂 In the video I am referring to using zoom lenses. You cannot buy a zoom lens that is wider than f2. 8. Later in the video I actually put text on the screen pointing out that you can buy a prime lens that will get you a more shallow depth of field.
@@jvborehed Was on my phone before, now on my computer and better able to type :) The point of the video is to determine if the less shallow DOF that a crop sensor provides would affect my work to the point where I would not like it. No matter how you slice it, you will always have a more shallow depth of field with a full-frame. I tested the cameras with my current zoom lenses. I don't use prime lenses for wedding work. If I did, I would be shooting at f1.2, etc and still have the same situation that I could not recreate that bokeh with a crop sensor camera AT THAT APERTURE.
That is the best explanation of depth of field I have ever seen.
Really good info, I enjoy the way you convey your thoughts. You’re just talking, not trying to sell folks on your point of view.
That's a great compliment. :)
I'm convinced this is the most misunderstood and mis-taught topic on youtube. Glad to see you handled it well.
Hey thanks!
I'm right there with you. I've concluded that I'll use f4 or f8 for group portraits and 1.4-2.8 for individual portraits just because I'm afraid of the shallow depth of field for groups.
fuji 56 f 1.2, 23 f1.4, 16 f 1.4 or 8? the 56 is magnificent. Fuji works for me, switched from 30 years of nikon and have not regretted it for a minute. The raws through capture one are smooth with amazing detail. The new fuji sensors work well in low light too.
I'm looking forward to testing them 😊
Fuji sensor, are not made by Sony?
David Richards just amazing
@@charruaporelmundo they are
The "1-stop difference" in my experience is correct. I am an amateur, with too much time to worry about technical details.
Yes, it is much simpler than to multiply by 1.5.
So by listening to your statement using a full frame camera for low light provide the same clear image as with an APSC camera since exposure is unchanged. So why everybody says that FF camera are better for low light? for intance A7IV vs A6700
FF produces less noise than APS-C and noise is a consideration with low-light photography.
A good teacher !
A good comment! :)
@@BoorayPerry Thank you for sharing so much with us here Booray... Experience, Education and Inspiration.. Truly appreciate it .
Thank you. This is a very helpful guide to decide on going full-frame due to my shoot style.
The math is that you simply apply the crop factor (1.5x) to the f# to get the equivalent DOF. For example, Fuji 56mm f/1.2 is equivalent to full frame 84mm f/1.8. What that means is that the aperture expresses as a diameter of lens opening is identical. 56mm/1.2 = 47mm diameter. And 84mm/1.8 = 47mm diameter. So both are letting in the same amount of light photons per second. That seems confusing to photographers because the 84mm at f/1.8 will need a longer shutter speed to get the same exposure. But you can instead use a slightly higher ISO (by 1.5x higher) on the full-frame and keep the same shutter speed. And then, as you probably know, full frame noise at 1.5x higher ISO will be about the same as APS noise (assuming sensors of similar vintage/technology). So then the images have matching FOV, DOF, exposure time, and noise. BTW, Tony Northrop did a good video on this with experimental proof, but hordes of photographers vehemently disagreed. I’m an amateur photog, but a professional engineer that has studied optics, and I find Tony’s video to be obviously correct, and mathematically correct per the physics in text books. Your estimate of about 1 stop is pretty close since 1 stop is 1.414x. But it is the crop factor of 1.5x. In the result, that’s splitting hairs.
That was great information. Thank you for explaining what it means and how it is and is not used.
Thanks for watching!
About 30 years ago, in the medium format film days, nearly every photo taken, whether an individual or a group of people, was done using either f/5.6 or f/8.
thanks booray!! very intuitiv Explantation. Super
For WEIGHT and getting less tired, I am considering APS-C for weddings. And there is Leica CL and Fuji XT-4 ..... hard to decide
Finally, someone uses real life example to analyse the bokeh debate for apsc vs full frame. Very very good video and hope more new photographer can watch your video..thumbs up👍🏻
Thanks for watching?
Nice angle of view on the difference 👍🏼
Well thought out! I'm ready to switch :)
Exactly what I was looking for, info on point, loved it!!!
Thanks!
So, you are saying longer distance does not create more depth of field? And also saying moving the camera closer to the subject won't create less depth of field?
No, it's the opposite of that.
@@BoorayPerry Yes I agree. But it sure seemed to say that in the video.
helpful. thoughtfully presented. the addendum about adding a f1.4 prime (or even a f1.8 or f2 prime) is helpful for those event portraits that need a shallower dof. again, thank you for the effort and the sharing. thumbs up.
If I understand this correctly, a 7.5mm f2 aps-c lens will have similar field of view and depth of field as a 11mm f2.8 ff lens (Both shot wide open)?
On top of that, the aps-c lens by virtue of being an f2 lens will let in more light? (disregarding noise and resolution).
I'm about to purchase a 7.5mm f2 aps-c lens for my full frame camera in aps-c mode just for that brighter capability, I don't need to crop in post so I don't care about resolution as much.
Yes, an f2 lens will let in more light than f 2.8
Doesn't crop factor apply to aperture too, ie Crop F2.8 * crop factor so different on full frame?
As you consider Fuji bodies: I think you'll find the ergonomics of the X-H1 will serve you better with the larger glass (vs the X-T3). The deeper grip, the better button placement (esp back-button AF) and the shutter release on top of the grip (vice on top of body) will make life more comfortable. And there's IBIS and weather sealing. The AF isn't as fast as the X-T3, but plenty fast for your needs. I even shoot birds in flight with the H and I do just fine (though I'm not a pro). Maybe the X-H2 will be out in coming months which will offer the best of the XT and XH worlds.
I suspect that what will happen is that I can get my canon zoom fixed and I will stay with that system until the XH-2 comes out. Then I will jump. :)
70mm x 1.5 crop = 105mm not 130mm, no? What did I miss there?
Yeah I see what you mean. All I know is that I zoomed out until they matched and i was at 70mm. I don't know where the original file is or I would check it. Maybe I mis-read the focal langth?
Very instructive and practical. Outstanding video!
What about the light? Do I need to raise my ISO to compensate the difference between FF and APS-C with the same aperture
No. Sensor size does not affect exposure
@@BoorayPerry Bigger sensor get more light. Is it because APS-C use some type of lenses that gather as much light as Full Frame lenses, but they focus it on a smaller area??? 🤔 People talk, but nobody explains it well.
@@lelouchlamperouge5910 Bigger sensors do not get more light. The amount of light hitting the sensor is determined by the light source and the aperture of the lens, not the sensor size. If you have a child and an adult standing in the sun they will get equally tan. :)
While the exposure comment is correct in one way, it is not as simple if you judge iso quality. Yes, f/2.8 is f/2.8 regardless of sensor size. But on a smaller sensor, overall iso noise is higher. All other things being equal, only sensor size different, you need that additional light compare to f/4 in order to get the same amount of noise.
Or to put it more simply, I think crop factor should not only applied to equivalent focal length but also to equivalent aperture. (Exposure settings are different but I talk about the outcome.)
It gets even more complex. Lenses are usually sharper if stopped down, so fullframe cameras compare to crop still have an advantage in terms of actual resolution. (I am an APS-C user, both Fujifilm and Nikon.)
I learned the lesson in a reverse manor. I usually shoot with a crop sensor camera wide open. I recently shot a newborn with a full frame 50mm lens at f/3.5. Since I was within 4 feet of the child, my depth of field was too shallow. There is a danger of going back and forth between Full and Crop sensors. You have to think!
The main purposes for me using my Fuji trinity of red badge zooms is for events (many of them low light) that demand no flash. What I like about using f/2.8 on APSC is that if the lens is a good one there is a better chance for sharp images edge to edge with increased DoF for the exposure that I need to capture the shot the way I need to. That being said, my favorite event photography lens is the Fuji 16 f/1.4 - that lens is a special lens in the Fuji line-up, very close focusing and still sharp at f/1.4 which makes getting events with me in the action possible.
Yes, I saw the deeper depth of field as a drawback but it's also a plus in many cases :)
I am more afraid of the opposite... not enough dof on the FF
if you kept the same focal length on crop , but moved back would DOF be same as full frame
No. Moving back changed the dof
Very nice video!!
Muy claro y sencillo!
Sigue así.
Abrazos
I love the sample shots between the full frame and crop sensors along with the different apertures. Great explanation. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. :)
And yes, you noticed what I also noticed: In dark rooms, having a fullframe cam does not help. I want some DOF so I stop down. Even with DX, I have to stop down! Very good video, clearing up one of the fullframe misconceptions.
Think about the extra distortion at really wide angles on APCs.
Great content!
Great video Booray. Loved the explanation about the depth of field and not exposure. So clear and succint versus so much FUD that is spread around. I don't shoot pro but adore my Fuji system. Also considering to supplment it with a Z6. Seems great ergos and glass.
Thanks! I often wonder if I should put more graphics and charts in when I explain something but in truth I'm just too lazy to create them. I just use my hands and hope people get it. Otherwise, I might not make a video at all. :)
That's it, I'm switching to Fujifilm medium format 😂.
There seems to be a lot of wedding photographers that has jumped on the Fujifilm wagon already so you'd be in good company. Great analytic video!
Thanks for watching!
I am about to make the switch from fuji's APS-C to the new Sony A7R IV's Full frame. I know that the A7R can also shoot APS-C and was wondering about how it affects the camera and the lens; you helped me put a lot of my questions to rest, thanks!
You'll love full frame for the bokeh but hate the weight, size and cost. :)
Have you seen Kevin Mullins’s wedding work? He shoots with Fujifilm X cameras and GFX too.
I don't doubt there is great work with the camera. The camera is great. I just wish it was easier to hold. 🙂
@@BoorayPerry Put a grip on the X100F like this one: www.amazon.com/Meike-MK-X100FG-Aluminum-Release-Fujifilm/dp/B07RY7D4N3/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=X100F+grip&qid=1578150421&sr=8-3
Meike grips are very nice and cheaper than the OEM.
I came from Canon ff to Fuji crop, what you really need to be worried about and it’s not shallow depth it’s colour fidelity in low light! The Fuji images are sharp obviously depends on lens choices as well, they have plenty resolution and although the noise is a bit more obvious in low light it’s not an issue and easily tweaked in post, but i found the colour in challenging low light is very desaturated, and you can try add saturation and colour vibrancy in your edit it may help but it’s not the same as FF, I ended up investing in extra Godox speedlights and setting them up around wedding receptions to help get richer colour,
This is great info. Have you regretted your decision to switch and if not, why?
No I don’t regret it because that’s pretty much the only negative with the Fuji system compared with FF is the color in low light, but who knows i reckon this is something they will fix with newer sensors in the future. otherwise I find Fuji more fun, AF more accurate, lighter system and more discrete. I am not sure about most of u? but i see the depth of field differences a bonus not a negative going from FF to crop,
I prefer more depth of field (more in focus) especially in low when your down to 3200iso. My style is more documentary street style,
To give u an example if i am shooting inside a dark venue and want both bride and groom in focus, i can usually achieve this at around f2 lets say for example using Crop sensor,
On Full frame i will need to go to F2.8 which means what happens to my iso? Exactly that would need to be doubled. Not everyone wants shallow depth. Even when i was shooting FF doing head shots for magazine covers i was always hovering around f5.6 to F8 sorry to burst your bubbles but the art directors want the whole face in focus from tip of nose to behind the ears.
I shoot indoors in church a lot as at events, baptisms, pageants, and regular services using an X-T2 and X-T3, the 16-55 f/2.8 and the 40-150 f/2.8. I recommend you evaluate thoughtfully the low light capabilities of the APS-C sensor and see if it matches your needs as a professional. Most of my photos end up on social media and my Fuji output is more than good enough, but your wedding and bar mitzvah needs may differ. Take a look at the work of UK Fuji wedding photographer Kevin Mullins, who shoots only with primes (which offer wider apertures than f/2.8 zooms) on his Fuji cameras. Thanks for your informative videos.
I respect and admire the people who shoot using only prime lenses but for me to switch at this point in my career would be such a drastic change in my style.
i also enjoy and rely on kevin mullin's event work where he is using the fuji line up. thumbs up.
Alternatively, you could get a Metabones or Kipon Baveyes EF adapter/focal reducer, get the best of both lens options and not have to think about it.
Yes but reducing the weight is a big reason why I want to switch
I’m looking to switch from Canon pro full size gear to all Fuji. Anyone want to buy a boatload of Canon 5D’s and 6D’s, 8-10 580exii flashes, and a truckload of lenses? I want to switch my entire team to Fuji after a week of shooting Fuji.
only reason to choose full frame is for high iso imo
daveydangr One can compensate with a higher aperture and the use of faster lenses. It reduces the need for the higher iso. Yes, the lenses are than bigger again and you loose the advantage of APSC, and these lenses are often similar in price compared to the slower full frame brother.
I’m getting a used Nikon D600 kit to replace my xt2 because it’s £400 cheaper. So mirrorless/Fujifilm isn’t all positives.
DOF, bokeh etc.. on FF and apsc is the same if you use the same focal length. The apsc just takes a crop of the FF pic because of the smaller sensor so your field of view will change. If you want to mimic (so same field of view) a FF pic with a apsc camera you have to use shorter focal length. In that case the DOF will not be the same. Or something hehe😄
Yes. That is what the video is about. :)
@@BoorayPerry Great😄😄. Yes that is what the video is about for sure.
But do you have any idea how confusing it can be for many people? My colleague is a student at a Photo Academy but still struggles with the FF vs apsc discussion. He ordered online an apsc lens for his FF sony alpha and now he is trying to get a refund.😅😅😅😅😅.
@@Audimann Oh I know. Maybe I'll do a video that just explains that nugget. :)
@@BoorayPerry 👍👍
Stumbled on your video when it popped up as recommended. After watching it, instantly added it to a saved list for later retrieval! This is the best video I've seen actually "visually" showing what I learned long ago and why never jumped on the FF bandwagon. The need was not there for me and what I shoot.
It gets old fast trying to explain my camera choice after stating I don't need a FF body. We can already create the same DoF, grain level, etc with the right lens on crop as FF when needed with lens choices and camera settings instead. Switching would offer me nothing, only resulting in even more money spent on longer lens to replace the extra framing lost. Although, only thing not mentioned is.. People want more MP's on FF so they have more pixel density for detail. We already have more pixel density with a crop body now, even with a 20mp or 24mp sensor, as they get by spending $1000's on a new camera. The size of the sensor doesn't make one a better photographer in the end, knowledge does. Now.. All need to do is link your video instead, and type "Watch and learn". Linking will save my fingers and get you views. It may not convince the "Gear Junkies" or "FF die hard's" but, will give me a breather while they watch. I call that a win win ;)
That's a great review Jeff and I really appreciate it. You're correct that it all comes down to what you need for your work. Yes, full frame gives you more options for dof but for most people it's really not an issue.
Exactly. The proper lens choice negates the DOF issue 95-98% of the time. If spending money on the few times it doesn't would boil down to how often it is actually a problem for the photographer or not, instead of what others need.
Same with grain. Had a hard time convincing a FF Die Hard that I can produce cleaner photos using my DX with a F1.8 lens than he could with his FX using his F4 lens, actually ~1 stop cleaner in low light recently. Is FF better? It can be but, "Compared to what?" is the real question. ;)
Switching to Fujifilm APSC is a fantastic idea. I am often tempted to just shoot in JPEG Velvia,,,,,well I have . An experience pro. as yourself would easily adapting. Yes, you would have to work for bokah, but the advantages will still be on the APSC side.
Great analysis. Thank you.
Very informative
great video, its kinda funny with so many videos talking about this topic and sometimes they might not miss important stuff but just explain in a way that is harder to understand in practical use cases.
and in this case it SEEMS for now that the benefits of having smaller lens has a GREATER benefit than having that slightly more blurry back ground.
I say smaller lens because if you go check all the mirrorless cameras you maybe surprise to see that fuji isnt exactly smaller than the full frame competition nikon/canon/sony at this point and I was surprised too BUT even though the camera bodies are closely the same size the lens for APSC and full frame are definitely different and the biggest pros for the APSC for being smaller and lighter to use.
What had surprised me in my research is discovering that the smaller bodies are actually harder for me to use (see my video about the X-T3). Still waiting for that lighter camera that feels good and firm in the have all day and balances well. 📷📷🙂🙂
I use the d7500 a beginner camera and the d850, and yes, there is a difference. I'm incapable of doing the math, but it is visible. Very visible
Mr. B Ray Perry.......I have a question for you. It is not meant to be I know something special or have an interest in some long string of exchanges. Me.....I am, in the “categories” a “photo enthusiast”. This helps establish I do not rely on my gear to support my habit. However, I take my gear and what I learn seriously. Having dealt with clients with a wide range of needs and demands, I do somewhat understand what concerns look like. I have spent many years as an independent consultant to companies needing a turn around plan due to their financial challenges; so a different set of needs. There have been a couple occasions where friends or family have talked me into photographing events. I hated it. So I cant imagine what it is like to balance, hair, finger nails, dress, mothers, friends, self image and a multitude of variables that come into play. So, the question is.......do your customers really care about bokeh, DoF, where you stand, etc?My sense is they dont. What matters is your product to them, in the end. Someone handed me a Fuji X100S, years ago. In a matter of weeks, all my Nikon gear was gone. I now own an X100F, XPro2, 3 prime lenses and a body free of pain. For 5 years in a row, I have only taken an X100 series on vacation for as much as 6 weeks at a time to cities like London, Paris, Vienna, Prague, Ireland and others. Not once did I ever think that crop sensor was a poor choice. Ok, I am done. Love your work and videos. Regards....Wayne
There's two answers to your question :)
1. My customers care, they just don't know why they care. I have booked many clients who have mentioned that my "party pics' are better than most... this is because I can shoot at high ISO and know how to light a room. People will be drawn to portraits more if they have a shallow depth of field... they may not no that's the reason but it's one of the reasons to be sure. Shallow depth of field is one of the ways that we can separate ourselves from the cellphone cameras.
2. I care. No one becomes a pro because they think they will get rich. They do it because they love the craft. Picking gear is a constant struggle between using what you know is the most versatile and using was is economical or lighter or simply weighs less because you aren't getting any younger :) Crop sensors are fine cameras but a full frame sensor will always out-perform it in some areas, mainly depth of field and low-light performance. The question is whether I'm willing to trade that performance for lighter gear and possibly something that is simply more fun to use. I'll have to test them against each other to decide. :)
Booray Perry Thank you. This was very helpful. There is so much conversation about gear, bokeh, what matters, etc. Getting older has dictated virtually all of my choices. As I said earlier, I have the luxury of not relying on my choices to support my profession. I sincerely appreciated your videos. W
But with APS-C you cannot raise ISO so high so you would need a faster aperture.
Yes. You lose a stop (maybe, depends on the camera) at high ISO but get it back with wide aperture.
I'd figure that the most popular Canon lens must be the 50mm f/1.8. It's quite nifty, after all.
Thanx. Very good explanation!
A great in depth review. A lot of people incorrectly think the light input for exposure also changes when you switch to crop, and don't realize it only affect depth of field. Having used fuji 2.8 zooms I am pretty confident you will be thrilled with the quality and will have no regrets. A positive is the slight decrease in weight between Fuji X-T3 + the f2.8 zooms.
If you do shoot primes, the XF 56 f1.2 and XF 90 f2 will give you a tighter depth of field if you ever would need it and allow more light. I may have missed if you only shoot zooms. When paired with X-T3 I find the XF56 to be an amazing combo, as the new body brings new life into that "older" lens as it used to be pretty slow focusing on the older bodies.
I shoot only zooms because my wedding work is just too frantic for primes in most cases (I know there are prime wedding shooters but it doesn't suit my style of shooting).
There are a lot of theories people are sharing online about crop sensors just affecting depth of field, but not many are form credible sources. I've tried to find a clear comprehensive answer on that question and the most compelling argument I found was made by Optical Limits (www.opticallimits.com/Reviews/986-equivalence). It's in the paragraph named "Equivalent Speed". I believe Optical Limits, formerly known as photozone.de, is a credible source, but I would be interested reading an article explaining how crop sensors don't affect light gathering. Would you have a link?
Thanks!
Yes, a crop camera will give you the same exposure as a full frame camera (when using the same ISO, f-stop, and shutter speed settings). But your images will be noisier. Fortunately, wedding photography is more forgiving with noise artistically speaking.
@@texshooter7411 Oh, I don't know... I never have to shoot at 3200 ISO when doing portrait work but I do at weddings all the time. Noise is always a factor for me at weddings.
Since you often have to shoot at ISO 3200, if I were you, I would practice shooting at ISO 8000 with your Canon and see if you can get those noiser shots to look good in Photoshop before you switch to Fuji. Because full frame ISO 3200 is equivalent to Fuji 1.53X cropped at ISO 7490 (theoretically). Math here...
ruclips.net/video/DtDotqLx6nA/видео.html
have to teach you how to use two examples on the screen at once
tried to wrap my head around this for years, it took you 5 minutes
LoL
I didn’t get it
7200mm lens? Did NASA design it for Pluto shots? :-)
Yes I noticed that. "70 to 200" sounds like 7200 when you say it fast
Wow....excellent analogy 👍
Very interesting. Thank you
Good point, if you don't need shallow dof then APSC is the best way to go!
Well... there are other drawbacks to APS-C... low light performance is not as good as full-frame and dynamic range can be worse as well. But the new sensors are closing those gaps quickly. On the plus side you cut a lot of weight and size.
If you need that super shallow depth of field you can always get a fast prime. :)
@@BoorayPerry Well yeah, if you only shoot in the dark like most Sony users..lol. The DR on every camera on the market is now very very usable, far from worse unless you just don't know how to expose properly..So back to the user, not the camera.
Shallow DOF is highly overrated. But it looks great, doesn't it? LOL. If you are more into portraits and shooting in good light, go Fuji. I envy some of the features to be honest. But, if you're ever going to work in low light, sony has a definite edge in image quality. I switched from Canon to Sony less than a year ago and haven't looked back. Nice video.
Thanks!
Good video thanks a lot!
I shoot with Nikon d7200 crop sensor bodies and Nikon d810/d800 35mm full frame bodies. I would’ve sold off my full frame 35mm gear awhile ago if it weren’t that one particular wedding photography business who I shoot for requires me to use full frame equipment. With the improvement in sensors, cameras and lenses I could be very happy with smaller, lighter, less expensive crop sensor gear. I’d like to get a few Fuji X-T3 bodies and 5 lenses and call it good. Maybe next year ........... if I no longer shoot for this particular wedding photography business🤔 I enjoy your vidios👍
Thanks for the comment Kenny. I haven't given up on switching to APS-C yet. :)
Well, the APS-C vs FF difference is not about the depth of field. It's about different amounts of light. People think that depth of field is the main difference only because they are easy to fool by rather relative and meaningless numbers like the F-stop and ISO. Aperture does not control the amount of light. It controls light intensity. The amount of light = intensity * time * area. And here goes the misconception number two - the ISO. Crop and FF ISO performance differences are the same at both high and low ISOs. And here is the solution - If you are not afraid to switch to APS-C, then WHY are you afraid to crank up your FF ISO by 1 stop!? (let's say there's exactly one full stop of light difference between FF and crop, for comparison purposes). You crank up the ISO (FF performs full stop better in that regard anyways), you use one stop slower lenses (which tend to be even smaller and cheaper than their true crop alternatives), you don't need to switch to anything (unless trading your F2.8 lenses for F4 lenses and getting some money back) and suddenly the depth of field is just the way you want it.
This whole FF-phobia is such an overhyped nonsense really. You don't have to buy the largest lens compatible with your camera. Use what works best for you. Buy Fuji if you like it, not my business. But, please, do not preach lies like APS-C is as good as FF (or close), or cheaper than FF, of even much smaller than FF. Because it really isn't.
Fuji 16mm1.4 WOW!! - 56mm1.2 AMAZING!! & not to forget my 1st Prime 35mm1.4, negates any Full/Frame envy with me.
Winner great job - exposure is exposure. Many need to know this lol
Yes true but fuji have very fast affordable glass 34 1.4 56 1.2 23 1.4 and so on the equivalent on sony is twice the price and size
Indeed. One of the other positives to going Fuji. However, Sony has third party glass that fuji does not.
@@BoorayPerry They do Samyang Zeiss Mitakon and Viltrox has just brought out an 85mm 1.8 af Because Fujis glass is so good and affordable sigma and Tamron won't try to compete. Don't get me wrong I shoot Nikon full-frame and fuji I just find I am picking up fuji more often.
@@martinsmyth5580 I read that Fuji won't share their electronics and that's why Sigma doesn't bother
Images these days are far too sharp anyhow imho. I don't really need to be able to see someone's DNA in every image... Art not science! Great video, thanks for posting.
I have thought about doing a deep dive into this very topic. Thanks for the comment. :)
Why won't Canon fix your 70-200mm?
it's out of service. They will only service a piece of equipment for seven or eight years and then they sell all of the parts and refuse to fix it. I was told that even if they had the screws to fix it they would not.
FF are useless for 98% of people. Shallow depth is nearly always a bad thing, not a good thing. More DOF with APS-C is very useful and beneficial for several reasons. The only downside of APS-C is lack of good zoom lenses, I hope manufactures catch up soon.
IMHO, I would use your investment in Canon glass with the Canon R.
That means an adapter and all that weight (which I'm trying to get away from).Plus, I would still have to replace the 70-200 which is a 2K investment
Go Lumix S1r....
I've been shooting a fuji x-t2 for several years now and, not being much of a portrait tog, have settled on the unholy trinity of 16-55/f2.8; 50-140/f2.8 & 100-400 + 1.4 t/c for my eclectic range of landscape, sport, event & lifestyle photography.
This enables me to get to wherever I need to be, with all three lenses, in just a Lowepro 202 sling bag with monopod attached. I don't even notice the weight & bulk, which can be seriously important when the location is a remote beach, mucky woodland et al - and I don't need to put the bag down to get at the gear.
I regularly shoot alongside full-framers & don't envy them one bit - especially the tripod & gimbal needed for the big guns: I have full coverage (f/f equivalent) from 24mm to 800mm & only need the monopod for long hours shooting surf competitions.
When I do portrait work I find the 50-140 is magical: I just don't get the purpose of having the subject's eye in focus, but her ear & tip of her nose not so!
Bokeh is the most overrated fad in photography & I'll be glad when the obsessives find something else to preach.
Well though out. Whichever brand you go to be sure to check out the professional support. I have heard several pros complain about Fuji support for pros.
I believe that you say "crop sensor doesn't have anything below f/4", and that's not true. Fujifilm (and Sony) have several 1.2, 1.4 and 1.8 lenses for APS-C which equivalents to 1.8, 2 and 2.8.
I don't say that at all but thanks for watching 🙂
@@BoorayPerry At about 06:18 you say "I can get f/4 bokeh with a crop sensor body, but I can't get f/3.5, f/3.2 and f/2.8 depth of field with a crop sensor camera. I can't get the same depth of field as I can with a full frame camera".
You can get this with a wider aperture lens, but maybe you mention something else and I misunderstood? 🙈😁 I'll gladly revise my comment if that's the case 😊
Thanks for the video!
Because I usually do my videos in one take, it's not unusual for there to be some misunderstanding. 🙂
In the video I am referring to using zoom lenses. You cannot buy a zoom lens that is wider than f2. 8. Later in the video I actually put text on the screen pointing out that you can buy a prime lens that will get you a more shallow depth of field.
@@BoorayPerry Gotcha. Thanks for the reply!
@@jvborehed Was on my phone before, now on my computer and better able to type :)
The point of the video is to determine if the less shallow DOF that a crop sensor provides would affect my work to the point where I would not like it. No matter how you slice it, you will always have a more shallow depth of field with a full-frame. I tested the cameras with my current zoom lenses. I don't use prime lenses for wedding work. If I did, I would be shooting at f1.2, etc and still have the same situation that I could not recreate that bokeh with a crop sensor camera AT THAT APERTURE.
Yes, you have a good case here, wide angle shot and DoF don' t go together. I am an apsc shooter and I see a big difference when using FF sensors.
^Fuji forever
You won't find the speed of D750 autofocus in any mirrorless camera but everything else is there!