Crop. Pentax K3 until I can afford the mark iii or the K2ii. I am leaning towards the K3iii. The sizing is just so beneficial for blending and for manuvering. The hexogonical bokeh adds character too. I do wish Pentax made more apsc lenses.
I recently upgraded from a 12-year-old crop DSLR (Nikon D7000) to a Z5 mirrorless full-frame. I got the kit with the 24-120 F4 lens, which is wonderful. I immediately noticed the better noise in low light, the dynamic range, and sharpness. That being said, I got perfectly good photos on my D7000. I lost some reach on my full-frame tele lenses, and my DX lenses are being sold along with the D7000. While the Z5 was only a bit more $$ than the crop Z50, it's the full-frame lenses that are tremendously more $$ than their crop counterparts. In the end, I'm very happy with my upgrade, but I fully acknowledge any limitations I have are me as a photographer, and not my equipment. It was more of a "want" than a "need" upgrade.
This is a great channel. Engaging, funny and creative. Just start photography and its crazy how big the field is. I hope you keep the channel going. I especially like how you don't only explain the concept and theory, but actually show it in real-time in a clear and cool way. Keep doing that.
I do a lot of wildlife photography as well as landscapes from hiking my cameras are ASP-C I have learned how to photograph within the cameras parameters and I don't miss full frame as I have not shot with a full frame camera since I sold my film cameras when i bought my first digital camera
So you probably have not done a real system comparison in about 20 years? Then it's more "APSC is good enough for me today" than "I don't miss full frame" because you don't even know what you might miss. Rent comparable FF equipment to your gear, go shoot for a few days, and then see if you still want to stick with APSC. That would be a meaningful statement.
I just watched your "ULTIMATE one light" video a day or two ago and thought it was so good I was disappointed to see you only had 3 videos and hadn't uploaded in months. You're back! Woo!
I am not sure if the maths is correct, full frame to aps-c. 50mm on full frame is equivalent to 75mm on aps-c. It should be multiplication instead of division. Not only it applies to the focal length, it has similar effect on the aperture. The aperture effect is not too apparent on aps-c. But when you used smaller sensor for example 1 inch sensor in ZV-1 then f/4 is almost f/12 (i don't remember thr exact number but i guess it is around 2.8).
Hey Halim and Timothy , thanks for the comments! You're right that when you put a 50mm on an APS-C that you'll need to multiply by the crop to get the Full Frame equivalent and it would be 75mm. It is more cropped in (Like I showed with the 35mm example). What I was talking about is how to get the same field of view on both the Full Frame and APS-C (not the same focal length). If you put a 33mm on and APS-C and a 50mm on a Full Frame they will give you the same field of view. Sorry if that was confusing in the video!
Also the math for aperture is the same. To get the exact same image on a Full Frame with a 50mm at say f4 (same field of view and depth of field) you'd need a 33mm at f2.6 on and APS-C (or 4/the crop factor). If you just took that 50mm at f4 from the Full Frame and put it on the APS-C you'd get the look (or Full Frame equivalent) of a 75mm at f6 (4 x the crop factor). Exactly what you saw with your ZV-1!
Very entertaining video ;) I have a couple full frame Nikons which I love for the reasons specified in this video, including an older D700 which takes gorgeous photos with a 12 mega pixel sensor. But for speed of use and getting the most out of my zoom lenses I enjoy the Z-50 crop sensor along with the ability to utilize all my old and vintage f mount lenses. The mirrorless sensor makes it even easier to shoot by seeing the final product before taking the shot. My other camera needs to be a crop sensor as my panoramic setup requires the use of an 8mm crop sensor lens. this allows me to balance the Canon 70d on it's pano head and shoot just 4 sets (90 degrees) of bracketed shots in a very efficient manner. So all in all, I would suggest getting the latest tech in a mirrorless APC and finding and older full frame to still save money over buying just the newest full frame offering.
I shoot a Nikon Z5 full frame camera AND an Olympus E-M1X Microfourthirds crop camera. Both are weather sealed, both have dual SD card slots, but as far as features go the Crop sensor MFT camera has a HUGE amount more. Honestly, though they are so different, these 2 cameras(Nikon and Olympus) pair beautifully. Also the E-M1X is extremely professional.
Nice Cory! I used to shoot video on the Panasonic GH4 & 5's and loved the MFT size for those (especially lenses). Cool to know that the Nikon and Olympus's pair well together too!
Low light performance becomes less of an issue if you put a shorter focal length on the crop (to equalize the field of view). Wider lenses need less light
That's not true. Shorter focal length lenses are lighter and you can handhold and slower shutter speeds, but that's not going to compensate for motion blur.
Seeing that I'm cheap as hell, i started photography as a kinda "hobby, to see if I'll like it"... Started with a lumix G7 (still perfect for what I do), i also have an old Canon eos 550D (Rebel T2i in US I think, I love the crisp of the pictures. I also use an Olympus om-d e-m1 that i absolutely love to bits despite its age (its an mk1) and the flaws of the micro4/3. Although I'm more and more checking for an old full frame ! I also love to use vintage lenses, my favourite so far is a Sony sam 50mm, just lovely render 😍
I shoot on a full-frame Sony camera, but I've shot on crop sensor DSLRs and a couple of Fuji Mirrorless cameras in my day. The transition to my first FF DSLR palpable. With the quality of the images you can get, these days, from smartphones in the last 3-4 years, I don't see a need for a cropped sensor camera if portability is the main concern. Maybe, in bright sunlight at an f-stop of 5.6, most won't see a huge a difference in image quality. Otherwise, full frame is just better on all accounts. With a decent lens, full frame images have, and I don't even think this describes it adequately, denser colors. The files also give you more editing latitude. You can't really replicate that razor-thin depth of field that you can on FF with a 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.4-f/1.8. Even if I couldn't quite afford the latest mid-tier full frame camera, I'd rather get an older model (Sony a7III, Canon R6, etc.) than a new Fuji or other branded crop-sensor camera.
Portability: Today it is the same lie that FF cameras are bigger than APSC cameras, as it is that FF sensors are always better than APSC. For example, the Z5 is smaller (and lighter) than many APSC cameras on the market. While it is true that FF lenses are heavier on average, this is not always the case. There are a lot of lightweight FF lenses out there. If you want to travel light, APSC vs. FF does not make a real difference in dimensions and weight, you would have to go at least 4/3 or smaller for a noticable difference or even just use your smartphone, which has amazing image quality for the small sensors it uses. So - for a true comparison, the only thing that really stands is, that the FoV of a FF camera is by definition wider than that of a cropped APSC sensor, hence the name crop (but that does not mean that APSC has "more focal length", which is a silly myth in itself - you actually show this FoV crop effect, but then still state that the crop gives you more reach/magnification, which is simply not true - it is just a crop, nothing else - less picture that FF, not more reach, how ever you spin it. Take the FF picture, crop it in post by 1:1.5, and you will have the same "magnification"). And there is another problem with your recommendation to start with APSC: It makes much more sense to use FF lenses on APSC cameras than the other way around. So if you start a big and expensive collection of APSC lenses, then they will not be of much use to you if you switch to FF - you can not take advantage of your FF Sensor with them, often it is worse than just using them on an APSC camera. You will have to spend all that money again, to rebuild your lens collection for FF. The other way around it is not a real problem - you can use any FF lens on an APSC body (of a compatible brand / mount) without any quality loss (you will even crop out any vignette the lens shows on FF). So, even as a newbe - be aware if you want to stick with APSC forever (and you might change your mind later...). Even starting with an APSC camera I would recommend you to get FF lenses for the ones you really deem essential to your photography. Of course you can always sell used APSC lenses - but they lose heavy in value (more than a classic / quality FF lense will). So as much as you want to spread the truth in this vlog, you are really spreading and repeating also a lot of outdated misinformation - this video is a very mixed bag of infos, not all wrong, but also not all true or really helpful for new photographers.
I use lenses that aren’t garbage. FF has more garbage lenses, and people seem ok with it because the steep costs means they cut corners somewhere. Good glass brings joy to photography, choose the lens system you want to be in before the camera body.
Just found your channel, your videos are VERY well made, and lots of fun (tho maybe it would have been even funnier to have the BIG guy be the crop-sensor? :D) I'm torn on this video. I'm a firm believer that crop-sensor is a GREAT place to start, and you can absolutely be a working professional with one (I did it for 6 years!). But it's not a "LIE" to acknowledge that full-frame is better technology across the board, and is necessary to go to the next level as a pro, in ANY field. (If you tried to tell the pro shooters on the sidelines at NFL or NBA games that crop-sensor was "better" for sports as you do at the end, you'd get laughed off the field, and for good reason.) Also, low price and small size are NOT 'features', they're natural aspectrs of lower-quality equipment, in any area. You could compare a Honda Fit to a Ferrari, and point out the Honda is less expensive and fits more easily in your garage, but those aren't reasons it's BETTER than or even remotely comparable to a Ferrari; they're just the consolation prize benefits of having a cheaper, lower-quality car. The comparison that matters most is the "POV" section. It's NOT a tie, and you point out all the reasons why yourself, but still leave in the misconceptions like 'longer reach' and 'magnification', which are the real lies crop-sensor enthusiasts tell themselves. Crop-sensors as you pointed out literally CROP IN on the lens' actual field of view. You're not getting some magical zoom effect. First, you can get the same result on full-frame just by turning on the 1.6x crop factor (theoretically a lower-quality image since a crop-sensor camera uses the full MP of the sensor, but it's negligible) or just applying a crop in post. But you are NOT getting any of the benefits of a longer lens by using a crop-sensor camera. Example: if you're shooting with a 50mm lens on crop-sensor, while you get the equivalent VIEW of an 80mm full-frame lens, it's still with the same LOOK (compression and bokeh) as that original 50mm. Full-frame gives you the TRUE focal length, with all of the benefits of longer lenses, without having to do any math to figure out what you're REALLY getting. So there is no application where crop-sensor is better, you're always going to get lower quality and compromised images. It's just that it's EASIER to get a tighter field of view with cheaper (shorter) lenses on a crop-sensor body. And that's okay, but it's all making the point that this is STARTER level gear. All this is why a lot of pros get hung on this topic. There's a ceiling of quality when using a crop-sensor that isn't deniable. Just like there's a ceiling driving in a Honda Fit. Using a crop-sensor with an 85mm prime is a great way to shoot sports or wildlife, as a hobby or for local, non-discerning clients But the result will simply NOT be as good as with a full-frame and a 135mm prime, even tho they have the same effective field of view. It's why real sports pros spend $9,000 or more on 300mm or 600mm lenses, instead of just slapping a 70-200 on a crop-sensor. Yes, most clients won't notice, but if you're trying to get into the upper reaches of photography opportunities they WILL, and you'll be competing with those who've made that investment. So start with crop-sensor, save some money up front, learn the fundamentals, and start your business. But full-frame is always the end goal if you really want to join the race!
What sized sensor are you currently shooting with and why?
Full frame
Fullframe, and a r8 is far from bulky with a 28 or 50mm
Crop. Pentax K3 until I can afford the mark iii or the K2ii. I am leaning towards the K3iii.
The sizing is just so beneficial for blending and for manuvering. The hexogonical bokeh adds character too. I do wish Pentax made more apsc lenses.
I recently upgraded from a 12-year-old crop DSLR (Nikon D7000) to a Z5 mirrorless full-frame. I got the kit with the 24-120 F4 lens, which is wonderful. I immediately noticed the better noise in low light, the dynamic range, and sharpness. That being said, I got perfectly good photos on my D7000. I lost some reach on my full-frame tele lenses, and my DX lenses are being sold along with the D7000. While the Z5 was only a bit more $$ than the crop Z50, it's the full-frame lenses that are tremendously more $$ than their crop counterparts. In the end, I'm very happy with my upgrade, but I fully acknowledge any limitations I have are me as a photographer, and not my equipment. It was more of a "want" than a "need" upgrade.
The personality, the quality of the video and the information provided are extremely underrated. This was a great learning opportunity . Well done!
Appreciate it, and glad you enjoyed!
use camera that isnpires you no matter what sensor, how many af points, fps etc
This is a great channel. Engaging, funny and creative.
Just start photography and its crazy how big the field is. I hope you keep the channel going.
I especially like how you don't only explain the concept and theory, but actually show it in real-time in a clear and cool way. Keep doing that.
Thanks James, appreciate it! Glad you're enjoying the videos and the field of photography!
I do a lot of wildlife photography as well as landscapes from hiking my cameras are ASP-C I have learned how to photograph within the cameras parameters and I don't miss full frame as I have not shot with a full frame camera since I sold my film cameras when i bought my first digital camera
So you probably have not done a real system comparison in about 20 years? Then it's more "APSC is good enough for me today" than "I don't miss full frame" because you don't even know what you might miss. Rent comparable FF equipment to your gear, go shoot for a few days, and then see if you still want to stick with APSC. That would be a meaningful statement.
I was just asking myself, "What is the difference between full frame and crop sensor cameras" the other day! Thanks for the answer!
For sure man! Glad it helped!
I just watched your "ULTIMATE one light" video a day or two ago and thought it was so good I was disappointed to see you only had 3 videos and hadn't uploaded in months. You're back! Woo!
Appreciate it! Good to be back, and more to come!
Just found your channel today and i can only complement you on the quality of your videos. Easy Sub. :)
Creative and informative. I like it!
Very creative and informative, thanks for the content.
This video is too good. Its sad that its got such low views on RUclips 🙄😐
I am not sure if the maths is correct, full frame to aps-c. 50mm on full frame is equivalent to 75mm on aps-c. It should be multiplication instead of division. Not only it applies to the focal length, it has similar effect on the aperture.
The aperture effect is not too apparent on aps-c. But when you used smaller sensor for example 1 inch sensor in ZV-1 then f/4 is almost f/12 (i don't remember thr exact number but i guess it is around 2.8).
Just thinking the same thing myself.
Hey Halim and Timothy , thanks for the comments! You're right that when you put a 50mm on an APS-C that you'll need to multiply by the crop to get the Full Frame equivalent and it would be 75mm. It is more cropped in (Like I showed with the 35mm example). What I was talking about is how to get the same field of view on both the Full Frame and APS-C (not the same focal length). If you put a 33mm on and APS-C and a 50mm on a Full Frame they will give you the same field of view. Sorry if that was confusing in the video!
Also the math for aperture is the same. To get the exact same image on a Full Frame with a 50mm at say f4 (same field of view and depth of field) you'd need a 33mm at f2.6 on and APS-C (or 4/the crop factor).
If you just took that 50mm at f4 from the Full Frame and put it on the APS-C you'd get the look (or Full Frame equivalent) of a 75mm at f6 (4 x the crop factor). Exactly what you saw with your ZV-1!
Very creative way how to teach someone. It is very original. I like it!
Awesome Filip, appreciate it!
APS-C is also a film term. It was the Classic aspect ratio (2:3) on an Advanced Photo System (APS) camera.
Immediately subscribed.
THE RETURN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'M BAAAAACK!!!! 😂 Gonna be a great year!
Looking forward to more videos :)
Thanks, more to come!
Very entertaining video ;) I have a couple full frame Nikons which I love for the reasons specified in this video, including an older D700 which takes gorgeous photos with a 12 mega pixel sensor. But for speed of use and getting the most out of my zoom lenses I enjoy the Z-50 crop sensor along with the ability to utilize all my old and vintage f mount lenses. The mirrorless sensor makes it even easier to shoot by seeing the final product before taking the shot. My other camera needs to be a crop sensor as my panoramic setup requires the use of an 8mm crop sensor lens. this allows me to balance the Canon 70d on it's pano head and shoot just 4 sets (90 degrees) of bracketed shots in a very efficient manner. So all in all, I would suggest getting the latest tech in a mirrorless APC and finding and older full frame to still save money over buying just the newest full frame offering.
Nice Eric, and your panoramic setup sounds awesome! I also love how easy (and cheap) it is to use vintage lenses on mirrorless cameras!
Loved this lol
Glad you enjoyed it!
I shoot a Nikon Z5 full frame camera AND an Olympus E-M1X Microfourthirds crop camera. Both are weather sealed, both have dual SD card slots, but as far as features go the Crop sensor MFT camera has a HUGE amount more. Honestly, though they are so different, these 2 cameras(Nikon and Olympus) pair beautifully. Also the E-M1X is extremely professional.
Nice Cory! I used to shoot video on the Panasonic GH4 & 5's and loved the MFT size for those (especially lenses). Cool to know that the Nikon and Olympus's pair well together too!
What if they arm wrestle???
Cage match! 😂 Missed opportunity
Low light performance becomes less of an issue if you put a shorter focal length on the crop (to equalize the field of view). Wider lenses need less light
True, the more light that gets to the sensor the better. Low light performance is getting really good across the board too
That's not true. Shorter focal length lenses are lighter and you can handhold and slower shutter speeds, but that's not going to compensate for motion blur.
GO CRAZYYYY!
Seeing that I'm cheap as hell, i started photography as a kinda "hobby, to see if I'll like it"... Started with a lumix G7 (still perfect for what I do), i also have an old Canon eos 550D (Rebel T2i in US I think, I love the crisp of the pictures. I also use an Olympus om-d e-m1 that i absolutely love to bits despite its age (its an mk1) and the flaws of the micro4/3. Although I'm more and more checking for an old full frame ! I also love to use vintage lenses, my favourite so far is a Sony sam 50mm, just lovely render 😍
Film came in other formats apart from full frame 110,disc by kodak,120 film,etc
I shoot on a full-frame Sony camera, but I've shot on crop sensor DSLRs and a couple of Fuji Mirrorless cameras in my day. The transition to my first FF DSLR palpable. With the quality of the images you can get, these days, from smartphones in the last 3-4 years, I don't see a need for a cropped sensor camera if portability is the main concern. Maybe, in bright sunlight at an f-stop of 5.6, most won't see a huge a difference in image quality. Otherwise, full frame is just better on all accounts. With a decent lens, full frame images have, and I don't even think this describes it adequately, denser colors. The files also give you more editing latitude. You can't really replicate that razor-thin depth of field that you can on FF with a 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.4-f/1.8. Even if I couldn't quite afford the latest mid-tier full frame camera, I'd rather get an older model (Sony a7III, Canon R6, etc.) than a new Fuji or other branded crop-sensor camera.
Hey Daniel, thanks for the comment! So glad you found a setup that you love to shoot with!
Portability: Today it is the same lie that FF cameras are bigger than APSC cameras, as it is that FF sensors are always better than APSC. For example, the Z5 is smaller (and lighter) than many APSC cameras on the market. While it is true that FF lenses are heavier on average, this is not always the case. There are a lot of lightweight FF lenses out there. If you want to travel light, APSC vs. FF does not make a real difference in dimensions and weight, you would have to go at least 4/3 or smaller for a noticable difference or even just use your smartphone, which has amazing image quality for the small sensors it uses.
So - for a true comparison, the only thing that really stands is, that the FoV of a FF camera is by definition wider than that of a cropped APSC sensor, hence the name crop (but that does not mean that APSC has "more focal length", which is a silly myth in itself - you actually show this FoV crop effect, but then still state that the crop gives you more reach/magnification, which is simply not true - it is just a crop, nothing else - less picture that FF, not more reach, how ever you spin it. Take the FF picture, crop it in post by 1:1.5, and you will have the same "magnification").
And there is another problem with your recommendation to start with APSC: It makes much more sense to use FF lenses on APSC cameras than the other way around. So if you start a big and expensive collection of APSC lenses, then they will not be of much use to you if you switch to FF - you can not take advantage of your FF Sensor with them, often it is worse than just using them on an APSC camera. You will have to spend all that money again, to rebuild your lens collection for FF. The other way around it is not a real problem - you can use any FF lens on an APSC body (of a compatible brand / mount) without any quality loss (you will even crop out any vignette the lens shows on FF). So, even as a newbe - be aware if you want to stick with APSC forever (and you might change your mind later...). Even starting with an APSC camera I would recommend you to get FF lenses for the ones you really deem essential to your photography. Of course you can always sell used APSC lenses - but they lose heavy in value (more than a classic / quality FF lense will).
So as much as you want to spread the truth in this vlog, you are really spreading and repeating also a lot of outdated misinformation - this video is a very mixed bag of infos, not all wrong, but also not all true or really helpful for new photographers.
I use lenses that aren’t garbage. FF has more garbage lenses, and people seem ok with it because the steep costs means they cut corners somewhere. Good glass brings joy to photography, choose the lens system you want to be in before the camera body.
"FF has more garbage lenses" - kind of a steep statement, I'd say.
I'm glad you return with these videos. It was a long pause, please don't do it again. Nice work you have here, Taylor.
Thanks Pedro, glad you're enjoying the content!
iPhone video is so good. 😁😁
Just found your channel, your videos are VERY well made, and lots of fun (tho maybe it would have been even funnier to have the BIG guy be the crop-sensor? :D)
I'm torn on this video. I'm a firm believer that crop-sensor is a GREAT place to start, and you can absolutely be a working professional with one (I did it for 6 years!). But it's not a "LIE" to acknowledge that full-frame is better technology across the board, and is necessary to go to the next level as a pro, in ANY field. (If you tried to tell the pro shooters on the sidelines at NFL or NBA games that crop-sensor was "better" for sports as you do at the end, you'd get laughed off the field, and for good reason.) Also, low price and small size are NOT 'features', they're natural aspectrs of lower-quality equipment, in any area. You could compare a Honda Fit to a Ferrari, and point out the Honda is less expensive and fits more easily in your garage, but those aren't reasons it's BETTER than or even remotely comparable to a Ferrari; they're just the consolation prize benefits of having a cheaper, lower-quality car.
The comparison that matters most is the "POV" section. It's NOT a tie, and you point out all the reasons why yourself, but still leave in the misconceptions like 'longer reach' and 'magnification', which are the real lies crop-sensor enthusiasts tell themselves. Crop-sensors as you pointed out literally CROP IN on the lens' actual field of view. You're not getting some magical zoom effect. First, you can get the same result on full-frame just by turning on the 1.6x crop factor (theoretically a lower-quality image since a crop-sensor camera uses the full MP of the sensor, but it's negligible) or just applying a crop in post. But you are NOT getting any of the benefits of a longer lens by using a crop-sensor camera. Example: if you're shooting with a 50mm lens on crop-sensor, while you get the equivalent VIEW of an 80mm full-frame lens, it's still with the same LOOK (compression and bokeh) as that original 50mm. Full-frame gives you the TRUE focal length, with all of the benefits of longer lenses, without having to do any math to figure out what you're REALLY getting. So there is no application where crop-sensor is better, you're always going to get lower quality and compromised images. It's just that it's EASIER to get a tighter field of view with cheaper (shorter) lenses on a crop-sensor body. And that's okay, but it's all making the point that this is STARTER level gear.
All this is why a lot of pros get hung on this topic. There's a ceiling of quality when using a crop-sensor that isn't deniable. Just like there's a ceiling driving in a Honda Fit. Using a crop-sensor with an 85mm prime is a great way to shoot sports or wildlife, as a hobby or for local, non-discerning clients But the result will simply NOT be as good as with a full-frame and a 135mm prime, even tho they have the same effective field of view. It's why real sports pros spend $9,000 or more on 300mm or 600mm lenses, instead of just slapping a 70-200 on a crop-sensor. Yes, most clients won't notice, but if you're trying to get into the upper reaches of photography opportunities they WILL, and you'll be competing with those who've made that investment. So start with crop-sensor, save some money up front, learn the fundamentals, and start your business. But full-frame is always the end goal if you really want to join the race!