And before one of you soul leeching worms jump in, yes I own a full frame but I have yet to come across a client that is able to point out the difference between my XH2S or S5.
Yep. It seems to come from either pros who have bought into the myth without trying client jobs on APS-C, or influencers or reviewers who don't know what they're doing. The perception hasn't been helped by manufacturers often feature limiting APS-C to slot it into a market segment. It's not because the sensor isn't up to good client work. It's more that they're happy to have an "enthusiast" tier that doesn't eat into their "pro" sales. For most of those models it's only the addition of a second card slot that would make them suitable. Fuji not participating in the ff market has shown that you can include all of the features and produce APS-C bodies easily up to the job if you want to. I almost bought into the myth when getting back into this. Then after seeing some work produced by a Fuji X-T2 went with that. I'm now happily doing event work with a XH-2 and X-T5.
I'm glad I came to my senses with this, I had sold my old Nikon DSLR because I wanted to upgrade to a Sony a7IV. I simply wanted to upgrade to full frame so I didn't have to upgrade again for a while. But not only are full frame bodies very pricey, but the glass is even more so! It just didn't seem worth it, unless you're weirdly shooting low light very often lol. So I think I am committed to a Fuji now, since for the price it seems like you're getting so much more, even though it's not full frame. I totally agree with this!
The problem is, that most of the photo companies cripple their APS-C cameras on purpose ... so you buy APS-C and you switch to FF later ... wasting so much money. But definitely you do not need FF camera to record YT videos ...
Yes, that is a problem for some. And that’s what I say as well. Full frame cameras are generally better and some are much much better. But not because of the sensor size, but because they’re feature packed. Also, I don’t only record YT videos. For other stuff I do, feel free to search me on Instagram @visualsbyst Most of the stuff there was shot on crop, and there’s some shot on FF, as well.
In 2013, I had a project in Sierra Leone. I had been working with full frame gear prior to this, but have always liked the Olympus gear. I picked up an Olympus OM-5, mirrorless MFT, with two inexpensive lenses to try out in addition to bringing my Nikon FF gear. When I returned to the US and began looking through my photos, I realized that a good half of what I’d shot was with the OM-5. Comparing the quality of the photos, I was happy with photos from both systems. When I realized I could change to the MFT gear and carry as much of that gear in one bag to cover the same projects as I had normally carried two bags of FF gear, I made the change completely to the Olympus system. Even with the recent change from Olympus to OM Systems, I am still clunking along with two OM-1 MK2’s and some of the pro Oly lenses. Working well for now.
This is what I'm thinking about. I would like to have a full frame Nikon camera but my Z50 is hitting the targets all the time. 17-55 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 combo does the job well on any events.
The A7S II is about $700 used on eBay. I have an A7C with Tamron 18-28mm f/2.8 lens and Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens and that is really nice, but in my studio with good lighting you can't tell the difference. In the field however those two lenses and my RX10 IV are all I need to cover pretty much every shot, and I'm going to pick up an A6400 so I can get some extra zoom. The golden rule about cameras is that you need to buy the lens first, then the camera second. You don't want to buy the camera and get stuck with on overpriced lens.
Another example of a system that defies the common wisdom about needing FF for great results. While not huge in number, there are also successful photographers using MFT professionally. Most of those are for wildlife where MFT has some serious advantages. There are also studio photographers using MFT producing stunning results.
I have both full frame and crop sensor cameras. Which camera I use depends on my subject matter, the lighting conditions, whether the photos will be printed in large format and a few other factors. It is important that you know what you are trying to achieve with the photo. You will then make the correct choice.
I've always thought in even back to Canon says of the 5D Mark II and original 7D that APS-C is "good enough" for just about every you need from hobbyist, enthusiast, and professional use. However, manufacturers didn't want you to know that so they never supported it as a pro camera until perhaps the 7D for sports or Fujifilm XT series.
Just subbed to your channel! I completely agree with what you said as a full frame camera user that sold his crop sensor and have regrets of selling it.
When getting back into photography and was set on full frame, mostly because of the conventional online "wisdom" that that's what you needed for "serious" photography. Then I found reviews and samples from various people online for the Fujifilm XT and similar cameras. I went with an X-T2 (which has dual card slots). I now shoot paid event jobs part time with the X-H2 and X-T5 with good quality lenses. I shoot a lot of low light stuff personally and for clients. There isn't a time where I felt that I've been significantly held back by a crop sensor. Clients will have no idea if you aren't shooting ff, so there's no need to be anxious about client perception. That's not to say ff doesn't offer anything, but like you point out, the difference isn't as big as some people make out. If you're buying to a budget and can afford a crop sensor camera with good glass, vs ff with a kit lens, you're likely to get significantly better results on the body that has the better glass on it.
I agree. And, as usual, some people misinterpreted my point. I’m saying don’t buy the FF thinking it’ll do magic for you. Don’t buy it only for the sensor thinking it’ll solve all your problems. The FF I have now, the Nikon ZF, I bought it for 10-bit video, IBIS and two card slots mostly. If the ZF was a crop sensor camera, I’d still buy it. The sensor itself is slightly better, but it didn’t change my photography at all.
8 outta 10. It's all about the bokeh. That being said, with astrophotography you do benefit from more light hitting the photons, it's a valid reason to go full frame. Particularly because the price difference is getting to be negligible these days.
I got 6 out of 10 right. Yes I started with Canon crop bodies, went Canon full frame bodies and now I'm back to crop body Fujifilm. I use all my Canon lenses on my Fuji with Fringer adapter. Work great.
Bit silly. Try printing 50 inches on the long side and ask the same question. Not something everyone does of course but if you do you need ff for a richer result. Also try showing the same shot side by side but RUclips not the best medium for that either.
Not silly at all. The point of the video was that just going from crop sensor to full frame isn’t going to elevate your photography skills. Also the point was that you can do paid work with a crop. How I know all this? From experience. I specifically say that if you do need a full frame, you should go and get it. Of course RUclips isn’t the best medium for it, but what am I supposed to do? I actually can’t see the difference between the quality of the shots when I view them on my monitor.
Even then, very few people will pick it from a normal viewing distance for 50" print. ff isn't necessarily richer. There's typically a bit more dynamic range and about 1 stop advantage in low light. People viewing a giant APS-C print will rarely be able to reliably declare "that's not a ff shot!" (unless they're putting their nose 12" from a 50" print, but that'd be an odd thing to do) I've got prints showing in a gallery at the moment shot on a 24mp Fujifilm X-T2 (released in something like 2016) that are 120" on the long edge and it's not an issue. Most people naturally stand at a comfortable viewing distance to take a print in. In the same exhibit I've got some that were shot on a 40mp APS-C sensor. If you walk up close you can pick it, but it's hard if you're standing at a normal sort of viewing distance. That gap vanishes if you're using one of the newer 40mp APS-C cameras.
@@NeilMcAliece You make fair points, viewing distance is a factor and I would certainly be annoyed if my gallery work was being viewed from 12 inches with a magnifying glass. Likewise zooming in on a monitor beyond a 100% is very possible but at some point becomes a silly game and would be anfair way to judge a camera sensor/glass. But there is a difference re a like for like shot taken on a tripod with the same focal view equivalence the larger the sensor then typical the larger it could print although there are other factors. As much as anything I was really just just kicking back at what I see as click bait - which gets my goat sometimes. For the record I use ff, aps-c, micro 4/3 and on occasion hire phase one. I love all my cameras and agree the quality these days is outstanding.
@@visualsbyst Agree ff nor medium format for that matter will elevate photography skills and in some cases will be less forgiving. There is a difference between each format and in some cases it will be negligible and others more evident. The silly was more a dig at the click bait aspect of the topic and of course making a comparison between different photos on different days of different subjects in different lighting struck me as a silly comparison and to me remains so. To not silly and that is fine. For the record I own ff, aps-c, m4/3 and sometimes hire phase one. I like them all very much so I am not batting for any format.
I get it. I’m not saying anyone should switch from FF to crop. I was just saying to not expect FF sensor to give you some magical results. If you suck with a crop, you’ll suck with an FF. If you’re great with a crop, you’ll be great with an FF.
@@visualsbyst It's not just that the full frame body is better, but the full frame lenses are way better than the lenses designed for crop sensors, other than fujifilm. I've use fujifilm and I think Canon is far superior for both crop and full frame
@creativevisiongaming ok, now you’re talking about fujifilm vs canon. That is a different thing. I think some of you missed the point of the video. I clearly say that there are reasons why you should buy FF and why it’s better, but if you’re only looking at the sensor itself, it won’t give you magical results compared to crop sensor. Obviously a sports photographer will do far better with a Canon R3 than with an R100, because the R3 can shoot much faster. But if you have two photographers of the same skill and you give one an R3 and the other an R100 and you tell them they can only shoot in single shot mode, the R3 guy won’t have much advantage anymore and you might struggle to see much of a difference between the photos at the end.
@@visualsbyst no, this is the main point of what I said " It's not just that the full frame body is better, but the full frame lenses are way better than the lenses designed for crop sensors" I only brought up fujifilm to say the lenses are pretty good. I'm not talking about sports, I'm talking about portraits, but I guess crop helps for sports.
I think I was correct for every photo. btw once you go full frame you will never use crop sensor body. You will feel the quality, it's not explainable but you will feel the quality.
I agree that most people don’t need one (and that you don’t need a full frame camera to be a pro), but the whole image comparison thing is a bit misleading. Full frame makes it easier to get an image, and gives you advantages in low light. You obviously hit a few of the other benefits. The key here is that full frame does not magically give you a better eye for composition, or magically make an uninteresting scene interesting.
A lot of people took my video to mean that full frame cameras are bad, so they viciously defend their decision to buy one. That wasn't what I was trying to say. Full frame sensors are slightly better and full frame cameras are often much better because they're feature packed. What I want to share in my videos is my opinions based on my experience. My videos aren't always scientific, or technical, but I feel there are enough of other channels out there that already do that and I'm not interested in doing that kind of stuff. When I was starting out, I was obsessed with low light of a camera. I would research it and buy a camera based on that. This was also the time when I didn't know much about lighting, so I thought that all those beautifully lit photos only happen because their camera is good in low light. I was obviously wrong. Only lighting will make your photos look like magic in camera. Editing will give it more magic in post. Since I learned that, I absolutely don't care about low light performance anymore. And it doesn't matter if I'm taking photos with a crop or an FF, they're the same. I don't remember the last time I shot at ISO over 3200. I don't have to. If I'm shooting outdoors during the day, I have enough light. If I'm shooting indoors, I will use speedlights, or continuous lights. This isn't just to get rid of noise, but lighting shapes your photos the way you want them to look. Some might bring up night time street photography. You should still look for light sources. Street lights, shop windows and signs are some examples of those. Then you don't need to raise your ISO to 12800 or higher. There might be some exceptions where you do need a camera with good low light, but that's probably less than 5% of photographers. In every other case, it's the photographer's responsibility to light the scene properly.
I use a Zfc and a Z6, low light is usely better with the Z6 and the IBIS really help when trying to shoot on slow SS to compensate for low light and i like pairing it with the 24/70 F4 and 50 F1.8, those lenses are really better than those i can use on the Zfc while remaining at thoses 24/70 and 50, i know i can use them on the Zfc but they becames 36/105 and 75, not the same utility. But for my Zfc i have the 16-50, the 50/250, the 28 and 40 and the viltrox 13mm, so smaller lenses ( except maybe the 13mm but that's basicaly an 20mm F1.4 in FF term so of course it would be big ^^ ), for daylight uses the Zfc is really nice :)
I used crop sensors for about 10 years before getting a full frame. And boy is the difference night and day. Posting images on youtube and asking people if they can tell a difference is just bs. I can take a pic with iPhone 1, post it on youtube, and ask you to see if you can tell a difference. You wont be able to. Having gone from APSC to FF, i can tell you that the image quality is night and day. The pics arent as grainy, perhaps one stop difference. The background blur is also smoother. Also the glasses for FF are way better than APSC. APSC lenses are just low quality with lots of vignetting, distortions. So no thanks, i will stick with FF.
Excellent! Please link me to your expert FF work. You can see mine on Instagram @visualsbyst Most photos there are crop, some FF. I’ve had several FF cameras and many crop cameras. The difference is not night and day. It’s only night and day to those who only rely on the camera.
I started taking vidéos 18 months ago. Due to thé range of lenses available, price level and limites weight, I've chosen MFT format. I film in 4k VLog. Until now I'm very satisfied with the results. For Bokeh, Panasonic Leica 10-25 mm f.7 and the 42.5 mm f 1.7 are wonderful. For sport, I appreciate very much the limited weight and (relative) compacity of my compacity of the 50-200 mm (100-400 mm eq full frame). So yes crop sensors cameras have a lot of assets.
i must not fully agree with you. The quality of full frame sensor is not about the sensor itself but rather what it picks up from the Lens. What i mean, is that when you use 50mm 1.2 on Full frame it gathers image from rectangular space within a round image produced by the lens. The same Lens on APS-C sensor gathers image from a smaller rectangular that is centered on the lense and do not reach the borders of the round image produced by the lens. What it means is that APS-C “uses” a crop from the center of the lens while Full frame uses all. And that’s what matters: On APS-C you get much better, sharper image because each lens is sharpest in the center. On Full Frame you get a “cinematic”, “magical” or “dreamy” look at lower apertures - because the edges of the lens produce that 3D effect. So Full Frame gives you better image - just because it uses the lens the way it was designed to be used, while APS-C gives you sharpest but more flat image - coz it uses fraction of the lens. :). People think it is the sensor - but it is not, it is pure physics of the light and lens… ;)
I agree but also disagree to a point. Depending on what you are shooting a FF will outshine the crop. I know a photographer who was average at best using a crop sensor camera. They bought a sony a7III and the 85 1.4. Suddenly they had clients coming out of the woodwork. Their technique was no better but sadly people are hooked on the separation and bokeh created in portraits. Personally I think they often look fake and prefer to see some kind of detail that shows where they were when the image was taken. I shoot both FF and crop. People are brainwashed into thinking the shallow dof makes an image.
You’re probably right. He probably got more clients because of shallow dof. But that would be more on the 85mm f1.4 than on the full frame. Yes, I know FF gets slightly shallower dof, but you can get it with crop sensor as well. I know what you mean, though. My point was more, don’t buy a full frame only because of the sensor and thinking it’ll be night and day. Sure there are other advantages. Thanks for watching.
I understand what you’re trying to say but what your video is missing is a clear thesis of why you should not buy a full frame camera. Don’t buy a full frame camera because you will waste money on more expensive camera equipment to present your work to your audience on a smartphone screen, a tablet or a computer where the difference in quality between smaller camera sensors and full frame are imperceptible.
Cool, that’s a good point. However, that’s up to the viewer to decide if a full frame camera is too expensive. I’m just here to tell them it’s not going to give them magical results. You see, even if I said exactly what you said, I’d get comments saying “well, you can get some full frame cameras cheaper than some crop sensor ones”. And so on. Also, I don’t necessarily agree that the differences are only imperceptible when viewing on a small screen. The size has more to do with resolution than with the size of the sensor. If you have a 24 mp crop and 24 mp ff, you can print them the same size. And you won’t see much difference if you did a good job taking that photo. Thanks for watching.
"Do this, don't do that", which means"think like me. not by yourself, MY solution is YOUR solution because I have the truth". Today "The Sensor size", the worn out spat on RUclips. Frankly speaking if it was the saucepan who made the chef even a monkey would be an artist.
After 4 years of owning MFT... all I still hear from FF users is "Muh blurry background!!!!" And, my response is, IDC, no one cares, it sounds like you care bc it's maybe a photography pro thing, but no one cares.
I do care about background blur, but not always, obviously. Sometimes it's needed, sometimes it isn't. But it's possible to achieve on MFT too with a fast lens.
Quality its not about camera, it's important of course but script, light, framing, color grading, etc... Are moore importan. Amazing pictures by the way, cheers from México!
its day and night,. when im using a crop sensor before in my profesional works,. im having a hard time in darker situations in my wedding event,. i can't event pass my iso to 1600,. and i need to use flash,. thats changes the scenes and loses the beautiful ambiet,. when i switch to Canon R6 + RF 50mm 1.2 i can go beyond 6400 up to 12800 with no problem and changes everything the way i shoot,. this video doest help to new photographer,. don't ever buy a crop sensor camera its a wasted of money trusted me,. im been there ive used a crop sensor fuji cameras and its sucks in wedding events in dark churches,. i will never ever back on a fuji crop sensor camera,.
Maybe it's a matter of evolution. I shoot events (including in low light) with a Fujifilm X-H2 and X-T5 and have zero hesitation using ISO3200 (without the need for heavy post processing). I'm relaxed about shooting at ISO 6400 with some modern software denoise of the raw. I've delivered images to clients at ISO 12800 that they loved with a bit more post processing. I avoid over 12800. I've done similar on the X-T2 though which will be an 8 year old release this year. Mirrorless ff to crop sensor in a modern body is about 1 stop difference in low light performance. I expect with the way I work, I could push my max up to ISO 25600 with full frame. I don't have the need to though. Were you also using quality glass at f1.2 on the crop sensor? I've never had an issue with delivering results in low light. Even if I switched to ff, you will absolutely find situations where flash will deliver much better results for your client than persisting with available light, especially if there's movement involved. (You can make flash look stunning in event shoots, even run and gun and you can usually balance the exposure to include ambient light behind subjects). Eg I often use bounce flash at ISO 1250 f3.2-f4.5 balanced with ambient AND get all of a group sharp even if they're moving about. I've even been able to do this successfully in a large ballroom by pushing ISO up to 1600. It's not an obvious flash exposure to the client. Intended subjects are sharp and well lit and room ambient is included in the shot. If you're shooting low light at f1.2 on full frame (1.2 has shallower DoF than crop at 1.2) you have zero chance of getting everyone in even a small group properly sharp. If lucky you'll get both eyes of one person in focus. (edit, as an example, this was shot on a crop sensor at ISO 1250, shutter 1/160 f4.5 on a good lens WITH bounce flash and won a commendation in a pro photo comp. Even on ff you couldn't get everyone in focus and capture action in this scene with just available light. You absolutely don't need full frame for professional work (it can help a bit in some situations): ndm-photography.picfair.com/pics/017928247- ISO 1250, f4.5 1/200 with flash balanced with ambient on Fuji XH2 ndm-photography.picfair.com/pics/017928200- XH2, fast motion NO flash ISO 6400 shutter 1/1000 f1.2 ndm-photography.picfair.com/pics/017993060-) Fujifilm XH2, no flash, very low light, ISO 3200, f1.4 1/200s ndm-photography.picfair.com/pics/017993368- I can't see how you couldn't get a Fuji APS-C to perform well at or above IS0 1600 if you were exposing correctly. Even their older models can do that easily.
Yeah I get really angry at RUclips "experts" deeming crop sensors for amateurs. This entire sentiment of 'Its full frame so its better' pisses me off.
And before one of you soul leeching worms jump in, yes I own a full frame but I have yet to come across a client that is able to point out the difference between my XH2S or S5.
Soul leeching worm jumping in, yes I agree. 😂
Yep. It seems to come from either pros who have bought into the myth without trying client jobs on APS-C, or influencers or reviewers who don't know what they're doing.
The perception hasn't been helped by manufacturers often feature limiting APS-C to slot it into a market segment. It's not because the sensor isn't up to good client work. It's more that they're happy to have an "enthusiast" tier that doesn't eat into their "pro" sales. For most of those models it's only the addition of a second card slot that would make them suitable.
Fuji not participating in the ff market has shown that you can include all of the features and produce APS-C bodies easily up to the job if you want to.
I almost bought into the myth when getting back into this. Then after seeing some work produced by a Fuji X-T2 went with that. I'm now happily doing event work with a XH-2 and X-T5.
I'm glad I came to my senses with this, I had sold my old Nikon DSLR because I wanted to upgrade to a Sony a7IV. I simply wanted to upgrade to full frame so I didn't have to upgrade again for a while. But not only are full frame bodies very pricey, but the glass is even more so! It just didn't seem worth it, unless you're weirdly shooting low light very often lol. So I think I am committed to a Fuji now, since for the price it seems like you're getting so much more, even though it's not full frame. I totally agree with this!
👍
Thanks for watching!
There was a time when people didn’t want to shoot a small 35mm. Medium format was king
The problem is, that most of the photo companies cripple their APS-C cameras on purpose ... so you buy APS-C and you switch to FF later ... wasting so much money.
But definitely you do not need FF camera to record YT videos ...
Yes, that is a problem for some. And that’s what I say as well. Full frame cameras are generally better and some are much much better. But not because of the sensor size, but because they’re feature packed.
Also, I don’t only record YT videos. For other stuff I do, feel free to search me on Instagram @visualsbyst
Most of the stuff there was shot on crop, and there’s some shot on FF, as well.
In 2013, I had a project in Sierra Leone. I had been working with full frame gear prior to this, but have always liked the Olympus gear. I picked up an Olympus OM-5, mirrorless MFT, with two inexpensive lenses to try out in addition to bringing my Nikon FF gear. When I returned to the US and began looking through my photos, I realized that a good half of what I’d shot was with the OM-5. Comparing the quality of the photos, I was happy with photos from both systems. When I realized I could change to the MFT gear and carry as much of that gear in one bag to cover the same projects as I had normally carried two bags of FF gear, I made the change completely to the Olympus system. Even with the recent change from Olympus to OM Systems, I am still clunking along with two OM-1 MK2’s and some of the pro Oly lenses. Working well for now.
👍
This is what I'm thinking about. I would like to have a full frame Nikon camera but my Z50 is hitting the targets all the time.
17-55 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 combo does the job well on any events.
Yup. Nothing wrong with crop sensor.
Bro what's funny is all the ones that I guessed were full frame were crop sensor and all the ones I guessed crop sensor were full frame
Yeah, it’s not easy to see the difference. Thanks for watching.
Quick note though Nikon actually has 4 crop sensor cameras with 2sd card slots; the whole Nikon D7*** series
Oh, right. I forgot about DSLRs. Anyway, I meant in mirrorless.
@@visualsbyst Ohhhh my bad
The A7S II is about $700 used on eBay. I have an A7C with Tamron 18-28mm f/2.8 lens and Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens and that is really nice, but in my studio with good lighting you can't tell the difference. In the field however those two lenses and my RX10 IV are all I need to cover pretty much every shot, and I'm going to pick up an A6400 so I can get some extra zoom. The golden rule about cameras is that you need to buy the lens first, then the camera second. You don't want to buy the camera and get stuck with on overpriced lens.
this was great I have two crop senior and one full frame and never had a complaint about my images
Exactly! I have the same. I often use my crops for paid work. Never had any complaints.
I baught a Lumix gh5 2 weeks ago im very pleased with my micro 4 3rds
Another example of a system that defies the common wisdom about needing FF for great results. While not huge in number, there are also successful photographers using MFT professionally. Most of those are for wildlife where MFT has some serious advantages. There are also studio photographers using MFT producing stunning results.
I have no complaints 😌 🙂 👌
I bought the G9 for wildlife photography. It's also great for urban, sea and landscape genres and very good value for enthusiasts.
I have both full frame and crop sensor cameras. Which camera I use depends on my subject matter, the lighting conditions, whether the photos will be printed in large format and a few other factors. It is important that you know what you are trying to achieve with the photo. You will then make the correct choice.
👍
I've always thought in even back to Canon says of the 5D Mark II and original 7D that APS-C is "good enough" for just about every you need from hobbyist, enthusiast, and professional use. However, manufacturers didn't want you to know that so they never supported it as a pro camera until perhaps the 7D for sports or Fujifilm XT series.
👍
Just subbed to your channel! I completely agree with what you said as a full frame camera user that sold his crop sensor and have regrets of selling it.
Thank you for subbing. No need to be disappointed with full frame. They’re both very good. 😉
When getting back into photography and was set on full frame, mostly because of the conventional online "wisdom" that that's what you needed for "serious" photography.
Then I found reviews and samples from various people online for the Fujifilm XT and similar cameras. I went with an X-T2 (which has dual card slots). I now shoot paid event jobs part time with the X-H2 and X-T5 with good quality lenses. I shoot a lot of low light stuff personally and for clients. There isn't a time where I felt that I've been significantly held back by a crop sensor. Clients will have no idea if you aren't shooting ff, so there's no need to be anxious about client perception.
That's not to say ff doesn't offer anything, but like you point out, the difference isn't as big as some people make out. If you're buying to a budget and can afford a crop sensor camera with good glass, vs ff with a kit lens, you're likely to get significantly better results on the body that has the better glass on it.
I agree. And, as usual, some people misinterpreted my point. I’m saying don’t buy the FF thinking it’ll do magic for you. Don’t buy it only for the sensor thinking it’ll solve all your problems. The FF I have now, the Nikon ZF, I bought it for 10-bit video, IBIS and two card slots mostly. If the ZF was a crop sensor camera, I’d still buy it. The sensor itself is slightly better, but it didn’t change my photography at all.
8 outta 10. It's all about the bokeh. That being said, with astrophotography you do benefit from more light hitting the photons, it's a valid reason to go full frame. Particularly because the price difference is getting to be negligible these days.
Of course there are some benefits. Thanks for watching.
I got 6 out of 10 right. Yes I started with Canon crop bodies, went Canon full frame bodies and now I'm back to crop body Fujifilm. I use all my Canon lenses on my Fuji with Fringer adapter. Work great.
6/10 ooh so close. 7/10 would have gotten you 18 million dollar jackpot. Sorry, better luck next time.
Thanks for watching.
Bit silly. Try printing 50 inches on the long side and ask the same question. Not something everyone does of course but if you do you need ff for a richer result. Also try showing the same shot side by side but RUclips not the best medium for that either.
Not silly at all. The point of the video was that just going from crop sensor to full frame isn’t going to elevate your photography skills. Also the point was that you can do paid work with a crop. How I know all this? From experience.
I specifically say that if you do need a full frame, you should go and get it.
Of course RUclips isn’t the best medium for it, but what am I supposed to do? I actually can’t see the difference between the quality of the shots when I view them on my monitor.
Also you can also print until a1 and can barely see the difference, with some cameras or even if u naked the photo, much bigger. Also panoramas
Even then, very few people will pick it from a normal viewing distance for 50" print. ff isn't necessarily richer. There's typically a bit more dynamic range and about 1 stop advantage in low light. People viewing a giant APS-C print will rarely be able to reliably declare "that's not a ff shot!" (unless they're putting their nose 12" from a 50" print, but that'd be an odd thing to do)
I've got prints showing in a gallery at the moment shot on a 24mp Fujifilm X-T2 (released in something like 2016) that are 120" on the long edge and it's not an issue. Most people naturally stand at a comfortable viewing distance to take a print in. In the same exhibit I've got some that were shot on a 40mp APS-C sensor. If you walk up close you can pick it, but it's hard if you're standing at a normal sort of viewing distance.
That gap vanishes if you're using one of the newer 40mp APS-C cameras.
@@NeilMcAliece You make fair points, viewing distance is a factor and I would certainly be annoyed if my gallery work was being viewed from 12 inches with a magnifying glass. Likewise zooming in on a monitor beyond a 100% is very possible but at some point becomes a silly game and would be anfair way to judge a camera sensor/glass. But there is a difference re a like for like shot taken on a tripod with the same focal view equivalence the larger the sensor then typical the larger it could print although there are other factors. As much as anything I was really just just kicking back at what I see as click bait - which gets my goat sometimes. For the record I use ff, aps-c, micro 4/3 and on occasion hire phase one. I love all my cameras and agree the quality these days is outstanding.
@@visualsbyst Agree ff nor medium format for that matter will elevate photography skills and in some cases will be less forgiving. There is a difference between each format and in some cases it will be negligible and others more evident. The silly was more a dig at the click bait aspect of the topic and of course making a comparison between different photos on different days of different subjects in different lighting struck me as a silly comparison and to me remains so. To not silly and that is fine. For the record I own ff, aps-c, m4/3 and sometimes hire phase one. I like them all very much so I am not batting for any format.
For me it is about lens selection native and 3rd party. To have the greatest selection to choose from. Then find a model of body in that brand.
8/10 guesses though most of the examples were selected to make the difference less visible. I’m FF user and I wouldn’t like to switch back to crop.
I get it. I’m not saying anyone should switch from FF to crop. I was just saying to not expect FF sensor to give you some magical results. If you suck with a crop, you’ll suck with an FF. If you’re great with a crop, you’ll be great with an FF.
I've used both crop and full frame. I can get good photos out of both, but full frame is still better, or at least Canon is better.
Yes, it’s slightly better. Thanks for watching.
@@visualsbyst It's not just that the full frame body is better, but the full frame lenses are way better than the lenses designed for crop sensors, other than fujifilm. I've use fujifilm and I think Canon is far superior for both crop and full frame
@creativevisiongaming ok, now you’re talking about fujifilm vs canon. That is a different thing. I think some of you missed the point of the video. I clearly say that there are reasons why you should buy FF and why it’s better, but if you’re only looking at the sensor itself, it won’t give you magical results compared to crop sensor. Obviously a sports photographer will do far better with a Canon R3 than with an R100, because the R3 can shoot much faster. But if you have two photographers of the same skill and you give one an R3 and the other an R100 and you tell them they can only shoot in single shot mode, the R3 guy won’t have much advantage anymore and you might struggle to see much of a difference between the photos at the end.
@@visualsbyst no, this is the main point of what I said " It's not just that the full frame body is better, but the full frame lenses are way better than the lenses designed for crop sensors"
I only brought up fujifilm to say the lenses are pretty good.
I'm not talking about sports, I'm talking about portraits, but I guess crop helps for sports.
@creativevisiongaming you can use full frame lenses on crop sensor.
I think I was correct for every photo. btw once you go full frame you will never use crop sensor body. You will feel the quality, it's not explainable but you will feel the quality.
Really? 😂 Because I went back and forth from full frame and now I have crop sensor and full frame and I use the crop sensor just as much.
I agree that most people don’t need one (and that you don’t need a full frame camera to be a pro), but the whole image comparison thing is a bit misleading. Full frame makes it easier to get an image, and gives you advantages in low light. You obviously hit a few of the other benefits. The key here is that full frame does not magically give you a better eye for composition, or magically make an uninteresting scene interesting.
A lot of people took my video to mean that full frame cameras are bad, so they viciously defend their decision to buy one. That wasn't what I was trying to say. Full frame sensors are slightly better and full frame cameras are often much better because they're feature packed.
What I want to share in my videos is my opinions based on my experience. My videos aren't always scientific, or technical, but I feel there are enough of other channels out there that already do that and I'm not interested in doing that kind of stuff.
When I was starting out, I was obsessed with low light of a camera. I would research it and buy a camera based on that. This was also the time when I didn't know much about lighting, so I thought that all those beautifully lit photos only happen because their camera is good in low light. I was obviously wrong. Only lighting will make your photos look like magic in camera. Editing will give it more magic in post. Since I learned that, I absolutely don't care about low light performance anymore. And it doesn't matter if I'm taking photos with a crop or an FF, they're the same.
I don't remember the last time I shot at ISO over 3200. I don't have to. If I'm shooting outdoors during the day, I have enough light. If I'm shooting indoors, I will use speedlights, or continuous lights. This isn't just to get rid of noise, but lighting shapes your photos the way you want them to look.
Some might bring up night time street photography. You should still look for light sources. Street lights, shop windows and signs are some examples of those. Then you don't need to raise your ISO to 12800 or higher.
There might be some exceptions where you do need a camera with good low light, but that's probably less than 5% of photographers. In every other case, it's the photographer's responsibility to light the scene properly.
I love my Z6 but I also like the Z50! I just wish Nikon would bring out a professional mirrorless APS-C body! Z70 or Z90!
Absolutely agree. It’d be great if they release something like that.
1 crop sensor
2 full frame
3 crop sensor
4 full frame
5 full frame
6 full frame
7 full frame
8 crop sensor
9 crop sensor
10 full frame
I got six right and four wrong. Your point is proven.
👍
Thanks for watching.
The equipment doesn’t make you, you make the equipment.
Well, I don’t make the equipment, I just buy it 😝
I have both full frame and aps
Love both for different needs
👍
I use a Zfc and a Z6, low light is usely better with the Z6 and the IBIS really help when trying to shoot on slow SS to compensate for low light and i like pairing it with the 24/70 F4 and 50 F1.8, those lenses are really better than those i can use on the Zfc while remaining at thoses 24/70 and 50, i know i can use them on the Zfc but they becames 36/105 and 75, not the same utility.
But for my Zfc i have the 16-50, the 50/250, the 28 and 40 and the viltrox 13mm, so smaller lenses ( except maybe the 13mm but that's basicaly an 20mm F1.4 in FF term so of course it would be big ^^ ), for daylight uses the Zfc is really nice :)
I use the Zfc day an night.
Thanks for watching.
I used crop sensors for about 10 years before getting a full frame. And boy is the difference night and day. Posting images on youtube and asking people if they can tell a difference is just bs. I can take a pic with iPhone 1, post it on youtube, and ask you to see if you can tell a difference. You wont be able to.
Having gone from APSC to FF, i can tell you that the image quality is night and day. The pics arent as grainy, perhaps one stop difference. The background blur is also smoother. Also the glasses for FF are way better than APSC. APSC lenses are just low quality with lots of vignetting, distortions. So no thanks, i will stick with FF.
Excellent! Please link me to your expert FF work. You can see mine on Instagram @visualsbyst
Most photos there are crop, some FF. I’ve had several FF cameras and many crop cameras. The difference is not night and day. It’s only night and day to those who only rely on the camera.
I started taking vidéos 18 months ago. Due to thé range of lenses available, price level and limites weight, I've chosen MFT format. I film in 4k VLog. Until now I'm very satisfied with the results. For Bokeh, Panasonic Leica 10-25 mm f.7 and the 42.5 mm f 1.7 are wonderful. For sport, I appreciate very much the limited weight and (relative) compacity of my compacity of the 50-200 mm (100-400 mm eq full frame).
So yes crop sensors cameras have a lot of assets.
👍
bravo ! Vous êtes un très bon photographe ! Merci pour vos videos.
Merci beaucoup
i must not fully agree with you. The quality of full frame sensor is not about the sensor itself but rather what it picks up from the Lens. What i mean, is that when you use 50mm 1.2 on Full frame it gathers image from rectangular space within a round image produced by the lens. The same Lens on APS-C sensor gathers image from a smaller rectangular that is centered on the lense and do not reach the borders of the round image produced by the lens. What it means is that APS-C “uses” a crop from the center of the lens while Full frame uses all. And that’s what matters: On APS-C you get much better, sharper image because each lens is sharpest in the center. On Full Frame you get a “cinematic”, “magical” or “dreamy” look at lower apertures - because the edges of the lens produce that 3D effect. So Full Frame gives you better image - just because it uses the lens the way it was designed to be used, while APS-C gives you sharpest but more flat image - coz it uses fraction of the lens. :). People think it is the sensor - but it is not, it is pure physics of the light and lens… ;)
If that makes you happy, that’s great.
Nikon d500, Nikon d7200 etc … have a dual card slot.
Yes, I was talking about mirrorless.
great points of view , respect 🙏
Respect!
I agree but also disagree to a point. Depending on what you are shooting a FF will outshine the crop. I know a photographer who was average at best using a crop sensor camera. They bought a sony a7III and the 85 1.4. Suddenly they had clients coming out of the woodwork. Their technique was no better but sadly people are hooked on the separation and bokeh created in portraits. Personally I think they often look fake and prefer to see some kind of detail that shows where they were when the image was taken. I shoot both FF and crop. People are brainwashed into thinking the shallow dof makes an image.
You’re probably right. He probably got more clients because of shallow dof. But that would be more on the 85mm f1.4 than on the full frame. Yes, I know FF gets slightly shallower dof, but you can get it with crop sensor as well. I know what you mean, though.
My point was more, don’t buy a full frame only because of the sensor and thinking it’ll be night and day. Sure there are other advantages.
Thanks for watching.
those full frame cost way too much that's why I'm buying a6700 pairing with sigma 10-18mm f2.8 and sigma 18-50mm f2.8
Enjoy your new camera. Thanks for watching.
Excellent video 😊!
Thank you!
I understand what you’re trying to say but what your video is missing is a clear thesis of why you should not buy a full frame camera.
Don’t buy a full frame camera because you will waste money on more expensive camera equipment to present your work to your audience on a smartphone screen, a tablet or a computer where the difference in quality between smaller camera sensors and full frame are imperceptible.
Cool, that’s a good point. However, that’s up to the viewer to decide if a full frame camera is too expensive. I’m just here to tell them it’s not going to give them magical results.
You see, even if I said exactly what you said, I’d get comments saying “well, you can get some full frame cameras cheaper than some crop sensor ones”. And so on. Also, I don’t necessarily agree that the differences are only imperceptible when viewing on a small screen. The size has more to do with resolution than with the size of the sensor. If you have a 24 mp crop and 24 mp ff, you can print them the same size. And you won’t see much difference if you did a good job taking that photo.
Thanks for watching.
"Do this, don't do that", which means"think like me. not by yourself, MY solution is YOUR solution because I have the truth". Today "The Sensor size", the worn out spat on RUclips.
Frankly speaking if it was the saucepan who made the chef even a monkey would be an artist.
Thank you for this word salad.
@@visualsbyst My pleasure
After 4 years of owning MFT... all I still hear from FF users is "Muh blurry background!!!!" And, my response is, IDC, no one cares, it sounds like you care bc it's maybe a photography pro thing, but no one cares.
I do care about background blur, but not always, obviously. Sometimes it's needed, sometimes it isn't. But it's possible to achieve on MFT too with a fast lens.
Quality its not about camera, it's important of course but script, light, framing, color grading, etc... Are moore importan.
Amazing pictures by the way, cheers from México!
Thanks and thank you for watching.
Cheers to Mexico!
Click bait. Change the tittle to You dont need a full Frame camera.
Why would you buy it if you don’t need it?
its day and night,.
when im using a crop sensor before in my profesional works,. im having a hard time in darker situations in my wedding event,. i can't event pass my iso to 1600,. and i need to use flash,. thats changes the scenes and loses the beautiful ambiet,.
when i switch to Canon R6 + RF 50mm 1.2 i can go beyond 6400 up to 12800 with no problem and changes everything the way i shoot,.
this video doest help to new photographer,.
don't ever buy a crop sensor camera its a wasted of money trusted me,. im been there ive used a crop sensor fuji cameras and its sucks in wedding events in dark churches,. i will never ever back on a fuji crop sensor camera,.
Good to know. Thanks for watching.
Maybe it's a matter of evolution. I shoot events (including in low light) with a Fujifilm X-H2 and X-T5 and have zero hesitation using ISO3200 (without the need for heavy post processing). I'm relaxed about shooting at ISO 6400 with some modern software denoise of the raw. I've delivered images to clients at ISO 12800 that they loved with a bit more post processing. I avoid over 12800.
I've done similar on the X-T2 though which will be an 8 year old release this year.
Mirrorless ff to crop sensor in a modern body is about 1 stop difference in low light performance. I expect with the way I work, I could push my max up to ISO 25600 with full frame. I don't have the need to though.
Were you also using quality glass at f1.2 on the crop sensor?
I've never had an issue with delivering results in low light. Even if I switched to ff, you will absolutely find situations where flash will deliver much better results for your client than persisting with available light, especially if there's movement involved. (You can make flash look stunning in event shoots, even run and gun and you can usually balance the exposure to include ambient light behind subjects).
Eg I often use bounce flash at ISO 1250 f3.2-f4.5 balanced with ambient AND get all of a group sharp even if they're moving about. I've even been able to do this successfully in a large ballroom by pushing ISO up to 1600. It's not an obvious flash exposure to the client. Intended subjects are sharp and well lit and room ambient is included in the shot.
If you're shooting low light at f1.2 on full frame (1.2 has shallower DoF than crop at 1.2) you have zero chance of getting everyone in even a small group properly sharp. If lucky you'll get both eyes of one person in focus.
(edit, as an example, this was shot on a crop sensor at ISO 1250, shutter 1/160 f4.5 on a good lens WITH bounce flash and won a commendation in a pro photo comp. Even on ff you couldn't get everyone in focus and capture action in this scene with just available light. You absolutely don't need full frame for professional work (it can help a bit in some situations): ndm-photography.picfair.com/pics/017928247-
ISO 1250, f4.5 1/200 with flash balanced with ambient on Fuji XH2
ndm-photography.picfair.com/pics/017928200-
XH2, fast motion NO flash ISO 6400 shutter 1/1000 f1.2
ndm-photography.picfair.com/pics/017993060-)
Fujifilm XH2, no flash, very low light, ISO 3200, f1.4 1/200s
ndm-photography.picfair.com/pics/017993368-
I can't see how you couldn't get a Fuji APS-C to perform well at or above IS0 1600 if you were exposing correctly. Even their older models can do that easily.