If you don't agree, that's fine! Let's talk in the comments👇🏻 Just be nice. I'm nice. My subscribers are all super nice... I just want everyone to be nice to each other... 🤷🏻♂️Mkay? Thanks! 😎🙏🏻
Actually I subscribed to your channel because of this video, I totally agree with what you're saying, and the advise at the end regarding lenses is SUPER, a lot of issues regarding low light for example can be fixed using better lenses.. date the camera and marry the lens!
Excellent video. Thanks for posting this! I'm a working pro shooting FF and crop, depending on the circumstances and the client. Everyone is always happy. Life is good.
Couple of additions from a fellow-pro: (1) when you compare sensors, make sure you compare same generations. A 10y old full-frame sensor may indeed not have better low-light performance compared to a brand-new designed aps-c sensor. Same for medium format compared to full-frame. Note that most sensor manufacturers focus R&D on full-frame first, and then apply that to aps-c later. (2) the advantage of ‘not using the full image-circle’ with an aps-c sensor is only valid when you buy and use full-frame lenses on an aps-c camera. E.g. Fuji XF and Canon EOS-M lenses are designed for aps-s and have a smaller image-circle, so these lack that advantage compared to e.g. Nikon, Sony and Leica. By the way, when using full-frame lenses on an aps-c camera, you largely loose the size/weight/cost advantage of aps-c. (3) the shallower DoF of full-frame is due to the difference in focal lenght when applying the same field of view. So an aps-c lens of 56mm (85mm) equiv. has a DoF associated with a 56mm lens compared to the shallower DoF of a native 85mm full-frame lens. The longer the focal lenght, the shallower the DoF, assuming same aperture and distance to subject. So, when comparing apples with apples, a full-frame camera has indeed better low-light performance (or higher resolution), better dynamic range, greater tonality and shallower DoF compared to an aps-c camera. Consequently a medium format camera usually does even better on these things than a full-frame. I fully agree that many enthusiast don’t buy what they need and loose themselves in pixel peeping at 200%, rather than develop their creative skills. The camera industry thrives on that ;-)
Buying APS-C lenses almost doesn't make sense anymore. You can't use them on full frame cameras, whereas the opposite is not true. Unless you are absolutely positive that you are never going to switch to full frame, and for that matter, that manufacturers are going to continue making APS-C cameras that you can replace your current one with, you are kind of rolling the dice if you invest heavily at all in APS-C lenses.
Life was great when we all had 35mm cameras (cheap rangefinders to SLRs like Canon and Nikon). We chose from Tri-X, Plus-X and Panatomic-X for black and white photos. For color, we usually chose Kodachrome 25 or 64. Life was so simple then.The difference between them is the speed of the film and how tight the grain is. But I didn't care. I had fun taking photos for work and for pleasure. No one cares, no one pixel peeps. People just like to see pictures of themselves and family members, especially babies.
I would say just for IQ overall first Canon full frame Canon 5D is to me better than ANY! aps-c to date in terms of pure image quality and color depth and pixel sharpnes.. and it's since 2005 if I am not wrong.
Point 2 is not correct, unless you tested the apsc lens on a full frame camera. I used to think the same thing untill i saw some Pentax da (crop lenses) could actually be used on the Pentax k1 (full frame) without cropping too much so depending on the design apsc lenses can have a larger image circle. It's not strictly true and is dependent on the lens.
In the film era, I shot small format, medium format, and large format. In the beginning of the digital era, my first digital cameras had thumbnail size sensors. Later, I began shooting cameras with a larger micro 4/3 size sensor. Next, I used cameras with APS-C size sensors. Lastly, I used cameras with full-frame sensors. For me, the difference in image quality between the APS-C and the full-frame is insignificant to nonexistent.
I agree, it's not about image quality from the sensor. For a long time, Canon and Nikon and Sony don't really make "great" APSC lenses, they make all the L or GM or whatever lenses full frame. Canon and Sony seem to also mostly make the higher end tech only in FF cameras. Especially Canon, if you want the top tier lenses and tech, it's all in FF. But for landscape in daytime? My 80D APSC was very good.
Tokina makes some boss mode crop sensor lenses that run $300… while I like my rf 15-35, it’s totally not even close to being worth $2200…. Lessons learned
A good photographer will be a good photographer regardless of APSC or full-frame. The differences in the formats are about specific use cases where the limitations are more apparent. You can even consider pixel pitch as a useful difference that is often in favour of APSC.
Great video. Nothing wrong with using APSC or M43 for professional work. People were using far inferior equipment not so long ago to even the entry level stuff today and getting incredible shots. Learn the craft first and then get the system that suits your needs and complements your needs. Stop reading forums and watching videos on all the latest equipment and instead go out there and practice. You will know what gear you need when you start honing your craft.
I agree, some of my best images come from my Olympus camera's...but for my pro work I need a FF body, it is just more workable in DR, crop ability, and details for large commission and weddings when you often don't have idea scenario's. Although I have gotten some great wedding and portrait captures with apsc as a backup to a full framer. I have even got some adorable wedding images with a phone! :)
I went for Sony's APSC lineup...even though I really liked a friend's A7C. I'm pretty sure I'll stick to APSC since I take it with me when hiking and camping which often entails me climbing up over mountains. The size and weight savings definitely helps and the cheaper body and lens cost helps me save some money to go towards my outdoor gear.
I love this so much. When I was first getting started people are used to try to do a gear flex on me. Just because they had the most expensive gear. I shot with a crop body for a long time before upgrading to a full frame I’ve even shot on point and shoot because that’s what I had with me and believe it or not I’ve sold professional shots from my point and shoot just because I had the eye for a shot and the subject I was shooting loved them and wanted to use them commercially. I think people tend to forget that a lot of what you do as a photographer is based on learning how to use any camera you have, having an eye for what you’re shooting, and knowing how to get the shot. As a professional today I still see folks trying to do that gear flex on new photographers and I’m always willing to talk to new photographers and tell them to shoot with what they have and get good at shooting with what they have. You don’t need to have the most expensive new camera as soon as it comes out. Invest in great glass, bodies come and go, the glass will sustain itself.
Spot on Diane. Somehow folks tend to talk about a cameras shortcomings rather than it’s strengths. I’m willing to bet you’ve taken som great shots from your phone as well. Haven’t we all? Lol.
This video and this comment by Diane is pure golden truth. I feel that alot of people trained and untrained to the eye, professional and beginner will find that unless they are doing large prints, and even if so sometimes, still may not be able to tell which of the two cameras took the photos, as far as the technology itself goes, when looking at a finished product... Lenses truly are so important. The bodies do really come and go. As far as the bodies, just try to make sure it has the features you may need for the style/type of photos/subjects you will be interested in taking pictures of in my opinion. The lenses in my opinion do the heavy lifting, they carry the work, and they get the rest done. Don't underestimate the power of your lenses. I believe it's your skill and ability first, your lenses second, and the body third...contrary to what many believe.. The lense is the extension to the body, the bodies limbs. The lenses are what reaches for the bodies goals.. the body can have all the technology in the world yet still no potential at all without the lens. Pick a body that have settings for your line of work and pick lenses, compensate, compliment, and accomplish what you are going for..it's really about the lenses..people are putting some pretty big lenses over some pretty cropped sensors....it's not about the size, it's about the motion of the ocean... Especially if you're a beginner; why buy a 1000cc Supersport when you can't even fully harness and push a 600cc super sport to its maximum potential on the tarmac?...to be skilled and proficient enough to push a 600cc sport bike to its limits is more fun and freeing, than to have more power than you know what to do with, and not skilled enough to fully and competently control and hone. Power you can't even utilize... I believe it is the same with any trade/art...what is a $100 paint brush to someone who can not paint, is the equivalency of $20 brush. It's not that either type of cameras is better than the other, necessarily, they just go about things differently. They solve math equations differently. I hear beginners Trump themselves all the time by going off of what they hear and have a mentality of "full frame or nothing" and it's truly a limiting and misguided misconception. If that be the reason some curious kid doesn't pick up a camera and start a hobby; that saddens me...and equally, if it be a reason someone is slowing down on starting a new entry level career. I know many others that use cropped, and make thousands of buckos a month delivering professional grade batch, work, lol.. they are not even professionals themselves............ To get a desired effect, you just have to accept that you need to do different math with your lenses.. every camera in the world is limited to its lens no matter what, anyway.... This car takes 91, that car takes 93, another car may be happy on 87octane to preform optimal to its combustion rate.. All cameras are great and fun, and pack their own punch!
This is a fact. I absolutely SUCK at having an eye for a picture. My buddy, uses his cell phone and captures amazing pictures because he has an eye for it. I am definitely trying to learn, but its a talent to some degree that I hope I can figure out someday.
@@DarikStone if u ya talkin photography… yeah. However, video is a whole diff story. Full frames usually have better codecs, fps, etc. There is no 10 bit in Sony apsc, you only get it if you go full frame. For pics, apsc is almost as capable as full frame. Not so much if we talkin video
@@luismoracmyk yes, with that I agree! There's isn't really anything that will make up for that. I would sway someone to full frame if they were getting into any kind of cinematography, or needed a good hybrid, for sure. Great call!
I’m using my m50 for professional video work and only shooting in 1080. As long as the lighting is good the quality is great and the clients like it. No one has asked me what camera I’m using 🤷🏼♂️
@@JorisHermans good glass is more important, you could do a video showing how different lenses make different images. Rubbish glass on a full frame v good glass on the m50 😁
Unfortunately, ours is an expensive passion, and the majority of amateur photographers don't have anything near the financial resources to acquire their dream kit. The good news is that passion for photography, combined with lots of practice (a combination that is often referred to as skill) is everything when it comes to enjoying the fruits of your efforts. Open your eyes, follow your soul, get lost in the moment, and hone your technique. Above all else, shoot for your own gratification; don't judge your results on what you think other people will like. This is my humble opinion.
Finally someone that knows what they are talking about when comparing APS-C vs fullframe! The only time you will see a major difference when you zoom in 200% into your picture, and even then, the difference is really small and not sometimes not noticeable.
Just sold all my full frame gear and completely switched to APSC, the Fuji xt4. I understand the limitations of the apsc sensor but they’re really not as limiting as you think. Having a system specifically designed around APSC like Fuji is the best choice as now I have access to super nice glass that’s specifically designed for apsc and as such is smaller, lighter but still just as premium as full frame glass. It just makes sense to me and it makes no sense that 95% of the newer photographers I meet seem to be aiming towards eventually upgrading to full frame. Apsc is absolutely good enough for professional work and for some photographers, the better choice.
i did the same switch from canon ff to fuji xf 8 years ago and never looked back. enjoy the light weight and performacne of the fuji xf system. none of my clients really noticed the difference. that said i still enjoy shooting 120 on a hasselblad 500 sometimes ;)
After years of playing with different cameras and systems, I eventually stuck with Fuji. Works the best for my style, but I will admit that to me a 50mm on a FF just has a certain look that I love.
Advantages like better IBIS (APSC sensors are easier to stabilise), smaller cameras with less weight and the additional reach you get from telephoto lenses make APSC camera significantly better for certain applications. Like travel, sports & wildlife photography. Full frame is better for portraits, higher resolution large format printing & some product work. But Joris is right, the differences are far less than you'd expect.
The little difference on a print or a portrait because of dof will make the difference for sure. Some super high level professional portrait photographers working in the fashion industry will NEVER use an apsc
The car analogy I always make, is that everyone keeps telling me to buy the Porsche, because it is the faster car, despite the fact that the the speed limit is 120km/h, the Porsche has no seat to speak of in the back, eats tyres, guzzles gas, makes an immense racket and drains your wallet as far as road tax is concerned, while the other car gets me there in a comfortable, affordable and safe way. Maybe I like to listen to music when I am driving, undisturbed by engine and tyre noise. So, after all, maybe the Porsche is not the car for me.
This absolutely spot-on. I don't think anyone has explained it better. I was guilty of going full frame when possibly I should have considered aps-c. My only redemption was that I didn't buy a new body, although the glass was new. I was shooting with film previously, then after taking a break I moving to digital. But it's like a drug, you're always searching to gain the satisfaction you feel when you see the end result. Maybe it's just one picture you've taken that day, and it turns out even better than when you reviewed it on your camera.
Just moved to an Aps-c Canon Camera, from a Full frame because I wanted a lighter-weight / cheaper set-up and you have answered all the queries I had about the differences - Thank you. Plus, you answered some considerations I hadn't thought about.!! Your style is great and I like your humour. So all I need to do is move slightly further away from the subject - no problem and probably an advantage in not crowding a subject. Keep it up.!
Another thing to know about crop factors: It changes with aspect ratio. 16:9 images cropped from 3:2 sensors will have a 5% crop added. This makes Canon's APS-C crop in video 1.7x.
Great video! I just hate the marketing push sony or canon are putting on FF; they failed miserably vs fuji or even MFT with their APS-C lineups so now theyre making FF 'affordable', so they get some of that sub-$2000 market back. People should understand how this is mostly marketing ripoff.
which APSC mirrorless would you suggest which is bang for every buck? It will be my first camera and don't want to spend too much for FF just yet. I might little bit professional work if I get.
It's a fact that full frame sensors is better in low light :) You have to compare sensors from the same day and age! But even old fullframe sensors outperforms new crop sensors, for the most part.
@@bartden9668 I like crop sensors as well 😊 The one in my Fujifilm Xpro3 is amazing.. but it's a fact that in low light fullframe is about 1 stop better. Just physics..
Sure until you do low light situation then cameras cry for help, no natural look if you add in artificial light, No offense FUJI are really good and I've used one the XT3 but decided to ditch it for the EOS R coz Lowlight sucks. But for me as a Videographer that shoots wedding its not the best run&Gun, but for the price though its great.
exactly !!!! As an APS-C shooter, full frame equivalence means nothing to me in practice. I relate to the lens focal lengths as they behave on my (APS-C) cameras, not on how they would behave on a full frame camera which I don't own and never have. if I ever bought a full frame camera I would need to think the other way (APS-C equivalence) until I developed a feel for the full frame camera's field of view.
Agree to a good extent. I am just an enthusiast specially into bird photography and Sony A6400 + 70-350 mm lens gives me 525mm equivalent and unless its very early in the morning (when sun is still near horizon); I am having a perfect combo at a price which is cheaper than any FF camera body only.
Nice I have the same set up. The only thing I don't like about that lens is not a fixed aperture when zooming in. I also do some bird photography and am thinking on getting the arii and use the aspc mode with the lens and see what I get.
NO! You don't get a 525mm equivalent - you get 350mm. You can't change the laws of physics. A 350mm lens will produce an image of a bird of the same size at the same distance, no matter what size the sensor is. It's a CROPPING factor, not a magnification factor.
@@migranthawker2952 But an APS-C sensor has a much higher pixel density than a FF sensor would at the same total number of pixels. So an APS-C image is not "just a crop" of a same-megapixel FF image, as that would imply that the APS-C image somehow looses resolution, which it doesn't. It's a full-resolution image, just "zoomed in" to cover just the central part of what the lens sees. Which is basically the same as magnification. Hence, the usefulness of equivalent focal lengths as a measure in the first place.
@@migranthawker2952 You can also think of it like this: a 32 megapixel APS-C image with a cropping factor of 1.6 (like on a Canon 90D) would be the same as a central crop of a 32*(1.6^2) = 82 megapixel FF image on the same lens. Unless you find a FF camera with 82 megapixels (Canon's FF DSLR's top out at 51 megapixels, for example), you simply won't be able to reproduce the APS-C image by cropping a FF image. In other words, an APS-C image on a 350 mm lens really is "more zoomed in" than any FF image on the same lens could ever be. (Specifically, by 1.6 times if we compared APS-C and FF sensors with the same total pixel count. If a small bird covers 200x200 pixels on a FF sensor, it would cover 320x320 pixels on an APS-C sensor using the same lens, assuming a cropping factor of 1.6 and the same sensor megapixel count.)
there is a precision to be made, because you got a little bit confused here : A lens will always have the same redition of an image, what ever the sensor size is. If you slap the same 35mm lens on a full frame or an APS-C camera, the depth of field, bokeh rendition etc will be the exact same. The angle of view will change. What make people think that depth of field is bigger on APS-C cameras is because we're talking in equivalent focal lenght. Depth of field is related to the focal lengh of a lens. The bigger the focal lenght, the shallower the depth of field is. A 35mm lens at f4 will have considerably bigger depth of field than an 85mm lens at the same f stop (we can't really say the same aperture since the "f" number is tied to the focal lenght as well, that's another subject) So if we're talking about equivalent focal length, let's say 50mm. On a full frame camera you'll use let's say a 50mm f/1.8 lens. On an APS-C camera you'll use a 35mm f/1.8 with an equivalent focal length of 52.5mm. You'll have the same viewing angle, but the actual focal length is different betweent the two cameras, and depth of field being related with focal lenght, the camera with the bigger focal lenght will have the shallower depth of field, thus the saying "you have shallower depth of field on full frame cameras". if you were to put a 50mm lens on an APS-C camera, you'd get the same depth of field as a full frame with the same lens (maybe even shallower thanks to the pixels being smaller, if the resolution is the same) If you got blurrier background with the same lens on both cameras, it's because you try to match the frame, but the full frame camera has a wider angle of view so you need to get closer. And the closer to the lens it is, the smaller the depth of field is, that's how optics work
Don't leave out Micro Four Thirds! My Olympus and Lumix cameras are still going strong. You can get good glass for less money (not to mention less bulk and weight) this way, and that's important. If you really need something closer to that full-frame aesthetic, you can adapt glass. I have a Viltrox EF-M2 0.71x speedbooster and a Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 ART lens attached to my Lumix G85. It ends up being equivalent to a 26-50mm f2.4 in full frame. My next lens purchase might either be the Sigma 50-100mm f1.8 (71-142mm f2.4 equivalent) ART or the Olympus 45mm f1.2 (90mm f2.4 equivalent) PRO.
I like Both full frame and APS-c. They work well for different things. My very favorite lens "for some unknown reason" is my old Canon 10-18mm ultra wide. I LOVE what I can do with it. But on an APS-C I lose 6 or 7 MM on it, and for a WA lens, that is a huge amount. But with my 24-70 on the APS-C, i get additional length, so that's great. I think it's perfect to have Full Frame, and then an APS-C as a backup and for getting those altered MMs....Great video, joris!
I do not get your argument of losing 6-7 mm. Are you comparing to some imaginary 10 mm FF lens? Canon does have 11-24 mm for full frame. It just costs ten times what the 10-18 mm does. Closest to the 10-18 mm on full frame is 16-35 mm f/4. It costs three times as much.
The 10-xx APS-C ultrawide are equivalent to 16-xx mm ultrawide on full frame. Those are the affordable and common ultrawide lenses on full frame. The rare 11-xx mm Ultrawides cost easily twice what a compareable f-stop 15/16-xx mm ultrawide costs. Even the new RF 15-35/2.8 is cheaper than the EF 11-24/4.
Something that needs to be considered is size. I got my first 35mm SLR when I was 15 in 1969 but throughout the years I migrated to a 110 camera which used 16mm film and basically looked like a James Bond spy camera. Fact is I have so many photos that never would have been taken if all I had was my SLR because I just wouldn't have been lugging it around in those situations. Even when digital photography began to take over in the late 90's I stayed with the small point and shoot cameras like the Nikon Coolpix line. Of course that genre has been supplanted by the cellphone now but I still hung on with an APSC DSLR because of the portability although it honestly is not so much a difference from a full frame. So in that regard it probably just comes down to cost.
You don't have to calculate the crop factor if you begin with an apsc sensor and stick to it. You get used to the field of view of a specific focal distance and you refer to it when you switch lenses. The reference to full frame was relevant when cropped sensors appeared or is when you transition from crop to FF or any other size.
I've been using APS-C since 2002. I now mostly use full frame. I do like that apsc cameras are generally lighter, but full frame just has so many more benefits.
I use viltrox speed booster + canon 50mm STM lens. I use it for photography and small video. There's this disadvantage of mirrorless is you can't see your subject when using strobe light or flash in studio. I have to crank up ISO to view my subject to fix focus then again come down to take a snap. You are absolutely right about sensors and the image they give out in specific size. I never go above 18 x 15 inch with M50.
Turn the exposure simulation (Expo.simulation) off from the third submenu of the shooting menu. The Canon EF-M 32 mm f/1.4 is likely sharper than the speedbooster + 50 mm. Sigma has also comparable 30 mm f/1.4.
One element that gets forgotten a lot with these kind of videos: FF bodies tend to be treated as more professional bodies by camera manufacturers, and therefore are outfitted with more professional features. For example, FF bodies tend to get more buttons/knobs/recall options a bigger screen, higher resolution viewfinder, better weather sealing, more features/tech etc. There are also usually more online resources/users who know what they're doing for you to learn from, and sometimes more lens support as well. There are also wide shots you straight up can't get due to the crop factor. Let's be real. No one is buying a FF body over a crop sensor JUST because of the slight increase in image quality. People with these bodies tend to need the functionality that comes along with the sensor. You don't need to be doing large format prints to reap the benefits of a full frame body, just maybe a knowledgeable enough photographer to benefit from the extra bells and whistles. Of course there's nothing at all wrong with smaller sensors, they're insanely capable these days, but don't forget you're buying way more than just a slightly larger sensor.
Great video! Less than a year ago (we are now in 2024), I bought a Canon R7 (APSC) after having considered the similarly priced R8 (full frame). The thing is... the R7's cropped sensor is 32.5 MP whereas the R8's full frame sensor is 24 MP. Therefore, it is not always the case that full frame cameras offer a better resolution. Of course, full frame sensors offer other advantages, but since I am mostly interested in landscape photography, I have little use for shallow depth of field (I generally want everything in focus) or low light performance (I can generally use a tripod for longer exposition or exposure bracketing to compensate for APSC's lower dynamic range). I'll probably get a full frame camera some day for more specialized applications, but I could probably get away with an older (and cheaper) model like the Canon RP.
Was a Sony shooter for years, and then sold my A7IV after my girlfriend bought me a Fujifilm x100V for my bday. The colors fuji produce straight outta camera are wonderful! I also noticed very little difference in IQ, Dynamic range, tonality (if any at all). And after using her XT-4, I plan on buying the the X-H2 40 megapixel version in fall.
💯 I use both APS-C and Medium format. APS-C for everyday leave in the bag shooting and Medium Format for ultimate quality on dedicated photo sessions… Both are excellent for their purpose.
The charm of full a larger vs small sensor is in the visual field it captures. Note the photos in your newspaper, which show traffic accident, the ambulances, the fire trucks, the highway, accident itself, and a news reporter all in the same shot. Take a look at old box-camera photos of the "old west" which used HUGE negatives ("sensors") and note their tremendous scope.
Great explanation. Refreshing common sense from a professional. The question I first asked myself in choosing my first DSLR was what am going to use it for (taking pictures obviously)! However it was about the field of photography that determined my choice. I also had to ensure that I could afford good quality lenses. I use both full frame and APS-C formats and print to A3 size. No one who has looked at my work can tell the difference. Listen to this guy before you buy!
Wise words here on the vid and in the comments. I have a Fuji xt4 and x100v and I spent the last 4-6 weeks going round in circles about buying a Leica Q2 for FULL FRAME (maybe replacing the x100v). Having eventually talked myself out of that I then looked hard at the new x-2H. However, I love the traditional lay out of the xt4 so decided to get better lenses, 33mm f1.4 future-proofed just arrived wit the new 56 1.2 WR on order. I’ll wait for the xt5 next year which might well have a 40 mp sensor. Get the best lenses, chose the system that works best for you, go out and take pictures!
one more thing worth pointing out (if nobody has done yet, I can't find in the comments) is that the crop factor can come in handy in certain situations (e.g. wildlife ph.): using for instance a 300mm lens on FF means actually carrying around a 300mm lens, while on APS-C you could get a similar reach with a smaller lens such as a 200mm, or, you could still carry an APS-C camera and a 300mm APS-C lens (usually lighter than the ones for FF with same focal length) and have a reach that would require a 450mm lens on a FF.
LOVE this video Joris!!! A+ advice, I have a Sony a6400 and absolutely love it, but have been eyeing the Sony A7RIV full frame for a bit. I think your video really made the difference in my decision. I’m going to cop those full frame lenses first, learn how to use them on APS-C, then make the switch when I’m ready. Thanks for the upload!!!
I agree with you. Even accepting than in low light a FF is better, for instance, 1 stop better than a 1.5 cropped sensor of the same generation, when you need depth of field, you must stop down that stop in the FF. For instance, you may take a cropped picture at f/5.6 ISO 800, and at FF you must do it at F/8 ISO1600 for the same shutter speed... The results are the same in quality... This is true in real professional world... In wedding photography, for example. And when you take the budget in account, and you must have a backup camera, that doubles the already doublet budget.
On the flip side, for shallow depth of field pictures you need to stop down a lot less with full frame,in fact you might need a very fast lens for aps-c to achieve the same effect which can be very expensive and large/heavy.
Use the tool that works best for the job at hand. Everything else being equal (like megapixels, lenses), an APS-C camera is going to get you closer to elusive wildlife and birds, while a full frame is going to give you a more impressive landscape or Milky Way shot. Otherwise, a lot of the inherent differences, such as noise and low light performance issues, can be greatly mitigated by firmware and post software.
True on traditional cameras but many modern full frame cameras have very high megapixel counts. Remember it is the pixel density, not the crop factor that matters as one can always crop in post.
@@okaro6595 True, but many APS-C cameras are pretty high megapixel as well, meaning you have the advantage of cropping PLUS the advantage of being (seemingly) closer to begin with. An example, the Canon R5 in APS- C mode gives you about 17 megapixels. Not much more cropping can be done. The R7 is already "cropped" to APS- C size and gives you 32.5 megapixels. Quite a bit more cropping can be done. Also, an APS-C camera, even one with a fair amount of megapixels is going to be way cheaper than a super high megapixel full frame. I generally like having both a full frame and an APS-C in my bag. Another consideration is file size. 45, 50, 60, 80 megapixel files become increasingly more difficult to work on, requiring more computing power and more and bigger hard drives. Maybe not a concern for a professional, but certainly can be for a hobbyist.
Bokeh addict is the novice, and after he has spent mosto of his revenue in ff camera and lenses he come to the conclusion that is pure bullshit. Buy a telephoto for an aps-c and you’ll get all the bokeh you want for 1/3 of the price. And then start stopping it down becouse photos are not organic but only very annoying for your eyes with too much blurriness
There is so much misinformation about photography on the net. it's so pleasant to come across someone who actually knows what they are talking about. great video.
I am beginner at RUclips, have been posting videos since a year and I started with Insta360 Go2, now using combination of iPhone and Insta 360go2, very excited for ordering a Sony ZV E10 (APSC) Camera to improve the quality! Great video! ☺️👏
I shoot classic/vintage lenses, for that reason I bought a full frame Sony A7II because all lenses are sharper toward the center you lose a lot of the character that those lenses produce. The best example I can give is that it's harder to get a Helios 44-2 lens to swirl on a cropped sensor than it is on a full frame. If you don't care about such minute detail, go APS-C of even micro 4/3.
This is the best and very clear explanation of full frame and Aps lens. Now, I just be content with my mirrorless camera. Thank you for sharing this video. One of your supporter now.
After a decade of using Fuji bodies for work & play, I started using Sony FF and very quickly fell in love with the image quality, dynamic range, video focus tracking, build quality etc etc. I don’t think it’s enough to just say they are “different”.
i did some comparison between fuji and nikon and this was so impressing, i will never change to fuji. i can't see any real advantage using the fuji. it's not even smaller if you compare it in a fair way.
I 100% Agree with this, I did digital media in university, and to get me through it I bought a Canon 77D. It was a good size, light, and did everything I needed at the time. As I got more and more serious about photography I started pouring money into better lenses (Lenses make far more difference than bodies towards image quality). Honestly some of the pictures I took with the camera I was shocked at and still am. As I had the perception of this is a "lower-end camera". Since then I have moved onto a Canon R6 for a few reasons, mainly to have 1080@120 / 4k60, dual card slots, and eye-tracking. I am currently getting more into video and wanted to get a camera that was all round more serious. In terms of image quality though I couldn't tell a difference really. It really is a matter of needs and what area you wanna focus on, just do plenty of research and you'll be golden :D
Full frame is objectively better under every circumstance, except if you need range or small form factor. That being said - It doesn't really matter. If you're new, young or broke. Get APS-C. If you got money, is a professional or rich, get Full Frame. Also, I'd rather have a newer Sony APS-C because of the features than an older Full Frame lacking newer features. I use A7rIV and a6400 profesionally. Both are great. Clients can't tell the difference - but full frame produce better results (more dynamic range, less noise, more depth of field).
Great comment! I've been using ff for past 15 plus years but recently picked up a apsc camera for travel. I'm getting old and as much as I like f1.2 lens, I'm bot carrying those for travel and street
Interesting assessment. Your comparison could also be applied to medium format vs. full frame. For most photographers, the real question is what final image size and medium you plan to create. Most users can get by with a smartphone camera if it is used for social media online. A larger sensor is probably better if it is a large print. Don't fall into the "bigger is better" trap - it's an expensive lesson.
I recently purchased a Canon 90D, which has an APS-C size sensor, and I am blown away! The detail is amazing, and the low light capability is phenomenal!
@@jaysfarrell I have several primes, but my 90D came with a 18-135 kit lens, and I have been pleasantly surprised with it! It doesn't have a wide maximum aperture, but I can easily shoot at 3200 and 6400 iso, so it is turning out to be a great travel lens.
@@jaysfarrell It's actually a lot sharper than I thought it would be, and it is the first lens I have had with image stabilization. I just took a trip to Colorado and that is the only lens and camera I took with me. I never thought once I wish I would have brought anything else. I set the max iso at 6400 and just shoot mostly in aperture priority .....I don't worry about iso anymore. I use darktable for editing, and it does an amazing job with de-noise.
I used to do APS-C on portrait and product shots and they look just fine. Couple years ago I switched to fullframe only because I was tired of always calculating the crop factor and, most importantly, wasn't able to really do some super wide angle shots. For super wide angle shots I mean something around 11mm to 16mm, basically this is so difficult for crop sensors because of the obvious reasons... It is just a matter of probably the first 20mm difference I think. I wasn't able to do something below 20mm on APS-C a few years ago, now I am able to do crazy 14mm shots on my fullframe body. Other than this everything is basically the same. For beginners I think it is totally fine to buy any camera, but it is definitely important to actually try out different cameras and different lens and think about what kind of photo will be taken. Nice video and great opinion BTW! Although I stopped thinking about this since I got my fullframe, this video that showed up on my feed really got me back in the days when I was struggling about wide angle shots and busy calculating everything with 1.6...
In reality, there is good aps-c lenses. For example, Tokina 11-16 2.8 is a good wide angle aps-c lens with a fov equivalent to 16,5-24 Then, you can have a wide angle lens below 20mm
If ultimate image quality is your goal, then the larger the sensor, the better - quite seriously. It's not a question of the number of megapixels. That's a separate topic. Compare, for example, the image quality - not specifically the detail revealed - between a 20 megapixel full frame camera, and 24 megapixel DX camera. The full frame image is going to be much easier on the eyes, especially when the dynamic range of light is greater. Greater shadow detail, etc. Then compare it to the highest megapixel phone camera of the variety which has a seriously tiny sensor from a few years back.
I didn't buy our first digital. It was gifted to my wife. When it self destructed... I was forced to make a purchase. I picked up a Nikon D-7200. I didn't know what a crop sensor was. I liked the camera... so did my wife. That is the camera I still shoot. Its kind of like drag racing... "run what you brung". It is just fine with me. That camera is better at taking pictures than I am at being a photographer. So the problems with my pictures is user malfunction... mostly. This video makes me feel like everything is fine... just fine.
I haven't seen yet an apsc sensors that outperforms even a decade old Sony A7s in terms of high ISO performance. Maybe it would be a case if we had a modern, low pixel desnity apsc sensors with less megapixels, but I haven't seen any recently. So you have more noise on a sensor, and at the same time, in most cases, slower apertures, and 1.5 multuplied focals, which require higher shutter speeds. That is, unless you uses hyper fast apsc lenses, like f0.95, which do exist, but most of them are manual. While I love an ability to have a much smaller and ligher setup with apsc, it does comes with a substantial tradeoff in a low light performance.
One needs to look at the dynamic range (Quantum efficiency) particularly landscape or even abstract shooting. Full frame and particular more recent camera have crept up where medium format lead given there larger pixels. To know the sensor, quality a good bench mark is DXO value Of course, other user camera features are changing rapidly and APS camera with live streaming may be batter. However, I have both APS and full frame and yes the sensor/pixel size does matter particularly is that is one's passion so getting the pictures right are better done one time - again it matters what size, cropping and contract needs but equally noise added in processing. Full frame are much better , lets be truthful
some things that fellow beginners would like to know is that it’s easier to get more reach with apsc sensor firstly get a 24-70 and a 70-200 f2.8 whatever suits you and your budget then buy a 2x teleconverter essentially you get like 600mm max focal length for the cost and weight of maybe a 300mm at best. Performs roughly the same as a full frame with a 300mm and 2x teleconverter
Also many people want that crop factor for more "zoom" and pixel density when it comes to wildlife or macro photography. So yeah, it's just a preference. Full frame cameras now have the ability to go into "APS-C" mode which is a big appeal to me. Giving you more flexibility and the best of both worlds in one camera. That's really why I want the Sony a7iv
You do not get more zoom or pixel density in APS-C mode. In the following examples, I'll discuss two of Nikon's sensors, a 23.6x15.6mm APS-C sensor (DX) and a 35.9x23.9 Full Frame Sensor (FX) .. but ... round these number off to 24x16 and 36x24, for simplicity. (Crop factor of 1.5) In APS-C mode, all the camera does is block out most of your sensor (55% on a 1.5 crop and 61% on a 1.6 Crop). The image saved to memory is just the middle chunk read from the full frame sensor. This means that if you have an FX camera with a 36x24mm sensor, only the pixels in the middle 24mmx16mm are utilised. If you are using an FX lens, then all you have done is throw away 55% of your image. You would have achieved exactly the same result if you had taken the shot in FX mode and zoomed and cropped in post. If you are shooting Wildlife or Macro, then stick with the full frame mode - you might capture something towards the edge of the image that you might have otherwise missed, and you have more control of the crop in post. There is also no more pixel density. If the FX sensor has 42MP, then in DX mode, you are only using the 18MP in the middle. The density does not change. You do not switch from 42MP on a 36x24 sensor to 42MP on a 24x16 sensor. The sensor is fixed, so its density is fixed. All that happens is that the outer 24MP are effectively turned off. The only real advantages of APS-C mode, that I can think of, are as follows: 1 - When using a DX lens, much of the image will be black, like looking down a tube. Using APS-C mode throws away the outer edge of pixels, and saves space on your SD card. You will most likely crop that part of the image away in post anyway, so no point in storing it on the card when you take the shot. 2 - When using a DX lens, the tube view will be odd to look at. Using APS-C mode shows you what your image would look like, cropped, making it easier to compose. 3 - Your "Straight Out Of Camera" photos will look like real photos since the camera auto-crops for you. 4 - Images in the optical view finder will be zoomed ... but is that an advantage vs throwing away pixels? Usually not, unless, as you say, its for wildlife or Macro, where the extra zoom would help with fine focus adjustments. I would counter this by saying that If you shoot using live view, then you can zoom the live view whilst still shooting in full frame and not lose any of the pixels. No need for APS-C mode at all. For the record, I have just switched to an FX camera, from a DX camera. All my lenses (except one) are FX, and I do shoot in DX mode when using the DX lens because of reason number 2 that I listed above. So whilst APS-C mode is not "totally pointless", if you only had FX lenses, I'd argue that it is.
@@MO-hq4iz TBH, you can do that, but the main benefit you get out of the APS-C for wildlife is a typically lighter body. You can always crop the FF by 1.5x or 1.6x and get more or less exactly the same result you would have gotten, but with the added benefit of being able to crop less or move the cropped region around the image if you like. A decade or more ago, the price difference was sufficient to make it worthwhile to give up a bit of flexibility in order to get the cheaper price, but these days, you can get a used FF body for not that much money.
exactly.. most people miss that, even professionals! f 2.8 on an apsc is more like an f 4.2 or 4.4 depending on the crop factor.. and most people even don't realize that canon & sony has a different crop factor when it comes to apsc
this is relevant because in certain cases a full frame lens can be cheaper than its apsc equivalent.. for example the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 L full frame lens is cheaper, superior and has a longer reach than the Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G Apsc lens
The biggest reason for me having a high mp FF is the ability to crop. I'm in apsc mode most of the time shooting birds just for the extra reach and then still sometimes crop. A 24ish mp apsc would not allow this. My camera in apsc is 18mp which is totally acceptable
This made me feel proud to use Crop sensor camera. I have over 5 years only used that and even with my new camera is a crop sensor and I love it. Thanks
The most honest photographer I've ever known! In my country, we have a well-known saying: All roads lead to Full-frame. But you know, I think that's so shallow. The naive people just comprehend that with herd-y tendency. As you said, they buy what you want, not what they need. So that's why I've loved my 80D with 35mm f1.4L badly. Actually, I've got my countless masterpieces with that combo. Thank you so much once again!
So if I am shooting a boar in a forest in early morning on a 1.5 crop at 300mm, assuming I bought a full frame for the same job, I would need a 450mm lens, my question is, would the fact of a longer lens mean higher ISO and therefore cancel out the better ISO performance of the full frame camera because of having to use a longer lens?
I shoot mainly vintage lenses. Now I own both Fuji and Sony A7ii. I bought the Sony cause they are cheap these days and I wanted to shoot my vintage lenses at their native FOV and characteristics that you will not get on APSC sensors. I am a bokeh junkie so FF just works better for me in that respect, shallower DOF. Case in point, the swirly bokeh produced by the Helios 44 is just not the same on the Fuji as it is on the Sony. The APSC sensor crops a lot of the edge detail out and you have to back up with the Fuji to get the same FOV which does not produce the same bokeh. Love my Fuji, but in some cases, the Sony A7ii is just better for my purposes anyway.
Dear Joris: I watched your video. I understand APSC is different than full frame. You’ve used both and you are currently using full frame. There are some differences but overall are similar. Which sensor do you prefer and why? I am clear as to why I use APSC. Like Ruaan, I’m a Fuji user. Simply stated, it Meets my needs. 1st and foremost, as you stated in your video, it is lighter than full frame. Many times it is also smaller too. A camera is a tool. We should select the right tool for the right job. The image quality meets my needs. The low light quality meets my needs. The price meets my needs. As a street photographer, I can’t se schlepping around a FF body & lens al day. I imagine my neck and shoulder appreciate my sensor choice. I have no desire for a full frame sensor body or lens. I’m glad it is available for those people that do require that size sensor. Glad we have a choice. I sometimes use micro43 and love my Panasonic gear. Your mileage may vary. Mask on Nurse Marty
Currently I love the 12mp full-frame sensor of my Sony A7S III. It's not so much because it's full-frame but because of the capabilities of the sensor and the camera. I would be just as happy if it would be a small size sensor. Thing is, in the mirrorless and dslr world, they usually put FF sensors in high end cameras. So cameras that also have weather sealing, durable body and design... things like that. That's also a reason why a lot of professionals end up with full frame cameras. And in those cases that a full-frame sensor has a small advantage, it usually takes a pro to get to the point where it actually matters. Not saying that hobby photographers are bad photographers because a lot of them are better than some pros 😅 Hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
I've never felt that APS-C was inferior to full-frame sensors by much. It's simply the fact that the camera manufacturers make most of their premium-glass for full frame sensors.
PREACH!! For the average RUclipsr who’s not shooting professionally, that Volkswagen works just fine. And anyway it’s not just about the gear but what you can do with it. 💪
And even for a lot of pros a volkswagen is fine... just depends on what your profession is. In case you're a racecar driver... a racecar will work better for you 😅💥🙏🏻
@@k-perspective if you have a Ferrari but dunno how to drive it, you’re gonna crash anyway 🤷🏻♀️ the point is: start with the basics and learn your way up from there. It’s not about the gear but what you can do with it.
The "full frame iq is better" argument is about as dead as Windows Vista. It was viable years ago when the difference in dynamic range and low light capability where more noticeable than it is today. Not that aps-c ever was bad. But what really set them apart (and still does today to some extent) is that many ff-housings where more professionally built in terms of button layout, durability and build quality/image quality of lenses. However these differences have become much more minor during the years due to better built aps-c houses, optics and a metric shit ton of better software both in cameras and for editing. All of this naturraly does not apply to fuji since they are the best, greatest and nicest looking camera systems there is with an unlimited amount of "my dad is better than yours-pontential" #fanboys! 😉
Yeah this is so true...This is like one father need to buy a BUS because have in family 5 kids and need bigger vehicle ... People buy something because they hear from somewhere but actually don't understand differences...bigger is not always better...I like Fuji XT series because when you have 4-5 lenses in your bag is a big difference in weight when you walk around all day. And never miss extra light of FF...Even for wedding is Fuji amazing with f1.4 lenses without problems in lowlight. But FF is better in extreme situations like ISO 10000 but like you said it's not the same if sensor is 10 years old or in 2023 year... there are so many factors for IQ.
In theory, FF and APSC are good at different things, using the right tool for the right job is what counts In practice, manufacturers cripple APSC cameras by holding back features to make them look like entey level cameras and market FF as the advanced device
Some Cinema cameras, the super35mm variants can outright whoop a full frame sensor in video low light. So it really isn't so much the sensor size itself but the level of technology implemented within it. I shoot apsc becuase it cheaper and the quality is within the margin of error. In short one cant tell the different unless they pixel peep.
u're right I have both the cameras nikon D7200 and nikonD750 but the image quality that they produce using kit lenses r the same n later I bought sigma 50-100 f1.8 for my apsc n 70-200 f2.8 for my full frame but believe me apsc camera with apsc lense can blow ur mind ....I both use for wedding photography but I mostly like nikon D7200 with sigma 50-100 f1.8 the deadliest combo ever with the sharpest images.......
YOUR EXPLANATIONS ARE GREAT :) THANK YOU FOR SHARING :) I SO ENJOYED WATCHING THE VIDEO THAT I DID A THUMB-UP ABOUT THE VIDEO AND SUBSCRIBED TO THE CHANNEL :) THANK YOU FROM ISRAEL :)
The full frame or 35mm film stock was invented by Eastman Kodak in 1934. It's not a question if it's better. It's the standard that was set and continues to this day in full frame and film. Since a larger sensor is more expensive the smaller sensor size was developed to help design less expensive cameras so that more people could buy digital cameras. The goal was and is today that a person who buys a less expensive camera with a smaller sensor will at some point upgrade to a full frame sensor camera. Then perhaps that person will upgrade to a medium format sensor camera which sells for a much higher price. Both have thier place depending on what a photographer can afford. My first digital camera was a Canon Elph point and shoot, then later my second was a phone with a 1.2 mp camera rudimentary live view. After that it was a used Canon 10D. Each had its place and each had its pros and cons.
A better analogy is telephoto vs wide angle lens as being comparable to full and aps-c. They are tools with specialized abilities. They provide abilities that you the photographer can utilize.
7:49 I don’t think that person, who couldn’t pay extra 500-1000$ in FF camera in the beginning will be able to invest in full frame lenses after that. So if you have plans to get system with bigger sensor, I’d suggest to save some cash, wait a little and buy camera you really want. Because switching systems will be more expensive in the end
I'm very happy with my APSC Sony camera but as a outdoor travel kind of guy, I have to admit that I really do miss the ease of using my Micro 4/3 Olympus. The images were great and the size of the kit was much easier to lug around. Will I go back to M4/3? Not anytime soon but maybe someday. Will I shift over to FF? NO; too expensive, too big, and too heavy for no discernable advantage for me. Great vid, thanks!
I am the same in a way. I have been using Sony APS-C cameras since NEX-5 days (now use an a6300) but purchased an Olympus EM5 MII a couple of years ago. It's fantastic for travel ! Rugged, weather resistant (as is the affordable zoom lens I used), portable and really ergonomic by virtue of its dials and quick menus. The image quality outside is just as good as that of the Sony, handheld even better at times due to its great stabilization which allows for a slower shutter speed handheld. On top of that. it's a nicer looking camera than any in the Sony lineup. Olympus also has a great lens lineup and can also use Panasonic and other Micro 4/3 lenses with no adaptor. I find myself reaching for the Olympus over the Sony more often than not now. I must admit that, having used this camera, I am a bit bewildered as to why Olympus sales were not higher and they had to sell off their camera division. I do like the Sony as well but am somewhat frustrated with their lack of support for the APS-C format in terms of lens development. Almost feel like they purposely neglect it to get people to buy into the more expensive (profitable) full frame line. Like you, I have no intention of going to full frame.
I'm not a pro photographer but I am an engineer, so, from that alternative point of view: A full-frame sensor has 2.3 times the area of an APS-C sensor, so the full-frame sensor gathers light about 1 EV above the APS-C sensor. This means that, for the same shot and settings, you might use ISO 3200 on APS-C and ISO 1600 on full-frame. For corner cases where noise is a bit of an issue, that means _some_ advantage for full-frame, but not a lot really. And most of the time you won't be shooting in conditions that make noise a problem anyway. There is probably a handful of situations where only the full-frame camera will allow you to set the shutter speed you need and not crank up the ISO too much. Indoor sports photography, maybe? Open bar at a wedding? Now, if we consider what kind of quality we can get for the *same budget* on APS-C versus full-frame, then there is simply no question: you can get a very advanced APS-C camera with in-body stabilization and a fairly good lens for the price of a much older and basic full-frame camera with an entry-level lens.
Never understood all the Reddit like flexing on someone’s camera setup, whether it’s a Samsung, iPhone or DSLR it’s all about the photos you take not exactly how much you’ve spent on your setup
i shoot both apsc and full frame. the full frame benefits are more apparent when i shoot indoor sports. other than that....looks about the same to me in good lighting.
It all comes down to real-world usage. If you’re just a hobbyist, a pea-sized sensor on a phone works just fine. If you’re a hobbyist but love taking bird photos with crazy long telephoto lens, you would prefer FF. If you’re a professional news photographer, you wouldn’t be using a small sensor, would you? I realised not many pros discuss on real world usage. It’s mostly “which is better” topics etc…
APS-C cameras also benefit sports and wildlife photographers with the 1.5-1.6x crop effectively extending the reach of telephoto lenses. Using an example from Canon one could buy a EOS M6 Mk II and get full AF with tracking at 14fps at 32.5 megapixels, all for about say $900 and then buy Canon's professional grade 200/2.8 L full frame prime lens for less than $1000. The 1.6x crop factor means that 200mm lens will have the same "reach" as a 320mm on Full Frame. To match that on full frame one would have to buy either the R6 or R5 depending on pixel count 20mp vs 45mp those are $2500 and $3900 respectively. Now the 200/2.8 L will work fine on full frame bodies, but to get the "reach" the full frame camera needs the 300/2.8 L which starts at $4600 for the old one and $6000 for the newer one. I have both APS-C and Full frame and I'll say that the full frame is better quality BUT in the comparison above the full frame setup is 5 times more money and it is NOT 5 times better. In fact the weight of the M6 Mk II with a 200/2.8 is about 1/4 the weight of an R5 with a 300/2.8. Another excellent advantage to APS-C is the ability to utilize the Metabones (others also) speed booster focal reducers to trade focal length for a stop of extra speed. This only works for mirrorless APS-C cameras taking full frame DSLR lenses. That 200/2.8 becomes a 142/2. There isn't really much options for full frame as any such adapters would have to be used on medium format lenses and those don't really offer much in the way of speed and selection. I use my M6 Mk II for all my travel and hiking and other things where the compact size more than offsets any small difference in quality. For my serious work I use my R5.
Just about a month ago, I printed one of the shots I've taken with my Fuj XT3 at 60"*20" and I was quite hesitant, as I was afraid, that the image would look bad at that size, as it was shot with an APSC. Now it's hanging in my room and every time I look at it I'm just laughing at my past self, because the print looks so stunning. Could there have been more detail with a fullframe or even medium camera? Sure! But when I look at the picture from even 3 feet away I don't even recognize that... I was actually thinking about switching to medium, but not anymore. That print saved me a lot of money xD
It depends a lot on what you're doing. But, it's a bit of BS to prefer the crop factor bodies because they frame tighter. I personally bought that BS for quite a while, but the fact of the matter is that you can crop to a similar amount with a full frame if you like, it's just that you're not tied to doing so. And because you've got the rest of the pixels, you have the option of moving the cropped region around the frame or cropping more or less as appropriate. If you can't afford the FF and don't mind or prefer the cropped sensor, that's fine, but the croppedness of it isn't really a particular benefit. You get more or less exactly the same image that you would have gotten from a FF sensor of similar photosite density cropped to the same size.
Aan je “Volkswagen” te horen ga ik er vanuit dat je Nederlandstalig (en Vlaams) bent. Dus mijn reactie dan ook maar in het Vlaams. Het was wel eens interessant om het verschil Full Frame vs APS-C zo duidelijk uitgelegd te krijgen. Ik heb er toch wat van opgestoken. Jaren geleden stapte ik over van de analoge fotografie met een Nikon F90X naar de digitale fotografie. Om met mijn bestaande lenzen verder te kunnen viel mijn keuze terug op Nikon. De D200 deed zijn intrede in mijn fototas. Van het verschil Full Frame of APS-C (DX) formaat was mij toen nog niet veel bekend. Ik was met mijn nieuwe camera en lenzen zeer tevreden. Later werd me duidelijk wat Full Frame was, en ik moet toegeven dat ik ook wel eens droomde van een Full Frame. Maar die dingen waren wel extra duur, dus bleef het bij een DX. Enkel de 24-120 mm lens verloor wel wat aan breedhoek wat ik wel spijtig vond, 24 mm werd 36mm. Maar de telewerking daarentegen ging van 120 naar 180 mm, en dat vond ik dan wel weer interessant. Een tijdje later kocht ik ter vervanging van de 24-120 een 16-85mm DX zoomlens. En die 16mm (+crop 1,5) geeft mij nu ook een beeldhoek van 24mm Full Frame. Voor mijn fotografie vind ik die 24 mm breedbeeldhoek voldoende. Lager, breder dus, hoeft voor mij niet. Met mijn 70-200 / 2,8 telelens, en de 1,5 crop, kom ik meteen al op 300mm, en neem daarbij nog eens een 2x teleconverter dan beschik ik maximaal over 600 mm. Ruim voldoende voor mij. De D200 nadert intussen de 20jaar en ik denk erover om deze te vervangen. Het idee van de Full Frame heb ik al lang laten varen, de nieuwe wordt dus zeker weer een DX. Waarschijnlijk wordt het de opvolger van de D200, de D500. Maar eerst nog even wat sparen.
If you don't agree, that's fine! Let's talk in the comments👇🏻
Just be nice. I'm nice. My subscribers are all super nice... I just want everyone to be nice to each other... 🤷🏻♂️Mkay? Thanks! 😎🙏🏻
It's more like saying, apples are better than oranges! Good video
@@Geert890 Exactly! 😄🙏🏻
@@Geert890 I agree
Actually I subscribed to your channel because of this video, I totally agree with what you're saying, and the advise at the end regarding lenses is SUPER, a lot of issues regarding low light for example can be fixed using better lenses.. date the camera and marry the lens!
Excellent video. Thanks for posting this! I'm a working pro shooting FF and crop, depending on the circumstances and the client. Everyone is always happy. Life is good.
Couple of additions from a fellow-pro:
(1) when you compare sensors, make sure you compare same generations. A 10y old full-frame sensor may indeed not have better low-light performance compared to a brand-new designed aps-c sensor. Same for medium format compared to full-frame. Note that most sensor manufacturers focus R&D on full-frame first, and then apply that to aps-c later.
(2) the advantage of ‘not using the full image-circle’ with an aps-c sensor is only valid when you buy and use full-frame lenses on an aps-c camera. E.g. Fuji XF and Canon EOS-M lenses are designed for aps-s and have a smaller image-circle, so these lack that advantage compared to e.g. Nikon, Sony and Leica. By the way, when using full-frame lenses on an aps-c camera, you largely loose the size/weight/cost advantage of aps-c.
(3) the shallower DoF of full-frame is due to the difference in focal lenght when applying the same field of view. So an aps-c lens of 56mm (85mm) equiv. has a DoF associated with a 56mm lens compared to the shallower DoF of a native 85mm full-frame lens. The longer the focal lenght, the shallower the DoF, assuming same aperture and distance to subject.
So, when comparing apples with apples, a full-frame camera has indeed better low-light performance (or higher resolution), better dynamic range, greater tonality and shallower DoF compared to an aps-c camera. Consequently a medium format camera usually does even better on these things than a full-frame.
I fully agree that many enthusiast don’t buy what they need and loose themselves in pixel peeping at 200%, rather than develop their creative skills. The camera industry thrives on that ;-)
Buying APS-C lenses almost doesn't make sense anymore. You can't use them on full frame cameras, whereas the opposite is not true. Unless you are absolutely positive that you are never going to switch to full frame, and for that matter, that manufacturers are going to continue making APS-C cameras that you can replace your current one with, you are kind of rolling the dice if you invest heavily at all in APS-C lenses.
Very well said, I wonder why he was talking so generally while technicalities are involved.
Life was great when we all had 35mm cameras (cheap rangefinders to SLRs like Canon and Nikon). We chose from Tri-X, Plus-X and Panatomic-X for black and white photos. For color, we usually chose Kodachrome 25 or 64. Life was so simple then.The difference between them is the speed of the film and how tight the grain is. But I didn't care. I had fun taking photos for work and for pleasure. No one cares, no one pixel peeps. People just like to see pictures of themselves and family members, especially babies.
I would say just for IQ overall first Canon full frame Canon 5D is to me better than ANY! aps-c to date in terms of pure image quality and color depth and pixel sharpnes.. and it's since 2005 if I am not wrong.
Point 2 is not correct, unless you tested the apsc lens on a full frame camera. I used to think the same thing untill i saw some Pentax da (crop lenses) could actually be used on the Pentax k1 (full frame) without cropping too much so depending on the design apsc lenses can have a larger image circle.
It's not strictly true and is dependent on the lens.
In the film era, I shot small format, medium format, and large format.
In the beginning of the digital era, my first digital cameras had thumbnail size sensors. Later, I began shooting cameras with a larger micro 4/3 size sensor. Next, I used cameras with APS-C size sensors. Lastly, I used cameras with full-frame sensors.
For me, the difference in image quality between the APS-C and the full-frame is insignificant to nonexistent.
I agree, it's not about image quality from the sensor. For a long time, Canon and Nikon and Sony don't really make "great" APSC lenses, they make all the L or GM or whatever lenses full frame. Canon and Sony seem to also mostly make the higher end tech only in FF cameras. Especially Canon, if you want the top tier lenses and tech, it's all in FF. But for landscape in daytime? My 80D APSC was very good.
Tokina makes some boss mode crop sensor lenses that run $300… while I like my rf 15-35, it’s totally not even close to being worth $2200…. Lessons learned
A good photographer will be a good photographer regardless of APSC or full-frame. The differences in the formats are about specific use cases where the limitations are more apparent. You can even consider pixel pitch as a useful difference that is often in favour of APSC.
Great video. Nothing wrong with using APSC or M43 for professional work. People were using far inferior equipment not so long ago to even the entry level stuff today and getting incredible shots. Learn the craft first and then get the system that suits your needs and complements your needs. Stop reading forums and watching videos on all the latest equipment and instead go out there and practice. You will know what gear you need when you start honing your craft.
I agree, some of my best images come from my Olympus camera's...but for my pro work I need a FF body, it is just more workable in DR, crop ability, and details for large commission and weddings when you often don't have idea scenario's. Although I have gotten some great wedding and portrait captures with apsc as a backup to a full framer. I have even got some adorable wedding images with a phone! :)
It matters more how well the camera works for you. I love my olympus for how it handles. Does the job really well.
I went for Sony's APSC lineup...even though I really liked a friend's A7C. I'm pretty sure I'll stick to APSC since I take it with me when hiking and camping which often entails me climbing up over mountains. The size and weight savings definitely helps and the cheaper body and lens cost helps me save some money to go towards my outdoor gear.
I love this so much. When I was first getting started people are used to try to do a gear flex on me. Just because they had the most expensive gear. I shot with a crop body for a long time before upgrading to a full frame I’ve even shot on point and shoot because that’s what I had with me and believe it or not I’ve sold professional shots from my point and shoot just because I had the eye for a shot and the subject I was shooting loved them and wanted to use them commercially. I think people tend to forget that a lot of what you do as a photographer is based on learning how to use any camera you have, having an eye for what you’re shooting, and knowing how to get the shot. As a professional today I still see folks trying to do that gear flex on new photographers and I’m always willing to talk to new photographers and tell them to shoot with what they have and get good at shooting with what they have. You don’t need to have the most expensive new camera as soon as it comes out. Invest in great glass, bodies come and go, the glass will sustain itself.
Spot on Diane. Somehow folks tend to talk about a cameras shortcomings rather than it’s strengths. I’m willing to bet you’ve taken som great shots from your phone as well. Haven’t we all? Lol.
This video and this comment by Diane is pure golden truth.
I feel that alot of people trained and untrained to the eye, professional and beginner will find that unless they are doing large prints, and even if so sometimes, still may not be able to tell which of the two cameras took the photos, as far as the technology itself goes, when looking at a finished product...
Lenses truly are so important. The bodies do really come and go. As far as the bodies, just try to make sure it has the features you may need for the style/type of photos/subjects you will be interested in taking pictures of in my opinion.
The lenses in my opinion do the heavy lifting, they carry the work, and they get the rest done. Don't underestimate the power of your lenses.
I believe it's your skill and ability first, your lenses second, and the body third...contrary to what many believe..
The lense is the extension to the body, the bodies limbs. The lenses are what reaches for the bodies goals.. the body can have all the technology in the world yet still no potential at all without the lens.
Pick a body that have settings for your line of work and pick lenses, compensate, compliment, and accomplish what you are going for..it's really about the lenses..people are putting some pretty big lenses over some pretty cropped sensors....it's not about the size, it's about the motion of the ocean...
Especially if you're a beginner; why buy a 1000cc Supersport when you can't even fully harness and push a 600cc super sport to its maximum potential on the tarmac?...to be skilled and proficient enough to push a 600cc sport bike to its limits is more fun and freeing, than to have more power than you know what to do with, and not skilled enough to fully and competently control and hone. Power you can't even utilize...
I believe it is the same with any trade/art...what is a $100 paint brush to someone who can not paint, is the equivalency of $20 brush.
It's not that either type of cameras is better than the other, necessarily, they just go about things differently. They solve math equations differently.
I hear beginners Trump themselves all the time by going off of what they hear and have a mentality of "full frame or nothing" and it's truly a limiting and misguided misconception. If that be the reason some curious kid doesn't pick up a camera and start a hobby; that saddens me...and equally, if it be a reason someone is slowing down on starting a new entry level career. I know many others that use cropped, and make thousands of buckos a month delivering professional grade batch, work, lol.. they are not even professionals themselves............
To get a desired effect, you just have to accept that you need to do different math with your lenses.. every camera in the world is limited to its lens no matter what, anyway....
This car takes 91, that car takes 93, another car may be happy on 87octane to preform optimal to its combustion rate..
All cameras are great and fun, and pack their own punch!
This is a fact. I absolutely SUCK at having an eye for a picture. My buddy, uses his cell phone and captures amazing pictures because he has an eye for it. I am definitely trying to learn, but its a talent to some degree that I hope I can figure out someday.
@@DarikStone if u ya talkin photography… yeah. However, video is a whole diff story. Full frames usually have better codecs, fps, etc. There is no 10 bit in Sony apsc, you only get it if you go full frame. For pics, apsc is almost as capable as full frame. Not so much if we talkin video
@@luismoracmyk yes, with that I agree! There's isn't really anything that will make up for that. I would sway someone to full frame if they were getting into any kind of cinematography, or needed a good hybrid, for sure. Great call!
I’m using my m50 for professional video work and only shooting in 1080. As long as the lighting is good the quality is great and the clients like it. No one has asked me what camera I’m using 🤷🏼♂️
Exactly my point! I’ve used my M50 for some client work too (photography) Looked great! 🤷🏻♂️
@@JorisHermans good glass is more important, you could do a video showing how different lenses make different images. Rubbish glass on a full frame v good glass on the m50 😁
@@whahehsushsusksn4884 buy extra battery...im using m50 with extra battery
I had that but there is no good superwides for that camera
@@whahehsushsusksn4884 Battery Grip for Canon M50 oder for Canon RP.
Unfortunately, ours is an expensive passion, and the majority of amateur photographers don't have anything near the financial resources to acquire their dream kit. The good news is that passion for photography, combined with lots of practice (a combination that is often referred to as skill) is everything when it comes to enjoying the fruits of your efforts. Open your eyes, follow your soul, get lost in the moment, and hone your technique. Above all else, shoot for your own gratification; don't judge your results on what you think other people will like. This is my humble opinion.
Thank you so much ❤️ !!
Pete, you are so right in your assessment.
Finally someone that knows what they are talking about when comparing APS-C vs fullframe!
The only time you will see a major difference when you zoom in 200% into your picture, and even then, the difference is really small and not sometimes not noticeable.
Just sold all my full frame gear and completely switched to APSC, the Fuji xt4. I understand the limitations of the apsc sensor but they’re really not as limiting as you think. Having a system specifically designed around APSC like Fuji is the best choice as now I have access to super nice glass that’s specifically designed for apsc and as such is smaller, lighter but still just as premium as full frame glass. It just makes sense to me and it makes no sense that 95% of the newer photographers I meet seem to be aiming towards eventually upgrading to full frame. Apsc is absolutely good enough for professional work and for some photographers, the better choice.
i did the same switch from canon ff to fuji xf 8 years ago and never looked back. enjoy the light weight and performacne of the fuji xf system. none of my clients really noticed the difference. that said i still enjoy shooting 120 on a hasselblad 500 sometimes ;)
fuji xt4 user here, we will prove them wrong watch us🤟🏼🤟🏼
As an amateur photographer, the Fuji xt3 meets most of my needs.
After years of playing with different cameras and systems, I eventually stuck with Fuji. Works the best for my style, but I will admit that to me a 50mm on a FF just has a certain look that I love.
Advantages like better IBIS (APSC sensors are easier to stabilise), smaller cameras with less weight and the additional reach you get from telephoto lenses make APSC camera significantly better for certain applications. Like travel, sports & wildlife photography. Full frame is better for portraits, higher resolution large format printing & some product work. But Joris is right, the differences are far less than you'd expect.
Thanks for your input, Tom! Exactly my point. 🙏🏻💥
The little difference on a print or a portrait because of dof will make the difference for sure. Some super high level professional portrait photographers working in the fashion industry will NEVER use an apsc
One of the best videos explaining this because it skips the technicalities and gets to the point. Good job buddy
The car analogy I always make, is that everyone keeps telling me to buy the Porsche, because it is the faster car, despite the fact that the the speed limit is 120km/h, the Porsche has no seat to speak of in the back, eats tyres, guzzles gas, makes an immense racket and drains your wallet as far as road tax is concerned, while the other car gets me there in a comfortable, affordable and safe way. Maybe I like to listen to music when I am driving, undisturbed by engine and tyre noise. So, after all, maybe the Porsche is not the car for me.
This absolutely spot-on. I don't think anyone has explained it better. I was guilty of going full frame when possibly I should have considered aps-c. My only redemption was that I didn't buy a new body, although the glass was new.
I was shooting with film previously, then after taking a break I moving to digital.
But it's like a drug, you're always searching to gain the satisfaction you feel when you see the end result. Maybe it's just one picture you've taken that day, and it turns out even better than when you reviewed it on your camera.
Just moved to an Aps-c Canon Camera, from a Full frame because I wanted a lighter-weight / cheaper set-up and you have answered all the queries I had about the differences - Thank you. Plus, you answered some considerations I hadn't thought about.!! Your style is great and I like your humour. So all I need to do is move slightly further away from the subject - no problem and probably an advantage in not crowding a subject. Keep it up.!
Another thing to know about crop factors: It changes with aspect ratio. 16:9 images cropped from 3:2 sensors will have a 5% crop added. This makes Canon's APS-C crop in video 1.7x.
Generally on video one considers the width. It would make little sense to say that full fed e ggas crop.
Great video! I just hate the marketing push sony or canon are putting on FF; they failed miserably vs fuji or even MFT with their APS-C lineups so now theyre making FF 'affordable', so they get some of that sub-$2000 market back. People should understand how this is mostly marketing ripoff.
Marketing ripoff... yes! 🙏🏻💥
which APSC mirrorless would you suggest which is bang for every buck? It will be my first camera and don't want to spend too much for FF just yet. I might little bit professional work if I get.
It's a fact that full frame sensors is better in low light :) You have to compare sensors from the same day and age! But even old fullframe sensors outperforms new crop sensors, for the most part.
interesting ....
@@bartden9668 I like crop sensors as well 😊 The one in my Fujifilm Xpro3 is amazing.. but it's a fact that in low light fullframe is about 1 stop better. Just physics..
Ehm… no
Better AT WHAT in low light?
@@Nessunego about 1 EV stop better or half the nnoise.A fullframe sensors is 2,3 times larger than a croped one.
True! I always thought that full-frame was better until I bought the Fuji X-T4. This camera has changed my photography skills in a positive way.
Why?
Sure until you do low light situation then cameras cry for help, no natural look if you add in artificial light, No offense FUJI are really good and I've used one the XT3 but decided to ditch it for the EOS R coz Lowlight sucks. But for me as a Videographer that shoots wedding its not the best run&Gun, but for the price though its great.
@@exogendesign4582 I agree on that! This is why I kept my 1DX3. 😉
Crop factor is relative to a persons previous experience. To a person who has never shot full frame there is no crop factor in regards to APS-C.
exactly !!!! As an APS-C shooter, full frame equivalence means nothing to me in practice. I relate to the lens focal lengths as they behave on my (APS-C) cameras, not on how they would behave on a full frame camera which I don't own and never have. if I ever bought a full frame camera I would need to think the other way (APS-C equivalence) until I developed a feel for the full frame camera's field of view.
like me too poor for full frame camera although thinking getting over decade old Canon legendary D5 used
@@gabithemagyarhow about in regards to how the lens performs in relation to what the specs say. For Example a 35mm, 2.8?
Agree to a good extent. I am just an enthusiast specially into bird photography and Sony A6400 + 70-350 mm lens gives me 525mm equivalent and unless its very early in the morning (when sun is still near horizon); I am having a perfect combo at a price which is cheaper than any FF camera body only.
Nice I have the same set up. The only thing I don't like about that lens is not a fixed aperture when zooming in. I also do some bird photography and am thinking on getting the arii and use the aspc mode with the lens and see what I get.
NO! You don't get a 525mm equivalent - you get 350mm. You can't change the laws of physics. A 350mm lens will produce an image of a bird of the same size at the same distance, no matter what size the sensor is. It's a CROPPING factor, not a magnification factor.
@@migranthawker2952 You seem like a Nazi.
@@migranthawker2952 But an APS-C sensor has a much higher pixel density than a FF sensor would at the same total number of pixels. So an APS-C image is not "just a crop" of a same-megapixel FF image, as that would imply that the APS-C image somehow looses resolution, which it doesn't. It's a full-resolution image, just "zoomed in" to cover just the central part of what the lens sees. Which is basically the same as magnification. Hence, the usefulness of equivalent focal lengths as a measure in the first place.
@@migranthawker2952 You can also think of it like this: a 32 megapixel APS-C image with a cropping factor of 1.6 (like on a Canon 90D) would be the same as a central crop of a 32*(1.6^2) = 82 megapixel FF image on the same lens. Unless you find a FF camera with 82 megapixels (Canon's FF DSLR's top out at 51 megapixels, for example), you simply won't be able to reproduce the APS-C image by cropping a FF image. In other words, an APS-C image on a 350 mm lens really is "more zoomed in" than any FF image on the same lens could ever be. (Specifically, by 1.6 times if we compared APS-C and FF sensors with the same total pixel count. If a small bird covers 200x200 pixels on a FF sensor, it would cover 320x320 pixels on an APS-C sensor using the same lens, assuming a cropping factor of 1.6 and the same sensor megapixel count.)
there is a precision to be made, because you got a little bit confused here : A lens will always have the same redition of an image, what ever the sensor size is. If you slap the same 35mm lens on a full frame or an APS-C camera, the depth of field, bokeh rendition etc will be the exact same. The angle of view will change.
What make people think that depth of field is bigger on APS-C cameras is because we're talking in equivalent focal lenght.
Depth of field is related to the focal lengh of a lens. The bigger the focal lenght, the shallower the depth of field is. A 35mm lens at f4 will have considerably bigger depth of field than an 85mm lens at the same f stop (we can't really say the same aperture since the "f" number is tied to the focal lenght as well, that's another subject)
So if we're talking about equivalent focal length, let's say 50mm. On a full frame camera you'll use let's say a 50mm f/1.8 lens. On an APS-C camera you'll use a 35mm f/1.8 with an equivalent focal length of 52.5mm.
You'll have the same viewing angle, but the actual focal length is different betweent the two cameras, and depth of field being related with focal lenght, the camera with the bigger focal lenght will have the shallower depth of field, thus the saying "you have shallower depth of field on full frame cameras". if you were to put a 50mm lens on an APS-C camera, you'd get the same depth of field as a full frame with the same lens (maybe even shallower thanks to the pixels being smaller, if the resolution is the same)
If you got blurrier background with the same lens on both cameras, it's because you try to match the frame, but the full frame camera has a wider angle of view so you need to get closer. And the closer to the lens it is, the smaller the depth of field is, that's how optics work
No: ruclips.net/video/hi_CkZ0sGAw/видео.html
Don't leave out Micro Four Thirds! My Olympus and Lumix cameras are still going strong.
You can get good glass for less money (not to mention less bulk and weight) this way, and that's important. If you really need something closer to that full-frame aesthetic, you can adapt glass. I have a Viltrox EF-M2 0.71x speedbooster and a Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 ART lens attached to my Lumix G85. It ends up being equivalent to a 26-50mm f2.4 in full frame. My next lens purchase might either be the Sigma 50-100mm f1.8 (71-142mm f2.4 equivalent) ART or the Olympus 45mm f1.2 (90mm f2.4 equivalent) PRO.
The reason I don't mention m43 is because I have absolutely no experience shooting with it. But I've been told it's great! 😊
I like Both full frame and APS-c. They work well for different things. My very favorite lens "for some unknown reason" is my old Canon 10-18mm ultra wide. I LOVE what I can do with it. But on an APS-C I lose 6 or 7 MM on it, and for a WA lens, that is a huge amount. But with my 24-70 on the APS-C, i get additional length, so that's great. I think it's perfect to have Full Frame, and then an APS-C as a backup and for getting those altered MMs....Great video, joris!
It's true that if you like super wide, FF is a better option. Just have to find what works for you 🤷🏻♂️🙏🏻💥
I do not get your argument of losing 6-7 mm. Are you comparing to some imaginary 10 mm FF lens? Canon does have 11-24 mm for full frame. It just costs ten times what the 10-18 mm does. Closest to the 10-18 mm on full frame is 16-35 mm f/4. It costs three times as much.
The 10-xx APS-C ultrawide are equivalent to 16-xx mm ultrawide on full frame. Those are the affordable and common ultrawide lenses on full frame. The rare 11-xx mm Ultrawides cost easily twice what a compareable f-stop 15/16-xx mm ultrawide costs. Even the new RF 15-35/2.8 is cheaper than the EF 11-24/4.
Something that needs to be considered is size. I got my first 35mm SLR when I was 15 in 1969 but throughout the years I migrated to a 110 camera which used 16mm film and basically looked like a James Bond spy camera. Fact is I have so many photos that never would have been taken if all I had was my SLR because I just wouldn't have been lugging it around in those situations. Even when digital photography began to take over in the late 90's I stayed with the small point and shoot cameras like the Nikon Coolpix line. Of course that genre has been supplanted by the cellphone now but I still hung on with an APSC DSLR because of the portability although it honestly is not so much a difference from a full frame. So in that regard it probably just comes down to cost.
Amen, I bought a Ricoh GRIII to complement my Canon 750d... It has all but replaced it, the DSLR has only gone out for trips where wildlife was my aim
You don't have to calculate the crop factor if you begin with an apsc sensor and stick to it. You get used to the field of view of a specific focal distance and you refer to it when you switch lenses. The reference to full frame was relevant when cropped sensors appeared or is when you transition from crop to FF or any other size.
I've been using APS-C since 2002. I now mostly use full frame. I do like that apsc cameras are generally lighter, but full frame just has so many more benefits.
You speak from the heart bro, i like how you throw everything together. Much appreciated 😂
I use viltrox speed booster + canon 50mm STM lens. I use it for photography and small video. There's this disadvantage of mirrorless is you can't see your subject when using strobe light or flash in studio. I have to crank up ISO to view my subject to fix focus then again come down to take a snap. You are absolutely right about sensors and the image they give out in specific size. I never go above 18 x 15 inch with M50.
I have done tons of studio work with my mirrorless camera and I can see subjects with no issue at all through the EVF when using flash.
Turn the exposure simulation (Expo.simulation) off from the third submenu of the shooting menu. The Canon EF-M 32 mm f/1.4 is likely sharper than the speedbooster + 50 mm. Sigma has also comparable 30 mm f/1.4.
One element that gets forgotten a lot with these kind of videos: FF bodies tend to be treated as more professional bodies by camera manufacturers, and therefore are outfitted with more professional features.
For example, FF bodies tend to get more buttons/knobs/recall options a bigger screen, higher resolution viewfinder, better weather sealing, more features/tech etc. There are also usually more online resources/users who know what they're doing for you to learn from, and sometimes more lens support as well. There are also wide shots you straight up can't get due to the crop factor.
Let's be real. No one is buying a FF body over a crop sensor JUST because of the slight increase in image quality. People with these bodies tend to need the functionality that comes along with the sensor. You don't need to be doing large format prints to reap the benefits of a full frame body, just maybe a knowledgeable enough photographer to benefit from the extra bells and whistles.
Of course there's nothing at all wrong with smaller sensors, they're insanely capable these days, but don't forget you're buying way more than just a slightly larger sensor.
Very true!!
It's about lens options and camera features.
Great video! Less than a year ago (we are now in 2024), I bought a Canon R7 (APSC) after having considered the similarly priced R8 (full frame). The thing is... the R7's cropped sensor is 32.5 MP whereas the R8's full frame sensor is 24 MP. Therefore, it is not always the case that full frame cameras offer a better resolution. Of course, full frame sensors offer other advantages, but since I am mostly interested in landscape photography, I have little use for shallow depth of field (I generally want everything in focus) or low light performance (I can generally use a tripod for longer exposition or exposure bracketing to compensate for APSC's lower dynamic range). I'll probably get a full frame camera some day for more specialized applications, but I could probably get away with an older (and cheaper) model like the Canon RP.
Was a Sony shooter for years, and then sold my A7IV after my girlfriend bought me a Fujifilm x100V for my bday. The colors fuji produce straight outta camera are wonderful! I also noticed very little difference in IQ, Dynamic range, tonality (if any at all). And after using her XT-4, I plan on buying the the X-H2 40 megapixel version in fall.
Me too!
💯 I use both APS-C and Medium format. APS-C for everyday leave in the bag shooting and Medium Format for ultimate quality on dedicated photo sessions… Both are excellent for their purpose.
Agree 100% Thanks for watching 🙏🏻💥
You are simply the best mythbuster of filmmaking on RUclips, thank you! 🙏
Agree!
The charm of full a larger vs small sensor is in the visual field it captures. Note the photos in your newspaper, which show traffic accident, the ambulances, the fire trucks, the highway, accident itself, and a news reporter all in the same shot.
Take a look at old box-camera photos of the "old west" which used HUGE negatives ("sensors") and note their tremendous scope.
Great explanation. Refreshing common sense from a professional. The question I first asked myself in choosing my first DSLR was what am going to use it for (taking pictures obviously)! However it was about the field of photography that determined my choice. I also had to ensure that I could afford good quality lenses. I use both full frame and APS-C formats and print to A3 size. No one who has looked at my work can tell the difference. Listen to this guy before you buy!
Wise words here on the vid and in the comments. I have a Fuji xt4 and x100v and I spent the last 4-6 weeks going round in circles about buying a Leica Q2 for FULL FRAME (maybe replacing the x100v). Having eventually talked myself out of that I then looked hard at the new x-2H. However, I love the traditional lay out of the xt4 so decided to get better lenses, 33mm f1.4 future-proofed just arrived wit the new 56 1.2 WR on order. I’ll wait for the xt5 next year which might well have a 40 mp sensor. Get the best lenses, chose the system that works best for you, go out and take pictures!
one more thing worth pointing out (if nobody has done yet, I can't find in the comments) is that the crop factor can come in handy in certain situations (e.g. wildlife ph.):
using for instance a 300mm lens on FF means actually carrying around a 300mm lens, while on APS-C you could get a similar reach with a smaller lens such as a 200mm,
or, you could still carry an APS-C camera and a 300mm APS-C lens (usually lighter than the ones for FF with same focal length) and have a reach that would require a 450mm lens on a FF.
My Canon m50 and Sigma 16mm f-1.4 lense is the best choose for my RUclips channel!
I love this camera so much! And I'm very happy!
Thank You!
LOVE this video Joris!!! A+ advice, I have a Sony a6400 and absolutely love it, but have been eyeing the Sony A7RIV full frame for a bit. I think your video really made the difference in my decision. I’m going to cop those full frame lenses first, learn how to use them on APS-C, then make the switch when I’m ready. Thanks for the upload!!!
I agree with you. Even accepting than in low light a FF is better, for instance, 1 stop better than a 1.5 cropped sensor of the same generation, when you need depth of field, you must stop down that stop in the FF. For instance, you may take a cropped picture at f/5.6 ISO 800, and at FF you must do it at F/8 ISO1600 for the same shutter speed... The results are the same in quality... This is true in real professional world... In wedding photography, for example. And when you take the budget in account, and you must have a backup camera, that doubles the already doublet budget.
On the flip side, for shallow depth of field pictures you need to stop down a lot less with full frame,in fact you might need a very fast lens for aps-c to achieve the same effect which can be very expensive and large/heavy.
Use the tool that works best for the job at hand. Everything else being equal (like megapixels, lenses), an APS-C camera is going to get you closer to elusive wildlife and birds, while a full frame is going to give you a more impressive landscape or Milky Way shot. Otherwise, a lot of the inherent differences, such as noise and low light performance issues, can be greatly mitigated by firmware and post software.
True on traditional cameras but many modern full frame cameras have very high megapixel counts. Remember it is the pixel density, not the crop factor that matters as one can always crop in post.
@@okaro6595 True, but many APS-C cameras are pretty high megapixel as well, meaning you have the advantage of cropping PLUS the advantage of being (seemingly) closer to begin with. An example, the Canon R5 in APS- C mode gives you about 17 megapixels. Not much more cropping can be done. The R7 is already "cropped" to APS- C size and gives you 32.5 megapixels. Quite a bit more cropping can be done. Also, an APS-C camera, even one with a fair amount of megapixels is going to be way cheaper than a super high megapixel full frame. I generally like having both a full frame and an APS-C in my bag.
Another consideration is file size. 45, 50, 60, 80 megapixel files become increasingly more difficult to work on, requiring more computing power and more and bigger hard drives. Maybe not a concern for a professional, but certainly can be for a hobbyist.
Superb! You are so on the money. I see so much gear snobbery, by people that do not understand these simple facts.
Thanks for watching! 🙏🏻💥
If you’re a bokeh addict then sure go full frame...i still use a 6d but i have no problem going back to apsc again
That would be me but then again I increase bokeh in post
Bokeh addict is the novice, and after he has spent mosto of his revenue in ff camera and lenses he come to the conclusion that is pure bullshit. Buy a telephoto for an aps-c and you’ll get all the bokeh you want for 1/3 of the price. And then start stopping it down becouse photos are not organic but only very annoying for your eyes with too much blurriness
There is so much misinformation about photography on the net. it's so pleasant to come across someone who actually knows what they are talking about. great video.
I am beginner at RUclips, have been posting videos since a year and I started with Insta360 Go2, now using combination of iPhone and Insta 360go2, very excited for ordering a Sony ZV E10 (APSC) Camera to improve the quality! Great video! ☺️👏
I shoot classic/vintage lenses, for that reason I bought a full frame Sony A7II because all lenses are sharper toward the center you lose a lot of the character that those lenses produce. The best example I can give is that it's harder to get a Helios 44-2 lens to swirl on a cropped sensor than it is on a full frame. If you don't care about such minute detail, go APS-C of even micro 4/3.
Thanks for the comment 🙏🏻
This is the best and very clear explanation of full frame and Aps lens. Now, I just be content with my mirrorless camera. Thank you for sharing this video. One of your supporter now.
After a decade of using Fuji bodies for work & play, I started using Sony FF and very quickly fell in love with the image quality, dynamic range, video focus tracking, build quality etc etc. I don’t think it’s enough to just say they are “different”.
i did some comparison between fuji and nikon and this was so impressing, i will never change to fuji. i can't see any real advantage using the fuji. it's not even smaller if you compare it in a fair way.
I 100% Agree with this, I did digital media in university, and to get me through it I bought a Canon 77D. It was a good size, light, and did everything I needed at the time. As I got more and more serious about photography I started pouring money into better lenses (Lenses make far more difference than bodies towards image quality). Honestly some of the pictures I took with the camera I was shocked at and still am. As I had the perception of this is a "lower-end camera". Since then I have moved onto a Canon R6 for a few reasons, mainly to have 1080@120 / 4k60, dual card slots, and eye-tracking. I am currently getting more into video and wanted to get a camera that was all round more serious. In terms of image quality though I couldn't tell a difference really. It really is a matter of needs and what area you wanna focus on, just do plenty of research and you'll be golden :D
Full frame is objectively better under every circumstance, except if you need range or small form factor. That being said - It doesn't really matter. If you're new, young or broke. Get APS-C. If you got money, is a professional or rich, get Full Frame. Also, I'd rather have a newer Sony APS-C because of the features than an older Full Frame lacking newer features. I use A7rIV and a6400 profesionally. Both are great. Clients can't tell the difference - but full frame produce better results (more dynamic range, less noise, more depth of field).
Great comment! I've been using ff for past 15 plus years but recently picked up a apsc camera for travel. I'm getting old and as much as I like f1.2 lens, I'm bot carrying those for travel and street
Interesting assessment. Your comparison could also be applied to medium format vs. full frame. For most photographers, the real question is what final image size and medium you plan to create. Most users can get by with a smartphone camera if it is used for social media online. A larger sensor is probably better if it is a large print. Don't fall into the "bigger is better" trap - it's an expensive lesson.
I recently purchased a Canon 90D, which has an APS-C size sensor, and I am blown away! The detail is amazing, and the low light capability is phenomenal!
I’ve just bought my 90D and this is what I was worried about. What lenses do you use for low light?
@@jaysfarrell I have several primes, but my 90D came with a 18-135 kit lens, and I have been pleasantly surprised with it! It doesn't have a wide maximum aperture, but I can easily shoot at 3200 and 6400 iso, so it is turning out to be a great travel lens.
@@robertmccutchan5450 I have that lens and I like it too - just haven’t had a chance to try it out to it’s full potential yet
@@jaysfarrell It's actually a lot sharper than I thought it would be, and it is the first lens I have had with image stabilization. I just took a trip to Colorado and that is the only lens and camera I took with me. I never thought once I wish I would have brought anything else. I set the max iso at 6400 and just shoot mostly in aperture priority .....I don't worry about iso anymore. I use darktable for editing, and it does an amazing job with de-noise.
Take my +1 EV dynamic range and give me that half sized lenses.
I used to do APS-C on portrait and product shots and they look just fine. Couple years ago I switched to fullframe only because I was tired of always calculating the crop factor and, most importantly, wasn't able to really do some super wide angle shots. For super wide angle shots I mean something around 11mm to 16mm, basically this is so difficult for crop sensors because of the obvious reasons...
It is just a matter of probably the first 20mm difference I think. I wasn't able to do something below 20mm on APS-C a few years ago, now I am able to do crazy 14mm shots on my fullframe body. Other than this everything is basically the same. For beginners I think it is totally fine to buy any camera, but it is definitely important to actually try out different cameras and different lens and think about what kind of photo will be taken.
Nice video and great opinion BTW! Although I stopped thinking about this since I got my fullframe, this video that showed up on my feed really got me back in the days when I was struggling about wide angle shots and busy calculating everything with 1.6...
In reality, there is good aps-c lenses. For example, Tokina 11-16 2.8 is a good wide angle aps-c lens with a fov equivalent to 16,5-24
Then, you can have a wide angle lens below 20mm
My Nikon D500 takes amazing low light photos, and paired with the Tamron 18 - 400 mm ,the composition possibilities are limitless.
If ultimate image quality is your goal, then the larger the sensor, the better - quite seriously. It's not a question of the number of megapixels. That's a separate topic.
Compare, for example, the image quality - not specifically the detail revealed - between a 20 megapixel full frame camera, and 24 megapixel DX camera.
The full frame image is going to be much easier on the eyes, especially when the dynamic range of light is greater. Greater shadow detail, etc.
Then compare it to the highest megapixel phone camera of the variety which has a seriously tiny sensor from a few years back.
I didn't buy our first digital. It was gifted to my wife. When it self destructed... I was forced to make a purchase. I picked up a Nikon D-7200. I didn't know what a crop sensor was. I liked the camera... so did my wife. That is the camera I still shoot. Its kind of like drag racing... "run what you brung". It is just fine with me. That camera is better at taking pictures than I am at being a photographer. So the problems with my pictures is user malfunction... mostly. This video makes me feel like everything is fine... just fine.
I haven't seen yet an apsc sensors that outperforms even a decade old Sony A7s in terms of high ISO performance. Maybe it would be a case if we had a modern, low pixel desnity apsc sensors with less megapixels, but I haven't seen any recently.
So you have more noise on a sensor, and at the same time, in most cases, slower apertures, and 1.5 multuplied focals, which require higher shutter speeds. That is, unless you uses hyper fast apsc lenses, like f0.95, which do exist, but most of them are manual. While I love an ability to have a much smaller and ligher setup with apsc, it does comes with a substantial tradeoff in a low light performance.
One needs to look at the dynamic range (Quantum efficiency) particularly landscape or even abstract shooting. Full frame and particular more recent camera have crept up where medium format lead given there larger pixels. To know the sensor, quality a good bench mark is DXO value
Of course, other user camera features are changing rapidly and APS camera with live streaming may be batter. However, I have both APS and full frame and yes the sensor/pixel size does matter particularly is that is one's passion so getting the pictures right are better done one time - again it matters what size, cropping and contract needs but equally noise added in processing. Full frame are much better , lets be truthful
some things that fellow beginners would like to know is that it’s easier to get more reach with apsc sensor
firstly get a 24-70 and a 70-200 f2.8 whatever suits you and your budget then buy a 2x teleconverter essentially you get like 600mm max focal length for the cost and weight of maybe a 300mm at best. Performs roughly the same as a full frame with a 300mm and 2x teleconverter
Also many people want that crop factor for more "zoom" and pixel density when it comes to wildlife or macro photography. So yeah, it's just a preference. Full frame cameras now have the ability to go into "APS-C" mode which is a big appeal to me. Giving you more flexibility and the best of both worlds in one camera. That's really why I want the Sony a7iv
You do not get more zoom or pixel density in APS-C mode. In the following examples, I'll discuss two of Nikon's sensors, a 23.6x15.6mm APS-C sensor (DX) and a 35.9x23.9 Full Frame Sensor (FX) .. but ... round these number off to 24x16 and 36x24, for simplicity. (Crop factor of 1.5)
In APS-C mode, all the camera does is block out most of your sensor (55% on a 1.5 crop and 61% on a 1.6 Crop). The image saved to memory is just the middle chunk read from the full frame sensor. This means that if you have an FX camera with a 36x24mm sensor, only the pixels in the middle 24mmx16mm are utilised. If you are using an FX lens, then all you have done is throw away 55% of your image. You would have achieved exactly the same result if you had taken the shot in FX mode and zoomed and cropped in post. If you are shooting Wildlife or Macro, then stick with the full frame mode - you might capture something towards the edge of the image that you might have otherwise missed, and you have more control of the crop in post.
There is also no more pixel density. If the FX sensor has 42MP, then in DX mode, you are only using the 18MP in the middle. The density does not change. You do not switch from 42MP on a 36x24 sensor to 42MP on a 24x16 sensor. The sensor is fixed, so its density is fixed. All that happens is that the outer 24MP are effectively turned off.
The only real advantages of APS-C mode, that I can think of, are as follows:
1 - When using a DX lens, much of the image will be black, like looking down a tube. Using APS-C mode throws away the outer edge of pixels, and saves space on your SD card. You will most likely crop that part of the image away in post anyway, so no point in storing it on the card when you take the shot.
2 - When using a DX lens, the tube view will be odd to look at. Using APS-C mode shows you what your image would look like, cropped, making it easier to compose.
3 - Your "Straight Out Of Camera" photos will look like real photos since the camera auto-crops for you.
4 - Images in the optical view finder will be zoomed ... but is that an advantage vs throwing away pixels? Usually not, unless, as you say, its for wildlife or Macro, where the extra zoom would help with fine focus adjustments. I would counter this by saying that If you shoot using live view, then you can zoom the live view whilst still shooting in full frame and not lose any of the pixels. No need for APS-C mode at all.
For the record, I have just switched to an FX camera, from a DX camera. All my lenses (except one) are FX, and I do shoot in DX mode when using the DX lens because of reason number 2 that I listed above. So whilst APS-C mode is not "totally pointless", if you only had FX lenses, I'd argue that it is.
Indeed, I use APS-C for wildlife and macro photography, FF for the rest. Cellphone for daily use and pocket superzoom for vacations.
@@MO-hq4iz TBH, you can do that, but the main benefit you get out of the APS-C for wildlife is a typically lighter body. You can always crop the FF by 1.5x or 1.6x and get more or less exactly the same result you would have gotten, but with the added benefit of being able to crop less or move the cropped region around the image if you like.
A decade or more ago, the price difference was sufficient to make it worthwhile to give up a bit of flexibility in order to get the cheaper price, but these days, you can get a used FF body for not that much money.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade you are assuming the first have higher resolution, allowing for more cropping.
Great summary! Just to add on that APSC's lens aperture also need to multiply by 1.5/1.6 to compare with full frame.
exactly.. most people miss that, even professionals! f 2.8 on an apsc is more like an f 4.2 or 4.4 depending on the crop factor.. and most people even don't realize that canon & sony has a different crop factor when it comes to apsc
this is relevant because in certain cases a full frame lens can be cheaper than its apsc equivalent.. for example the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 L full frame lens is cheaper, superior and has a longer reach than the Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G Apsc lens
The biggest reason for me having a high mp FF is the ability to crop. I'm in apsc mode most of the time shooting birds just for the extra reach and then still sometimes crop. A 24ish mp apsc would not allow this. My camera in apsc is 18mp which is totally acceptable
This made me feel proud to use Crop sensor camera. I have over 5 years only used that and even with my new camera is a crop sensor and I love it. Thanks
His explanation is very precise, convincing, and educational..
The most honest photographer I've ever known! In my country, we have a well-known saying: All roads lead to Full-frame. But you know, I think that's so shallow. The naive people just comprehend that with herd-y tendency. As you said, they buy what you want, not what they need. So that's why I've loved my 80D with 35mm f1.4L badly. Actually, I've got my countless masterpieces with that combo. Thank you so much once again!
I bet you’ll like my matest video too 😉 just dropped it 💥
@@JorisHermans definitely!
So if I am shooting a boar in a forest in early morning on a 1.5 crop at 300mm, assuming I bought a full frame for the same job, I would need a 450mm lens, my question is, would the fact of a longer lens mean higher ISO and therefore cancel out the better ISO performance of the full frame camera because of having to use a longer lens?
I shoot mainly vintage lenses. Now I own both Fuji and Sony A7ii. I bought the Sony cause they are cheap these days and I wanted to shoot my vintage lenses at their native FOV and characteristics that you will not get on APSC sensors. I am a bokeh junkie so FF just works better for me in that respect, shallower DOF. Case in point, the swirly bokeh produced by the Helios 44 is just not the same on the Fuji as it is on the Sony. The APSC sensor crops a lot of the edge detail out and you have to back up with the Fuji to get the same FOV which does not produce the same bokeh. Love my Fuji, but in some cases, the Sony A7ii is just better for my purposes anyway.
Dear Joris:
I watched your video. I understand APSC is different than full frame. You’ve used both and you are currently using full frame. There are some differences but overall are similar. Which sensor do you prefer and why?
I am clear as to why I use APSC. Like Ruaan, I’m a Fuji user. Simply stated, it Meets my needs. 1st and foremost, as you stated in your video, it is lighter than full frame. Many times it is also smaller too. A camera is a tool. We should select the right tool for the right job. The image quality meets my needs. The low light quality meets my needs. The price meets my needs. As a street photographer, I can’t se schlepping around a FF body & lens al day. I imagine my neck and shoulder appreciate my sensor choice.
I have no desire for a full frame sensor body or lens. I’m glad it is available for those people that do require that size sensor. Glad we have a choice. I sometimes use micro43 and love my Panasonic gear. Your mileage may vary.
Mask on Nurse Marty
Currently I love the 12mp full-frame sensor of my Sony A7S III. It's not so much because it's full-frame but because of the capabilities of the sensor and the camera. I would be just as happy if it would be a small size sensor. Thing is, in the mirrorless and dslr world, they usually put FF sensors in high end cameras. So cameras that also have weather sealing, durable body and design... things like that. That's also a reason why a lot of professionals end up with full frame cameras. And in those cases that a full-frame sensor has a small advantage, it usually takes a pro to get to the point where it actually matters. Not saying that hobby photographers are bad photographers because a lot of them are better than some pros 😅 Hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
Boght a used Nikon D3200 with an 18-55 F/3.5 and a Helios m44 52mm F/2 and i'm loving the experience.
I've never felt that APS-C was inferior to full-frame sensors by much. It's simply the fact that the camera manufacturers make most of their premium-glass for full frame sensors.
PREACH!! For the average RUclipsr who’s not shooting professionally, that Volkswagen works just fine. And anyway it’s not just about the gear but what you can do with it. 💪
And even for a lot of pros a volkswagen is fine... just depends on what your profession is. In case you're a racecar driver... a racecar will work better for you 😅💥🙏🏻
@@JorisHermans I'd race you in a VW. LOL.
@@jaimetan then get ready to loose against ferrari forever .....lol
@@k-perspective if you have a Ferrari but dunno how to drive it, you’re gonna crash anyway 🤷🏻♀️ the point is: start with the basics and learn your way up from there. It’s not about the gear but what you can do with it.
The "full frame iq is better" argument is about as dead as Windows Vista.
It was viable years ago when the difference in dynamic range and low light capability where more noticeable than it is today. Not that aps-c ever was bad.
But what really set them apart (and still does today to some extent) is that many ff-housings where more professionally built in terms of button layout, durability and build quality/image quality of lenses.
However these differences have become much more minor during the years due to better built aps-c houses, optics and a metric shit ton of better software both in cameras and for editing.
All of this naturraly does not apply to fuji since they are the best, greatest and nicest looking camera systems there is with an unlimited amount of "my dad is better than yours-pontential"
#fanboys! 😉
I love how most people watching are so wise and reasonable! 💥👊🏻
@@JorisHermans Wise and reasonable ypu say? I'm sure gonna preserve that compliment with the utmost care! 😍
@@Yupthereitism No it isnt. Just different.
Yeah this is so true...This is like one father need to buy a BUS because have in family 5 kids and need bigger vehicle ... People buy something because they hear from somewhere but actually don't understand differences...bigger is not always better...I like Fuji XT series because when you have 4-5 lenses in your bag is a big difference in weight when you walk around all day. And never miss extra light of FF...Even for wedding is Fuji amazing with f1.4 lenses without problems in lowlight. But FF is better in extreme situations like ISO 10000 but like you said it's not the same if sensor is 10 years old or in 2023 year... there are so many factors for IQ.
In theory, FF and APSC are good at different things, using the right tool for the right job is what counts
In practice, manufacturers cripple APSC cameras by holding back features to make them look like entey level cameras and market FF as the advanced device
Some Cinema cameras, the super35mm variants can outright whoop a full frame sensor in video low light. So it really isn't so much the sensor size itself but the level of technology implemented within it.
I shoot apsc becuase it cheaper and the quality is within the margin of error. In short one cant tell the different unless they pixel peep.
u're right I have both the cameras nikon D7200 and nikonD750 but the image quality that they produce using kit lenses r the same n later I bought sigma 50-100 f1.8 for my apsc n 70-200 f2.8 for my full frame but believe me apsc camera with apsc lense can blow ur mind ....I both use for wedding photography but I mostly like nikon D7200 with sigma 50-100 f1.8 the deadliest combo ever with the sharpest images.......
YOUR EXPLANATIONS ARE GREAT :)
THANK YOU FOR SHARING :)
I SO ENJOYED WATCHING THE VIDEO THAT I DID A THUMB-UP ABOUT THE VIDEO AND SUBSCRIBED TO THE CHANNEL :)
THANK YOU FROM ISRAEL :)
Wow huge helped me; i was hellbent on buying a 8 year old full frame because it's full frame and at a discounted price.
The full frame or 35mm film stock was invented by Eastman Kodak in 1934.
It's not a question if it's better. It's the standard that was set and continues to this day in full frame and film.
Since a larger sensor is more expensive the smaller sensor size was developed to help design less expensive cameras so that more people could buy digital cameras.
The goal was and is today that a person who buys a less expensive camera with a smaller sensor will at some point upgrade to a full frame sensor camera.
Then perhaps that person will upgrade to a medium format sensor camera which sells for a much higher price.
Both have thier place depending on what a photographer can afford.
My first digital camera was a Canon Elph point and shoot, then later my second was a phone with a 1.2 mp camera rudimentary live view.
After that it was a used Canon 10D. Each had its place and each had its pros and cons.
Thanks, Joris, I just found your channel and really enjoyed this!
canon 5D is very cheap and has great results if you want cheap full frame, old canon lenses are getting cheaper as well
A better analogy is telephoto vs wide angle lens as being comparable to full and aps-c. They are tools with specialized abilities. They provide abilities that you the photographer can utilize.
7:49 I don’t think that person, who couldn’t pay extra 500-1000$ in FF camera in the beginning will be able to invest in full frame lenses after that. So if you have plans to get system with bigger sensor, I’d suggest to save some cash, wait a little and buy camera you really want. Because switching systems will be more expensive in the end
I'm very happy with my APSC Sony camera but as a outdoor travel kind of guy, I have to admit that I really do miss the ease of using my Micro 4/3 Olympus. The images were great and the size of the kit was much easier to lug around. Will I go back to M4/3? Not anytime soon but maybe someday. Will I shift over to FF? NO; too expensive, too big, and too heavy for no discernable advantage for me. Great vid, thanks!
Thanks for sharing and watching! 🙏🏻
I am the same in a way. I have been using Sony APS-C cameras since NEX-5 days (now use an a6300) but purchased an Olympus EM5 MII a couple of years ago. It's fantastic for travel ! Rugged, weather resistant (as is the affordable zoom lens I used), portable and really ergonomic by virtue of its dials and quick menus. The image quality outside is just as good as that of the Sony, handheld even better at times due to its great stabilization which allows for a slower shutter speed handheld. On top of that. it's a nicer looking camera than any in the Sony lineup. Olympus also has a great lens lineup and can also use Panasonic and other Micro 4/3 lenses with no adaptor. I find myself reaching for the Olympus over the Sony more often than not now. I must admit that, having used this camera, I am a bit bewildered as to why Olympus sales were not higher and they had to sell off their camera division. I do like the Sony as well but am somewhat frustrated with their lack of support for the APS-C format in terms of lens development. Almost feel like they purposely neglect it to get people to buy into the more expensive (profitable) full frame line. Like you, I have no intention of going to full frame.
I'm not a pro photographer but I am an engineer, so, from that alternative point of view:
A full-frame sensor has 2.3 times the area of an APS-C sensor, so the full-frame sensor gathers light about 1 EV above the APS-C sensor. This means that, for the same shot and settings, you might use ISO 3200 on APS-C and ISO 1600 on full-frame. For corner cases where noise is a bit of an issue, that means _some_ advantage for full-frame, but not a lot really. And most of the time you won't be shooting in conditions that make noise a problem anyway. There is probably a handful of situations where only the full-frame camera will allow you to set the shutter speed you need and not crank up the ISO too much. Indoor sports photography, maybe? Open bar at a wedding?
Now, if we consider what kind of quality we can get for the *same budget* on APS-C versus full-frame, then there is simply no question: you can get a very advanced APS-C camera with in-body stabilization and a fairly good lens for the price of a much older and basic full-frame camera with an entry-level lens.
words of the day , he said " I feel great today I don't know why " . And that made my day. Thanks man
I still feel great and hope you do too 👊🏻💥
@@JorisHermans I found out that repeating what you said verbally just made me feel a tiny bit better than few minutes ago. Sure I am getting better.
Thank you I personally feel much better now... I use the Canon 70D in 2022
Your eye is what it's all about 💯💥
I agree with you, thanks, you are a teacher.
Never understood all the Reddit like flexing on someone’s camera setup, whether it’s a Samsung, iPhone or DSLR it’s all about the photos you take not exactly how much you’ve spent on your setup
I was about to roast you about the m50 being good in low light until you said "not for video" lol
i shoot both apsc and full frame. the full frame benefits are more apparent when i shoot indoor sports. other than that....looks about the same to me in good lighting.
It all comes down to real-world usage. If you’re just a hobbyist, a pea-sized sensor on a phone works just fine. If you’re a hobbyist but love taking bird photos with crazy long telephoto lens, you would prefer FF. If you’re a professional news photographer, you wouldn’t be using a small sensor, would you?
I realised not many pros discuss on real world usage. It’s mostly “which is better” topics etc…
APS-C cameras also benefit sports and wildlife photographers with the 1.5-1.6x crop effectively extending the reach of telephoto lenses. Using an example from Canon one could buy a EOS M6 Mk II and get full AF with tracking at 14fps at 32.5 megapixels, all for about say $900 and then buy Canon's professional grade 200/2.8 L full frame prime lens for less than $1000. The 1.6x crop factor means that 200mm lens will have the same "reach" as a 320mm on Full Frame. To match that on full frame one would have to buy either the R6 or R5 depending on pixel count 20mp vs 45mp those are $2500 and $3900 respectively. Now the 200/2.8 L will work fine on full frame bodies, but to get the "reach" the full frame camera needs the 300/2.8 L which starts at $4600 for the old one and $6000 for the newer one. I have both APS-C and Full frame and I'll say that the full frame is better quality BUT in the comparison above the full frame setup is 5 times more money and it is NOT 5 times better. In fact the weight of the M6 Mk II with a 200/2.8 is about 1/4 the weight of an R5 with a 300/2.8. Another excellent advantage to APS-C is the ability to utilize the Metabones (others also) speed booster focal reducers to trade focal length for a stop of extra speed. This only works for mirrorless APS-C cameras taking full frame DSLR lenses. That 200/2.8 becomes a 142/2. There isn't really much options for full frame as any such adapters would have to be used on medium format lenses and those don't really offer much in the way of speed and selection. I use my M6 Mk II for all my travel and hiking and other things where the compact size more than offsets any small difference in quality. For my serious work I use my R5.
Thanks for your input 👊🏻💥
This is hands down the best comparison 😮
I’ve been seeing a lot of videos but this one clearly explains it even 2 years later 8:21
Just about a month ago, I printed one of the shots I've taken with my Fuj XT3 at 60"*20" and I was quite hesitant, as I was afraid, that the image would look bad at that size, as it was shot with an APSC. Now it's hanging in my room and every time I look at it I'm just laughing at my past self, because the print looks so stunning. Could there have been more detail with a fullframe or even medium camera? Sure! But when I look at the picture from even 3 feet away I don't even recognize that... I was actually thinking about switching to medium, but not anymore. That print saved me a lot of money xD
It depends a lot on what you're doing. But, it's a bit of BS to prefer the crop factor bodies because they frame tighter. I personally bought that BS for quite a while, but the fact of the matter is that you can crop to a similar amount with a full frame if you like, it's just that you're not tied to doing so. And because you've got the rest of the pixels, you have the option of moving the cropped region around the frame or cropping more or less as appropriate. If you can't afford the FF and don't mind or prefer the cropped sensor, that's fine, but the croppedness of it isn't really a particular benefit. You get more or less exactly the same image that you would have gotten from a FF sensor of similar photosite density cropped to the same size.
Aan je “Volkswagen” te horen ga ik er vanuit dat je Nederlandstalig (en Vlaams) bent. Dus mijn reactie dan ook maar in het Vlaams.
Het was wel eens interessant om het verschil Full Frame vs APS-C zo duidelijk uitgelegd te krijgen. Ik heb er toch wat van opgestoken.
Jaren geleden stapte ik over van de analoge fotografie met een Nikon F90X naar de digitale fotografie. Om met mijn bestaande lenzen verder te kunnen viel mijn keuze terug op Nikon. De D200 deed zijn intrede in mijn fototas. Van het verschil Full Frame of APS-C (DX) formaat was mij toen nog niet veel bekend. Ik was met mijn nieuwe camera en lenzen zeer tevreden. Later werd me duidelijk wat Full Frame was, en ik moet toegeven dat ik ook wel eens droomde van een Full Frame. Maar die dingen waren wel extra duur, dus bleef het bij een DX. Enkel de 24-120 mm lens verloor wel wat aan breedhoek wat ik wel spijtig vond, 24 mm werd 36mm. Maar de telewerking daarentegen ging van 120 naar 180 mm, en dat vond ik dan wel weer interessant. Een tijdje later kocht ik ter vervanging van de 24-120 een 16-85mm DX zoomlens. En die 16mm (+crop 1,5) geeft mij nu ook een beeldhoek van 24mm Full Frame. Voor mijn fotografie vind ik die 24 mm breedbeeldhoek voldoende. Lager, breder dus, hoeft voor mij niet.
Met mijn 70-200 / 2,8 telelens, en de 1,5 crop, kom ik meteen al op 300mm, en neem daarbij nog eens een 2x teleconverter dan beschik ik maximaal over 600 mm. Ruim voldoende voor mij.
De D200 nadert intussen de 20jaar en ik denk erover om deze te vervangen. Het idee van de Full Frame heb ik al lang laten varen, de nieuwe wordt dus zeker weer een DX. Waarschijnlijk wordt het de opvolger van de D200, de D500. Maar eerst nog even wat sparen.