Full Frame vs APS-C - Image Quality is Key!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Should you upgrade to a full frame camera? Are APS-C (crop) sensor cameras good enough? You know about the size differences, it’s the image quality you need to see. Is it worth it?
Well, here we are going to test the difference in image quality between full frame and APS-C sensor cameras. We will look at the difference in noise, dynamic range and the fine detail between the two.
View full blog here: www.theschoolo...
Support us:
Get 10% OFF our Online Courses here - bit.ly/3Jt12kZ
Check out our Complete Guide to Photography Book here - bit.ly/2KZDw2U
Check out our eBook here - bit.ly/photog-...
Grab a Freebie:
Get our Free eBook for learners of photography here - bit.ly/2DwNS4c
Get 15 Free Lightroom Presets - goo.gl/xvTPT7
Get the Best Music for your UA-cam videos and other projects. Try for free here - share.epidemics...
Create a photography website with Squarespace. Try it for free here squarespace.sy...
Get Photoshop and Lightroom here - prf.hn/l/9mEZ58x
I hope you liked this video, if you did, please support us by sharing it with your friends and subscribe to our channel for more.
Get weekly tutorials and special offers delivered straight to your inbox, subscribe at www.theschoolo...
Join our learning community on social media:
Facebook ► / theschoolofphotography1 Instagram ► / theschoolofphotography1
Follow my personal photography work here:
Facebook ► / marcnewton
Instagram ► / marcnewton
Vero ► vero.co/marcne...
Thanks for watching and remember - Learn more at The School of Photography.
NB: Above are some affiliate links and TSOP will receive a small percentage of some purchases made.
#cameraequipment #fullframevsaps-c #theschoolofphotography
Love this vid. I started with an APSC and upgraded to an APSC and plan to once again upgrade to another APSC. Crop sensor bodies are not a downgrade. Some camera spec nerds will say it's all FF or nothing...it's not. It's just as professional as a Full Frame if you know what you're doing. No one cares about those fine details, but other camera spec nerds. I've shot weddings, maternity, engagements all with an APSC and I never heard a bride or mom say, "!!But The Dynamic Range!!" 🤣
Thanks 👍
So you use ONE APS-C camera for Photo and Video?
@@JinKazama92 People have varying definitions of “professional”. For some people, “professional” just means that they put up a Craigslist ad and someone paid them for a gig. I’d call it freelance work, but I suspect the kind of person who would claim that only “camera spec nerds” could see the difference doesn’t really have the same idea of professionalism as myself.
@@asphaltannihilator157 agree to that. They are basically limiting themselves to their own definition of ''Quality''. They forget or disregard why apsc is priced lower in the spectrum.
@@asphaltannihilator157 says the camera specs nerd lol
Nice video…. For what it is worth I would like to add 2 points for your viewers…. When considering image quality - comparison should be done with true “equivalence”…. For example: f/2, ISO 200, 33mm on the APSC vs f3, ISO 800, 50mm on a Full-Frame… I used to lug around a heavy “full-frame” until I used a m43 camera… I have found that so long as you keep the ISO below 3,200 on any crop sensor (since 2018) the image quality in print under 16x20 at dpi 200 is virtually indistinguishable…. In short - I sold everything and can now carry my entire kit on any vacation in a shoulder bag!
My current kit is a Panasonic G9, Panasonic-Leica 15mm, 25mm, 42.5mm and 100-400mm all in a small shoulder bag….
So point #1 is at true equivalence the image quality is really not significant… And point #2 the size, weight and cost should be considered…
But a final point that makes me miss my full-frame (occasionally) is when you want to take full-body portraits at close distance - like at an indoor party…. The angle of view of a 25mm on a m43 is still far more acute than that of a 50mm on a full-frame…. So… although the “field of view” is the same the compression is truly evident! Portraits are not as pleasing! That being said - Using a 42.5mm and stepping back will return facial features and the compression distortion is not evident…. You however due to being further from the subject lose some of the ability to blur the background easily…. What this has done is cause me to be a better photographer…. I now have to place my subject carefully in relation to the background…. Still…. If having a more blurred background provides a more pleasing bokeh - then accept the need to keep a full-frame for indoor portrait shoots….
Very happy with my X-T3 and A7IV primary cameras. Very little difference in quality in good light. It's when the light drops that you start to see differences but that's when you use equivalent lenses. One stop of light, like for like. I think people get to obsessed with sensor size, do you really need the big camera with the big sensor and big lenses? Yes, they are better but better does not mean the same thing for everyone.
Thanks for the comments 🙂
I've just gone from a Canon 80D (APSC 24.2mp) to a Canon EOS R6(FF 'only' 20mp) and the improvement is staggering. The 80D struggled with noise badly at anything over ISO 800, but the R6 will give good results up to ISO12800, even in low light. The dynamic range is also far larger than the 80D so for me it's one of the best decisions I've made as I shoot most of my shots in lowish light. On a really bright day the difference wouldn't be as great, but the sharpness of the R6 (using adapted EF lenses that I used on the 80D) is much better then it was. Great video and analysis, thanks.
Thanks Mark, good knowledge to share there 👍
I had an R6 for a little over a year, and you're right, those cameras can just about see in the dark. I set my auto-iso limit at 25600 and still got good images with some post processing. I switched back to Micro 4/3 because of the size/weight, but the noise is about two stops worse(ie. iso 6400 on my G9 looks about like 25600 on the R6), which seems similar to the 80D noise, based on some sample images I've seen. I'm able to work around it, and happy with my decision, but I miss the nearly unlimited iso of the R6.
I'd hope a full frame that is 4.6 years newer would be an improvement.
No image has worse quality than the one not taken because I left the gear at home because I couldn't bear the thought of lugging that size and weight around.
The low light images, the crop sensor image may have more noise but overall looks more pleasant.
Good point Peter 👍
A better comparison would be the Nikon D850 or D5 and a Nikon D500, imo.
Might have been interesting to have compared a FF and Crop sensor of the same Manufacturer and similar resolution...
For example Nikon's D750 and the D7200... with a quality lens attached...
No sensor or processor can account for deficiencies in the glass...
I upgraded from a D200 to D750. Same manufacturer; same lenses (vintage 28mm f2.8 AiS used on my FM film camera; 70-200mm f4 bought for D200). The D750 is considerably better at high ISO for building interiors. It’s not a bit; it’s huge. However, it’s an older APS-C vs full frame the sensor technology is better in the D750. Weight wise .. the D750 is LIGHTER and smaller than the D200. I’ll say that again - no mistakes - full frame cameras do not need to be too heavy; they can be lighter than some APS-C cameras. The lenses are the same. I have only 1 DX lens; used on the D750 I don’t get to use all the sensor but I still get more pixels in the image than with the (lower resolution) D200 APS-C sensor. In short I’ve never regretted upgrading from D200 (APS-C) to D750 (full frame).
I have dabbled back and forth about changing and in the end, I decided to stay with CROP SENSOR [APS-C] the reason is that after pixel peeping and for what I do, it wasn't worth the expense.
I only had one main camera which was a Canon 5D, which I used to take on holidays. In the kit I had the camera body, a 24-105 lens, a 50mm fixed and a 100-500 tele, a flash unit, several filters and spare batteries and cleaning gear. I carried them in a Lowepro backpack and the weight was 7 kilos (the maximum allowed on planes). My camera bag was quite bulky as all the gear is on the large end of the scale. I also wanted to add some other small items to the kit but was unable to due to weight.
When going on a trip overseas (we are based in Australia) I decided to go to a Panasonic G9, with a combination of Olympus 24-200 lens, a Panasonic 24mm fixed and the Pana/Leica 100-400 lens, flash gear, spare batteries, and sundry gear in a smaller Lowepro backpack. The weight was less than 5 kilos and the space saving was considerable.
The sensors on both cameras are about the same size, so I was more than interested to see how the Micro4/3s shots stacked up with the full frame. The only time I see the little sensor losing out is in very low light scenarios, with noise becoming more obvious. But most shots with the G9 I find the quality of shots are excellent, and it was quite a relief to find that the full frame didn't leave the Panasonic behind.
I am very impressed with the smaller sensor camera and it's gear, and will continue to use it for some time. The very good quality shots, the size and weight savings to be gained, and the difference in price are well worth considering.
Great effort Marc, keep up the good work.
I know a full-time wedding/portrait photographer who uses an APS-C Canon DSLR, can't remember the exact model. It's not even current generation. Their stuff looks fantastic.
Hello,
I have watched a number of videos on You tube channels, on here and they all come up with the same result. The full frame is somewhat better but not by much. You really have to look close to see the differences, but they are there. I think both images from both cameras are great. It all depends on if you crop your images a lot. And not a big difference. I think where the differences will be in going to APS- C to a full frame medium format camera sensor. That when the medium format is going to shine. Thank you for the video and the testing.
I haven't CHANGED the system, I just added a full-frame to my crop camera as an addition.
I have had a Canon 90D since... basically since it came out, and it was a great investment and is amazing for wildlife, with its 32,5 megapixel CROP sensor, you can really get much farther than with a full frame... bearing in mind the low-light conditions, of course.
Which is why I went for a Canon R6 to cover that aspect of my photographic interest.
Don't get me wrong, 90D is a very capable camera even in low-light, depending on what you want to achieve. If you don't crop too much, it's quite usable and I have plenty of photos to prove it.
But I've always been planning to move to full-frame and I've been buying ff lenses, mainly from Tamron, and it's always in the back of my mind how much light I'm collecting with those lenses that don't make it to the sensor. :D
With R6... even 25k6 ISO is quite decent.
Ouch..... tam..r.... on?
Their brand name is as bad as most of their lenses!
A speed booster might be what you're looking for, full frame glass on crop sensors with a speed booster can be quite good
@@FalloutUrMum Nah, I'm good.
I have both a D850 and a D500. In my opinion each has its own merits. For me one issue to consider is if you plan to crop your image full frame is much more flexible. If, on the other hand, you consider that the crop sensor image is near the final image with little or no cropping, crop sensor is great. If you work out the full frame size you need to crop down to the 20 or more megapixels crop sensor size you get a larger image size equal to or more than many full frame cameras! There is also the consideration as to the type of photography you are using the camera for as, again, each system has it’s own benefits! Generally though it was always thought in the past that bigger image size is best!
🤘📷😁👍
Exactly! It depends what kind of photography you do. Nowadays even high-end smartphones will provide high-quality images in the hands of a skilled photographer. But if you want the best possible results, including the photograph you otherwise would have missed, then these cameras are best suited for that particular type of photography:
Medium size
Studio (product, food, fashion, portrait) landscape, architecture, art, astro, commercial
FF
On-site (fashion, wedding, portrait, food), evening/night, theater, sports, animal/wildlife, underwater, macro, micro, commercial
APS-C
Street, children, family, wedding, journalism, documentary, commercial
Smartphone
Snapshots (street, children, family)
If you're also videographer IBIS helps, but for the same money a gimbal is better. And APS-C and smartphones tend to overheat quickly.
I stopped caring years ago and with todays upscale and denoise I care even less. I had the privilege to win photograph of the year and best nature photograph in Swedens biggest photography magazine a few years back. Shot on Fujifilm XT2 and the Xf55-200mm. The image was also cropped more than 50% to only 11.3 megapixels. I was up against Leicas, Hasselblads and GFX etc. No one ever asked me what it was shot on. I did a limited edition of the print 1/5. I got 1 left. The first sold for 400usd, the second 1000usd and the last one is now up for 3000usd. A 7 year old APS-C image cropped more than 50% printed as an A3 shot on a kit you can buy used for 800usd these days.. I still use my XT2 as much as I can.
Diferent lenses can make a big difference than just the cameras sensor size southern are many factors to consider
Great video you should make an update video with Fuji’s new 40mp sensor, also is very important to disclose what lens you used,because that can affect the sharpness of the images. I used to own the xt4 and now the xt5 is more sharper and the new Fuji lenses are very sharp. So a update of this video will be more than appreciate
I don’t really think that it matters what size sensor you shoot on if you are not pixel peeping. Surely it is the scene and its composition that matters more. This is even more true if you print a lot of your photos like me, as the limits of the printer change the resolution anyway. When prints are viewed from normal viewing distance you cannot tell what camera has been used. I have printed to A3 from a 20 year old compact camera 5mp and people have asked me for copies and had them framed professionally! We admire photos from the past taken by masters of the trade - and what old cameras were they using?
Well done, excellent video, I shoot Fuji, Leica digital and Agfa 120 film........bang for buck I love my iPhone 13 pro max. I've done Canon & Sony. Olympus is very much fantastic bang for buck. Bottom line is, image & process. Software rules, IMHO, "IF" the image is a "keeper". I conclude, they are not so easy to attribute to a systems, as much as the artists eye.
Great advice here Alan, thanks for sharing 👍
Maybe it is a little unfair comparing a lower resolution crop sensor to a high resolution full-frame. You by default get more detail becasue of extra megapixels. Wonder how much details in the leaves would you get with a 24Mp full-frame from that distance.
Exactly, my thoughts too...
I have both! I just shoot as a hobby and have a Canon 5D mk IV plus a little Canon 250D. I love the feel and bulk of the 5D but if I want something small and light to take out, I take the 250D. I cannot really see much difference between them in just image quality.
The most important detail of any camera is that you go out and take photos with it.
To many people spend enormous amounts on stuff they never use. A full frame in a drawer will not capture a waterfall early in the morning unless the owner leaves the bed.
I wonder what would be the difference with similar megapixel size, for example if you compared against the Fuji xhs.
An important factor not mentioned here is the shallower depth of field you get with a FF sensor. That can be either a preferred characteristics, or a disadvantage, depending on one’s own preference. When we step up to a medium format we see an even more shallow depth of field. That’s just plain physics. For a landscape photographer that often like to have sharpness across the whole image from front to back a crop sensor has an advantage. But a bird photographer is more prone to wanting a blurry falloff behind the main subject and is therefor more inclined towards a FF sensor for that reason. But a shallow depth of field also means it’s harder to hit the target with. Many of us are ‘hybrid’ shooters and we don’t really like to carry two cameras with us wherever we go, right? Personally, I have chosen FF because I shoot more than 50% landscapes and I also happen to prefer shallow depth of field in many situations anyway. FF also gives me more resolution which means I can be a bit more aggressive in cropping, if I feel I need to. That can become an important factor when shooting birds and wildlife which are often too far away for any lens to reach.
I’m a Nikon FF shooter myself but I think the Fuji crop sensor was unfairly treated on two accounts; firstly, the megapixel count was just 57% to that of the D850 camera. Secondly, Fuji files do very poorly in Lightroom in general. It would have been a much more fair comparison if both cameras had the same resolution and compared in Capture One or DXO PhotoLab instead.
At the end of the day, what really matters is what the intended use of the image is? If we have no specific end-scenario for the image it is generally better to have as much data as possible saved on the card. That gives us more leverage to do things with the image in post later. But we must remember to match the quality of the glass to the resolution of the sensor. Which often means heavier and more expensive equipment, as well. This is the reason we see such a ridiculous disproportion between a mirrorless body and a long prime lens in balance and weight. Hi resolution demands large and heavy glass! There will always be trade-offs to consider, even when costs and budgets are not a factor.
I wished I would have read your comment a few years ago, i upgraded to full frame for more low light for travel photography but didn’t realized how more difficult it was to get pictures of my family while traveling to have both people and background in focus, not always having a portrait style photo is what you want like you were saying depth of field is not one better than the other it depends on the job you want it to perform
@@Lucamitm You’re absolutely right. It all depends on the desired results we want. We also need to consider the distance between the subject and the background to get the result we want.
@@Lucamitm just decrease the aperture
If you can put a price (say x) on the delta of the image quality, you can figure out if it is justifiable to get a full frame by the number of pictures you will take times x.
I am thinking about getting the a7iv. Over the a6700. As I want the camera for years to come. Both seem good but I think with the 33mp over the 26 and full frame for more detail zoomed in would be better for me. 😊
That was a helpful comparison. I've only got an entry level nikon d3500 and I'm pretty happy with the quality I'm getting. My skills haven't got to the stage where the camera is holding me back. Full frame would be nice but at the moment I can carry my camera, 18-55mm lens, 70-300 lens, a 35mm prime lens, extension tubes, some filters, a flash and a tripod in a cheap camera bag from Amazon. I'd probably have to leave some stuff behind if I wanted to go full frame.
That's a great little camera.
It is such a good little camera, and the af-p lenses are amazing. Had it a few years ago, regret selling it. Have tried everything from m43 to FF, apsc is more than good enough.
Great video, and good examples. I'm sending a link to a fellow photog. We were discussing this very thing this week.
Thanks Michael, glad it helped 👍
About the detail comparison, wouldn't it be important to state the lens used on each and also to match a little better the pixel amount on the sensors?
It would be interesting to retake that part using an xt5
If we say there are no good and bad cameras, we can say same thing about cheap point and shoot cameras. There are use cases for those cameras too and they have their own advavntages over full frame. They can be even smaller and lighter.
“In the crop sensor example, the trees look painterly, the tree branches and leaves have merged into what looks like a brush stroke.” This is true for a Fujifilm X-Trans crop sensor. Is this the same case for a crop sensor with a Bayer array sensor like the Nikon D500 or a Nikon Z50?
Not sure on that Keith but maybe others can help here by commenting below??
@@theschoolofphotography Thanks Marc. Great video. I process my X-T2 and X-T3 images with foliage using LR Enhanced ... Raw Detail or a LR plugin called Iridient X Transformer. Either of these make a huge difference IMO for RAF files and foliage detail.
@@keithernest8385 thanks for the advice Keith, I'll give that a go 👍
Very interesting video! I’m completely happy with my Olympus OM Cameras (and also with my Nikon)! The new OM-1 is AMAZING!
I have Canon 50d which is heavy magnesium body , how ever I quite fancy the Fujifilm X T 2 they are getting on a bit but have good quality, but then I learned on a canon 50d, so it's pulling on my heart strings , so I'm right on the fence.
If I want to “upgrade” crop sensor, I’ll just go to medium format. Don’t see the point of full frame…for me.
I think when you compare the dynamic range, you could have compare the shadow on the floor tiles. How much of the floor tile detail can be recover from the each of the RAW file.
Great video. Subscribed! Thank you for your clear, dispassionate explanation. Bravo!
Thanks and welcome aboard 👍
I kept my cameras as I "moved up" to larger sensors. I actually shoot most of my shots with MFT cameras. It's because of the size and weight. It's so easy to grab the smaller camera with a much smaller and lighter lens, and get out and shoot. The GX-85 with a 20mm 1.7 lens is almost always with me. My "favorites" are still my Nikon APS-C cameras. The D7200 and D300 feel "just right" when I use them. I think less and shoot more. If I can carry the larger gear, that's usually what I take. That said, my Z5 is nice. It just "feels" awkward to me. The lenses are bigger, and the third party primes are MUCH heavier. If I'm shooting at night, or in really low light, I get it out. That said, I could easily live without the full frame kit. I'm in my 60s, and the ability to get the camera and lenses out to where I want to shoot seems to be the most important factor to me. Of course, I'm shooting for me. If I was actually selling my photos, it would change the way I look at creating them.
I upgraded from a D200 to D750. Same manufacturer; same lenses (vintage 28mm f2.8 AiS used on my FM film camera; 70-200mm f4 bought for D200). The D750 is considerably better at high ISO for building interiors. It’s not a bit; it’s huge. However, it’s an older APS-C vs full frame the sensor technology is better in the D750. Weight wise .. the D750 is LIGHTER and smaller than the D200. Ergonomically it’s better with a deeper grip. I’ll say that again - no mistakes - full frame cameras do not need to be too heavy; they can be lighter than some APS-C cameras. In my case the lenses are the same. I have only 1 DX lens. When I use on the D750 (which is rare because it’s an extreme wise angle) I don’t get to use all the sensor but I still get more pixels in the image than with the (lower resolution) D200 APS-C sensor. In short I’ve never regretted upgrading from D200 (APS-C) to D750 (full frame).
For video, full frame has been so much better. Other sytems, you need to monitor exposure carefully and keep to the right and protect highlights. With full frame, i can set the exposure to the right but there is so much room before clipping that it is essentially set and forget on the exposure.
What is apparent here is the big difference between technical photography and art photography. When we say "detail", what is more apparent to the viewer first? Answer: detail in the appearance of the OBJECT'S features,- i.e. the mountain and sign's features, not the photo. The photo is not the artistic object in the first place. The OBJECT aspects of the "image" are clearly more available in the Fuji crop sensor camera. So, unless you are blowing up these images %500 we're missing the forest for the trees. Even then A.I. can smooth "noise" out. There's even an arguemnt to add stochastic film grain as a philosophical choice. Therefore, the only reason to go with the Full frame Nikon, is to have more room to fiddle with the image in post to achieve the same object feature heightening.
I am totally confused about which camera should i buy for videography. Should i buy a Full frame or a aps-c please help me
Very interesting i have heard fuji is a very good camera i think the difference would be greater if you had used a different brand for the crop camera,
Thanks for this vid. Totally agree with the trees looking like a painting but with all honesty i have to disagree with the comparison at 16.59 and 22.14, the crop camera comes out very slightly better and that was with my reading glasses on. Have things advanced i dont know, back in the late eighties i could go out with a 35mm contax and come back with a tranny, no noise anywhere, just a clean pin sharp image with good natural saturation that you could blow up on a wall. As for low light, film was (for the moment) undeniably better. Cheers.
I took pictures of my children school functions, with stage lights. Most of my camera moments happens in very low light conditions. I borrowed cameras for both functions. In one function, I used crop sensor. The other, I used full frame. Full frame produced much better and usable pictures. Don't care what experts says. Full frame ALWAYS produces better pictures in my case. So if you are an beginner/amature, and can afford it, go full frame. Pros can probably overcome the light sensitivity handicap.
there is still a big difference in MP, it will impact the details when you really push the zoom in
What I don't understand with image quality comparison at +200% pixel peeping for noise is you would not crop in that much. If you wanted a picture at that crop you would of took that picture with the correct lens in the first place. I know this is contradicted with large prints but you would compensate with a higher megapixel camera if that was your intention for large prints.
I would have preferred the same brand in FX and DX. Furthermore, the same megapixels in both FX and DX. Is this possible?
Lightroom does not process Fuji Raw Files very well…
Peace be with you. Does the difference in megapixel matter here. The Fujifilm X-H2 may have been a better comparison.
Is there any possibility of sharing the RAW or JPEG files of both?
Click the link in the description of this video
@@theschoolofphotography I did. I can't find a link to files. I see a blog post but the files are not available for download anywhere. The images are compressed in the article. What am I missing?
Good comparison. ISO and IQ performance will always be a sure thing with full frame against APSC. Pretty well proven by this time. At the end of the day you are always going to have a much different photo due to the difference in focal length DOF. Personally to compare dynamic range and detail, I would like to see the full frame body set back to APSC and then run the same focal lengths. For me this would give a more apples for apples comparison in view of where you are with value for money on the points of DR and detail. Just my thoughts. Cheers Justin
Thanks Justin, appreciate you sharing this 👍
It's very subjective, try lugging full frame around a 12 mile walk in the Lake District
I do and honestly can’t tell any difference from when I had my D500 carrying that around the lakes or Snowdonia to now carrying my Z7
That’s much easier than lugging myself for 12 miles 😅
The first thing anyone who wants to improve their photography before anything else is to go see a optometrist. Make sure that your eyes are seeing as sharp as possible before you look into a camera or examine a single photo.
Isn’t it a question of sensor quality? Or is it the same technology and materials?
How come FF users don't use Medium Format?
Aren't the FF users losing detail, low-light performance and dynamic range?
Thank you for the video . I shoot Fuji XT4 raw
The Fuji uses an Xtran sensor and the FFs a Bayer sensor
I have a lot of experience of Fuji XT4 in low light situations. The noise beyond 3200 iso is unacceptable and below that is only acceptable when Topaz Denoise Ai is applied
I would like to use a full frame camera however you hit the nail on the head at the end of the video ….all about weight of gear ….also the price differences.
If you have not done so already check out a fully functional 30 day free trial of Topaz Denoise Ai for your higher iso images
As for the difference in sharpness in good light . Check out Topaz Sharpen Ai .
The Topaz products are amazing
Discuss :- 'There isn't actually that much more noise in the Fuji, it's just that it's more noticeable because it's been blown up to match the image from the Nikon.'
I know it's what you get in the final image that matters, but I think that the Nikon only looks less noisy because it's more finely etched. In fact I think the colour noise from the Nikon is considerably worse than the Fuji.
Money is a big consideration. Entering the photography world I searched out a bargain to begin with, a couple of years back I bought a new SONY 6400 at a very nice discount (just before the 6600 came out). Image quality being a concern, the 6400 has A9 colour tech in it which I think a lot of. Now days the same camera new costs $400 Australian more than I paid for it back then (on sale). So if you choose well & buy at the right time I think you can enter the camera world without too much of a bight, & on target for your key. Then I bought FE lenses, because I plan to buy a full frame camera one day. Buying like this, I can always get good money for good lenses, but camera's don't hold their price so well. Back to my first; money, if you have it spare; something to do with oysters and the world. Me however, & plenty like me need be frugal, & canny. An old friend of mine said of buying tech, always buy the latest that you can afford, that was his ethos. Image quality is key if that's what you're being paid for. There are levels of quality, most these days out spec our human senses, so unless you might be doing bill boards pixel hunting is for other photographers. Right, there goes my validation argument. Now, yes image quality is very important.
Interesting, however, why the Canon and not the Nikon in the second test? I would never sharpen fuji files in LR, photoshop yes with the High Pass or smart sharpen both are way better and the worm artifacts are less. Capture 1 better still. Apart from club judges who blows pictures up to 200/400%? I print no larger than 30"x20" prints, not a problem at all. As for the noise test, the detail in the background was better on the Fuji, but then again F2 on the Canon does not equate to F2 on the fuji. If I wanted to improve quality to print really big shots I would move up to the GFX. So I won't be going back to the 35mm format. Don't forget all cameras are F/F if the correct lenses are used!
You are using LR to process Fuji? Not fair to Fuji. You should use Capture 1 for Fuji, or DXO.
There is no reason for me to change to full frame. For my interests in photography is aps-c not only enough, it´s sometimes the much better choice as in macrophotography for example. I like also the advantages in weight,costs and size very and can live with disadvantages in other areas of photography with any doubt. Its´ my hobby, Im´t not a professional and the results are more than enough for my personal demands. It´s more than enough quality to hang one of my pictures as a big print in my living room. More quality doesn´t have any advantage for me, but I have to pay much more, have to carry much more. I´m not a wedding photographer. As many professionals take really good portraits with her micro four third system I don´t need less shallow depth of field to have much more bokeh. The option of f 1.4 is enough for me on aps-c. But I really understand that a professional have to think about the handling, the lowest depth of field, the lowest noise and special features. But I also think that nobody needs this to get outstanding pictures. These themes are often a click bait, often a excuse for lower skills and the lack of will for improvements. "I have to geht a better camera, lens to get better picture." may you think. But you only get sharper pictures as you zoom in 400%, not better pictures in creativitiy. If your pictures don´t get interest in low resolution as on the mobil phone than the solution in most cases ist not the better carmera. But this are only my two cent to the battle about the newest gear. I don´t take part.
The exposure between the Nikon and Fuji is 1/3 of a stop but the Fuji seems to be a more than only 1/3 of a stop more like a whole stop and a 1/3 of a difference.
Note sure what others are seeing, but the crop frame pics all seem superior with the exception of the leaves in first pic. Noise, to me, appears far worse on the full frame despite saying otherwise in the video.
awesome test. thanks
👍
How many people can afford high end full frame cameras that cost thousands of dollars along with the premium glass that is required to take advantage of the higher mega pixel sensor. How many people will use these other than professional photographers that earn their living from photography, I have multiple camera bodies that cover full frame, APSC and micro 4/3. I use them for various purposes and subjects. Most of the time I photographed landscapes and seascapes in low light I use a tripod so I don't need high ISO. when I photographed events of different kinds I used all three different sensor sizes depending upon the event and if it took place indoors or outside no one ever asked me what kind of camera I was using, all that matters is the end result.
This is the age old question.
It does see that Full Frame has a sligth edge in certain situations.
But APS-C cameras and smaller and lighter and if they had some good long lenses - cheaper!
It always comes down to what trade-offs one wants. For me, cost and weight are critical issues. Im Sure the local camera store would love to see me dump my APS-C gear, but the difference in quality isn't worth it for me, nor am I interested in lugging around the extra weight.
There is hardly any difference in size and weight if you use equivalent lenses.
@@peterdejong5456 The issue is that lenses aren't always equivalent. I use the Nikon 18mm - 140mm F3.5 to F5.6 zoom most of the time and the weight is very reasonable. The equivalent lens in Full Frame would be, 27mm - 210mm F4.9 to F8 zoom. No such lens exists. Most likely something close will have a smaller F stop, like F3.5, which translates into larger and heaver glass. Yes, I know the depth of field for an 18mm at F3.5 is much wider than a 27mm at F3.5, but if I really needed a very shallow depth of field, I'd use a different lens.
@@BobDiaz123
There is not much difference. Closest FF equivalent would be 17% longer and 16% heavier for a lens that is half a stop faster. Price is also similar.
Some equivalent lenses are a bit larger, some a bit smaller. For a general purpose kit with a full range of lenses these differences even out.
Nikon 24-200 mm F4.0-6.3 (FF)
Weight 570 gram filter 67 mm
Size 76.5 mm x 114 mm
Nikon 18-140 mm F3.5-5.6 (APS-C)
Weight 490 gram filter 67 mm
Size 76 mm x 97 mm
Fuji and lightroom don’t play nicely.. Fuji images look much better when developed with capture one, or darktable..
I didn't know mark Ruffalo was also into photography
If you're going with APSC, you might as well just go with MTF instead.
i can say from my experience full frame is much better: 1 bokeh, 2 low light, 3 dynamic range, plus companies make better quality lenses for full frame. All the rest are lies from camera companies to make you buy an inferior camera because you cannot afford the full frame. aps-c are only good for video.
why no one talks about DOF, which is superior in FF system
Because it is exactly the same if you use equivalent lenses.
Explain supirior.....and than lets talk about macro.
@@peterdejong5456 actually you CAN’T find a aspc len which is equivalent to f1.4 or faster len for FF.
@@jackytran5555
Yes, you can.
Nikon Z 58 mm F1.0
Fujinon XF 50 mm F1.0
7artisans 50 mm F0.95 (X-Mount)
Mitakon Speedmaster 50 mm F0.95
for Canon and Sony APS-C
I just wish when you give pictures comparison you put it side by side not 1 after another.
Click the link in the description for a side by side comparison.
Micro Camera = Portrait
Full Camera = Landscape
Small Camera has more Sharpness
Splitting hairs. Dont worry. Buy and use the camera that brings you joy. Anything else is a distraction.
"You're never, ever going to see the difference" In the vast majority of situations that is EXACTLY true. For insecure photographer who have no vision the problem is always the camera or lens. If your photographs aren't good enough it's not the camera; it's you. Stop obsessing about gear and start studying photographs.
Where is this beautiful place? 🏞
Lake Buttermere - Google lens is you friend :-)
In the first picture it looks like the full frame used a polarizing filter and the second one didn't.
When I show my Olympus micro 4/3 photos to my Nikon Z 7II buddy, he tells me my images are more than good enough. I like my small gear. If a camera is fun to use, you will use it more.
Good advice David, thanks for sharing 👍
Yes I agree with that! I love my olympus/OMD gear and the new Om1 is absolutly amazing.
This will of course never stop being discussed. I have an APS-C camera purely for private, hobby photo and video shooting. And would perhaps be able to make the monetary effort to "upgrade" to full frame.
However... I am a person that like to keep life comfortable and uncomplicated. Add a pinch of laziness and APS-C is for me the right size to lug around. I am not always satified with the photos and videos I take, but have yet to be able to blame it all on my camera.
As a consequence I am busy "upgrading" my own skills and talents as it seems smarter than just buying a new, bigger camera. :)
You're right there Per, thanks for sharing this 👍
Agreed, for many, including myself upgrading the skills is more important than upgrading the gear :)
Good comparison but I’d note a couple of things. 1) The Fuji and Nikon sensors are totally different, Nikon and most other companies (including Canon and Sony) use the Bayer sensor while Fuji mostly uses the X-Trans sensor. Because of that Lightroom is known to have issues demosaicing (decoding) Fuji raw files. Using Capture One instead of Lightroom would produce better results but I would say a fairer comparison would be between a Nikon full frame and another Nikon aps-c camera to keep everything as similar as possible. Also the lenses make a big difference in the details captured too, it would be fairer to compare a Nikon pro lens against a Fuji pro lens. 2) There is not only a noise difference between the crop and aps-c cameras, there is also a depth of field difference as the aps-c camera is cropping in on, say, a 35mm lens, while the full frame camera is using the full image circle. While this doesn’t affect image quality per se it is something that affects the images themselves as it may impact the kind of photo you want to get and the kind of lens you would need to get the same look as full frame. I think that’s something worth mentioning, particularly in terms of the cost of lenses and as the difference in DoF is quite noticeable in the night example. 3) There won’t be a huge difference in dynamic range in ideal conditions as both cameras are very good and have modern sensors, where you would really see a difference is in more extreme situations like a sunset with the sun in the frame causing both very bright and dark areas. The full frame camera would perform better because of the size of the sensor but that comparison would be interesting to see. 4) There’s also quite a big resolution difference between the two cameras, 19mp is a lot and you’d expect it to produce more detailed images. I think it would be fairer either to shoot the Nikon in a lower megapixel mode or to compare the Fuji with something more similar to its megapixel count.
For what it’s worth I currently use a full frame Sony A7iii and have a crop Fujifilm X-T30ii as a travel camera. I’ve also found the difference in image quality between them to be less than expected. Both produce fantastic images, particularly when paired with good lenses. Where I notice the difference is in extreme conditions like sunsets and high ISO situations like astro, for those shoots and when I need a full frame look I always go for the Sony. What the Fuji offers in exchange though is a smaller and lighter system that is easier to travel with while still offering excellent quality and as I get older, that weight difference is something I really value. I’m lucky to have both and can choose but for most people, particularly those starting out, I think crop makes the most sense as it’s a good balance of price, features and performance
Do you notice significant difference on capture one ? I have a sony a7iii same as you i just got a fuji fir size but a x100v for a daily carry, i tried using capture one but its so complicated for me im so used to lightroom, wondering if I should keep trying to learn capture one, what is the difference I could barely see difference on my own trials but i might have given up on capture too soon. Thanks
@@Lucamitm Hi Camila, I do see a difference with some photos but it depends a bit on what I’m shooting. I tend to see it with anything that has a lot of greens in it, particularly foliage which looks mushier compared to in Capture One. So landscapes, flowers, that kind of thing. City scenes and portraits I don’t see it in as much. So depending what you shoot you might not notice it enough to worry about.
I used Capture One in conjunction with Lightroom for a while and it’s a great program once you get used to it but because I’ve got years of archives in Lightroom, it wasn’t worth me staying with it in the end. I use DXO PureRaw now instead, it adds an extra step to importing the files but the resulting raws are as good as those in Capture One and crucially it lets me do everything in Lightroom. Would highly recommend checking that out if you do run into any issues 🙂
Happy to DM you some samples if that would help or if you have any other questions 🙂
@@cjlevinsonphotography dxo pure raw is that to convert the raw to jpg and then pass to lightroom or is it keeping the raw but doing a process to it first ? Is it all inside lightroom like can you import batch with it ? Thanks
@@Lucamitm It’s a standalone program but it also has a Lightroom plugin so you can do it from within Lightroom. Basically you import your photos as normal in Lightroom then once you’ve made your selections, you run them through the plugin and it brings a demosaiced DNG back in to Lightroom. And then you do your edits on that. Pretty quick and simple once you’ve done it a few times. There’s a free trial if you want to try it out 🙂
@@cjlevinsonphotography thanks a lot !!! I’ll give it a try !
When I shot film, I used the same camera for 20 years. I now shoot digital on a crop sensor, I have no desire to upgrade. No one has ever told me that my images were lacking in some way, whether film or digital, or landscapes or portraits. I think people can get too concerned about the gear and not enjoy the process and outcomes, that getting out and taking photos, can give you. Have to say, some of the more creative images I’ve enjoyed seeing, were taken with a phone.
Thanks for sharing Steve 👍
Just a note for the Fuji details looking off. That comes down to how Lightroom processes the files. Capture one doesn't have the same issue
Would be interesting to see a similar comparison with an R7 and a full-frame camera with a comparable megapixel count
Thanks for doing this. A couple thing. First, regarding detail. For me the take away from your comparison was that a 45 mp sensor will provide more detail than a 26 mp sensor. Perhaps a more appropriate comparison would have been the Fuji compared to say, a Nikon Z6 or a Sony A7 III. The huge difference in resolution of the 2 sensors compared, makes me question, is the result a reflection of the sensor size, or is it more about sensor resolution?.
What I would have love to see is a comparison of the images under normal viewing conditions. Is the difference relevant when viewed on a laptop at full screen? How about a 32 inch monitor or a 65 inch T.V. again at normal viewing distances? Finally print a couple at say, A2 and view them from a normal viewing distance. Now what do you think about them? How do they compare?
Ironically, I'm heading out on a tour of the National Parks of the American Southwest in a couple weeks and I'm conflicted over whether to bring my A7 IV kit or my A6600 kit. Rationally, I know that none of my images will be viewed (except by me) at 200% or printed at A1, but there is always that techie part of my brain that tells me not to compromise. Tough decision.
I hear ya James! Had to make those decisions myself. Thanks for sharing 👍
The problem with this comparison is: They are actually comparing a Nikon-design (with its sensor and electronics and lens) to the fuji-design (with probably another sensor and other electronics and lens) . We might be looking at stuff like: difference in sensor desgin, difference in electronics(-stability and gain method), difference in lens effects, difference in pixel size, difference in pixel density. There are just way to many variables in this comparison also a few of those are unclear (e.g.: are the sensors made by the same supplier, are coatings the same) The best way to determine what size of the sensor does is: take a FF camera and shoot a picture in normal mode and in crop mode. Using the same lens (yes I know the picture wil look different). The biggest difference in performance wil not be in the 100% or 200% detail. There would be no reason to, because it is the same electronics/lens/sensor) the difference will be if you blow both pictures up to the same size. The cropped one (besides looking different) needs more magnification because the base size is smaller. By blowing up you might loose quality. (If you look close).
If you already have a FF and crop sensor cameras why don't you just connect your laptop to a TV and see the difference for yourself? I'm also happy that he compared FF to Fuji as it is often considered as best APSC camera and many ppl be considering either Canon FF vs Fuji or Sony FF vs Fuji. If you compare results of a FF camera with full screen readout to FF camera with crop read our you'll compromise quality of the crop readout and you'll end up in the situation where your crop mode has a lot lower resolution.
@@michalrv3066 The thing is: this topic is indeed nothing more than comparing a Nikon and a Fuji camera which happen to have a different size sensor, but have a good reputation.And it is nothing more than that. For making conclusions what sensorsize do to your picture there are just way to much variables.
@@MrGirbes well, I doubt you'll find FF and APSC camera with the exact sensor (just bigger/larger). I think there are videos comparing FF to crop mode on FF sensor but I personally don't like that
This is July 2023 - I have very recently purchased the Fujifilm X-T5 and used the 16mm lens with stunning results. This morning I printed one of the images - Stunningly sharp (landscape). Ive been a NIKON user for some 30 years or more and currently still have my NIKON Z7 II (having sold my D850 with all f mount lenses …. trying to reduce carry weight as old age doesn’t help). Possibly will sell my Z7 II + lenses. My X-T5 at this point fulfils my need to reduce weight in my camera bag without losing image quality.
Nikon equipment sold🙊
I use a M4/3 camera. I find with DXO I just don't worry about noise anymore. I am happy with the weigh and size i save with the system. That's what was important to me.
Thanks for sharing 👍
The biggest lie in photography is that you need full frame. Nonsense! Just look at the websites of all the camera manufactures- OM System, Panasonic, Fujifilm, and others. Pro's are using these cameras and doing AMAZING work! Why carry the huge bricks?
I'm a nikon user I use the D700 D850 and D7500 the 700 is my camera of choice for events like weddings and birthdays I do some wildlife and the 850 is my weapon of choice but my little 7500 is my daily driver it's smal light and powerfull for its scant 20mp it's my favorite to take everywhere with a nikkon 105mm prime.
Thanks for sharing Carlos 👍
The D7500 is what I use, too. I tried a D500 because it had great reviews, but the weight made my nature walks misery. I love the D7500.
That painting effect is something that will happen with X-Trans images (Fujifilm) when over sharpened in Lightroom. Known as worming effect. There´s many ways to work around this if you like me still want to use Lightroom. This is not happening in Capture One (they say)…
Iridient X-Transformer is another good option for Fuji shooters who don't want to change their workflow - affordable too.
@@TitouanDebray I used it for a while. Now I'm converting the RAW files to DNG using DxO Pure RAW. Not sure I'm going to continue with this workflow though. (Only when needed)
@@fotografi4fun Definitely an extra step but I've noticed the difference in the details of the files.
I think we all get sidetracked by trying to capture an ultra sharp image etc, A pleasing image doesn’t have to be tack sharp, I shoot on APS-C & FF but one of my favourite images was taken on my little Sony RX100 mkiii 1 inch sensor
When most photographers at the time were using medium format cameras there was a chap that went for 35mm. His name was Henri Cartier-Bresson.
People don't say 'oh that's got amazing dynamic range and I can see lots of detail in the shadows'.
They do sometimes say 'I really like that photograph you took.
In an ideal world I'd have one of each type of camera with a good range of lenses for each.
Until that day the camera I have will more than suffice.
In the low light test, would shooting a 35mm at 1.4 on the crop sensor be more equivalent to the full frame 50mm f2? It seems that the increased depth of field of the 35mm at f2 makes noise more obvious since there is more background detail.
This is an interesting subject. You are correct. To get the comparable bokeh between the 50 and 35. What most forget is that the depth of field changes because the camera to subject distance changes to maintain same subject composition between full frame and crop sensor, consequently, the depth of field changes. So your changing f stop for the comparable bokeh between the two. I seem to remember micro four thirds being 2 stops different from full frame for a given lens
I use both for different situations. With small well-defined indoor spaces (imagine a restaurant), a crop body with an f1.4 prime is nice, small and less intimidating/distracting to a subject for spontaneous photos. When you need versatility and lighting is challenging, a wide aperture zoom on full frame works well (imagine museum or concert). I know how zooms fall apart in low light on crop bodies but full light outdoors a crop body zoom can work ok (hiking on vacation).
I use full frame Sony a7iv in a sling bag with a f2.8 trio, 16-35 GM, 24-70 ART, and 70-180 Tamron when I don’t know what I’ll be doing. Packs decently small.
Agreed. I have an old Fuji x-t2 and a 2.8 zoom, but I’ve discovered that the crop / 2.8 combination is not quite enough for indoor shooting. The ISO ends up much higher than I’d like.
There’s no right or wrong when choosing a full frame or crop sensor camera - both are capable of producing excellent images, depending of course on the skill of the photographer!
I think more than sensor size, resolution and lenses are going to be key along with good technique. The only real advantages of FF vs APSC was (and is somewhat today although less so) is the high ISO noise abilities. FF has typically done better but with modern APSC sensors, I'd say that they rival that of 5 year old FF cameras, and so my answer would be "it depends". If you have a choice between a modern day APSC camera like an a6100 or a6400 or an R7 or Z50 over a 5-7 year old FF camera, I might be inclined to choose the modern APSC camera and take the extra money I would have saved and put it towards good lenses.
People who faff about fuel frame being better than apsc, haven’t seen medium format…! The Fuji GFfX are insanely great! In any case, it’s not a matter of sensor size, it’s a matter of pixel pitch… the size of each pixel, which in truth defines the ability of the sensor to gather light (and with a set amount of noise)
Light Room still doesn't play well with Fuji files. It would be interesting to see a comparison using Capture 1. I think the Fuji files would hold up better. DX0 also does a better job.
I have a cropped sensor Fuji but I shoot raw and process the files using DXO Pure Raw. Then I use ACR /Photoshop. The files are very good looking when you put some effort into the post processing. The one reason I am considering full frame is for the depth of field. I like the bokeh on full frame better but other than that the cropped sensor IQ is more than enough.
One thing to note is if you're going to get a high MP ff camera then you need good glass that can resolve that much detail otherwise there isn't much point. That will probably push up the cost and weight too.
Having a Sony A6600 and my wife's cousin having a Sony A7iii and an A7iv, we played some comparison games. Yes, low light there are noticeable differences. Not that we both use higher end G and Gmaster lenses. But for 90% if our shots we were hard pressed to notice an big differences outside of low light.
He did mention one thing that we both agreed was relevant. He said "I would enjoy taking your camera (a6600) and a couple lenses for a day of street shooting, but I find it a heavy pain to do that with gf, so I tend not to bring it out as often"
I think both systems have pluses and minuses, and it comes down to what works for you.