Thanks for all the years Arthur. Your casual outlook on lenses and cameras is always more impactful on my decision-making, whether I buy a lens or not.
I got my a6400 because I wanted to get into Sony system and I didn't really have a large budget. Now I have a Sony FX30 and I'm able to support shoot with FX6 shooters and grow my video production business. It all started on a Sony a6400. I like the APSC option it's been affordable for me to grow and its nice to see the lens support.
It was awesome meeting you at the Kondo trip! Recently a lot of guys have tried to talk me into going full frame. For what I do, there is just no need for it when you consider the amazing quality and features you get out of the EV-10, 6400, 6600, & 6700. Combing any one of those cameras with the Zeiss 24mm, 15mm 1.8G or 16-55mm 2.8G and you could almost never distinguish the difference between a full frame equivalent.
I shoot mainly full frame and think it’s pretty silly to try and talk some one else into it. :D If APS-C delivers what you want, by all means stay with it! =)
If Sony is reading this, Arthur sold me into Sony APSC. I bought a ZV-E10 10 months ago because 1. It was the cheapest with a great 3 party lens selection. 2. I never had a camera before, so I didn’t want to spend that much initially. 3. The quality for videos and pictures were more than I needed on it. I love my camera! Photography changed my way of seeing the world. My dream would be a 40MP Sony APSC camera. I want a higher res sensor, but I don’t want to spend full frame prices on bodies and lenses, specially on multiple lenses, as i already have great apsc lenses.
Fujifilm do have a 40MP APS-C camera, the XT-5. the Fujifilm are very classical looking with more dials but if like me you come from a Sony APS-C you'll notice the higher weight.
here's the thing, you may THINK you want 40 megapixels, but remember that in raw you won't have the choice of smaller, so each of your raw files will be these huge 40 megapixel monstrosities, 20-25 is much more of a sweet spot where the file sizes are manageable, unless you wanted to do architecture/wildlife exclusively and not just day to day stuff, but judging from your comment you wanted an all-rounder, so your choice was good!
Remember that as the sensor pixels get physically smaller, each one gets less light exposure in a shot. This means an inherent introduction of noise. If you watch any review of the 61 megapixel A7R IV compared to the 42 megapixel A7R III, you will see that there is more noise to remove for the 61 megapixel pics. Of course, there is great noise reduction/removal software, but ultimately, no matter how clever the software is, you are still removing some of the picture information along with the noise. So really what it boils down to is an optimal pixel density for each format. I'm betting that Sony tried higher resolution/higher pixel density sensors for the A6700, but they arrived at the 26 megapixel resolution for APS-C for a variety of very good reasons.
@@Moshe_Dayan44there is not less good data with more pixels unless you start to go much smaller and start Introducing new types of noise or if smaller sensors lead to less effective sensor coverage(more edge less sensor). This means you can always sacrifice effective resolution for noise reduction in post processing. So more resolution is more of a trade of with processing and storage requirements vs flexibility and post processing time investment. And some camera's can actually change how many pixels are sampled per pixel in the RAW letting you change the resolution of the sensor before processing and storing so you can get faster raw frame rates/ smaller storage or higher resolution.
The selling point of APSC for me is using the Sony 70-350mm for wildlife. The FF equivalent reach is the 200-600 which is massive, heavy and expensive. I'm more likely to go out shooting with a camera that is no hassle to carry long distances
70--350 really sharp and the Zoom Range very strong the only week point is after 200 too little aperture but I dont have other better choose I still want tamron / sigma will produce 2.8 tele Zoom
Depends. You can get the Tamron 70-300 full frame and then use clear image zoom, that gives you 105-450mm (the real equivalent, not 200-600) and it's lighter and faster!
@@DigiDriftZone 70-300 last time I also consider but give up becasue no VC another reason is the sharpness at all zoom range VC for Tele I think is importance Tamron 70300 the attractive point is pricing / weight / aperature before 150 of course no VC we can push the ISO at 5.6
I am principally a wildlife photographer and have been shooting with Sony Full Frame, no less than the A1 and 400 GM being my main gear. However, with the release of the A6700 I got one and the 70-350 G as a lightweight walkabout setup. I must say I am absolutely loving it for its compactness and most of all the weight, only 1.1kg. Incredible for a camera and lens that has the reach to shoot wildlife with high-resolution images! I have no intention of changing to APS-C, (not unless Sony brought out an APS-C camera to equal the A1 and a fast telfocal prime) but my A6700 is perfect as a secondary body, and is certainly what I will take when general traveling not specifically for wildlife photography. It is so lightweight it goes with me virtually everywhere, so I have a decent camera if I chance upon a photographic opportunity even when abroad on business, as I am at present in China.
@@MegaWeitzel You missed the point. The point was a setup similar enough to his A1 at a fraction of the bulk. I mean, it is kinda asinine to assume someone would want a second setup just for the sake of having a carbon copy of their first?
The fact Sony is slowly adding "flagship" features to their apsc line convinced me of investing into a a6400 as my first camera, I hope one day we'll see a stacked sensor apsc body, that would be my "dream camera".
I've been following your channel for a long time. So happy to see sony is sponsorong your video. Extremely happy for the recognition you've gotten after years of work 👍
That was a great overview of the Sony APSC system. I have two bodies and 5/6 lenses and have been delighted with the results I have obtained over several years. My previous camera was the Nikon D40 which served me well for several years - the body and lenses were physically much larger and heavier than this Sony system.
I just do photo work with vintage manual lenses. I still use an original a7 to get the full usage out of old adapted lenses. I do also have an a6000 but that's for more casual shooting. I love them both
I greatfull yor video 4years ago when A6600 released I purchased under EU in B&H Thank you Arthur for that video I have never forgot few month before the pandemic I received the body and I keep this camera as my primary I plan to buy it the new A6700 body I love my APC-S camera cheaper lens found for third party and sony too. Once again you are part of my team of shooters with Sony APC-S cameras.
Started with the Sony, loved it, still own it. But when I found out that Fujifilm are also heavily invested in APSC and they have a huge variety of in camera processing that pictures come out edited straight out of camera, I quickly owned one too.
Hi Arthur R. I have to say I enjoyed this video it was informative for me. About 18 months ago I decided to exchange my heavy Nikon D7000 + 17 / 50 and a 70 / 300 lens as they were not getting enough use. I am a Nikon user and so purchased the Nikon Zfc with an 18 / 140 Nikor lens and they work really well together I find myself taking this camera out far more when ever I am out for a walk. As a non professional it works for me.
I'm picking up my a6700 tomorrow. Gonna be using it with a Tamron 17-70 f/2.8. Having said that, I'm not too sure about the future of Sony APS-C cameras, but then again, people doubted m4/3's future and Panasonic just slapped them in the mouth with the G9 II.
I've been into photography for 5 years and still stick with my trustworthy a6000 and the kit lens. As a hobbyist, it serves everything I need - for street photography, for my vacation and I even do videos as well. Had my first job last week, and instead of seeking expensive cameras out there, I still used my a6000 and hired more expensive lenses just because I needed wider apertures. It has been an amazing journey with this little friend and I think the a6000 will still be in my pocket for some more years. I find no need to replace it with a more expensive camera at the moment.
I thought this way as well, but then I decided and bought the a6400. I tried a6300 and was not sure, that body can change much, but the lenses will do. How I was wrong with a6400! Yes, the IQ doesn’t pop up that much - even if it does for sure, specially with low light noise reduction. But the way of focusing, response, not overheating whatsoever, build quality, viewfinder, buttons … I knew, that I’m home. I really felt, that in this case, the body moved me forward which I wasn’t expected. Otherwise, what kicked me up were lenses: Sony 24 F1.8 and Sigma 65mm F1.4. Supported with Sony 18-105 f4 and 10-18 f4 from a6000 era.
It's cool that you the A6000 still works for you. I sold mine for the A6300 a few months after I got it. What I discovered is that A6000's chassis flexed whenever I attached heavy, old SLR lenses to it and that it wasn't properly sealed for the elements. I'm primarily an outdoor shooter. Regarding the kit lens...if you like to print your images big I found it inadequate. But this is for my primarily outdoor use shooting land, water, and nightscapes. But I have thought about picking up a used one to use as a dedicated webcam and backup body since I have a range of lenses.
It's a great time to be for Sony APSC shooters right now. I started at about the Nex 5 and have kept current up to the A6700. I added FF along the way, but with all the fantastic Sony and 3rd party APSC lenses available now, I was having a hard time justifying my FF gear. I didn't use it all that often anyway because of the size. Then came the A7CR. What a quandary! It appears to be as good a FF body as my A7R5, and as good an APSC body as my A6700. It means I can shoot FF when the spirit moves me, but mostly shoot all my great APSC lenses with no size penalty. It almost seems too good to be true. Like I must be missing the fatal flaw to my theory somehow. A great problem to have I guess.😁
That's a good observation, it seems there is little reason to get into APS-C in 2023, you can often get a full frame option that's smaller, lighter and sometimes even cheaper! - I saved money replacing my X-S20 with the ZV-E1 and superior lenses.
@@maggnet4829 Yes, that's a point, I suppose with the A6700 APS-C right now, you get something that's a bit "average" all around. With full frame, you have to choose: 1. ZV-E1 - get a beast of a video camera, A7S III killer, with the amazing A7R IV AI chip. But only 12 megapixels. 2. A7C-II - a bit of a compromise camera with APS-C has some advantages/disadvantages. 3. A7RC - also a bit of a compromise for video but a beast of a photo camera. But in any case you get a more compact setup, more depth of field control with more compact lenses, flexibility to use the big super fast zooms/primes, more light gathering, less noise, an insane ISO range that goes to almost 500k (on the ZV-E1 at least), that magical full frame look, etc, etc.
@@DigiDriftZone It's tricky right now to decide. If you work without a gimbal, but with Sony native stabilised lenses, I think the FF cameras have a big advantage. Other than that it really depends on what lenses you like to use (crop factors differ wildly in video mode), if you need 120fps or 8k, if you need the last bit of low light performance and if you shoot stills as well. Those questions will lead you to different bodies. The a6700 indeed is somewhat of a jack of all trades and a master of non.
@@maggnet4829 indeed. Personally as a formerly photo first shooter that looked at the a7s III with wonder since it was released, I decided to challenge myself with a video first camera and got the ZV-E1, no regrets. The camera is absolutely unreal and it’s finding new ways to impress me daily - it’s so far ahead of APS-C, I didn’t expect this kind of margin. I think for a UA-camr without an endless budget and wanting something compact, it really stands in a class of its own and the dynamic stabe is very useful. The photos are great too (especially low light) but 12MP and no mechanical shutter are clear disadvantages for photography.
Great video! Congratulations on the Sony sponsorship. I too shoot both full frame and APS-C, Sony A7c & a Leica M digital camera. APS-C I go with my Sony A6600 and a Leica TL2. Lens wise it's Sony, Sigma, Leica, & Voigtlander. It all makes for lots of fun and great photos.
Very nicely done as always, i have fallen in love with my Sony a6300 matched with a Sigma f1.4 16mm Lens just does such a good job every time it is needed, you are the one that pushed me to getting this camera and lens via watching your videos so thank you for showing me the correct combination of camera and lens.
You are my most trusted channel on the whole subject. Love how casual and in plain English you can explain stuff. I have my 6300 for 4 years now and really unsure if I should purchase a A7C II for low light situation.. which would mean i also need to purchase at least 1 FF lens... or just upgrade to 6700. I almost completely decided for A7C II and this video made it suddenly a way harder choice xD It started as a hobby and reference gathering for concept art, but I now kinda want to earn some money on the side with shooting portraits
I hear you. The a6300 was my first camera, and at the start of the year I bought an A7C. I still have both and at weddings and the like, I use them side by side. In my opinion, the upgrade was well worth it for me. Would it be worth it for you? I’d say if you’re in control of the lighting situation, stay with APS-C. In that scenario, FF has no advantage over an A6700. If you do shoot in environments where you have limited control over lighting, I’d recommend going FF. Obviously something crazy like medium format would be even better, but price and portability kinda argue in favor of FF IMO. Regarding crop factor and aperture: to calculate which aperture creates which depth of field, APS-C converts to FF by multiplying times 1.5. So an f/1.4 APS-C lens gives you the depth of field of f/2.1 on FF. The same is NOT true for how much light gets in. f/1.4 is f/1.4, regardless of APS-C or FF. I don’t have enough technical knowledge to explain how to properly compare how much light gets on the sensor at a certain aperture on APS-C and FF respectively. I shoot a lot of things either wide open or stopped down to like f/6.3, and full frame is better in low light. That’s all I know :D
My first digital camera was an EOS 10D. I had zero experience with digital. I bought the 10D because of the price from a seller on Fred Miranda. I used that camera for 15 years. When. I married and gave it to my wife. She is a natural at photography. We upgraded the 10D to a 40D. Then finally to an EOS RP. She is 4-11 the RP fits her hands perfectly. The photos she takes are no less than amazing.
I think the comfort of carrying a less expensive setup is definitely one of my biggest reasons to go with APS-C. I agree the A6700 with the 16-55 makes a great combo
Thanks Arthur. I've been using a6400 for almost 4 years and it's still the best for me. I post often on social media so I think it's more than enough. Cheers from Riau! 😃
Thank you so much Arthur for the very helpful and informative video on Sony A6700 and the APS-C sensor! I enjoyed and learnt from your video! God bless and good luck on your photography journey!
Here's the thing about Sony camera's..... they hold up quite well. I am still using the Sony 6300 after all these years, found my way around it's limitations which in turn helped me focus more on my work which is making documentaries and doing photography professionally and it's been a work horse. I have seen many of my friends move to full frame and still struggle to produce great results. I live by one rule and that is, Date the body but marry the lens. In short, I chose to invest in the best possible glass that my wallet could afford me and I have never looked back. The larger bodies and even medium format camera have been very enticing but in the end what I do profesisonally could even be achieved by a smartphone so with that in mind, what Sony has done for the APS-c line has been nothing but pure genius. The technology indeed has come very far. I see myself using the 6300 for another 5 years before I ever consider upgrading. Truly a fantastic line up the 6000 series has been and still is all the way down to the GOAT the sony 6000 itself.
This channel played a major role on my decision of buying my a6000, that still being used and abused to this day. But getting more interested in video, the a6700 sounds like a great upgrade (that I can't afford 😆)
Arthur, you have helped me to see the light. I have enjoyed APS-C cameras over the years but lured myself into full-frame because it seemed like the mountaintop. But you showed a year or two ago how portraits with one and then the other showed very little difference. Other than much better EVFs, full frames were just bigger with bigger lenses, heavier and why bother? The clincher is the a6700 with all the dazzling features and nice size with a plethora of super lenses and even smallish FE lenses, like the 1.8s feel just fine with it. Frankly, APS-C is lucky to have a champion in you. Thanks for all your advice.
Love this channel. It is the reason I began using dedicated cameras, and of course, Sony apsc cameras. Thank you for all the effort and passion poured into this channel.
I've been a semi professional landscape shooter for about seven years, and when I say semi-professional I'm professional but I don't do it full-time and I've recently in the last year change backed to crop sensor cameras for my work and I went Fujifilm over Nikon full frame, and honestly it's the best thing I ever did going small I get you out more it's less of a mission to get your gear ready and when you do get out into nature, you're not liking big heavy gear around I still have my full frame gear for certain jobs, mainly doing sports and things like that but I can honestly say you can do just about everything with a crop sensor camera and do it really really well. It is also allowed me to carry a drone in my bag and I can fit other things into my backpack. I purchased a small Xs-10 initially, but probably found that camera a little bit limited so I upgraded to the XT5 and oh my goodness this thing is as good as any for camera you'll find it has enough megapixels to do whatever you like and. And like Arthur says there are benefits to full frame in certain situations, but I think you can do 80 to 90% of your work on a crop sensor camera. I love the Fuji line of cameras. I don't mind the Sony A series as well. I think they are fab too.
I started digital photography 15 years ago with a Pentax K100D super 6mp APSC cameras over the years I shot APSC because that is what Pentax made until the full frame K1, the second up date the Pentax K1 MKII I purchased because at the time I added events to every thing else I was photographing, so in the beginning I used two APSC cameras for events and they worked fine, then I picked up some limited edition prime lenses and having a full frame camera along with APSC camera gave me more flexibility for the lens that I was using. As time went by I added Panasonic, Olympus, Fujifilm and recently a Nikon Z6Ii and ZF to round out my collection of cameras and glass. Even though I have access to full frame, APSC and micro 4/3 I use the APSC more often than any other camera.
The Best opinion about Cameras and Lenses by Sony I’ve heard so far on UA-cam for years.I also agree with everything that’s been said. I started with the present breed of cameras with a Sony Nex 7 then the A6000 and can honestly say the videos and photos I took with the A6000 look better than the video I’ve taken with a A74 with a G Master lens now granted the A6000 had No stabilisation just one card slot and a less sophisticated autofocus system with all those less features it still took great video and photos .The background blur was not something that at that time made much difference to me .I’m about to change my A74 for the A6700 .
Sony apsc cameras and lenses are a great way to get into the Sony system. And, as you mentioned, you might not always want to use full frame cameras and lenses. I just returned from a trip where I chose to take two a6600 bodies and two full frame lenses. I have two A7R5 bodies that I could have taken, but the a6600 bodies were perfectly fine for what I wanted to shoot plus being smaller and lighter. Nice to have a choice of Sony cameras and lenses.
I also LOVE aps-c, the ability to tighten up everything with full frame lenses while taking advantage of the sharper center gives an unparallelled image quality. I bought an A7IV and use it in aps-c most of the time but I would have gladly gone for the a6700 if it had a joystick and 1/8000, lacking 1/8000 was the definitive deal breaker for me.
I love to watch videos with APSC cameras positives. I’m using 6100 and 6500 with Sigma 16 1.4, Sonys 35, 50mm 1.8 and FF Sony 85 1.8 from 2 years and don’t feel I need to upgrade to FF. I’m so happy from performance and even low light situations are not a problem bcz of using flash everywhere I need. I’m shooting weddings, outdoor and studio portraits, family sessions and Sony crop sensor camera is doing this job amazing!🎉
Dear Arthur, very clever and shareable opinion. Thank you so much for sharing your content, always so professional and full of inspiration. Regards. Marco
You just helped me tremendously on deciding which camera to get and which system to invest in. Thanks a lot for making this video. I just suscribed to your channel, too.
Literally just found your channel today and first thing I thought was "oh hoovie has a brother who loves cameras I guess?". Thanks for the confirmation hahah! instant sub.
APCS cameras are great. But I upgraded from a6000 to a7IV and must say for a casual shooting a6000 + good lenses is still a great option. But, there is aa but. In certain situations, like night photography and low light the difference is big. Wildlife, especially birds I can shoot now with super high ISO, fast shutter speed and as long I get the photo sharp photos are great. In this sense APSC cameras unfortunately are a no go. telephoto + apsc + high ISO which is a must for this kind of photography just don't work. Pricing... the newest apsc are quite expensive. I cannot afford having apsc and full frame, sony doesn't send me gifts, lol. Casual shooting, just starting - I would say dont bother with a full frame. If you know what ISO is and need to shoot at higher ISO don't bother with APSC, just upgrade and forget.
Valid points however over the years I've seen some absolutely stunning wildlife photography with APS-C. I still believe the skill of the photographer is more important than sensor size.
@@rich4738 sure, I didn’t say anything about skills. That’s not my point at all. All the cameras are good, BTW this video is sponsored by Sony and it giving you reasons why you should get Sony APSC camera. In the end of the day it is a buyer choice. I say full frame is more superior than APSC, from my perspective, in certain style of shooting it easily outperform APSC. I just know this from my personal files from both systems. But this doesn’t mean it is better choice for you.
a6000 is a 10 years old camera, and a7 IV is only 2 years old, that's why the difference is so huge. Though modern FF is less noisy than modern APS-C, modern APS-C cameras are much better than a6000. When I upgraded from a6000 to a6600, I got lighter images (by default) with less noise, especially with high ISO. a6600 is ~1.33 stops better, and it's even less noisy than a7 II.
@@Gxost14 Sure, maybe it was a a big jump but between a6000 and 7IV but I never looked back. All these incremental differences between all aps-c models make a difference over all. I get it but I also think it was a good choice for me to get a full frame. It really depends on what kind of photography camera is used for. I personally am FF team now, I however would like to have a spare APSC body in my backpack for certain purposes.
As this is sponsored by Sony: Hope that Sony one day will severly and easily increase the usability of their non-joysticked cameras, by doing all of these: 1. allow key customisation, so that the d-pad 4 directional buttons can directly move the focus point, WITHOUT having to select "focus standard" 2. allow the customisation of any key, for the function "switch EVF/LCD", and also allow the customisation of the "up" key on the d-pad (which is unfortunately locked with the switch EVF/LCD function) 3. as a continuation of the very appreciated function "camera standby on screen closed" on recent cameras with such screens (fully rotatable ones), allow button customisation with this function 4. improve the touch-n-drag option on the screen, when viewing through the EVF; on the a6700 it feels as semi-laggy and non-fluid, as the a7 III... Or, simply, just include a joystick in all the enthusiast+ -level cameras, FF, or APS-C. :) Thanks!
I just came back to Sony APS-C with the A6700 after being away for 3 years. (I went Sony full frame for two years then Fuji APS-C for a year) I’m soooo happy to be back with Sony - I did not enjoy Fuji at all. And a month ago I picked up the Sony 16-55 2.8 and I love it! It’s on par with the GM lenses I had on full frame. I’m really happy with it.
Love your content. I bought a Sony a6000 about 4 years ago and your videos were great for me to learn more about my camera. I just bought a6700, and love it! I mainly travel with a 12mm Rokinon, 20mm, 35mm, and 50mm Sony prime, 70-350mm G Sony, and a Tamron 17-70mm 2.8. Lightweight, and versatile setup for just about anything I want to shoot. Maybe down the road could add another a6700. But, this works great and I'm glad I went with these choices.
How are you satisfied with the Sony 20mm F2 (I suppose)? I found the output decent, but not great. Somehow I can’t find the soul of the lens. When I put the sony 24mm F1.8, the results are somehow nicer. I love the 20mm pancake size for traveling, but later Iˇm missing the better IQ 😞
You’re travelling with such an insane lens lineup and dare call it lightweight? :D :D :D Don’t get me wrong, by all means bring all the lenses you want. I just thought that was kinda funny :) Of course an equivalent lens selection would be much bigger and heavier for FF, no question about it.
I've watched several of your vids and always learn a lot. I appreciate your style and practical content. I'm searching for a great travel/adventure cam to replace both an older Sony a6300 and an even older Nikon D7100 DSLR. Both have been warriors in the past, but are definitely dated. This vid helped push me over the top to stick with APS-C and go for the a6700 with the 2.8 14-55. Seems like exactly what I was looking for.
Hi I've the A6600 and the A7iv. I use for landscape, street and wildlife photography (birds). After using the A6600, I was able to get almost (not 100%) as good pics of birds as the A7iv. I want to sell all my full frame and by the A6700 as my main as I find that I can get many more lenses if I downgrade to apsc. I might rent the A6700 for a weekend soon to test its capability before pulling the trigger. Wish me luck!
A good complement to the Sony E 16-55 F2.8 G is the Tamron 11-20 F2.8 Di lll-A RXD. I hope Sigma brings out the 50-140 F2.8 for APS-C soon, possibly with a teleconverter similar to Fuji. Then my Holy Trinity would be perfect. Thanks for the video. 👍🏼👋🏼
I need to say APS-C in 90% are just better choice, specially now in 2023, this is the main standard now. Full frame camera only for professional work, where You need 45mgpx picture, or for astrophotography, where the light is most important. For rest of the use smaller sensor, lighter, cheaper, is maybe not better, but same good, and if is same good as, what the point for spend more money for FF, carry this heavy equipment. Today when APS-C lenses are so brilliant and so good, is just worthy camera. What You can buy for 4.000£ in Full frame, one camera + one good lense what will manage this 45mgpx, in Aps-c You will get body + full set of Lenses, all what You need. Full frame only if You need get best quality as possible, otherwise Aps-c just the clear winner in many aspects. I got both sizes and mostly i prefer Aps-c. 10yrs ago was different, now big company focus more on smaller format, is more popular and more affordable, and quality very close.
If you had your choice of 3rd part lenses would you go Prime or Zoom? It seems like the Sigma 16mm is King but I want something a bit wider. The Sony 16-55 G 2.8 is $1300. But something like the Tamaran 11-20 2.8 is just $700. Is the Sony lens $600 better? I mainly shoot video on a sony 6100. I'm not a photographer. Last but not least ... should I just go with a Prime lens? Again, I know the Sigma is the King but I am leaning towards Viltrox 13mm 1.4
Great points on this video, I'm completely with you on the benefits of more depth of field (which can offset the inferior high iso performance) and not being so precious about the camera due to lower cost.
I have been shooting APS-C since Sony NEX-5N, also my first camera. Full-frame is a big investment and is simply too expensive for me as a hobby, unless it's your job or we can make money from it. As a casual shooter, I only want some good photos (better than a phone camera, that is), it also helped me learn photography a lot in the past years. I also like APS-C body, I don't mind the touch screen, fewer knobs/dials/buttons, and I don't want to carry a big camera or worry about it all the time. APS-C is just perfect for me :)
A very clear discussion which has probably helped a lot of people. Like you I have both an aps-c camera and a full frame with good glass for both. Quite honestly ,I enjoy using my a6xxx cameras more and ( hopefully!) will be taking the a6700 with me on my next trip! I am just waiting for the camera to come back into stock!
I just got 6700 recently and its huge difference from 6100 I used last 3 years. Not just on paper but how everything works in real life. I using Tamron 17-70 and Sony 70-350 and happy with that. I just need Sony 15mm 1.4 ))
@@G.with.camera much easier to make a good shot with less efforts. I don’t know why but on my a6100 manual settings didn’t work good. I didn’t like results. Maybe I had a bad copy. Even my 6000 before that was better with manual. But auto on 6100 was much better than a6000. Especially autofocus. But on 6700 everything works perfect and focus is amazing. Pictures during lowlight much better. Battery life way better. Ergonomic much better.
I love the APS- C format (smaller / lighter) and started with the NEX-5n. Now its starting to play up I am planning to upgrade to the 6700 and can continue to use all my lenses. Thanks for the review and comparison.
Since Sony never updated the a5100, I eventually switched to the a7c because it is comparable in size to the a6000 lineup. Sadly, neither one fits as comfortably in a jacket pocket as the a5100 does. APS-C emount for me was foremost about capable but stealthy cameras which could be hidden in a pocket and which could be quickly drawn to take a snapshot. Now I carry my a7c mostly like any old DSLR with a strap around my neck. Maybe it's time to buy a Ricoh GR.
enjoyed the diagrams of the sensor with crop lens and also good points about the smaller less expensive setup my brother had an A7III & A7R4 on loan + the gm lenses and though wow we are walking around with $6K + of equipment in our bag. I'm going to get a used ZV-E10 and upgrade if the need arises.
I have the Laowa 65mm Macro which I couldn't see if you have reviewed. The MTF charts are incredible for that lens and I use it for certain landscape photography situations. Worth a look if you haven't already. Thanks for the content.
I noticed that you changed your channel art to "The Sony APS-C Channel" Will you continue to review other products or just APSC gear? Great video as always. I agree about full frame. I would love to upgrade, but is it really worth it for me? Not yet, as photography and videography is not my full-time job yet. Maybe 25% now, but until I am 100% in to photography and video, then APSC is more than enough for me.
Arthur. I propose doing a review of the a74 with Sony 24-70 vs the a6700 with Sigma 18-50. They are roughly equivalent. I bought the a74 for better low light capability but I just don't see improvements over my a6700. Thanks in advance.
I do feel like APS-C cameras have lost a little bit of their identity in the past few years. Would like to see it move to an insanely small form factor, paired with small lenses to make them even better for travel. Personally prefer the full frame compact options at the moment.
Same for me. I have an a6300, which was my first camera, and an A7C which I got for better low light performance. I use primes only and the Samyang lenses are small even for APS-C standards (not counting pancakes which don’t have as wide an aperture).
Hi Arthur, is it true that if you use an Apsc and a full frame at the same equivalent F stop(say F4 on APSC and F6.3 on Full frame) , Same shutter speed, same equivalent lens (APSC 50mm Full frame 75mm) , then the full frame and APSC will have the same depth of field and Full frame will be better as it has better low light capability despite using a slightly higher ISO? Then the APSC's only advantage is lower cost, smaller size and longer reach with same lens?
Thanks Arthur for your informative videos... I recently bought an a6700 based on your reviews and so far love it (although still on a steep learning curve). I'm interested in using it for a variety of purposes - everyday photo shooting (to go beyond what my iPhone can do), travel photography, nature photography, and since I have three telescopes, astrophotography. Question: Would you be able to do an APSC astrophotography video, comparing it with full frame cameras? I'd love to get your take on how well APSC does in the realm of astrophotography. Thanks!
Great video. But the point with the wider DoF on APS-C is not really a valid point in my opinion. I mean... you can just close the aperture a bit on the FF camera, then you have the same DoF (the better ISO performance of the FF should compensate that). But, conversely, wouldn't that also mean that Full-Frame has no "smaller DoF advantage"? Theoretically yes, but the problem is the availability of lenses. In most cases there simply are no FF equivalent APS-C lenses available (for a 85mm f1.4 FF you would need a 56mm f0.9 APS-C).
I got my first Sony - a Sony A6000 - which i took all round Oman with only a couple of lenses after i had watched your early presentations and have never looked back having lugged a heavy Nikon around the jebels previously. I then - again after your take on the A6400 - brought that and have taken it into the wilds of southern Turkey and round the coast and elsewhere - it has performed beautifully, not least because i have also followed your advice on lenses - the Sigma trio and others. I do not shoot video so have passed on the A6700 and concentrated on good lenses instead. In short - thank you for all your outstanding advice and i am becoming a better - if amateur - photographer and get huge pleasure from some of the results. I live in a beautiful part of Dorset, Southern England and the opportunities there are endless especially as the seasons change.
The a6700 auto focus is wonderful if you shoot people. Just found out I can simply use the touch screen to pick the person and the camera automatically zeroes in on the eye. You can not believe how happy that made me. In case somebody has the camera already: I can recommend to set the AF to the snappiest setting. Another eye opener. No idea why they slow it down so much as a default setting.
Thanks for that - I agree although I primarily concentrate on landscape and occasionally - if interesting - I take some urban shots although people often are part of that of course.
@@cjwl1 For photography it's people in movement where the A6700 really shines. The image stabilization might be a reason too, if you don't have a stabilised lens. Otherwise I'd recommend to stay with an older body. The improvement in image quality isn't worth it.
Arthur, thanks much for this video. Your comments on the 16-55 f2.8 are of particular interest. I guess i’d have to admit that I’ve become a bit of a lens image quality fanatic. So if paying a boatload more brings me a small increment more image quality (say over the Sigma 18-50), i’m in for that. I’m mulling the pros and cons of the Fuji x-s20 versus the Sony A6700, as options for a fuller apsc system to replace my Nikon Z50 and lenses.
I have an a7R3 and an a7R5, and some FF lenses. When I'm traveling though, and want to travel small and light, I take the a7R5 with the Sony 10-20mm f4, Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, and the Sigma 56mm f1.4. I don't know if there are many of us who sometimes shoot apsc on a FF camera, but I look at the camera as being two cameras in one.
It depends, Arther, the kind of photography we do to suit sufficiently enough for the purpose! I'm a great fan of sony mirrorless system cameras and before my very eyes the sony company brought about a sea change in producing excellent state of the art cameras which compelled other big tech companies to produce cameras which could ably challenge the sony and you may have observed that although renowned camera companies have their recent cameras compromise lethal advancements, capable of delivering superior results, are so astronomically priced that they fail to reach the larger section of crowd; with the advent of excellent mobile phone cameras reaching almost everyone on the planet! But the the fact is it remains the same for the chosen few who really love to shoot and for these phone cameras is a handy alternative just in case! Now these fewer people still have choices that fit their own purposes of photography and unless it's required top notch APSC cameras are capable of producing advance level photographic needs and there's no need to go for larger sensor cameras but for the levelling up purposes! Lens reach becoming 1.5 times of the full frame ones you have exhaustive lens choices for APSC cameras than full frame latest cameras barring sony all other camera companies haven't the same repertoire when they used to make film cameras but still you can use those lenses if you have some with adapters, expensive too, with fine results if you can use those focussing system yourself but obviously it's a cumbersome practice for fast shooters given the opportunity offered by autofocus lenses are in most cases winners nowadays and the presently available third party lenses is no mean contenders to boost your photography! I personally like APSC camera because it fits snugly into my palm and a pleasure to travel with less burden of carrying weight!
thinking about getting myself an APSC ecosystem.. I'm a father with 2 kids. I'd love to take every moment I spent with them with a better quality picture than my Galaxy Note 8. to think that I need to hold a FF camera for all day, with those big lenses (not to mention expensive too), I need something lighter, easy to use, easy to handle, and more importantly, fits my budget (around 1.000 dollar or so).. thinking about getting Sony 6400 with OSS lenses, but Sony 6700 seems sooo tempting 🤤🤤
You can indeed go full frame with small lenses. The main difference is the price for the body, if you are willing to consider third party lenses. Most people just tend to forget, that e.g. f1.2 on APSC equals f1.8 on FF. They underestimate as well the iso advantage of FF, if you compare two bodies of the same generation. It more than compensates for the loss of light. As a father myself, I'd recommend you a camera from the newest generation (A7CR, A7CII or A6700), for the reason that their autofocus is so much better, whicj is so important with impatient and active kids.
If you have an open mind and forget about features and have an appreciation for 3d pop, vibrant colours, basically the exact opposite to your note 8… You’re basically obliged to get a used Leica tl and a used 35mm 1.4 summilux. It will only set you back $1500 and the tl 35mm 1.4 is the greatest aps-c lens ever made. You will not get a better rendering lens even for Sony full frame 😘
@@18yearsoldnot Lens choice is a matter of taste. Further, I'd not recommend a manual lens to any beginner, even less an expensive one. If one wants to start manual, get a vintage lens for 100 bucks. Plenty of interesting options out there.
Sony APSC camera gear is very light and very handy. I use both APSC and Full Frame cameras. I would like to see a crop sensor short telephoto lens of about 50-60mm to about 135-150mm with a constant aperture of not less than f/4 and very preferably f/2.8. It would need to be light weight and have the total bag of auto focus cababilities.
Thanks for all the years Arthur. Your casual outlook on lenses and cameras is always more impactful on my decision-making, whether I buy a lens or not.
Fully agreed! Thank you for all the content you create.
Also an APS-C shooter.
For me, as a casual, weekend Dad shooter, my A6400 gives me ALL I need.
I love the smaller size and lower cost
I got my a6400 because I wanted to get into Sony system and I didn't really have a large budget. Now I have a Sony FX30 and I'm able to support shoot with FX6 shooters and grow my video production business. It all started on a Sony a6400. I like the APSC option it's been affordable for me to grow and its nice to see the lens support.
I started my APSC journey because of your videos... Thanks alot
It was awesome meeting you at the Kondo trip! Recently a lot of guys have tried to talk me into going full frame. For what I do, there is just no need for it when you consider the amazing quality and features you get out of the EV-10, 6400, 6600, & 6700. Combing any one of those cameras with the Zeiss 24mm, 15mm 1.8G or 16-55mm 2.8G and you could almost never distinguish the difference between a full frame equivalent.
I shoot mainly full frame and think it’s pretty silly to try and talk some one else into it. :D If APS-C delivers what you want, by all means stay with it! =)
If Sony is reading this, Arthur sold me into Sony APSC. I bought a ZV-E10 10 months ago because 1. It was the cheapest with a great 3 party lens selection. 2. I never had a camera before, so I didn’t want to spend that much initially. 3. The quality for videos and pictures were more than I needed on it. I love my camera! Photography changed my way of seeing the world.
My dream would be a 40MP Sony APSC camera. I want a higher res sensor, but I don’t want to spend full frame prices on bodies and lenses, specially on multiple lenses, as i already have great apsc lenses.
Fujifilm do have a 40MP APS-C camera, the XT-5. the Fujifilm are very classical looking with more dials but if like me you come from a Sony APS-C you'll notice the higher weight.
here's the thing, you may THINK you want 40 megapixels, but remember that in raw you won't have the choice of smaller, so each of your raw files will be these huge 40 megapixel monstrosities, 20-25 is much more of a sweet spot where the file sizes are manageable, unless you wanted to do architecture/wildlife exclusively and not just day to day stuff, but judging from your comment you wanted an all-rounder, so your choice was good!
Remember that as the sensor pixels get physically smaller, each one gets less light exposure in a shot. This means an inherent introduction of noise. If you watch any review of the 61 megapixel A7R IV compared to the 42 megapixel A7R III, you will see that there is more noise to remove for the 61 megapixel pics. Of course, there is great noise reduction/removal software, but ultimately, no matter how clever the software is, you are still removing some of the picture information along with the noise. So really what it boils down to is an optimal pixel density for each format. I'm betting that Sony tried higher resolution/higher pixel density sensors for the A6700, but they arrived at the 26 megapixel resolution for APS-C for a variety of very good reasons.
@@Moshe_Dayan44there is not less good data with more pixels unless you start to go much smaller and start Introducing new types of noise or if smaller sensors lead to less effective sensor coverage(more edge less sensor). This means you can always sacrifice effective resolution for noise reduction in post processing. So more resolution is more of a trade of with processing and storage requirements vs flexibility and post processing time investment. And some camera's can actually change how many pixels are sampled per pixel in the RAW letting you change the resolution of the sensor before processing and storing so you can get faster raw frame rates/ smaller storage or higher resolution.
Another excellent video; straightforward, clear, relaxed, with no tedious repetition or distractions. Thank you, thank you.
The selling point of APSC for me is using the Sony 70-350mm for wildlife. The FF equivalent reach is the 200-600 which is massive, heavy and expensive. I'm more likely to go out shooting with a camera that is no hassle to carry long distances
70--350 really sharp and the Zoom Range very strong
the only week point is after 200 too little aperture
but I dont have other better choose
I still want tamron / sigma will produce 2.8 tele Zoom
Depends. You can get the Tamron 70-300 full frame and then use clear image zoom, that gives you 105-450mm (the real equivalent, not 200-600) and it's lighter and faster!
@@DigiDriftZone 70-300 last time I also consider but give up becasue no VC
another reason is the sharpness at all zoom range
VC for Tele I think is importance
Tamron 70300 the attractive point is
pricing / weight / aperature before 150
of course no VC we can push the ISO at 5.6
@@hkum7148 what’s VC?
@@DigiDriftZone Tamron 's Vibration Compensation
I use the 16-55 as my standard walkaround lens with the A6400. It's a great combo. Love the channel - keep flying the flag for Sony kit.👍
I am principally a wildlife photographer and have been shooting with Sony Full Frame, no less than the A1 and 400 GM being my main gear. However, with the release of the A6700 I got one and the 70-350 G as a lightweight walkabout setup. I must say I am absolutely loving it for its compactness and most of all the weight, only 1.1kg. Incredible for a camera and lens that has the reach to shoot wildlife with high-resolution images! I have no intention of changing to APS-C, (not unless Sony brought out an APS-C camera to equal the A1 and a fast telfocal prime) but my A6700 is perfect as a secondary body, and is certainly what I will take when general traveling not specifically for wildlife photography. It is so lightweight it goes with me virtually everywhere, so I have a decent camera if I chance upon a photographic opportunity even when abroad on business, as I am at present in China.
You already own a 20MP APS-C camera with A1-like performance. It is called the A1
@@MegaWeitzel You missed the point. The point was a setup similar enough to his A1 at a fraction of the bulk. I mean, it is kinda asinine to assume someone would want a second setup just for the sake of having a carbon copy of their first?
@@pudding2675 The A6700 is just 200g lighter than the A1. With a lens such as the 70-350 that isn't much of a difference
There is also the A7CR.. it should outperform the A6700 in most points. But i am ok with 200g more weight and better ergonomics.
The fact Sony is slowly adding "flagship" features to their apsc line convinced me of investing into a a6400 as my first camera, I hope one day we'll see a stacked sensor apsc body, that would be my "dream camera".
Fuji has one, and I don’t know if Sony designs their sensors but they make them….
They have the capability
Have been with you all the way….and….after a journey into full frame….i’m back in APS-C! Always love your videos!!
I've been following your channel for a long time. So happy to see sony is sponsorong your video. Extremely happy for the recognition you've gotten after years of work 👍
That was a great overview of the Sony APSC system. I have two bodies and 5/6 lenses and have been delighted with the results I have obtained over several years. My previous camera was the Nikon D40 which served me well for several years - the body and lenses were physically much larger and heavier than this Sony system.
Thank you Arthur for helping me get started on my video journey. You're the reason I shoot with Sony APSC... and won't be letting go anytime soon
Reason for checking your vids is the “amateur” or “hobbyist” view on things making it more relatable for most people 👍👍👍
I just do photo work with vintage manual lenses. I still use an original a7 to get the full usage out of old adapted lenses. I do also have an a6000 but that's for more casual shooting. I love them both
I greatfull yor video 4years ago when A6600 released I purchased under EU in B&H Thank you Arthur for that video I have never forgot few month before the pandemic I received the body and I keep this camera as my primary I plan to buy it the new A6700 body I love my APC-S camera cheaper lens found for third party and sony too. Once again you are part of my team of shooters with Sony APC-S cameras.
Started with the Sony, loved it, still own it. But when I found out that Fujifilm are also heavily invested in APSC and they have a huge variety of in camera processing that pictures come out edited straight out of camera, I quickly owned one too.
I am a Sony APS-C shooter, I love using that format
Hi Arthur R. I have to say I enjoyed this video it was informative for me. About 18 months ago I decided to exchange my heavy Nikon D7000 + 17 / 50 and a 70 / 300 lens as they were not getting enough use. I am a Nikon user and so purchased the Nikon Zfc with an 18 / 140 Nikor lens and they work really well together I find myself taking this camera out far more when ever I am out for a walk. As a non professional it works for me.
The d7000 is too heavy. D3500,Z50,Zfc get the most use.
I'm picking up my a6700 tomorrow. Gonna be using it with a Tamron 17-70 f/2.8. Having said that, I'm not too sure about the future of Sony APS-C cameras, but then again, people doubted m4/3's future and Panasonic just slapped them in the mouth with the G9 II.
I've been into photography for 5 years and still stick with my trustworthy a6000 and the kit lens. As a hobbyist, it serves everything I need - for street photography, for my vacation and I even do videos as well. Had my first job last week, and instead of seeking expensive cameras out there, I still used my a6000 and hired more expensive lenses just because I needed wider apertures.
It has been an amazing journey with this little friend and I think the a6000 will still be in my pocket for some more years. I find no need to replace it with a more expensive camera at the moment.
I thought this way as well, but then I decided and bought the a6400. I tried a6300 and was not sure, that body can change much, but the lenses will do. How I was wrong with a6400! Yes, the IQ doesn’t pop up that much - even if it does for sure, specially with low light noise reduction. But the way of focusing, response, not overheating whatsoever, build quality, viewfinder, buttons … I knew, that I’m home. I really felt, that in this case, the body moved me forward which I wasn’t expected. Otherwise, what kicked me up were lenses: Sony 24 F1.8 and Sigma 65mm F1.4. Supported with Sony 18-105 f4 and 10-18 f4 from a6000 era.
It's cool that you the A6000 still works for you. I sold mine for the A6300 a few months after I got it. What I discovered is that A6000's chassis flexed whenever I attached heavy, old SLR lenses to it and that it wasn't properly sealed for the elements. I'm primarily an outdoor shooter. Regarding the kit lens...if you like to print your images big I found it inadequate. But this is for my primarily outdoor use shooting land, water, and nightscapes. But I have thought about picking up a used one to use as a dedicated webcam and backup body since I have a range of lenses.
Wow... I never thought of the Hoovies Garage of Sony Cameras till now. Awesome joke and two amazing creators!
Hoovie's Darkroom, surely.
truly the king of APSC! awesome video Arthur! been contemplating going all in APSC now, so thank you for this!
It's a great time to be for Sony APSC shooters right now. I started at about the Nex 5 and have kept current up to the A6700. I added FF along the way, but with all the fantastic Sony and 3rd party APSC lenses available now, I was having a hard time justifying my FF gear. I didn't use it all that often anyway because of the size. Then came the A7CR. What a quandary! It appears to be as good a FF body as my A7R5, and as good an APSC body as my A6700. It means I can shoot FF when the spirit moves me, but mostly shoot all my great APSC lenses with no size penalty. It almost seems too good to be true. Like I must be missing the fatal flaw to my theory somehow. A great problem to have I guess.😁
That's a good observation, it seems there is little reason to get into APS-C in 2023, you can often get a full frame option that's smaller, lighter and sometimes even cheaper! - I saved money replacing my X-S20 with the ZV-E1 and superior lenses.
The flaw in the A7CR is the price. In case that's no concern, I totally agree that it combines both worlds perfectly.
@@maggnet4829 Yes, that's a point, I suppose with the A6700 APS-C right now, you get something that's a bit "average" all around. With full frame, you have to choose:
1. ZV-E1 - get a beast of a video camera, A7S III killer, with the amazing A7R IV AI chip. But only 12 megapixels.
2. A7C-II - a bit of a compromise camera with APS-C has some advantages/disadvantages.
3. A7RC - also a bit of a compromise for video but a beast of a photo camera.
But in any case you get a more compact setup, more depth of field control with more compact lenses, flexibility to use the big super fast zooms/primes, more light gathering, less noise, an insane ISO range that goes to almost 500k (on the ZV-E1 at least), that magical full frame look, etc, etc.
@@DigiDriftZone It's tricky right now to decide. If you work without a gimbal, but with Sony native stabilised lenses, I think the FF cameras have a big advantage. Other than that it really depends on what lenses you like to use (crop factors differ wildly in video mode), if you need 120fps or 8k, if you need the last bit of low light performance and if you shoot stills as well. Those questions will lead you to different bodies.
The a6700 indeed is somewhat of a jack of all trades and a master of non.
@@maggnet4829 indeed. Personally as a formerly photo first shooter that looked at the a7s III with wonder since it was released, I decided to challenge myself with a video first camera and got the ZV-E1, no regrets. The camera is absolutely unreal and it’s finding new ways to impress me daily - it’s so far ahead of APS-C, I didn’t expect this kind of margin. I think for a UA-camr without an endless budget and wanting something compact, it really stands in a class of its own and the dynamic stabe is very useful. The photos are great too (especially low light) but 12MP and no mechanical shutter are clear disadvantages for photography.
Great video! Congratulations on the Sony sponsorship. I too shoot both full frame and APS-C, Sony A7c & a Leica M digital camera. APS-C I go with my Sony A6600 and a Leica TL2. Lens wise it's Sony, Sigma, Leica, & Voigtlander. It all makes for lots of fun and great photos.
Watching your videos 6 years ago and decided to go with Sony a6000 as my first camera. This year I've finally upgraded to a6700
I am glad you already know about your car content doppelganger! I have been watching Hoovies for years but just stumbled upon your channel yesterday.
Very nicely done as always, i have fallen in love with my Sony a6300 matched with a Sigma f1.4 16mm Lens just does such a good job every time it is needed, you are the one that pushed me to getting this camera and lens via watching your videos so thank you for showing me the correct combination of camera and lens.
You are my most trusted channel on the whole subject. Love how casual and in plain English you can explain stuff.
I have my 6300 for 4 years now and really unsure if I should purchase a A7C II for low light situation.. which would mean i also need to purchase at least 1 FF lens... or just upgrade to 6700.
I almost completely decided for A7C II and this video made it suddenly a way harder choice xD It started as a hobby and reference gathering for concept art, but I now kinda want to earn some money on the side with shooting portraits
1 stop.
That´s the difference.
@@derJackistweg so 1.4 on APS-C is about 2.8 on FF?
I hear you. The a6300 was my first camera, and at the start of the year I bought an A7C. I still have both and at weddings and the like, I use them side by side. In my opinion, the upgrade was well worth it for me. Would it be worth it for you? I’d say if you’re in control of the lighting situation, stay with APS-C. In that scenario, FF has no advantage over an A6700. If you do shoot in environments where you have limited control over lighting, I’d recommend going FF. Obviously something crazy like medium format would be even better, but price and portability kinda argue in favor of FF IMO.
Regarding crop factor and aperture: to calculate which aperture creates which depth of field, APS-C converts to FF by multiplying times 1.5. So an f/1.4 APS-C lens gives you the depth of field of f/2.1 on FF. The same is NOT true for how much light gets in. f/1.4 is f/1.4, regardless of APS-C or FF. I don’t have enough technical knowledge to explain how to properly compare how much light gets on the sensor at a certain aperture on APS-C and FF respectively. I shoot a lot of things either wide open or stopped down to like f/6.3, and full frame is better in low light. That’s all I know :D
My first digital camera was an EOS 10D. I had zero experience with digital. I bought the 10D because of the price from a seller on Fred Miranda.
I used that camera for 15 years. When. I married and gave it to my wife. She is a natural at photography. We upgraded the 10D to a 40D. Then finally to an EOS RP. She is 4-11 the RP fits her hands perfectly. The photos she takes are no less than amazing.
Rosemary Beach! Love that place and love this channel, thank you sir. Excellent work as always.
I think the comfort of carrying a less expensive setup is definitely one of my biggest reasons to go with APS-C. I agree the A6700 with the 16-55 makes a great combo
Thanks Arthur. I've been using a6400 for almost 4 years and it's still the best for me. I post often on social media so I think it's more than enough. Cheers from Riau! 😃
Congratulations! I just noticed you were featured on the Sony Alpha Universe email! I am glad they are noticing your quality work.
Thank you so much Arthur for the very helpful and informative video on Sony A6700 and the APS-C sensor! I enjoyed and learnt from your video! God bless and good luck on your photography journey!
Here's the thing about Sony camera's..... they hold up quite well. I am still using the Sony 6300 after all these years, found my way around it's limitations which in turn helped me focus more on my work which is making documentaries and doing photography professionally and it's been a work horse. I have seen many of my friends move to full frame and still struggle to produce great results. I live by one rule and that is, Date the body but marry the lens. In short, I chose to invest in the best possible glass that my wallet could afford me and I have never looked back. The larger bodies and even medium format camera have been very enticing but in the end what I do profesisonally could even be achieved by a smartphone so with that in mind, what Sony has done for the APS-c line has been nothing but pure genius. The technology indeed has come very far. I see myself using the 6300 for another 5 years before I ever consider upgrading. Truly a fantastic line up the 6000 series has been and still is all the way down to the GOAT the sony 6000 itself.
Still got my a6300 too, and even though it has its limitations, I love it to this day!
Try the a6700 and you will be amazed at the speed and accuracy of the AF. I have a6000 and a6400 and they are just sitting on the shelf.
This channel played a major role on my decision of buying my a6000, that still being used and abused to this day. But getting more interested in video, the a6700 sounds like a great upgrade (that I can't afford 😆)
Arthur, you have helped me to see the light. I have enjoyed APS-C cameras over the years but lured myself into full-frame because it seemed like the mountaintop. But you showed a year or two ago how portraits with one and then the other showed very little difference. Other than much better EVFs, full frames were just bigger with bigger lenses, heavier and why bother? The clincher is the a6700 with all the dazzling features and nice size with a plethora of super lenses and even smallish FE lenses, like the 1.8s feel just fine with it. Frankly, APS-C is lucky to have a champion in you. Thanks for all your advice.
Thank you for your video, it's really good and easy to understand. I decided to choose APS-C after watching it
Love this channel. It is the reason I began using dedicated cameras, and of course, Sony apsc cameras. Thank you for all the effort and passion poured into this channel.
I've been a semi professional landscape shooter for about seven years, and when I say semi-professional I'm professional but I don't do it full-time and I've recently in the last year change backed to crop sensor cameras for my work and I went Fujifilm over Nikon full frame, and honestly it's the best thing I ever did going small I get you out more it's less of a mission to get your gear ready and when you do get out into nature, you're not liking big heavy gear around I still have my full frame gear for certain jobs, mainly doing sports and things like that but I can honestly say you can do just about everything with a crop sensor camera and do it really really well. It is also allowed me to carry a drone in my bag and I can fit other things into my backpack. I purchased a small Xs-10 initially, but probably found that camera a little bit limited so I upgraded to the XT5 and oh my goodness this thing is as good as any for camera you'll find it has enough megapixels to do whatever you like and. And like Arthur says there are benefits to full frame in certain situations, but I think you can do 80 to 90% of your work on a crop sensor camera. I love the Fuji line of cameras. I don't mind the Sony A series as well. I think they are fab too.
I started digital photography 15 years ago with a Pentax K100D super 6mp APSC cameras over the years I shot APSC because that is what Pentax made until the full frame K1, the second up date the Pentax K1 MKII I purchased because at the time I added events to every thing else I was photographing, so in the beginning I used two APSC cameras for events and they worked fine, then I picked up some limited edition prime lenses and having a full frame camera along with APSC camera gave me more flexibility for the lens that I was using. As time went by I added Panasonic, Olympus, Fujifilm and recently a Nikon Z6Ii and ZF to round out my collection of cameras and glass. Even though I have access to full frame, APSC and micro 4/3 I use the APSC more often than any other camera.
Thank you Arthur, highly appreciated! I ordered my 6700 + 16-55 G today. In addition i can take advantage of the Sony summer cashback.
My favorite videos of yours is the 35mm 1.8 review... Do you still consider it your favorite lens?
I love your channel, keep up the great work. What APS lens would you recommend for an A6400 that will give you the best bokah ?
The Best opinion about Cameras and Lenses by Sony I’ve heard so far on UA-cam for years.I also agree with everything that’s been said. I started with the present breed of cameras with a Sony Nex 7 then the A6000 and can honestly say the videos and photos I took with the A6000 look better than the video I’ve taken with a A74 with a G Master lens now granted the A6000 had No stabilisation just one card slot and a less sophisticated autofocus system with all those less features it still took great video and photos .The background blur was not something that at that time made much difference to me .I’m about to change my A74 for the A6700 .
How awesome, finally a video sponsored by Sony itself. I really grant you the title of official Sony ambassador. You make us Sony APS-C users proud!
Sony apsc cameras and lenses are a great way to get into the Sony system. And, as you mentioned, you might not always want to use full frame cameras and lenses. I just returned from a trip where I chose to take two a6600 bodies and two full frame lenses. I have two A7R5 bodies that I could have taken, but the a6600 bodies were perfectly fine for what I wanted to shoot plus being smaller and lighter. Nice to have a choice of Sony cameras and lenses.
Dude you’re so good, I really like your editing and how you present information 👏
I also LOVE aps-c, the ability to tighten up everything with full frame lenses while taking advantage of the sharper center gives an unparallelled image quality. I bought an A7IV and use it in aps-c most of the time but I would have gladly gone for the a6700 if it had a joystick and 1/8000, lacking 1/8000 was the definitive deal breaker for me.
I love to watch videos with APSC cameras positives. I’m using 6100 and 6500 with Sigma 16 1.4, Sonys 35, 50mm 1.8 and FF Sony 85 1.8 from 2 years and don’t feel I need to upgrade to FF. I’m so happy from performance and even low light situations are not a problem bcz of using flash everywhere I need. I’m shooting weddings, outdoor and studio portraits, family sessions and Sony crop sensor camera is doing this job amazing!🎉
Thank you. I learn a lot from all your videos. This video helped me taking the decision to go for the a6700 instead of the a7c.
Dear Arthur, very clever and shareable opinion. Thank you so much for sharing your content, always so professional and full of inspiration. Regards. Marco
You just helped me tremendously on deciding which camera to get and which system to invest in. Thanks a lot for making this video. I just suscribed to your channel, too.
Literally just found your channel today and first thing I thought was "oh hoovie has a brother who loves cameras I guess?". Thanks for the confirmation hahah! instant sub.
APCS cameras are great. But I upgraded from a6000 to a7IV and must say for a casual shooting a6000 + good lenses is still a great option. But, there is aa but. In certain situations, like night photography and low light the difference is big. Wildlife, especially birds I can shoot now with super high ISO, fast shutter speed and as long I get the photo sharp photos are great. In this sense APSC cameras unfortunately are a no go. telephoto + apsc + high ISO which is a must for this kind of photography just don't work.
Pricing... the newest apsc are quite expensive. I cannot afford having apsc and full frame, sony doesn't send me gifts, lol. Casual shooting, just starting - I would say dont bother with a full frame. If you know what ISO is and need to shoot at higher ISO don't bother with APSC, just upgrade and forget.
Valid points however over the years I've seen some absolutely stunning wildlife photography with APS-C. I still believe the skill of the photographer is more important than sensor size.
@@rich4738 sure, I didn’t say anything about skills. That’s not my point at all. All the cameras are good, BTW this video is sponsored by Sony and it giving you reasons why you should get Sony APSC camera. In the end of the day it is a buyer choice. I say full frame is more superior than APSC, from my perspective, in certain style of shooting it easily outperform APSC. I just know this from my personal files from both systems. But this doesn’t mean it is better choice for you.
a6000 is a 10 years old camera, and a7 IV is only 2 years old, that's why the difference is so huge. Though modern FF is less noisy than modern APS-C, modern APS-C cameras are much better than a6000. When I upgraded from a6000 to a6600, I got lighter images (by default) with less noise, especially with high ISO. a6600 is ~1.33 stops better, and it's even less noisy than a7 II.
@@Gxost14 Sure, maybe it was a a big jump but between a6000 and 7IV but I never looked back. All these incremental differences between all aps-c models make a difference over all. I get it but I also think it was a good choice for me to get a full frame. It really depends on what kind of photography camera is used for. I personally am FF team now, I however would like to have a spare APSC body in my backpack for certain purposes.
As this is sponsored by Sony:
Hope that Sony one day will severly and easily increase the usability of their non-joysticked cameras, by doing all of these:
1. allow key customisation, so that the d-pad 4 directional buttons can directly move the focus point, WITHOUT having to select "focus standard"
2. allow the customisation of any key, for the function "switch EVF/LCD", and also allow the customisation of the "up" key on the d-pad (which is unfortunately locked with the switch EVF/LCD function)
3. as a continuation of the very appreciated function "camera standby on screen closed" on recent cameras with such screens (fully rotatable ones), allow button customisation with this function
4. improve the touch-n-drag option on the screen, when viewing through the EVF; on the a6700 it feels as semi-laggy and non-fluid, as the a7 III...
Or, simply, just include a joystick in all the enthusiast+ -level cameras, FF, or APS-C. :)
Thanks!
thank you for the clear explanation. You clarified a lot of questions on my mind. Now I know better which camera to choose next. Thank you again.
I just came back to Sony APS-C with the A6700 after being away for 3 years. (I went Sony full frame for two years then Fuji APS-C for a year)
I’m soooo happy to be back with Sony - I did not enjoy Fuji at all. And a month ago I picked up the Sony 16-55 2.8 and I love it! It’s on par with the GM lenses I had on full frame. I’m really happy with it.
Love your content. I bought a Sony a6000 about 4 years ago and your videos were great for me to learn more about my camera. I just bought a6700, and love it! I mainly travel with a 12mm Rokinon, 20mm, 35mm, and 50mm Sony prime, 70-350mm G Sony, and a Tamron 17-70mm 2.8. Lightweight, and versatile setup for just about anything I want to shoot. Maybe down the road could add another a6700. But, this works great and I'm glad I went with these choices.
How are you satisfied with the Sony 20mm F2 (I suppose)? I found the output decent, but not great. Somehow I can’t find the soul of the lens. When I put the sony 24mm F1.8, the results are somehow nicer. I love the 20mm pancake size for traveling, but later Iˇm missing the better IQ 😞
You’re travelling with such an insane lens lineup and dare call it lightweight? :D :D :D Don’t get me wrong, by all means bring all the lenses you want. I just thought that was kinda funny :) Of course an equivalent lens selection would be much bigger and heavier for FF, no question about it.
I've watched several of your vids and always learn a lot. I appreciate your style and practical content. I'm searching for a great travel/adventure cam to replace both an older Sony a6300 and an even older Nikon D7100 DSLR. Both have been warriors in the past, but are definitely dated. This vid helped push me over the top to stick with APS-C and go for the a6700 with the 2.8 14-55. Seems like exactly what I was looking for.
Your content never disappoints! Mind sharing the minimal wrist strap you’re rocking?
Hi I've the A6600 and the A7iv. I use for landscape, street and wildlife photography (birds). After using the A6600, I was able to get almost (not 100%) as good pics of birds as the A7iv. I want to sell all my full frame and by the A6700 as my main as I find that I can get many more lenses if I downgrade to apsc. I might rent the A6700 for a weekend soon to test its capability before pulling the trigger. Wish me luck!
Just got the A6400 this week and planning to get the Viltrox 75mm 1.2! Thanks for your reviews
A good complement to the Sony E 16-55 F2.8 G is the Tamron 11-20 F2.8 Di lll-A RXD. I hope Sigma brings out the 50-140 F2.8 for APS-C soon, possibly with a teleconverter similar to Fuji. Then my Holy Trinity would be perfect. Thanks for the video. 👍🏼👋🏼
Oh yes, that Sigma 50-140mm f2.8 I'm waiting for, too!
my trio : 16-55 f2.8, 11-20 f2.8, sigma 56mm f1.4. i'm thinking about adding 70-350 to the list ;)
I need to say APS-C in 90% are just better choice, specially now in 2023, this is the main standard now. Full frame camera only for professional work, where You need 45mgpx picture, or for astrophotography, where the light is most important. For rest of the use smaller sensor, lighter, cheaper, is maybe not better, but same good, and if is same good as, what the point for spend more money for FF, carry this heavy equipment. Today when APS-C lenses are so brilliant and so good, is just worthy camera. What You can buy for 4.000£ in Full frame, one camera + one good lense what will manage this 45mgpx, in Aps-c You will get body + full set of Lenses, all what You need. Full frame only if You need get best quality as possible, otherwise Aps-c just the clear winner in many aspects. I got both sizes and mostly i prefer Aps-c. 10yrs ago was different, now big company focus more on smaller format, is more popular and more affordable, and quality very close.
I've been following Arthur since Technology Mafia. That was like 6 or 7 years ago. This is the only channel in YT that focuses on Sony APS-C.
If you had your choice of 3rd part lenses would you go Prime or Zoom? It seems like the Sigma 16mm is King but I want something a bit wider. The Sony 16-55 G 2.8 is $1300. But something like the Tamaran 11-20 2.8 is just $700. Is the Sony lens $600 better? I mainly shoot video on a sony 6100. I'm not a photographer.
Last but not least ... should I just go with a Prime lens? Again, I know the Sigma is the King but I am leaning towards Viltrox 13mm 1.4
Nothing beats the price and the size. What’s your favorite lens
Great points on this video, I'm completely with you on the benefits of more depth of field (which can offset the inferior high iso performance) and not being so precious about the camera due to lower cost.
Been having this lens for like 2 yrs now. It lives on my a6600
Appreciate your knowledge of Sony line up. Thanks for sharing!
i LOVE my a7iii, BUT my a6100 gets plenty of love with my 16mm and 56mm sigma lenses. i just love those lenses so much.
I have been shooting APS-C since Sony NEX-5N, also my first camera. Full-frame is a big investment and is simply too expensive for me as a hobby, unless it's your job or we can make money from it.
As a casual shooter,
I only want some good photos (better than a phone camera, that is), it also helped me learn photography a lot in the past years. I also like APS-C body, I don't mind the touch screen, fewer knobs/dials/buttons, and I don't want to carry a big camera or worry about it all the time. APS-C is just perfect for me :)
A very clear discussion which has probably helped a lot of people. Like you I have both an aps-c camera and a full frame with good glass for both. Quite honestly ,I enjoy using my a6xxx cameras more and ( hopefully!) will be taking the a6700 with me on my next trip! I am just waiting for the camera to come back into stock!
I just got 6700 recently and its huge difference from 6100 I used last 3 years. Not just on paper but how everything works in real life. I using Tamron 17-70 and Sony 70-350 and happy with that. I just need Sony 15mm 1.4 ))
bro you have my dream combo right there. I wish I had that system lol. Currently a 6100 user.
Can u say more about differences between 6100 and 6700 in real life? I’m a 6100 and 6500 owner and I think about upgrade to 6700.
@@G.with.camera I don't have it, but based on the reviews I've seen is mainly on video where this takes the mile ahead
I use the 15mm 1.4 on an FX30. It is excellent. Small, light, bright and sharp!
@@G.with.camera much easier to make a good shot with less efforts. I don’t know why but on my a6100 manual settings didn’t work good. I didn’t like results. Maybe I had a bad copy. Even my 6000 before that was better with manual. But auto on 6100 was much better than a6000. Especially autofocus. But on 6700 everything works perfect and focus is amazing. Pictures during lowlight much better. Battery life way better. Ergonomic much better.
I love the APS- C format (smaller / lighter) and started with the NEX-5n. Now its starting to play up I am planning to upgrade to the 6700 and can continue to use all my lenses.
Thanks for the review and comparison.
Since Sony never updated the a5100, I eventually switched to the a7c because it is comparable in size to the a6000 lineup. Sadly, neither one fits as comfortably in a jacket pocket as the a5100 does. APS-C emount for me was foremost about capable but stealthy cameras which could be hidden in a pocket and which could be quickly drawn to take a snapshot. Now I carry my a7c mostly like any old DSLR with a strap around my neck. Maybe it's time to buy a Ricoh GR.
APSC is good for video and ordinary photos. But to shoot against a sunrise, we need full frame for max dynamic range.
enjoyed the diagrams of the sensor with crop lens and also good points about the smaller less expensive setup my brother had an A7III & A7R4 on loan + the gm lenses and though wow we are walking around with $6K + of equipment in our bag. I'm going to get a used ZV-E10 and upgrade if the need arises.
I have the Laowa 65mm Macro which I couldn't see if you have reviewed. The MTF charts are incredible for that lens and I use it for certain landscape photography situations. Worth a look if you haven't already. Thanks for the content.
I noticed that you changed your channel art to "The Sony APS-C Channel" Will you continue to review other products or just APSC gear?
Great video as always. I agree about full frame. I would love to upgrade, but is it really worth it for me? Not yet, as photography and videography is not my full-time job yet. Maybe 25% now, but until I am 100% in to photography and video, then APSC is more than enough for me.
Arthur. I propose doing a review of the a74 with Sony 24-70 vs the a6700 with Sigma 18-50. They are roughly equivalent. I bought the a74 for better low light capability but I just don't see improvements over my a6700. Thanks in advance.
I do feel like APS-C cameras have lost a little bit of their identity in the past few years. Would like to see it move to an insanely small form factor, paired with small lenses to make them even better for travel. Personally prefer the full frame compact options at the moment.
Same for me. I have an a6300, which was my first camera, and an A7C which I got for better low light performance. I use primes only and the Samyang lenses are small even for APS-C standards (not counting pancakes which don’t have as wide an aperture).
Same here. Now I just keep my A7C and Ricoh GR.
very good explain
i want to who is the best between A7iii and this A6700
I used to dream of buying full frame. I stopped dreaming and sticking to my a6300 and only buying those great apsc lens that recently came out...
Hi Arthur, is it true that if you use an Apsc and a full frame at the same equivalent F stop(say F4 on APSC and F6.3 on Full frame) , Same shutter speed, same equivalent lens (APSC 50mm Full frame 75mm) , then the full frame and APSC will have the same depth of field and Full frame will be better as it has better low light capability despite using a slightly higher ISO? Then the APSC's only advantage is lower cost, smaller size and longer reach with same lens?
Love this! A 10bit color 6700 would be EPIC
it's there already
Thanks Arthur for your informative videos... I recently bought an a6700 based on your reviews and so far love it (although still on a steep learning curve). I'm interested in using it for a variety of purposes - everyday photo shooting (to go beyond what my iPhone can do), travel photography, nature photography, and since I have three telescopes, astrophotography. Question: Would you be able to do an APSC astrophotography video, comparing it with full frame cameras? I'd love to get your take on how well APSC does in the realm of astrophotography. Thanks!
Great video. But the point with the wider DoF on APS-C is not really a valid point in my opinion. I mean... you can just close the aperture a bit on the FF camera, then you have the same DoF (the better ISO performance of the FF should compensate that). But, conversely, wouldn't that also mean that Full-Frame has no "smaller DoF advantage"? Theoretically yes, but the problem is the availability of lenses. In most cases there simply are no FF equivalent APS-C lenses available (for a 85mm f1.4 FF you would need a 56mm f0.9 APS-C).
Your comment is SPOT-ON, my friend!
I got my first Sony - a Sony A6000 - which i took all round Oman with only a couple of lenses after i had watched your early presentations and have never looked back having lugged a heavy Nikon around the jebels previously. I then - again after your take on the A6400 - brought that and have taken it into the wilds of southern Turkey and round the coast and elsewhere - it has performed beautifully, not least because i have also followed your advice on lenses - the Sigma trio and others. I do not shoot video so have passed on the A6700 and concentrated on good lenses instead. In short - thank you for all your outstanding advice and i am becoming a better - if amateur - photographer and get huge pleasure from some of the results. I live in a beautiful part of Dorset, Southern England and the opportunities there are endless especially as the seasons change.
The a6700 auto focus is wonderful if you shoot people. Just found out I can simply use the touch screen to pick the person and the camera automatically zeroes in on the eye. You can not believe how happy that made me.
In case somebody has the camera already: I can recommend to set the AF to the snappiest setting. Another eye opener. No idea why they slow it down so much as a default setting.
Thanks for that - I agree although I primarily concentrate on landscape and occasionally - if interesting - I take some urban shots although people often are part of that of course.
@@cjwl1 For photography it's people in movement where the A6700 really shines. The image stabilization might be a reason too, if you don't have a stabilised lens. Otherwise I'd recommend to stay with an older body. The improvement in image quality isn't worth it.
Arthur, thanks much for this video. Your comments on the 16-55 f2.8 are of particular interest. I guess i’d have to admit that I’ve become a bit of a lens image quality fanatic. So if paying a boatload more brings me a small increment more image quality (say over the Sigma 18-50), i’m in for that. I’m mulling the pros and cons of the Fuji x-s20 versus the Sony A6700, as options for a fuller apsc system to replace my Nikon Z50 and lenses.
I have an a7R3 and an a7R5, and some FF lenses. When I'm traveling though, and want to travel small and light, I take the a7R5 with the Sony 10-20mm f4, Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, and the Sigma 56mm f1.4. I don't know if there are many of us who sometimes shoot apsc on a FF camera, but I look at the camera as being two cameras in one.
It depends, Arther, the kind of photography we do to suit sufficiently enough for the purpose! I'm a great fan of sony mirrorless system cameras and before my very eyes the sony company brought about a sea change in producing excellent state of the art cameras which compelled other big tech companies to produce cameras which could ably challenge the sony and you may have observed that although renowned camera companies have their recent cameras compromise lethal advancements, capable of delivering superior results, are so astronomically priced that they fail to reach the larger section of crowd; with the advent of excellent mobile phone cameras reaching almost everyone on the planet! But the the fact is it remains the same for the chosen few who really love to shoot and for these phone cameras is a handy alternative just in case! Now these fewer people still have choices that fit their own purposes of photography and unless it's required top notch APSC cameras are capable of producing advance level photographic needs and there's no need to go for larger sensor cameras but for the levelling up purposes! Lens reach becoming 1.5 times of the full frame ones you have exhaustive lens choices for APSC cameras than full frame latest cameras barring sony all other camera companies haven't the same repertoire when they used to make film cameras but still you can use those lenses if you have some with adapters, expensive too, with fine results if you can use those focussing system yourself but obviously it's a cumbersome practice for fast shooters given the opportunity offered by autofocus lenses are in most cases winners nowadays and the presently available third party lenses is no mean contenders to boost your photography! I personally like APSC camera because it fits snugly into my palm and a pleasure to travel with less burden of carrying weight!
Hi Arthur! Thank you for your content!
Question for you: what APSC bodies do you own?
thinking about getting myself an APSC ecosystem.. I'm a father with 2 kids. I'd love to take every moment I spent with them with a better quality picture than my Galaxy Note 8. to think that I need to hold a FF camera for all day, with those big lenses (not to mention expensive too), I need something lighter, easy to use, easy to handle, and more importantly, fits my budget (around 1.000 dollar or so).. thinking about getting Sony 6400 with OSS lenses, but Sony 6700 seems sooo tempting 🤤🤤
Not all FF lenses are big. Just check Sony's primes: 24mm, 40mm & 50mm They are tiny. Even smaller than many APSC lenses.
You can indeed go full frame with small lenses. The main difference is the price for the body, if you are willing to consider third party lenses. Most people just tend to forget, that e.g. f1.2 on APSC equals f1.8 on FF. They underestimate as well the iso advantage of FF, if you compare two bodies of the same generation. It more than compensates for the loss of light.
As a father myself, I'd recommend you a camera from the newest generation (A7CR, A7CII or A6700), for the reason that their autofocus is so much better, whicj is so important with impatient and active kids.
If you have an open mind and forget about features and have an appreciation for 3d pop, vibrant colours, basically the exact opposite to your note 8… You’re basically obliged to get a used Leica tl and a used 35mm 1.4 summilux. It will only set you back $1500 and the tl 35mm 1.4 is the greatest aps-c lens ever made. You will not get a better rendering lens even for Sony full frame 😘
Take the 6400, it´s a great choice for the first years. Don´t fall in the full-format hole. And you don´t need the 6700 to start.
@@18yearsoldnot Lens choice is a matter of taste. Further, I'd not recommend a manual lens to any beginner, even less an expensive one. If one wants to start manual, get a vintage lens for 100 bucks. Plenty of interesting options out there.
Sony APSC camera gear is very light and very handy. I use both APSC and Full Frame cameras. I would like to see a crop sensor short telephoto lens of about 50-60mm to about 135-150mm with a constant aperture of not less than f/4 and very preferably f/2.8. It would need to be light weight and have the total bag of auto focus cababilities.
APSC vs FULL Frame??
A: There is no wrong answer.
Thank you for always putting out amazing info videos