As a Pro photographer, I still shot APC and so do almost everyone I. Never had a client complain nor asked if it was full frame. As long as I know what I am doing (lighting etc).
Ok so can I just ask...why? You can get a Sony A7 II (a 24MP full frame camera with image stabilization) for as little as $600 on eBay, or an A7R II (42MP, stabilized) for as little as $800, and the Sony E mount has the widest selection of lenses of any camera brand. If you're making money with your camera then there's really no excuse not to upgrade, your camera is a tax write-off anyway. And just curious, which APSC camera are you using and with what lens?
@@schm147 You're not taking into account the lenses for those systems. Capable full frame bodies are very easy to find cheap in 2023, but you're also buying into the entire system, the cost of lenses skyrockets once you switch, especially if you have already found a couple of lenses on your aps-c system you can't go without (which probably means going for specific, incredibly expensive equivalents in the full frame space).
@@schm147 I'm a professional, I shoot on a Canon M50 with the 15-45 kit lens, ef-m 55-200 lens, and recently got a 35mm f/0.95 prime for low light. I also use the DJI Pocket mk1 as my companion My photography and videography involves a lot of long hikes, climbing into gorges, walking along wet rocks, etc. I use it because it gets the images and video my employers and I like, it's incredibly lightweight and small, and (while I've never broken anything) replacement costs are low if anything breaks. If I do get another camera, it'll honestly probably be micro 4/3rds and not full frame. The only reason I'd get a full frame at this point is if I need more of the frame to be out of focus, any employer that wanted me to use full feame - has provided the full frame camera. I had one provide me a 6,000 dollar Nikon set-up with a 70-200mm lens, the camera body and one lens took up the same amount of space and weighed quite a bit more than my m50 and 3 lenses.
@@schm147you can also get a Fuji with the best Apsc sensor and be happy with it. And if you feel an urge for a large sensor (which means you loose zoom range and speed) you can jump full frame and use Medium Format. Bottom line is you don't have an overall advantage with full frame unless you know exactly what you want it for.
Somewhat surprisingly nearly all professional video cameras (red, arri Alexa, etc) are aps-c which they call super 35 or s35. I believe this goes back to film days (film cameras pull film sideways while movie cameras pull it vertically)
I have the A7r3 and A9 and love them both to death. The imagine quality of full frame is worth the money in my opinion especially if you are wanting to be a photographer as a side gig or full time.
The image element in the ARRI Alexa 35 is a super-35 sized sensor which is only marginally larger than APS-C (And definitely smaller than full-frame) but has 17 stops of dynamic range, and is being used to shoot a large fraction of the major movie releases.
Video is a lot different than stills. For a video you’re playing 24 images within a second, you can’t notice the loss in quality because it’s a video. For a stills you’re looking at one frame for seconds at a time, you notice the loss of detail very quickly
This sensor has some crazy electronics that lead to very low downstream noise and dual gain technology where the sensor reads 14 bit images that and both over and underexposed and combines them
I bought a 5D iii last year, got it for about $450 with a 24-105 and a shotgun mic. In my opinion, older full frames are a better deal than newer apsc cameras if your main focus is photography(iso performance on newer cameras is generally better, you have to play around with the settings to get less noisy shots, my solution is denoise and add grain or just use a speed light). But for video, go for newer cameras as they tend to have better autofocus (although, im shooting 5.7K 14bit raw videos on my 5D with magic lantern, yes I don’t get autofocus on my videos but now I’m okay with it and also learned manual focus 😂)
Simply remove all of the glass elements from your 24-70 g master and replace it with a fleshlight sleeve. Now you can fu** it until yo shii sore. Works on both FF and Aps c!
most fuji cameras and especially their flagships (x-h2, x-h2s, x-t5) are better than 90% of fullframe cameras out there. If you compare them to a $5000 or $8000 fullframe camera, sure they might not be as good, but at that price you can get a medium format fuji or a hasselblad even, which have even better image quality than fullframe.
Depends on the use case. If you want to go birding/walking/climbing with your gear you will have a much better time with a crop sensor with 1.5/1.6 times the reach and a lens you can actually carry. The „perfect gear“ is only good if you can actually make the shot in time. And a modern crop sensor like the canon r7 with the rf 100 500 can already produce what most mortals would call perfect quality
@@schm147 I'm no expert, but lenses are a lot smaller, cameras not necessarily. More depth of field can be advantage or disadvantage. Not quite so good in low light, but pretty damn good. Definitely for me the best cause size and weight so little - I therefore use it a lot more...
Only for the completely new people without money to spare. Micro four thirds falls off incredibly quickly in low light, the difference between aps-c and full frame is tiny compared to the difference between mft and aps-c. I own a micro four thirds camera (granted, an old dslr) and you cannot use that professionally. It's also much more restrictive because while the glass for them is cheaper, it's much harder to get enough depth of field using those sensors and lenses. Micro four thirds is pretty much a general, everything-in-focus system reserved for only the best lighting conditions. Besides, with smartphones and all, that system is dying. Only buy into a micro four thirds camera if you want to learn the basics of photography and see some optical phenomena to learn how to tackle them, especially now that aps-c cameras are so cheap, with older models featuring more than enough tech like good af, stabilization etc and the second hand market essentially deleting the cost. Not even including dslrs vs mirrorless cameras cause that's essentially people giving you money instead of you paying lmao.
@@TomCaltonnah you missed out all the good reasons to go aps-c like reach. Besides the low-light disadvantage is overblown, a modern aps-c will do fine unless it’s actually low light, any normal day it will be fine
![Is Full Frame Better Than APS-C? Here's The [Annoying] Truth...](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tOx3Y52EPNI/mqdefault.jpg)
As a Pro photographer, I still shot APC and so do almost everyone I. Never had a client complain nor asked if it was full frame.
As long as I know what I am doing (lighting etc).
AS A *NOT* Pro client or PRO photographer *People don't know what is full frame or APC ...
So never going asked that question.
😂😂
Ok so can I just ask...why? You can get a Sony A7 II (a 24MP full frame camera with image stabilization) for as little as $600 on eBay, or an A7R II (42MP, stabilized) for as little as $800, and the Sony E mount has the widest selection of lenses of any camera brand. If you're making money with your camera then there's really no excuse not to upgrade, your camera is a tax write-off anyway. And just curious, which APSC camera are you using and with what lens?
@@schm147 You're not taking into account the lenses for those systems. Capable full frame bodies are very easy to find cheap in 2023, but you're also buying into the entire system, the cost of lenses skyrockets once you switch, especially if you have already found a couple of lenses on your aps-c system you can't go without (which probably means going for specific, incredibly expensive equivalents in the full frame space).
@@schm147 I'm a professional, I shoot on a Canon M50 with the 15-45 kit lens, ef-m 55-200 lens, and recently got a 35mm f/0.95 prime for low light. I also use the DJI Pocket mk1 as my companion
My photography and videography involves a lot of long hikes, climbing into gorges, walking along wet rocks, etc. I use it because it gets the images and video my employers and I like, it's incredibly lightweight and small, and (while I've never broken anything) replacement costs are low if anything breaks. If I do get another camera, it'll honestly probably be micro 4/3rds and not full frame. The only reason I'd get a full frame at this point is if I need more of the frame to be out of focus, any employer that wanted me to use full feame - has provided the full frame camera. I had one provide me a 6,000 dollar Nikon set-up with a 70-200mm lens, the camera body and one lens took up the same amount of space and weighed quite a bit more than my m50 and 3 lenses.
@@schm147you can also get a Fuji with the best Apsc sensor and be happy with it.
And if you feel an urge for a large sensor (which means you loose zoom range and speed) you can jump full frame and use Medium Format.
Bottom line is you don't have an overall advantage with full frame unless you know exactly what you want it for.
Excellent image quality anyways in this day and age,good ergonomics and accurate af are what I'd consider when buying nowdays.
I'd have to agree. Nothing winds me up more than bad AF performance!
Thank you, you just made me choosing my next camera early
Is there any Difference in Video Quality ? Does size matters in shooting videos too ?
Somewhat surprisingly nearly all professional video cameras (red, arri Alexa, etc) are aps-c which they call super 35 or s35. I believe this goes back to film days (film cameras pull film sideways while movie cameras pull it vertically)
I have the A7r3 and A9 and love them both to death. The imagine quality of full frame is worth the money in my opinion especially if you are wanting to be a photographer as a side gig or full time.
The image element in the ARRI Alexa 35 is a super-35 sized sensor which is only marginally larger than APS-C (And definitely smaller than full-frame) but has 17 stops of dynamic range, and is being used to shoot a large fraction of the major movie releases.
Video is a lot different than stills. For a video you’re playing 24 images within a second, you can’t notice the loss in quality because it’s a video. For a stills you’re looking at one frame for seconds at a time, you notice the loss of detail very quickly
This sensor has some crazy electronics that lead to very low downstream noise and dual gain technology where the sensor reads 14 bit images that and both over and underexposed and combines them
I bought a 5D iii last year, got it for about $450 with a 24-105 and a shotgun mic. In my opinion, older full frames are a better deal than newer apsc cameras if your main focus is photography(iso performance on newer cameras is generally better, you have to play around with the settings to get less noisy shots, my solution is denoise and add grain or just use a speed light). But for video, go for newer cameras as they tend to have better autofocus (although, im shooting 5.7K 14bit raw videos on my 5D with magic lantern, yes I don’t get autofocus on my videos but now I’m okay with it and also learned manual focus 😂)
Honestly, you choose the camera that makes you laugh
I've had my Sony a6400 with the 16-50mm kit lens for about a week now, and i'm loving everything about it so far except the menu 🤣
Light sensitivity is inaccurate and most people don't figure out the 35mm equivalent after the crop factor.
If pushed to extreme you will always get better results with full frame. Most normal folk may not even reach those limits in a real world scenario.
My fujifilm 14mm 1.4 was $1k…
Simply remove all of the glass elements from your 24-70 g master and replace it with a fleshlight sleeve. Now you can fu** it until yo shii sore. Works on both FF and Aps c!
You forgot the subject separation ;-)
That's kinda dependent on the lens though, but yeah, it's certainly easier to get a more shallow depth of field with full frame cameras.
Its good for Portraits, but for ultra macros a apsc sensor has its advantages
what about fujifipm xh2 (40 mp).
most fuji cameras and especially their flagships (x-h2, x-h2s, x-t5) are better than 90% of fullframe cameras out there.
If you compare them to a $5000 or $8000 fullframe camera, sure they might not be as good, but at that price you can get a medium format fuji or a hasselblad even, which have even better image quality than fullframe.
If you want the best go full frame and money is no object
Depends on the use case.
If you want to go birding/walking/climbing with your gear you will have a much better time with a crop sensor with 1.5/1.6 times the reach and a lens you can actually carry.
The „perfect gear“ is only good if you can actually make the shot in time.
And a modern crop sensor like the canon r7 with the rf 100 500 can already produce what most mortals would call perfect quality
if money is no object, go medium format. A fuji medium format rig costs less than some flagship fullframe setups
Micro four thirds is an even better option imo
Can you elaborate?
@@schm147 I'm no expert, but lenses are a lot smaller, cameras not necessarily. More depth of field can be advantage or disadvantage. Not quite so good in low light, but pretty damn good. Definitely for me the best cause size and weight so little - I therefore use it a lot more...
Only for the completely new people without money to spare. Micro four thirds falls off incredibly quickly in low light, the difference between aps-c and full frame is tiny compared to the difference between mft and aps-c.
I own a micro four thirds camera (granted, an old dslr) and you cannot use that professionally. It's also much more restrictive because while the glass for them is cheaper, it's much harder to get enough depth of field using those sensors and lenses. Micro four thirds is pretty much a general, everything-in-focus system reserved for only the best lighting conditions. Besides, with smartphones and all, that system is dying.
Only buy into a micro four thirds camera if you want to learn the basics of photography and see some optical phenomena to learn how to tackle them, especially now that aps-c cameras are so cheap, with older models featuring more than enough tech like good af, stabilization etc and the second hand market essentially deleting the cost. Not even including dslrs vs mirrorless cameras cause that's essentially people giving you money instead of you paying lmao.
Another UA-camr, another full frame suggestion...
Did you even pay attention? I suggested reasons for both 🤣🥱
Huh??
@@TomCaltonnah you missed out all the good reasons to go aps-c like reach.
Besides the low-light disadvantage is overblown, a modern aps-c will do fine unless it’s actually low light, any normal day it will be fine
APS-C is plenty for hobbyists. If your livelihood depends on the image quality, Full Frame is worth the investment.