Overall they looked completely interchangeable (albeit at different focal lengths). It would be awesome to do a PT.2 with little more challenging lighting setup like a 'wedding reception' where there may be more noise and how to play with that in post. I shoot full frame, but the fact that Matti's blind camera test (Canon vs Red vs Fuji vs Sony) showed the Fuji X-T30 beating out full frame and professional cinema cameras backs up just how right you are. Thanks for making great videos!
To be honest, it's so close, but I'd go with the full frame shots every time. There was just something a little special about them. I would probably base my purchase decision on client level.
I would NOT choose a 24 megapixels Full Frame Camera ! For me the best of two worlds are my Sony A7RIV and Sony A7RIVA, these two Cameras works as Four in two Cameras, because I often use the APSC mode (28 megapixels) fx when I do not need large prints, that does also multiply my Lens collections, 14mm becomes "21mm", 24mm becomes "36mm", 55mm becomes "82mm", 65mm Macro becomes "97mm", 135mm becomes "202mm" and 200-600mm becomes "300-900mm" 😊 If I was on a budget and I did not need large prints, then a Sony 6600 would be enough, but I do wish that Sony will make more rugged and pro A7000 and A9000 Cameras !
Just got home shooting my first wedding with Fujifilm and it’s just so fantastic! Previously used Nikon, switched to Fujifilm due to form factor for traveling, but was able to book several weddings this year. Watched your top 10 wedding poses video this morning and made a checklist haha 🤦🏼♂️ love your videos!
I’m getting paid as a Fuji shooter so yes, professionals can use APSC. Clients don’t care what camera you use as long as they get the results you promised.
I’ve done a lot of paid shoots, especially weddings and e-commerce shoots on an aps-c camera (Nikon Z fc) and all my clients have been happy with results!!
Interesting that you say that. I've settled on the Z fc after trying a bunch of cameras, and wondered how paying clients would react to it (I only shoot recreationally at present). I especially wondered if the old school styling of the camera would make clients skeptical of it.
This was super helpful. I currently work with an APSC camera and have been trying to sort of if I need to go full frame yet. This answered that! Thanks!!
I used an Olympus and a Sony. Both have there ups and downs but they both come out with amazing photos. I love the Olympus for outdoor anything and I love the Sony for portrait. They both have there place and it’s amazing. Love these kind of comparisons.
I prefer apsc these days. You don't really notice a difference to full frame unless you're shooting side by side and comparing. If you're focusing on the composition and you know what lenses/focal lengths work for your camera, it's not going to matter. APSC can do just as much as any other camera, so pay more attention to the other features a camera has
Everybody should keep in mind, if you look at the great masters of photography, we have better gear than almost all of them. If you have a decent smartphone with a decent camera, you have a better camera than Ansel Adams. If you have an old Canon rebel from a pawn shop, you have a better camera than Aaron Siskind. It's art, so it's obviously open to interpretation, but I know if I gave my Nikon d7500 to either of them, well just imagine what they would create.
Important to note that billboards are printed at low resolutions. You can actually create a full campaign with a 26mp camera with no problems. For the most part higher megapixel medium format cameras work better for high end retouching or art photography exhibitions that needs to be seen closer.
Thank you for this video! Photographers can get so hung up on full frame without understanding what it really means! I've been shooting with Fuji cameras for years and no client ever had to worry about whether my gear would get them the photos and videos they wanted. I love the size, the colours, the design and what these APS-C cameras allow me to produce!
I'm owning a Sony A6700 since August. But i must say that the photography results that i get with this camera are very great. Also because it has some pro features on board. In my eyes APS-C is getting better every time. And i believe that the APS-C camera's wich came out this year are the start of an entire new generation of APS-C camera's who are more close to their by many considered "professional only" full frame siblings.
You or Chris should do a fun video on can a professional photographer take pictures with video game peripherals like the GameBoy Camera. Or some TikTok’s at least with it.
It's a preference, some people like the full frame look, but for pirtraits, even mft sensors work fine (Panasonic, Olympus) especially if you are doing studio portraits. You also forgot Fuji. They are APSC, but their cameras have larger bodys, and bunch of dials that can be customised, and they have been compeating with FF for years now (yes, they aded medium format, but that is a niche part of their system). The X-T cameras are incredible. Also a lot of APSC cameras are used for wildlife photography as they give bigger reach with lenses . Yes, nowdays full frame can do crop on sensor, but the price is more afordable on apsc cameras and lenses, especially for enthusiasts.
Switched to Fuji and had a Sony a7rii before. The Fuji, yes is newer has a better dynamic range for sure. Now I also own the gfx 50r and that one would be go-to first and forever…would love to see a medium format vs full frame video as well!
Full Frame isn't just for large mega pixel counts, the larger sensor with a low mega pixel count does great in low light. I have a a full frame canon with only 20mp but it's write speed is insane, the low light capability is fantastic and I still have work on billboards shot with it. Just more to consider. My crop sensor lives in my bag along side my full frame, both are capable, and each brings it's own set of advantages. :)
as a gig photographer, I used to use a nikon d3400 with a kit lens. that lasted me a long while as most of my work was done through editing. however i would always try to mask the blurriness from low shutter speed and high iso by leaning into the grain and making it look artsy fartsy. Having switched to a professional full frame camera, there's so much more information in my images and high iso's aren't nearly as grainy. it makes editing feel so much more free. i can do much more stylised edits as well as really sharp commercial ones.
This video covers Sony APS-C. Here's my take on this as a Fujifilm X-Series (APS-C) user: I shoot primarily with a Fujifilm X-T4, (APS-C). It has plenty of buttons and controls. I went for loved the idea of having ISO, Aperture, and shutter dials on the camera, but I am really into photo editing. I now believe I would be better off with their medium format line, given how much I want to edit. More image data means more flexibility. I have shot with different sensor sizes (APS-C, Full Frame, and the "compact" medium format of GFX and Hasselblad X1D), and I DO notice a difference, especially when I work with the files in Photoshop. One of the differences between Fujifilm and other brands is the film simulations. Much like other subtle differences, they could be overlooked as just presets, but I've met professional photographers who used proper lighting and film simulations to shoot straight out of JPEG. I think the secret to being a good Fujifilm photographer is to leverage their power and get them right in camera. Done right, it can look amazing out of the camera. That sold me on the camera, but again, I am not shooting straight to JPEG. If you, however, have those purist tendancies with a mirrorless camera (that sounds contradictory and is so post-modern!), you might consider looking into what you might do with a Fujifilm camera.
So here’s a question off topic, I found a used Xf 90mm f2 for the same price as a 56mm f1.2 old version and I’m confused on what would be better for professional portrait work outdoors or studio, so can give me your opinion on this one ? Thank you
@@dehribaissa3024 Yeah. Outdoors means more space and better opportunity for compression, so the XF 90 would be the best choice. Indoors, if it's like a small bedroom you turned into a studio, you might have to get the 56mm, but if have space to pace around your subject and backup, you're still best taking any opportunity for compression, so I'd get the 90. Unsolicited tip: You can get the Fringer Pro II and adapt some EF mount lenses to XF. The adapter also allows for automatic focus function. There are some great lenses for Canon out there that you can use on your Fujifilm camera.
Always love a solid photog vid. People really need to stop pretending that only Full Frame = Pro. That hasn't been the case for many years if not a decade or more.
It's worth remembering that "professional" phone cameras like the iPhone have a sensor that is dwarfed by APS-C. No client will ever know the difference between APS-C and full frame, providing you use excellent lenses
APS-C cameras are SO capable these days, and they can do the majority of what a full frame camera can do, at the fraction of the size (and cost). But I am glad I got my a7c so I can have the best of both worlds LOL
M43 user here. I usually take my camera everywhere. When I travel for work (engineering management is my profession) it's always on me. Then when I do 4 to 8 day bike packing tips, where every kilogram counts it also comes with me. I am also a carry-on one bagger for international travel, so size and weight does matter.
I personally think the A7c is slept on. But, to the topic of APSC vs Full Frame - I shoot everything on Fuji or Blackmagic. So, I'm a crop-sensor ambassador for sure.
Great comparison video, I've been shooting crop sensor for almost 2yrs now and had thinking about making the transition to full frame because that's what "professional" photographers use.
YES.. Creatively you can untilize your limitation to another level also lense compression is great. Down side is less lowlight performance but there is always ways around that. Fullframe has better iso values
When digital cameras first started crop sensor cameras were the norm and yes pro photographers were using them and getting great results, many people forget that the person behind the camera makes the photo and the lens used is more important than sensor size.
I think this is a great video for illustrating the differences between APS-C and Full frame, however, the crop factor portion is slightly misleading as most APS-C systems have equivalent focal length options. You won’t always have to use full frame lenses on a cropped sensor body. *cough* Fujifilm *cough*
I have yet to develop the eye to differentiate between full frame and crop sensor photography, however there is absolutely a noticeable difference when taking into consideration for megapixels. I assume this is due to APS-C being more economical and thus depending on branding manufactures find themselves having to tone down some of the in body gear that is offered, but is seems as if Sony is the outlier as mentioned in the video, either way the photos both APS-C and Full Frame were beautiful.
I appreciate these videos because there seems to be a stigma around the APSC sensor for some reason. Coming from someone who's switched manufacturers more than I would ever admit, I will gladly take the size and user experience of my Fuji X-T4 over anything else I've used. Even with the smaller sensor. Obviously dependant on your use case.
I think the presenter has completely missed the primary difference between these two formats: depth of field. If the photographer composes the images similarly so that they have a similar field of view, and same aperture, the full frame image will ALWAYS have a shallower depth of field. This means if you have a wedding photographer who loves that dreamy wedding look and shoots an 85mm at 1.2 on full frame, that wedding photographer would need f 0.8 on a crop sensor to achieve the same look. Good luck with that! :D Conversely, if shooting a pic of your kid in front of the Christmas tree on low light and you want to liquify the tree, you might be shooting at, say, f1.8. The problem is that when you look at the photo later, you find that you've only got one of the eyes in focus! The crop camera can shoot at that same f1.8 for the low light yet get both eyes in focus. So - there are pros and cons to both. Neither is better. -BUT- the significant difference is NOT relative focal length/field of view since the photographer will simply move closer/further to achieve the same composition. The significant difference is rather the depth of field. See the photo at 4:47 for an example of this.
yes but eventually you realise that blowing out the background on every photo maybe isnt really what its all about. So then the APS-C and even M43 come back into the conversation as they can all take the shots people actually need taking and may benefiting being cheaper or have lighter lenses. Also, should you really be taking a portrait in anything less than F1.8 on FF? APS-C and cover that fine.Also your going to lose sharpness the faster the aperture so again, do you really need to get the fast with the f-stop?? Yup, nothing is bad or good just different I suppose... Maybe its nice to have a car that goes 200mph even though you only drive it at 70..
... or you can stop down from 1.8 to 2.8 (approx 1.5) and bump your ISO accordingly - the larger sensor will handle higher ISO better, giving you the same noize level
@@stivnov Yes, you're right. ;) Of course, with the APS-C it allows a less experienced photographer to think about it less and still get both eyes in focus. ;)
@@SuperALBSURE regarding blowing out the background - if we're talking about 85@1.2, yes, that's usually an overkill. But when you're talking full body portrait, especially on a wide angle (like 35 or 24mm), then full frame and 1.4 lenses come very handy.
@@stivnov I agree that the real benefit of FF is the versatility. You can do quite a lot with the format and rarely find limits like you can on smaller sensors. Just wondering how much separation you get at 24/35 on FF? I’m wondering if it’s meaningfully different than what you can take with say a 23mm f1.4 on aps-c. I also think where FF shines is that a 24-70 zoom can do what you probably need prime lenses to do on a crop sensor. So that’s definitely a plus. The downside is the zooms can be massive!
Dynamic range has nothing to do with the size of the pixels & receptors. The quality of them does. Thats why super35 is still king in the cinema world. Interesting video!
I'm a professional photographer and have shot Crop sensor for specific jobs for years. Crop sensored bodies are just another tool in a photographers tool box. Just like cropping in photoshop or using a teleconverter for a final image is.
A bit surprised nothing was said about depth of field - even if you don't need some crazy bokeh from 50mm/1.2 GM, on FF you still have an option to have 24-70@2.8, which gives you a separation good enough. On crop your 2.8 will look closer to 4.0 on FF, and this might be the reason you will be tempted to use primes.
I was surprised she never even mentioned dof. A 50mm 1.2 on apsc is equivalent to an 85mm 1.8 on full frame, but going for full frame and the 1.8 is almost 2000$ cheaper.
@@djstuc I dont agree. f2.8 on apsc is like f4 on full frame. Anyone with a full frame camera can just stop down and see the difference. There is a reason people spend so much more on f2.8 zoom lenses over f4
Use 'em if ya got 'em. Each of the four main formats of digital cameras available today offers unique attributes that appeal to some people or solve specific photographic challenges. So study your options for your situation and buy accordingly. Personally, as a hybrid photographer/writer/trainer/content creator, I use Lumix Micro 4/3 gear. It makes guerrilla film production possible. One light weight, extremely portable and CAPABLE system does it all for me. Full frame is nice, but heavy and expensive, and if my clients don't care (they don't if I don't), then why bother with it? Now, if I were a landscape photographer selling huge murals, I'd get the 100MP Fujifilm beast. If I were a sports action photographer or credentialed photojournalist, I'd have a Sony A9 II. If all I ever did was make in-camera JPEGs, I'd probably use a Fujifilm APS-C beast. As in life, in photography, what you need depends on the situation you're in.
Don't forget not only the focal length need to be multiplied by 1.5x, aperture numbers should be multiplied too. F1.4 on a crop sensor is f2.1 on full frame. The bokeh would be different.
Great video, thanks Lizzie! I'm looking to buy my first proper camera but would prefer to stick to the APS-C lenses due to the lower price, size and weight. I was looking at the Sony A7c but would it make more sense to go for an APS-C camera, or does pairing an APS-C lens with a full frame camera still have its advantages?
So sensor size determines if you are a professional. Skill set and experience has nothing to do with it. If you ever come across a client that says you have to use full frame to get professional results tell them to piss off and go elsewhere.
Apsc is not inferior, its just different.... 1.5 times crop factor may be disadvantage when u're shooting wide but its advantage for telephoto or wild-life.. Note: lenses play vital role also
Hey Lizzie, absolutely love your videos! I was wondering for APsc cameras you have to multiply the crop factor for the aperture as well? For example for the sigma 30mm f1.4, would be the equivalent of a 45mm full frame size, so would the f1.4 change or remain constant at 1.4? Thank you so much
The truth of the matter is, there's no difference, its a scam when they tell you that FF is better. I can stand and say it anywhere. Crop didn't mean anything, it's only the field of view. It's quadruple CAPITAL YES!!!!.
My only problem with APS-C is that at night, any ISO I set beyond 800 is noisy. My 90D doesn't have IBIS either to help neutralize the low Shutter speed I'll be using to combat that, so there's that. That's why I want to go FF
Most APS-C sensors are capable easily up to 3200 or even 6400 like the Fujis. 800 is too low? Even a GH5 does fine up till 1600. But if you prefer zero noise your only way is to use flash. Full frame isn't the answer. When I used the A7R4 for example, trying to take photos of food on a trip, I was at 3200 or 6400 ISO, because even if you have amazing f1.4 primes, the photo is pointless without sufficient depth of field. So I was still shooting indoors in a dim cafe at f4 or 5.6 minimum. If you're not printing, and only publishing on social media, just export the raws at a lower megapixel. The downsampling removes noise.
This is because you have a super old camera, not because it's APS-C. My Olympus m43 cameras have amazing IBIS and I regularly shoot them at ISO 2000 or 2500.
''...they may be more capable at absorbing light...''. It's not about pixels but SENSOR SIZE. BIGGER SENSOR simply catches more light than smaller one because it's BIGGER SURFACE. Based on your logic, it turns out that high mpix full frame is worse in low light than low mpix crop because later has ''bigger'' pixels...
She failed to point out all the negatives of full frame. Cost. Must use full frame lenses (much bigger, heavier, and expensive) for wildlife with an apsc the crop gives you a built in 1.5x zoom. Basically.... Higher megapixel sensors usually found on full frames are significantly worse at video.
I'm having a difficult time distinguishing between the two girls, if Lizzie wasn't holding a camera, I'd have thought both were models and the voiceover was done by the photographer.
2019 was as far as you went for crop sensor. But what about a 2014 crop sensor? Does it compete with present day APS-C sensors? Like my Sony A77ii with an A-mount lens. I started my photography work with a Sony A700 (2007 camera body also A-mount) It would be interesting to see if it any older crop sensor could compete with today's camera bodies
I shoot APSC, sure the prices between bodies is not all that different but if you want first party lenese forget it, canon RF lenses sit at around 3-4k mark. A fujifilm 16-55 sits around 900£$ even cheaper second hand. Then you have to consider if you're going to be using the camera for video, alot of full frame camera crop to super 35 anyhow. So in that case what are you actually paying for? the difference is so slight nower days that ill take the cheaper system even if its only a 4-500 quid its more profit in my pocket at the end of the day.
A question I always had with cropped and full frame is the lenses. If I buy a lens, let’s say a 22mm, that is made specifically for a cropped sensor is it actually a 22mm or would you need to figure out by multiplying by it’s cropped size to get the true lens size?
The actual focal length is 22mm, that’s why it’s labeled so, unless you see ads from iPhone. But if you want to use equivalent full frame focal length to understand the perspective of this lens, then you need to multiply by the crop factor.
Whether its full frame lens or crop camera lens its still 22mm. All the lens properties like Image compression and depth of field are same except the field of view. You have to apply the crop factor, even on crop sensor lens to get the equivalent field of view.
Do you do is crazy though? There are exactly zero standards and regulations in place to tell you what full frame or what cropped sensor size actually is. Everyone that’s making 24X 36 size sensors have simply just agreed to do that. What if there was a circular sensor? What if we had an Ultra Wide sensor like what they put in the red Monstro? But in a tiny little Sony alpha camera? There’s nothing stopping them. Other than lens choice.
That is surprising, because you may run into a photo editors that wants full frame files. In professional sports and major college sports I’ve only seen full frame bodies.
I use both. I do prefer the controls on full frames. The asp c is a great lens extender for super telephoto lenses and you don’t lose a stop. It’s also good for macro because of the extended depth of field. They both have their place. I always tell people if you enjoy your camera who cares what other people think.
What do you think - could you tell the difference?
Not much difference I guess.
Overall they looked completely interchangeable (albeit at different focal lengths). It would be awesome to do a PT.2 with little more challenging lighting setup like a 'wedding reception' where there may be more noise and how to play with that in post. I shoot full frame, but the fact that Matti's blind camera test (Canon vs Red vs Fuji vs Sony) showed the Fuji X-T30 beating out full frame and professional cinema cameras backs up just how right you are. Thanks for making great videos!
To be honest, it's so close, but I'd go with the full frame shots every time. There was just something a little special about them. I would probably base my purchase decision on client level.
I have a Canon 70D Crop sensor and a 5D Mark lV full frame and they are both great. The 70D is very grainy in low light.
I would NOT choose a 24 megapixels Full Frame Camera ! For me the best of two worlds are my Sony A7RIV and Sony A7RIVA, these two Cameras works as Four in two Cameras, because I often use the APSC mode (28 megapixels) fx when I do not need large prints, that does also multiply my Lens collections, 14mm becomes "21mm", 24mm becomes "36mm", 55mm becomes "82mm", 65mm Macro becomes "97mm", 135mm becomes "202mm" and 200-600mm becomes "300-900mm" 😊 If I was on a budget and I did not need large prints, then a Sony 6600 would be enough, but I do wish that Sony will make more rugged and pro A7000 and A9000 Cameras !
The short answer is yes. APS-C is more than capable. -from a Fujifilm wedding photographer. ❤️
Just got home shooting my first wedding with Fujifilm and it’s just so fantastic! Previously used Nikon, switched to Fujifilm due to form factor for traveling, but was able to book several weddings this year. Watched your top 10 wedding poses video this morning and made a checklist haha 🤦🏼♂️ love your videos!
Please shoot my wedding
Preach, I shoot fuji for my wedding photography too :)
Fuji Squaaaadddd
💯 say it again for the people in the back with their full frame cameras. Lol
I just love the way Lizzie presents everything.
I’m getting paid as a Fuji shooter so yes, professionals can use APSC. Clients don’t care what camera you use as long as they get the results you promised.
I’ve done a lot of paid shoots, especially weddings and e-commerce shoots on an aps-c camera (Nikon Z fc) and all my clients have been happy with results!!
Interesting that you say that. I've settled on the Z fc after trying a bunch of cameras, and wondered how paying clients would react to it (I only shoot recreationally at present). I especially wondered if the old school styling of the camera would make clients skeptical of it.
Same!! 99% of clients truly do not care about what gear you're using as long as you get the results.
This was super helpful. I currently work with an APSC camera and have been trying to sort of if I need to go full frame yet. This answered that! Thanks!!
I used an Olympus and a Sony. Both have there ups and downs but they both come out with amazing photos. I love the Olympus for outdoor anything and I love the Sony for portrait. They both have there place and it’s amazing. Love these kind of comparisons.
I prefer apsc these days. You don't really notice a difference to full frame unless you're shooting side by side and comparing. If you're focusing on the composition and you know what lenses/focal lengths work for your camera, it's not going to matter. APSC can do just as much as any other camera, so pay more attention to the other features a camera has
Everybody should keep in mind, if you look at the great masters of photography, we have better gear than almost all of them.
If you have a decent smartphone with a decent camera, you have a better camera than Ansel Adams.
If you have an old Canon rebel from a pawn shop, you have a better camera than Aaron Siskind.
It's art, so it's obviously open to interpretation, but I know if I gave my Nikon d7500 to either of them, well just imagine what they would create.
Sheesh that’s a great way to look at it…
Important to note that billboards are printed at low resolutions. You can actually create a full campaign with a 26mp camera with no problems. For the most part higher megapixel medium format cameras work better for high end retouching or art photography exhibitions that needs to be seen closer.
thank you for this!
Thank you for this video! Photographers can get so hung up on full frame without understanding what it really means! I've been shooting with Fuji cameras for years and no client ever had to worry about whether my gear would get them the photos and videos they wanted. I love the size, the colours, the design and what these APS-C cameras allow me to produce!
Very well explained! I truly believe that APS-C is not a huge barrier for beginners these days like it used to be. Great video (:
I'm owning a Sony A6700 since August. But i must say that the photography results that i get with this camera are very great. Also because it has some pro features on board. In my eyes APS-C is getting better every time. And i believe that the APS-C camera's wich came out this year are the start of an entire new generation of APS-C camera's who are more close to their by many considered "professional only" full frame siblings.
You or Chris should do a fun video on can a professional photographer take pictures with video game peripherals like the GameBoy Camera. Or some TikTok’s at least with it.
It's a preference, some people like the full frame look, but for pirtraits, even mft sensors work fine (Panasonic, Olympus) especially if you are doing studio portraits.
You also forgot Fuji. They are APSC, but their cameras have larger bodys, and bunch of dials that can be customised, and they have been compeating with FF for years now (yes, they aded medium format, but that is a niche part of their system). The X-T cameras are incredible.
Also a lot of APSC cameras are used for wildlife photography as they give bigger reach with lenses . Yes, nowdays full frame can do crop on sensor, but the price is more afordable on apsc cameras and lenses, especially for enthusiasts.
Lauren seems like the coolest person to be around haha Great video!
Switched to Fuji and had a Sony a7rii before. The Fuji, yes is newer has a better dynamic range for sure. Now I also own the gfx 50r and that one would be go-to first and forever…would love to see a medium format vs full frame video as well!
Yes, I would love to see a medium format vs full frame video! GFX 🤤
Full Frame isn't just for large mega pixel counts, the larger sensor with a low mega pixel count does great in low light. I have a a full frame canon with only 20mp but it's write speed is insane, the low light capability is fantastic and I still have work on billboards shot with it. Just more to consider. My crop sensor lives in my bag along side my full frame, both are capable, and each brings it's own set of advantages. :)
as a gig photographer, I used to use a nikon d3400 with a kit lens. that lasted me a long while as most of my work was done through editing. however i would always try to mask the blurriness from low shutter speed and high iso by leaning into the grain and making it look artsy fartsy.
Having switched to a professional full frame camera, there's so much more information in my images and high iso's aren't nearly as grainy. it makes editing feel so much more free. i can do much more stylised edits as well as really sharp commercial ones.
Yo this set is dope !! Especially for the shoot
This video covers Sony APS-C. Here's my take on this as a Fujifilm X-Series (APS-C) user:
I shoot primarily with a Fujifilm X-T4, (APS-C). It has plenty of buttons and controls. I went for loved the idea of having ISO, Aperture, and shutter dials on the camera, but I am really into photo editing. I now believe I would be better off with their medium format line, given how much I want to edit. More image data means more flexibility. I have shot with different sensor sizes (APS-C, Full Frame, and the "compact" medium format of GFX and Hasselblad X1D), and I DO notice a difference, especially when I work with the files in Photoshop.
One of the differences between Fujifilm and other brands is the film simulations. Much like other subtle differences, they could be overlooked as just presets, but I've met professional photographers who used proper lighting and film simulations to shoot straight out of JPEG. I think the secret to being a good Fujifilm photographer is to leverage their power and get them right in camera. Done right, it can look amazing out of the camera. That sold me on the camera, but again, I am not shooting straight to JPEG. If you, however, have those purist tendancies with a mirrorless camera (that sounds contradictory and is so post-modern!), you might consider looking into what you might do with a Fujifilm camera.
So here’s a question off topic, I found a used Xf 90mm f2 for the same price as a 56mm f1.2 old version and I’m confused on what would be better for professional portrait work outdoors or studio, so can give me your opinion on this one ? Thank you
@@dehribaissa3024 Yeah. Outdoors means more space and better opportunity for compression, so the XF 90 would be the best choice. Indoors, if it's like a small bedroom you turned into a studio, you might have to get the 56mm, but if have space to pace around your subject and backup, you're still best taking any opportunity for compression, so I'd get the 90.
Unsolicited tip: You can get the Fringer Pro II and adapt some EF mount lenses to XF. The adapter also allows for automatic focus function. There are some great lenses for Canon out there that you can use on your Fujifilm camera.
Always love a solid photog vid. People really need to stop pretending that only Full Frame = Pro. That hasn't been the case for many years if not a decade or more.
It's worth remembering that "professional" phone cameras like the iPhone have a sensor that is dwarfed by APS-C. No client will ever know the difference between APS-C and full frame, providing you use excellent lenses
The full frame definitely has more shade. I am currently using an APS-C camera and would like to upgrade to a full frame.
APS-C cameras are SO capable these days, and they can do the majority of what a full frame camera can do, at the fraction of the size (and cost). But I am glad I got my a7c so I can have the best of both worlds LOL
M43 user here. I usually take my camera everywhere. When I travel for work (engineering management is my profession) it's always on me. Then when I do 4 to 8 day bike packing tips, where every kilogram counts it also comes with me. I am also a carry-on one bagger for international travel, so size and weight does matter.
I personally think the A7c is slept on. But, to the topic of APSC vs Full Frame - I shoot everything on Fuji or Blackmagic. So, I'm a crop-sensor ambassador for sure.
I use a crop sensor camera and don’t really feel the need for a full frame.
When buying a lens I do the math to know the what the crop will be
Great comparison video, I've been shooting crop sensor for almost 2yrs now and had thinking about making the transition to full frame because that's what "professional" photographers use.
YES.. Creatively you can untilize your limitation to another level also lense compression is great. Down side is less lowlight performance but there is always ways around that. Fullframe has better iso values
When digital cameras first started crop sensor cameras were the norm and yes pro photographers were using them and getting great results, many people forget that the person behind the camera makes the photo and the lens used is more important than sensor size.
Crop has one big advantage that is the 1.5 x, get extra reach for animals and birds.
I have a APS-C camera now. If im going to go bigger sensor sometime, ill go to medium format. To small diffrent between fullframe and APS-C
I think this is a great video for illustrating the differences between APS-C and Full frame, however, the crop factor portion is slightly misleading as most APS-C systems have equivalent focal length options.
You won’t always have to use full frame lenses on a cropped sensor body. *cough* Fujifilm *cough*
Not to mention apart from top of the line Sigma or GM lenses, cheap full frame lenses perform worse on APS-C.
I find that a lot of jobs I apply for ask for a full sensor camera as part of the requirements- but I'm so happy with my camera :(
Ur by far my favorite female photographer
You had great points! I use both, and the controls are the biggest factor. I hope the make a "pro" apsc camera with all the buttons and dials!
The Nikon D500 fit this requirement.
Yes, it does! I recently bought one and it pretty much has the same controls as the D750.
I have yet to develop the eye to differentiate between full frame and crop sensor photography, however there is absolutely a noticeable difference when taking into consideration for megapixels.
I assume this is due to APS-C being more economical and thus depending on branding manufactures find themselves having to tone down some of the in body gear that is offered, but is seems as if Sony is the outlier as mentioned in the video, either way the photos both APS-C and Full Frame were beautiful.
I appreciate these videos because there seems to be a stigma around the APSC sensor for some reason. Coming from someone who's switched manufacturers more than I would ever admit, I will gladly take the size and user experience of my Fuji X-T4 over anything else I've used. Even with the smaller sensor. Obviously dependant on your use case.
I think the presenter has completely missed the primary difference between these two formats: depth of field. If the photographer composes the images similarly so that they have a similar field of view, and same aperture, the full frame image will ALWAYS have a shallower depth of field.
This means if you have a wedding photographer who loves that dreamy wedding look and shoots an 85mm at 1.2 on full frame, that wedding photographer would need f 0.8 on a crop sensor to achieve the same look. Good luck with that! :D
Conversely, if shooting a pic of your kid in front of the Christmas tree on low light and you want to liquify the tree, you might be shooting at, say, f1.8. The problem is that when you look at the photo later, you find that you've only got one of the eyes in focus! The crop camera can shoot at that same f1.8 for the low light yet get both eyes in focus.
So - there are pros and cons to both. Neither is better. -BUT- the significant difference is NOT relative focal length/field of view since the photographer will simply move closer/further to achieve the same composition. The significant difference is rather the depth of field.
See the photo at 4:47 for an example of this.
yes but eventually you realise that blowing out the background on every photo maybe isnt really what its all about. So then the APS-C and even M43 come back into the conversation as they can all take the shots people actually need taking and may benefiting being cheaper or have lighter lenses. Also, should you really be taking a portrait in anything less than F1.8 on FF? APS-C and cover that fine.Also your going to lose sharpness the faster the aperture so again, do you really need to get the fast with the f-stop?? Yup, nothing is bad or good just different I suppose... Maybe its nice to have a car that goes 200mph even though you only drive it at 70..
... or you can stop down from 1.8 to 2.8 (approx 1.5) and bump your ISO accordingly - the larger sensor will handle higher ISO better, giving you the same noize level
@@stivnov Yes, you're right. ;) Of course, with the APS-C it allows a less experienced photographer to think about it less and still get both eyes in focus. ;)
@@SuperALBSURE regarding blowing out the background - if we're talking about 85@1.2, yes, that's usually an overkill.
But when you're talking full body portrait, especially on a wide angle (like 35 or 24mm), then full frame and 1.4 lenses come very handy.
@@stivnov I agree that the real benefit of FF is the versatility. You can do quite a lot with the format and rarely find limits like you can on smaller sensors. Just wondering how much separation you get at 24/35 on FF? I’m wondering if it’s meaningfully different than what you can take with say a 23mm f1.4 on aps-c. I also think where FF shines is that a 24-70 zoom can do what you probably need prime lenses to do on a crop sensor. So that’s definitely a plus. The downside is the zooms can be massive!
What lens would you recommend for indoor group photography. I have Canon T3 APS-c and I don't know what focal length lens to buy
Dynamic range has nothing to do with the size of the pixels & receptors. The quality of them does. Thats why super35 is still king in the cinema world.
Interesting video!
I'm a professional photographer and have shot Crop sensor for specific jobs for years. Crop sensored bodies are just another tool in a photographers tool box. Just like cropping in photoshop or using a teleconverter for a final image is.
A bit surprised nothing was said about depth of field - even if you don't need some crazy bokeh from 50mm/1.2 GM, on FF you still have an option to have 24-70@2.8, which gives you a separation good enough. On crop your 2.8 will look closer to 4.0 on FF, and this might be the reason you will be tempted to use primes.
I was surprised she never even mentioned dof. A 50mm 1.2 on apsc is equivalent to an 85mm 1.8 on full frame, but going for full frame and the 1.8 is almost 2000$ cheaper.
@@djstuc unless you shoot full body portrait, then it's quite noticable
@@djstuc I dont agree. f2.8 on apsc is like f4 on full frame. Anyone with a full frame camera can just stop down and see the difference. There is a reason people spend so much more on f2.8 zoom lenses over f4
@@djstuc I would agree with most of what you said. I just mean there are cases where APSC vs FF difference matters in terms of DoF
Nice shooting, nice model but in front of large window even a toy camera is good enough. 😂😂😂❤❤❤
Use 'em if ya got 'em. Each of the four main formats of digital cameras available today offers unique attributes that appeal to some people or solve specific photographic challenges. So study your options for your situation and buy accordingly.
Personally, as a hybrid photographer/writer/trainer/content creator, I use Lumix Micro 4/3 gear. It makes guerrilla film production possible. One light weight, extremely portable and CAPABLE system does it all for me. Full frame is nice, but heavy and expensive, and if my clients don't care (they don't if I don't), then why bother with it?
Now, if I were a landscape photographer selling huge murals, I'd get the 100MP Fujifilm beast. If I were a sports action photographer or credentialed photojournalist, I'd have a Sony A9 II. If all I ever did was make in-camera JPEGs, I'd probably use a Fujifilm APS-C beast. As in life, in photography, what you need depends on the situation you're in.
don't forget lens prices for full frame. i have the a7c, i love it but i struggle to buy lenses that i am interested in as an amateur
Don't forget not only the focal length need to be multiplied by 1.5x, aperture numbers should be multiplied too. F1.4 on a crop sensor is f2.1 on full frame. The bokeh would be different.
Great video, thanks Lizzie! I'm looking to buy my first proper camera but would prefer to stick to the APS-C lenses due to the lower price, size and weight. I was looking at the Sony A7c but would it make more sense to go for an APS-C camera, or does pairing an APS-C lens with a full frame camera still have its advantages?
Would you carry a crop sensor as backup to a FF?
So sensor size determines if you are a professional. Skill set and experience has nothing to do with it. If you ever come across a client that says you have to use full frame to get professional results tell them to piss off and go elsewhere.
if you shoot primarily in low light or want a greater bokeh effect, then go full frame. if not, stick with apsc
I shoot on Micro 4/3
Was it mentioned anywhere what lense did you use on the cameras? What you all think on Tamron lenses with Sony cameras...?
Apsc is not inferior, its just different....
1.5 times crop factor may be disadvantage when u're shooting wide but its advantage for telephoto or wild-life..
Note: lenses play vital role also
Would love to see you try out the fuji xt4 or xh2s
Very nice.
I do think however, you should have mentioned depth of field as well. 🙂
This is the most important difference, not mentioned in this video
Hey Lizzie, absolutely love your videos! I was wondering for APsc cameras you have to multiply the crop factor for the aperture as well? For example for the sigma 30mm f1.4, would be the equivalent of a 45mm full frame size, so would the f1.4 change or remain constant at 1.4?
Thank you so much
the aperture would change to 2.1 to compare with fullframe.
here in the Philippines we STILL dont have the a7C haha we are sooo delayed!!
I shoot only apsc, happy with it, no need to change
Heyyyy mam i liked your content u give a good knowledge about photography it helps me as a beginner
A SHOOOTY shoot haha
The truth of the matter is, there's no difference, its a scam when they tell you that FF is better. I can stand and say it anywhere. Crop didn't mean anything, it's only the field of view. It's quadruple CAPITAL YES!!!!.
My only problem with APS-C is that at night, any ISO I set beyond 800 is noisy. My 90D doesn't have IBIS either to help neutralize the low Shutter speed I'll be using to combat that, so there's that.
That's why I want to go FF
Most APS-C sensors are capable easily up to 3200 or even 6400 like the Fujis. 800 is too low? Even a GH5 does fine up till 1600. But if you prefer zero noise your only way is to use flash. Full frame isn't the answer. When I used the A7R4 for example, trying to take photos of food on a trip, I was at 3200 or 6400 ISO, because even if you have amazing f1.4 primes, the photo is pointless without sufficient depth of field. So I was still shooting indoors in a dim cafe at f4 or 5.6 minimum. If you're not printing, and only publishing on social media, just export the raws at a lower megapixel. The downsampling removes noise.
This is because you have a super old camera, not because it's APS-C. My Olympus m43 cameras have amazing IBIS and I regularly shoot them at ISO 2000 or 2500.
Subliminal messaging with the crop tops!
''...they may be more capable at absorbing light...''. It's not about pixels but SENSOR SIZE. BIGGER SENSOR simply catches more light than smaller one because it's BIGGER SURFACE. Based on your logic, it turns out that high mpix full frame is worse in low light than low mpix crop because later has ''bigger'' pixels...
She failed to point out all the negatives of full frame. Cost. Must use full frame lenses (much bigger, heavier, and expensive) for wildlife with an apsc the crop gives you a built in 1.5x zoom. Basically.... Higher megapixel sensors usually found on full frames are significantly worse at video.
Isn't printing the true test of image quality? These type of comparisons without printing is also just a comparison of displays / monitors / screens.
who ever is doing the video of this is Good
I shoot both Olympus (MFT) and Canon (R6) and love both Cameras and there Results
Which studio were you shooting in?
Excellent video
I'm having a difficult time distinguishing between the two girls, if Lizzie wasn't holding a camera, I'd have thought both were models and the voiceover was done by the photographer.
If I put an aps-c lens on a aps-c camera is their a crop factor?
Yes. Crop factor applies even on aps-c lens on aps-c camera.
2019 was as far as you went for crop sensor. But what about a 2014 crop sensor? Does it compete with present day APS-C sensors? Like my Sony A77ii with an A-mount lens. I started my photography work with a Sony A700 (2007 camera body also A-mount)
It would be interesting to see if it any older crop sensor could compete with today's camera bodies
The a6xxx line sensor is from 2014. Only the processing was upgraded over the years.
I think Ive taken about 200 photos on my full frame Sony but 1,000's on my 1" sensors and APSC cameras
I shoot APSC, sure the prices between bodies is not all that different but if you want first party lenese forget it, canon RF lenses sit at around 3-4k mark. A fujifilm 16-55 sits around 900£$ even cheaper second hand. Then you have to consider if you're going to be using the camera for video, alot of full frame camera crop to super 35 anyhow. So in that case what are you actually paying for? the difference is so slight nower days that ill take the cheaper system even if its only a 4-500 quid its more profit in my pocket at the end of the day.
Who is the model, please?
A question I always had with cropped and full frame is the lenses. If I buy a lens, let’s say a 22mm, that is made specifically for a cropped sensor is it actually a 22mm or would you need to figure out by multiplying by it’s cropped size to get the true lens size?
You will still need to take in the crop factor
The actual focal length is 22mm, that’s why it’s labeled so, unless you see ads from iPhone. But if you want to use equivalent full frame focal length to understand the perspective of this lens, then you need to multiply by the crop factor.
Whether its full frame lens or crop camera lens its still 22mm. All the lens properties like Image compression and depth of field are same except the field of view. You have to apply the crop factor, even on crop sensor lens to get the equivalent field of view.
Do you do is crazy though? There are exactly zero standards and regulations in place to tell you what full frame or what cropped sensor size actually is. Everyone that’s making 24X 36 size sensors have simply just agreed to do that. What if there was a circular sensor? What if we had an Ultra Wide sensor like what they put in the red Monstro? But in a tiny little Sony alpha camera? There’s nothing stopping them. Other than lens choice.
I can't tell the differences between you two either. Very twin.
Fujifilm XT4 & XT30 for the win
BTW would you start again with music Covers.
Damn 😂 I am a professional and never owned a full frame camera and use apsc for all the great works that I do!
Dobar ti model 😮 aparat je manje bitan 😂😂
Actually, the focal length doesn't change.......
This video should be a6600 VS 7c
Why buy full-frame when you should be chasing medium-format? 🤔
A6600 Bro’s. Nice. 🤜🏼🤛🏻
I know a photo grapher who shoots for French Vogue on APSC and swears by it - so if it's good enough for him.....
That is surprising, because you may run into a photo editors that wants full frame files. In professional sports and major college sports I’ve only seen full frame bodies.
Nice photoshoot
oh yes. sony zve10 btw. damn
micro four thirds lezz gooo
Good vid
Not a good comparison by using the same lens on both full frame and APS-C. Very misleading.
I believe soo
I use both. I do prefer the controls on full frames. The asp c is a great lens extender for super telephoto lenses and you don’t lose a stop. It’s also good for macro because of the extended depth of field. They both have their place. I always tell people if you enjoy your camera who cares what other people think.
Could I ask why don't more photographers like yourself shoot videos at 60 FPS for UA-cam?
Probably because they limit themselves to 24 as they want that cinematic film feel.
Let’s be honest full frame is always better especially shooting weddings and low light. But I think the crop factor is great! Just bring a flash..
Sure they can but why would they?