@@SergSpaceNo. You can use FF Lenses on APSC but there are many dedicated APSC Lenses like the Tamron 17-70mm F/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD wich i have an love. It's only around 500g. FF would be around double the weigth..
@@YummehPyroFlakes sony 24-105mm f4 is a bit wider, probably better build (?) and weighs 660g. Tamron is 525g according to BH. Size is similar. Sony is also a bit old, i bet new version would/will be smaller.
Fullframe cameras opened up a new world of photography for me. I had been shooting with my Canon 60D for 10 years, which also have created some great images. But since I live in Sweden, where you barely see the sun for 6 months of the year, photography was not that fun anymore and I only brought my camera in the summers while travelling. But now I bought a Canon 6D full frame, and its amazing how many more situations it can handle! Last three months I have taken more great photos than in the last 5 years or so. So I really recommend to go for a cheaper fullframe, it makes photography much more fun, easy and less frustrating.
Several years ago I decided to upgrade my older MFT camera to go full frame. One reason was for astrophotography. I had got some amazing images with a $500 MFT camera and a $200 12mm F2 lens. I was quite disappointed when I struggled to get comparable night sky photos with a 5 year newer $3000+ Sony camera and a $800 17-28mm F2.8 lens. Don't get me wrong, there are some advantages to full frame, but there are also some advantages to smaller sensors. I now carry both.
I recently bought a used 60d and I’m just getting into photography. Have a kit lens at present and am getting some good photos but wondering what other lenses you found worked well with the 60d? Tack så mycket!
I own APSC and FF and have done so for well more than a decade , each has their advantages and disadvantages starting with price but at the end of the day without zooming to 400% most people would be happy with the results from either system from any of the big manufacturers and the weak point in most of the equation today is the user not the gear.
Yes. In This video they compare noise zooming in strongly and cropping the image that much is bullshit it happens almost never. I shoot with ff, fuji x and m43 for photograhy. They all have their pros and cons. Hiking in the hills and mountains with big and heavy ff lenses and tripod no thank you. I do sometimes but then only one lense. A smaller one. M43 for landscape photos has a big advantage and that is the small and much lighter lenses. Double depht of field can be an advantage sometimes.....landscapes....macro I can shoot at lets say f5.6 which is equivalent of f11 ff. 2 stops faster and since ibis is so much better with m43 i might not need a tripod. And a tripod for m43 is much smaller and lighter compared what you would need for ff lenses. For non moving objects in low light m43 can have an advantage because of the longer depth of field and the better ibis compared to ff. The object you take a photo of with the ff camera might need at least f2.8 for needed depth of field and the micro43 can shoot at f1.7 and at faster speed not getting a blurry photo. People not thinking about that. The m43 has also much better ibis. Only If very strong pixel peeping you see more noise in the m43 image or printing super big. I do agree that ff is superior in image quality and If wanting very shallow depth of field. Pros and cons.
@@bluecollar8525yep and interestingly on the denoiser from luminar and lightroom i need 40 in lightroom or low in luminar for my a7iii and 85 to 90 in lightroom or heavy in luminar for my canon r7 . And in the end the ff will look better because denoising also eats up details.
I don't blame people to think that APSC is more the casual option and FF the pro option, FF does have more lens choice and usually the expesive lens is made for FF, all Canon L series lenses are FF, the only option for Canon APSC users to get a lens that is on the quality to a L series is the EF 17-55mm. (I'm talking about the first party lenses only)
I went to full frame for the low light capability compared to apsc. I'm happy with my purchase but I do miss the apsc camera I had. Both systems make good images and I took my all time favorite photos on my apsc camera. I literally am not making better photos because I am on full frame, the photos are the same creatively. Just now I can shoot at 12800 iso and be fully satisfied with the grain. But apsc it just bothered me above 6400. So to me the move to full frame was worth it.
Thank you Tony and Chelsea! Just wanna say I found your channel about 5 years ago and knew nothing about cameras. Now I shoot commercial product photography/videography full time, it wouldn’t have happened without your UA-cam channel! P.s. currently using R7 for video work, and d810 for catalog and lifestyle images. All sensor sizes welcome in the workplace! Matt
As others have remarked, I would also factor in weight of bodies and lenses. About four years ago, I sold all of my Canon full-frame gear including the “L” lenses in favour of a Fujifilm X-T3 and in the last few weeks an X-T5. For me, as primarily a landscape photographer, weight reduction was a significant influence, reducing backpack weight for hiking. In addition the Fuji X-T design ethos of traditional control dials was hugely attractive.
I'm in the same boat. I have my dream setup on canon with 24-70 and 70-200 but it is too heavy and large of a setup for my purposes. I am actually shooting less. Plan to move to fuji and excited to use the dials
APS-C lenses are not smaller or lighter than their full-frame equivalents. Could have bought a Sony a7c, and some small, light full-frame lenses, and achieved the same result.
I shoot "all three", MFT, APS-C, and FF. There's a time and place for each sensor size. An example, on a rainy night, I like to shoot with MFT... a fast prime on MFT (great stabilization with my MFT cameras) will give me a larger depth of field while still being bright enough (bokeh isn't required all the time) and I get better results from the city lights. Really... you don't always have to have bokeh. Sometimes, it makes your pictures look worse. When shooting automobiles at night, in the city... the smaller sensor with a large aperture prime, will give you better results. The greater depth of field of the smaller sensor cameras actually help you in low light, when you need greater depth of field. Almost no one on YT mentions this... and most new photographers are really frustrated by these situations. That's why this "old guy" shoots all three sizes. There are a few situations where smaller is better... and even more when bigger is better.
"The greater depth of field of the smaller sensor cameras actually help you in low light, when you need greater depth of field. Almost no one on YT mentions this... and most new photographers are really frustrated by these situations." Very true. Only professinals really undestands that
I am a hobbyist. I have a Canon 5D4 and an X100v. I have owned an Olympus MFT and a small sensor lumix. Don’t forget full frame is a marketing gimmick. All cameras fill the frame. When photographers refer to “full-frame” they actually mean 35mm. In the days of film cameras most wedding photographers used medium format. Compared to the 6x6cm negative size of medium format cameras 35mm is cropped. If you’re a hobbyist get whatever you can afford. Most people don’t give a fig for what camera you use, they just look at the results. Also a10 megapixel image is big enough for an A4 sized image in a magazine.
A good photographer can get images regardless of sensor size. My issue is when people who shoot with MFT or APSC say dumb things like “full frame is a waste of money there’s no benefit”. There’s clear benefit, but it doesn’t always mean it’s that much better depending on the person. Every person needs a different setup.
"Full" frame is not a waste of money but it is unnecessarily expensive...for the most part. I do most of my video stuff with a GoPro 10. It´s not about the camera...it´s the way one uses it.
@@knorke3642 true true. I wouldn’t say they’re that much more expensive though. A canon r6 mkii and a Fuji XH2S or r6 mkI and XT5 are very similar in price. But each camera works for a different person. yes it does matter how a person uses it, but there are limits to it. I used an MFT to take my first wedding photos, I’d never go back to it after how bad the photos turned out after the sun went down. In good light it worked great but even at f1.7 and with low shutter speed the photos after sunset were super grainy. The same relative scenario a year later with my a7iii the photos were much better. My skills improved but not so much as to be the only reason the photos looked better. Gear isn’t all that matters, but it does matter a good bit when we’re talking about paid client work.
One point that was not brought up was the size of full frame bodies and lenses. I left FF Sony and moved to Fuji specifically for this. I’m a landscape photographer and hiking with a camera that’s half the weight of a FF makes a big difference! Side note: 40mp on the new Fuji X-T5 is spectacular!
@@greggpedder True. People cite how a similar spec f/2.8FF lens is the same price as Fuji's 16-55 f/2.8, but this is Fuji's top of the line lens, and they compare it to a budget FF option that has worse IQ
@@bluecollar8525 An f2.8 zoom on full frame is not the same as an f2.8 zoom on APS-C. There's a reason the APS-C lens is smaller and less expensive, you can't cheat physics.
@@TechnoBabbleit's not cheating physics if u understand the one distinction . Apsc is never changing the focal length , the changing the focal viewpoint! The reason why apsc lens are smaller is just purely because there is no reason to put extra glass if it's not covering it ! A 16-50 f2.8 ≠ 24-70 f2.8 . Just as example u can take 50mm prime on both apsc and full frame camera and then crop the full frame image to apsc equivalent, both pictures would be identical in terms of bokeh and image compression!
The fundamental reason why people don't get better images by switching from smaller format to full frame is that doing so does not change their capabilities as a photographer. It is also true that people have captured truly great photos with all kinds of cameras including those that are technically inferior to the best modern cameras in almost every way.
Yeah man, I still remember a couple in my beginner photography class that brought along gear that was more expensive than the rest of the class combined, yet their photographs were close to horrible. The girl with the EOS 700D and kit lens brought in jaw-dropping photographs every single time.
Remember when there was a photo mag with a cover shot made on an Olympus point and shoot 35mm? It was a big deal. We still see this effect with these cameras in digit versions. A couple “influencer” videos and the used prices go to double the original price 10 yrs later. Sure, it’s the free market but it’s also greed and, even more, gullibility of the photography consumer. This video isn’t really helpful IMO as Angel could do better with less. As they say, just because something new comes out, that doesn’t make the old become worse.
The better the camera the more demanding it is to the user. With a APS-C and the kit lens you can shoot with P and get decent images. If you have a full frame with a fast prime you need to be very careful about the focus and the depth of field.
@@okaro6595 *The better the camera the more demanding it is to the user* If by "better" you are referring to cameras with larger sensors, the opposite is often true. For example, getting good quality images in low light conditions can be much more demanding with a small sensor camera.
I have actually found that rather than being more demanding, it's more of those who wish to have control choose such "demanding" cameras. Those who can't be bothered to take control, which is fine, buy expensive cameras and put them on program mode. Silly, IMO, but it's apparently common - even if only noted by the many FS ads with the P selected. @@sl-rt5kv
I've shot dirtbike/enduro at NIGHT in Sweden in November with the X-T1, X-H1 paired with the 16 1.4 and the 50-140 2.8. A bit of noise reduction in LR and I'm satisfied.
This is the best comparison video I have seen between the sensor sizes. It's more concise than some of your older videos discussing crop factor and bokeh, and this video gets straight to the point of why one sensor size or the other might be better for different users. Nice job!
Accept, they didn’t compare the ISO’s correctly. It should’ve been Fuji ISO 5500; Full Frame (FF)camera ISO 12,800. FF cameras aren’t “better’ in low light, people just don’t do math 🤦♂️
@@thinkingape7655 I´m not sure I´m with you on the math part...since the ISO stetting is but a gain setting of the sensor that kind of amplifies the light that hits the sensor. Since the Pixels on an APSC sensor are more densely "packed" there is a lot of physics involved, as how the sensor deals with that amplification. The ISO dial is supposed to emulate the "Film Speed", but turning the ISO dial kinda only cranks up the power on the sensor and therefore amplifies the ability of the pixels to read and reinterpret more light. Take the latest X-Trans sensor for example...40 Megapixel at high ISO´s...at least in my humble opinion, give a whole new meaning to noise when compared to the same ISO setting on an X-Trans 3 sensor. At base ISO however the 40 Megapixel sensor of the X-T5 and X-H2 can give most "full" frame cameras a run for their money...if your lens can resolve 40 Megapixel, that is.
@@thinkingape7655 ... Sorry Ape, you are not thinking....the very fact that you would compare a FF image at 12800 ISO to a Fujifilm image at 5500... BY DEFINITION, means that that FF is better at higher ISO than APS-C.... a FF sensor gives me at least 1 stop better everything over the APS-C camera.
@@thinkingape7655 The only problem with your hypothetical is that there are no lenses for APS-C that give you that kind of aperture advantage to match the noise levels of full frame. You can't get f1.8 zooms for Fuji, you can't get good quality f1.0 or faster primes in multiple focal lengths. So in low light, when comparing high end gear, full frame always wins.
It's all about the application. I would never accept the size and weight of full frame lenses hiking to get that special landscape shot. (and couldn't afford it) I can carry an assortment of M43 lenses in a small sling bag and get great results. FF bodies are getting smaller, but lenses still twice the size and weight of other systems. If you're an indoor low light event photographer most of the time, sure go full frame. But many hobbyists would like to travel light and easy and get good results, like myself and many others.
I am happy with every bit of noise (grain) my Fujifilm X-H1 produces...or my X-T2. If I expose correctly and choose a fitting Film Simulation, get creative with my choice of lenses and compose my shot properly...I do not need or want "full Frame"... I fill the frame with whatever my eye sees and always get results that please my eye. I believe, the whole discussion about "Full Frame" vs. "Crop" is useless. There are countless professional Photographers of all different genres, who earn their money with cameras, regardless of sensor size. Advocating for "Full Frame" over APSC, gets old really fast. I switched back from "Full Frame" Canons to APSC Fujis because it´s not all about the size of the sensor, or the megapixel count...and more about the colors I can get right out of the camera, providing I know how to compose and light the frame. Plus...there is no "better" Bokeh in "Full Frame"...different.. yeah, but not better. Bokeh and its "quality" has also a lot to do with the lenses and their character. And let´s not forget about Micro 4/3... Great cameras, great choice of lenses...or DMF. Full Frame this and Full Frame that, is nothing more than marketing blurp.
@@jblanc_ I used to do Newspapers, Sports...mostly Cars and Horse racing. These days Photography is a Hobby, but I still do weddings, funerals and product photography. Other than that...mostly Landscapes and architecture.
I recently UPgraded to apsc 😅 dropped my A7III and f2.8 lenses and bought the FX30 and A6600 with f1.4 prime lenses and I couldn’t be more satisfied ! The gap in image quality between apsc and ff is not that big and any recent apsc camera is 10x better that any ff from 10 years ago anyway. I’d say any gear is so good these days it can’t be an excuse for bad results, so I prioritised cost and size/weight
Tony, with regard to your comment about Zooms for MFT remember that Panasonic Leica offers two zooms at F 1.7 aperture that equate to F 3.4 on fill frame which is not far off F 2.8 for DOF.
the best camera is the one you have with you. If APS-C Body and gear is smaller and lighter (e.g. Sony a6xxxx) and you can carry this on hiking, it might have more noise than ff but it is still the one in your hand taking the awesoe shots you would have missed otherwise when keeping your bulky ff camera at home ...
I decided to change brands and at the same time go from aps-c to full frame, however, I changed my mind about going full frame. Why? It's good enough. I compared ISO 12800 files from Sony A7II with Fujifilm X-S10. About 6 years separate both cameras where A7II is the older one, and guess what, Fujifilm X-S10 performed better in my opinion. If a full frame just 6 years ago was good enough for a professional work, then a more advanced APS-C with the same or better low light performance is also good enough today.
It also depends what you do with your photos. Most people see mine on the internet, and more often than not they see them on their phone. It seems a waste of money for me to buy decent kit. I recently dug out my 16 year old 6MP Nikon D40 and took a few shots. In decent light it's not bad, although I couldn't remember how to get the exposure right on my Christmas Day walk on the beach. Mirrorless cameras make it pretty obvious that you need to use the Exposure Comp dial. With the DSLR it's a bit clunky. Goodness knows how I managed 50 years ago with film.
Another difference is that separation from the background can be much great with the full frame camera. This goes along with the boka test you did at the beginning of the video.
I have been a Nikon user since 1981, but I wanted something smaller and bought in to Fuji a couple of years ago, I love the feel of the traditional camera, I have no problem crop frame in any regard, except for portraits. I love the compression of the 85mm lenses and on a crop sensor, that takes you too far away and the result is not the same. For that reason, I will stay with fuji, especially for travel for the time being, but I will probably move to the Nikon Z in the future, similar size and weight, but full frame.
@@a.antoniou The compression does not come from the lense being 85mm, it comes from the distance between you and your subject. It will be the same with an 85mm on a full-frame as it will with a 56mm on a 1.5x crop aps-c as long as you move to make the subject take up the same area of the frame.
@@joelb5391 Actually, that is widely misunderstood. Crop factor is not the same as compression. If you take a portrait on a full frame and crop it, to the same field of view as a 56mm on a crop frame, that is not the same compression.
As a Fujifilm APS-C shooter, I am happy to recommend this video to anyone deciding between the two formats. The only thing I would add is to be sure to consider the cost, size and weight of FF lenses (especially those "holy trinity" f/2.8 zooms), & not just that of the camera body. If you're still not sure, consider renting one of each, & comparing for yourself before committing to any one system.
The Sigma 24-70 F2.8 is $1099 and 835g, Tamron 28-75 F2.8 is $899 and 540g, Samyang 24-70 f2.8 is $999 and 1000g, Sony 24-70 f2.8 (Gen 1) is $1698 and 886g ..... I believe that the Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8 is $1100 and 655g... There are sufficient choices in lenses and bodies to build a kit for nearly any use case and any price point with FF.... if what I cared about was cost and weight I'd buy the Tamron for the E-mount and save both (wouldn't be giving up anything on IQ either).
@@silvestrocrino3256 You make a good point. I wasn't aware of that Tamron, & it looks to be an excellent lens. Still, while there are clearly some exceptions when comparing a heavy example of an APC-C lens to an exceptionally light FF one, I'd argue that across the board comparing like for like (as far as that is possible) you're likely to find more smaller and lighter lenses for APS-C than you are for FF. I've used the Fujifilm 16-55 f2.8, & while good, it was one of the bulkiest Fujifilm lenses I've ever used. By contrast the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is a mere 290g. Not exactly the same focal range, but close enough if you're looking to compare like for like a light mid range zoom APS-C vs a light FF.
I shoot Sony and Fuji. My Sony gear has its place but my Fuji that covers the same focal length equivalent is so much smaller and lighter that it makes far more sense for EDC or travel. An a7IV with Sigma 24-70 2.8 weighs almost as much and takes up around the same space as a X-T5 with 18-55 and 70-300. Both produce great shot, one is much more practical unless you need the “high res.”
@@daveb6711 Or the low light performance. Don't forget that an A7 IV with an f2.8 lens is going to have half the noise as an APS-C camera with an f2.8 lens, all else being equal.
Something to clarify is that an f2.8 apsc lens let's in the exact same amount of light as an f2.8 full frame lens. The only time people would need to multiply the aperture by the crop factor is when they want to achieve the same "look" aka depth of field as a full frame sensor. But in terms of speed, both lenses are the same. As for low light, to clarify, it's really the pixel density that dictates which one is "better" between apsc and full frame. Technically if both had the exact same pixel density, (using generic examples) they should have the same low light performance. Lastly, if depth of field is not the issue, lets say its just low light performance then it's sometimes a wash. You can use lower apertures with apsc and still have a workable image where the depth of field isn't too shallow, therefore use lower ISO. So it's not really fair to compare the exact same ISO (e.g. 12800) for both, cause in full frame you'd have to stop down your aperture vs in apsc you don't.
Same f stop means same illumination, means same amount of light *per unit area*. Full frame has a bigger sensor so more total photons collected. This means more photons per pixel or more pixels, both lead to lower noise when scaled to same size image. The math checks out for multiplying aperture by crop factor to get equivalent noise (and DoF/bokeh) performance, as do the results demonstrated in the video.
@Ants Aasma yep for DoF and bokeh. But my point is an f2.8 apsc lens is not as "slow" as an f4 full frame lens. Also for what you mentioned above it only makes sense if we're comparing the same # of pixels at two diff sizes. Breaks down if one or the other has more or less pixels, i.e. different pixel densities
@@cdnr6311 the point is that f2.8 can use a stop less ISO, which gives it approximately as much noise improvement as a same megapixeled full frame sensor has from bigger pixels.
@Ants Aasma if both apsc and full frame sensors have the exact same pixel density then yes of course you'll gather more light in totality overall because the sensor is bigger,but per unit area it's the same. So crop in a full frame image with an apsc that has the same pixel density, theoretically they should have the same noise. Hence an f2.8 lens is always an f2.8 lens. DoF and bokeh is a completely diff story though. Both of which we've mentioned above and from original post.
No, the pixel density is irrelevant. The pixel density myth has been debunked by several people including Tony Northrup. It is the sensor size that matters. Pixel density matters only in 1:1 crops with are not a natural way to use images, on normal use especially with post processing the high megapixel bodies are often better in low light.
Great job Tony and Chelsea, best video I have seen in explaining the pluses and minuses of APS-C and full frame. I mainly shoot wildlife, especially birds in flight, and have been very happy with my Fuji APS-C camera, and it has worked just fine for portraits and even low light situations. So worthwhile to understand what you want to shoot and what works best for your budget.
I LOVE that no matter what question I've had about learning photography you two always seem to have a video for it. You two are awesome! Thank you so much for these videos.
Great talk Tony. Picked up a Z6 refurb from Nikon and a 24-200 zoom to upgrade from my Z50 with 18-140. After a week I am comfortable withe improvements in the quality of the body, and the lenses. For me the bigger pixels on the sensor and bigger glasses just seem to pass the resolution along much better. I tried maxing out the small sensor with a Sigma 18-35 1.8 and got good results. But that lens weights the same as a Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z. I am sorry but that is the same weight with a lot more flexibility and the more robust optical path. I was going to sell off all the DX stuff but now my wife wants to keep the Z50 for her use. My 70-300 AF-P looks a lot better using the whole lens. Pete
Personally I'm not a Bokeh chaser which is why I switched from full frame DSLR Nikon to APSC Fuji. Occasionally I wish I had more low light capability and considered the canon RP but for my portraits and most events the photos are good enough
My problem is primarily the lack of equivalents and the weight/cost/size you have to take on for those that are comparable for aps-c. By the time I built up my last aps-c kit, I could have gotten a lighter full-frame with the range of lenses I needed for less. That's just me of course. But as I try to look for a new mirrorless aps-c kit, there are compromises I don't want to make.
One thing I have noticed is that my full frame works better under low light compared to an APSC using RAW. Higher ISOs can be used with less grain. However under reasonable light, with a good lens there is very little difference in image quality.
I understand what your are saying because I just moved from a Canon m6mii with a 32mp apsc sensor to a Sony a7c with the 24mp FF sensor. even with the 8 less mp i'm still getting cleaner shots out the A7c in matching conditions. but are are right most ppl aren't gonna notice to difference! something about that Full Frame look though
Good work! Concise and accurate. You get it that f/2.8 on FF is the same as f/2.0 on APS-C. This is important: everything scales (except the noise) (if you've got the lens). But, Ha! As a dedicated full-frame fan/afficionado who turns up his nose at APS-C, I think you haven't defended APS-C enough. In real life, being there and having a camera is way more important than what camera you have. And in terms of photographic composition, from the tiniest cell phone to 8x10 (or larger) view cameras, the projection (image projected on the sensor when printed at the same size) is the same once you've got the focal length scaling right. It's all photography and all wonderful. Like they say: "F/8 and be there!"
I am happy with my Fuji xt5: I love the external dials. It is the experience of taking pictures, that what you explained in the other video. I fully agree with that. Also -to me- nothing wrong what you said in this video, though. However I use the workaround: no zoon lenses. For the wide angle I have the 16mm f1.4! Also 1/100 of a sec still works ok. Hence enough options to avoid shouting at high iso. I am very proud of the photos I made indoor with a small 35mm all at f2.0.
I have bought two secondhand full-frame cameras -- Canon 5d i and 5D ii -- and they are great. My APS-C cameras (7D i and ii) are for birding and walk around, the full-frame are for people.
My Fuji setup (XH@ and XH2s) have served me well professionally. My results are about the same as my old Sony setup (A9 and A&RIII) as long as I use the larger aperture lenses available from Fuji and third party manufacturers. Viltrox just dropped a 75mm f1.2 for Fuji that looks amazing. I'm perfectly happy with APSC right now. The lighter weight comes in with the lenses. Makes a big difference when you are shooting for long periods of time. The crop factors make the most difference when it comes to focal length. An f2.8 lens is still letting in the same amount of light whether FF or APSC, it's just the APSC sensor has different pixel density and the FF has larger pixels to capture more of that light.
TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). APS-C lenses are not lighter than full-frame (FF), controlling for quality and price. "An f2.8 lens is still letting in the same amount of light..." No. Given the same transmissiveness of the glass elements, an f/2.8 APSC lens lets in the same amount of light as an f/4 FF lens. This was demonstrated in the video at 4:05.
@@aliendroneservices6621 wrong. When the lens is by itself, a 2.8 lens is still a 2.8 lens. It still is letting the same light. The difference you see is the camera sensor reading that light. The field of view is different but the light stays the same.
@@JET-Photo The field-of-view cannot differ without the total-amount-of-light also differing. If the field-of-view drops by, say, 1/3rd, the total-amount-of-light also drops by 1/3rd. If that were not true, then speed-boosters wouldn't boost speed.
@@djstuc Because the physical aperture enlarges as you zoom in (given a constant-aperture-ratio lens). What you're calling "same aperture" is actually the same aperture-ratio. Aperture-ratio is not aperture. These terms are widely abused, which causes confusion.
Very nice comparison. I'd love to upgrade to a full frame sensor but I've got a lot of APS lenses and don't want to sell them and replace them with full frame equivalents, it's just too expensive. I also, love the extra reach for wildlife and motorsports. Then again, it would be nice to have a full frame system for landscapes. Maybe some used full frame gear, just for that purpose.
My FF lenses fit my APS-C body. And if I do put an APS-C lens on my FF body the camera auto switches to crop sensor mode…before I bought a FF body I had purchased the FF lenses to smooth the upgrade but I kept my APS-C camera as well.
First off, thanks for your videos. They are very helpful. I chose the Canon R7 APS-C body partially based on another video you did. That said, what was lacking here was discussion about video, and other sports photography (i.e. auto racing). I recently shot Formula 1 with both still and video, and was very satisfied with the results of capturing 200 mph cars. I’m totally an amateur, and I only had the camera for a couple weeks. The versatility, and ability to shoot long videos without overheating was a determining factor in my purchase. Bottom line, I like the way you qualify your opinions, and leave room for the pro or amateur to decide what’s right for them.
Having an apsc camera I was starting to feel a little despondent with the first ¾of this video until you got on to wildlife which is my main aspect of photography along with aircraft, which both result in me using the centre of the picture and cropping in post. Now I feel a lot better about my choice. Thanks for explaining the difference clearly and an easy to understand way.
There are a lot of other scenarios besides weddings and wildlife. There's macro, family, children's sports, travel, etc. For example, when I went to Paris, I took my d500, 17 to 70, and 10 to 24 instead of my d610, 28 to 105, 14 to 24 2.8. That fast wide angle zoom is far superior to the DX alternative but wasn't something I was going to carry all over the place in Paris especially since I wasn't alone. When I went to the Rockies, I took my d610 and 14 to 24.
Interesting video! You guys almost always make think about my choices a bit. I think the important thing is to consider your use case. For me I mostly shoot birds and the occasional family event. I have full frame, APSC, and M43s in the OM-1. I don’t get paid for my work. I used to have a photography company. I did weddings and other events and I found that Nobody but me could see the difference between the full frame ind the M43s except for me. I shot a two day event for a charitable foundation on whose board I sit. One day I used my OM-1 and on day 2 I used the Canon R6i. I just went and looked through the pics from both days and on my 13 inch screen theatre wasn’t much difference. I am older and have a chronic sore shoulder that I damaged in motorcycle crash years ago. The light the gear is the happier I am. I find the OM-1 being my choice most days.
I think these 2 do more to confuse people than to help them. Because if you can’t see the benefits of the full frame camera you probably have advanced far enough.
I mainly shoot film, but do have two digital cameras, Nikon Df and D40x. I like the fact that the Df will take almost all old Nikkor lenses, including pre-ai ones, with the same angle of view, and metering works. The image quality on the D40x is pretty good for an entry level camera.
Personally MFT or micro four thirds is my favorite format, due to it's amazing capabilities for it's size. I can get images on par or better than full frame cameras due to the added stabilization and compact size.
I miss the point that you don’t tackle is that FF manufactures such as Nikon, Sony and Canon don’t have high quality bodies or lenses for APS-C, as they see the system as a step-up to Full Frame. .It is only Fuji that has high end APS-C lenses and body. So for the users using Sony, Canon and Nikon upgrading means moving to Full Frame.
Tony and Chelsea, I watch your videos very often and I enjoy and learn. I am a Pentexian, I have Pentax LX, Pentax Superprogram and Pentax K-1, also a Rolleiflex, which I have not used. Anyway, I have collected so many lenses, but my favorites are: 18-36mm f/2.8-4.5 Tamron; Pentax HD 24-70mm/f2.8 (Constant aperture throughout), and HD 70/f2.8 (Constant aperture throughout). And I don't need anything else. I am trying to attach a few pictures, which I took with my Pentax LX. I tried, but could not attach.
I find it interesting that at the high iso low light comparisons both full frame and apsc are bad. A little more or less noise isn’t a big deal if they both are bad.
Shooting in low light, I really prefer the results from my 12MP Nikon D700 to my 24MP Canon M50, even at the same equivalent f-stop, but a Fuji X-T30 beats both
I think everyone who is an advanced photo enthusiast should own one apsc camera and one full frame camera. That way a shooter can use the right tool for the job. Apsc cameras tend to have smaller equivalent zoom lens and bodies great for travel and wildlife shooters. Full frame will give superior results in image quality and low noise in low light conditions and also better for post processing lifting shadow detail. As either an advanced amateur, semi-pro or pro, most of us will eventually own 2 camera bodies. However If I could only own one, I'd pick full frame for overall image quality in most cases (except maybe for wildlife). However, if shooting in good light during daylight hours, with low ISO, or using fast primes, the difference can be much less. Great review!
With you 100% , I have the R5 and the R7 for that exact reason and use the body that fits what I'm doing and often use both at once for speed and to cut down on the opportunity for dust to cause issues especially when it comes to video .
As an a9 user, I was tempted to rent the a6600 for a little bit of more reach with the 200-600 lens, but realize after this video that I can easily just crop or use the 1.4TC as well, if there is enough light. Thanks for your thoughts on this subject!
I have FF, APS-C, and M43s cameras, I use different cameras for different applications. I have an A6000 and an A7 and an A7II, the A6000 is great when I don’t want to carry the A7s around.
Another thing that somewhat levels the playing field, at least for DSLR, is the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 lens. With it on the APS-C and a common f2.8 lens on the full frame you can more easily get full equivalence. I've read where people claimed that the full frame body gave better colors and in particular better colors for portraiture. I'm not able to test that. Upgrading from APS-C to full frame can be very expensive because the full frame lenses will typically cost more
@@greggpedder And it gathers twice as much light when on a full frame camera, what's your point? In a low light situation the full frame setup would have half the noise and also the Sony 24-70 GM2 is definitely optically superior to the Fuji 16-55. You don't have to actually answer, I won't respond again. Given the multiple replies about price it's obvious that you bought Fuji and are trying really hard to justify your purchase, even though nobody cares what you use.
Sigma Art Zooms 18-35mm 1.8f and 50-150mm 1.8f are both miracles for the m4/3. And when combined with a speedbooster AND the 1.8f, that's something I'd LOVE to see you compare here.
Also, don't disregard older DSLR full frame models, such as Nikon D850, it can be found used for around $1200. Still a great camera with amazing 45mp sensor. Tons of lens choices as well.
I stlll use the Nikon D610, which is 9 years old. It's full frame and you can get decent results at ISO 6400. Although newer full frame cameras are far better at low light, the D610 can match up against most APS-C cameras in low light.
I'm a stage photographer using APS-C. For me, the extra reach of APS-C is great. I can zoom in to capture the performers' faces with the extra reach it provides. However, APS-C isn't always the best option since many stages use low light setting to get more dramatic atmosphere. In this case, I always think that it will be nice if I have a Full Frame camera. Well, since stage photographers don't get paid as much as wedding photographers (at least it is the case where I live), I'm still hesitant whether to buy a Full Frame or not. I think I'd still stick to APS-C even some years later because I've invested my money on the lenses.
Not sure how much you're zooming and moving, but if you can I would suggest picking up some primes from Sigma. The 16mm, 30mm and 56mm are all f/1.4, incredibly sharp, and have good autofocus. I personally prefer my Sigma 56mm f1.4 on APS-C over Sony's 85mm f1.8 on full frame.
As a weddingphotographer I am happy working with OM1, and the 1.2 trinity 17mm, 25mm & 45mm. I’ve switched from Canon FF and lots of L lenses. For me there is a difference sometimes, but for the customer there is none….
I love that you say full frame has an advantage in wildlife as you're holding the most ridiculously oversized, heavy, impossible to travel with and literal hell to walk around with for several hours lens 😂
I recently went from the 90D to the R5 - the only real-world difference I've seen are dynamic range that I can push in post processing, Silent Shooting mode & 20 FPS - I haven't seen any difference in low light ability with FF over the Aps-c - I only shoot Wildlife. I wished I'd just saved my money for a longer period & purchased a prime lens instead.
I appreciate your honesty. It's hard to be so honest when you've forked out so much for an item and left a little disappointed. I currently have an M50 mark ii but am considering either a 90D or 7D II in addition to this. Were you happy with the 90D and can you add any advice or commentary on this? I got the camera mainly for my sons sports but have found I am photographing everything and quite enjoy it. The M50 has been superb if I'm honest
If you want an upgrade from your m50 get the m6 II instead of the 90D. They m6 is the mirrorless version of the 90d - I have it and love it. You have to adapt ef lenses though and even the original adapter has some play in it in my case though.
@Askaly I like the M6 but I want a built in viewfinder. I like that the M6 is 32MP vs 24 though. I'm currently using about 7 EF-M and 3 EF lenses. Had Voltrox adapter which was fine but had some play with my latest lens so got the Canon genuine and it works beautifully. I was actually leaning more to a 7D II - I heard alot of 90D owners complain about the 90D and the autofocus since posting this.
@@thetoyota86perspective54 - The 90D is a great camera, in-fact I still prefer it if I'm only doing video. A good lens on the 90D produces great results. Best of luck
I got the full frame R6. Full frame has better low light performance. I also got full frame to get wider views without special lenses. The R6 has all the features I wanted like joystick, touch screen, and great auto focus options.
Thanks for this. It's worth noting that equivalence goes both ways - for example, in a landscape requiring some good depth of field at a 100mm equivalent focal length, you may use 50mm f/2.8 iso 200 on micro 4/3 to get the right shutter speed, but would need to use a 100mm f/5.6 iso 800 on a 35mm camera. This can make smaller sensors, oddly, better for landscapes - compact kit hikes better, and you get similar printed results. The uncomfortable truth, of course, is the gear barely matters for most people and the limiting factor is the brain behind the viewfinder. I take better photos with small kit because it comes with me, and the lenses are affordable to me.
And, of course, having choice is only a good thing. I wish there was more yet! I'd love a 35mm equivalent sensor with native 4x3 ratio, as I'm mostly printing 4x3 or 4x5 ratio prints.
Equivalence - thank you for highlighting this important factor. I use an OMD OM-1 mft camera and get excellent results both in day and night with good prime lenses.But what makes a good photo is the person behind the camera 😊....however, I would not want to carry that FF 600mm zoom lens around with me all day...but that’s my choice.
@@TechnoBabble that's the point - you can lug a heavy ff kit with 100mm lens and stop it down, potentially with diffraction in some circumstances, or you can use a tiny, light set up and get a near identical result. I miss my little olympus kit sometimes for this reason, and have opted to stick to "compact" full frame lenses - that are still pretty big compared to my old kit, but do give better results sometimes. I'd say maybe 50 percent of the time.
@@theprettydamned Sure, that makes sense if you only shoot that way and are happy with the results otherwise. The only reason it's smaller/lighter is because of the worse technical image quality ceiling. But if it's still above what you want/need, no reason to get heavier and more expensive gear. To call that an advantage though is a bit silly, it's just a different tool and often times you can find smaller aperture full frame lenses that are similar in size and price.
I chose a Nikon Z30 and I am loving it. I chose this camera because for the price point it does not crop in at 4k and the availability of 3rd party lenses. I only miss the EVF when using my sb900 flash and I am bouncing the flash from behind…. I cop the flash in the face. The image is still great …. Once I can see again that is 😉😀🖖🏼 I am actually getting better results off the Z30 with the SB 900 than I did off my old D610 and the SB910 that I traded for a motorbike. 😅
I disagree about the wildlife. A TC can reduce image quality and you could use that same TC on the crop sensor for further reach. Also pixel density somewhat negates a 45mp camera like the R5 compared to a APS-C sensor. Further to that as a wildlife photographer that likes to hike for miles smaller sensors often mean smaller lenses. The kit that doesn't slow me down is the kit that get's me the shots.
Often a smaller sensor doesn't mean smaller lenses. Especially for wildlife. Just look at the Olympus 300mm f/4. Nikons full frame 300mm PF is 1/2 the weight. Even the new 400mm f/4.5 is lighter. The more "professional" the smaller sensor lenses, the less likely that it will be lighter.
@tc2744 You can use bigger lenses but there are plenty of lighter options available. The crop factor allowed me to take an EF 200mm f2.8 and turn into a 320mm equiv or roughly a 450mm f4 with a 1.4xtc. Pretty light set up. Conversely I could use a huge Sigma 150-600. I have the versatility. Tony is constantly backhandidly critical of crop sensor cams. It's odd and non-sensical. That's not to say his points are without merit but that he clearly has a bias that impairs his objective view. I have two full frame cams and 1 crop sensor and use my phone at times. I understand and am familiar with working with many different sensor sizes and cams.
I have a canon R6 kit and a Fujifilm X-S10 kit. I love both for different reasons. For pro stuff and sports/widlif, I shoot my canon. For casual/travel/street, I love my Fuji kit. I recently swapped my F2 fujis for the sigma 30mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.4. I’m really impresssed. The size and cost compared to the fuji 1.4 is awesome. I’m gonna get the sigma 18-50mm 2.8 and then I’ll be done with this kit for a while. Just enjoy it all!
Thank you for always posting relevant content that I’m actually interested in watching! Your videos are always so informative and easy to digest. Keep up the amazing work guys! ❤️
The best camera is the camera you carry around with you. It's a bad investment if your camera don't inspire you to take photos with it no matter how good it is on paper. I personally use Fuji APS-C, mainly because I like how tactile it is, and how equivalent (in terms of focal range and sharpness, not necessarily bokeh) lenses are much lighter. Admittedly, Fuji lenses are not cheap, but they're built really nicely and are lighter and smaller than what I would consider if I'm in the Sony or Canon FF ecosystem. That really matters to me. I don't want my photography to become the center of my life/travel, so a small and light setup would greatly increase the likelihood of me bringing my camera and taking pictures. If you're a pro photographer, then you already know what you need (I'd not get an APS-C camera if I shoot a lot of astrophotography or other low-light scenes, nor would I get one if I'm planning on making building-sized prints), but if you're an amateur photographer like most people watching this channel, FF might not be the best choice. We easily fall into this fallacy of image quality and bokeh is everything that matters. No. What really matters is if you enjoy taking photos with your camera enough that it overcomes the inconvenience of taking a dedicated camera and lenses with you rather than using your phone in your pocket. If I would give any advice, it would be to rent a system that you're interested in and see if you notice the image quality difference for the kind of photography you mainly do and then weigh out the pros and cons for you specifically before deciding. Especially if it's your first camera. Maybe you found that you just don't like bringing a heavy hunk of metal and glass with you and phones would work just fine for the kind of photography you want to do. Cameras don't automatically make you a good photographer. Understanding the capabilities and limitations of your tools, and a good understanding of lighting and composition are what really matters.
I couldn't have worded it better. My biggest regret back in the day was buy a heavy F1.4 lens, which caused me to take my gear with me way less often, so I took less photographs. Now there are even lighter FF cameras and I'm having a hard time deciding...
I made the move to Full Frame in 2018 when I purchased a Canon EOS 1D-X, I then bought a 1D-X MKII, I now own an EOS R5, I'll never purchase another Crop Sensor camera again.
Ha Ha There are so many full frame vs M 4/3 comparisons where the “experts” can’t tell the difference between enlargements that are 20”x30”. Certainly bokeh is better in a full frame, and low light condition too, but if you are doing landscape in good lighting, experts can’t tell the difference. Photography is an art, sensor size doesn’t matter.
I think sensor size matters on the extremes of the gear you have. I only own primes 24gm up to 135 gm and an a7iv & a6700 and I find I’m reaching for the a7iv when I want a wider image and reaching for the a6700 when I want more reach. Would I take an a7r V? Maybe but then there’s times I like the smaller body so I would go for the a7cR, but at that stage I’m back to 2 bodies but a hell of a lot less money in my pocket for no gain
I think in general we can all agree that full frame (in nearly all situations) is giving better image quality. But strong reasons to use APS-C are the weight and to a lesser extend the price. A camera only makes good pictures if you bring it. Especially for travel weight is a big factor. A Sony a6600 with 10-20mm, 16-55mm and 70-350mm set to cover all situations weights 1800 grams. A Sony A7r V with Sigma 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 100-400mm weights 3430 grams. Is that full frame set likely giving better results, absolutely, but it is 90% heavier and 75% more expensive and the difference in quality is nowhere near as big.
I bet some of your clients have no idea what you’re doing they just love the end result so it doesn’t really matter about you cameras, just enjoy what your doing with them!
The speed booster results were interesting. I think part of what makes the Fuji noisier looking (besides the obviousness of being a crop sensor) is Lightroom isn’t the best at handling Fuji’s “wormy noise” (as others have called it), due to being X-Trans instead of Bayer. I use Capture One for my Fujis and Lightroom for my Nikons.
Yeah there can be a few factors. The speed booster also doesn't have a perfect T-stop so it blocks a bit of light. But it's close enough for the example, which is meant to be more generic than a comparison of two specific cameras.
Yes, the "wormy noise", but also the mushy "water coloring" in distant landscapes, or the "waxy skin", are a burden for X-Trans. Even though C1 mitigates these problems, for many it is just not acceptable to be bullied into having to use a certain software they wouldn't have chosen otherwise. I never understood why Fuji haven't dumped X-Trans the same way they had dumped their "Super CCD" or EXR disasters, for similar reasons. Why did Fuji grant the Bayer privilege only to their GFX line, but are so stubborn regarding their X-Trans misery? That's certainly one of the reasons, why Fuji never gained much market relevance / market share during 10 years, so that now they put their entire digital photography on the back bench (according to CEO statements in Fstoppers' article "Fuji Refocuses Away From Photography" of July 2021).
I'm glad to see someone mentioned this. Lightroom is not capable of properly processing X-Trans raw files, so it can be annoying when the comparison is always made within Lightroom, and I do think the difference is large enough that this is necessary to accommodate for.
@@djstuc The regular complaints about - "wormy noise", - "water coloring", - "waxy skin", - and the pleas to dump X-Trans, are all originated from WITHIN the Fuji user community, discussed within their (sub)forums and groups, i.e. they are original Fuji users' dissatisfactions and their disappointments from their own long-term and in-depth usage experience. These issues are not invented by Canon, Nikon, or Sony users 😉they couldn't care less. It is acceptable though that different people have different demands regarding image quality, nothing wrong with that. For judging photos via the usual small internet resolutions, for example, everything is "good enough" (even smartphones' cameras).
All you say is correct - I would add the weight argument, though. For long hikes, mountains, hot days, I definitely prefer my 1.5 kg APS camera bag over my 5 kg full frame backpack. In fact, I have "upgraded", in the past, you see. So, I have both at hand, but 90% of time choose the APS-C solution.
My choices were easier as an astro-photographer. I use the APS-C Pentax K3 together with about 30 Pentax lenses spread across from the 1960's till today. Perfect for my wide angle lens and magnified telescope images. But I just use a Canon 6D Full Frame body only when mounted on the telescope for wider angle views. Maybe one day I will actually buy a Canon lens..LOL
Astro-photography is quite different from terrestrial photography. Shooting deep-sky objects, we can gather exposures of several minutes or even hours at high ISO. Noise is statistically handled through software stacking. With planets, we take videos in order to battle the atmospheric disturbances ("seeing") and then process the many thousands of frames with dedicated software that eliminates the distorted frames and stacks the good ones. Images in astro-photography are as good as the telescope's optics allow, combined with the camera sensor's specs. For planets, a sensor with small pixels and a high pixel-density is the best choice. The sensor can be small, as a planet remains a really small projected disk on the optical axis. Deep-sky is mostly different, as many celestial objects are rather large by comparison to planets. There is less magnification and more light-gathering going on. Framing a celestial object depends on its apparent size, measured as an angle, after which we select an appropriate focal length, combined with the sensor proportions (if in prime focus). A full frame sensor can obviously capture more field than a smaller sensor, as long as the telescope's field aperture allows it. I keep using my old Pentax ist*dl DSLR and the Nikon D5000, both APS-C, for deep-sky. For planets, I have a dedicated USB planet-camera, as a DSLR cannot take RAW videos. And RAW-frames is what we want in astro-photography. Always. I bought my second-hand Nikon as a body, without any lens. Only recently, I bought a second-hand zoom-lens for it, just to be able to take terrestrial pictures as well. Because, why not? It's still a good camera for general photography.
I wish there was an astrophotography channel like this. I'd like to get into it and I feel like there is a gap in the language people use and no one cares to explain things from the bottom up. I hate doing something from a book-smart level I want to understand the physics of it to the extent that I could explain it to a child. And EVEN WORSE, the solar hydrogen alpha bros are in a hyper-nerdy bubble talking about their Etalons and how we all need to take out a mortgage to buy 3 of those telescopes.. yuck. I'm a work in progress, I wish someone like smarter every day or Veritasium would do a series on astrophotography. I am however greatful for Ed Ting and Astrobackyard, Astrobuiscuit.
@@danielbrowniel Granted, there is a steep learning curve in amateur-astrophotography. No one in his right mind will claim that it is easy and success is waiting behind the next corner. This is a hobby that will test your patience. As far as I'm concerned, I am patient, I guess. I take this hobby step by step, and these steps are small and are not very frequent, so, progress is hardly discernable during a single year. But, with every attempt, with every session at night under the clear skies, there is another piece of the puzzle that might find its way to support the goal: to become better than before. There is no exam, there is no evaluation to admit you to some esteemed league of proficient elite amateurs. There is only you, committing time and attention to a hobby. Keep an open mind and absorb the knowledge that happens to come your way. There is no perfectly planned roadmap for that. I think I learn much from serious astronomy fora out there, where issues of cameras and filters are discussed. They can often point you to the next level of contemplating issues that you didn't even know they existed in the first place. After some time, I forget some of these details, only to be picked up again later on, when I find the time. There's no pressure here to complete a training course. Treat it with a calm mindset. The rest will follow.
@@danielbrowniel there’s one thing that we astrophotographers sometimes fail to mention… knowing the night sky itself. Gear and imaging technology vary from person to person, but the basic process of how we can pull down an image of light 30,000 light years away (Milky Way photography) or even further like 51million light years away (distance of some galaxies) is similar: longer exposures, a much more complicated imaging process workflow, and love of the night sky. Many of the most beautiful images we take are either over several days of imaging, or taken in dark sites that may or may not have wild animals lurking about. You lose some sleep if you have a day job.
I‘m old, I‘ve always been shooting full frame. I shoot most of my jobs with digital medium format crop cameras like the fuji gx680 and a phase one back, or a hasselblad h2d, and some with a digital full frame. I own aps crop cams like the 1D MK363737, or a sigma sd1, and I love to use them, but for my work full frame is the way to go cause I‘m too lazy to work with anymore crop factors than my medium format cams have. If I have a 85mm I just have to try how it looks on crop sensors, and that‘s what I‘m too lazy for. I just want to mark my workspace and grab whatever lens I need without having to recalculate and think again. Other than this, small sensor crop cams deliver awesome images, like the fuji xpro like for example.
KEH must be pushing hard for the endorsement of all these big photography content creators. My experience with them is that they clearly under represent the condition of your gear so that they can justify offering less than the quote. And they know you'll be tempted to take the offer as opposed to going through the hassle of having the gear returned to you and then selling it yourself. I know I won't deal with them again after rating a bunch of like new condition lenses a few grades low.
Agree, last year I sold them my D7200 and lenses. It was literally out of box nearly perfect condition clean, the amount I got was about 25% less than originally offered.
I met a KEH rep visiting the Boston area doing evaluations. My RP and 24-240 kit lens was evaluated as Like New. When I sent it in, they listed it a bit lower and I got maybe a couple hundred less. I really wanted the R6 and figured I'd make up a little since they had a 10% off promotion using a trade in and that made it easier. However, the Like New R6 I got was an international model and I could not register it on Canon's website. I was wondering how KEH and other sites had so many Like New R6s, which were hot in December of 2021. That's how. They will buy grey market and sell them for a profit. I ended up returning it and bought a refurbished R6(with same warranty as new) from Canon and saved a couple hundred. I do think they undervalue their lenses and I would not hesitate to buy used lenses from them. I got a "bargain" EF 135mm f/2 for pretty low money. And I love that lens. It also looked pretty new to me...
Geesh!!! Just what UA-cam need again, another APS-C vs Full-Frame Camera. Overall, there is no high gain benefit per say if one uses a modern full-frame camera instead of a modern APS-C camera. As I have stated previously, with computational mathematical formulas and algorithms in cameras today, the advantage of modern full-frame cameras today over modern APS-C cameras is negligible at best. In all honesty, it really depends on the purpose of the photography and the final result one is wanting to capture. Good video as always.
Thanks Tony & Chelsea. And.. thank you for steering me to KEH and giving a coupon code. I have been using them regularly and it has allowed me to build a good lens line up I would not have been able to do at retail prices! You are right, they are amazing and stand behind their stock.
You started off by comparing a larger apsc camera and a smaller full frame camera. But in general, it is still true that full frame is bigger, especially when you consider the lens, which obviously you have to do. This is one of the main reasons many people, including me, have stuck with apsc. It would have been good to point this out.
@@TonyAndChelsea Until you go with MFT (Lumix GM5) with 20mm 1.7 pancake is super tiny, there is no equivalent in apsc or full frame for this (i own Sony FF too..)
This is a really helpful video. I am primarily a bird photographer (not exclusively, but primarily) and shoot the Fuji X-H2s with the 150-600 lens. I have been seriously considering moving to 24mp full frame, but this was such a clear explanation of why that does not really work in my use case. I’ll hold off for awhile and perhaps consider a higher MP full frame body next year. Thank you for the dispassionate, clear analysis!!
What I mind annoying is that wildly expensive full frame stuff is ideal for beginners. But if you know what you are doing (especially for wildlife) you can get great results with m43 or APSC
There's so many lenses available for Sony that Full Frame costs less than APS-C and M43 at every focal length. Generally Full Frame costs about half the price of APS-C, for example with Sony third party lenses versus Fujifilm native lenses. And in many cases it's so difficult to get an equivalent lens for APS-C that you'd have to pay thousands for that on APS-C but it's no big deal just some 500 dollar lens on Full Frame.
@@zyxyuv1650 Good point. I’d love some cheaper Tamron or Sigma f2.8 zooms for my Fuji :) Although, not sure that still holds with longer focal lengths for wildlife. An 800mm equivalent would still be super expensive (and heavy) for full frame
I do not see how full frame is ideal for beginners. Full frame with large sensors and faster lenses is more demanding and requires more skill. With APS-C and kit lenses you he easily snapshots.
See people think automatically that because they get a FULL FRAME camera the image quality is going to be better, NO, the size of the sensor doesn't have anything to do with the Image Quality. it's a combonation of things, first is the image quality the sensor reads out, weather it's APSC or Full frame, and also the Lens, you could have the best camera that has the best image quality sensor, but if you put a shitty lens on it, it's not going to matter the image quality will be crap. Full Frame doesn't mean you will get better image quality, the only thing you will get out of full frame vs ASPC sensors, is #1, you will get better low light quality. #2 You will be able to blur out the background easier, doesn't mean APSC can't blur out the background, yes it can but you have to take extra steps do get that to work, such as zoom in and get closer to your subject or go 1 stop below in aperture then what the full frame camera was set at.. There is 1 other advantage with full frame as well you can blow up your pictures in closer with less quality loss then with APSC camera's. Because the sensor size is bigger to begin with and also higher megapixels are more common in full frame vs APSC, I don't think there is and APSC sensor camera that has 50 Megapixels or higher, but there is with full frame, and that means you can crop in and blow up your picture a lot more with cleaner images then APSC. So those are the only advantages you get Using Full frame vs APSC. Image Quality with APSC is exactly the same as a full frame camera the sensor size has noting to do with image quality.. Because of price i can get a ton of good lenses for APSC and take just as good pictures and video as with a full frame, and it cost me a lot less.. If your shooting Weddings yes i would say go for the full frame, but if your taking landscape or wild life or fast action shots like sports, then i would say APSC Camera's are just as good. And even portrait in a studio is just as good as well, but if your doing work where you can't control the lighting like weddings or in door activity then Full frame has the advantage. That is why most Wedding photographers rather have full frame then APSC because they can get good exposed pictures in lower light situations.
The price of good lenses on apsc is actually the same (often higher) than the same good lenses on full frame. I've compared them for myself. The reason people think they are cheaper is because they compare the wrong lenses. Eg. They compare f2.8 on apsc to f2.8 on ff, when actually they should be comparing to f4. This ends up doing the same for size and weight too. Apsc lenses aren't actually significantly smaller or lighter, as long as you compare to the actual same lenses on full frame. I did all this testing a while ago, and my full frame setup now is actually smaller, lighter AND cheaper than my apsc fuji kit was before.
Bullsht, FF have a higher dynamic range. You have more Information in your picture compared to apsc! The Tonal Transition, the Details and there way more points were ff is better than apsc. Its Not only about blurring the background.
@@frecheforelle761 your depth of field, dynamic range and image noise will all be completely different though (in favour of FF) so it's not the closest comparison you can make. This is an old argument, but the correct answer is always that you compare f2.8 on apsc, to f4 on FF. As that is how you get comparable end results. Adjusting ISO to then make the brightness match then causes the noise level to (approximately) match also. You then end up with nearly identical images. If you're doing anything else to compare lenses between systems, you're doing it wrong.
Physically, it is all quite obvious: what matters is the amount of light you get on a pixel and how sensitive that pixel is. For the same resolution you need higher pixel density on a smaller sensor, so smaller pixels. You need a "better" i.e. lens to get the same amount of light on the same area. This is why in the test the same lens with the speed booster gives almost the same result. But of course the speed boster contains optical elements so it will take some light add some distortion etc. So physically it is just easier to capture more light with larger pixels so larger sensors. Of course there is a limit when it does not make a difference anymore. And as sensor technology improves this limit comes down.
Coming from Sony FF to Fuji APS-C. Never locked back. I need pictures sooc because i do not want edit in post. For me editing is just a waste of time. Thank you Fuji for giving me these superb colors.
I went from a Nikon D300 to a Nikon D780 recently, there is a big difference in image quality, but I’m pretty sure that is more the 9 year gap than the APSC to full frame shift. I loved that d300, but I already love the d780 more.
4:50 there is a f1.8 APS-C zoom lens: the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Art. It is only available on Canon EF-S and Nikon, though. And of course, it looses some zoom range. It is such an amazing lens.
I have both from Nikon and Canon and MFT from Olymous. My D7200 has better dynamic range @ base iso than my D800, but it is noisier, so are the Canons. I use my D7200 in its 1.3X ( 16mp ) mode for the odd time that I shoot wild life, not very often I must add. I guess a lot of this confusion has been propagated by those photographers who are shall we say ' sponsored ' by the big names in sensor manufacturing, Sony, Fuji come to mind. They have to sell their new products, so they tell everybody that their ' best camera ' of yesterday is no longer any good and one needs to buy their latest. Nonesense as far as I am concerned. Learn to use what you have. Camera is just a tool. It is you, the photographer that matters.
It's curious to me that your post that contains the "sponsored" comment, although absolutely true, didn't get a heart from T&C. I've come to believe that anyone who is sponsored, either directly or indirectly, cannot be completely trusted because they do what they do for profit. (The obsession over money is the downfall of civilization, different topic, yes.)
The D7200 has the best aps-c sensor I've ever seen, and I've owned an a6500, a D500, a D7500, various Fuji's, Ricoh GRII, the 7200 was a noticably better sensor.
@@ultraniusmaximus1536 People have to work to earn their living, like everyone else I guess. Technology moves on and this ' advance ' has a cost that the giant tech companies have to recoup. What I absolutely object to, is this built in obsolescence . It is not just hardware, it is software, its operating systems, processors, memory, etc etc. It is built in incompatibility of editting software with older operating systems. It is that vicious cycle of this new thing has come out, but to get the best of it everything has to be upgraded. We never had this problem during the film era. My Voigtlander Avus of 1929 vintage, is still producing beautiful images. All is needed is a roll of 120 film, and a few chemicals, even coffee and lemon juice would do at a pinch.
@@G95G95 I agree, I think Nikon went for a Toshiba sensor for 7200. I only bought the 7200 because I gave my D300 to my daughter. I am glad I got it. It is a lovely little camera.
For me, both can get very nice images. But, my Full frame model, an older model at it, does the job very well. Even in situations where my older APS-C cameras began to have trouble. I did get some lovely pictures of the fireworks, And those bigger pixels did wonders in retaining as much quality as possible for a damn hard situation! Though I love smaller sensor cameras too, yes even 1" models, why... it is the camera that you have with you that gets the picture ;)
I love a crop sensor for wildlife and a full frame for low light and portraits. I believe you need both to be a diverse photographer. If you never shoot wildlife full frame all the way but I love having both options over slapping on a teleconverter.
a couple of years ago i got an old nikon d3300 for cheap, i got a couple of cheap used lenses and im still constantly amazed at the photos it produces, i couldnt imagine replacing it unless i broke it or something
Went from full frame to APSC, much prefer the size and weight of the lenses and you can still get amazing results with some fast primes.
I went from the Fujifilm x-h1 to the Sony A7IV and it gets smaller and lighter ;)
It not just camera size. It’s lenses. If you go longer on full frame they are bigger.
It doesn't make any sense. APS-C cameras use FF camera lenses.
@@SergSpaceNo. You can use FF Lenses on APSC but there are many dedicated APSC Lenses like the Tamron 17-70mm F/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD wich i have an love.
It's only around 500g. FF would be around double the weigth..
@@YummehPyroFlakes sony 24-105mm f4 is a bit wider, probably better build (?) and weighs 660g. Tamron is 525g according to BH. Size is similar.
Sony is also a bit old, i bet new version would/will be smaller.
Fullframe cameras opened up a new world of photography for me. I had been shooting with my Canon 60D for 10 years, which also have created some great images. But since I live in Sweden, where you barely see the sun for 6 months of the year, photography was not that fun anymore and I only brought my camera in the summers while travelling.
But now I bought a Canon 6D full frame, and its amazing how many more situations it can handle! Last three months I have taken more great photos than in the last 5 years or so. So I really recommend to go for a cheaper fullframe, it makes photography much more fun, easy and less frustrating.
Several years ago I decided to upgrade my older MFT camera to go full frame. One reason was for astrophotography. I had got some amazing images with a $500 MFT camera and a $200 12mm F2 lens. I was quite disappointed when I struggled to get comparable night sky photos with a 5 year newer $3000+ Sony camera and a $800 17-28mm F2.8 lens. Don't get me wrong, there are some advantages to full frame, but there are also some advantages to smaller sensors. I now carry both.
such coincidence
i have a 60D and want to get a 6D as well
well i have a Canon 60D right now, and thinking about switching to either A7III or A6700.... still cannot decide whether go with ff or aps-c ;)
@@losiek008 both about the same price. Rent both and see once they're in your hands
I recently bought a used 60d and I’m just getting into photography. Have a kit lens at present and am getting some good photos but wondering what other lenses you found worked well with the 60d? Tack så mycket!
I think lots of people will get better results by investing in a photo course. A full frame camera is no guarantee for better pictures.
I agree, such as Stunning Digital Photography 😉
Best comment I read today
I own APSC and FF and have done so for well more than a decade , each has their advantages and disadvantages starting with price but at the end of the day without zooming to 400% most people would be happy with the results from either system from any of the big manufacturers and the weak point in most of the equation today is the user not the gear.
Yes. In This video they compare noise zooming in strongly and cropping the image that much is bullshit it happens almost never.
I shoot with ff, fuji x and m43 for photograhy. They all have their pros and cons. Hiking in the hills and mountains with big and heavy ff lenses and tripod no thank you. I do sometimes but then only one lense. A smaller one.
M43 for landscape photos has a big advantage and that is the small and much lighter lenses. Double depht of field can be an advantage sometimes.....landscapes....macro
I can shoot at lets say f5.6 which is equivalent of f11 ff.
2 stops faster and since ibis is so much better with m43 i might not need a tripod. And a tripod for m43 is much smaller and lighter compared what you would need for ff lenses.
For non moving objects in low light m43 can have an advantage because of the longer depth of field and the better ibis compared to ff. The object you take a photo of with the ff camera might need at least f2.8 for needed depth of field and the micro43 can shoot at f1.7 and at faster speed not getting a blurry photo. People not thinking about that. The m43 has also much better ibis. Only If very strong pixel peeping you see more noise in the m43 image or printing super big.
I do agree that ff is superior in image quality and If wanting very shallow depth of field. Pros and cons.
Especially of you run images through an AI denoiser
@@bluecollar8525yep and interestingly on the denoiser from luminar and lightroom i need 40 in lightroom or low in luminar for my a7iii and 85 to 90 in lightroom or heavy in luminar for my canon r7 .
And in the end the ff will look better because denoising also eats up details.
I don't blame people to think that APSC is more the casual option and FF the pro option, FF does have more lens choice and usually the expesive lens is made for FF, all Canon L series lenses are FF, the only option for Canon APSC users to get a lens that is on the quality to a L series is the EF 17-55mm. (I'm talking about the first party lenses only)
I went to full frame for the low light capability compared to apsc. I'm happy with my purchase but I do miss the apsc camera I had. Both systems make good images and I took my all time favorite photos on my apsc camera. I literally am not making better photos because I am on full frame, the photos are the same creatively. Just now I can shoot at 12800 iso and be fully satisfied with the grain. But apsc it just bothered me above 6400. So to me the move to full frame was worth it.
THIS!!!!!
Why 12800 iso?????
@@chromaticvisuelle because he can
LOL. So you're giving up on a platform for a feature that you'll use 1-2/year? I use both my Leica Q2, m10 and you'll usually find me with my PEN-F.
@@nicolaskrinis7614 i use it more times than that but yes I am giving up on a platform for a platform that better suits my needs.
Thank you Tony and Chelsea! Just wanna say I found your channel about 5 years ago and knew nothing about cameras. Now I shoot commercial product photography/videography full time, it wouldn’t have happened without your UA-cam channel!
P.s. currently using R7 for video work, and d810 for catalog and lifestyle images. All sensor sizes welcome in the workplace!
Matt
As others have remarked, I would also factor in weight of bodies and lenses. About four years ago, I sold all of my Canon full-frame gear including the “L” lenses in favour of a Fujifilm X-T3 and in the last few weeks an X-T5. For me, as primarily a landscape photographer, weight reduction was a significant influence, reducing backpack weight for hiking. In addition the Fuji X-T design ethos of traditional control dials was hugely attractive.
Yeah for landscape I love my Fuji. Been wanting to shoot some more wildlife lately though and could use the extra light of a full frame censor...
I'm in the same boat. I have my dream setup on canon with 24-70 and 70-200 but it is too heavy and large of a setup for my purposes. I am actually shooting less. Plan to move to fuji and excited to use the dials
In 2023, the flagship Fuji bodies (xh2/s) are virtually the same size as Sony’s FF bodies…
APS-C lenses are not smaller or lighter than their full-frame equivalents. Could have bought a Sony a7c, and some small, light full-frame lenses, and achieved the same result.
@@Blessbh Sony FE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS II weighs only 794 grams. No APS-C lens can match it.
I shoot "all three", MFT, APS-C, and FF. There's a time and place for each sensor size. An example, on a rainy night, I like to shoot with MFT... a fast prime on MFT (great stabilization with my MFT cameras) will give me a larger depth of field while still being bright enough (bokeh isn't required all the time) and I get better results from the city lights. Really... you don't always have to have bokeh. Sometimes, it makes your pictures look worse. When shooting automobiles at night, in the city... the smaller sensor with a large aperture prime, will give you better results. The greater depth of field of the smaller sensor cameras actually help you in low light, when you need greater depth of field. Almost no one on YT mentions this... and most new photographers are really frustrated by these situations. That's why this "old guy" shoots all three sizes. There are a few situations where smaller is better... and even more when bigger is better.
"The greater depth of field of the smaller sensor cameras actually help you in low light, when you need greater depth of field. Almost no one on YT mentions this... and most new photographers are really frustrated by these situations."
Very true. Only professinals really undestands that
I shoot all three too, Kenny... actually, all four - GFX too! Each system is amazing if you know what to use it for.
Wouldn't a faster aperture cancel out the greater depth of field from a smaller sensor?
Why do you need more depth of field at night?
@@athmaid I am also perplexed
I am a hobbyist. I have a Canon 5D4 and an X100v. I have owned an Olympus MFT and a small sensor lumix. Don’t forget full frame is a marketing gimmick. All cameras fill the frame. When photographers refer to “full-frame” they actually mean 35mm. In the days of film cameras most wedding photographers used medium format.
Compared to the 6x6cm negative size of medium format cameras 35mm is cropped.
If you’re a hobbyist get whatever you can afford. Most people don’t give a fig for what camera you use, they just look at the results.
Also a10 megapixel image is big enough for an A4 sized image in a magazine.
A good photographer can get images regardless of sensor size.
My issue is when people who shoot with MFT or APSC say dumb things like “full frame is a waste of money there’s no benefit”. There’s clear benefit, but it doesn’t always mean it’s that much better depending on the person.
Every person needs a different setup.
"Full" frame is not a waste of money but it is unnecessarily expensive...for the most part. I do most of my video stuff with a GoPro 10. It´s not about the camera...it´s the way one uses it.
@@knorke3642 true true. I wouldn’t say they’re that much more expensive though. A canon r6 mkii and a Fuji XH2S or r6 mkI and XT5 are very similar in price. But each camera works for a different person.
yes it does matter how a person uses it, but there are limits to it.
I used an MFT to take my first wedding photos, I’d never go back to it after how bad the photos turned out after the sun went down. In good light it worked great but even at f1.7 and with low shutter speed the photos after sunset were super grainy. The same relative scenario a year later with my a7iii the photos were much better.
My skills improved but not so much as to be the only reason the photos looked better. Gear isn’t all that matters, but it does matter a good bit when we’re talking about paid client work.
@@knorke3642 in expansion of that, many of the official car ads on youtube/social media are shot on go-pros/small action cams
It’s like when people tell me Trader Joe’s is better than Whole Foods. Different tools for different use cases. I agree
Bingo.
My takeaway from this is that the lens makes the biggest difference of all. I also took away from this that I should own BOTH and have fun! 😆
One point that was not brought up was the size of full frame bodies and lenses. I left FF Sony and moved to Fuji specifically for this. I’m a landscape photographer and hiking with a camera that’s half the weight of a FF makes a big difference!
Side note: 40mp on the new Fuji X-T5 is spectacular!
And the price.
@@greggpedder True. People cite how a similar spec f/2.8FF lens is the same price as Fuji's 16-55 f/2.8, but this is Fuji's top of the line lens, and they compare it to a budget FF option that has worse IQ
@@bluecollar8525 An f2.8 zoom on full frame is not the same as an f2.8 zoom on APS-C. There's a reason the APS-C lens is smaller and less expensive, you can't cheat physics.
It's one of the first things they said in the video, though it was quick.
@@TechnoBabbleit's not cheating physics if u understand the one distinction . Apsc is never changing the focal length , the changing the focal viewpoint! The reason why apsc lens are smaller is just purely because there is no reason to put extra glass if it's not covering it ! A 16-50 f2.8 ≠ 24-70 f2.8 . Just as example u can take 50mm prime on both apsc and full frame camera and then crop the full frame image to apsc equivalent, both pictures would be identical in terms of bokeh and image compression!
The fundamental reason why people don't get better images by switching from smaller format to full frame is that doing so does not change their capabilities as a photographer. It is also true that people have captured truly great photos with all kinds of cameras including those that are technically inferior to the best modern cameras in almost every way.
Yeah man, I still remember a couple in my beginner photography class that brought along gear that was more expensive than the rest of the class combined, yet their photographs were close to horrible. The girl with the EOS 700D and kit lens brought in jaw-dropping photographs every single time.
Remember when there was a photo mag with a cover shot made on an Olympus point and shoot 35mm? It was a big deal. We still see this effect with these cameras in digit versions. A couple “influencer” videos and the used prices go to double the original price 10 yrs later. Sure, it’s the free market but it’s also greed and, even more, gullibility of the photography consumer. This video isn’t really helpful IMO as Angel could do better with less.
As they say, just because something new comes out, that doesn’t make the old become worse.
The better the camera the more demanding it is to the user. With a APS-C and the kit lens you can shoot with P and get decent images. If you have a full frame with a fast prime you need to be very careful about the focus and the depth of field.
@@okaro6595 *The better the camera the more demanding it is to the user* If by "better" you are referring to cameras with larger sensors, the opposite is often true. For example, getting good quality images in low light conditions can be much more demanding with a small sensor camera.
I have actually found that rather than being more demanding, it's more of those who wish to have control choose such "demanding" cameras. Those who can't be bothered to take control, which is fine, buy expensive cameras and put them on program mode. Silly, IMO, but it's apparently common - even if only noted by the many FS ads with the P selected.
@@sl-rt5kv
I've shot dirtbike/enduro at NIGHT in Sweden in November with the X-T1, X-H1 paired with the 16 1.4 and the 50-140 2.8. A bit of noise reduction in LR and I'm satisfied.
Can we see photos online maybe?
I shoot both……there nailed it.
Thanks. Listening to these two is annoying anyway 😂
@@CookieMonstro21Why? It seems they live an amazing life, and seem to work so well together, come across as actually happy.
Some people hate happy 🤪
This is the best comparison video I have seen between the sensor sizes. It's more concise than some of your older videos discussing crop factor and bokeh, and this video gets straight to the point of why one sensor size or the other might be better for different users. Nice job!
Accept, they didn’t compare the ISO’s correctly. It should’ve been Fuji ISO 5500; Full Frame (FF)camera ISO 12,800. FF cameras aren’t “better’ in low light, people just don’t do math 🤦♂️
@@thinkingape7655 Yes, exactly
@@thinkingape7655 I´m not sure I´m with you on the math part...since the ISO stetting is but a gain setting of the sensor that kind of amplifies the light that hits the sensor. Since the Pixels on an APSC sensor are more densely "packed" there is a lot of physics involved, as how the sensor deals with that amplification. The ISO dial is supposed to emulate the "Film Speed", but turning the ISO dial kinda only cranks up the power on the sensor and therefore amplifies the ability of the pixels to read and reinterpret more light. Take the latest X-Trans sensor for example...40 Megapixel at high ISO´s...at least in my humble opinion, give a whole new meaning to noise when compared to the same ISO setting on an X-Trans 3 sensor. At base ISO however the 40 Megapixel sensor of the X-T5 and X-H2 can give most "full" frame cameras a run for their money...if your lens can resolve 40 Megapixel, that is.
@@thinkingape7655 ... Sorry Ape, you are not thinking....the very fact that you would compare a FF image at 12800 ISO to a Fujifilm image at 5500... BY DEFINITION, means that that FF is better at higher ISO than APS-C.... a FF sensor gives me at least 1 stop better everything over the APS-C camera.
@@thinkingape7655 The only problem with your hypothetical is that there are no lenses for APS-C that give you that kind of aperture advantage to match the noise levels of full frame.
You can't get f1.8 zooms for Fuji, you can't get good quality f1.0 or faster primes in multiple focal lengths. So in low light, when comparing high end gear, full frame always wins.
It's all about the application. I would never accept the size and weight of full frame lenses hiking to get that special landscape shot. (and couldn't afford it) I can carry an assortment of M43 lenses in a small sling bag and get great results. FF bodies are getting smaller, but lenses still twice the size and weight of other systems. If you're an indoor low light event photographer most of the time, sure go full frame. But many hobbyists would like to travel light and easy and get good results, like myself and many others.
Plenty of very small FF lenses exist.
I am happy with every bit of noise (grain) my Fujifilm X-H1 produces...or my X-T2. If I expose correctly and choose a fitting Film Simulation, get creative with my choice of lenses and compose my shot properly...I do not need or want "full Frame"... I fill the frame with whatever my eye sees and always get results that please my eye. I believe, the whole discussion about "Full Frame" vs. "Crop" is useless. There are countless professional Photographers of all different genres, who earn their money with cameras, regardless of sensor size. Advocating for "Full Frame" over APSC, gets old really fast. I switched back from "Full Frame" Canons to APSC Fujis because it´s not all about the size of the sensor, or the megapixel count...and more about the colors I can get right out of the camera, providing I know how to compose and light the frame. Plus...there is no "better" Bokeh in "Full Frame"...different.. yeah, but not better. Bokeh and its "quality" has also a lot to do with the lenses and their character. And let´s not forget about Micro 4/3... Great cameras, great choice of lenses...or DMF. Full Frame this and Full Frame that, is nothing more than marketing blurp.
Exactly!
Same here. I even add grain in camera to get the look, even at ISO 160. I Sold my Canon 6D Mark II because I prefered the photos from Fujifilm.
What genre of photography do you shoot?
@@jblanc_ I used to do Newspapers, Sports...mostly Cars and Horse racing. These days Photography is a Hobby, but I still do weddings, funerals and product photography. Other than that...mostly Landscapes and architecture.
On the other hand you can’t deny that FF has the best lenses.
I recently UPgraded to apsc 😅 dropped my A7III and f2.8 lenses and bought the FX30 and A6600 with f1.4 prime lenses and I couldn’t be more satisfied ! The gap in image quality between apsc and ff is not that big and any recent apsc camera is 10x better that any ff from 10 years ago anyway. I’d say any gear is so good these days it can’t be an excuse for bad results, so I prioritised cost and size/weight
Tony, with regard to your comment about Zooms for MFT remember that Panasonic Leica offers two zooms at F 1.7 aperture that equate to F 3.4 on fill frame which is not far off F 2.8 for DOF.
Exactly! Wanted to write the same reply after hist comment :)
the best camera is the one you have with you. If APS-C Body and gear is smaller and lighter (e.g. Sony a6xxxx) and you can carry this on hiking, it might have more noise than ff but it is still the one in your hand taking the awesoe shots you would have missed otherwise when keeping your bulky ff camera at home ...
I decided to change brands and at the same time go from aps-c to full frame, however, I changed my mind about going full frame. Why? It's good enough. I compared ISO 12800 files from Sony A7II with Fujifilm X-S10. About 6 years separate both cameras where A7II is the older one, and guess what, Fujifilm X-S10 performed better in my opinion. If a full frame just 6 years ago was good enough for a professional work, then a more advanced APS-C with the same or better low light performance is also good enough today.
It also depends what you do with your photos. Most people see mine on the internet, and more often than not they see them on their phone. It seems a waste of money for me to buy decent kit. I recently dug out my 16 year old 6MP Nikon D40 and took a few shots. In decent light it's not bad, although I couldn't remember how to get the exposure right on my Christmas Day walk on the beach. Mirrorless cameras make it pretty obvious that you need to use the Exposure Comp dial. With the DSLR it's a bit clunky. Goodness knows how I managed 50 years ago with film.
Another difference is that separation from the background can be much great with the full frame camera. This goes along with the boka test you did at the beginning of the video.
I have been a Nikon user since 1981, but I wanted something smaller and bought in to Fuji a couple of years ago, I love the feel of the traditional camera, I have no problem crop frame in any regard, except for portraits. I love the compression of the 85mm lenses and on a crop sensor, that takes you too far away and the result is not the same.
For that reason, I will stay with fuji, especially for travel for the time being, but I will probably move to the Nikon Z in the future, similar size and weight, but full frame.
My first camera is the Fujifilm XT30II and I love how compact it is
Why wouldn't you use a 56mm lense on the aps-c camera then?
@@joelb5391 I do, but even though they are beautiful lenses, I still prefer the compression of the 85mm, after all, it is known as 'the beauty lens'
@@a.antoniou The compression does not come from the lense being 85mm, it comes from the distance between you and your subject. It will be the same with an 85mm on a full-frame as it will with a 56mm on a 1.5x crop aps-c as long as you move to make the subject take up the same area of the frame.
@@joelb5391 Actually, that is widely misunderstood. Crop factor is not the same as compression. If you take a portrait on a full frame and crop it, to the same field of view as a 56mm on a crop frame, that is not the same compression.
As a Fujifilm APS-C shooter, I am happy to recommend this video to anyone deciding between the two formats. The only thing I would add is to be sure to consider the cost, size and weight of FF lenses (especially those "holy trinity" f/2.8 zooms), & not just that of the camera body. If you're still not sure, consider renting one of each, & comparing for yourself before committing to any one system.
The Sigma 24-70 F2.8 is $1099 and 835g, Tamron 28-75 F2.8 is $899 and 540g, Samyang 24-70 f2.8 is $999 and 1000g, Sony 24-70 f2.8 (Gen 1) is $1698 and 886g ..... I believe that the Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8 is $1100 and 655g... There are sufficient choices in lenses and bodies to build a kit for nearly any use case and any price point with FF.... if what I cared about was cost and weight I'd buy the Tamron for the E-mount and save both (wouldn't be giving up anything on IQ either).
@@silvestrocrino3256 You make a good point. I wasn't aware of that Tamron, & it looks to be an excellent lens. Still, while there are clearly some exceptions when comparing a heavy example of an APC-C lens to an exceptionally light FF one, I'd argue that across the board comparing like for like (as far as that is possible) you're likely to find more smaller and lighter lenses for APS-C than you are for FF. I've used the Fujifilm 16-55 f2.8, & while good, it was one of the bulkiest Fujifilm lenses I've ever used. By contrast the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is a mere 290g. Not exactly the same focal range, but close enough if you're looking to compare like for like a light mid range zoom APS-C vs a light FF.
I shoot Sony and Fuji. My Sony gear has its place but my Fuji that covers the same focal length equivalent is so much smaller and lighter that it makes far more sense for EDC or travel. An a7IV with Sigma 24-70 2.8 weighs almost as much and takes up around the same space as a X-T5 with 18-55 and 70-300. Both produce great shot, one is much more practical unless you need the “high res.”
@@daveb6711 Or the low light performance. Don't forget that an A7 IV with an f2.8 lens is going to have half the noise as an APS-C camera with an f2.8 lens, all else being equal.
Something to clarify is that an f2.8 apsc lens let's in the exact same amount of light as an f2.8 full frame lens. The only time people would need to multiply the aperture by the crop factor is when they want to achieve the same "look" aka depth of field as a full frame sensor. But in terms of speed, both lenses are the same.
As for low light, to clarify, it's really the pixel density that dictates which one is "better" between apsc and full frame. Technically if both had the exact same pixel density, (using generic examples) they should have the same low light performance.
Lastly, if depth of field is not the issue, lets say its just low light performance then it's sometimes a wash. You can use lower apertures with apsc and still have a workable image where the depth of field isn't too shallow, therefore use lower ISO. So it's not really fair to compare the exact same ISO (e.g. 12800) for both, cause in full frame you'd have to stop down your aperture vs in apsc you don't.
Same f stop means same illumination, means same amount of light *per unit area*. Full frame has a bigger sensor so more total photons collected. This means more photons per pixel or more pixels, both lead to lower noise when scaled to same size image.
The math checks out for multiplying aperture by crop factor to get equivalent noise (and DoF/bokeh) performance, as do the results demonstrated in the video.
@Ants Aasma yep for DoF and bokeh. But my point is an f2.8 apsc lens is not as "slow" as an f4 full frame lens.
Also for what you mentioned above it only makes sense if we're comparing the same # of pixels at two diff sizes. Breaks down if one or the other has more or less pixels, i.e. different pixel densities
@@cdnr6311 the point is that f2.8 can use a stop less ISO, which gives it approximately as much noise improvement as a same megapixeled full frame sensor has from bigger pixels.
@Ants Aasma if both apsc and full frame sensors have the exact same pixel density then yes of course you'll gather more light in totality overall because the sensor is bigger,but per unit area it's the same. So crop in a full frame image with an apsc that has the same pixel density, theoretically they should have the same noise. Hence an f2.8 lens is always an f2.8 lens. DoF and bokeh is a completely diff story though. Both of which we've mentioned above and from original post.
No, the pixel density is irrelevant. The pixel density myth has been debunked by several people including Tony Northrup. It is the sensor size that matters. Pixel density matters only in 1:1 crops with are not a natural way to use images, on normal use especially with post processing the high megapixel bodies are often better in low light.
Great job Tony and Chelsea, best video I have seen in explaining the pluses and minuses of APS-C and full frame. I mainly shoot wildlife, especially birds in flight, and have been very happy with my Fuji APS-C camera, and it has worked just fine for portraits and even low light situations. So worthwhile to understand what you want to shoot and what works best for your budget.
Maybe we should strike the word "upgrade" from the conversation about crop vs FF
Agreed. Tony always shows his true colors ... he does NOT like APS-C
Then you should also remove “upgrade” from any discussion about 1080P vs 4K.
You’re forgetting the more technical, electronic and physics aspects.
I LOVE that no matter what question I've had about learning photography you two always seem to have a video for it. You two are awesome! Thank you so much for these videos.
Great talk Tony.
Picked up a Z6 refurb from Nikon and a 24-200 zoom to upgrade from my Z50 with 18-140. After a week I am comfortable withe improvements in the quality of the body, and the lenses. For me the bigger pixels on the sensor and bigger glasses just seem to pass the resolution along much better. I tried maxing out the small sensor with a Sigma 18-35 1.8 and got good results. But that lens weights the same as a Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z. I am sorry but that is the same weight with a lot more flexibility and the more robust optical path.
I was going to sell off all the DX stuff but now my wife wants to keep the Z50 for her use.
My 70-300 AF-P looks a lot better using the whole lens.
Pete
I'm glad I still could see the difference right away on the first picture, there is a reason I just switched to full frame high mp count to up my game
Personally I'm not a Bokeh chaser which is why I switched from full frame DSLR Nikon to APSC Fuji. Occasionally I wish I had more low light capability and considered the canon RP but for my portraits and most events the photos are good enough
Not to mention, at most events, flash is OK to use...So...It negates it.
My problem is primarily the lack of equivalents and the weight/cost/size you have to take on for those that are comparable for aps-c. By the time I built up my last aps-c kit, I could have gotten a lighter full-frame with the range of lenses I needed for less.
That's just me of course. But as I try to look for a new mirrorless aps-c kit, there are compromises I don't want to make.
Agree
One thing I have noticed is that my full frame works better under low light compared to an APSC using RAW. Higher ISOs can be used with less grain. However under reasonable light, with a good lens there is very little difference in image quality.
I understand what your are saying because I just moved from a Canon m6mii with a 32mp apsc sensor to a Sony a7c with the 24mp FF sensor. even with the 8 less mp i'm still getting cleaner shots out the A7c in matching conditions. but are are right most ppl aren't gonna notice to difference! something about that Full Frame look though
Good work! Concise and accurate. You get it that f/2.8 on FF is the same as f/2.0 on APS-C. This is important: everything scales (except the noise) (if you've got the lens). But, Ha! As a dedicated full-frame fan/afficionado who turns up his nose at APS-C, I think you haven't defended APS-C enough. In real life, being there and having a camera is way more important than what camera you have. And in terms of photographic composition, from the tiniest cell phone to 8x10 (or larger) view cameras, the projection (image projected on the sensor when printed at the same size) is the same once you've got the focal length scaling right. It's all photography and all wonderful. Like they say: "F/8 and be there!"
I am happy with my Fuji xt5: I love the external dials. It is the experience of taking pictures, that what you explained in the other video. I fully agree with that. Also -to me- nothing wrong what you said in this video, though. However I use the workaround: no zoon lenses. For the wide angle I have the 16mm f1.4! Also 1/100 of a sec still works ok. Hence enough options to avoid shouting at high iso. I am very proud of the photos I made indoor with a small 35mm all at f2.0.
I have bought two secondhand full-frame cameras -- Canon 5d i and 5D ii -- and they are great. My APS-C cameras (7D i and ii) are for birding and walk around, the full-frame are for people.
My Fuji setup (XH@ and XH2s) have served me well professionally. My results are about the same as my old Sony setup (A9 and A&RIII) as long as I use the larger aperture lenses available from Fuji and third party manufacturers. Viltrox just dropped a 75mm f1.2 for Fuji that looks amazing. I'm perfectly happy with APSC right now. The lighter weight comes in with the lenses. Makes a big difference when you are shooting for long periods of time. The crop factors make the most difference when it comes to focal length. An f2.8 lens is still letting in the same amount of light whether FF or APSC, it's just the APSC sensor has different pixel density and the FF has larger pixels to capture more of that light.
TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). APS-C lenses are not lighter than full-frame (FF), controlling for quality and price.
"An f2.8 lens is still letting in the same amount of light..." No. Given the same transmissiveness of the glass elements, an f/2.8 APSC lens lets in the same amount of light as an f/4 FF lens. This was demonstrated in the video at 4:05.
@@aliendroneservices6621 wrong. When the lens is by itself, a 2.8 lens is still a 2.8 lens. It still is letting the same light. The difference you see is the camera sensor reading that light. The field of view is different but the light stays the same.
@@JET-Photo The field-of-view cannot differ without the total-amount-of-light also differing. If the field-of-view drops by, say, 1/3rd, the total-amount-of-light also drops by 1/3rd. If that were not true, then speed-boosters wouldn't boost speed.
@@djstuc Because the physical aperture enlarges as you zoom in (given a constant-aperture-ratio lens). What you're calling "same aperture" is actually the same aperture-ratio. Aperture-ratio is not aperture. These terms are widely abused, which causes confusion.
@@djstuc "All the same shutter speed." Because you failed to control for viewing-angle and image-circle.
That's what I love about your channel you consider viewers from all walks of life!
Very nice comparison. I'd love to upgrade to a full frame sensor but I've got a lot of APS lenses and don't want to sell them and replace them with full frame equivalents, it's just too expensive. I also, love the extra reach for wildlife and motorsports. Then again, it would be nice to have a full frame system for landscapes. Maybe some used full frame gear, just for that purpose.
My FF lenses fit my APS-C body. And if I do put an APS-C lens on my FF body the camera auto switches to crop sensor mode…before I bought a FF body I had purchased the FF lenses to smooth the upgrade but I kept my APS-C camera as well.
First off, thanks for your videos. They are very helpful. I chose the Canon R7 APS-C body partially based on another video you did. That said, what was lacking here was discussion about video, and other sports photography (i.e. auto racing). I recently shot Formula 1 with both still and video, and was very satisfied with the results of capturing 200 mph cars. I’m totally an amateur, and I only had the camera for a couple weeks. The versatility, and ability to shoot long videos without overheating was a determining factor in my purchase. Bottom line, I like the way you qualify your opinions, and leave room for the pro or amateur to decide what’s right for them.
Having an apsc camera I was starting to feel a little despondent with the first ¾of this video until you got on to wildlife which is my main aspect of photography along with aircraft, which both result in me using the centre of the picture and cropping in post. Now I feel a lot better about my choice. Thanks for explaining the difference clearly and an easy to understand way.
There are a lot of other scenarios besides weddings and wildlife. There's macro, family, children's sports, travel, etc. For example, when I went to Paris, I took my d500, 17 to 70, and 10 to 24 instead of my d610, 28 to 105, 14 to 24 2.8. That fast wide angle zoom is far superior to the DX alternative but wasn't something I was going to carry all over the place in Paris especially since I wasn't alone. When I went to the Rockies, I took my d610 and 14 to 24.
Interesting video! You guys almost always make think about my choices a bit. I think the important thing is to consider your use case. For me I mostly shoot birds and the occasional family event. I have full frame, APSC, and M43s in the OM-1. I don’t get paid for my work. I used to have a photography company. I did weddings and other events and I found that Nobody but me could see the difference between the full frame ind the M43s except for me. I shot a two day event for a charitable foundation on whose board I sit. One day I used my OM-1 and on day 2 I used the Canon R6i. I just went and looked through the pics from both days and on my 13 inch screen theatre wasn’t much difference. I am older and have a chronic sore shoulder that I damaged in motorcycle crash years ago. The light the gear is the happier I am. I find the OM-1 being my choice most days.
I think these 2 do more to confuse people than to help them. Because if you can’t see the benefits of the full frame camera you probably have advanced far enough.
I mainly shoot film, but do have two digital cameras, Nikon Df and D40x. I like the fact that the Df will take almost all old Nikkor lenses, including pre-ai ones, with the same angle of view, and metering works.
The image quality on the D40x is pretty good for an entry level camera.
Personally MFT or micro four thirds is my favorite format, due to it's amazing capabilities for it's size. I can get images on par or better than full frame cameras due to the added stabilization and compact size.
And one important thing to consider: size of the lenses and weight. When hiking, APS-C system is perfect.
I miss the point that you don’t tackle is that FF manufactures such as Nikon, Sony and Canon don’t have high quality bodies or lenses for APS-C, as they see the system as a step-up to Full Frame. .It is only Fuji that has high end APS-C lenses and body. So for the users using Sony, Canon and Nikon upgrading means moving to Full Frame.
Tony and Chelsea, I watch your videos very often and I enjoy and learn. I am a Pentexian, I have Pentax LX, Pentax Superprogram and Pentax K-1, also a Rolleiflex, which I have not used. Anyway, I have collected so many lenses, but my favorites are: 18-36mm f/2.8-4.5 Tamron; Pentax HD 24-70mm/f2.8 (Constant aperture throughout), and HD 70/f2.8 (Constant aperture throughout). And I don't need anything else. I am trying to attach a few pictures, which I took with my Pentax LX.
I tried, but could not attach.
I find it interesting that at the high iso low light comparisons both full frame and apsc are bad. A little more or less noise isn’t a big deal if they both are bad.
Also, I think lenses make a wayyyy bigger difference than a sensor.
@@justinsphotographyrochestermn good observation
I skipped full frame and went straight to Fuji GFX. I got an X100V and a monster Medium Format 50Sii. Go big or go home 😉
Shooting in low light, I really prefer the results from my 12MP Nikon D700 to my 24MP Canon M50, even at the same equivalent f-stop, but a Fuji X-T30 beats both
Another lovely KEH commercial
I think everyone who is an advanced photo enthusiast should own one apsc camera and one full frame camera. That way a shooter can use the right tool for the job. Apsc cameras tend to have smaller equivalent zoom lens and bodies great for travel and wildlife shooters. Full frame will give superior results in image quality and low noise in low light conditions and also better for post processing lifting shadow detail. As either an advanced amateur, semi-pro or pro, most of us will eventually own 2 camera bodies. However If I could only own one, I'd pick full frame for overall image quality in most cases (except maybe for wildlife). However, if shooting in good light during daylight hours, with low ISO, or using fast primes, the difference can be much less. Great review!
I think you nailed it. As a wildlife shooter I use both an R5 and R7 for the reasons you states above. Horses for courses.
With you 100% , I have the R5 and the R7 for that exact reason and use the body that fits what I'm doing and often use both at once for speed and to cut down on the opportunity for dust to cause issues especially when it comes to video .
I shoot Nikon APSC, and FF, I shoot Olympus, like'm both and agree with all you said. Cheers!
As an a9 user, I was tempted to rent the a6600 for a little bit of more reach with the 200-600 lens, but realize after this video that I can easily just crop or use the 1.4TC as well, if there is enough light. Thanks for your thoughts on this subject!
Yes you can crop, if you are happy with a 10mp image (as opposed to 24mp).
I have FF, APS-C, and M43s cameras, I use different cameras for different applications. I have an A6000 and an A7 and an A7II, the A6000 is great when I don’t want to carry the A7s around.
Tip:
Buy a used Full Frame: Nikon D600
APSC Mirrorless, F mount adapter
Sigma telephoto zooms, pretty good
Another thing that somewhat levels the playing field, at least for DSLR, is the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 lens. With it on the APS-C and a common f2.8 lens on the full frame you can more easily get full equivalence.
I've read where people claimed that the full frame body gave better colors and in particular better colors for portraiture. I'm not able to test that.
Upgrading from APS-C to full frame can be very expensive because the full frame lenses will typically cost more
The 24-70 GM2 at 4:08 is twice the price of the Fuji 16-55.
@@greggpedder And it gathers twice as much light when on a full frame camera, what's your point? In a low light situation the full frame setup would have half the noise and also the Sony 24-70 GM2 is definitely optically superior to the Fuji 16-55.
You don't have to actually answer, I won't respond again. Given the multiple replies about price it's obvious that you bought Fuji and are trying really hard to justify your purchase, even though nobody cares what you use.
@@TechnoBabble it doesn't gather twice as much light at all. It's exactly the same at f2.8. What you said is just not correct.
Sigma Art Zooms 18-35mm 1.8f and 50-150mm 1.8f are both miracles for the m4/3. And when combined with a speedbooster AND the 1.8f, that's something I'd LOVE to see you compare here.
Also, don't disregard older DSLR full frame models, such as Nikon D850, it can be found used for around $1200. Still a great camera with amazing 45mp sensor. Tons of lens choices as well.
I stlll use the Nikon D610, which is 9 years old. It's full frame and you can get decent results at ISO 6400. Although newer full frame cameras are far better at low light, the D610 can match up against most APS-C cameras in low light.
Nikon D850 still in the top for best dynamic range.
Loads of great info. Cleared up a lot of questions I had but......I still watch your videos to see Chelsea.
I'm a stage photographer using APS-C. For me, the extra reach of APS-C is great. I can zoom in to capture the performers' faces with the extra reach it provides. However, APS-C isn't always the best option since many stages use low light setting to get more dramatic atmosphere. In this case, I always think that it will be nice if I have a Full Frame camera. Well, since stage photographers don't get paid as much as wedding photographers (at least it is the case where I live), I'm still hesitant whether to buy a Full Frame or not. I think I'd still stick to APS-C even some years later because I've invested my money on the lenses.
Not sure how much you're zooming and moving, but if you can I would suggest picking up some primes from Sigma. The 16mm, 30mm and 56mm are all f/1.4, incredibly sharp, and have good autofocus.
I personally prefer my Sigma 56mm f1.4 on APS-C over Sony's 85mm f1.8 on full frame.
As a weddingphotographer I am happy working with OM1, and the 1.2 trinity 17mm, 25mm & 45mm.
I’ve switched from Canon FF and lots of L lenses. For me there is a difference sometimes, but for the customer there is none….
I love that you say full frame has an advantage in wildlife as you're holding the most ridiculously oversized, heavy, impossible to travel with and literal hell to walk around with for several hours lens 😂
Love your videos. One big reason some of us want best low light is in a nice city at night. You can not catch the charm of a city with a flash.
I recently went from the 90D to the R5 - the only real-world difference I've seen are dynamic range that I can push in post processing, Silent Shooting mode & 20 FPS - I haven't seen any difference in low light ability with FF over the Aps-c - I only shoot Wildlife. I wished I'd just saved my money for a longer period & purchased a prime lens instead.
I appreciate your honesty. It's hard to be so honest when you've forked out so much for an item and left a little disappointed.
I currently have an M50 mark ii but am considering either a 90D or 7D II in addition to this. Were you happy with the 90D and can you add any advice or commentary on this? I got the camera mainly for my sons sports but have found I am photographing everything and quite enjoy it.
The M50 has been superb if I'm honest
If you want an upgrade from your m50 get the m6 II instead of the 90D. They m6 is the mirrorless version of the 90d - I have it and love it. You have to adapt ef lenses though and even the original adapter has some play in it in my case though.
@Askaly I like the M6 but I want a built in viewfinder. I like that the M6 is 32MP vs 24 though. I'm currently using about 7 EF-M and 3 EF lenses. Had Voltrox adapter which was fine but had some play with my latest lens so got the Canon genuine and it works beautifully.
I was actually leaning more to a 7D II - I heard alot of 90D owners complain about the 90D and the autofocus since posting this.
@@thetoyota86perspective54 - The 90D is a great camera, in-fact I still prefer it if I'm only doing video. A good lens on the 90D produces great results. Best of luck
@@thetoyota86perspective54 - I rarely have a auto-focus issue's - If I do typically birds in a cluttered background - but so does the R5
I got the full frame R6. Full frame has better low light performance. I also got full frame to get wider views without special lenses. The R6 has all the features I wanted like joystick, touch screen, and great auto focus options.
Thanks for this. It's worth noting that equivalence goes both ways - for example, in a landscape requiring some good depth of field at a 100mm equivalent focal length, you may use 50mm f/2.8 iso 200 on micro 4/3 to get the right shutter speed, but would need to use a 100mm f/5.6 iso 800 on a 35mm camera. This can make smaller sensors, oddly, better for landscapes - compact kit hikes better, and you get similar printed results. The uncomfortable truth, of course, is the gear barely matters for most people and the limiting factor is the brain behind the viewfinder. I take better photos with small kit because it comes with me, and the lenses are affordable to me.
And, of course, having choice is only a good thing. I wish there was more yet! I'd love a 35mm equivalent sensor with native 4x3 ratio, as I'm mostly printing 4x3 or 4x5 ratio prints.
Equivalence - thank you for highlighting this important factor. I use an OMD OM-1 mft camera and get excellent results both in day and night with good prime lenses.But what makes a good photo is the person behind the camera 😊....however, I would not want to carry that FF 600mm zoom lens around with me all day...but that’s my choice.
Not sure why you think this is an advantage for the smaller sensor... The photos would end up looking nearly identical.
@@TechnoBabble that's the point - you can lug a heavy ff kit with 100mm lens and stop it down, potentially with diffraction in some circumstances, or you can use a tiny, light set up and get a near identical result. I miss my little olympus kit sometimes for this reason, and have opted to stick to "compact" full frame lenses - that are still pretty big compared to my old kit, but do give better results sometimes. I'd say maybe 50 percent of the time.
@@theprettydamned Sure, that makes sense if you only shoot that way and are happy with the results otherwise.
The only reason it's smaller/lighter is because of the worse technical image quality ceiling. But if it's still above what you want/need, no reason to get heavier and more expensive gear.
To call that an advantage though is a bit silly, it's just a different tool and often times you can find smaller aperture full frame lenses that are similar in size and price.
I chose a Nikon Z30 and I am loving it. I chose this camera because for the price point it does not crop in at 4k and the availability of 3rd party lenses.
I only miss the EVF when using my sb900 flash and I am bouncing the flash from behind…. I cop the flash in the face. The image is still great …. Once I can see again that is 😉😀🖖🏼
I am actually getting better results off the Z30 with the SB 900 than I did off my old D610 and the SB910 that I traded for a motorbike. 😅
I disagree about the wildlife. A TC can reduce image quality and you could use that same TC on the crop sensor for further reach. Also pixel density somewhat negates a 45mp camera like the R5 compared to a APS-C sensor. Further to that as a wildlife photographer that likes to hike for miles smaller sensors often mean smaller lenses. The kit that doesn't slow me down is the kit that get's me the shots.
Often a smaller sensor doesn't mean smaller lenses. Especially for wildlife. Just look at the Olympus 300mm f/4. Nikons full frame 300mm PF is 1/2 the weight. Even the new 400mm f/4.5 is lighter. The more "professional" the smaller sensor lenses, the less likely that it will be lighter.
@tc2744 You can use bigger lenses but there are plenty of lighter options available. The crop factor allowed me to take an EF 200mm f2.8 and turn into a 320mm equiv or roughly a 450mm f4 with a 1.4xtc. Pretty light set up. Conversely I could use a huge Sigma 150-600. I have the versatility. Tony is constantly backhandidly critical of crop sensor cams. It's odd and non-sensical. That's not to say his points are without merit but that he clearly has a bias that impairs his objective view. I have two full frame cams and 1 crop sensor and use my phone at times. I understand and am familiar with working with many different sensor sizes and cams.
I have a canon R6 kit and a Fujifilm X-S10 kit. I love both for different reasons. For pro stuff and sports/widlif, I shoot my canon. For casual/travel/street, I love my Fuji kit. I recently swapped my F2 fujis for the sigma 30mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.4. I’m really impresssed. The size and cost compared to the fuji 1.4 is awesome. I’m gonna get the sigma 18-50mm 2.8 and then I’ll be done with this kit for a while. Just enjoy it all!
Thank you for always posting relevant content that I’m actually interested in watching! Your videos are always so informative and easy to digest. Keep up the amazing work guys! ❤️
The best camera is the camera you carry around with you. It's a bad investment if your camera don't inspire you to take photos with it no matter how good it is on paper. I personally use Fuji APS-C, mainly because I like how tactile it is, and how equivalent (in terms of focal range and sharpness, not necessarily bokeh) lenses are much lighter. Admittedly, Fuji lenses are not cheap, but they're built really nicely and are lighter and smaller than what I would consider if I'm in the Sony or Canon FF ecosystem. That really matters to me. I don't want my photography to become the center of my life/travel, so a small and light setup would greatly increase the likelihood of me bringing my camera and taking pictures.
If you're a pro photographer, then you already know what you need (I'd not get an APS-C camera if I shoot a lot of astrophotography or other low-light scenes, nor would I get one if I'm planning on making building-sized prints), but if you're an amateur photographer like most people watching this channel, FF might not be the best choice. We easily fall into this fallacy of image quality and bokeh is everything that matters. No. What really matters is if you enjoy taking photos with your camera enough that it overcomes the inconvenience of taking a dedicated camera and lenses with you rather than using your phone in your pocket.
If I would give any advice, it would be to rent a system that you're interested in and see if you notice the image quality difference for the kind of photography you mainly do and then weigh out the pros and cons for you specifically before deciding. Especially if it's your first camera. Maybe you found that you just don't like bringing a heavy hunk of metal and glass with you and phones would work just fine for the kind of photography you want to do. Cameras don't automatically make you a good photographer. Understanding the capabilities and limitations of your tools, and a good understanding of lighting and composition are what really matters.
I couldn't have worded it better. My biggest regret back in the day was buy a heavy F1.4 lens, which caused me to take my gear with me way less often, so I took less photographs. Now there are even lighter FF cameras and I'm having a hard time deciding...
Wouldn’t you use medium format if your primary objection is optimal image quality?
You would, though lens selection is a consideration.
I made the move to Full Frame in 2018 when I purchased a Canon EOS 1D-X, I then bought a 1D-X MKII, I now own an EOS R5, I'll never purchase another Crop Sensor camera again.
Ha Ha There are so many full frame vs M 4/3 comparisons where the “experts” can’t tell the difference between enlargements that are 20”x30”. Certainly bokeh is better in a full frame, and low light condition too, but if you are doing landscape in good lighting, experts can’t tell the difference. Photography is an art, sensor size doesn’t matter.
I think sensor size matters on the extremes of the gear you have. I only own primes 24gm up to 135 gm and an a7iv & a6700 and I find I’m reaching for the a7iv when I want a wider image and reaching for the a6700 when I want more reach. Would I take an a7r V? Maybe but then there’s times I like the smaller body so I would go for the a7cR, but at that stage I’m back to 2 bodies but a hell of a lot less money in my pocket for no gain
full frame looks so much noticeably better in every comparison and im an aps-c shooter...ugh
I think in general we can all agree that full frame (in nearly all situations) is giving better image quality. But strong reasons to use APS-C are the weight and to a lesser extend the price. A camera only makes good pictures if you bring it. Especially for travel weight is a big factor. A Sony a6600 with 10-20mm, 16-55mm and 70-350mm set to cover all situations weights 1800 grams. A Sony A7r V with Sigma 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 100-400mm weights 3430 grams. Is that full frame set likely giving better results, absolutely, but it is 90% heavier and 75% more expensive and the difference in quality is nowhere near as big.
I bet some of your clients have no idea what you’re doing they just love the end result so it doesn’t really matter about you cameras, just enjoy what your doing with them!
The speed booster results were interesting. I think part of what makes the Fuji noisier looking (besides the obviousness of being a crop sensor) is Lightroom isn’t the best at handling Fuji’s “wormy noise” (as others have called it), due to being X-Trans instead of Bayer. I use Capture One for my Fujis and Lightroom for my Nikons.
Yeah there can be a few factors. The speed booster also doesn't have a perfect T-stop so it blocks a bit of light. But it's close enough for the example, which is meant to be more generic than a comparison of two specific cameras.
Yes, the "wormy noise", but also the mushy "water coloring" in distant landscapes, or the "waxy skin", are a burden for X-Trans. Even though C1 mitigates these problems, for many it is just not acceptable to be bullied into having to use a certain software they wouldn't have chosen otherwise.
I never understood why Fuji haven't dumped X-Trans the same way they had dumped their "Super CCD" or EXR disasters, for similar reasons. Why did Fuji grant the Bayer privilege only to their GFX line, but are so stubborn regarding their X-Trans misery?
That's certainly one of the reasons, why Fuji never gained much market relevance / market share during 10 years, so that now they put their entire digital photography on the back bench (according to CEO statements in Fstoppers' article "Fuji Refocuses Away From Photography" of July 2021).
There's nothing magical about X-Trans. Fuji is simply lying about its image-quality, potential or otherwise.
I'm glad to see someone mentioned this. Lightroom is not capable of properly processing X-Trans raw files, so it can be annoying when the comparison is always made within Lightroom, and I do think the difference is large enough that this is necessary to accommodate for.
@@djstuc The regular complaints about
- "wormy noise",
- "water coloring",
- "waxy skin",
- and the pleas to dump X-Trans,
are all originated from WITHIN the Fuji user community, discussed within their (sub)forums and groups, i.e. they are original Fuji users' dissatisfactions and their disappointments from their own long-term and in-depth usage experience.
These issues are not invented by Canon, Nikon, or Sony users 😉they couldn't care less.
It is acceptable though that different people have different demands regarding image quality, nothing wrong with that.
For judging photos via the usual small internet resolutions, for example, everything is "good enough" (even smartphones' cameras).
All you say is correct - I would add the weight argument, though. For long hikes, mountains, hot days, I definitely prefer my 1.5 kg APS camera bag over my 5 kg full frame backpack. In fact, I have "upgraded", in the past, you see. So, I have both at hand, but 90% of time choose the APS-C solution.
My choices were easier as an astro-photographer. I use the APS-C Pentax K3 together with about 30 Pentax lenses spread across from the 1960's till today. Perfect for my wide angle lens and magnified telescope images. But I just use a Canon 6D Full Frame body only when mounted on the telescope for wider angle views. Maybe one day I will actually buy a Canon lens..LOL
Astro-photography is quite different from terrestrial photography. Shooting deep-sky objects, we can gather exposures of several minutes or even hours at high ISO. Noise is statistically handled through software stacking. With planets, we take videos in order to battle the atmospheric disturbances ("seeing") and then process the many thousands of frames with dedicated software that eliminates the distorted frames and stacks the good ones.
Images in astro-photography are as good as the telescope's optics allow, combined with the camera sensor's specs. For planets, a sensor with small pixels and a high pixel-density is the best choice. The sensor can be small, as a planet remains a really small projected disk on the optical axis. Deep-sky is mostly different, as many celestial objects are rather large by comparison to planets. There is less magnification and more light-gathering going on.
Framing a celestial object depends on its apparent size, measured as an angle, after which we select an appropriate focal length, combined with the sensor proportions (if in prime focus). A full frame sensor can obviously capture more field than a smaller sensor, as long as the telescope's field aperture allows it.
I keep using my old Pentax ist*dl DSLR and the Nikon D5000, both APS-C, for deep-sky. For planets, I have a dedicated USB planet-camera, as a DSLR cannot take RAW videos. And RAW-frames is what we want in astro-photography. Always.
I bought my second-hand Nikon as a body, without any lens. Only recently, I bought a second-hand zoom-lens for it, just to be able to take terrestrial pictures as well. Because, why not? It's still a good camera for general photography.
I wish there was an astrophotography channel like this. I'd like to get into it and I feel like there is a gap in the language people use and no one cares to explain things from the bottom up. I hate doing something from a book-smart level I want to understand the physics of it to the extent that I could explain it to a child. And EVEN WORSE, the solar hydrogen alpha bros are in a hyper-nerdy bubble talking about their Etalons and how we all need to take out a mortgage to buy 3 of those telescopes.. yuck. I'm a work in progress, I wish someone like smarter every day or Veritasium would do a series on astrophotography. I am however greatful for Ed Ting and Astrobackyard, Astrobuiscuit.
@@danielbrowniel Granted, there is a steep learning curve in amateur-astrophotography. No one in his right mind will claim that it is easy and success is waiting behind the next corner. This is a hobby that will test your patience.
As far as I'm concerned, I am patient, I guess. I take this hobby step by step, and these steps are small and are not very frequent, so, progress is hardly discernable during a single year. But, with every attempt, with every session at night under the clear skies, there is another piece of the puzzle that might find its way to support the goal: to become better than before.
There is no exam, there is no evaluation to admit you to some esteemed league of proficient elite amateurs. There is only you, committing time and attention to a hobby. Keep an open mind and absorb the knowledge that happens to come your way. There is no perfectly planned roadmap for that.
I think I learn much from serious astronomy fora out there, where issues of cameras and filters are discussed. They can often point you to the next level of contemplating issues that you didn't even know they existed in the first place. After some time, I forget some of these details, only to be picked up again later on, when I find the time. There's no pressure here to complete a training course. Treat it with a calm mindset. The rest will follow.
@@danielbrowniel there’s one thing that we astrophotographers sometimes fail to mention… knowing the night sky itself. Gear and imaging technology vary from person to person, but the basic process of how we can pull down an image of light 30,000 light years away (Milky Way photography) or even further like 51million light years away (distance of some galaxies) is similar: longer exposures, a much more complicated imaging process workflow, and love of the night sky. Many of the most beautiful images we take are either over several days of imaging, or taken in dark sites that may or may not have wild animals lurking about. You lose some sleep if you have a day job.
I have a pentax k3 but find the iso noise is quite bad with astrophotography. Milky way foregrounds especially look quite muddy and noisy.
I‘m old, I‘ve always been shooting full frame. I shoot most of my jobs with digital medium format crop cameras like the fuji gx680 and a phase one back, or a hasselblad h2d, and some with a digital full frame. I own aps crop cams like the 1D MK363737, or a sigma sd1, and I love to use them, but for my work full frame is the way to go cause I‘m too lazy to work with anymore crop factors than my medium format cams have. If I have a 85mm I just have to try how it looks on crop sensors, and that‘s what I‘m too lazy for. I just want to mark my workspace and grab whatever lens I need without having to recalculate and think again.
Other than this, small sensor crop cams deliver awesome images, like the fuji xpro like for example.
KEH must be pushing hard for the endorsement of all these big photography content creators. My experience with them is that they clearly under represent the condition of your gear so that they can justify offering less than the quote. And they know you'll be tempted to take the offer as opposed to going through the hassle of having the gear returned to you and then selling it yourself. I know I won't deal with them again after rating a bunch of like new condition lenses a few grades low.
Agree, last year I sold them my D7200 and lenses. It was literally out of box nearly perfect condition clean, the amount I got was about 25% less than originally offered.
I met a KEH rep visiting the Boston area doing evaluations. My RP and 24-240 kit lens was evaluated as Like New. When I sent it in, they listed it a bit lower and I got maybe a couple hundred less. I really wanted the R6 and figured I'd make up a little since they had a 10% off promotion using a trade in and that made it easier. However, the Like New R6 I got was an international model and I could not register it on Canon's website. I was wondering how KEH and other sites had so many Like New R6s, which were hot in December of 2021. That's how. They will buy grey market and sell them for a profit. I ended up returning it and bought a refurbished R6(with same warranty as new) from Canon and saved a couple hundred.
I do think they undervalue their lenses and I would not hesitate to buy used lenses from them. I got a "bargain" EF 135mm f/2 for pretty low money. And I love that lens. It also looked pretty new to me...
'I have to bend way down!!" I LOVE THAT ONE !! Sorry Chels...but your facial expression is priceless!! Happy new year both of you btw!
Geesh!!! Just what UA-cam need again, another APS-C vs Full-Frame Camera. Overall, there is no high gain benefit per say if one uses a modern full-frame camera instead of a modern APS-C camera. As I have stated previously, with computational mathematical formulas and algorithms in cameras today, the advantage of modern full-frame cameras today over modern APS-C cameras is negligible at best. In all honesty, it really depends on the purpose of the photography and the final result one is wanting to capture. Good video as always.
I disagree. There is reason most pros prefer full frame. It is not just the sensor size per se but what lenses are available.
Thanks Tony & Chelsea. And.. thank you for steering me to KEH and giving a coupon code. I have been using them regularly and it has allowed me to build a good lens line up I would not have been able to do at retail prices! You are right, they are amazing and stand behind their stock.
You started off by comparing a larger apsc camera and a smaller full frame camera. But in general, it is still true that full frame is bigger, especially when you consider the lens, which obviously you have to do. This is one of the main reasons many people, including me, have stuck with apsc. It would have been good to point this out.
Equivalent lenses are the same size. There are many compact FF lenses.
nikon z5 with 28mm 2.8f best combo so far for everything ,HAPPY NEW YEAR
@@TonyAndChelsea Until you go with MFT (Lumix GM5) with 20mm 1.7 pancake is super tiny, there is no equivalent in apsc or full frame for this (i own Sony FF too..)
@@sbgaming4794 there's a 40mm f2.5 and 35 2.8 that are almost as compact with faster equiv. aperture
@@Caracalaba i own both, gm5 with 20mm 1.7 is lighter and fits in jeans pocket. A7c and 40mm 2.5 are heavier and dont fit in a jeans pocket.
This is a really helpful video. I am primarily a bird photographer (not exclusively, but primarily) and shoot the Fuji X-H2s with the 150-600 lens. I have been seriously considering moving to 24mp full frame, but this was such a clear explanation of why that does not really work in my use case. I’ll hold off for awhile and perhaps consider a higher MP full frame body next year. Thank you for the dispassionate, clear analysis!!
What I mind annoying is that wildly expensive full frame stuff is ideal for beginners. But if you know what you are doing (especially for wildlife) you can get great results with m43 or APSC
There's so many lenses available for Sony that Full Frame costs less than APS-C and M43 at every focal length. Generally Full Frame costs about half the price of APS-C, for example with Sony third party lenses versus Fujifilm native lenses. And in many cases it's so difficult to get an equivalent lens for APS-C that you'd have to pay thousands for that on APS-C but it's no big deal just some 500 dollar lens on Full Frame.
@@zyxyuv1650 Good point. I’d love some cheaper Tamron or Sigma f2.8 zooms for my Fuji :) Although, not sure that still holds with longer focal lengths for wildlife. An 800mm equivalent would still be super expensive (and heavy) for full frame
I do not see how full frame is ideal for beginners. Full frame with large sensors and faster lenses is more demanding and requires more skill. With APS-C and kit lenses you he easily snapshots.
Great video again ... at 2.38 pics of Tony in front of tree , I would say ,to my eye there was a big difference, full frame so much cleaner .
See people think automatically that because they get a FULL FRAME camera the image quality is going to be better, NO, the size of the sensor doesn't have anything to do with the Image Quality.
it's a combonation of things, first is the image quality the sensor reads out, weather it's APSC or Full frame, and also the Lens, you could have the best camera that has the best image quality sensor, but if you put a shitty lens on it, it's not going to matter the image quality will be crap.
Full Frame doesn't mean you will get better image quality, the only thing you will get out of full frame vs ASPC sensors, is
#1, you will get better low light quality.
#2 You will be able to blur out the background easier, doesn't mean APSC can't blur out the background, yes it can but you have to take extra steps do get that to work, such as zoom in and get closer to your subject or go 1 stop below in aperture then what the full frame camera was set at..
There is 1 other advantage with full frame as well you can blow up your pictures in closer with less quality loss then with APSC camera's.
Because the sensor size is bigger to begin with and also higher megapixels are more common in full frame vs APSC, I don't think there is and APSC sensor camera that has
50 Megapixels or higher, but there is with full frame, and that means you can crop in and blow up your picture a lot more with cleaner images then APSC.
So those are the only advantages you get Using Full frame vs APSC.
Image Quality with APSC is exactly the same as a full frame camera the sensor size has noting to do with image quality..
Because of price i can get a ton of good lenses for APSC and take just as good pictures and video as with a full frame, and it cost me a lot less..
If your shooting Weddings yes i would say go for the full frame, but if your taking landscape or wild life or fast action shots like sports, then i would say APSC Camera's are just as good.
And even portrait in a studio is just as good as well, but if your doing work where you can't control the lighting like weddings or in door activity then Full frame has the advantage.
That is why most Wedding photographers rather have full frame then APSC because they can get good exposed pictures in lower light situations.
The price of good lenses on apsc is actually the same (often higher) than the same good lenses on full frame. I've compared them for myself.
The reason people think they are cheaper is because they compare the wrong lenses. Eg. They compare f2.8 on apsc to f2.8 on ff, when actually they should be comparing to f4.
This ends up doing the same for size and weight too. Apsc lenses aren't actually significantly smaller or lighter, as long as you compare to the actual same lenses on full frame.
I did all this testing a while ago, and my full frame setup now is actually smaller, lighter AND cheaper than my apsc fuji kit was before.
Bullsht, FF have a higher dynamic range. You have more Information in your picture compared to apsc! The Tonal Transition, the Details and there way more points were ff is better than apsc. Its Not only about blurring the background.
@@StudioNirin youre shutter speed will be the same on both Systems with an aperture of 2.8.
so you cant compare a apsc 2.8 lens to a f4 ff lens
@@frecheforelle761 your depth of field, dynamic range and image noise will all be completely different though (in favour of FF) so it's not the closest comparison you can make.
This is an old argument, but the correct answer is always that you compare f2.8 on apsc, to f4 on FF. As that is how you get comparable end results. Adjusting ISO to then make the brightness match then causes the noise level to (approximately) match also. You then end up with nearly identical images. If you're doing anything else to compare lenses between systems, you're doing it wrong.
Physically, it is all quite obvious: what matters is the amount of light you get on a pixel and how sensitive that pixel is. For the same resolution you need higher pixel density on a smaller sensor, so smaller pixels. You need a "better" i.e. lens to get the same amount of light on the same area.
This is why in the test the same lens with the speed booster gives almost the same result. But of course the speed boster contains optical elements so it will take some light add some distortion etc.
So physically it is just easier to capture more light with larger pixels so larger sensors.
Of course there is a limit when it does not make a difference anymore. And as sensor technology improves this limit comes down.
Coming from Sony FF to Fuji APS-C. Never locked back. I need pictures sooc because i do not want edit in post. For me editing is just a waste of time. Thank you Fuji for giving me these superb colors.
I went from a Nikon D300 to a Nikon D780 recently, there is a big difference in image quality, but I’m pretty sure that is more the 9 year gap than the APSC to full frame shift. I loved that d300, but I already love the d780 more.
4:50 there is a f1.8 APS-C zoom lens: the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Art. It is only available on Canon EF-S and Nikon, though. And of course, it looses some zoom range.
It is such an amazing lens.
I have both from Nikon and Canon and MFT from Olymous. My D7200 has better dynamic range @ base iso than my D800, but it is noisier, so are the Canons. I use my D7200 in its 1.3X ( 16mp ) mode for the odd time that I shoot wild life, not very often I must add. I guess a lot of this confusion has been propagated by those photographers who are shall we say ' sponsored ' by the big names in sensor manufacturing, Sony, Fuji come to mind. They have to sell their new products, so they tell everybody that their ' best camera ' of yesterday is no longer any good and one needs to buy their latest. Nonesense as far as I am concerned. Learn to use what you have. Camera is just a tool. It is you, the photographer that matters.
It's curious to me that your post that contains the "sponsored" comment, although absolutely true, didn't get a heart from T&C. I've come to believe that anyone who is sponsored, either directly or indirectly, cannot be completely trusted because they do what they do for profit. (The obsession over money is the downfall of civilization, different topic, yes.)
The D7200 has the best aps-c sensor I've ever seen, and I've owned an a6500, a D500, a D7500, various Fuji's, Ricoh GRII, the 7200 was a noticably better sensor.
@@ultraniusmaximus1536 People have to work to earn their living, like everyone else I guess. Technology moves on and this ' advance ' has a cost that the giant tech companies have to recoup. What I absolutely object to, is this built in obsolescence . It is not just hardware, it is software, its operating systems, processors, memory, etc etc. It is built in incompatibility of editting software with older operating systems. It is that vicious cycle of this new thing has come out, but to get the best of it everything has to be upgraded. We never had this problem during the film era. My Voigtlander Avus of 1929 vintage, is still producing beautiful images. All is needed is a roll of 120 film, and a few chemicals, even coffee and lemon juice would do at a pinch.
@@G95G95 I agree, I think Nikon went for a Toshiba sensor for 7200. I only bought the 7200 because I gave my D300 to my daughter. I am glad I got it. It is a lovely little camera.
For me, both can get very nice images. But, my Full frame model, an older model at it, does the job very well. Even in situations where my older APS-C cameras began to have trouble.
I did get some lovely pictures of the fireworks, And those bigger pixels did wonders in retaining as much quality as possible for a damn hard situation!
Though I love smaller sensor cameras too, yes even 1" models, why... it is the camera that you have with you that gets the picture ;)
I love a crop sensor for wildlife and a full frame for low light and portraits. I believe you need both to be a diverse photographer. If you never shoot wildlife full frame all the way but I love having both options over slapping on a teleconverter.
a couple of years ago i got an old nikon d3300 for cheap, i got a couple of cheap used lenses and im still constantly amazed at the photos it produces, i couldnt imagine replacing it unless i broke it or something