I’m now 70 years old. I was a newspaper photographer in my 20’s and 30’s. We shot black and white mostly but color showed up at the end of my photojournalist career. Just a note: When Nikon came out with the D70 I worked for a wedding photographer and we used 4 of these to shoot weddings. We regularly make 16X20 prints. Oh….these were 6MP sensors in these cameras. Just sayin
from what i've read the only thing having such a high resolution sensor does for you is creating the ability to crop your photos to a frankly insane degree
I have a 24x36 (60x90 centimeters) print from a 12 MPix camera (5D classic) and it is absolutely fine in terms of resolution - close to the resoluton on paper you mentioned: Yes, it is very satisfying. Maybe 50 MPix are great for 2x3 metre sized shots but ... how many of these fit on my wall? Sometimes I am missing to take photos I like between the tech race ...
@@ChrisM541 That's true. Consider 33 megapixels is 8k and most humans cant perceive beyond 8k in a standard viewing position which is 2 feet for print and 6 feet for tv. That reminds me of PC monitors, humans can only perceive up to 90 MHZ and very rarely able to perceive more than that and only under the right conditions. Yet they market their monitors at 200 mhz and higher and slap on a huge upcharge for something we can't perceive and yet people buy them., marketing geniuses at work.
Almost 20 years ago I was using an 8mp Olympus E-300 with kit zooms. Slightly smaller than APS-c sensor. Prints came out looking beautiful. For my needs, newer cameras provide better dynamic range, better high ISO performance and better auto white balance. The higher resolution never really comes into play.
Resolution does not matter specifically for your subjects, for your shooting conditions, for your future use, but the term “never plays” is clearly overly optimistic!))
I’m confused. The pictures I took 20 years ago with a 4/3 sensor camera that I liked then will still look just as good today. I seldom use that camera any more, as I prefer the better high-ISO performance and better AF. But why would I “need” more pixels today if if didn’t back then?
@@ditto1958 It gives you more cropping ability. If you don't have enough reach/not ideal composition or other whings like that, you can just crop a part of a bigger image and it still looks great.
@@ditto1958 Resolution comes into play for those who shoot at longer focal ranges of erratic (kids, wildlife) or otherwise hard to frame subjects. It's also very handy for those of us who are shooting on primes, ultra-wide, architecture or landscapes.
@@jigsawharlequin862Cropping ability is nice, but for those who rarely, if ever, crop by much it's not important. When someone crops wildlife images dramatically I just see a lazy photographer who didn't want to bother doing the work in the field to get closer, or, someone who should have spent all that money on a 60mpx. camera on a longer lens instead.
Thanks for another great conversation. I've been making my living as a commercial/editorial photographer since the 80s and shoot FF and APS-C. For about 90% of my current commercial work I shoot APS-C. I just pick the best tech for each job. Beyond that it doesn't matter at all. My clients have always been happy and have NEVER asked about any of this. If you print huge, sure, but otherwise just shoot what you have. It is so much more important to work on technique, develop your "eye," and put lots of time into honing your post-processing skills.
I think a lot of people think that huge number of mega pixels and automation can somehow replace, talent, artistics eye or lack of photographic craftsmanship. You can clearly see this in the tiltle of a lot of Y.T videos. This camera transformed my photography, How did I ever do without this lens? And so on and on. Every Tom Dick and Harry is now buying Leica M digital camera, because they are so cool these days. As an old time Leica owner, I know that in 70% of the situations a photographer is better off with another type of film or digital camera, not a range finder. But, they think that this camera will elevate their photography because of some well known names used it. The fact is that 95% of them end up doing ' street photography ' with the same results that they were getting with their Fujis, Canons, Nikons etc. Gear madness and envy is the order of the day, sadly.
@@lensman5762 I love doing night photography, and indoor photography, I enjoy the challenge of low light shoots, my camera is a Canon 90D. I hear a lot of photographers say you can't do good low light shots with an APSC camera, well I am proud of the night time shoots I get with my APSC camera. You need to be prepared to spend more time, and have patience, but if you've got the dedication you can get great low light shots with an APSC camera just as easily as a full frame, or medium format camera. And I also don't believe the dribble that only prime lenses, or short zoom lenses can produce sharp images, it depends on how you compose your subject, what aperture setting you use, what ISO setting you use, shutter speed, if it's outdoors if it's windy, or the air is calm, etc, how you use the camera on the tripod. One night time shoot I did recently which was a building at a near 7 minute long exposure time, Aperture 18, ISO 100, I am proud of that shot. I have always chosen APSC over full frame because of the zoom range benefit, if having the most dynamic range was my priority then I would go Medium Format. The benefits of a full frame over an APSC camera at least from what I have observed are marginal. Medium Format is where you really see the difference.
Great times to be a photographer, there is no bad gear, great sensors, great glass, reliable to great af, formats to choose from depending on what you do. Just awesome
Oh my dear, what a big effort to show us such a very small difference. Well done, Nigel, thank you for that. The simple conclusion may be: we (especially you, Nigel) can make wonderful pictures with any modern camera in a special price-range. This knowledge was demonstrated in an amazing way by printing the files. That's the real way to come to a real decision. The main reason for me to see each of your videos is your high credibility, your thoroughness, and: you print and shows us your prints. Most other photographers on YT, even the very good ones, are not interested in printing. Thank you once more (and excuse my English, I wrote this comment with the help of DeepL). Uwe (near Kiel, Germany)
Good points...at some point, our cell phone's will be all that's needed, and in many cases, they would work just fine already, depending on one's need for print size.
But i dunno. I think he missed one of the keypoints of why a bigger sensor and mp is good. If you only ever look at an image at normal size, you can literally save 1000’s of dollars and get by with decade old gear just fine. Printing them out is a fair idea, but i think it makes it a tad pointless. Still, a very nice video.
Hi Nigel. I am a landscape photographer and I use OMsystem OM1 MarkII. This is a M43 sensor camera. I am extremely happy with the huge advantages I have compared if I had to shoot with a larger sensor camera. Lots of technology is packed in the OMsystem cameras that used appropriately, makes that little camera a real game changer.
I sold my R5 to buy the X2D, but not for the resolution bump. I did it for its simplicity and colour science. Its colour depth and dynamic range is incredible. But regarding resolution, it is nice to be able to crop the crap out of an image, and still see amazing detail. After about 1,000 images, I’m happy. I still own another FF Canon (R6 MKII), so I have options, but the Hasselblad, so far, is in a league of its own.
Two months ago, I switched from an APS-C to a full-frame body, which was the best decision in my 13 year's amateur photography life. Initially, the heavier body and more expensive lenses made me think that I had made the jump from APS-C to full frame body for nothing. But when I saw the results, I had a completely different opinion. Even at the same equivalent aperture and angle of view, the Full Frame camera delivered results beyond my expectations. In fact, even cell phones look great in daylight. But in rooms with less natural light, or in situations where I needed to be quick, the Full Frame camera showed me that small differences can make a big difference not only DOF, or clarity, but also noise and details in the extreme situation. Optically and physically, I think the increase in sensor size and lens size is very important for natural results, unless you're painting with AI. So, my conclusion is that while I understand people saying APS-C is good enough, I think that's akin to saying a cell phone camera is good enough. A larger sensor size camera is worth it for many people who can afford it.
In prints as well? I have from 1/2.3 (prints up to 8x10 ok) to full frame. Prints from 1/2.3 is pushing it but look lovely in good light. Prints from 1 inch sensor and above print indistinguishably. Printer is the bottleneck....
The fuji XT5 sensor is cropped and can easily go beyond that. Mostly thanks to how on earth their cropped lenses land the light so accurate on that high DPI sensor. Well... some of their lenses anyway.
As a travel photographer for a number of travel magazines, I've been photographing with a Canon 5D Mark IV for years and as I've aged (80+) I shifted to a small Canon SureShot G15 camera - much more fun and I get out a lot more too. Image quality is very adequate for most magazines (cover/inside covers and stock).
I took the G15 on a two year bicycle tour and took over 10,000 images with it. Was very, very pleased with the results. And though I'm probably going to pick up a R6 Mark II, a big part of me wished Canon brought out a new G.
That's a good point, as years ago I use to use a Canon SureShot type of camera, but went with a Full frame Nikon once I started editing my images in RAW format. I never print HUGE images, yet my Nikon has stood the test of time and given me zero issues, thus I keep using it. Now that I think about it, many folks are just swapping to the higher end smart-phones, as their cameras now equate to very nice imagery as well as such as my iPhone, it produces 48 Mp RAW images if I wish, thus I at least have options depending on where and what type of photography I'm choosing on any particular day.
I shot for years on a little point and shoot and when I finally upgraded to a nicer camera I was so grateful for all the work I’d done practicing composition and photography basics. Gear doesn’t matter if you can’t compose a decent photograph and use shutterspeed, aperture, ect.
I appreciate your real-world approach. It is far more useful than curves with numbers. Bigger and more expensive can be better but only just. The most imortant factor is the user. His (or mine) weaknesses cannot be fixed with extra pixels.
I Use MFT from Olympus and these 20MP are then enough for the most work. And like you mentioned in the beginning, I think the composition, mood, story etc is more important!
And if for some weird reason you ever need to shoot a tree in the forest and pixel peep it on large print, you just stitch 5-7 vertical shots from your mft Olympus into one huge panorama that would resolve more details than a single shot from that Hasselblad. I do it all the time when hiking in mountains. The details level is so insane that even 2.5 meters wide print doesn't resolve half of them. And weight does matters in the mountains. So I don't see full frame or medium formats as any kind of an upgrade
I've been shooting Nikon since the D700. Looking for a lighter system to pair with my D850, I chose MFT when OM System released the OM-1. Couldn't be happier. Of course there are slight differences in sensor performances, but not so much as the internet hype suggests. And Olympus PRO lenses are just phenomenal.
It was mostly a comparison of sensor resolutions. The take I would take is that for landscapes it doesn’t really matter what format you shoot. The extra costs of full frame and medium format for landscape work is hard to justify.
@@AlisterPollockYeah, but now you can easily pick used FF cameras, mirrorless or DSLRs for reasonable prices. I have the Fuji XT5, but I also picked up a used Z7 for 880 euros. The Z7 is still impressive for landscape and travel.
Nigel did a comparison video 4 years ago between "Fuji XT3 vs Nikon Z7 vs GFX 50R". Obviously the XT3 lost already in the center, but it fell really apart at the edges, due to the limited optical lens performance (10-24mm). Probably, for Fuji X, the lenses are the main performance bottlenecks. Many lenses are old/outdated, not been replaced by new versions, and/or not been designed originally having future 40MP in mind. I wonder, if some photographers' claims of their upgrade from APS-C to FF would be like night and day, is actually due to changing (upgrading) the lens ecosystem, rather than just upgrading sensor resolutions. The other issue with Fuji X is the X-Trans sensor trait, that they are prone of mushing subtle textures, which then leads to mushiness aka "watercoloring" . I wonder if some of Nigel's XT3-observations in his previous comparison video (e.g. a distant brick bridge lacked bricks structures) would be also due to that. A X-T5 or X-H2 (also being X-Trans) would be prone to such as well, but the higher resolution probably mitigates that (might push a good portion of watercoloring cases beyond the boundaries of what Fuji X lenses would manage to resolve anyway). Also a commenter in Nigel's previous comparison video seems to see Fuji's lens quality as a bottleneck: "I shoot the Fuji XT2, Nikon D850, and Sony A7Riii, and I prefer the A7Riii for most applications. As for lenses, there are now so many outstanding FE lenses that surpass the Nikkor and Fujifilm lenses that if the ultimate determiner of output is realized in quality glass, Sony currently has the best overall ecosystem." [NB when mentioning Nikkor 4 years ago, he talked about old Nikon DSLR lenses obviously, not the new Z ones]
I have multiple camera bodies from APSC, full frame and micro 4/3. I have been printing my own work for the past 15 years. Early on in my digital photography journey I used 6,10 and then a 12mp camera the difference in photo quality and the ability to process files between the 6 and 12mp APSC is amazing, I have a print of a sunrise photo taken at the southern coast of Maine that I had printed and framed, the print was matted so the area viewable is 22inches wide and 15 inches high, the print was taken with a Pentax Kr 12mp APSC camera and a 12-24 mm F4 Pentax lens, prints quality is very good. I also have a framed prints of a similar size made from a Fujifilm XH2 40mp with a 100-400mm Fujifilm lens taken in the fall of a light house on the Hudson river that is located in New York state, Hudson river valley. The difference in print quality is clearly visible. Both photos were taken on a tripod at less than ISO 4oo. Both were uncropped. I have three camera bodies that have a sensor of 36 and 4omp, the XH2, XT5 and a 36mp Pentax K1, MKII, the files are quite large and give me a lot of leeway for cropping and processing, the thing is once you get to 4omp and higher the need for high quality glass to get the resolution from the sensor becomes more important. A medium format 1oo mp camera with one quality lens would cost me with I paid for the three camera bodies that I mentioned in my post, never mind that I would have to update my computer to store and process the files.
My thoughts exactly. As someone who's about to take the plunge from a Nikon D850 to the wonderful world of Fuji, largely because of the weight Vs dodgy knees equation, I'd be far more interested to see the results of the comparison between the Z8 and the X-T5. The Zfc is a perfectly good little camera, but, unlike the full frame Z8, it's hardly cutting edge in 2023. The weight of the glass is a major factor as well and when viltrox, sigma and tamron are producing really effective, fast and sharp lenses that all come in at less than 500g, that's another big plus for me.
Great VT again, Nigel. I’ve recently taken up the photography bug, got a Nikon D5600 with 3 of the best DX lenses, all second hand, mostly from MPB for around £1100, & I’m loving it! I felt under pressure to buy a full frame right away, but I resisted, concentrated on upskilling myself by reading, watching and learning from people like you, Mads, James & others, and my BIGGEST challenge is not the gear or technical stuff but composition. I take lots of bracketed shots, which really helps the DR and your VT today endorsed my faith in an APS-C… for now! Keep doing what you’re doing & thank you 🙏
One of the most important factors to consider when enlarging a negative/file is the relationship between the subject scale and the viewer when enlarged. This is irrespective of whether a photographer is using a 1" form factor or 6.5X4 cm MF sensor, the same goes for film. I have found that in 45 years of photography, that not all subjects can withstand huge enlargements and still convey the feeling and mood of the original scene. Adams used to be highly particular about this, whether he used a 6X6, 4"X5" or 8"X10" camera. Weston used to contact print a great proportion of his 11"X14" negatives. So what does all this mean in the age of digital, shoot first think about the photograph later? Just use what you have. Never mind all this 40, 60 or 100 MP malarky. Only less than 5% of the 'photographs ' taken today end up in print, meaning that 95% are viewed @ 72 PPI on social media. Happy making photographs.
I'm happy with my fullframe because I love vintage lenses, have a big collection of them, and in my opinion, they really shine and show their character on full frame. A combination of Sony A73 and something like Canon FD 50 1.2 is really quite easy to carry around and fun to use. I think I'm also used to measure the composition in "full frame" terms - when I look into something and I decide which focal I want to use for the shot. In many ways, it all boils down to what you used to, and what lenses you already own.
Thank you, Nigel for this video! I found it reassuring. My camera is APS-C and I’ve often wondered if an upgrade was something I should consider. Weight and cost have held me back and now seeing the results you achieved makes me appreciate what I own- and I already paid for… Cheers!
Your conclusion is absolutely spot on. It's the light, composition and atmospherics that make an image. The ability to do panos and up resolution really allows for stunning images without crazy expensive gear.
Thanks Nigel. I gave up medium format years ago. What I use now is an iPhone 15 Pro. The results are stunning and I print A3 and A3+. Spectacular results and love not dragging all that heavy equipment around. And the results are fantastic.
@@a-shaw-photothis is where the phone cams fall on their faces. Tony Northrup has a good video debunking the whole notion of any iPhone cam results beating legit ILC cams. I got the iPhone 14 Pro with the so-called 48 mpx raw image…note I stated “so-called”, because it’s pure advertising, and def not a legit 48 mpx.
@@a-shaw-photo You've got a whole load of nice used gear to look forward to trying. If you don't want a DSLR, maybe look at like an M50, since the lens mount was discontinued and the new R mount out, you'll have plenty of cheap options second hand. But a regular zoom lens is the most useful for sure. Plus, I love having a viewfinder as well so I can compose and view my images clearly when I'm in direct sunlight.
Thanks Nigel, and perfect timing for me, I have APSC and wanted to 'upgrade' but was struggling to justify the cost v benefits of doing so, I'm sticking with what I've got and having a holiday instead, Verona booked for a week in November. (the mrs thanks you as well😂)
THANKS! For confirming my thoughts. I shoot APS-C with the best lens available and have never had a client be disappointed in image quality. I shoot with lights so that I can control my exposers and keep them where I like them. As for now I see no reason to change.
As always, a very informative video. I think you will see the differences in the cameras in low light situations. There are many times when you need to shoot at high ISOs because you can’t use a tripod with a longer exposure. In addition, there are handling considerations between APS-C and FF. While FF is heavier, it often has more controls. And finally, there may be more FF lenses than APS-C lenses for your camera brand.
Having shot all three I settled on APS-C (especially for events and weddings). The boost that the larger sensors have (whilst nice) are not enough of a pro to justify the additional cost, size and weight. Cost, size and weight is incredibly important to the outcomes. Fatigue is a real thing, even going out into the woodlands with a GRIII can help motivate you to go out in the first place without the dread of ferry on weight holding you back. It's a seldom discussed point, we all know the larger sensors do give more IQ but at what cost? I really didn't want to entertain the big zooms when I shot on FF but on ASP-C the zooms are manageable all day long. For me, APS-C is the sweet spot, you just have to be competent and knowledgeable so that you're not expecting to thrash the files in post.
FF bodies are becoming smaller and lighter to the point where the difference in weight and size between enthusiast FF and APSC is becoming quite small. There is also the consideration that, at a certain point, a camera can be so small and light that it doesn't feel good in the hand or could be harder to grip. Cameras with a little bit of heft can provide some stability when shooting handheld. Personally, I find that the lenses make the biggest difference. FF lenses are, on average, quite a bit larger and heavier than their FF counterparts. But again, FF lenses have gotten smaller and lighter, and that trend continues. There is also the option to choose compact 1.8 or 2.8 primes in stead of large zooms or primes. That will depend on shooting style and professional needs though.
The bodies are similar in weight now but real weight comes from the good lenses. The lens systems from Apsc or even M43 is so much lighter its unbelievable. @@MusicByAngels
I just haul everything with me. Both crop and full frame, GoPro and my phone. They all excel at different things, and I can't stand not having any of those with me. Crop I use for zoom, full frame for portraits, phone mostly for video and GoPro for underwater video and photos.
Weight differences are negligible, AFAIK. These specs are directly from Canon specification sheets: FF - EOS 6d Mk ii Weight: Approx. 765 g / 26.98 oz. (including battery pack and card)/Approx. 685 g / 24.16 oz. (body only) APSC - EOS 90D Weight Weight Approx. 24.73 oz. / 701g Approx. 21.83 oz. / 619g (Body only; excluding the battery, card, body cap and eye cup) The lenses are a different matter... but I like to buy and use EF lenses (not EF-S) ... because they fit on both Canon FF and APSC cameras... EF lenses are just better. Yes I find that both cameras are good for different purposes.
I think the main difference between the APS-C and full-frame is due to the resolution difference. Would be interesting to redo that with a X-T5 or X-H2 from Fujifilm with their 40mpx APS-C sensor. I'm pretty sure the details in the large prints would then be very similar between APS-C and Full Frame.
Its Bokeh and separation, when doing portraits, thats why its "professional" vs a crop. With a Crop you really cant get the same outcomes when shooting a 1.4 or even 1.8 on FX. Youd need to shoot like 200mm and have a person like 30 feet in front of a background on crop. And resolution is huge to when you get into macro or landscape. But landscape, not as much.
Actually the results wouldn't be very similar at all. You are putting 40 megapixels in the same size sensor that normally holds 26. Because of this, you get very dark shadows in low light. This is why Sony made the cut off point of 60 megapixels for a full frame sensor. Anything beyond that and you start losing image quality.
@@gordonmiles9995 "a sensor that normally..." There's no "normally" with technology as it's constantly evolving. Lots of reviewers have shown that the XT5 handles noise and dynamic range just fine and hardly any difference from the older 26MP sensor, while getting a bump in resolution. As Nigel has shown in this video, the differences between sensor sizes are hardly noticeable, and this holds true with Fuji's latest cameras. Stop spreading all this nonsense about how much difference there is.
@europlatus 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 it's not nonsense. The XT5 sensor is a poor performer in low light, and the result is very dark shadows that are void of contrast. There is a tremendous difference between the 26 and 40 megapixel sensors. Some just choose to be blind to it. Just because technology constantly evolves, doesn't mean you won't get reciprocity failure.
I went through this exact thinking process recently when I was trying to determine if I needed a full frame camera. This video confirms I was right in buying my APS-C camera. At the end of the day, the quality of the image depends a lot more on training, knowledge and experience than on the hardware, especially in this day and age... and I am very unlikely to print large posters out of my photos. Thanks for this great video!
The advantage of full frame is over APSC is not the final image. It’s the ease of getting the photo, especially in situations where you are shooting in low light, can’t use a tripod, or require to use shallow DOF. The difference in final images is typically not noticeable at normal viewing distances. If you catch a compelling image the subtle differences in resolution or sharpness really don’t matter (or they matter only to photographers)
Ouite the opposite is the case. I often shoot in forrests in bad light, with aps i can achieve better results handheld, because f5.6 is sufficient for enough dof. With FF i have to stop down more and end up with slower shutter speeds.
@@hejakma4682 There is no advantage to APS-C here. Say you stop down to F8 on the full frame camera to increase DOF, of course now the shutter speed is 1 stop slower, however Full frame has approximately 1 stop better Iso performance so you can simply increase the iso by 1 stop and the result will be the same as the APS-C camera.
Exactly opposite. APS-C is much more portable and such low light depends on used lenses and sensor technology level, not on sensor size. If you use 60mpix A7R4, you will notice how the noise level is very similar to 24Mpix APS-C. FF only has a bit better noise and DR performance if you stick with some low resolution sensor around 21-24 Mpix to keep photosites larger.
Most people don't print out such huge photos or don't even print at all, they mostly just post online. I do have a A3 printer which produces excellent prints and they are more than big enough in most cases but at the end of the day, Nigel's video just proves how little real difference there is for most real life day to day images.
Thanks Nigel for an interesting video. I think your summary is very fair. Since going digital I've always shot APS-C (apart from my iPhone) and until this year I've shot Pentax, switching to Sony (A6700) this year. As you say, it's not just quality the of shot that influences our decisions but also price, size, weight and availability of lenses suitable for our chosen interests. I shoot mostly wildlife and also landscapes/seascapes and astro. I don't print much (I probably should) and find APS-C works for me. I totally agree with you saying that the important thing is to get out there and take photos!
Imagine how much better results you can get if you upgrade to Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ ;)
6 місяців тому+2
The main reason you want a bigger sensor is bokeh and better subject isolation against the background! But If you are the type who rather focus stacks to get everything as sharp and detailed as possible, don't bother with FF. You want higher printing resolution? Make a panorama at a higher focal length, get as many mega pixels as you want. Personally I love shooting brenizer panoramas, so I am not satisfied with the bokeh even on my fullframe camera. It really depends on the photos you want to shoot and if you love bokeh.
Great video man. But for me, that cropped image, the medium format looked significantly better to me. Clearer, crisper, and the colour. I was surprised you preferred the full frame on that comparison
Agree. And noticed that the med format was shot at very high F stops, to allow for depth of field. Would like to have seen the image quality when shot at the same F stop.
Hi Nigel. Excellent comparison. I use different systems since 2010 (Nikon D3/Olympus EM1/Fuji T2/Panasonic G9) for events and ceremonies and i've never complained about print quality of my A3 albums. Just use whatever system you want. In photography the things that matter most are the photographer's passion, sensitivity and preparation. Then the quality of the lenses and lastly the sensor. The important thing is to having fun! Stop sensor war ! Happy to have met you
I would just add that the weight advantage of the Micro 4/3 system is only real on long focal lengths or zooms. Today there are compact and light Fullframes to which I attach a small fixed lens and the whole thing weighs only one kilo or so
Unless I’m missing something, shooting the medium format at f27 diffraction is going to be degrading the image quality quite a bit. Guessing that is why the difference was not more noticeable.
THIS THIS!!! After f8, on the GFX anyway, can't comment for sure on Hassy, but confident it's the same .... after f8 you are already getting quite strong diffraction issues. Hell, even on the Fujifilm X-H2, due to it's pixel density which is higerer than the GFX100(S) or Hassy X2 range, diffraction kicks in at f8. If you don't understand that, you run into sharpness issues.;
Yes, many landscape photographers noticed that issue with the 100MP medium format sensor (doesn‘t matter which camera brand) If you want sharper details in one shot a 50 MP medium format would be better. With the GFX50 diffraction kicks in after f11 for example.
@@TheIppoippo Even with my 61mp full frame Sony I generally try not to go much past f8 (if I am wanting the image to be really sharp with lots of detail), push it too far and the diffraction kills the sharpness/details, and then you are defeating the purpose of having a higher mp camera. - Which is demonstrated pretty well in this video actually.
Diffraction depends on the absolute size of the aperture, as well as how close the sensor is to the aperture, which is why you can get away with higher f stop numbers on longer lenses before it becomes a problem. Because f stop is a measure of the lens’s focal length divided by the size of the aperture, the longer lenses of medium format will reach a larger f stop number before that absolute aperture size limit for diffraction kicks in.
@@12symmo so technically mirrorless cameras suffer from diffraction sooner than dslrs? 😃 I think that factor is negligible and not actually visible in images.
This was absolutely amazing Nigel, well done! This video should be mandatory watching whenever we all get the inevitable GAS and 'grass is greener' of larger sensor / more mega pixel cameras etc. I wish you used the sliders for the water shot with the APSC camera too, however I note you mentioned later in the vid that the drop in dynamic range was a bit more noticeable than between the FF and Medium Format. I'm actually thinking of consolidating my cameras from Micro Four Thirds and FF to just APSC (where I started so many years ago). I just want to simplify my setup and get a compromise of size/weight/image quality between the two. Your video is helping me to let go of wanting to keep the FF (which is mainly there to indulge me on some pixel peeping!). Thanks again!
Thanks for all the work in that video, Nigel. I was surprised at how well the APSC held up at smaller sizes to the medium format. However, I wasn't expecting much of a difference between the medium format and the full frame. I think it's possible the reason you like the greens better with the medium format is the lens. I know on my Z7II and Z8, I prefer the 50mm APO Voigtlander lens over the Nikon 50MM F1.8 for the colors and in particular the greens. Granted it is personal taste and I've been a Nikon loyalist for many years, but I do find the colors more preferable to me using certain Voigtlander lenses over the Nikons. When doing black and white conversions, it's close. As far as your newsletter, I went back and looked and the Nikon 24-120 F4 was the lens I used the most in 2023 as well. Second was the Nikon 85mm F1.8 and third was the Voigtlander 50mm F2 APO.
Thanks, this helps to validate that the camera quality today across brands and sensor size is fantastic. Sensor size does matter sometimes. But a photographer who knows their craft is the most important. Great video!
I think fullframe is best for ultrawide and normal zoom lenses and primes, but for longer reach, the lenses are often more bulky. So my ideal camera is a "slow" high megapixel fullframe camera that can be switched to a fast APS-C camera. Maybe even by the act of attaching a specific lens.
I am with you! Using now the Sony A7CR with FF 28mm, and 50 and 55-250mm APS-C lenses. FF gets me 61MP, APS-C is down to 29MP. But if you want to shoot square format you deactivate the APS-C and get almost 40MP ignoring the black corners on the wide sides of the FF. And the best is, this compact FF mirrorless camera is only a little bit bigger than its APS-C sibling. The viewfinder is mediocre, but the prints count, right?
Thanks for the comparisons. Lenses make a big difference; especially if you have to crop a shorter focal length because you lack a longer length for the desired composition.
I moved from DSLR APS-C to ML-Full Frame and the biggest different was the latitude in editing I got from the full frame. I recently went back into my older catalog, and definitely notice a difference. But as you said, probably not in printing. Just in editing. My low light shooting at ISO 6K+ is amazing with my Z6, and allows me to capture action I could not with my APS-C DSLR. But it is amazing that all 4 cameras you used captured printable images that we undetectably similar.
From my personal experience with APS-C and full-frame, I'd say that the most differences come with extreme crop (macro, wildlife) and critical situations (low light+fast shutter speeds and high ISO). For instance, when doing wildlife, I can get a usable ISO 20000 image with the full-frame, but not with the APS-C. Having said that, for landscape, I would think that well planned and executed images can come out great in both systems, as Nigel said.
Yeah. Crop sensors gather the same intensity of light as full frame but less total light (fewer photons). The result (at the same resolution) is less consistent light from one tiny light-sensitive pixel to the next on the sensor, causing APS-C to have uglier, fuzzier grain at high ISOs (which elaborate the differences).
After many years of using aps-c, i bought a full frame, and when i saw the pictures i took, i said wow. Me, going back to aps-c again? NEVER). Thank you for this comparison, very professional.
Such an informative and well done video! I shoot all client work on my Canon R6 and have rarely had the need for more resolution. When it’s needed AI upscaling does an incredible job. This just goes to show you how good we all have it as photographers. From smartphones all the way up to medium format it’s all about the story you’re trying to tell with the image.
About a year ago I went to full frame from a Sony RX10iv and am glad I did. Yes, it's heavier but buying a camera chest harness meant that I no longer suffered with neck ache. The dynamic range, low light capability, and the ability to heavily crop a 60 megapixel image swung it for me. I haven't used the RX10iv since buying the A7Riv.
The Nikon colours would be a whole world better if you weren't using the "Adobe Standard" profile, browse through the options and use a Nikon profile, or even use Nikon NX and it will make a massive difference to the colours! Great film Nigel, cheers.
Great comparison. I have a Z50 & Z6 currently and find when opening files in LR with the same settings the Z6 files are packing significantly more color. I would not have expected it. Honestly though the biggest limitation of the DX in the Nikon and system is the lack of S grade lenses in native DX format. S Lenses are truly superior in resolution and color and contrast rendering.
"opening with the same setting"? LR should use different profiles - so they are not correct. And why you do not use some IT8 generated profiles? Colorchecker Passport (do not remember correct name) is so cheap and easy to use.
My first FF mirrorless was a Canon R5 ($4K). Great camera. Then a friend suggested I try the crop sensor R7 ($1500) I did, and for the small, skittish birds I chase, it was a game changer ! Sure, I could shoot with the R5 in crop mode, and I did for a couple months, to get that big reach advantage, but that dropped my 45mp R5, to 17mp. My R7 is 32mp's (double the FF R5) and its always in crop mode ;) Sold the R5 a little while later, and now I have two R7's. Great decision. Never looked back. Now, if I still did a lot of landscapes, that would have been a different story.
As someone who can only afford an APS-C camera (I've been using the on D7500 for a few years now) I found this a really good video. I don't usually print larger than around A3 and it's encouraging to see you confirm that these cameras do a very good job overall. I also think that the improvements in processing technology in recent years have been a big help to users of smaller format cameras. Keep up the great videos!
If it eases your nerves: I once took a screenshot of an Instagram post and cropped it. So it had like 1MP. I ran it through AI upscaling and printed it in 20x30 inches and it looks great
My 10mp D200 APS-C CCD sensor returns awesome, colorful enlargements for my wall. Lens? An 8 oz 35-80 5.6 made for Nikon's first AF film cameras. (I "bought" the lens for free, the camera for $35.)
If you take normal viewing distance into account then even at A1 the differences between the formats would be negligible. They looked pretty much identical on the computer screen. I think the main benefits of the bigger sensors is when you want to crop a photo or you really want the extra bokeh.
you also have to consider aperture and lenses. Most lenses will be great at f.8 and up, what most landscapers use, f11 and up. so youre not really comparing quality at this point when using the same printer. Compare all bodies using the biggest F stop, THEN you see why FX is professional. Using a crop, you cant really get the same outcome when shooting 1.4 or 1.8 on FX body, you need like a 0.6 lens on a crop. Nxt, take photos using ISO 2000, start seeing why FX bodies are $1000+ more etc
I can see a huge difference in the shadows. Way more detail in larger sensors all throughout the shadows especially around rocks and trees. I feel like you almost have to bracket an aps-c 1 stop up and down then HDR to get the same dynamic range as a full frame. It’s how you make up the handicap in dynamic range to a full sensor single shot. Like if you take a single photo with apps-c and full frame you push your highlights down 50 and shadows up 50. The equivalent on apps-c would be highlights down 100 and shadows all the way up to 100. I have seen this especially in real estate photography when doing individual hdr layers for highlights and shadows and blending. App-c still works it’s just handicapped to a full frame in dynamic range so you have to find work arounds.
Yeah I've got very good A2 images from my little 24.2mp 200d, and A2 is more than big enough for people selling prints or wanting to just print their work
I have recently found that comparing my pictures from my D7000 vs. my D850 (part of your suggestion to create a portfolio and look at your growth as a photographer over time), that I prefer many of my D7000 photos better . I did a better job of composition and possibly my shooting technique was just better, I hand hold almost everything, so the D7000 pictures often seem sharper, I do have the good Nikon 2.8 lenses.
The older body probably had more color saturation, newer generations of cameras tend to aim for more neutral (accurate) color rendition. The new high resolution sensors "can" have trouble with color banding, but if you prefer the old look it's normally just a matter of bumping up saturation on the new body.
Another informative video...great stuff. I shoot APS-C (Fuji) and I think that your comment about resolution between the two Nikons is not a fair one because of the mp difference. I say this because I have the Fuji X-T5 which has 40mp and the difference in resolution between this and the other 26mp Fujis is quite a leap.The resolution of the 40mp is excellent and the low light shooting is no worse because of the extra mp's. It also means I can crop in and not lose detail and it is yet another step towards matching overall full frame performance.
Thanks for the research Nigel, very reassuring for me who just upgraded to a Nikon D7500 with an APS-C sensor and thought I'd made a mistake and should have gone bigger and bought a camera with a full-frame sensor (there are limits to a budget after all). I previously had a D70s with 6MP. Have printed 70*40cm with very good results. I'm sure I'll get pretty good prints with my new camera (with Nikon 24-70 lens) too. Camera manufacturers are fighting hard to make us unsatisfied and longing for new gear, it's a battle to resist. The money left over I can use to travel to interesting destinations where I can devote myself to photography.
Great and thorough test, thank you Nigel. The biggest advantages to MF are best displayed not in dynamic range and pixel count (these advantages were more noticeable 10 years ago but tech has caught up in the FF and smaller sensor world). The biggest difference is in the physical sensor and lens size and is most noticeable on close subjects and wider lenses. MF allows a wider window into a given space for a given focal length, while not adding in the distortion or perspective shift a smaller sensor wide angle lens brings. Especially when a subject is physically near the camera the sense of separation between them and the background is also greater, hence their popularity with portrait and fashion photographers. This is very hard to measure compared to noise or dynamic range but it is what gives so many MF shots 'the look'. Landscape photography shows these attributes less typically. It would be especially noticeable on larger sensors such as 6x4.5 on a Phase One or 6X7 film on a Mamiya or Pentax. Put a 50mm lens on one of these cameras and you have a wide angle shot with near no distortion, shallow DOF and the separation of subject and background that a standard lens gives on FF. This to me is an appealing combo.
I have Gigapixel and I’m not afraid to use it! ;-) I also use LUTs, color matching, presets, raw developers-so color is whatever I want. I also add grain to images, use high contrast B&W, simulate old film, and shoot mostly street with a few landscapes now and then. My Olympus 4/3rds, Ricoh GRiiix, and iphone 12 do anything I want. Lugging around 50 lbs of expensive cameras and glass ain’t really worth it for what you get now with existing small sensors and processing software.
It probably depends on your workflow. I feel a little limited when shooting macro with my aps-c Nikon Z50 because it's only 20 megapixels and it's rare that I don't crop my shots. It's a bit sad when I only get a picture that has like 8 megapixels left. I would love for nikon to release either an aps-c camera with 30-40 megapixels or a Z7iii with 60-70 megapixels.
You also need the correct lenses when dealing with macro. Laowa makes THE best lenses, at affordable prices, that give TOP of the line quality. They have APSC lenses but im not sure if they are made for Z mount, they have a bunch for FX now. even with my Z6ii, i wish i had the Z7ii, i always crop even using my 2X Laowa, which is a perfect lens (they are just manual, but thats how it should be).
Full frame all the way for me today. But of course you can take great shots with APS-C or a Polariod camera. But more digital info is just more to work with - and software can do so very much today. Its also worth noting that full frame gives you a shallower DOF - something lots of modern photographers want.
A little pointless to do all resolution comparisons with the Hasselblad at f/27 where diffraction is so strong making the image a lot less sharp. I understand you are trying to get similar depth of field. But the sharpness on the Hasselblad would be way higher if set to f/11. Focus stacking will help get more depth of field. Doesn’t seem like a fair comparison to me
not only is he cripping the Hasselblad by shooting at f/27 but on top of that he is also using Ai to enhance the full frame image. I find the results to be deceiving and not so informative to viewers to show the capabilities of these cameras. I own the Hasselblad X2d and X1D II and also full Frame A1 and A7R V and the differences are quite obvious in terms or sharpness and color. They just need to be compared in a fair manner. It almost seems like he is setting the Hasselblad purpose to a disadvantage @@Astronaut-From-Mars
Jesus shooting at f27 to compare resolution... did you ever heard about diffraction? I get it that you need more DOF and full frame maybe the sweet point for you, but comparing detail this way, makes no sense.
@@thegorn The problem is that the MF sensor has similar pixel size to the FF camera, so the level of diffraction at 1:1 are similar. Of course when viewed at the same size the MF is less prone to diffraction. So yeah, he made a pretty dumb comparison.
I've come to the conclusion that these videos are all nonsense. Across all photography channels, it's literally just for entertainment, and to trade our time for some pennies. This is also why most of these channels are failing. I do commend him for actually printing. People get way too caught up in looking at files on a computer screen. No one sees our files that way because there are no screens that you can view actual super high resolution files at all and be viewable at a reasonable distance. At this point I just comment on random channels to help these guy's algorithms out. Also I'd say Morten Hilmer, may be the last great photographer on YT next to Sails Chong and Peter Coulson who makes content that's high level, entertaining and accurate. Nothing against other creators, it's just not an easy job by any stretch of the imagination. Just here for when he or others figure themselves out.
When I switched from aps-c to FF, I quickly realised you win some and you lose some. Isolation of a subject is much easier but getting everything sharp in a landscape is much harder. Shooting in dark churches gives much cleaner images. I often shoot wide andthis is easier.
I really enjoyed this video, Nigel. It is useful for me what you did and with the prints being made to provide the visual support. Thank you for making the time to create and share this video.
Zoomed into the trunk at the end, the medium formate looked soooo much better. The colours, esp. on highlights, the dynamic range was apparent and sharpening could have been applied to the medium format too for a fair comparison. It just looked effortlessly better.
The only reason I shoot full frame is for portraits and shots that a shallow depth of field is desired. Shooting APS-C works for most photography needs. Hiking has me carrying my MFT cameras and the "tiny" lenses that are its advantage. With what social media does to our images, and the fact you can only get so much resolution from printing, larger sensors are "usually" not necessary. I should probably sell a lot of my gear at the sponsor of this video, but I'm attached to all of it. All modern cameras are good. The real difference is the lens.
A useful and educational video for many, thanks to the author! Most of all, I liked the process of building a composition; I immediately recognized myself in this)). But, having shot on cameras from large format to micro 4/3, I want to say which aspects are not touched upon in the video: 1) people shoot different scenes, in different conditions, and not for all scenes, the difference in sensor size plays a decisive role, but for us showed landscape photography where it was important; 2) to demonstrate the advantages of medium format resolution, the author was forced to significantly increase the scale of the tree hollow; 3) having cameras from medium format to aps-c, the author would hardly be able to take all this equipment, including a tripod, and fly, for example, to Japan; 4) the optimal set, in my opinion, is two cameras: full frame and aps-c from the same manufacturer with one set of full-frame fixed optics, which will double the capabilities; 5) for people who mainly shoot with zooms or iPhone 15, all this is incomprehensible and unnecessary, so they will only take away from this video that all the same things can be filmed on their equipment and therefore everything is already clear to them; 6) if you think, for example, about shooting in backlight, you will be surprised to find that it is not the sensor format that is more important, but the behavior of the lens and camera autofocus when the light source is either in the frame or near the edge of the frame, and this is already It’s a completely different story; shooting portraits can be exactly the same complex topics, as an option - the nature of lens blur, etc. Shooting on a large format, I realized that no system could have such an impact on space, but the technological process turned out to be so complex that it practically lost all meaning.
After 25+ years on Canon (first film, then APS-C, then FF) I switched to Fuji GFX in 2018. I am happy as... well, very happy. The lenses and the resolution are so good I can crop heavily without losing quality. So I have basically APS-C, FF and even more in one camera.
APS-C for me, and your informal test just reinforced that to me. I am an intermediate hobbyist photographer… nature, landscapes, architecture… and rarely print anything of the sizes you are showing in this video. obviously if you are a professional or semi-professional maybe the other cameras are worth it, but again it’s mostly the lenses. And you are right, MPB is amazing. I just found out about them from James Popsys last week. Upgraded from my old Nikon D50 to a Nikon D5600, a Nikon AF-S 18-140mm G ED VR and Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, all in Like New condition, for a total of around $800 USD. Perfect for an enthusiast like me with budget constraints. Love your content Nigel. I’m learning a lot, plus even if you release video on a subject not relevant to me I still watch because you are also so entertaining and have such a pleasant manner. Glad I found your channel!
I remember working with studio photographers back in the 90s. Medium format was the de facto standard for things like room sets and high end product photography. This was pre-digital. Polaroids were used to see if the multiple flashes had lit the scene properly. One of the Biggest advantages of large format is being able to crop and still get a very usable finished size. But my next camera will be the next iPhone pro. For what use a camera for it will be more than adequate.
All cameras know are all very very good and your video shows this, think the main reason to buy a particular camera for a hobbies is how it makes you feel when using.
Here's the answer to this question that's been asked for the last 10 years or more: spend your time and money on learning better technique (workshops, books, practice time, trips to interesting locations) and lighting (also lighting gear if appropriate), and other than that, shoot whatever system you want for whatever reason you want, and don't waste time worrying about if you're missing out on anything.
Thank you for a great video. The part that really stood out for me was that the larger sensors improved the details in the shadows making the images look much more natural. I can only assume that the Hasselblad can do this as it has a greater dynamic range than the other cameras and also encodes each pixel in 16 bit compare to 14 bit for the Z8 giving Hasselblad the advantage of many more light levels.
Tonality, smoother, less digital with each step up. But no question modern full frame sensors today are phenomenal. Great video. We all need to get out and take more pictures and stop fussing about gear!
Thanks for printing btw. Most channels wouldn't dare print anything. I also actually have used MPB in the past several times. I've had only good experiences from them so far.
i gave you a sub. because of this. you said: "let's look at the prints because that is most impotant". good man. that is something you do not hear often anymore.
And this is the best thing which came in last years - big 4K screens which allow to view photograph in high quality without a need to print them. Sure I print A4 to put on the wall (cheap Canon inkjet gives me quality for which I had to pay heavy $$$ years ago), but most of the photos I view on screen - often zooming-in to 100% - so resolution matters. Why spend so much time and effort to make a nice photo, and later decrease quality by printing it or upload to instagram...
Excellent comparison and really helps put into perspective how much camera do "I" really need. These days, I rarely print huge prints. I have FF and APS-C and as mentioned here in the comment section, the difference in size and weight of the set-ups is quite a bit. There have been a few trips where I took a FF set-up and GRIII and wound shooting the GRIII far more and images from it never left me feeling "I wish I had shot this with a FF camera". I think the sweet spot for performance cost per dollar spent is in APS-C.
To me, i like more the way your medium format manage with the light, it looks so natural, even if the difference is not so big, compare to the full frame. And the results with the phone is good when we see the size of its sensor.
Interesting comparison, thanks. For me, the medium format colors and dynamic range make all the difference. I wonder if you shot city buildings and such, if it would be easier to tell the differences. You had a relatively flat scene with low contrast light in this video and were shooting organic subjects. Might have made things a bit closer. Medium format is usually sharpened less, because you just don't need it. And because of that, the images just have an ease to them, like they're not trying hard. The smaller formats have to sharpen, to make up for their limitations, and the images don't look as at ease, so to speak, IMO. I'm an owner and user of all the formats used here too. Pixel peeing on a GFX camera is something to behold. There's much information there.
I think your conclusion is about right. I have the luxury of having both an Fuji XT5 and an GFX 100S, and without pixel peeping, A2 I struggle to see the difference with A2 sized prints. That said, I always reach for my GFX for 3 reasons: 1) The dynamic range of the camera is amazing, highlight and shadow recovery is a dream. 2) I can crop heavily. Sometimes, you get the composition wrong in the field, and you can redeem the image with a heavy crop. A 100% crop on the GFX still produces a printable 25/26 mb image. 3) I do occasionally print very big and the extra resolution comes in handy.
Well done. I am coming at this from wildlife and other nature photography. I don’t print super-large prints, but I do frequently crop quite a bit. Sometimes this is just because my telephoto lens was not as long as it would be in a perfect world or sometimes in the best shot of a sequence the animal is on one side of the frame and looking out in that direction. Cropping allows me to balance the shot better and tweak the composition. Even printing a cropped photo at a modest size will show unsharpness as much as a much larger print of an uncropped photo, so I love my 45 megapixel sensor.
While I have not shot MF, I own a R6 and X-H2 previously owned a D810. I left the D810 to the R6 as I moved to portraits 95% of my shooting so R6 was perfect for it. In comparing the files after a year I did miss the resolution of the D810 but I didn’t need a R5 at $4k! I got hooked into the Fuji system a year ago, I am on my 3rd Fuji (yes I need help) but for ME, the X-h2 has been the near perfect street/landscape camera as I get the D810 pop again, the lenses are cheaper and MUCH lighter. I am enjoying shooting landscape again! Now would I LOVE a GFX100ii? YES, Yes I would!!😊
I’m now 70 years old. I was a newspaper photographer in my 20’s and 30’s. We shot black and white mostly but color showed up at the end of my photojournalist career. Just a note: When Nikon came out with the D70 I worked for a wedding photographer and we used 4 of these to shoot weddings. We regularly make 16X20 prints. Oh….these were 6MP sensors in these cameras. Just sayin
100MP (or anywhere heading there) is waaay in excess of what you need. Mobile phones are out today with "200MP" lol. Marketing sure is funny!
from what i've read the only thing having such a high resolution sensor does for you is creating the ability to crop your photos to a frankly insane degree
I have a 24x36 (60x90 centimeters) print from a 12 MPix camera (5D classic) and it is absolutely fine in terms of resolution - close to the resoluton on paper you mentioned: Yes, it is very satisfying. Maybe 50 MPix are great for 2x3 metre sized shots but ... how many of these fit on my wall?
Sometimes I am missing to take photos I like between the tech race ...
@@energieinfo21 It's the dynamic range & subtleties of the grey-scale that I love about high MPix gear.
@@ChrisM541 That's true. Consider 33 megapixels is 8k and most humans cant perceive beyond 8k in a standard viewing position which is 2 feet for print and 6 feet for tv. That reminds me of PC monitors, humans can only perceive up to 90 MHZ and very rarely able to perceive more than that and only under the right conditions. Yet they market their monitors at 200 mhz and higher and slap on a huge upcharge for something we can't perceive and yet people buy them., marketing geniuses at work.
As he said: "My summary is - don't worry" ... this is the perfect takeaway. Just enjoy and stop overthinking about whether you're missing out or not.
Almost 20 years ago I was using an 8mp Olympus E-300 with kit zooms. Slightly smaller than APS-c sensor. Prints came out looking beautiful. For my needs, newer cameras provide better dynamic range, better high ISO performance and better auto white balance. The higher resolution never really comes into play.
Resolution does not matter specifically for your subjects, for your shooting conditions, for your future use, but the term “never plays” is clearly overly optimistic!))
I’m confused. The pictures I took 20 years ago with a 4/3 sensor camera that I liked then will still look just as good today. I seldom use that camera any more, as I prefer the better high-ISO performance and better AF. But why would I “need” more pixels today if if didn’t back then?
@@ditto1958 It gives you more cropping ability. If you don't have enough reach/not ideal composition or other whings like that, you can just crop a part of a bigger image and it still looks great.
@@ditto1958 Resolution comes into play for those who shoot at longer focal ranges of erratic (kids, wildlife) or otherwise hard to frame subjects. It's also very handy for those of us who are shooting on primes, ultra-wide, architecture or landscapes.
@@jigsawharlequin862Cropping ability is nice, but for those who rarely, if ever, crop by much it's not important. When someone crops wildlife images dramatically I just see a lazy photographer who didn't want to bother doing the work in the field to get closer, or, someone who should have spent all that money on a 60mpx. camera on a longer lens instead.
Thanks for another great conversation. I've been making my living as a commercial/editorial photographer since the 80s and shoot FF and APS-C. For about 90% of my current commercial work I shoot APS-C. I just pick the best tech for each job. Beyond that it doesn't matter at all. My clients have always been happy and have NEVER asked about any of this. If you print huge, sure, but otherwise just shoot what you have. It is so much more important to work on technique, develop your "eye," and put lots of time into honing your post-processing skills.
I think a lot of people think that huge number of mega pixels and automation can somehow replace, talent, artistics eye or lack of photographic craftsmanship. You can clearly see this in the tiltle of a lot of Y.T videos. This camera transformed my photography, How did I ever do without this lens? And so on and on. Every Tom Dick and Harry is now buying Leica M digital camera, because they are so cool these days. As an old time Leica owner, I know that in 70% of the situations a photographer is better off with another type of film or digital camera, not a range finder. But, they think that this camera will elevate their photography because of some well known names used it. The fact is that 95% of them end up doing ' street photography ' with the same results that they were getting with their Fujis, Canons, Nikons etc. Gear madness and envy is the order of the day, sadly.
@@lensman5762 I love doing night photography, and indoor photography, I enjoy the challenge of low light shoots, my camera is a Canon 90D. I hear a lot of photographers say you can't do good low light shots with an APSC camera, well I am proud of the night time shoots I get with my APSC camera. You need to be prepared to spend more time, and have patience, but if you've got the dedication you can get great low light shots with an APSC camera just as easily as a full frame, or medium format camera.
And I also don't believe the dribble that only prime lenses, or short zoom lenses can produce sharp images, it depends on how you compose your subject, what aperture setting you use, what ISO setting you use, shutter speed, if it's outdoors if it's windy, or the air is calm, etc, how you use the camera on the tripod.
One night time shoot I did recently which was a building at a near 7 minute long exposure time, Aperture 18, ISO 100, I am proud of that shot.
I have always chosen APSC over full frame because of the zoom range benefit, if having the most dynamic range was my priority then I would go Medium Format. The benefits of a full frame over an APSC camera at least from what I have observed are marginal. Medium Format is where you really see the difference.
Great times to be a photographer, there is no bad gear, great sensors, great glass, reliable to great af, formats to choose from depending on what you do. Just awesome
Couldn't agree more
Oh my dear, what a big effort to show us such a very small difference. Well done, Nigel, thank you for that. The simple conclusion may be: we (especially you, Nigel) can make wonderful pictures with any modern camera in a special price-range. This knowledge was demonstrated in an amazing way by printing the files. That's the real way to come to a real decision.
The main reason for me to see each of your videos is your high credibility, your thoroughness, and: you print and shows us your prints. Most other photographers on YT, even the very good ones, are not interested in printing.
Thank you once more (and excuse my English, I wrote this comment with the help of DeepL). Uwe (near Kiel, Germany)
Good points...at some point, our cell phone's will be all that's needed, and in many cases, they would work just fine already, depending on one's need for print size.
And he demostrated that medium format lenses have some diffration at F27. He could do this correctly but made the comparison absolutely pointless.
But i dunno.
I think he missed one of the keypoints of why a bigger sensor and mp is good.
If you only ever look at an image at normal size, you can literally save 1000’s of dollars and get by with decade old gear just fine.
Printing them out is a fair idea, but i think it makes it a tad pointless.
Still, a very nice video.
Hi Nigel. I am a landscape photographer and I use OMsystem OM1 MarkII. This is a M43 sensor camera. I am extremely happy with the huge advantages I have compared if I had to shoot with a larger sensor camera.
Lots of technology is packed in the OMsystem cameras that used appropriately, makes that little camera a real game changer.
I sold my R5 to buy the X2D, but not for the resolution bump. I did it for its simplicity and colour science. Its colour depth and dynamic range is incredible. But regarding resolution, it is nice to be able to crop the crap out of an image, and still see amazing detail. After about 1,000 images, I’m happy. I still own another FF Canon (R6 MKII), so I have options, but the Hasselblad, so far, is in a league of its own.
Two months ago, I switched from an APS-C to a full-frame body, which was the best decision in my 13 year's amateur photography life. Initially, the heavier body and more expensive lenses made me think that I had made the jump from APS-C to full frame body for nothing. But when I saw the results, I had a completely different opinion. Even at the same equivalent aperture and angle of view, the Full Frame camera delivered results beyond my expectations. In fact, even cell phones look great in daylight. But in rooms with less natural light, or in situations where I needed to be quick, the Full Frame camera showed me that small differences can make a big difference not only DOF, or clarity, but also noise and details in the extreme situation. Optically and physically, I think the increase in sensor size and lens size is very important for natural results, unless you're painting with AI.
So, my conclusion is that while I understand people saying APS-C is good enough, I think that's akin to saying a cell phone camera is good enough. A larger sensor size camera is worth it for many people who can afford it.
In prints as well? I have from 1/2.3 (prints up to 8x10 ok) to full frame. Prints from 1/2.3 is pushing it but look lovely in good light. Prints from 1 inch sensor and above print indistinguishably. Printer is the bottleneck....
For professionals I suppose you are right. If you don't do it professionally, well, it won't be so relevant.
Since printing anything larger than A3 is an extemely rare event for me, my APS-C does just fine. Always a good discussion. Carry on. 👍🥂
The fuji XT5 sensor is cropped and can easily go beyond that. Mostly thanks to how on earth their cropped lenses land the light so accurate on that high DPI sensor. Well... some of their lenses anyway.
As a travel photographer for a number of travel magazines, I've been photographing with a Canon 5D Mark IV for years and as I've aged (80+) I shifted to a small Canon SureShot G15 camera - much more fun and I get out a lot more too. Image quality is very adequate for most magazines (cover/inside covers and stock).
I took the G15 on a two year bicycle tour and took over 10,000 images with it. Was very, very pleased with the results. And though I'm probably going to pick up a R6 Mark II, a big part of me wished Canon brought out a new G.
That's a good point, as years ago I use to use a Canon SureShot type of camera, but went with a Full frame Nikon once I started editing my images in RAW format. I never print HUGE images, yet my Nikon has stood the test of time and given me zero issues, thus I keep using it. Now that I think about it, many folks are just swapping to the higher end smart-phones, as their cameras now equate to very nice imagery as well as such as my iPhone, it produces 48 Mp RAW images if I wish, thus I at least have options depending on where and what type of photography I'm choosing on any particular day.
So you want to travel light and then lug around 3 cameras with lenses! You really are committed to the photography cause! 😊
make sure that you are better than your camera before upgrading
How does one figure that out?
@@npdady if your photos still suck with composition and editing a higher resolution won't help
@@npdady😮 j8😮7
I shot for years on a little point and shoot and when I finally upgraded to a nicer camera I was so grateful for all the work I’d done practicing composition and photography basics. Gear doesn’t matter if you can’t compose a decent photograph and use shutterspeed, aperture, ect.
Best advice ever
I appreciate your real-world approach. It is far more useful than curves with numbers. Bigger and more expensive can be better but only just. The most imortant factor is the user. His (or mine) weaknesses cannot be fixed with extra pixels.
I Use MFT from Olympus and these 20MP are then enough for the most work. And like you mentioned in the beginning, I think the composition, mood, story etc is more important!
And if for some weird reason you ever need to shoot a tree in the forest and pixel peep it on large print, you just stitch 5-7 vertical shots from your mft Olympus into one huge panorama that would resolve more details than a single shot from that Hasselblad. I do it all the time when hiking in mountains. The details level is so insane that even 2.5 meters wide print doesn't resolve half of them. And weight does matters in the mountains. So I don't see full frame or medium formats as any kind of an upgrade
I am Olympus user too. Let me know future too Olympus? How long have you been with Olympus?
Love my Oly! Just bought 12-40 pro 2.8 for 500 eur. All my lenses, and em1 + em1 ii can feet in medium size bag...
@@antonkudris For static subjects like that the newer Olympus bodies have a "high res" mode that avoids even having the hassle of stitching.
I've been shooting Nikon since the D700. Looking for a lighter system to pair with my D850, I chose MFT when OM System released the OM-1. Couldn't be happier. Of course there are slight differences in sensor performances, but not so much as the internet hype suggests. And Olympus PRO lenses are just phenomenal.
The conclusion is awesome. Take care of everything before thinking of getting a new body. Light and composition is everything !!
Now it would be so interesting to see how a higher Resolution APS-C like the Fuji X-T5 or X-H2 would compare to the full frame. I mean at A1.
It was mostly a comparison of sensor resolutions. The take I would take is that for landscapes it doesn’t really matter what format you shoot. The extra costs of full frame and medium format for landscape work is hard to justify.
@@AlisterPollockYeah, but now you can easily pick used FF cameras, mirrorless or DSLRs for reasonable prices. I have the Fuji XT5, but I also picked up a used Z7 for 880 euros. The Z7 is still impressive for landscape and travel.
Nigel did a comparison video 4 years ago between "Fuji XT3 vs Nikon Z7 vs GFX 50R". Obviously the XT3 lost already in the center, but it fell really apart at the edges, due to the limited optical lens performance (10-24mm). Probably, for Fuji X, the lenses are the main performance bottlenecks. Many lenses are old/outdated, not been replaced by new versions, and/or not been designed originally having future 40MP in mind. I wonder, if some photographers' claims of their upgrade from APS-C to FF would be like night and day, is actually due to changing (upgrading) the lens ecosystem, rather than just upgrading sensor resolutions.
The other issue with Fuji X is the X-Trans sensor trait, that they are prone of mushing subtle textures, which then leads to mushiness aka "watercoloring" . I wonder if some of Nigel's XT3-observations in his previous comparison video (e.g. a distant brick bridge lacked bricks structures) would be also due to that. A X-T5 or X-H2 (also being X-Trans) would be prone to such as well, but the higher resolution probably mitigates that (might push a good portion of watercoloring cases beyond the boundaries of what Fuji X lenses would manage to resolve anyway).
Also a commenter in Nigel's previous comparison video seems to see Fuji's lens quality as a bottleneck: "I shoot the Fuji XT2, Nikon D850, and Sony A7Riii, and I prefer the A7Riii for most applications. As for lenses, there are now so many outstanding FE lenses that surpass the Nikkor and Fujifilm lenses that if the ultimate determiner of output is realized in quality glass, Sony currently has the best overall ecosystem."
[NB when mentioning Nikkor 4 years ago, he talked about old Nikon DSLR lenses obviously, not the new Z ones]
I have multiple camera bodies from APSC, full frame and micro 4/3. I have been printing my own work for the past 15 years. Early on in my digital photography journey I used 6,10 and then a 12mp camera the difference in photo quality and the ability to process files between the 6 and 12mp APSC is amazing, I have a print of a sunrise photo taken at the southern coast of Maine that I had printed and framed, the print was matted so the area viewable is 22inches wide and 15 inches high, the print was taken with a Pentax Kr 12mp APSC camera and a 12-24 mm F4 Pentax lens, prints quality is very good. I also have a framed prints of a similar size made from a Fujifilm XH2 40mp with a 100-400mm Fujifilm lens taken in the fall of a light house on the Hudson river that is located in New York state, Hudson river valley. The difference in print quality is clearly visible. Both photos were taken on a tripod at less than ISO 4oo. Both were uncropped. I have three camera bodies that have a sensor of 36 and 4omp, the XH2, XT5 and a 36mp Pentax K1, MKII, the files are quite large and give me a lot of leeway for cropping and processing, the thing is once you get to 4omp and higher the need for high quality glass to get the resolution from the sensor becomes more important. A medium format 1oo mp camera with one quality lens would cost me with I paid for the three camera bodies that I mentioned in my post, never mind that I would have to update my computer to store and process the files.
My thoughts exactly. As someone who's about to take the plunge from a Nikon D850 to the wonderful world of Fuji, largely because of the weight Vs dodgy knees equation, I'd be far more interested to see the results of the comparison between the Z8 and the X-T5. The Zfc is a perfectly good little camera, but, unlike the full frame Z8, it's hardly cutting edge in 2023. The weight of the glass is a major factor as well and when viltrox, sigma and tamron are producing really effective, fast and sharp lenses that all come in at less than 500g, that's another big plus for me.
Great VT again, Nigel.
I’ve recently taken up the photography bug, got a Nikon D5600 with 3 of the best DX lenses, all second hand, mostly from MPB for around £1100, & I’m loving it!
I felt under pressure to buy a full frame right away, but I resisted, concentrated on upskilling myself by reading, watching and learning from people like you, Mads, James & others, and my BIGGEST challenge is not the gear or technical stuff but composition.
I take lots of bracketed shots, which really helps the DR and your VT today endorsed my faith in an APS-C… for now!
Keep doing what you’re doing & thank you 🙏
One of the most important factors to consider when enlarging a negative/file is the relationship between the subject scale and the viewer when enlarged. This is irrespective of whether a photographer is using a 1" form factor or 6.5X4 cm MF sensor, the same goes for film. I have found that in 45 years of photography, that not all subjects can withstand huge enlargements and still convey the feeling and mood of the original scene. Adams used to be highly particular about this, whether he used a 6X6, 4"X5" or 8"X10" camera. Weston used to contact print a great proportion of his 11"X14" negatives. So what does all this mean in the age of digital, shoot first think about the photograph later? Just use what you have. Never mind all this 40, 60 or 100 MP malarky. Only less than 5% of the 'photographs ' taken today end up in print, meaning that 95% are viewed @ 72 PPI on social media. Happy making photographs.
Good points regarding viewing distance and the viewing of images by the public lensman.
I'm happy with my fullframe because I love vintage lenses, have a big collection of them, and in my opinion, they really shine and show their character on full frame. A combination of Sony A73 and something like Canon FD 50 1.2 is really quite easy to carry around and fun to use. I think I'm also used to measure the composition in "full frame" terms - when I look into something and I decide which focal I want to use for the shot. In many ways, it all boils down to what you used to, and what lenses you already own.
Thank you, Nigel for this video! I found it reassuring. My camera is APS-C and I’ve often wondered if an upgrade was something I should consider. Weight and cost have held me back and now seeing the results you achieved makes me appreciate what I own- and I already paid for… Cheers!
Your conclusion is absolutely spot on. It's the light, composition and atmospherics that make an image. The ability to do panos and up resolution really allows for stunning images without crazy expensive gear.
Thanks Nigel. I gave up medium format years ago. What I use now is an iPhone 15 Pro. The results are stunning and I print A3 and A3+. Spectacular results and love not dragging all that heavy equipment around. And the results are fantastic.
I’m an iPhone photography user too… but I’m craving some more range.
Don’t you miss the zoom range you could get with a camera?
@@a-shaw-photothis is where the phone cams fall on their faces. Tony Northrup has a good video debunking the whole notion of any iPhone cam results beating legit ILC cams. I got the iPhone 14 Pro with the so-called 48 mpx raw image…note I stated “so-called”, because it’s pure advertising, and def not a legit 48 mpx.
@@a-shaw-photo
You've got a whole load of nice used gear to look forward to trying. If you don't want a DSLR, maybe look at like an M50, since the lens mount was discontinued and the new R mount out, you'll have plenty of cheap options second hand. But a regular zoom lens is the most useful for sure. Plus, I love having a viewfinder as well so I can compose and view my images clearly when I'm in direct sunlight.
Such a high quality production and you can really see the huge effort this would have taken to make. Thanks, so incredibly insightful Nigel!
Thanks Nigel, and perfect timing for me, I have APSC and wanted to 'upgrade' but was struggling to justify the cost v benefits of doing so, I'm sticking with what I've got and having a holiday instead, Verona booked for a week in November. (the mrs thanks you as well😂)
😂😂😂
THANKS! For confirming my thoughts. I shoot APS-C with the best lens available and have never had a client be disappointed in image quality. I shoot with lights so that I can control my exposers and keep them where I like them. As for now I see no reason to change.
As always, a very informative video. I think you will see the differences in the cameras in low light situations. There are many times when you need to shoot at high ISOs because you can’t use a tripod with a longer exposure. In addition, there are handling considerations between APS-C and FF. While FF is heavier, it often has more controls. And finally, there may be more FF lenses than APS-C lenses for your camera brand.
Yes. Totally this.
This video may be great for nature photography, but not at all for available light scenarios.
fujifilm has solved both of these issues :)
@@kirkh666joejoe true, Fujis are heavier and the same size as sony full frame cameras, but provide worse light sensitivity.
Having shot all three I settled on APS-C (especially for events and weddings). The boost that the larger sensors have (whilst nice) are not enough of a pro to justify the additional cost, size and weight. Cost, size and weight is incredibly important to the outcomes. Fatigue is a real thing, even going out into the woodlands with a GRIII can help motivate you to go out in the first place without the dread of ferry on weight holding you back. It's a seldom discussed point, we all know the larger sensors do give more IQ but at what cost? I really didn't want to entertain the big zooms when I shot on FF but on ASP-C the zooms are manageable all day long.
For me, APS-C is the sweet spot, you just have to be competent and knowledgeable so that you're not expecting to thrash the files in post.
FF bodies are becoming smaller and lighter to the point where the difference in weight and size between enthusiast FF and APSC is becoming quite small. There is also the consideration that, at a certain point, a camera can be so small and light that it doesn't feel good in the hand or could be harder to grip. Cameras with a little bit of heft can provide some stability when shooting handheld.
Personally, I find that the lenses make the biggest difference. FF lenses are, on average, quite a bit larger and heavier than their FF counterparts. But again, FF lenses have gotten smaller and lighter, and that trend continues. There is also the option to choose compact 1.8 or 2.8 primes in stead of large zooms or primes. That will depend on shooting style and professional needs though.
The bodies are similar in weight now but real weight comes from the good lenses. The lens systems from Apsc or even M43 is so much lighter its unbelievable. @@MusicByAngels
I just haul everything with me. Both crop and full frame, GoPro and my phone. They all excel at different things, and I can't stand not having any of those with me. Crop I use for zoom, full frame for portraits, phone mostly for video and GoPro for underwater video and photos.
@@julius43461 - Can you recommend a good camera bag for that? Thanks.
Weight differences are negligible, AFAIK. These specs are directly from Canon specification sheets:
FF - EOS 6d Mk ii Weight:
Approx. 765 g / 26.98 oz. (including battery pack and
card)/Approx. 685 g / 24.16 oz. (body only)
APSC - EOS 90D Weight
Weight Approx. 24.73 oz. / 701g
Approx. 21.83 oz. / 619g (Body only; excluding the battery, card, body cap and eye cup)
The lenses are a different matter... but I like to buy and use EF lenses (not EF-S) ... because they fit on both Canon FF and APSC cameras... EF lenses are just better.
Yes I find that both cameras are good for different purposes.
I think the main difference between the APS-C and full-frame is due to the resolution difference. Would be interesting to redo that with a X-T5 or X-H2 from Fujifilm with their 40mpx APS-C sensor. I'm pretty sure the details in the large prints would then be very similar between APS-C and Full Frame.
Its Bokeh and separation, when doing portraits, thats why its "professional" vs a crop. With a Crop you really cant get the same outcomes when shooting a 1.4 or even 1.8 on FX. Youd need to shoot like 200mm and have a person like 30 feet in front of a background on crop. And resolution is huge to when you get into macro or landscape. But landscape, not as much.
Actually the results wouldn't be very similar at all. You are putting 40 megapixels in the same size sensor that normally holds 26. Because of this, you get very dark shadows in low light. This is why Sony made the cut off point of 60 megapixels for a full frame sensor. Anything beyond that and you start losing image quality.
@@gordonmiles9995 "a sensor that normally..." There's no "normally" with technology as it's constantly evolving. Lots of reviewers have shown that the XT5 handles noise and dynamic range just fine and hardly any difference from the older 26MP sensor, while getting a bump in resolution. As Nigel has shown in this video, the differences between sensor sizes are hardly noticeable, and this holds true with Fuji's latest cameras. Stop spreading all this nonsense about how much difference there is.
@europlatus 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 it's not nonsense. The XT5 sensor is a poor performer in low light, and the result is very dark shadows that are void of contrast. There is a tremendous difference between the 26 and 40 megapixel sensors. Some just choose to be blind to it. Just because technology constantly evolves, doesn't mean you won't get reciprocity failure.
I went through this exact thinking process recently when I was trying to determine if I needed a full frame camera. This video confirms I was right in buying my APS-C camera. At the end of the day, the quality of the image depends a lot more on training, knowledge and experience than on the hardware, especially in this day and age... and I am very unlikely to print large posters out of my photos. Thanks for this great video!
The advantage of full frame is over APSC is not the final image. It’s the ease of getting the photo, especially in situations where you are shooting in low light, can’t use a tripod, or require to use shallow DOF. The difference in final images is typically not noticeable at normal viewing distances. If you catch a compelling image the subtle differences in resolution or sharpness really don’t matter (or they matter only to photographers)
Ouite the opposite is the case. I often shoot in forrests in bad light, with aps i can achieve better results handheld, because f5.6 is sufficient for enough dof. With FF i have to stop down more and end up with slower shutter speeds.
@@hejakma4682 There is no advantage to APS-C here. Say you stop down to F8 on the full frame camera to increase DOF, of course now the shutter speed is 1 stop slower, however Full frame has approximately 1 stop better Iso performance so you can simply increase the iso by 1 stop and the result will be the same as the APS-C camera.
@@haydennettleton3272 Yes correct, but there is at least NO advantage for full frame.
Exactly opposite. APS-C is much more portable and such low light depends on used lenses and sensor technology level, not on sensor size. If you use 60mpix A7R4, you will notice how the noise level is very similar to 24Mpix APS-C.
FF only has a bit better noise and DR performance if you stick with some low resolution sensor around 21-24 Mpix to keep photosites larger.
Dude, u wrong
Most people don't print out such huge photos or don't even print at all, they mostly just post online. I do have a A3 printer which produces excellent prints and they are more than big enough in most cases but at the end of the day, Nigel's video just proves how little real difference there is for most real life day to day images.
Thanks Nigel for an interesting video. I think your summary is very fair. Since going digital I've always shot APS-C (apart from my iPhone) and until this year I've shot Pentax, switching to Sony (A6700) this year. As you say, it's not just quality the of shot that influences our decisions but also price, size, weight and availability of lenses suitable for our chosen interests. I shoot mostly wildlife and also landscapes/seascapes and astro. I don't print much (I probably should) and find APS-C works for me. I totally agree with you saying that the important thing is to get out there and take photos!
Imagine how much better results you can get if you upgrade to Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ ;)
The main reason you want a bigger sensor is bokeh and better subject isolation against the background!
But If you are the type who rather focus stacks to get everything as sharp and detailed as possible, don't bother with FF.
You want higher printing resolution? Make a panorama at a higher focal length, get as many mega pixels as you want.
Personally I love shooting brenizer panoramas, so I am not satisfied with the bokeh even on my fullframe camera.
It really depends on the photos you want to shoot and if you love bokeh.
Great video man. But for me, that cropped image, the medium format looked significantly better to me. Clearer, crisper, and the colour. I was surprised you preferred the full frame on that comparison
I agree with that
Agreed
Agree. And noticed that the med format was shot at very high F stops, to allow for depth of field. Would like to have seen the image quality when shot at the same F stop.
Hi Nigel. Excellent comparison. I use different systems since 2010 (Nikon D3/Olympus EM1/Fuji T2/Panasonic G9) for events and ceremonies and i've never complained about print quality of my A3 albums. Just use whatever system you want. In photography the things that matter most are the photographer's passion, sensitivity and preparation. Then the quality of the lenses and lastly the sensor. The important thing is to having fun! Stop sensor war ! Happy to have met you
I would just add that the weight advantage of the Micro 4/3 system is only real on long focal lengths or zooms. Today there are compact and light Fullframes to which I attach a small fixed lens and the whole thing weighs only one kilo or so
Unless I’m missing something, shooting the medium format at f27 diffraction is going to be degrading the image quality quite a bit. Guessing that is why the difference was not more noticeable.
THIS THIS!!! After f8, on the GFX anyway, can't comment for sure on Hassy, but confident it's the same .... after f8 you are already getting quite strong diffraction issues. Hell, even on the Fujifilm X-H2, due to it's pixel density which is higerer than the GFX100(S) or Hassy X2 range, diffraction kicks in at f8. If you don't understand that, you run into sharpness issues.;
Yes, many landscape photographers noticed that issue with the 100MP medium format sensor (doesn‘t matter which camera brand) If you want sharper details in one shot a 50 MP medium format would be better. With the GFX50 diffraction kicks in after f11 for example.
@@TheIppoippo Even with my 61mp full frame Sony I generally try not to go much past f8 (if I am wanting the image to be really sharp with lots of detail), push it too far and the diffraction kills the sharpness/details, and then you are defeating the purpose of having a higher mp camera. - Which is demonstrated pretty well in this video actually.
Diffraction depends on the absolute size of the aperture, as well as how close the sensor is to the aperture, which is why you can get away with higher f stop numbers on longer lenses before it becomes a problem. Because f stop is a measure of the lens’s focal length divided by the size of the aperture, the longer lenses of medium format will reach a larger f stop number before that absolute aperture size limit for diffraction kicks in.
@@12symmo so technically mirrorless cameras suffer from diffraction sooner than dslrs? 😃 I think that factor is negligible and not actually visible in images.
This was absolutely amazing Nigel, well done! This video should be mandatory watching whenever we all get the inevitable GAS and 'grass is greener' of larger sensor / more mega pixel cameras etc.
I wish you used the sliders for the water shot with the APSC camera too, however I note you mentioned later in the vid that the drop in dynamic range was a bit more noticeable than between the FF and Medium Format.
I'm actually thinking of consolidating my cameras from Micro Four Thirds and FF to just APSC (where I started so many years ago). I just want to simplify my setup and get a compromise of size/weight/image quality between the two. Your video is helping me to let go of wanting to keep the FF (which is mainly there to indulge me on some pixel peeping!). Thanks again!
Thanks for all the work in that video, Nigel. I was surprised at how well the APSC held up at smaller sizes to the medium format. However, I wasn't expecting much of a difference between the medium format and the full frame. I think it's possible the reason you like the greens better with the medium format is the lens. I know on my Z7II and Z8, I prefer the 50mm APO Voigtlander lens over the Nikon 50MM F1.8 for the colors and in particular the greens. Granted it is personal taste and I've been a Nikon loyalist for many years, but I do find the colors more preferable to me using certain Voigtlander lenses over the Nikons. When doing black and white conversions, it's close. As far as your newsletter, I went back and looked and the Nikon 24-120 F4 was the lens I used the most in 2023 as well. Second was the Nikon 85mm F1.8 and third was the Voigtlander 50mm F2 APO.
Thanks, this helps to validate that the camera quality today across brands and sensor size is fantastic. Sensor size does matter sometimes. But a photographer who knows their craft is the most important. Great video!
I think fullframe is best for ultrawide and normal zoom lenses and primes, but for longer reach, the lenses are often more bulky. So my ideal camera is a "slow" high megapixel fullframe camera that can be switched to a fast APS-C camera. Maybe even by the act of attaching a specific lens.
I am with you! Using now the Sony A7CR with FF 28mm, and 50 and 55-250mm APS-C lenses. FF gets me 61MP, APS-C is down to 29MP. But if you want to shoot square format you deactivate the APS-C and get almost 40MP ignoring the black corners on the wide sides of the FF. And the best is, this compact FF mirrorless camera is only a little bit bigger than its APS-C sibling. The viewfinder is mediocre, but the prints count, right?
Thanks for the comparisons. Lenses make a big difference; especially if you have to crop a shorter focal length because you lack a longer length for the desired composition.
I moved from DSLR APS-C to ML-Full Frame and the biggest different was the latitude in editing I got from the full frame. I recently went back into my older catalog, and definitely notice a difference. But as you said, probably not in printing. Just in editing. My low light shooting at ISO 6K+ is amazing with my Z6, and allows me to capture action I could not with my APS-C DSLR. But it is amazing that all 4 cameras you used captured printable images that we undetectably similar.
Could just be due to the old DSLR APS-C technology back then resulting in a worst RAW image?
Yes it's that. A modern APSC sensor should be about 1 stop worse in noise performance.@@94Ninsound94
Thanks a lot for sharing. I'm completely with you if you say, you don't need an expensive camera to take good photos.
From my personal experience with APS-C and full-frame, I'd say that the most differences come with extreme crop (macro, wildlife) and critical situations (low light+fast shutter speeds and high ISO). For instance, when doing wildlife, I can get a usable ISO 20000 image with the full-frame, but not with the APS-C. Having said that, for landscape, I would think that well planned and executed images can come out great in both systems, as Nigel said.
Yeah. Crop sensors gather the same intensity of light as full frame but less total light (fewer photons). The result (at the same resolution) is less consistent light from one tiny light-sensitive pixel to the next on the sensor, causing APS-C to have uglier, fuzzier grain at high ISOs (which elaborate the differences).
After many years of using aps-c, i bought a full frame, and when i saw the pictures i took, i said wow. Me, going back to aps-c again? NEVER).
Thank you for this comparison, very professional.
Such an informative and well done video! I shoot all client work on my Canon R6 and have rarely had the need for more resolution. When it’s needed AI upscaling does an incredible job.
This just goes to show you how good we all have it as photographers. From smartphones all the way up to medium format it’s all about the story you’re trying to tell with the image.
What AI program do you use for this?
@@MichaelCTruth apologies! Just seeing this question. Topaz Labs
@@joshmobijohn Thanks. So it adds resolution?
About a year ago I went to full frame from a Sony RX10iv and am glad I did. Yes, it's heavier but buying a camera chest harness meant that I no longer suffered with neck ache. The dynamic range, low light capability, and the ability to heavily crop a 60 megapixel image swung it for me. I haven't used the RX10iv since buying the A7Riv.
The Nikon colours would be a whole world better if you weren't using the "Adobe Standard" profile, browse through the options and use a Nikon profile, or even use Nikon NX and it will make a massive difference to the colours! Great film Nigel, cheers.
Wonderful job obtaining equivalent perspectives across so many formats. Great presentation. Many thanks!
Great comparison. I have a Z50 & Z6 currently and find when opening files in LR with the same settings the Z6 files are packing significantly more color. I would not have expected it. Honestly though the biggest limitation of the DX in the Nikon and system is the lack of S grade lenses in native DX format. S Lenses are truly superior in resolution and color and contrast rendering.
I'm in the middle of a debate. Z50, zfc or z6 . Which would you recommend? For landscape photography. The z7 is expensive.
Z6 over the Z50. For a bit more you get so much of a better camera.@@Icelandicviewofnature
"opening with the same setting"? LR should use different profiles - so they are not correct. And why you do not use some IT8 generated profiles? Colorchecker Passport (do not remember correct name) is so cheap and easy to use.
My first FF mirrorless was a Canon R5 ($4K). Great camera. Then a friend suggested I try the crop sensor R7 ($1500) I did, and for the small, skittish birds I chase, it was a game changer ! Sure, I could shoot with the R5 in crop mode, and I did for a couple months, to get that big reach advantage, but that dropped my 45mp R5, to 17mp. My R7 is 32mp's (double the FF R5) and its always in crop mode ;) Sold the R5 a little while later, and now I have two R7's. Great decision. Never looked back.
Now, if I still did a lot of landscapes, that would have been a different story.
As someone who can only afford an APS-C camera (I've been using the on D7500 for a few years now) I found this a really good video. I don't usually print larger than around A3 and it's encouraging to see you confirm that these cameras do a very good job overall. I also think that the improvements in processing technology in recent years have been a big help to users of smaller format cameras. Keep up the great videos!
Try use D700, i think still better for photo.
ff and lens are cheap today's especially 2nd hand.
If it eases your nerves: I once took a screenshot of an Instagram post and cropped it. So it had like 1MP. I ran it through AI upscaling and printed it in 20x30 inches and it looks great
My 10mp D200 APS-C CCD sensor returns awesome, colorful enlargements for my wall. Lens? An 8 oz 35-80 5.6 made for Nikon's first AF film cameras. (I "bought" the lens for free, the camera for $35.)
If you take normal viewing distance into account then even at A1 the differences between the formats would be negligible. They looked pretty much identical on the computer screen. I think the main benefits of the bigger sensors is when you want to crop a photo or you really want the extra bokeh.
you also have to consider aperture and lenses. Most lenses will be great at f.8 and up, what most landscapers use, f11 and up. so youre not really comparing quality at this point when using the same printer. Compare all bodies using the biggest F stop, THEN you see why FX is professional. Using a crop, you cant really get the same outcome when shooting 1.4 or 1.8 on FX body, you need like a 0.6 lens on a crop.
Nxt, take photos using ISO 2000, start seeing why FX bodies are $1000+ more etc
Landscape photography is where you can actually "get away" with APSC. Shooting at f8 with nice depth of field and the base ISO.@@coltoncyr2283
I can see a huge difference in the shadows. Way more detail in larger sensors all throughout the shadows especially around rocks and trees. I feel like you almost have to bracket an aps-c 1 stop up and down then HDR to get the same dynamic range as a full frame. It’s how you make up the handicap in dynamic range to a full sensor single shot. Like if you take a single photo with apps-c and full frame you push your highlights down 50 and shadows up 50. The equivalent on apps-c would be highlights down 100 and shadows all the way up to 100. I have seen this especially in real estate photography when doing individual hdr layers for highlights and shadows and blending. App-c still works it’s just handicapped to a full frame in dynamic range so you have to find work arounds.
APS-C up to A2 print is amazing! The Fuji XT5 with good glass should be fine. Thanks for the comparison Nigel. Cheers
Yeah I've got very good A2 images from my little 24.2mp 200d, and A2 is more than big enough for people selling prints or wanting to just print their work
Probably not
And thank you very much for the fascinating comparison. I sold all my full frame stuff a number of years ago and have not regretted it.
I have recently found that comparing my pictures from my D7000 vs. my D850 (part of your suggestion to create a portfolio and look at your growth as a photographer over time), that I prefer many of my D7000 photos better . I did a better job of composition and possibly my shooting technique was just better, I hand hold almost everything, so the D7000 pictures often seem sharper, I do have the good Nikon 2.8 lenses.
The older body probably had more color saturation, newer generations of cameras tend to aim for more neutral (accurate) color rendition.
The new high resolution sensors "can" have trouble with color banding, but if you prefer the old look it's normally just a matter of bumping up saturation on the new body.
The answer is YES, if you want the best quality that it is possible to squeeze out of your camera!
Another informative video...great stuff. I shoot APS-C (Fuji) and I think that your comment about resolution between the two Nikons is not a fair one because of the mp difference. I say this because I have the Fuji X-T5 which has 40mp and the difference in resolution between this and the other 26mp Fujis is quite a leap.The resolution of the 40mp is excellent and the low light shooting is no worse because of the extra mp's. It also means I can crop in and not lose detail and it is yet another step towards matching overall full frame performance.
Yep - I understand there are higher MP apps-c sensors but in my experience they compromise noise for MP… ultimately they are still amazing though
You only start to see a noise difference between a X-T5 and a X-T4 at 12800 ISO. @@NigelDanson
Thanks for the research Nigel, very reassuring for me who just upgraded to a Nikon D7500 with an APS-C sensor and thought I'd made a mistake and should have gone bigger and bought a camera with a full-frame sensor (there are limits to a budget after all).
I previously had a D70s with 6MP. Have printed 70*40cm with very good results. I'm sure I'll get pretty good prints with my new camera (with Nikon 24-70 lens) too.
Camera manufacturers are fighting hard to make us unsatisfied and longing for new gear, it's a battle to resist.
The money left over I can use to travel to interesting destinations where I can devote myself to photography.
Great and thorough test, thank you Nigel. The biggest advantages to MF are best displayed not in dynamic range and pixel count (these advantages were more noticeable 10 years ago but tech has caught up in the FF and smaller sensor world). The biggest difference is in the physical sensor and lens size and is most noticeable on close subjects and wider lenses. MF allows a wider window into a given space for a given focal length, while not adding in the distortion or perspective shift a smaller sensor wide angle lens brings. Especially when a subject is physically near the camera the sense of separation between them and the background is also greater, hence their popularity with portrait and fashion photographers. This is very hard to measure compared to noise or dynamic range but it is what gives so many MF shots 'the look'. Landscape photography shows these attributes less typically. It would be especially noticeable on larger sensors such as 6x4.5 on a Phase One or 6X7 film on a Mamiya or Pentax. Put a 50mm lens on one of these cameras and you have a wide angle shot with near no distortion, shallow DOF and the separation of subject and background that a standard lens gives on FF. This to me is an appealing combo.
Thank you for explaining this ...
@@MarkWodjykl He is completely wrong, though. Doesn't seem to have heard of lens equivalence.
I have Gigapixel and I’m not afraid to use it! ;-) I also use LUTs, color matching, presets, raw developers-so color is whatever I want. I also add grain to images, use high contrast B&W, simulate old film, and shoot mostly street with a few landscapes now and then. My Olympus 4/3rds, Ricoh GRiiix, and iphone 12 do anything I want. Lugging around 50 lbs of expensive cameras and glass ain’t really worth it for what you get now with existing small sensors and processing software.
It probably depends on your workflow. I feel a little limited when shooting macro with my aps-c Nikon Z50 because it's only 20 megapixels and it's rare that I don't crop my shots. It's a bit sad when I only get a picture that has like 8 megapixels left. I would love for nikon to release either an aps-c camera with 30-40 megapixels or a Z7iii with 60-70 megapixels.
You also need the correct lenses when dealing with macro. Laowa makes THE best lenses, at affordable prices, that give TOP of the line quality. They have APSC lenses but im not sure if they are made for Z mount, they have a bunch for FX now. even with my Z6ii, i wish i had the Z7ii, i always crop even using my 2X Laowa, which is a perfect lens (they are just manual, but thats how it should be).
Full frame all the way for me today. But of course you can take great shots with APS-C or a Polariod camera. But more digital info is just more to work with - and software can do so very much today. Its also worth noting that full frame gives you a shallower DOF - something lots of modern photographers want.
A little pointless to do all resolution comparisons with the Hasselblad at f/27 where diffraction is so strong making the image a lot less sharp. I understand you are trying to get similar depth of field. But the sharpness on the Hasselblad would be way higher if set to f/11. Focus stacking will help get more depth of field. Doesn’t seem like a fair comparison to me
not only is he cripping the Hasselblad by shooting at f/27 but on top of that he is also using Ai to enhance the full frame image. I find the results to be deceiving and not so informative to viewers to show the capabilities of these cameras. I own the Hasselblad X2d and X1D II and also full Frame A1 and A7R V and the differences are quite obvious in terms or sharpness and color. They just need to be compared in a fair manner. It almost seems like he is setting the Hasselblad purpose to a disadvantage @@Astronaut-From-Mars
@officialNigelDanson-yeah... I have a surprise for you too
Great video. Thank you. I've come to realise, when shooting in a studio, lighting is way more important than a different camera.
Jesus shooting at f27 to compare resolution... did you ever heard about diffraction? I get it that you need more DOF and full frame maybe the sweet point for you, but comparing detail this way, makes no sense.
How so?
Diffraction affects all apertures and is not so bad if using big sensors.
f/27 diffraction on MF is comparable to f/11 on FF. The greater problem is tripod movement due to wind. It's why MF tripods are built like tanks.
@@thegorn The problem is that the MF sensor has similar pixel size to the FF camera, so the level of diffraction at 1:1 are similar. Of course when viewed at the same size the MF is less prone to diffraction. So yeah, he made a pretty dumb comparison.
I've come to the conclusion that these videos are all nonsense. Across all photography channels, it's literally just for entertainment, and to trade our time for some pennies. This is also why most of these channels are failing.
I do commend him for actually printing. People get way too caught up in looking at files on a computer screen. No one sees our files that way because there are no screens that you can view actual super high resolution files at all and be viewable at a reasonable distance.
At this point I just comment on random channels to help these guy's algorithms out.
Also I'd say Morten Hilmer, may be the last great photographer on YT next to Sails Chong and Peter Coulson who makes content that's high level, entertaining and accurate. Nothing against other creators, it's just not an easy job by any stretch of the imagination. Just here for when he or others figure themselves out.
I have a z6ii and love it. When I am shooting with good lenses, wow, it makes a big difference.
The none photographer will not notice any difference
When I switched from aps-c to FF, I quickly realised you win some and you lose some. Isolation of a subject is much easier but getting everything sharp in a landscape is much harder. Shooting in dark churches gives much cleaner images. I often shoot wide andthis is easier.
Dziekuję za ten film. Oznacza to że amatorzy nie potrzebują tak naprawde super drogiego sprzetu jeśli drukują max A4.
I really enjoyed this video, Nigel. It is useful for me what you did and with the prints being made to provide the visual support. Thank you for making the time to create and share this video.
More of a JPEG guy myself
Zoomed into the trunk at the end, the medium formate looked soooo much better. The colours, esp. on highlights, the dynamic range was apparent and sharpening could have been applied to the medium format too for a fair comparison. It just looked effortlessly better.
The only reason I shoot full frame is for portraits and shots that a shallow depth of field is desired. Shooting APS-C works for most photography needs. Hiking has me carrying my MFT cameras and the "tiny" lenses that are its advantage. With what social media does to our images, and the fact you can only get so much resolution from printing, larger sensors are "usually" not necessary. I should probably sell a lot of my gear at the sponsor of this video, but I'm attached to all of it. All modern cameras are good. The real difference is the lens.
A useful and educational video for many, thanks to the author! Most of all, I liked the process of building a composition; I immediately recognized myself in this)). But, having shot on cameras from large format to micro 4/3, I want to say which aspects are not touched upon in the video: 1) people shoot different scenes, in different conditions, and not for all scenes, the difference in sensor size plays a decisive role, but for us showed landscape photography where it was important; 2) to demonstrate the advantages of medium format resolution, the author was forced to significantly increase the scale of the tree hollow; 3) having cameras from medium format to aps-c, the author would hardly be able to take all this equipment, including a tripod, and fly, for example, to Japan; 4) the optimal set, in my opinion, is two cameras: full frame and aps-c from the same manufacturer with one set of full-frame fixed optics, which will double the capabilities; 5) for people who mainly shoot with zooms or iPhone 15, all this is incomprehensible and unnecessary, so they will only take away from this video that all the same things can be filmed on their equipment and therefore everything is already clear to them; 6) if you think, for example, about shooting in backlight, you will be surprised to find that it is not the sensor format that is more important, but the behavior of the lens and camera autofocus when the light source is either in the frame or near the edge of the frame, and this is already It’s a completely different story; shooting portraits can be exactly the same complex topics, as an option - the nature of lens blur, etc. Shooting on a large format, I realized that no system could have such an impact on space, but the technological process turned out to be so complex that it practically lost all meaning.
After 25+ years on Canon (first film, then APS-C, then FF) I switched to Fuji GFX in 2018. I am happy as... well, very happy. The lenses and the resolution are so good I can crop heavily without losing quality. So I have basically APS-C, FF and even more in one camera.
APS-C for me, and your informal test just reinforced that to me. I am an intermediate hobbyist photographer… nature, landscapes, architecture… and rarely print anything of the sizes you are showing in this video. obviously if you are a professional or semi-professional maybe the other cameras are worth it, but again it’s mostly the lenses.
And you are right, MPB is amazing. I just found out about them from James Popsys last week. Upgraded from my old Nikon D50 to a Nikon D5600, a Nikon AF-S 18-140mm G ED VR and Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, all in Like New condition, for a total of around $800 USD. Perfect for an enthusiast like me with budget constraints.
Love your content Nigel. I’m learning a lot, plus even if you release video on a subject not relevant to me I still watch because you are also so entertaining and have such a pleasant manner. Glad I found your channel!
I remember working with studio photographers back in the 90s. Medium format was the de facto standard for things like room sets and high end product photography. This was pre-digital. Polaroids were used to see if the multiple flashes had lit the scene properly. One of the Biggest advantages of large format is being able to crop and still get a very usable finished size. But my next camera will be the next iPhone pro. For what use a camera for it will be more than adequate.
All cameras know are all very very good and your video shows this, think the main reason to buy a particular camera for a hobbies is how it makes you feel when using.
The best camera you can use is the one you have in your hand at the time you need to take the photograph !
That Hasselblad A1 print looks insanely natural😲
Here's the answer to this question that's been asked for the last 10 years or more: spend your time and money on learning better technique (workshops, books, practice time, trips to interesting locations) and lighting (also lighting gear if appropriate), and other than that, shoot whatever system you want for whatever reason you want, and don't waste time worrying about if you're missing out on anything.
Thank you for subtitles. Very helpful to people of the other countries. Greetings from Brazil.
Thank you for a great video. The part that really stood out for me was that the larger sensors improved the details in the shadows making the images look much more natural. I can only assume that the Hasselblad can do this as it has a greater dynamic range than the other cameras and also encodes each pixel in 16 bit compare to 14 bit for the Z8 giving Hasselblad the advantage of many more light levels.
Tonality, smoother, less digital with each step up. But no question modern full frame sensors today are phenomenal. Great video. We all need to get out and take more pictures and stop fussing about gear!
Thanks for printing btw. Most channels wouldn't dare print anything. I also actually have used MPB in the past several times. I've had only good experiences from them so far.
i gave you a sub. because of this. you said: "let's look at the prints because that is most impotant". good man. that is something you do not hear often anymore.
And this is the best thing which came in last years - big 4K screens which allow to view photograph in high quality without a need to print them. Sure I print A4 to put on the wall (cheap Canon inkjet gives me quality for which I had to pay heavy $$$ years ago), but most of the photos I view on screen - often zooming-in to 100% - so resolution matters. Why spend so much time and effort to make a nice photo, and later decrease quality by printing it or upload to instagram...
Excellent comparison and really helps put into perspective how much camera do "I" really need. These days, I rarely print huge prints. I have FF and APS-C and as mentioned here in the comment section, the difference in size and weight of the set-ups is quite a bit. There have been a few trips where I took a FF set-up and GRIII and wound shooting the GRIII far more and images from it never left me feeling "I wish I had shot this with a FF camera". I think the sweet spot for performance cost per dollar spent is in APS-C.
To me, i like more the way your medium format manage with the light, it looks so natural, even if the difference is not so big, compare to the full frame. And the results with the phone is good when we see the size of its sensor.
Interesting comparison, thanks. For me, the medium format colors and dynamic range make all the difference. I wonder if you shot city buildings and such, if it would be easier to tell the differences. You had a relatively flat scene with low contrast light in this video and were shooting organic subjects. Might have made things a bit closer. Medium format is usually sharpened less, because you just don't need it. And because of that, the images just have an ease to them, like they're not trying hard. The smaller formats have to sharpen, to make up for their limitations, and the images don't look as at ease, so to speak, IMO. I'm an owner and user of all the formats used here too. Pixel peeing on a GFX camera is something to behold. There's much information there.
With all the new software, my small lumix gx85 with 15 mm 1,7 has become my more used camera. ( and I have full frame and Apsc).it’s so fun!
I think your conclusion is about right. I have the luxury of having both an Fuji XT5 and an GFX 100S, and without pixel peeping, A2 I struggle to see the difference with A2 sized prints. That said, I always reach for my GFX for 3 reasons: 1) The dynamic range of the camera is amazing, highlight and shadow recovery is a dream. 2) I can crop heavily. Sometimes, you get the composition wrong in the field, and you can redeem the image with a heavy crop. A 100% crop on the GFX still produces a printable 25/26 mb image. 3) I do occasionally print very big and the extra resolution comes in handy.
I love my Zfc. It really made me fall in love with photography again.
Just wanted to pop in and echo what so many other people have said: Great job and thank you for this.
The difference is in the colors and shadows. Great video mate
Well done.
I am coming at this from wildlife and other nature photography. I don’t print super-large prints, but I do frequently crop quite a bit. Sometimes this is just because my telephoto lens was not as long as it would be in a perfect world or sometimes in the best shot of a sequence the animal is on one side of the frame and looking out in that direction. Cropping allows me to balance the shot better and tweak the composition. Even printing a cropped photo at a modest size will show unsharpness as much as a much larger print of an uncropped photo, so I love my 45 megapixel sensor.
While I have not shot MF, I own a R6 and X-H2 previously owned a D810. I left the D810 to the R6 as I moved to portraits 95% of my shooting so R6 was perfect for it. In comparing the files after a year I did miss the resolution of the D810 but I didn’t need a R5 at $4k! I got hooked into the Fuji system a year ago, I am on my 3rd Fuji (yes I need help) but for ME, the X-h2 has been the near perfect street/landscape camera as I get the D810 pop again, the lenses are cheaper and MUCH lighter. I am enjoying shooting landscape again! Now would I LOVE a GFX100ii? YES, Yes I would!!😊