I really don't understand the bokeh maddness going on here on UA-cam. Everybody is chasing "cinematic" look, but actually at Hollywood they mostly use super35 sensors(like aps-c) and they use F2.8(T2.8).. No real cinematic scene has that crazy F1.4 bokeh! In some shots your ears are out of focus :)) F1.4 on a crop is almost same as 2.2 on a full frame. But it is still too much if anyone is looking for a REAL cinematic picture. Lol.. So funny these youtube bokeh addictions :)
Same thing goes on with the sharpness madness too. Everybody is chasing for the sharper lens and than they say they want cinematic look and they put on mist filters. It's really crazy how the well known video/camera influencers on UA-cam are directing people to wrong directions. For video sharpness of a lens is NOT important. Color rendering and contrast is much much more important. Thats why in most cases they still use vintage lenses for videography.
I can only speak for myself but, it's not just the bokeh I'm hooked on... it's the light... the color... nobody else can see it but just knowing there's as much light as possible available for my shot, for me to play around with in post, I just want to suck it all up! It's stupid and nobody else cares except me but it sparks joy. With that being said it absolutely has zero bearing on the success of a channel and that's what people need to be reminded of... and what hopefully comes across in my video(s). What camera/lens combo do you shoot with?
@@thesahdstudio Well if you are more into color you should also consider that wide open lenses are most likely lose a lot of color and saturation due to lens flair. Too much light washes out the colors. I have Canon R8 and R10. Mostly use R10(apsc one) for photography with a sigma 18-35(crazy sharp) and R8 for videography. I shoot mainly on 35mm canon rf lens but i don't go as low as f1.8 in most cases f2.8 is more than enough for my talking head videos. I mostly shoot wristwatch review videos so I use 100mm macro lens at f 8 :)) And I love your channel's energy. Great field comparison videos.
I do love it too! It costs a lot but when working on the footage it's just so nice, there's so much there. Is it necessary to grow my UA-cam channel? Maybe not. But does it spark joy! Oh yeah 🤣👊
Yeah it's a great little setup for sure. Way more affordable too! I just found a good deal on a Sony ZVE- 10 to pick that up tomorrow and it'll be fun to test that out versus it's big brother with the full frame.
Correct! The aps-c cameras usually have a 1.5x crop. The benefit of the aps-c is that it's smaller, lighter, and usually cheaper. In scenarios with lots of light you will hardly be able to tell a difference in quality vs full frame. But in low light it becomes more apparent. You shopping?
I've come to realize that in every creative field there are gear fanatics who love collecting and comparing stuff... but nobody cares except them. Guitars are exactly the same. Guitar players are known to collect guitars and professional musicians will assign certain instruments for certain songs based on the tone, but the average listener can't tell the difference and doesn't care. No one has ever listened to a record and thought "This would have sounded so much better on a $4000 Tele than a $1200 Strat." You can't even tell what is being played from just listening. Camera gear is the same. In a side by side like you've provided, someone could theoretically pick apart microscopic differences in colour and clarity and decide they like one option better than the other, but without the side by side, no one could tell. The average person viewing your videos can't tell either, nor do they care. For the difference in price, the APS-C is a no brainer to me (and what I use). And unless it's for the HIGHEST level professional work, or simply because you find personal joy in collecting and have the budget to do so, there is no reason to go for the more expensive option IMO. Hell, even a newer iPhone could produce comparable quality footage at this point. It's kind of moot beyond just having your own fun.
Great examples! Oh for sure... and that's the point of these videos. To remind Amateurs who are trying to get into UA-cam or want to upgrade gear hard (like I did) that it's really not detrimental to your success. I mean good lighting and composition are important, and you kind of learn those things as you upgrade your gear, but you can learn those things on their own and one should if they want to improve their storytelling/videography. For me, I love pushing each camera to see what it's capable of then levelling up to the next tier. Plus I LOVE talking about gear and I've met some great people and learned a lot from the comments. It's just something to do while we're spinning around on this rock you know? I made this channel just to chat about this stuff since my wife HATES it and we've moved around so much this last few years I don't have local friends to talk about it with 🤣
This video is insane, Thank You so much for it, i currently got a sony a6000, at first i bought a sigma 16mm for streaming, then i got hooked into videography and i sold this lens (400$) because i thought it was too overkill for me since i was a noob and with that money bought 4 manual lenses and i still had change, a Helios 58mm f2(40$), a Yashica 50mm f2(40$), a TTartisan 23mm(100$) f1.4 and a kamlan 28mm(130$) and i been loving all these lens so far, but sometimes i miss the sigma because of the autofocus, smoothness and that special character it has, but the kamlan and ttartisan are fun to use too, my next goal is to get a tamron 17-70 f2.8.
Sounds like a fun lineup! I have zero experience with manual lenses as I just want that nice auto focus but I bet it's enjoyable to use and cool in its own way. That Sigma definitely punches above its weight as far as the value lens goes. Like you said it's not cheap but it's also comparable to lenses more than double its price
Great video, Amazing comparison not everyone needs the latest and greatest technology to get good grade video 💯 for social media almost any camera will get you started even a smartphone camera As you said people can live with acceptable video but don't mess around with audio keep up the good work you earned my subscription.
Thanks for the comment! Glad you found the video and welcome to the channel! I love making vids like this... I just wish I knew the information myself before I spent all that money 🤣 I mean hey, it's always nice having the good gear, but unless you are putting it side by side with something else, most people will never know how good it "could" be. What camera/lens do you have (if any)?
@@thesahdstudio I'm new to the hobby I have sony zve10 with 56 f1.4 super sharp and great lens but with the apsc crop factor I'm essentially shooting 85mm so I'm considering getting the samyang 24 f1.8 to start my youtube.. it will be 35mm i know it's a bit tight but will give me much versatility Then my setup will cover a wide spectrum: portraits-street-video etc…
@@thesahdstudio Do you think If I save a bit more cash and get the 24mm new cine lens from Samyang, it will get me a long way, even if I upgrade to full frame?
Honestly I'd suggest just getting the sigma 16 mm for UA-cam. That lens is great and cheap. Doesn't really have any stabilization but the pictures sharp and it lets in a lot of light. I don't have a ton of experience beyond that though for aps-c. If you know you're going to eventually bump up to full frame though maybe just save up until you're able to do that properly. Get that Sigma or whatever lens used and then you'll be able to flip it for the same price when you eventually want to.
i would have like more full body shots . the main difference that i would like to see is the background sepration with full frame, not bokeh making everything blurry but when you have full body you can see the separation and still have an idea of the background, while on the aps c it just looks flat
To be honest, I really don't know Canon cameras/lenses to be able to give a good answer. I wish I could but I'd be just going based on research and not experience. I hope you find something that works for you though!
I'm not quite sure! I don't have that lens or camera anymore unfortunately otherwise I'd try for you. I'm sure it would have black bars unless you put it in a PSC mode in which case it would be even more punched in at 4K 60.
Thanks! This is what people need to see. I would, however, like to see a lowlight test like if you were to shoot a night vlog in the city or at a campfire or maybe even candle lit dinner. I"m doing a comparison of my new Google Pixel 8 Pro and I thought my ZV-E10 and 11mm F/1.8 would blow it away in all aspects but now that the Pixel 8 pro has widened the aperture on all their lenses (main is 1.68) it's closer than I thought.
Thanks for watching! And yeah those are great ideas. I too am very curious about what these latest phone cameras are really capable of, especially how they would compare against this value setup (cheap aps-c + Sigma 16mm). I have a feeling they would do pretty good but who knows? Maybe they would crumble in the real low light situations. Hopefully if/when you get that video up we can find out!
Honestly, if you can find that Sigma 16mm lens for Canon ef-m it's hard to beat value-wise. It is wide, sharp, brings in a lot of light, and if you go for close-ups will make your subject POP from the background. Beyond that to be honest I don't know a lot about the Canon ef-m lineup. They have since killed it too :(
That's definitely a sick well-rounded value package capable of great photos and video. It might not be as good for someone like me (since I'm only video focused) but I think for MOST people that combo would be hard to beat! You gonna get it?! 😃🤣
ive had the 6700 for almost 6 months now and can attest to the fact that its the BEST hybrid cam you can buy. The oveheating on video situation is massively overblown and exaggerated. Especially with the Ulanzi fan, which ive NEVER had to use despite shooting in hot basketball gyms. Go for it!!!
As far as the field of view goes, it does. Like some people have said, to get the same bokeh you'd have to stop the full-frame down to about f2.1, but I mean that's why you go full frame, for that extra bit of special it puts on there. Are you looking at getting a camera or upgrading?
@@thesahdstudio I have a sony apsc camera. And use the kit lens on it because that is the widest lens I have. And also have been wondering if the 24mm on full frame looks the same as 16mm on apsc because I have been meaning to upgrade to a full frame. Because if it gives the same field of view I don't have to invest in a wider lens in the very beginning.
Love the video! I'm interested on vlogging and i heard that at the same distance, the 24mm on full frame makes your face look a little more natural than using a 16 mm lens on aps c (that it makes ur face looks with some distortion) but watching you i can't see a difference. Do you agree? This video was gold btw 💪
Thanks for the comment! Honestly, with video editing in DaVinci Resolve, there's a lens correction slider you can use. It takes 2 seconds and fixes any type of barrel distortion there is... so I wouldn't let that be a deciding factor. Even without that editing tool and just using that lens straight Out of Camera it's totally fine. Not a huge deal. You will probably be the only one to notice, not your audience. So to answer your question... yes the 24mm will look a little more natural but it's not enough to justify its cost if you don't need the bigger full-frame setup. Hope that helps. You camera/lens shopping?
The full frame at f/1.4 with you so close to the lens means that not even your ears are in focus. How much is too much? 🙃 Also, like others have said, even thought the field of view matches, the depth of field isn't the same on the crop sensor--it's giving you more like an f/2 equivalent in terms of depth of field--which, IMO, looks perfectly fine
Yeah I think the smaller setup is great for a lot of people. But there are certain looks and styles you can achieve with the full-frame setup that, I just love... it would be a lot hard to do with the crop sensor. I did my best to remind people though that the difference you do get from the MUCH more expensive setup isn't really that big of a deal, and ultimately the story telling trumps minute quality detail. I guess the FF just makes it easier to get nice looking footage. You can get it from smaller sensors but you have to kind of know what you're doing when you're in low light or working with lights etc.
Even if both lenses say f/1.4 the sigma lens is actually an f/2.1 full frame equivalent, so the bokeh won’t be the same. If you put the Sony lens at f/2.1 (or as close as you can) and keep the Sigma at f/1.4 you would see that the bokeh are pretty much the same. That said I think the M100 together with the Sigma did a great job if you consider the age and price of that setup. It definitely adds some sharpening to the footage, but I believe you can turn that down in the settings, same with the saturation, it was a tad red-ish compared to the Sony. And just a correction to what you said in the video: the Canon R8 is a full frame camera, I believe you were thinking about the R7. But as a beginner camera from Canon I think the R50 or R10 would be a better fit 😊
On smaller sensors the focal distance is the same right, but what you are trying to say is that to replicate the same bokeh on a smaller sensor you'd have to stop down on the full-frame because of the amount of light cast on the entire full frame sensor is more than the crop sensor. What if I put the 24mm f1.4 in crop mode ...would that match the amount of light (ish)? Hehe I probably shouldn't think too hard about this so late in the day. I DID read about what you were saying though with the amount of light on sensor with the FF, how you'd have to bring it to f2.1 for a similar effect. But I wonder if putting it in crop mode negates that? And yes good call on me saying the wrong Canon camera... your suggestions sound great! I don't know the Canon mirrorless aps-c lineup very well.
If you put the 24 in crop mode you would have to move the camera further back to get the same field of view as the 16, and yes, then the background blur would be the same.
@@RogerAVHansen Ya right? Ok cool. Got it. I guess there is just no substitute for full-frame when it comes to a creamy background if that is one what is after.
@@thesahdstudio Yes but how much creamy background is good?? Especially if everybody is "really" looking for a cinematic look. Because cinematographers mostly shoot at super35 sensors(almost aps-c) and they mostly shoot at F2.8. Nobody really wants to blur the background that much in "real" cinematic shots. Only UA-camrs want it :) F1.4 on a full frame is surely NOT cinematic at all.
Yeah I think the Canon m100 adds some massive sharpening in there. There's one auto focus test I do later in the video where you really notice it on everything. I'd def soften it up at times if I used it as my main.
As a Sigma user since 2005, I find the newer Sigma extremely sharp. Example, the Sigma 85mm DG DN f1.4 ART is the sharpest lens I have ever used. Blows the Canon f1.4L and Sony GM away. So it could be the lens. Maybe do a review on this Sigma lenses while you still have it. Its how I found you when you reviewed the FE 28mm f2.
@@classic.cameras I wish I still had my Sigma with the Sony mount so I could use the same lens on different cameras. I feel like to give this Sigma lens a fair chance I would need to use it on a slightly newer body. At least one with 4k as I find the resolution a limiting factor. I like the Sigma's that I've tried however as a video shooter they are usually heavier and have odd thread sizes (the ones I've seen anyway)... not that I'm using filters at the moment but I'd like to get some lol!
Just remember this Sigma 16mm isn't one of the best its essentially their budget lens and OH BOY would I buy for E mount if I had a A6700. @@thesahdstudio
If you missed me compare the Canon M100 vs the Sony ZV-E1 you can watch it here: ua-cam.com/video/K2K_rjIZqfk/v-deo.html
I really don't understand the bokeh maddness going on here on UA-cam. Everybody is chasing "cinematic" look, but actually at Hollywood they mostly use super35 sensors(like aps-c) and they use F2.8(T2.8).. No real cinematic scene has that crazy F1.4 bokeh! In some shots your ears are out of focus :)) F1.4 on a crop is almost same as 2.2 on a full frame. But it is still too much if anyone is looking for a REAL cinematic picture. Lol.. So funny these youtube bokeh addictions :)
Same thing goes on with the sharpness madness too. Everybody is chasing for the sharper lens and than they say they want cinematic look and they put on mist filters. It's really crazy how the well known video/camera influencers on UA-cam are directing people to wrong directions. For video sharpness of a lens is NOT important. Color rendering and contrast is much much more important. Thats why in most cases they still use vintage lenses for videography.
I can only speak for myself but, it's not just the bokeh I'm hooked on... it's the light... the color... nobody else can see it but just knowing there's as much light as possible available for my shot, for me to play around with in post, I just want to suck it all up! It's stupid and nobody else cares except me but it sparks joy. With that being said it absolutely has zero bearing on the success of a channel and that's what people need to be reminded of... and what hopefully comes across in my video(s).
What camera/lens combo do you shoot with?
@@thesahdstudio Well if you are more into color you should also consider that wide open lenses are most likely lose a lot of color and saturation due to lens flair. Too much light washes out the colors. I have Canon R8 and R10. Mostly use R10(apsc one) for photography with a sigma 18-35(crazy sharp) and R8 for videography. I shoot mainly on 35mm canon rf lens but i don't go as low as f1.8 in most cases f2.8 is more than enough for my talking head videos. I mostly shoot wristwatch review videos so I use 100mm macro lens at f 8 :))
And I love your channel's energy. Great field comparison videos.
@@erkkocakI think he meant by light is for lowlight shot
The zev1 produces amazing footage! Thanks for the comparison video
I do love it too! It costs a lot but when working on the footage it's just so nice, there's so much there. Is it necessary to grow my UA-cam channel? Maybe not. But does it spark joy! Oh yeah 🤣👊
I'd go for the Canon with that lens all the way. I mean as a normal average person who knows little about cameras and such, that looks best for me.
Yeah it's a great little setup for sure. Way more affordable too! I just found a good deal on a Sony ZVE- 10 to pick that up tomorrow and it'll be fun to test that out versus it's big brother with the full frame.
So if I understand correctly the Sigma 16mm on a APSC will look like a 24mm on a full frame? Just in terms of field of view, disregarding quality.
Correct! The aps-c cameras usually have a 1.5x crop. The benefit of the aps-c is that it's smaller, lighter, and usually cheaper. In scenarios with lots of light you will hardly be able to tell a difference in quality vs full frame. But in low light it becomes more apparent. You shopping?
I've come to realize that in every creative field there are gear fanatics who love collecting and comparing stuff... but nobody cares except them. Guitars are exactly the same. Guitar players are known to collect guitars and professional musicians will assign certain instruments for certain songs based on the tone, but the average listener can't tell the difference and doesn't care. No one has ever listened to a record and thought "This would have sounded so much better on a $4000 Tele than a $1200 Strat." You can't even tell what is being played from just listening.
Camera gear is the same. In a side by side like you've provided, someone could theoretically pick apart microscopic differences in colour and clarity and decide they like one option better than the other, but without the side by side, no one could tell. The average person viewing your videos can't tell either, nor do they care.
For the difference in price, the APS-C is a no brainer to me (and what I use). And unless it's for the HIGHEST level professional work, or simply because you find personal joy in collecting and have the budget to do so, there is no reason to go for the more expensive option IMO. Hell, even a newer iPhone could produce comparable quality footage at this point. It's kind of moot beyond just having your own fun.
Great examples! Oh for sure... and that's the point of these videos. To remind Amateurs who are trying to get into UA-cam or want to upgrade gear hard (like I did) that it's really not detrimental to your success. I mean good lighting and composition are important, and you kind of learn those things as you upgrade your gear, but you can learn those things on their own and one should if they want to improve their storytelling/videography.
For me, I love pushing each camera to see what it's capable of then levelling up to the next tier. Plus I LOVE talking about gear and I've met some great people and learned a lot from the comments. It's just something to do while we're spinning around on this rock you know? I made this channel just to chat about this stuff since my wife HATES it and we've moved around so much this last few years I don't have local friends to talk about it with 🤣
@@thesahdstudio I'm right there with ya!
This video is insane, Thank You so much for it, i currently got a sony a6000, at first i bought a sigma 16mm for streaming, then i got hooked into videography and i sold this lens (400$) because i thought it was too overkill for me since i was a noob and with that money bought 4 manual lenses and i still had change, a Helios 58mm f2(40$), a Yashica 50mm f2(40$), a TTartisan 23mm(100$) f1.4 and a kamlan 28mm(130$) and i been loving all these lens so far, but sometimes i miss the sigma because of the autofocus, smoothness and that special character it has, but the kamlan and ttartisan are fun to use too, my next goal is to get a tamron 17-70 f2.8.
Sounds like a fun lineup! I have zero experience with manual lenses as I just want that nice auto focus but I bet it's enjoyable to use and cool in its own way. That Sigma definitely punches above its weight as far as the value lens goes. Like you said it's not cheap but it's also comparable to lenses more than double its price
Great video, Amazing comparison not everyone needs the latest and greatest technology to get good grade video 💯
for social media almost any camera will get you started even a smartphone camera
As you said people can live with acceptable video but don't mess around with audio
keep up the good work you earned my subscription.
Thanks for the comment! Glad you found the video and welcome to the channel!
I love making vids like this... I just wish I knew the information myself before I spent all that money 🤣 I mean hey, it's always nice having the good gear, but unless you are putting it side by side with something else, most people will never know how good it "could" be.
What camera/lens do you have (if any)?
@@thesahdstudio
I'm new to the hobby
I have sony zve10 with 56 f1.4 super sharp and great lens
but with the apsc crop factor I'm essentially shooting 85mm
so I'm considering getting the samyang 24 f1.8 to start my youtube..
it will be 35mm i know it's a bit tight but will give me much versatility
Then my setup will cover a wide spectrum: portraits-street-video etc…
@@thesahdstudio
Do you think If I save a bit more cash and get the 24mm new cine lens from Samyang, it will get me a long way, even if I upgrade to full frame?
Honestly I'd suggest just getting the sigma 16 mm for UA-cam. That lens is great and cheap. Doesn't really have any stabilization but the pictures sharp and it lets in a lot of light. I don't have a ton of experience beyond that though for aps-c. If you know you're going to eventually bump up to full frame though maybe just save up until you're able to do that properly. Get that Sigma or whatever lens used and then you'll be able to flip it for the same price when you eventually want to.
i would have like more full body shots .
the main difference that i would like to see is the background sepration with full frame, not bokeh making everything blurry but when you have full body you can see the separation and still have an idea of the background, while on the aps c it just looks flat
Yeah I hear you. It's tough to remember or think of all the shots/points to include in a video sometimes.
Thanks for this helpful comparison! On the M100, what lens would you upgrade to over the kit lens if you wanted to keep a similar focal range?
To be honest, I really don't know Canon cameras/lenses to be able to give a good answer. I wish I could but I'd be just going based on research and not experience. I hope you find something that works for you though!
what if we use sigma 16mm 1.4 in a7iv 4k60p crop ? no video onthis topic on youtube
I'm not quite sure! I don't have that lens or camera anymore unfortunately otherwise I'd try for you. I'm sure it would have black bars unless you put it in a PSC mode in which case it would be even more punched in at 4K 60.
Thanks! This is what people need to see. I would, however, like to see a lowlight test like if you were to shoot a night vlog in the city or at a campfire or maybe even candle lit dinner. I"m doing a comparison of my new Google Pixel 8 Pro and I thought my ZV-E10 and 11mm F/1.8 would blow it away in all aspects but now that the Pixel 8 pro has widened the aperture on all their lenses (main is 1.68) it's closer than I thought.
Thanks for watching! And yeah those are great ideas. I too am very curious about what these latest phone cameras are really capable of, especially how they would compare against this value setup (cheap aps-c + Sigma 16mm). I have a feeling they would do pretty good but who knows? Maybe they would crumble in the real low light situations. Hopefully if/when you get that video up we can find out!
Pixel is closer due to its awesome processing.
@@zakiradi450maybe also the DJI Pocket 3 as well.
What a conveniente video. I just bought the zve1 with the sony lens. It looks amazing in your video. Cant wait to get it.
Haha that's awesome! You got the 24mm When will it arrive?!
i have the canon m100 with the kit lenses! what lense do you think would be best to invest in for gym/fitness content?
Honestly, if you can find that Sigma 16mm lens for Canon ef-m it's hard to beat value-wise. It is wide, sharp, brings in a lot of light, and if you go for close-ups will make your subject POP from the background.
Beyond that to be honest I don't know a lot about the Canon ef-m lineup. They have since killed it too :(
@@thesahdstudiothank you so much for responding! i will def invest in it!
I feel A6700 with 15 1.4 is a dream combo now 😅
That's definitely a sick well-rounded value package capable of great photos and video. It might not be as good for someone like me (since I'm only video focused) but I think for MOST people that combo would be hard to beat! You gonna get it?! 😃🤣
ive had the 6700 for almost 6 months now and can attest to the fact that its the BEST hybrid cam you can buy. The oveheating on video situation is massively overblown and exaggerated. Especially with the Ulanzi fan, which ive NEVER had to use despite shooting in hot basketball gyms. Go for it!!!
gotta say this zv-e1 setup is gorgeous
Thank you for saying. Really appreciate it 👊
So does apsc 16mm give the same look to a video a full frame 24mm?
As far as the field of view goes, it does. Like some people have said, to get the same bokeh you'd have to stop the full-frame down to about f2.1, but I mean that's why you go full frame, for that extra bit of special it puts on there.
Are you looking at getting a camera or upgrading?
@@thesahdstudio I have a sony apsc camera. And use the kit lens on it because that is the widest lens I have. And also have been wondering if the 24mm on full frame looks the same as 16mm on apsc because I have been meaning to upgrade to a full frame. Because if it gives the same field of view I don't have to invest in a wider lens in the very beginning.
Love the video! I'm interested on vlogging and i heard that at the same distance, the 24mm on full frame makes your face look a little more natural than using a 16 mm lens on aps c (that it makes ur face looks with some distortion) but watching you i can't see a difference. Do you agree? This video was gold btw 💪
Thanks for the comment! Honestly, with video editing in DaVinci Resolve, there's a lens correction slider you can use. It takes 2 seconds and fixes any type of barrel distortion there is... so I wouldn't let that be a deciding factor. Even without that editing tool and just using that lens straight Out of Camera it's totally fine. Not a huge deal. You will probably be the only one to notice, not your audience.
So to answer your question... yes the 24mm will look a little more natural but it's not enough to justify its cost if you don't need the bigger full-frame setup. Hope that helps. You camera/lens shopping?
The full frame at f/1.4 with you so close to the lens means that not even your ears are in focus. How much is too much? 🙃 Also, like others have said, even thought the field of view matches, the depth of field isn't the same on the crop sensor--it's giving you more like an f/2 equivalent in terms of depth of field--which, IMO, looks perfectly fine
Yeah I think the smaller setup is great for a lot of people. But there are certain looks and styles you can achieve with the full-frame setup that, I just love... it would be a lot hard to do with the crop sensor.
I did my best to remind people though that the difference you do get from the MUCH more expensive setup isn't really that big of a deal, and ultimately the story telling trumps minute quality detail.
I guess the FF just makes it easier to get nice looking footage. You can get it from smaller sensors but you have to kind of know what you're doing when you're in low light or working with lights etc.
I use sony, but canon looks amazing.
For the price it doesn't look too shabby right?! I'd love to try some newer Canon stuff vs the Sony. Maybe one day soon!
Even if both lenses say f/1.4 the sigma lens is actually an f/2.1 full frame equivalent, so the bokeh won’t be the same. If you put the Sony lens at f/2.1 (or as close as you can) and keep the Sigma at f/1.4 you would see that the bokeh are pretty much the same. That said I think the M100 together with the Sigma did a great job if you consider the age and price of that setup. It definitely adds some sharpening to the footage, but I believe you can turn that down in the settings, same with the saturation, it was a tad red-ish compared to the Sony.
And just a correction to what you said in the video: the Canon R8 is a full frame camera, I believe you were thinking about the R7. But as a beginner camera from Canon I think the R50 or R10 would be a better fit 😊
On smaller sensors the focal distance is the same right, but what you are trying to say is that to replicate the same bokeh on a smaller sensor you'd have to stop down on the full-frame because of the amount of light cast on the entire full frame sensor is more than the crop sensor. What if I put the 24mm f1.4 in crop mode ...would that match the amount of light (ish)? Hehe I probably shouldn't think too hard about this so late in the day. I DID read about what you were saying though with the amount of light on sensor with the FF, how you'd have to bring it to f2.1 for a similar effect. But I wonder if putting it in crop mode negates that?
And yes good call on me saying the wrong Canon camera... your suggestions sound great! I don't know the Canon mirrorless aps-c lineup very well.
If you put the 24 in crop mode you would have to move the camera further back to get the same field of view as the 16, and yes, then the background blur would be the same.
@@RogerAVHansen Ya right? Ok cool. Got it.
I guess there is just no substitute for full-frame when it comes to a creamy background if that is one what is after.
@@thesahdstudio Yes but how much creamy background is good?? Especially if everybody is "really" looking for a cinematic look. Because cinematographers mostly shoot at super35 sensors(almost aps-c) and they mostly shoot at F2.8. Nobody really wants to blur the background that much in "real" cinematic shots. Only UA-camrs want it :) F1.4 on a full frame is surely NOT cinematic at all.
The Sigma looks sharper.
Yeah I think the Canon m100 adds some massive sharpening in there. There's one auto focus test I do later in the video where you really notice it on everything. I'd def soften it up at times if I used it as my main.
As a Sigma user since 2005, I find the newer Sigma extremely sharp. Example, the Sigma 85mm DG DN f1.4 ART is the sharpest lens I have ever used. Blows the Canon f1.4L and Sony GM away. So it could be the lens. Maybe do a review on this Sigma lenses while you still have it. Its how I found you when you reviewed the FE 28mm f2.
@@classic.cameras I wish I still had my Sigma with the Sony mount so I could use the same lens on different cameras. I feel like to give this Sigma lens a fair chance I would need to use it on a slightly newer body. At least one with 4k as I find the resolution a limiting factor. I like the Sigma's that I've tried however as a video shooter they are usually heavier and have odd thread sizes (the ones I've seen anyway)... not that I'm using filters at the moment but I'd like to get some lol!
Just remember this Sigma 16mm isn't one of the best its essentially their budget lens and OH BOY would I buy for E mount if I had a A6700. @@thesahdstudio