Full Frame vs APS-C for Portraits

In this video I see just how much better portraits from a full frame camera (Sony A9) are when you compare them to an APS-C mirrorless camera (Sony A6100). The results were surprising.
Where to buy a Sony A6100: geni.us/MyFavo...
Sigma 56mm for APSC: geni.us/Portrait
Where to buy a Sony A9: amzn.to/3dAlQUr
or on B&H: bhpho.to/2Vn86GF
Sony 85mm for full frame: geni.us/SHARP85
Camera I used to record this video: geni.us/BestAPSC
Lens I used for this video: geni.us/Street
-------------------
Gear That I Use & Recommend:
CAMERAS:
For Photo & Video
▸ Sony A6100 (My Favorite) - geni.us/MyFavo...
▸ Sony A6400 (Better) - geni.us/Better...
▸ Sony A6600 (Best) - geni.us/BestAPSC
▸ Sony A7C (Full Frame) - geni.us/FullFr...
For Video
▸ Sony ZV-E10 (Good) - geni.us/ZVE-10
▸ Sony FX30 (My Favorite) - geni.us/BeastASPC
APS-C LENSES:
▸ Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 (My Favorite) - geni.us/BestZoom
▸ Sony 11mm F1.8 (Best Ultrawide) - geni.us/BestUl...
▸ Sigma 16mm F1.4 (Best Wide Angle) - geni.us/Popular
▸ Sigma 30mm F1.4 (Affordable Street Lens) - geni.us/Street
▸ Sigma 56mm F1.4 (Best Portrait Lens) - geni.us/Portrait
FULL FRAME LENSES:
▸ Sigma 20mm F2 (My Favorite) - geni.us/FFSigm...
▸ Rokinon AF 14mm F2.8 (Best Ultrawide) - geni.us/Rokinon
▸ Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 G2 (Best Do-Everything Lens) - geni.us/TamronV2
▸ Sigma 85mm F1.4 ART (AMAZING Portrait Lens) - geni.us/SHARP85
▸ Sony 50mm Macro (The Only Macro I Own) - geni.us/SonyMacro
AUDIO:
▸ Zoom F3 (Love this Recorder) - geni.us/zoomf
▸ Audio-Technica AT875R Mic (What I Use) - geni.us/at875rmic
▸ DJI Mic (Best On-The-Go) - geni.us/djimice
▸ Acoustimac Sound Panels (Must-have) - geni.us/soundp...
LIGHTING:
▸ SmallRig RC220D (Great Value) - geni.us/rc220d...
▸ SmallRig RC220B (My Key Light) - geni.us/rc220
▸ Sofirn SP33 V3 (Best Mini Flashlight) - geni.us/bestfl...
NICE-TO-HAVE ACCESSORIES:
▸ Feiyu Scorp Pro (Big Gimbal) - geni.us/scorppro
▸ Zyihun Crane M2S (Travel Gimbal) - geni.us/cranem2s
▸ Atomos Ninja V (Recording Monitor) - geni.us/ninja5
▸ SanDisk SD Cards - geni.us/sandisksd
▸ Sony ECM-B10 (Camera Mic) - geni.us/ecmb10mic
Complete Gear List:
▸ kit.co/ArthurR
-------------------
Disclosure:
Most of the links above are affiliate links, which means at no extra cost to you, I will make a small commission if you click them and make a qualifying purchase. If you want to buy something else, you can also use this link to Amazon:
🛒 Amazon - geni.us/shopar...
-------------------
Supporting The Channel:
▸ If you wish to support the channel with a donation, you can donate via PayPal here: paypal.me/arth...
▸ Buy me a coffee here: www.buymeacoff...
▸ Follow me on Instagram: / arthur213
-------------------
Professional & Sponsorship Inquiries:
For professional and sponsorship inquiries, please email me at [e-mail]

[@MegaPj18]

As a shooter of both FF and APS-C, i think the difference is drastically less than people make it out to be.

[@ItsOrestis]

a FF file is way more flexible, especially in low light. FF has a lot more DR to play with.

[@Kodagraphy]

@@ItsOrestis Unless you can easily financially justify the diminishing returns of a full-frame, I dunno why any hobbyist or amateur would need to worry about getting one though. It's a lot of money to pay for a little less grain and a little more dynamic range that could be dealt with using post processing, especially with companies like Topaz Labs putting out incredible denoisers for less than $100.

[@ItsOrestis]

@@Kodagraphy i agree that if you are a hobbyist or amateur, aps-c is good enough. Its not always about the noise. With an aps-c camera after 3200 iso the raw file becomes very weak in terms of the flexibility, especially in color. Basically the image starts to "break" if you push it. I have a a6300 myself but i've tried a a73 many times and in my perspective the difference is there, the main one being color munipulation and the flexibility of the file in high ISO.

[@QuietOC]

The only advantage full-frame might have in low light is larger available lenses.

[@vtkz]

@@Kodagraphy Ive changed from the a6400 to the A7III and its def a difference. Spec the Bokeh, the Lowlight Performance is better, IBIS, the dynamic range.... But at the end its ,,only,, Gear and for the most of the people the difference is wayyy to small to spend way more money on the gear. Do you need it to take good images ? Def no, but i also realy dont ,,need,, my 3500euro stereo system to listen to music. The more the gear costs, the less is the difference (mostly). It is in Hifi, in Camera Gear... I think everyone just should try it out and make their own experiences with their photography style...

[@DavePruett]

Great comparison. A serious photographer with side-by-side images will see differences, but the average person, used to smartphone images, will be quite impressed with the images from either system, especially in reasonably good light. Great to see your son growing happy and healthy!

[@hankypanky4u]

As an APSC user who has done concerts for years and also a Sony sales rep who shoots Nikon and Fuji I am always out here telling people they’re thinking of this wrong and that FF isn’t the ultimate best for everyone. It surprisingly shocks people to see a crop sensor being used for client work and I’m just like “You clearly haven’t using your camera right” lol

[@nevvanclarke9225]

I agree, and they're actually agree 100%.... I have a Fuji XT5 and a Nikon D850 they are similar in terms of megapixels, low light performance. They probably on a par and that is because the D850 sensor now is six years old, but it's still very good. The new sensors in the new crop centre cameras are absolutely mind blowing Lee good for low light performance and It depends on what Lindsey use and how you focus and also making sure that you focus exposure right

[@JustSendItAlready]

@@nevvanclarke9225 like, if it's so dark you're at 12800 ISO or higher, isn't it time for bed anyway? xD

[@omnirhythm]

It's not the extreme ISO where the FF systems shine, especially Sony mirrorless, it's the dual native ISO. There's tons more wiggle room in regards to the need for artificial lighting compared to the aps-c. But yeah this is all very contextual and one can get away with a lot when using an aps-c. @@JustSendItAlready

[@deustechmachina6061]

The biggest thing people miss when performing "equivalence" tests is how ISO factors into the picture. You inadvertently did it in the video. When comparing the Sony full frame and APS-C sensors, you must apply a crop factor of 1.53, but not only to focal length. For true equivalence, you must apply that same crop factor to aperture and ISO. In fact, when you apply it to ISO, you must actually square the crop factor. In other words, to truly have shot an equivalent pair of photos at 8:50, your full frame settings would have had to be: f/2.8, ISO 16000 (yes, I had to round up because there are no settings for f/2.754 and ISO 14981.76 lol). Had you set it that way, you would have seen the same level of noise in both photos. Not surprisingly, if you were to reverse the calculation, you'd find the APS-C camera and lens unable to meet the values needed: f/1.1, ISO 2500. That is one of the primary differences between the different camera systems. A full frame sensor gets you about 2 stops of light over a micro four thirds, and about 1.3 stops of light over an APS-C. Whether or not you actually need that advantage is completely up to you and your use case.

[@ArthurR]

I just learned something - great comment, thank you!

[@deustechmachina6061]

@@ArthurR glad I could provide some food for thought. Here's another little tidbit: equivalence for aperture is only for depth of field. f/1.8 lets in the same amount of light regardless of sensor size. Why? Because the value of aperture is a ratio of focal length to diameter of the lens opening. Looking at the two lenses used in the same example I described in my first comment, the full frame lens is 85mm with an aperture of f/1.8 and the APS-C lens is 56mm, also with an aperture of f/1.8. This means the diameter of the aperture opening on the full frame lens is 47.2mm and on the Sigma lens, it's 31.1mm. At an aperture setting of f/1.8, both lenses let exactly the same amount of light through. This is also why crop sensor lenses are typically so much smaller than their full frame equivalents. For example, take a look at the Panasonic Leica 200mm f/2.8 vs the Sony 400mm f/2.8. Same equivalent focal length. Same constant max aperture. However, the PL lens is less than half the length and weight of the Sony. Oh, and the PL lens costs 1/4 of the Sony. So, wait, why would you ever even consider full frame then? Because that larger sensor camera gives you a 2 EV advantage over the micro four thirds. That's not the ONLY difference between the two systems, but for the context of this discussion, it's the only relevant one. As I stated in my first comment, whether that advantage is worth it is completely up to you.

[@MattJett]

Thanks for this info!

[@christianp.5948]

Such a good explanation. Thanks.

[@QuicksilverSG]

LOL at everyone who believes this crackpot ISO theory. Also, the reason you don't see much difference in these JPEG snapshots is because there's so little difference in perspective and lighting between them. With that background distance you might just as well used a 1" sensor.

[@root9065]

Thank you for doing this video. I have a Fuji X-T4 and I can honestly say I'm happy with my choice for APS-C. Yes, full frame is a hair better, but I'm okay with not paying through my nose and carrying my gear in a suitcase for that difference. If you're doing it professionally and that's what you absolutely need, then that's another conversation of course. But, otherwise at an enthusiast/hobby level, many things like skin tones and whatnot can be adjusted in post. I'm also not a bokeh fiend so I'm alright with what I can get from a cropped sensor - in fact often times I don't even go close to what the camera or lens can provide because I don't need to. I heard a great photographer who goes by the name of Kenneth Hines, Jr. say that a great image always has at least two layers of information in it - foreground, and background. If you blur your background out to oblivion, then you might as well remove it completely because you're not telling a story anymore and 10-15 years down the line, you'll be staring at the photo wondering where you were that day, because you can't tell from the background.

[@jackwright7014]

Same here, super happy with my X-T4!

[@fredriksvard2603]

I had the xt4, went with s5 instead. Apsc is bulky enough to be an issue, the added bulk of ff doesnt disturb me until i get to telezoom territory. The primes are 300-400g or so. On the flipside, compression, dof, low light, battery and video in general is better. I miss the continuous af on the xt4, the s5 is unusable in that regard.

[@hans6304]

I'm on Kenneth's side. Why would you want to destroy the background??

[@josephdorsey2684]

Very informative. I appreciate the side by side comparisons and your assessment of strengths. You’ve been very helpful to me in my growth using an a6400. You’ve reinforced, through demonstration, the value and quality of the Sony APS-C sensor. No need for this amateur to go full frame. Your presentations are consistently helpful. Keep up your good work!

[@scottnelle]

This is probably the best comparison I've seen. And your wife is unbelievably good at maintaining a facial expression from shot-to-shot!

[@Felipe2077tv]

I've watched dozens of your videos (from 2016 to current) over the past couple of weeks, and wow, they're all fantastic. I highly appreciate the work you put into this! Thank you for your incredible and highly unbiased videos :)

[@gabithemagyar]

Finally !! A voice of reason !! As a casual shooter/hobbyist I have been finding this push to full frame being made by the industry and many influencers annoying. The reality is that APS-C cameras nowadays produce images which are more than high quality enough for most people's needs and they have advantages over full frame in some circumstances. They are smaller and lighter as a rule when considering equivalent field of views. They, and their lenses, are cheaper. As travel cameras where most shots are taken in good light they are great ! Yes, full frame is better in low light but in many situations using a flash is a perfectly good alternative, sometimes even better than relying on slow shutter speeds, super fast lenses and high ISO e,g, at indoor functions. Of course professionals need to go for the very best gear and it's great that camera companies are producing fantastic bodies and lenses for them. I sometimes feel, though, that they have neglected the consumers who really funded the mirrorless boom through their purchases of APS-C cameras such as the Sony a6xxx series. Sony .... where are the weatherproof zooms and prime G and G master lenses with OSS for your APS-C line ? With Olympus's future doubtful now, consumers looking for a high quality compact, weatherproof, affordable kit for travel are somewhat in the lurch.

[@Ck87JF]

@Foto4Max honestly I'm glad he used the Sigma lens to compare. Yes, the kit lenses and some cheap ones are going to look like crap, but his point in this video was to show the small Gap between the two formats. I liked the color better on almost all the full frame versions, but I also think these are raw unedited images. Aside from color/exposure, they both look really good, which makes me feel better about my APS-C decision.

[@humandroid53]

I've just picked up a Sony a 6000 as a casual camera and am quite happy with it. Prefer it to my old D7200. However I will still use full frame (D750) for real estate work because its a cleaner image and I can lift the shadows nicely without blotchiness. For serious landscape work and proper photographic enjoyment I grab my D810. It's unrivalled by any apsc camera and the only camera that came close to my Sigma SD1 (untouchable in the right conditions but too much of a pain). The D7200 always seemed a bit grainy whereas the D810 is more refined with beautiful detail.

[@QuietOC]

I find equivalent full-frame lenses often to be cheaper, smaller, and lighter.

[@bobneedham6224]

After I read the announcement of the planned sale of Olympus, my EM 5 and all my lenses immediately stopped working.

[@jimhood1202]

Let's see what Pentax come up with. I'm still shooting with my K3 and have no intention of of going full frame. Unless you are habitually shooting in low light there is a strong economic argument for staying with apsc.

[@stevetqp9152]

Nice comparison, Arthur. As a landscape and product photographer curently using the APS-C Fuji X-T3 System, I do get sharp images with good dynamic range. However, as I've recenetly been printing more very large poster prints (30" x 40"), I believe that the larger sensor of a FF system (i.e., Nikon Z7 for example), combined with the higher resolution sensor (45MP v. 26MP), would yield much greater detail and dynamic range in LARGE prints! That said, I also believe that for most any other usage, the APS-C system is sufficient. Thanks!

[@irondiver2034]

I really liked this video, it is a practical reminder that not everyone needs a full frame to make beautiful photos.I have had the a6000 since it was released, I am just now thinking of upgrading and I was torn between the a7iii and the a6600. Because of the price drop and sometimes sale price of the a6600 it is now what I am leaning towards. Thanks for the video

[@guardianobserver6593]

What have you decided at the end?

[@o0Dr0o]

The lesson I learned from this video is that you really have a beautiful family ^_^ . Thank you for the photo it makes me feel good about my APS-C camera , neglicable differences for enthusiast like me .

[@jameshoiby]

Don't forget that if you are using a tripod and a static scene low light performance of APS-C is still fantastic because you can set it to ISO 100 and just use a longer shutter speed. I've been doing a lot of this lately with an a6600 and noise just hasn't been an issue.

[@FelipeLima-mb7ox]

Is there any place where I can see your photos in low light with aps-c sensor? Like Flickr or Instagram?

[@limagepicture9023]

Arthur, you have such a beautiful family. It is a gift that you make to your loved ones to offer them the most beautiful pictures you can. The most important thing is your point of view, the relationship you build with your subject, your attitude towards him and the way in which the technique goes to the service of creation (and not the opposite).

[@noeltan1861]

Love my a6400, sigma 16, sony 18-105 are my usual pickups...

[@deltalight584]

Comparison should've been done in RAW rather than in JPG to bypass any post-processing. This will facilitate more honest sensor format differences without any difference in JPG processing done by each camera.

[@Nodirm93]

If you on that level that who shoots in RAW, you should care less about this comparison.

[@alphaxfang]

pretty sure this video is for hobbyist or amateur that plan to start taking picture with real camera and they start wonder if they need to upgrade to full frame or not...

[@JC-fj7oo]

Eventually you have to convert the image. Raw is like showing people your film negatives. It doesn't matter what format you shoot in, what matters is if you got the picture you (or the client) want.

[@deltalight584]

These responses are sadly missing the point. By comparing in RAW, we can better compare the sensor format differences (hence the video’s title) by eliminating any influences of JPG processing settings in each of the camera. Whether an audience is a hobbyist or will be outputting into JPG is irrelevant. All in all, when everything else is held equal (both cameras capturing in RAW, equipped with as equivalent lenses as possible in terms of aperture, sharpness, distortion, aberration, etc.), the main difference between Full Frame and APS-C will be negligible. However, Full Frame sensors generally have better dynamic range & ISO performance. When completing two formats, a key consideration is accounting for ~1.5x crop factor on APS-C lenses to ensure similar end result. For example, 56mm F1.4 lens on APS-C will be equivalent to ~84mm F2.1 lens on Full-Frame.

[@dzsemx]

Raw processing is not the same across cameras, there is some huge difference across camera models, and the difference is artificial in LR, they deliberately make worse cheap and old cameras.

[@Reviews4fun1]

Excellent comparison. As an advanced amateur who values size/portability, APSC shines with me. Carrying around the family and gear on vacation is cumbersome so a tight/quality package is paramount. I’m very impressed with these crop bodies and prime lens combos.

[@matthewjeffres1289]

Arthur thank you for your straight forward side by side comparison. Both cameras have their strengths and weaknesses. Both cameras help make wonderful photos. It is up to the photographer to use them wisely.

[@ArthurR]

Absolutely agree.

[@suffianqadeer4554]

@@ArthurR you did the wrong comparison you chooses the top notch full frame and most basic sony aps-c it doesn't worth it you must have to use a7iii with a6600

[@kingweddingmedia]

I have a couple of a7iii’s and a couple of a6xxx series cameras, and while for most paid work I’d lean towards the full frames, the a6xxx’s definitely have some benefits for me: unlimited recording time (6600 and 6400), extra reach due to crop factor for sports and wildlife, smaller/lighter lenses for landscape hikes, faster/more consistent autofocus, and personally, I like the a6600 feel in the hand better than the a7iii. If the a6600 had a joystick I think I’d use it over the a7iii for everything I do except photographing weddings/events.

[@ferarrigoPhoto1967]

I have both a Sony A7III and a Sony A6400. I agree that in general, you can get similar results. The main difference to me is the handling and ergonomics. The A6400 is more cumbersome and complicated to get the same results, beyond the best performance in hard conditions and access to wide focal lens. In short, in my case it is more about the experience obtained with each system than the final result.

[@Hrishikesh_Films]

Which one u wl suggest for the videography? Im confused between a6400 and a7c !

[@joaomarveloso1049]

Benefits of full frame typically come out in editing. You can usually push, edit and grade photos more before they start degrading. IMHO

[@berndadam8703]

Since years I was thinking to switch to FF. Your video underline my decision to stay with aps-c. Since I switch from the heavy D7 to a lighter NX1 I have no pain in the arm; in my country we call this fenómeno Tennis-arm. Lens for FF are much heavier than the ones for aps-c. You did a great video which show clearly that the price vs performance is on the aps-c side. LG Bernd

[@JohnDennery]

My mistake was buying an A6000 as my first camera. Now I am doomed to forever view all other cameras as being overpriced! Lots of great features on the newer models but I can't justify the cost to upgrade until Sony gives us a brand new sensor. Hopefully Sony will release a pro-level aps-c within the next year. Thanks for this comparison, I'm still psyched on my A6000!

[@danielbogos263]

Well done on buying the A6000. I would not upgrade if I was you. Max i would by the 6100 or 6400 ....thats it. There are great cameras.

[@nachot6592]

I got this as an upgrade years ago and you're right. I'm not willing to upgrade until there is a really major upgrade. APS-C is mora than enough for my needs.

[@slglasius]

You always find the best things to compare. The things that really matter for us! thanks! Would love a follow-up for comparing FF to APSC for things like macro, landscapes, interior and astro. Portrait was for me an important one though, so very happy with this one!

[@welcomeweebs4931]

5:05 why do i see a meme template there 😅

[@Ck87JF]

Make it happen!

[@Baracudus]

Ok.. you have me again to buy my 3. Sigma for my a6400. No need for a FF to portrait my little family. This is the review I silently looked forward to see. So nice the quality for the price tag. Well done!

[@thesolid9091]

Every camera performs better when there is a beautiful object. FACT!

[@Talia.777]

Indeed 😆😆

[@fmtoussant]

awwwwwwwwwww too bad for u she taken lol

[@Antonsklv]

an actual comparison, not a random set of pictures taken in completely different settings as other youtubers show you. Thanks for the work!

[@alexvideo1]

I think it would be a better comparison if both shots had the same ISO and aperture settings and only vary shutter speed if necessary.

[@seeyah2221]

Thank you so much for this. I don’t need spend a lot of money for a full frame. Now i decided to purchase a budget XT2 and a Fujinon 50mm f1.0 for killer portraits.

[@BrianTheCameraGuy]

I love my Sigma 56mm. It is small and light and just takes fantastic photos.

[@shahabnama4286]

I am currently shooting with sony a6400 with Viltrox 85mm f1.8 and it is amazing, after firmware update it became f1.6

[@gianniawiequaunegv2016]

I shoot on the a6400. Love it. Want a full frame so I can have a wider lens with a fast aperture for Astro shooting.

[@danielmiddleman8613]

If you want to do any Astro shooting should you avoid an APS-C camera?

[@gianniawiequaunegv2016]

@@danielmiddleman8613 I would love fill frame but as far as my shots look. They are pretty nice. I'm shooting at 14mm f1.8 ISO 1600 for 13 sec for pinpoint and 20 sec to print.

[@TheCreatorsPodcast]

When she kissed the cameras 😂😂

[@StarlordStavanger]

She kissed the APS-C first tho! Makes me appreciate my X-T4 a lot more now!

[@TheCreatorsPodcast]

Starlord Stavanger forreal!! I’m a m50 user 😳

[@JenessaIRL]

She’s so weird 😯

[@TheCreatorsPodcast]

Jenessa Brooke 🤣🤣

[@Metalfreakz17]

@@StarlordStavanger lol bro don't question your xt4 it is an amazing camera lol the best apsc on the market. And the noise in low light actually looks like film grain which gives it more character in your photos. Not like sony digital grainy stuff. I shoot a silver xt4 myself and its amazing🙏👌🏼

[@oscarabrego17]

Just got my sony a6100, greate video! Thinking to upgrade to the sigma 30mm f1.4👌🏻

[@brunofalcone9979]

As a user of both systems I can tell you that the actual difference is all about aperture, because in APS-C you have to multiply the aperture by 1.5 to obtain the same result as in FF. So a 56mm F1.4 lens in APS-C is equivalent to a 85mm F2.1 lens in FF. Therefore the difference is that in FF you can go to F1.8 or even F1.4. In this case the difference between F2.1 and F1.8 is not that large but with other lenses it becomes much larger, so you have to think about which lenses you need. For example, kit lens FF is 28-70 mm F3.5-5.6 whereas the APS-C kit lens is 16-50mm F3.5-5.6, which is equivalent to 24-75mm F5.2-8.4 in FF, so you're losing quite a bit of aperture especially in the telephoto range. Same if you compare the outstanding Sony 16-55mm F2.8 APS-C lens with the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 FF lens. The Sony has F4.2 equivalent aperture and it's even more epensive than the tamron (£1069 vs £699 in the UK). Then in high telephoto lenses you don't have any large aperture one in APS-C whereas you have 200mm 2.8 FF lenses. So in the end it's all about the lenses, not the sensor!

[@mirrorlessny]

good information 👍 thx

[@onlyonecannoli3952]

Then you realize that you can get the A6400, Sigma 16mm, Sigma 30mm and Sony 50mm f1.8, for about the same as you can get the A7iii and perhaps the kit lens. And then you further realize that the aforementioned combination will cost you less than most decent full frame lenses, at which point it becomes painfully obvious that the marginal improvement in image quality that you gain is only important to those who are pros or have money to waste.

[@PIXELvoiz]

best APS-C comparison channel I have ever seen on internet.

[@Ck87JF]

If you're new here, definitely check out his previous videos. He has an a6000, a6100, a6400, and a6500 (I think). Oh, and a NEX-3 as of recently haha (Sony's first foray into interchangeable APS-C cameras). As he tests various lenses, he swaps what camera he uses which demonstrates that it doesn't necessarily matter what camera you have if you have a great lens. He's pretty thorough in details about the hardware and always shows samples (pictures/video).

[@parmanduke]

Both great pics but I give nod to full frame. Colors are much better on the A9 imo

[@daftbence]

Yeah nah, color is the last thing you should look at, easy fix in post processing, bokeh, sharpness and overall quality should be of importance. Which is just as good on the APSC all in a smaller and cheaper package. Easy win.

[@humandroid53]

But is that due to the lenses?

[@erweber]

In my eyes, the full-frame images looked more artistic and creamy, whereas the cropped sensor pictures had something of an ''electronic'' feel. I feel that in photography this difference is what makes your clients go WOW instead of "pretty good!".

[@ptrykbr8737]

Agree, in comparison is seems like a tiny difference, but final result can be broken by that tiny defect.

[@clagccs]

I think that clients care more about the quality of the photo in terms of capturing the moment, framing, light and other details that depend on the photographer... and less about details that depend on the camera... a good photo always goes to depend more on who takes it than the camera they use...

[@erweber]

@@clagccs Agreed, but when we're talking about two excellent photographers (which is often the case when competing for clients) and making a fair comparison, these small things will have a weight on the client's decision on who their next job will go to.

[@stormfalconstudios]

No. They won't. Only photographers who want to brag about having full frame and commercial clients care about that.

[@martinslavik8557]

artistic and creamy you are referring to is Sony lens being less sharp than Sigma

[@pabu8671]

A long time I shot APS-C (A6500) I felt often at the edge of what's possible with it and beyond. Since three months I went for fullframe (A9). Using the same lenses - Batis and G-Master - my experience is that the overall imagequality of the A9 is really a step forward. The bokeh is better, the images are cleaner and the result is more pleasing to my eyes. Now there is no more thinking about the boundaries of the crop-sensor. I think it's far more simple to produce a high end result with the A9. It's more fun to work with a fullframe camera than with an APS-C. And that's important for me.

[@FlatWaterFilms]

It's the processor and more mega pixels.

[@justinn914]

She’s stunning! Great video, helped a lot!

[@kaaijer]

What's all the down playing of difference about? Those full frame shots are absolutely beautiful and look simply better than APS-C. APS-C is more flat and has that mobile phone camera flavor (I know, mobile phone cannot match A6100 but you get the point).

[@rajeshdatta3979]

Thanks for the comparison. You have a beautiful family ❤❤❤

[@frankartale1026]

Excellent comparison. It's so close. Great job. I have an A7ii and a fujifilm xf10 and the newer apsc sensor is actually cleaner than the older full frame

[@SidneyDiongzon]

That Sigma 56mm though!!! Great video dude

[@websitemaintenance]

I have two sony a6300s, the 16, 30 and as of Friday will have the 56. So excited thanks for this comparison! Happy I have APS-C!

[@websitemaintenance]

Just got it hooked it up and it’s amazing holy crap!!!

[@mirrorlessny]

very good setup, love the Sigma16 & it's so useful to have several bodies so don't have to swap lenses much, & that 1.4 bokeh 😵

[@johndonaldson5126]

Good review. Thanks Arthur. If I were trying to profit from my photography I'd go FF. Since I mainly shoot family portraits for free I'm quite happy to stuck with the APS-C. My clients are pleased with the quality.

[@davect01]

Same. The extra cost of F.F. is just not worth it for the few hours a week this weekend Dad shooter gets in

[@GregerBurman]

Thank you for making this point! Most camera reviewers on KZbin never factor in the price or value for money. Of course a $3k camera is better, but is it good value? They called the A7mk3 an "entry level camera" which is ridiculous. Who is the audience for that review? The E-mount is lacking a really good zoom though, no value 24-70 f/2.8 equivalent lens.

[@Gzzzzzz111]

Every photographer: You don’t need a full frame camera to shoot. But also every photographer has a full frame camera.

[@malangbaba9544]

Excellent analysis. It makes sense for a non professional to stay with an APS camera. Like you showed in your test, most of the time it is hard to tell the difference between the pictures taken by the two formats.

[@NickL0VIN]

I shoot full frame because I needed an ultra wide fast lens. Such as the Tamron 17-28mm F2.8. If APSC ever makes such an equivalence lens that would be nice. Great video. It's not really the sensor that makes the differences, but rather the actual camera or lenses that come with it.

[@careylymanjones]

Sony recently released some superwides for APS-C. A 11mm f/1.8, a 10-20mm f/4, and a 15mm f/1.4 G lens

[@neillynchehaun7082]

What a joy to hear a professional talking sense about the difference between full and crop. There is so much gear snobbery in this game. Matching like for like sensors (pixels, processing...) side by side has only ever revealed about 1-stop of dynamic range advantage, at the lower end, in full frame, because of the physical size of the sensor. Manufacturers hide the difference in fudged settings to adhere to industry standards. I use crop Nikons for paid work, with rave reviews. Honestly, the battery grip, produces the required client confidence in the gear. They see big gear and are happy. Who said Americans got it wrong hey!!

[@ramoftherose]

Biggest factor for me is going to be low light performance. I love my A7III. I love my X-Pro3. But I'm more likely to take my A7III for low light situations.

[@sjoythehawk]

Arthur, the question of upgrading to FF camera or not has being stayed in my mind for a long period. Thanks for making this great video and sharing these important opinions to clear my mind.

[@bryanevans5398]

Honestly, would have been curious to see the Raw images instead of jpeg. Thanks for another informative review.

[@unbroken1010]

You're dealing with mostly enthusiast most of them shoot jpeg asides it's kind of becoming a mute point. I've never heard anybody ask me if it's jpeg or raw when it's on a gallery wall..

[@johnwelsh2497]

Good comparison. I kept my 70D when I "up graded" to the 5D MKiii. The 70D with 55-250 will occasionally out perform the 5D with the 70-200. Very surprising. And that is why I don't get rid of old equipment. Great model also, bravo sir...

[@HappyHubris]

The biggest thing pushing me to full frame is what Sony decides to leave out of its APSC lineup (new sensors, fast card slot, third dial, et cetera). That new 28-200mm lens is actually pretty affordable.

[@scott2100]

I needed this comparison video, thank you, you have answered if I should make the jump to full frame or just going with a better Fuji APS-C body

[@gdjaybee742]

Getting the A6500/A6600 with the IBIS would help equalize the performance in low light light. It will enable you to set you shutter speed lower by at least a stop and use lower iso to achieve the same performance as the higher iso settings of the full frame.

[@andgainingspeed]

There is always going to be diminishing returns as you spend on gear. Where you land is up to the individual. But don't buy bodies or even decide on sensor size before you look at lens lineups.

[@NickL0VIN]

Well said. This is true for all electronics, not just cameras.

[@SzymonPytel]

The difference with fast glasses is so little, that's why I'm sticking with smaller apsc system. Yet I wish a6xxx had a dual sd. I would be less stressful at commercial shoots. That's why im considering Fuji or even g9 as a next step, cuz Sony putting all efforts in their full frame format.

[@proksalevente]

The MFT system has a lot of cheap and good lenses, don't be deterred by everyone saying it is inferior. If you want portability and god tier IBIS and not breaking the bank, MFT will be good to you. Keep in mind, for best autofocus results, pair panasonic lenses with panasonic bodies and olympus lenses with olympus bodies, but it isn't unusable if you mix and match.

[@room007]

It's the fast glass, where you actually get the major difference. Slap an 85 1.4 on that ff and we're talking a whoole different kinda game. Wide open appertures are what make ff worth while. There's plenty of photographers taht have made a career out of shooting the canon 50 and 85 1.2 wide open.

[@proksalevente]

@@room007 Yeah, because everyone needs razor thin depth of field, so the nose is out of focus on portraits... You'll have to stop down anyway. Bokeh != professional

[@minibuns5397]

Does not matter for people posting selfies etc. to social media - in this case, the best bang for your buck is the cell phone camera! For the rest of us that want more control, shot options, and dynamic range in post for processing - it’s full frame and upwards.

[@VeryAli]

Diminishing Returns.

[@kristiangurholt59]

Today I picked up an a6100 and have a Sigma 16mm 1.4 on the way. Apart from a little shallower DOF on the FF, the white balance, colours and noise can all be fixed in post to make the pictures almost indistinguishable. Can’t wait to take some amazing pictures and videos with this thing!

[@Soldier828]

It's not what you can see at 100% zoom, it is the overall image that looks stunning at FF.

[@ArthurR]

I don't disagree - I notice it, but "average" people - like my wife for example - doesn't notice it at all. In fact, she thought the photos from the A6100 looked better in 70% of the comparison shots!

[@okyeabuddyguy]

If you need a medium format like subject background separation then you need Full Frame f1.2 lenses. If you are always shooting in low light then full frame gives you 1 full stop better performance. If you are really pushing your images dynamic range in post, FF will give a better experience. If you need maximum megapixels for cropping FF, or MF is the best option but there are 40 MP APSC sensors now. That's really it. For the vast majority of people, including basically every hobbyist, APSC is more than good enough and definitely matches the image quality. You can do stunning portraiture with APSC F1.2 or F1.4 lenses and there are even lots of F0.95 lenses now. Modern APSC sensors now have lots of megapixels for cropping and their dynamic range, bit depth, and noise handling is great all the way up to 3200.

[@angelguzman2937]

I think the bokeh on the full frame look smoother, softer more pleasing.

[@agoodjoe6910]

That's not due to the camera, different lenses produce different bokeh.

[@shzammpatapon9865]

@@agoodjoe6910 nope it is because the full frame has more blur cause the apsc is 2.1 equivalent bokeh compared to full frame

[@QuietOC]

And FE 1.8/85 has harsher bokeh than other 85's.

[@agoodjoe6910]

@@shzammpatapon9865 no, he specifically used the word "smooth", I'm well aware of the crop factor considerations. You can have more bokeh which is harsher, so no, I am right.

[@angelguzman2937]

@@agoodjoe6910 in part you're wrong the full frame plays a big difference, I have the a6400 and a a7iii, I tested both same setup with the sigma 16mm f1.4 compared both on picture and also on video and you can see a big difference!

[@dummatube]

We have been saying this for years as we eventually switched our four photographers from Nikon to Fuji. A comparison of a Sony 24Mp full frame fitted with a Sony or Zeiss 85mm f/1.8 lens against a Fujifilm camera with a Fujinon 56mm f/1.2 would have been very interesting! Great work though - your beautiful wife is the perfect subject. Thanks!

[@maruwaanmoses]

Even though the results are close, there's just something about full frame images that reminds me of rich mahogany 🥰

[@erweber]

Indeed, they look more artistic, whereas the other pictures had something of an ''electronic'' feel

[@gn2727]

It's simple- Dynamic Range. Dude just wants to downplay it. " Oh, look cropped looks good too, everything is sharp and visible"... Iphone mentallity.

[@kokhualow3419]

Hi I'm using a A7iv with the 200-600mm lens for birding. Recently I purchased the A6600 as I want more reach (I have a TC 1.4 but the images are soft). I can say that although the AF is weaker in the A6600, it is not by much. The images are great and even at ISO 6400 a lot can be saved using modern denoise software like the latest Adobe AI denoise, Topaz, etc. I'm now very tempted to move back to apsc as Sony's apsc is well supported (lenses-wise) and its smaller, easy to carry, lighter and cheaper overall. Still in the phase of consideration.

[@Carolyne_games]

APSC isn’t really that far behind, a good lens to go with it can produce amazing images. I’m very happy with what my a6600 and 1655g can do. I do kind of miss my old RX1, but mostly for the handling and more mechanical feel. Thinking about purchasing a X100V to get that feel back 🤔

[@ilanolivares9971]

I use my a7III as my photography camera and my a6600 for video work. I’ve had no complaints.

[@ArthurR]

A lot of "pros" do that as well - I know a lot of youtubers who shoot video with APSC and photos with FF.

[@nezqwe4818]

this guy not comparing full frame vs aps-c. he just wanna show us his wife and kids :P

[@Shiesty-420-]

yeah its true you would think he would use his wifes name but i think he wants everyone to know its HIS wife lmao

[@mpukatana3607]

I came here to see iso test in low light, but his wive is another source of light

[@dAdDyGlEnZ]

hahaha

[@tkermi]

11:40 😲😘 lol 😂

[@unbroken1010]

Joe Biden and Obama wants a word with you

[@mervkeyes8804]

Thank for this comparison - I feel reassured for buying an A6600 and less regret for not going for the A7III. I took your advice and am very impressed with the Sigma 16mm and am soon going to pick up the Sigma 56.

[@vijaysoni3892]

11:40 that part of video is beautiful 😆 Thanks for the video to understand about full frame and APC sensor.

[@danfuerthgillis4483]

That was actually the worst part, where the camera he was using was on auto instead of manual for her to appear in the shot. Maybe he should of used his Sony camera, since he is pushing it here as that was pathetic. You know cameras on auto adjusting to the light in front of them with that hair color the camera had a hard time adjusting and it was all blown out when she appeared.

[@saravana1268]

One of the most informative videos I have come across!

[@Michael-fw5ef]

I think the APS-C is 99% as good as the FF, and for the price difference, the APS-C is the winner, especially when you consider that any editing software can eliminate the differences completely.

[@TingILi]

I love your video, nice comparison, and content. You look tired but you got great family just like me. Awesome.

[@mahmud-ahsan]

Excellent review. I am using Sony a6600 with 16-55 f/2.8. I love it for it's compactness and better battery. I had Fuji XT-2 and XF 16-55 f/2.8 which I sold long ago. Fuji's auto focus is not as good as Sony also that combination was bulky. Though my a6600 also has some limitations but I never feel tired to carry this combo.

[@hunter_pauley]

I own an a6400 with a sigma 24-70 f2.8, sigma 16mm, and now a viltrox 85mm. I love apsc but will eventually make the jump over to an a7iii most likely hence the glass choices

[@HDvids101]

That 56mm lens from Sigma is brilliant

[@juniorjones5137]

Thanks Arthur greet video, i have liked the Apc stuff a6400 D500 but my son insist full frame or nothing he could not pick out the apc from full frame greet video sigma has done a great job in closing the gap!

[@keithbrown454]

Amen!! Full-frame has it's place, but it is overrated. Good points, valid points, and I totally agree.

[@ptrykbr8737]

It's not overrated, the advantage comes in editing, the smaller sensor, the less you can improve your photo/video by editing, anyway APS-C is best compromise between quality, cost, weight and size.

[@strongnerd4638]

A7II for pictures....a6600 for video but everyday carry camera as well...I carry the Sigma Trifecta with my a6600 and Sony 28,55, and 85mm with my A7II. Might be buying the Tamron 35mm 2.8 for Macros for both cameras and buy both of Tamron new Zoom lenses. Enjoyed the video. 👍🏼👍🏼

[@trinicortez2508]

Strong Nerd So if you had to choose one camera, would you just stick to FF a7II?

[@ajproart2]

This is what I talked to you through Instagram and I asked you to try the 85mm in the a6XXX to compare the results from the 85mm vs the 56mm in crop sensor. Would you please consider that, Arthur R.?

[@ofmetalphilosophy4837]

I am a micro four thirds shooter. I came here because I have the Sigma for my Lumix. I tried the Lumix S1 full frame and a 2200£ 50mm 1.4 Lumix on it. My conclusion is that....if I am a professional who earns money, then I'd buy a full frame, hands down. But if you're an enthusiast, shoot a 6100, Fuji xt4/3 etc, or a Lumix or Olympus...they have superb quality lenses. Save your money guys.

[@thienlo]

Agree. I just love the bokeh on 85mm full frame when I shoot portrait. Everything else is good enough with crop sensor cameras.

[@dragonfist25]

You'll definitely notice a difference when you edit the raw files. The colors are richer and you can recover the shadows and highlights much easier with a full-frame camera. If you're on a budget just go with the aps-c and get a sharp fast prime lens.

[@FlatWaterFilms]

Not so.

[@dragonfist25]

@@FlatWaterFilms If you can't tell the difference between a full frame raw file and an aps-c one you need more practice and training.

[@FlatWaterFilms]

@@dragonfist25 Not sure how many clicks I did this year? I'm estimating a good 10,000. Not a camera snob, just an artist. It's the content that's important, the story being told, what is being unfolded. The images and music working together. Knowing how to position oneself. The subject matter. I'm self taught and am keeping it that way. Pure expression, all that is good beautiful and real.

[@FlatWaterFilms]

"Technology has also reduced the gap between the crop-sensor and full frame cameras, and some of the crop-sensor cameras provide with the quality that is barely short of full frame cameras. Also, in expert hands, a crop sensor camera can produce the same results as a full frame camera. As photographers tend to say, it is all about the glass." www.photography-raw.com/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor/

[@gokulakrishnanm3005]

Sony a9:Sony 85mm f1.8 Sony apsc:sigma 84mmf2.1(equivalent) So it will produce near by same results.One more thing to know is it is f stop not t stop so the aperture open may be same. Good comparison

[@armandcrispo]

learning to use your camera is much better than owning a full frame. 😊 I think that's the key takeaway on this video. thanks Arthur.

[@danfuerthgillis4483]

Is this why $80,000 cinema grade cameras are used instead of 1000$ consumer 1080p cameras? Oh I see so why the need to 100,000 arri cameras? Wake up fool, the Photo and Video industry has been playing with the consumer market for decades playing these games. 35 mm sensors should be standard for all Photo cameras back 10 years ago. The reason why FF is expensive is because morons think it's expensive. They are kept and merchandised for the Pro market which of course can spend 5000$ on a camera kit every other year. The price of them is artificial because Canon, Nikon and all other companies make the bulk of their money from the Professional market. For video cameras this is even worst, $10,000 is minimum for even entry level document cinema style quality. Also the lenses market is completely for the Pro's, they are not even marketed to consumers. Consumers were stupid for buying these inferior products, if they told Canon and Nikon to FUCK OFF with this APS-C and Micro shit garbage, all consumer cameras would be 35 mm sized sensors. So we went from 35 mm film cameras back to the shit 110 and APS-C size? LMFAO!

[@frismanarmando]

One of the best comparison video between FF vs APS-C

[@DrWasim]

Thank you for a great comparison!

[@matthewwells1606]

Your APS-C camera has higher pixel density and smaller pixels than the A9, thus more noise at high ISO. So that isn't a comparison between 35mm format and APS-C, but rather pixel size. Similar pixels will produce similar results in terms of noise regardless of sensor size. I found that out in practice when I noticed my Nikon D850 and Fuji X-T3 producing similar noise at the same ISO values. If you want less noise for portraits, 35mm at 24mp is about right. Otherwise, most other things are a wash with the right lenses.

[@IsaacRC]

You can achieve Aps-c photos with 0 grain making longer exposure shots.

[@ptrykbr8737]

Mostly 4 times longer exposure than FF, at least comparing my a6100 vs eos 6D mk II

[@IsaacRC]

@@ptrykbr8737 With an a6300 I've measured 1/3 expo. in a f3.5 aperture at ISO100 for perfect result at the worst possible light (matching sight visibility, not in the case of augmenting artificially the light appearance), from there it's only a matter of making the conversions: with an f1.2 I could shoot at 1/25 (ISO100)

[@DFcheatersexposed]

Personally I love my APS-C, Currently have a A6000 and love how the photos come out. I also have the Sigma Trio for it which are great for landscape photography as well. Just ordered a A7ii which I will be using specifically for night photography but my main go to for daily photos is gonna be my A6000, also plan on getting a A6400 or A6100 for videos although thats further down the line, as I dont have issues recording with the A6000 without a flip screen.

[@mirrorlessny]

what do you think of A6600? I like it's Z battery so much that decided to keep the camera while transitioning to full frame

[@jody1622]

I'm a hobbiest but have the 7iii and the a6600. I love them both but, for walking around, the 6600 wins out because of the weight! I feel so free with IBIS and a good lens. Love it.

[@vhaiker]

hello. you can't compare bokeh taken with different aperture and iso. I believe that someone else already told you that. Anyway if you will redo this video with the same settings I will watch it:-D I am sorry that I had to complain.

[@dailymmafighting]

Photography is all about a person who makes photographs, Full Frame or Crop sensor the camera doesn't makes any sense.

[@davect01]

Depends. The same photographer with a high performance kit versus a low performance kit will go for the best they can get.

[@haythamfpv]

don't act like there's no difference, the difference exists and we better know about it, otherwise why aren't we all shooting with 1950 gear? why do different models exist? "ItS AlL AboUt ThE PhOtoGraPher"

[@nightcoder5k]

There is a huge difference Arthur demonstrated. In low light condition, the Full frame is clearly better. If you shoot indoor or evening it'd be better to use the full frame. I rarely see anyone using a non-Fullframe camera for astrophotography, for example.

[@dgross2009]

@@haythamfpv 1950 gear? Film would blow away digital in many respects. Look at old National Geographic magazines from that era vs the recent digital highly processed crap.

[@untouchable360x]

It's like the driver of the car race. If his competitor's car is better, they will have an edge over him.

[@bondgabebond4907]

Next, if you haven't done it, compare the a6400 with that Sigma lens against the A7R3 or 4 noting the difference in resolution between bodies. That a6400 with Sigma looks incredible. If you don't tell the person looking at the photo, they would not be able to tell which camera was used. That's how good the a6400/Sigma combo is.

[@webdaddy]

But wow, that Sigma 56 is tack sharp wide open.

[@mohsin_sait]

The Sigma set to F2.8 is significantly sharper

[@florinalinbeudean]

I can assure you that 56 is incredible sharp. I have to decrease the default Lightroom sharpness on import because it looks way too digital. Worth the money

[@berndadam8703]

I use it since February this year. The carneval parades was the first hard test with the 6400 . Using aperture 2.0 gave tac sharp results. Even at moving faces the focus on the eyes was great. I like to buy also the Sigma 16mm and hope to get similar results.

[@SayWhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat]

yeah cause f1.6 is f2.8 in full frame. and he compares f2.8 vs f1.8 so sigma wins

[@eternalpunition]

Nice work! Good to see them compared side by side