$3,000 Full Frame vs $1,000 APS-C Camera Setup for Portraits

[@SilatShooter]

I have both and I reach for the A6400 with the Sigma trio setup more often due to the size and weight advantage and the results are soo close. You helped me realize that. Another great video and service for the community. Thank you!

[@inquisitvem6723]

I find the Apsc Fuji cameras better than the Sony apsc ones. Socc are better with color science fantastic. I would buy Fuji over Sony.

[@DennisDey]

I have been considering upgrading from a6400 to a7iii to move to full frame. Is it a significant upgrgade?

[@inquisitvem6723]

@@DennisDey do it. A7iii only like $1,700

[@SilatShooter]

@@DennisDey Yes and no, definitely a difference after ISO 3200 but noise reduction software like DXO has gotten soo good at reducing noise making it less of an issue. There's more background blur with shorter focal lengths with FF but the lenses are more expensive. So there's give and take.

[@3dpuccio]

Every time I get trapped in sales or full-frame love youtube videos, I come back to your channel and take my A6500 and go out so happy to take some shots. Thank you for another great video 🙌

[@michaelcarr2466]

I also have the 6500 with my friends encouraging me to buy the A7iii. I think I'll stick with what I have. Glad to read your comment.

[@ohmartinbronson]

What an incredible value in the sigma 56mm. That might just be the next lens I purchase. Great analysis, thank you!

[@ElBoyoElectronico]

So true, I had one for my Canon M50 and I still miss it to this day.

[@kokhualow3419]

I have A6600 and the A7IV, I enjoy shooting landscape and bird photography. Despite the advantage of low light for full frame, I'm constantly taking my A6600 for birding trips and landscape photography. Being a lighter setup enables me to be less "scary" looking holding a big camera/lens. I can say its true that the full frame is not 2 or 3 times better, maybe just 20 to 30 % better, usually in iso performance. As such I'm now considering very seriously to sell all my full frame and go back to apsc (A6600 + A6700)

[@olivershutterspeed]

I love the Sigma 56mm for my Sony a6000 photoshoot behind the scenes!

[@SkilledSpark]

I have been using the 56mm and a6100 combo for over a year now, the images it produces are incredible and in my opinion the best value one can get, great video!

[@davect01]

Nice video and comparison. APS-C's have gotten so good that the differences are minimal until pushed to the extremes where F.F. has the edge. If you are a pro, go F.F. without question. However, for casual weekend Dad shooters like me, APS-C is an amazing package. My A6400 has served me well and I have no need to go F.F. Both those 85mm and 56mm are outstanding lenses.

[@satchrocks34]

"APS-C's have gotten so good that the differences are minimal until pushed to the extremes where F.F. has the edge." Absolutely! Especially in terms of super high dynamic range situations and low light/high iso situations. I don't know how the A6400 and the newer versions of sony aps-c function in the real world, but in situations where my lighting is sufficient and controlled, its incredibly difficult to tell the difference between my a6000 and a7iii. Especially if not using a higher end prime on the a7iii, there are times where the crop sensor camera performs better. However, in situations where i need to significantly bring down highlights, bring up shadows, or use a higher ISO, the a7iii blows my a6000 outta the water. Noise is much more well controlled and looks better (less color noise) and have used shots at like 12,000 ISO where there is no way i could have with my a6000. With things like cost and weight factored in, I almost feel like I coulda just kept using my crop sensor camera with quality lighting, instead of spending the money on a new FF camera and much more expensive glass. Having a joystick is a lifesaver for me though

[@MrSka7cis]

Well said, I share the sentiment. If pro (or a spare few $1k around), go FF. Otherwise, APSC is adequate. I fall in the APSC. That being said, I still dream of getting a FF set-up (just lacking the extra $)....one-day

[@shadowshapers]

Thanks for taking the time to make the side by side comparison. I think this will help me justify the lens purchases before I step into a full frame body.

[@omerfarukavar]

A very useful explanation for APS-C and FF, thank you.

[@aksikanal6507]

Yep

[@irondiver2034]

I appreciate these videos so much. Hardly any channels really go with in depth comparisons between FF and crop cameras. They always overtly or subtly trying to push FF. I am willing to bet that 95% or more the people would never notice the difference. Save the money and use it for travel or other things.

[@AJ-ds5gf]

I love, love the sony a6000 and I bought it 3 years ago based on your videos. What I would love from you, as I choose my next camera, is to compare photos taken only at night. I'm going Tokyo and would love to take bokeh pictures in lower light conditions which is why I'm thinking of getting the A7C but not sure if the full frame is worth it. Please do a video on the same camera comparison but with night photography.

[@valentinfrei6054]

well maybe you could borrow an a7c for your trip and decide afterwards?

[@AJ-ds5gf]

@@valentinfrei6054 good idea. Can I borrow yours?

[@valentinfrei6054]

Haha I don"t have one, sorry 😋 I Was thinking to rent one for money

[@PhoonBucgeneMY]

I think using the sigma trio will eliminate any issue for night photography

[@Giovanniram22]

@Oh hi I don't think that it is so simple.

[@davideberhardt4977]

Great comparisons. The APS-C is definitely a good camera matched with the Sigma. I would NOT spend the extra on the A7C and expensive lens. One might think that people would not want really really sharp portraits anyway, right? One observation I had was that I was amazed how your wife was able to duplicate her poses. you can tell when your kid is in the shots cause he is looking at different places in his shots but your wife isn't. Very professional!

[@COMEDYiNSiDE]

Ha ha ha. You are rightly so... You are spot on...

[@ToolsElectroDIY]

Excellent comparison video, you have the best Sony lens reviews on YT!

[@ocker2000]

Those Sigma lenses do make a huge difference compared to "other" lenses. I had better start saving to get that 56mm Sigma! Great video. Thx.

[@travelvidya833]

I feel like the tangible advantage full frame has, is how much better it does in low light. If shooting in great light, your setup matters far less.

[@a55tech]

iPhone portrait tricks can hang w/ them in good light too, at least for social media

[@carrywu]

Yeah, that's the concept of photography, drawing with light. The more light you have, the easier it is to get better picture.

[@PhullyNo1]

Yep, 100 percent. It’s worth it IF you’re the type of person that needs it.

[@SkymenKing]

Here is the same Aperture, for the same Aperture, same ISO. The brightness must be the same, the only different is the number of pixel. For those reason that the photo is better because of retified by the internal computer, iphone instead of camera is a better choice for you.

[@kiyoshim9593]

WOW YOU DISCOVERED HOW TO COOK CUP RAMEN.

[@surja17]

I think there are a few points to highlight here: APSC f1.4 is equivalent to full-frame f2.1 in terms of bokeh - therefore the background separation is significantly different in my opinion. Also, most of the shots you took were around ISO 100. Full frame widens the gap from crop sensor at higher ISO values ..... the one scenarios where you had higher ISO values - the full-frame at ISO8000 was significantly better than the APS-C at ISO6400. These may be the deciding factors for a lot of people and therefore should be highlighted properly.

[@stephanweiskorn6760]

How often do you really use such high ISO numbers?

[@nachot6592]

This just makes it clear that you only NEED full frame when you are focusing on night photography.

[@alansach8437]

All true. On the other hand, the additional "reach" of a high resolution APS-C camera (like the Canon R7) might be just what you need for capturing shy little songbirds. Not only does the 1.6 "crop factor" get you "closer " with the same lens, but the high megapixel density (higher than the R5) will allow you to crop additionally in post. Also, APS-C is a fine economical choice for documenting family outings, vacations etc. There is no universal "right" choice.

[@isblijkbaarnodig]

If I’m correct this is untrue. Crop factor has no effect on aperture. So a 56mm f1.4 lens on APSC has similar depth of field and bokeh effect as a 85mm f1.4 lens on full frame. Feel free to educate me because I don’t know the physics that would prove either way.

[@Dastreum]

@@isblijkbaarnodig Bokeh is still impacted as we can see from the video. Bokeh is combination of parameter - Aperture (same for both - 1.4) - The focal length of the lenses (different - 56 vs 85) (Even if FOV is the same) - Distance from the subject So IMHO, I would say a 56mm f1.4 lens on APSC should be closer to the bokeh of 56mm f1.4 on FF (positioned at the same distance from the subject) The FF would have a wider FOV and the subject would seems to be futher away. but the amount of bokeh should be similar Test would be needed

[@reactivemouse]

That Sigma 56 is exelent! Definitely my next buy.

[@rickbattle5706]

Very interesting comparison. Thanks for doing the video.

[@wfp9378]

9:11 Everything about the difference in price is in the background separation seen here which is astoundingly different

[@nevildadrewalla]

This is the kind of presentation that does some good. Great job.

[@johndonaldson5126]

Good video. In almost every case I thought the FF was sharper than the APSC just using her eyes to make that evaluation.

[@wesleywamsley443]

You'd hope so for a lens that is over 2x the cost

[@francissosing]

Really like this review. I really enjoy my APSC especially for its form factor and that lenses overall are less expensive. I shoot with the Fuji XS-10. Keep up the great work and going against the grain on KZbin. 🙌

[@davemunoz9742]

I have the same apsc combo and couldnt be more pleased with the results

[@MrSka7cis]

Thanks for this review. I mostly simply take family photos of course non-professionally. I have an APSC set up but youtube videoes make me dream of a full-frame. However, I will simply save the money for something like a house.

[@florinG]

The Sigma 85 is sharper than a katana and a Swiss knife combined, great video man.

[@ArthurR]

Haha I like the analogy.

[@dummatube]

To accurately compare the bokeh ‘appearance’ between full frame and APS-C images you also need to multiply the aperture value by 1.5x. Our 56mm f/1.2 is the full frame equivalent of an 84mm f/1.8 lens. But don’t panic it still provides the light transmission value of a f/1.2 aperture!

[@DivByZer0]

You don’t say, Captain Obvious! Everyone knows this, Arthur, too….

[@neverforever1357]

The great advantage of a full-frame matrix is precisely in the post-processing and final image. Greater dynamic range, softer transition between color gradients. Great iso value with a clean picture. Still, there is a difference for the eye. and if you are shooting a landscape, then in addition to a full-frame matrix, you also need a good resolution of the matrix.

[@chileheadcraig]

when comparing colors, it would be good to at least match white balance between the shots for apples to apples comparison

[@tinplater]

Not to mention you are using different lenses on different bodies so one would expect side to side color differences. A couple of comparison shots of the lenses on the same body would be of interest.

[@bayern1806]

He did not compare the colors.

[@boukou]

The cost savings continue to add up as you introduce additional lenses, too. The Sony 70-350mm, Tamron 17-70mm, Tamron 11-20mm, Sony 10-18mm, and the Sigma Trio (16, 30, & 56mm)…all far cheaper than full frame equivalent lenses. So, as you build out your collection of lenses, the cost savings will continue to grow. If you have the money, or you’re making enough income off your work, then go full frame or even medium format (if you’re really making the big bucks). Otherwise, APSC has come a long way.

[@TechnoBabble]

Most of the equivalent lenses are the same price or slightly more expensive. The Tamron 11-20 f/2.8 isn't much less than a 16-35 f/4, which has the benefit of OIS. The Sigma 56mm f/1.4 is currently $430USD and the Sony 85mm f/1.8 is $550 but lets in more total light on a full frame sensor, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is $290 and the Sony 50mm f/1.8 is $250, the Sigma 16mm is the notable exception as the cheapest first party option for Sony is the 24mm f/1.8 Zeiss T* at double the price.

[@runhardhooah]

I actually have the 70-350 on the way as we speak. Should show up on Tuesday so I can get some crisp mountain goat shots. And one thing that I like about the APSC line is they will only improve, unless Sony ditches it altogether, which seems highly unlikely. After all, imo, they have to beat out the Fujifilm XT4 if they're a serious camera brand.

[@nevvanclarke9225]

I own a Fuji film, XT5 and I can honestly say this thing competes very closely with most full frame cameras. I could post these photos on any full frame page and people would not know if I did not state the camera.

[@nightcoder5k]

I totally agree with you. For casual users, the APS-C setup is great, but if you want that extra wow factor, get the full-frame. It's like NASCAR racing, if your car was slightly better than it is, you may have won the race.

[@하잉]

Thanks Arthur !

[@goldenretrieverindia]

You are the man who cleared the doubt of buying APS-C camera compared to Fullframe. Finally someone to support the APS-C where everyone brags about fullframe 😍😍

[@dragonfist25]

I liked the colors better sometimes on the aps-c but the bokeh looked noticeably better on the full-frame. If you have the money go with the full-frame but I don’t think you’ll be disappointed with the aps-c setup.

[@dragonfist25]

@@JL-fh4qw Just close down the aperture then.

[@JonathanBarrow]

I own the a6600. The main reason I want to move to full frame is for the a7IV. If it has better rolling shutter and a side flip screen, that’s all I want tbh.

[@mahmud-ahsan]

Yes, agree, side flip screen is better.

[@דובבגוליגר]

How about more photos when there is much less natural light? For example indoors

[@kiyoshim9593]

He should have compared an iphone 12. With his sneaky reviews the iphone would have more detail than these

[@haridj8532]

That’s absolutely an easy win for full frame. Full frame is king in low light

[@bayern1806]

Disappointed with your purchase?

[@kaushaltiwari9773]

That APS-C sensor is generations older compared to the one on the A7C. Hope Sony releases the next iterations with a new BSI APSC without the AA filter.

[@ArthurR]

This. Thats the exciting part. APSC performance is already so close, with an updated sensor, that would be amazing.

[@cweb1988]

if they ever do it.....been waiting for a legit upgrade to my 6300 for forever.....none of the new models are worthy upgrading to yet.

[@andys844]

@@ArthurR do you have the raw files as well? It'd be interesting to see how close they are when you manually match noise reduction color balance etc. The main difference is likely going to just be the different rending from the lens and focal length.

[@kaushaltiwari9773]

@@cweb1988 I too am keeping my trusty A6000 for now. I hope Sony releases a professional APS-C body with solid weather sealing, two card slots, fast read out BSI sensor, some advanced and fun features like Live Composite, a good IBIS. Fast touch sensitive screen. That would be awesome.

[@GregerBurman]

Battery life is another factor. Those FF sensors draw a lot more power. I bought a used A7mk2 and it’s crazy how it goes through batteries compared to the A6000.

[@ArthurR]

Very true. It's even noticeable going from the A6000 to the A6100.

[@romekk3975]

For portrait photography, you always want to be able to capture more detail so a full-frame camera is a natural choice. The APS-C setup you are using is a very strong contender but the difference is the price is well justified. I would take an APS-C camera for landscape shots as I stop down significantly for such photos anyways.

[@otjutt]

Horses for courses. This is by far the most objective comment. Couldn't agree more.

[@Chrisforlife]

It would have been cool to see the art lens on the APSC too

[@carrywu]

Didn't regret buying the 56mm. It's a beast of a lens.

[@satchrocks34]

That was my favourite crop sensor lens by quite a bit. So damn sharp

[@penguin_edits]

same here man, i got it as a gift and its been producing bangers ever since

[@tappedurmom9739]

I like the sigma 105mm for my a7iii and like you said I'm not a fan of the noise on the smaller sensor. Limits my ability at night. So it's a no brainer for me. But you better start lifting some weights to Lug around that Sigma 105 mm

[@donquique1]

I have the 56 but enjoy the 16 way more. I find the 56 impractical in most situations but is very sharp too.

[@penguin_edits]

@@donquique1 i always have the 16mm and love it too. i have to say it gives a very interesting look to a photo yk

[@roy.mclean]

If both lenses are at f4, you will indeed see more bokeh on the full frame lens. Just as the focal length is subject to the crop factor, so is the aperture. F4 on a crop sensor is equivalent to F6 on full frame. It would have been interesting to see the results of the 80mm on the crop sensor and the 50mm on the full frame.

[@batsonelectronics]

don't forget that the APS lens is 1.5 focal and 1 extra stop for DOF. F1.4 on FF is F2 on the DX camera. Likely why more was in focus and also why the BOKEH was better on the FF. If you shot the FF at F2 and the DX at F1.4, they would be almost identical except maybe in noise.

[@royhobbs785]

F2 is F2 on any camera

[@batsonelectronics]

@@royhobbs785 true but because APS-C needs a wider MM lens, it is effectively like 1 less stop of F stop in DOF. If both lenses were 85mm F1.4 and he moved back with the APS-C, DOF would be identical, by using a 56MM , that F1.4 is like F2 used on a Full Frame @ 85mm. The amount of light is equal ( or at least close as F1.4 may not be the same T Stop for both lenses ) but the difference in MM Focal length changes the DOF. Adding 1 stop for DOF makes the comparison equal when the Focal Length is different due to Sensor size.

[@rickymcc8624]

Hi Arthur Good to see you now have 170k+ subscribers. I subscribed around your 10-15k phase several years ago when I first started using a Sony APSC body. That early sub and my first Sony APSC (bought after viewing your channel) started me in a totally different photographic journey that eventually saw my switching from mostly Nikon kit (after 28 years) and going 'all in' with Sony. Not seen many of your vids lately, but stopped by for this, Agree APSC is pretty good and possibly optimum for most.

[@benuovir]

With post production, I think either would work with wedding photography. Not often are raw images sold as final product. Just my opinion

[@Grumpygrumpo]

yeah modern apsC can do professional work too. full frame is mere hype and overkill at this point. for the size and price it demands, its not that much better than apsC; most of the time they look close enough some light editing can pick up the slack. and unless you're cropping a lot, or have some other niche ass use case, apsC is the smart choice

[@hellopsp180]

The answer is APSC is NOT a disadvantage. Your lenses and knowledge matter more than anything else. But definitely buy FF if you need better low light stills and the shallower DOF.

[@tricamel]

Great review and totally agree with the final conclusion.... however, apart from the picture of your son every pic had better sharpness and much better dynamic range for the full frame setup, on my 75" screen. Thanks for all the hard work 😀

[@enjoygary]

That’s because the sigma 85 1.4 is an art lens. It cost over 1000 dollars. The Sigma 56 1.4 is a contemporary lens for 500. Also the a6600 is using the old Sony color science. The A7C is using more modern color science found in the A74.

[@JamesBreitenstein]

As a professional full frame is very important so you can use a zoom lens and still be good enough in low light and bokeh

[@StavrosMoshidis]

I like the metering in A7C. Always has the better exposure on the face

[@NickSAM]

For me F1.8 lenses are more than enough. I don’t need the F1.4 or F1.2, because they are so expensive and heavier than body of Sony A7C. If I attach them on Sony A7C, it will lose the balance My Combo: Sony A7C Sony FE 20mm F1.8 G Sony FE 35mm F1.8 Sony FE 85mm F1.8

[@Serhat_aydin]

Photography is my hobby and I bought a6600 after following Arthur's suggestion. I have kit lens, sigma 16mm and sigma 56mm. The photos those I've taken so far.... are impressive. Even you push the limits in low light,the results are great. For video, it needs gimbal; but for photo it is good setup for good price. I've never used full frame; but if it is hobby, I think it is better to spend the price difference to diffetent lenses like tele photo lens.

[@FlowStateNewOrleans]

I currently have an A6000 that I bought in 2014 and an A7C that I bought in summer of 2021. I've been thinking about selling both and buying an A6100 or A6400. I find that I often prefer the color in the A6000 to the A7C. But there are many things I love about the A7C that makes it hard to let go of and many things I probably still could learn more of from it.

[@jixal]

That 56mm Sigma lens is so good, randomly boight it for my A6000. The quality is so good its ruined me a bit haha, other lenses look poor in comparison. I still sometimes use it on my A7iii.

[@godson8559]

i feel like my man is just admiring his wife in many of the clips lol

[@Mike-qo8nm]

As he should she let's him buy all these toys

[@cvbattum]

Here's a little fun fact: technically, full frame does not produce better bokeh. Practically, it almost always does. If you get this Sigma 85mm, you'll have the same exact bokeh on APS-C as you do on full frame. However, the amount of background blur (not the quality) depends on how far away you're focussed. Because of the crop, you need to be further away from your subject to fill the frame in the same way as on full frame. Being further away means you'll focus further away, so you get less bokeh. But if you're focussed at 50cm on full frame and 50cm on APS-C, you'll get the same bokeh!

[@a55tech]

TIL!

[@jamesjackson4264]

That is correct but like you said to get the same perspective you have to step back. So in the real world you do get less bokeh in most circumstances. Plus the compression. An 56mm is a 56m. Not matter what crop you get. An 85mm is an 85mm no matter what.

[@sanderbos]

I feel this is the same as saying that a 24mm lens can get you the same shot of a bird as a 800mm lens, "all you have to do" with the 24mm lens is get superclose to the bird but otherwise you get the same picture. For the same composition you have to use a much wider aperture on a smaller sensor to get the bokeh, so a big with a lens with a very wide aperture on full frame cannot be trumped by an aps-c camera in the bokeh-fuzzyness department.

[@Crusaderhun]

From the numbers perspective you are correct. But the most important detail was left out. If I perfectly frame a subject for a portrait photoshoot with a 56mm FF, it is physically impossible to take the picture from the same distance with apsc 56mm due to the crop factor. Therefore I have to step back, and bokeh is reduced. It’s that simple. Full frame’s main advantage is that its wider

[@itsjim2875]

Thanks, Arthur! Great review.

[@dinolarsson]

In my own experience, the difference in iso performance when comparing my A7C to my previous A6400 & A6600 is night and day. For daytime photography or with 1.4 lenses on the aps-c, it’s perfect. I don’t see myself going back to aps-c though. Even though I still have an old a6000 with the sigma 56mm to bring places where I dont have to be careful.

[@a55tech]

what u mean night and day more specifics pls

[@earthlingtheaaron21]

@@a55tech 6400 is clean and 12800 is very much usable. Full frame with f1.4 is akin to having night vision lol.

[@eddewhurst7662]

So you shoot portraits at 12800 with a 1.4 lens? Why would you choose to do that?

[@earthlingtheaaron21]

@@eddewhurst7662 If you’re out at night you might have to! Also, I was referring to sensor performance in general with the 6400 and 12800 iso comment. The guy was asking what did he mean by night and day and I tried to expound on the level of performance the a7iii/c have. I also speak from the perspective of someone who’s owned an a6600, X pro 2, Gfx 50r and now is building out my full frame e mount lens collection while I wait for the a7iv and renting bodies for shoots in the mean time.

[@eddewhurst7662]

@@earthlingtheaaron21 It just seemed a strange comment in the context of portrait photography, I have been shooting for over 50 years and cannot remember ever using anything above base ISO. In the film days 400 asa was far to grainy for portraits. Though each to their own.

[@Dave-ht7dx]

Thank you. Excellent comparison, enlightening.

[@johnc2438]

Very enjoyable lesson -- and very pleasant to see pics of your lovely wife and child (commenting in August 2022). Thanks!

[@yaelsoto2742]

There are differences in sharpness but because of the lens used and not because of the aps c sensor. if we put the same objective in aps c there will be no differences. where if there are many differences it is in the price. Aps c and full frame in price is a huge difference and in my opinion it is not worth spending so much since this sony a7c is a complete decal of the a6600 💁🏻‍♂️. Excellent video greetings 👍🏼😄

[@electrichimp]

Fullframe can get really expensive, but I don’t think you lose too much going for f1.8 lenses, which are priced similarly to aps-c lenses but offer more light while keeping a small profile closer to aps-c

[@brynocerouss]

Agreed. I have the Sony 85mm 1.8 which was really affordable used and is just perfect for portraits

[@a55tech]

for ppl sticking to 1 body, telephoto becomes massively bulkier when going telephoto

[@zacharymoran7596]

I myself have been using the 85mm f/1.8 (amazing sharpness), the 20mm f/1.8 (my favorite lens hands down), and the 35mm f/1.8 (it’s alright). Bought them used, but even new that’s $1996 in lenses. They’re all very small, compact lenses that are just pleasant to use. The 85mm f/1.4, 24mm f/1.4, and 35mm f/1.4 G Master lenses are currently going to set you back $4300. They’re much larger lenses, and cost considerably more. That 85mm in particular is pretty chunky

[@jml7916]

I have the Sony 85 and 50 in f/1.8. I also have the Tamron 35 f/2.8 and 28-200. The 85 is amazing, the 50 is OK but slow to focus. The 35 is insanely sharp and the 28-200 blows my mind for a super zoom. I carry the zoom and the 50 in a tiny shoulder bag smaller than my wife’s purse. It’s always in the truck ready to go. It’s a great setup.

[@architects-io3xr]

Thank you Arthur R. Great analysis. Very professional 🍷🙏👍🏻. Video is a big help.

[@degs88]

Always enjoyed your videos… I bought an A6600 with a Sony 16-55mm len to start and since then bought the Sigma Trio lens on some really good 2nd hand deals… absolutely loved it as I am just a hobbyist photographer for my daughter, toys and food… enough for my use case for now.

[@chrisd1903]

Thank you so much. Your comparisons are really good (side by side, zooming really close in). I like that you do comparisons between lenses/ bodies where others would say "you cant compare Apples with peaches". But i liked all FF Shots better, mostly because of the bokeh, and then the so much better low light quality. But to be honest, i am even less than a hobbiest and the 1k for a6400 and sel35f1.8 hurt me (not reqlly finanziellly, but because of reasoning) - so spending 3x the money would not let me sleep, regardless of the better quality.

[@donquique1]

I love my a6000, however my a7r2 is something else. Specially at night. And pair it with the sigma 16mm f1.4 crop lens and it performs flawless.

[@logtothebase2]

nice sunny day though

[@hermanoteixeiramachado]

The best review.

[@PatrickWithCamera]

Got a6100+56mm and im happy with it, but in this video I see that FF + Sigma Art is a lot better, not only skin tones, shades, colors but even sharpness! If I see it in blurred and compressed YT video then in RAW it will be even more difference, this comparison makes me want to buy FF! If I were professional I would not hesitate and insta buy A7C + sigma 85 atm cause its huge upgrade.

[@BizAndProductReviews]

This was an excellent video except for one thing. You should have used the same lens for each of the cameras so that your comparison would be 100% equal. You actually made me want to go pick up an APS-C camera to go with my Full Frame. 📷 I was just wondering if you ever take video with Full Frame camcorders?

[@Fifthimagez]

This was great!

[@cristiabc1310]

On low light, take a additional light spending fill flash and high ISO is not a necessity anymore. Spending 2000 Euro is for private not worth the money comparing the photos. Better is to analyze its need and buy correspondingly the gear. I would spent personally more money on objective since they last longer in the bag then any camera.

[@markusgaidemesum]

Great post on the topic of full format vs APSC. I personally prefer the APSC sensor again since I started with wildlife. For portraits I use the Sigma 50-100 F.1.8 EF mostly with the Eos 90D or the M6Mkii from Canon, when I work with Sony I use the Mc-11 adapter on the bodies. Have a nice day, Greetings from Germany .Markus Gaide

[@jg_jgjg]

The colors between the two are interesting. Sometimes I like the skin tones on the A7c, and then other times the a6100. I currently shoot an a6600 with the Sigma 56mm. Good stuff as always Arthur!

[@peoplez129]

It's a trick. He's changing the white balances to try to throw people off, and obviously people gravitate to the warmer white balances as better. But all he's doing is crippling one image to make the other look more preferable. At 1:1 with the same white balance, the full frame wins every time. So he's trying to equivocate white balance to distract from image quality, as if the white balance changing means that the image quality must not be a big enough difference. But since we see color and contrast in colors, bad color rendering can naturally make a superior quality image look bad in comparison. But once you account for if the full frame wasn't crippled by a thrown off white balance, it would always edge out.

[@emilolguin3087]

The colors between the two are the result of a couple items not being addressed. The 85mm lens being longer will require the light to travel a bit further, therefore, there's about a 1/3 f/stop difference. You notice it the most when the shutter speeds and iso are the same, the 85mm will appear more saturated in color. On some of the shots where the colors are more equal, the shutter data on the 85mm lens reads about 1/3 slower or the iso will be higher by 30% to compensate for the light loss. Both lenses produce beautiful images and would certainly be an asset in anyone's camera kit.

[@ikaustralia]

Try Canon for skin tone and you will be blown away in comparison to Sony.

[@JacobInzerillo]

@@peoplez129 a 9:45 he says that all the images are straight out of camera with no editing.

[@Primifluous]

​@@peoplez129 it's not a trick, it's AWB being different between cameras.

[@stefanterbekke8506]

Hi Arthur, thanks. Main thing I am wondering about is that ff versus aps-c will not matter that much during the day, but if you use it during the evening and night, there is a major difference. I owned the A6000 and A6600 and currently own the Sony A7RIV (bit unfair, major difference in detail). I also noticed that the dynamic range is much better with ff (i.e. while shooting directly into the sun).

[@Markyroson]

The A7RIV is definitely the way to go...the problem is that it is about 5k just for the body here lol

[@bayern1806]

Yes it's a common thing to do portrait photography at night 😂 Dude you missed the point of the video.

[@LeopoldoManuelRamirezMena]

The boke in the full frame is way softer... and colors are sometimes less contrasted and sometimes more contrasted...

[@neoseyes]

If you are looking for sharpness you can try the fuji X-T100 with the 50 mm 2.8 . It will cost you 400 used

[@goldenretrieverindia]

What about the difference in videography on both cameras?

[@chrisjohnston964]

Thanks for another great video. You've helped me decide to go for the a6600 (I need the better battery and IBIS) over the a7III and save a ton of money.

[@alext.4131]

Every next step of advancement costs more, than previous.

[@ryanfreer77]

Yep, and with it, the law of diminishing returns becomes ever more prevalent.

[@kapilesh14]

Why not use a6600 which has ibis I think that would have narrowed the difference even further.

[@guyjordan8201]

After watching my A7R2 rapidly fall behind more recent generations I am now pursuing APSC lenses to round out my kit. Cropped mode on my camera gives 18MP, which is adequate if we are honest, so I appreciate your emphasis on APSC Sony options. Good video, I like the results from the 56mm a lot.

[@ralphbullis40]

Great comparison. I think I'll stick with my 6300 for a while.

[@gabithemagyar]

me too :-)

[@RedStar89]

I can tell the difference in the depth of field in these photos. As we know bigger sensor makes us move nearer the subject where as aps c makes us stand further if we are using the same focal lengh on each cameras. That said composition and good lightning whether its aps c or full frame can make photo look gorgeous or really ugly

[@C0llinsW0rth.]

100% worth subscribing to your channel. I was on the edge between apsc and ff. But I'll be getting apsc and better glass instead. Am selling 2 a6300s I was using for video work and I think end up getting the a6600 for the headphone jack and larger battery. Thanks as always for the excellent content!

[@nimshardmohamed321]

Feeling bad about my full frame setup with A7iii, thinking if I should sell it 🤔

[@unusualcomment9731]

That's a bit of a shame that every top of the line features come with the most expensive Full Frame lineup but that's why I upgraded to FF. If the APS-C lineup or even RX100 lineup had the same features I would go with that smaller, less expensive body. By the way, however the 56mm is in the contemporary line it is a beast in sharpness, you can't really beat it 😉

[@davidmcsween]

If wife says 50/50... then buy both! :D

[@basilvirgo]

The test is pretty good, but not fair all the way. You don`t only have to convert the focal length, but also the aperture. F 1.4 on Full Frame is around F 1.0 (0.93) on APS-C (F 1.4/1.5 crop factor). That`s why you see a difference in bokeh quality. And about the details in the eyes, skin, etc. you compared a budget lens with a professional one (ART). That`s apples to oranges. No offense, but the comparison is not on equal terms.

[@fraula1]

Impressive A6100 ! How was the white balance setting please ? Auto or manual ?

[@PabloMatsumoto]

If you want to compare the results mimicking real world scenarios you should adjust not only the focal length but also the aperture in order to equal DoF. For eg,, a picture taken 90mm 2.8 in FF with another at 60mm 1.7. The advantages in low light for FF is not so relevant when you make this adjustment. btw, I use M4/3.

[@vvlad78]

Great job, Arthur! As always :) It could be interesting to compare the same cameras in video mode. I guess 4k and especially 1080p will be better on ff, but how big will be the difference?

[@MarioPalomera]

It would be amazing if you could add a $1k smartphone to the mix. I enjoy your videos very much. Longtime a6000 user. I think full frame makes no sense of us family shooters. Maybe a next gen aps c with the same sensor technology as the a1 will push me to upgrade. But maybe by then smartphones will be even closer. So who knows. I only keep my a6000 with the excellent tamron 70-180 2.8 for almost everything else that a smartphone can’t do

[@avavaviv1]

Are you planning to review the 7artisans' 50mm f/0.95?

[@Aramis7]

would be great to do a similar comparison for landscape. I have both Nikon FF and Fuji APS-C and I can definitely see a difference between them on screen.

[@bhspenceryt]

The thing that is not close and obvious in every shot is that the full frame setup always has a more out of focus background for the same f stop. This is because you need to convert the equivalent aperture when moving from full frame to APSC just as you convert the equivalent focal length. An APSC f1.4 is not equal to a full frame f1.4 it is equivalent to an f2.1. To have the same background blur as the full frame f1.4 you would need an APSC lens close to f0.9.

[@antalgabor]

Best comparison between APSC vs FF on youtube. APSC FTW!

[@zeropain9319]

Fantastic video, thanks for doing this comparison. I'm on the fence to upgrade to full frame, but after seeing this, I'm going to keep my A6000 and my Sigma 56. I can see how lucky I am to have them and no need for spending another $2K. I do think the full frame is better, but not for my needs. This was a video I never imagined I needed, so well done, thank you for doing this!

[@dxps26]

Look at the model's face. The video discusses all sorts of things but ignores the main reason why people obsess over full frame - the ability to use a longer lens to compress the image. Her face is different in every example because the 85mm is bringing the sides of her face closer, while the 56mm, even with the crop factor, cannot compress the image as much. The color can be corrected in post. Bokeh is subjective. Sharpness is good from both lenses. APS-C can capture as much detail as you need. Modern ADC means far less noise on high ISOs. But one lens can bend light in a different way then the other, and that is why 85/135mm lenses are used for portraiture over 50/56mm on crop.

[@jeoghne]

That's a good point, but it's pretty slight. It's still a very huge price difference though for a full frame and an aspc.

[@jml7916]

Interesting comparison but, FF can be done much cheaper and for more reasons than you might think. I will compare your $1000 setup to my $1200 Sony FF setup and why I chose it and what I miss. First of all, Sony A7ii with Sony 85mm f/1.8. Yes the lens is slower but still faster (more bokeh) if you convert the aperture. I think this is a better, more interesting comparison than the A7c with a very pricey Art lens. Advantages A7ii for me. -Much larger and brighter EVF -EVF in the centre which as a left eye shooter is so much better -2 control dials for manual shooting -IBIS -Magnesium build and better ergonomics (more buttons lol) -Better dynamic range and low light performance (not my main reason) Advantage A6100 -Lighter and smaller -fantastic eye AF, better AF all around (I do wish I had this) -faster shot rate -Usually cheaper and lighter lenses for the same job. -Better video (I have yet to use any of my cameras to shoot video) I chose the A7ii for the IBIS, low light but mainly build and ergonomics for me. I use 3 lenses with it, Tamron 28-200 f/2.8-5.6, Sony 85 f/1.8 and Sony 50 f/1.8. It is my carry everywhere do everything camera.

[@VicTheVicar]

That guy really reminds me of Hoovie from Hoovie's Garage. Probably brothers? Wichita and Austin aint that far apart after all.