Is Full-Frame Better Than APS-C? The Annoying Truth People Often Don’t Believe

[@Albertoabrian]

APS-C.. specially A6700 and Fuji XS20 or XT series.. are not budget camera anymore in these days 😅

[@ThisIsDavesGarage]

Compared to an A7 IV and then FF lenses… yes it’s much cheaper.

[@James.Buchanan]

Secondhand A7Cs going for 900 usd 🤷

[@rey16beatsch20]

it will soon hahaha!

[@josuastangl7140]

Even an X-T3/4 is a super solid workhorse camera for professionals. 10bit log, external 4:2:2, two card slots and great colors. An a7III doesn't have 10bit video.

[@amitkrupal1234]

Seriously they are reaching price of A7C & R8

[@jerry2357]

I got fed up with carrying around a heavy full-frame DSLR, and moved to micro four thirds a few years ago. I had found that I was carrying around a sophisticated compact camera rather than my DSLR, and I was doing just as well (if not better) in camera club competitions with images taken on the compact camera. So I decided to move to micro four thirds, which had a fairly similar sensor size to my compact camera, but which had interchangeable lenses. Because micro four thirds lenses are designed for the smaller sensor size, they are much smaller and lighter than lenses that can cover a full frame sensor. I have no problem with image quality using my micro four thirds setup, and it is much lighter for travel, walking and just doing observational photography. I have no regrets from downsizing.

[@dororo22]

Well you are straight up wrong with lenses being smaller for smaller sensors, its not a thing anymore - lenses for APSC and their equivalents on FF are same weight and same size.

[@jerry2357]

@ Have you tried micro four thirds lenses? I have a 28-300 mm L lens for my full frame Canon DSLR, and I rarely used it because it was so large and heavy. I have an equivalent 14-150 mm Olympus lens for micro four thirds, and it is smaller and lighter than even the 24-105 mm standard lens for the Canon DSLR. I can easily carry around my Olympus camera with 14-150 mm attached all day with no neck strain from the camera strap. The same isn't true of my Canon DSLR and 24-105 mm. It's the laws of physics: a shorter focal length to get the same angle of view also means that the maximum absolute aperture is physically smaller (for instance f/4 at 25 mm is 6.25 mm compared with 12.5 mm at 50 mm). This means that, for instance, a standard lens for micro four thirds has a considerably smaller diameter than the equivalent full frame lens.

[@dororo22]

@@jerry2357 To get same photo in terms of lights, bokeh, dof etc with f4 lens on apsc you will only need to use f6 on ff - that's why f2.8 apsc zoom lenses are literally bigger than f4 ff zoom lenses are giving SAME PICTURE as their apsc equivalent even though they are same price. You are comparing f4 apsc to f4 ff - whats the point there? If f4 on FF gives u way way better results?

[@jerry2357]

@ I haven't mentioned APSC. Micro four thirds has a frame size half the linear dimension of full frame (i.e. a crop factor of 2). It depends on what you're photographing. For nature, landscapes and street photography, in fact for most general photography apart from portraits, you don't need shallow depth of field, so an f/4 lens is fine. In fact, you get slightly more depth of field at the same aperture setting on micro four thirds, which is an advantage for most types of photography other than portraits. And if I want to take a nice portrait I use my Olympus 45 mm f/1.8 (equivalent to 90 mm on full frame), which is small, light and gives shallow depth of field. I can carry several f/1.8 or f/2 micro four thirds prime lenses for the same weight as even my 24-105 mm f/4 lens for my Canon full frame DSLR.

[@K7.2023]

my fellings exactly ❤

[@Thirsty_Fox]

Very well done video on the topic that, as you say, many don't fully understand. As someone who shoots with both, I've given it lots of thought and experimentation. FF generally only offers a small advantage if you have lenses that can take advantage of it -- one stop of aperture (for equal f-stop) and one stop of ISO/DR if shooting at the same f-stop value. If you have a 1.5x crop APSC and take a photo at 50mm f/1.2 ISO 100, it will look pretty much identical to a FF at 75mm f/1.8 ISO 200 in field of view, depth of field, and noise/dynamic range (assuming similar sensor technology). Of course if you have a FF with f/1.2 lens, there is no such equivalent on APSC. So for me, full frame helps when you need fast f/2.8 zooms since you get that one stop advantage over the APSC. At higher ISOs (over 800 typically), FF tend to have dual gain sensors that give an extra stop in noise performance. But the question becomes whether that one stop of noise and potential for one stop of aperture is worth a big jump in price of bodies and lenses, along with the big jump in size and weight. I don't bring my expensive wedding photography gear on family vacations or packed in my motorcycle. But something like an a6700 with a couple of small, fast, and sharp lenses is perfect. There are so many great options now in the f/1.2 or f/1.4 for crop sensor and the difference in photo quality is negligible in many situations. So for me it's APSC (a6700) for personal use and light duty work, FF (a7RV) for wedding and event work (for fast zooms, dual card slots, and the potential for one stop more subject separation). I will add that modern APSC are better than older FF sensors in most regards. Even some new FF sensors like the Z6iii have given up dynamic range in the pursuit of sensor readout speed for high-framerate 4k, less rolling shutter, and better burst.

[@jhirse3547]

Well explained!

[@Joh146]

Really smart answer to my expectations on full frame. There ist no equivalent lens for APS-c to a 2.8 full frame zoom. But for casual portratis I can work with Sigma 30 or 56 1.4, or the Viltrox 75 1.2, if I woud to buy this. The less stop in dynamic range is not really an issue for me, because for nightscapes I use a tripod as for milky way shots oder and the modern noise reduction software ist a great help. I couldn´t effort all my gear in full frame, too expensive and for my likes to heavy and to big. But it´s totally clear that for professional use setup full frame is often a must, because if a customer would pay a lot of money for his wedding photos the he could expect a very high quality. But if full frame or APS-c, it doesn´t say anything about the qulicication or creation of the photographer. Not everybody want or can pay several thousand EUR for his camera. For many people are 500 EUR for their hobby a lot of money, often too much money.

[@Thirsty_Fox]

@@Joh146 Agreed on all points. If someone is paying you to capture their once-in-a-lifetime event, they are counting on great results, where failure/loss of photos cannot be a risk, so you need certain equipment for the job. But that is work, and it's different carrying lots of heavy/expensive gear when you're at work vs out with your family on holiday. Good photographers can produce high quality results with all levels of gear if they understand the principles and how to apply them using what they have.

[@CurtisPadley]

@@Thirsty_Fox ooooo Agreed on all the points you mentioned! Thanks for sharing this explanation mate! Have a fantastic day! 😃

[@RS-nq8xk]

Agreed. For me I went with the even smaller M43 (OM5), as all I want is something in the 'small' telephoto range that is also of nice quality, with as much light as possible within a low weight setup. The 35-100 2.8 works well, and there seems to be no equivalent on APS-C or FF, they seem to only focus on cutting weight for 24-70s and primes, 'small' telephotos are either travel zooms or some 300-400mm equivalent thing with FF-f8-effect, and they don't seem to offer that 'nice lens' feel, which the 35-100 has it for me, with some smooth out of focus transition. Plus I don't really need over 200mm. Which means it's mostly the 35-100 or maybe a 28-200 Tamron, but that with a Sony body (which I didn't really like either.) was still like 30%? heavier for minimal differences in light gathering at the tele end (Wide end there's already a RX100 at home, I don't need much quality for that). So micro four thirds it is. I have to say though, sometimes I do feel the M43's resolution penalty even when compared to 28-200 samples online, or the Z50 at home. But I love the rendering of that 35-100 (which I didn't really get from the 50-250), and the inner zoom anyway. And being able to get okay results at 1/90s, ISO3200-6400 or so at night is 'good enough' for me to not consider the 700-1500g f4 or f2.8 FF zooms. And while I didn't pay for any AI denoise program, if I want it the OM official one is serviceable haha.

[@JairAmadofilms]

Wonderful breakdown bro!!🙌🏼🙌🏼 Been using my Sony a6700 for months now and it’s been an absolute beast!🔥

[@CurtisPadley]

@@JairAmadofilms Ayyy thanks bro! 👊 What a beast, glad you’re enjoying the A6700! 📸

[@RoadReality]

Man, this video really does 3 things for me: 1, you clearly explained the differences between APS-C and FF. 2, you showed clear examples of each - thanks! and 3, the Lego Polaroid cartridge earned the sub :D I shot with a Sony ZV-1 for a year, Nikon Z30 for a year, and now have a Canon R6II... and they're all "tools to get the job done" - not that I'm getting paid, but they each have clear use cases for me. Glass is SO important - and this is where the APS-Cs get it wrong, IMO. The manufacturers put slow/cheap glass on them, and it really shows in the final result. I am SO HAPPY with my R6II photos when compared directly with my Nikon. And IBIS... what a boon for walking & talking. FWIW, I bought the R6II with the 24-105 F4 USM lens. I may never need another lens for that camera.

[@comeraczy2483]

Excellent video, thanks. Perhaps, there are a couple of inaccuracies that could be addressed to improve the impact of the message. For instance, at 4:00, it its not focal length + aperture + focus distance; instead, it is angle of view + aperture diameter + focus distance. Basically, if you apply the crop factor to both focal length and the f-number, you will get exactly the same depth of field. For instance, any DOF app will show that at 10 feet, a 50mm FF at f-3.2 has the same DOF (2.3 feet) and angle of view (47 degrees) as a Canon APS-C 31mm at f-2. Similarly, at 7:30, when you say that "FF is better in low light because it has a larger sensor and the pixels are more light efficient". This is not true at all - quite the opposite. The main benefit of larger pixels is that they can accumulate more light before being saturated, but that's obviously irrelevant for low light situations. In fact, smaller sensors are frequently more efficient at converting light into images. For instance, a mid-range full frame sensor will convert 50-60% of the light into an useful electric signal (called Quantum Efficiency - QE). The full frame camera with the best QE today is the Canon R3 at 68% QE (with a huge price tag). In comparison, there are several micro four thirds sensors with a QE greater than 80%. From 55% QE on the Canon R6 II to 81% QE on the OM-1 II, that's a huge difference in favor of the OM-1 II, at similar price. I believe that the misconception comes from the fact that people do these comparisons at same ISO, which used to be a very relevant methodology with film cameras - not so much with digital cameras.

[@josuastangl7140]

I think the main difference that people feel when talking about low light performance has to do with the aperture difference needed to get the same shot. As with APS-C you have to open your aperture by one more stop to get the equivalent image, you essentially have one stop less to go when you need more light and your shooting with an equivalent lens.

[@achaycock]

That was a really interesting comment. I forgot to account for QE but as a primarily micro four thirds shooter that explains a lot to me.

[@clarasdk]

For the money and on a budget I would buy a APS-C with a better lense over a fullframe with a less good lense any day! I have the A6700 with the Sony 16-55G and the Sony 70-350G and the quality paired with the size and weight of the setup is just amazing. It might not be a professional setup, but I would argue that even advanced amateurs would be hard pressed to hit the limits of such a modern ASP-C setup. The autofocus, dynamics range, hell even the ISO capabilites are just amazing.

[@HeadphoneChamps]

What made you chose the Sony lens over the sigma 18-50? I'm stuck between those 2 Lenses.

[@clarasdk]

@@HeadphoneChampsI studied the Sigma 18-50 a lot before going with the Sony and it was a very close call. A few things made me go for the Sony though, I really wanted the little extra MM in both ends especially on the wide side, to be more flexible when I only travel with one lens. I also prioritized the better weather sealing as I do a lot of outdoor stuff in Denmark and we often have rain. Lastly I was looking into the filter size. Both the Sony lenses that I bought have 67mm filter size and I plan to get the Sigma 10-18 and the Viltrox 27 1.2 at some point. they both also have 67mm. Thereby I will not have to bring step up/down rings. I would have loved the Sigma for its almost macro like focus distance and its size. But coming from a Sony A77 with battery grip and larger lenses the current setup is allready a big upgrade in regards of reducing size and weight. I studied the Sigma 18-50 a lot before going with the Sony and it was a very close call. But I have not regretted my choice. But I don't think you go wrong with the Sigma either and it is cheaper if you are on a budget. If you have further questions I will gladly help :)

[@HeadphoneChamps]

@@clarasdk Thanks for this detailed reply! I currently have the a6400 and am wondering if I should upgrade to the a6700. I wonder how much better the image quality will be? I will purchase one of the lenses soon to either sigma or sony and it's been a very difficult choice. I was even wondering if I should just get a 23mm 1.4f sigma prime as my all arounder for travel. Watching videos that compare the prime to the zooms shows the sigma 23mm prime looks a lot sharper.

[@jhirse3547]

@@HeadphoneChamps I have both. You can increase sharpening on the a6400 by one stop in the settings, then you have virtually the same image quality. Ah, except for whites in high ISO images (like at ISO 12800), then the a6700 renders better, while the a6400 will give you yellow artefacts. One more advice, if you haven't done it already, and are shooting JPG: Set High ISO Noise Reduction to "low"...

[@HeadphoneChamps]

@@jhirse3547 Thanks! So the video quality wouldn't be that big of a difference either?

[@GilbertTV]

great vid, with the new Denoise tool in Lightroom , poor ISO performance is hardly an issue these days . Personally I have an a7riii & a a6400 , I love them both

[@Princeton_James]

The a6700 is the best apec camera out now. I love mine especially for travel. Zero shots out of focus. Colors are beautiful. Grip is better than my A7CR.

[@TimDillardPhotography]

What’s your go to travel kit with the A6700?

[@bondgabebond4907]

Excellent video. This has to be one of the more difficult concepts for beginners to understand. This video clears that up. I have the A7R3 and a6700. I love them both. Depending on what I want to shoot, I choose wisely. To be honest, every once in a while I feel the aps-c is not up to the job. Then I shoot some macro photos of very detailed flowers and leaves, and I am blown away again. One huge benefit with aps-c is the number of cheap (not in quality) lenses coming from China.

[@artbynaition1278]

factttsss, i got a f1.4 lens from meike for my a6700 and im like whaaaattt, under 200 and it slapsss

[@bondgabebond4907]

@@artbynaition1278 Enjoy. I'm liking my TTArtisan 27mm f2.8 aps-c compact lens for my a6700. It's only $150. OMG.

[@sammyjiujitsu]

I run this exact set up as well, I use my R3 for portraits since I just have a 35mm F1.4 on there but the A6700 does it all pretty much now the glass helps a ton I am running the 17-70 F2.8 Tamron but I have shot video and photos at an event pretty easily with the A6700. It’s a beast for sure. I always forget until I pick it up

[@m_agatek]

Oh my! Perfect film for me. I use micro 4/3 system and I've been thinking about upgrading for some time. At first I wanted to go full frame but I'm afraid it will be too heavy, I'll be angry and in the end the camera will gather dust on the shelf. I'm not a professional, I take photos as a hobby. And now I'm starting to think more and more about a6700...

[@okosakaroklenni]

At last a comprehensive comparison! Only one question left: does a 1.3EV of dynamic range advantage matter (something like an a6400 vs an A7c)?

[@bassyey]

Skill is the difference lol. Hand me the most expensive full frame you can think of, hand an aps-c to a pro. Watch me butcher full-frame photos.

[@AutumnBlair]

Brilliant video Curtis 👏🏼

[@CurtisPadley]

Thanks mate! 🙌

[@haphong254]

Hope you can release a video tutorial on editing photos using Lightroom

[@TungstenOvergaard]

I’m aware of the advantages/dissadvantages and the differences, for ages. But I have enjoyed a lot the video, as it was the first time. Top!

[@Viewpoint_Variable]

Thanks for the great video! Super informative. Appreciate the extra effort it must have taken to put this together.

[@tubeMonger]

A happy a6000 user here.

[@nimalotfi3006]

Sir you are happy with a6000? I might buy one between this camera and canon m100 and maybe m200

[@dubzwilliams353]

Another HAPPY A6000 lover

[@W_1_3_7]

2:38 thanks finally for a proper explanation of how blur works. I was looking for that in many videos.

[@CurtisPadley]

@@W_1_3_7 You’re welcome mate! Now you don’t need to keep looking! 🙌😃

[@smoke362]

Love my 6700. I use Full frame and APS-C lenses. Thanks for the in depth explanation. Love your POV keep up the awesome work.

[@CurtisPadley]

@@smoke362 Eyyy you’re welcome mate! And thanks for the kind words have a brilliant day! 😃

[@Joh146]

Three years ago I started with an old A6000 and a kit-lens. Today I have a used A6400, the Sigma 18-50 2.8, the Sony 70-350, the Sigma 30 and 56 1.4. I want upgrade my Samyang 12 2.0 with the Sigma 10-18 2.8 and want to change my cheap macro lens. Next year the change to the A6700 because of IBIS and Focus bracketing for macro woud be nice. But step after step. My descsion is APS-c, so I can one piece at a time optimize without to break the bank, but to be honest, although it is all used it´s a lot of money.

[@7784000]

Hi, I have more or less the same set-up. A6400, Sigma 18-50 2.8, Sony 70-350, Sigma 30 and 56 1.4 and the Sony 11m F1.8. The ultrawide angle is really nice and has a wide aperture for low light + with 11mm you can use quite long exposure times even without IBIS :) At some point I will move to a6700 or possibly the next a6XXX series for IBIS and other features.

[@Joh146]

@@7784000 Near the same. And if we are honest, this costs enough money. And it´s good enough for the most cases. And it´s small and light.

[@tennady]

Love this bro. Got my a6400 bc I saw how much you loved it. It hasn’t disappointed me with how I’ve learned to use it💯 love your vibes and love and passion for the game bro 🫶🏽

[@Xer0.Visual5]

Love the Video and your way at looking at the Camera's. Keep it up.!

[@CurtisPadley]

Thanks, will do! 😃😃

[@normimb9484]

I just subscibe. You and Arthur R are just my reference for learning. Thanks a lot.

[@giovannigio6217]

recently I used a windows tool to read files metadata and collect statistics on entire folders. I wanted to know which is the average ISO of all my 2024 photos. the result was about ISO 217. 81% of the photos have an ISO number

[@CurtisPadley]

This is so cool! Bro I didn’t even know you could do somthing like that! What software did you use? Very interesting findings as well not even using higher ISOs all that often, great way of figuring out if you’d actually benefit from having a Fullframe camera, thanks for sharing 😃

[@giovannigio6217]

@@CurtisPadley this is a very long topic that can't be tackeled on this very basic chat. mainly because "exif tool" is a command line program. there is no install process. you extract the zip content and you launch it from command line. what I did, I put the executable and the folder "exif files" in the same folder where all the photos subfolders are and it's the same folder from which I right click and open cmd. then I launched a custom command. hopefully google won't cut this part. basically the command creates an excel file with two columns, one is the file name and the 2nd one is the ISO number. it picks only ARW photos with ISO lower than 6400 in this example. once you open with excel the CSV file you can use the average function, or other functions to extrapolate the statistics you want. here's the command: exiftool -r -csv -SonyISO -ext arw -if "$SonyISO

[@achaycock]

The timing of this video is very apt for me. I use Micro Four Thirds as my main system as it has proven to be a low cost way of getting those pro features (dual card slots, rugged build and amazing lenses) without spending a fortune. However, as I want to use my vintage lenses as intended and to occasionally be able to get that full frame look without jumping through hoops, I have also just bought a first gen Sony A7S. It was cheaper than the required speed boosters and the amazing low light performance was appealing (hence my choosing the lower mega-pixel sensor). It was nice to have some confirmation bias.

[@TheIwanmarcu]

Suggest me as a begginer for photography A7III + 24-70 f/2.8 g master A6700 + Sony 16-55 mm f/2.8 G or sigma 18-50 F2.8 A6400 + ? Canon R8 + ? Thanks

[@jordanquinnfilms]

Thank you for your insight. I love your video on explaining ff lenses on apsc bodies. Lately have had interest in the a7c ii and thought of upgrading but I think my a6700 with full frame lenses has a better look. Going to keep my apsc lens collection and also buy ff glass!

[@DouGh745]

Excelent material as always, Curtis. Greetings from Brazil my friend.

[@CurtisPadley]

@@DouGh745 Thanks mate glad it was helpful! Greetings! 🙌

[@John_the_baptized]

Such a great video. Great depth in decision making for beginners and will definitely help us make better financial decisions! Thank you!

[@CurtisPadley]

@@John_the_baptized You’re super welcome mate! So glad it was helpful and clear! My main concern was making things more confusing so I tried to explain every detail over so clearly. As a beginner years ago this concept completely boggled my brain 🤣

[@WatchMysh]

Super helpful video and well explained. I'll keep my apsc gear. :) Thanks! You saved me a lot of money.

[@PersianBaki]

Aps-c is good enough for video . Any video! . But i found out there is so many downside for portrait photography with aps-c … definitely fullframe is the best choice for ppl who want focus in photo

[@CurtisPadley]

@@PersianBaki Fair opinions there. I’d personally say APS-C is more than enough for a lot of people for photography. I’d be very interested to hear why you think APS-C is a downside for portrait photography! 🙌

[@ggpat4748]

Same thoughts. Bought a6700 for video and thought I could replace my photo camera (FF) with that. But I keep coming back to FF for photography. The transition from highlights to shadow and focus to out of focus transition is smoother.If you focus on photo and have the budget, bigger sensor is always better.

[@ickebins6948]

So many downsides for photo? Other then the "noise" which is not really a problem afterall, what other problems are there?

[@PersianBaki]

@@ickebins6948 Ok . Let me tell you . Biggest downside for “portrait photography” That means F1.4 in crop sensor is basically F2.1 !! So you will never get that beautiful Creamy bokeh with crop sensor!!! It doesn’t matter for landscape or other things . Its almost okay with any video too . But for portrait NOT enough

[@ickebins6948]

@@PersianBaki Ok that's one thing, what about the rest? If there is so many you found. Because most people don't do high end portrait fotography anyway. And why do you even use full frame and not medium format? If it's that important, all serious portrait photographers I know, use medium format. You get massively better seperation compared to fullframe.

[@leonidous888]

This is probably the best break down of the difference between the two. Nothing you said differs from my opinions enough to be comment worthy. The only two things I would add, though. You touted the size and weight advantage of the APS-C. The inverse of that is body ergonomics. One of the reasons I am a Nikon shooter is that the Z6/Z7 bodies fit better in my hand than the A7(x) bodies fit. This is highly subjective, but if I walk around with a camera in hand all day, it makes a big difference. The second is either a stand alone, or previous comment part B. Lens focal-range range. I use the 35-150, 24-100 equivalent on APSC. Of 1623 shots in Tokyo, 430 are at 35 and 586 are at 150. Or enough that I am seriously considering giving up F/2-2.8 for 24-200mm of zoom. That kind of lens doesn't exist yet for APS-C. So A shooter either has to have 2 bodies or do frequent lens swaps. They can compromise and use something like the 35-150, but then the balance is all wrong. No real heartburn with the image quality discussion. Its in line with why I am content with F/2.0 at 35mm and won't pick up a 1.4. Both my interface with the system...my hand/arm experience is very different between the two. That said, if you already have the right lens and are on a tripod no one will ever know.

[@Sputim28]

I see your point. I bought the Sony ZV E-10 last december and it was way to small for my hand. But i bought a cage from smallrig for about 50 euros and now its fitting perfect and also gives the superlight camera a little bit of weight (for filming thats very nice since gravity makes the film less shaky)

[@kenwalker4386]

Thanks for a brilliant analysis of this subject Curtis. I am happy with my Fuji X-T30 APSc camera but was wondering about buying full frame. In truth it is the weight and bulk of the lenses that put me off buying full frame and I wondered if better lenses on APSc would be just as good as spending out on full frame. I think you have answered that question for me. I'm only an enthusiast and an old one at that, so will maybe spend on another APSc camera and/or lenses instead. Regards.

[@peterbernhard6087]

I got a A7 R IV together with a Tamron 28F2.8 to 200F5.6 and a Viltrox 16F1.8. I did not find a more versatile combination. Since i have 60MP it has kind of a built in APS-C with 24 MP when i crop with 1.58. Or 15MP if i crop to MFT. The A7R IV together with the 28-200 weights 1.24kg. The A6700 weights around 170g less. But i dont know if it is as ergonomic. And the Lens Choice must be worse since you cant use the full potential of FF lenses. The Sony FF are kind of small for FF Bodys so i dont think its that big of a deal. Also you could get a Alpha 7CR. So if you got the money.. why not go Full Frame? Its an honest question! Besides that. Software is king. I dont know how much better the newer APS-C are in that department. I guess the A7 R V should be good since it has the newer menu (in the hope it is really better then the old ones of A7 III and A7 R IV and older). Whats really important for me is a fast AF and a good Eye-AF. The R V can switch between animals and Persons automaticly and also finds the eye if it is not visible. Such features are very important. Or the minimal shutter Time option which older Cameras like the A7 II lack of. Or even an FTP feature or something similiar. My A7 R IV luckily has most features i can think of.. but the menu is very overfilled and could rwally be improved.

[@andrisstanga5938]

Thanks for this, by far the best English language video on the subject on KZbin.

[@CurtisPadley]

Ayyy you’re welcome mate! I’m glad it was super helpful! :)

[@lexnext3611]

I really wish I saw this video when I didn't know all this stuff, great explanation for everything in meticulous detail

[@CurtisPadley]

Glad it was helpful!

[@radcoimbatore]

Awesome information bro 😍

[@optical_ideas]

Asked this myself today. Thanks for this video. In germany everybody (from what i know) says "i got my 50 millimeter lens with me", i like that a lot of english speaking people say "i got my 50 mill lens with me" 😎

[@ShaeClarke16]

genuinly needed this, thinking of upgrading to a Sony a7iv from a a6000. Thankyou so much

[@nicolaconti17]

You won't regret, the A7 IV is a beast of a camera. If you want a smaller size body check out the A7C II tho, same sensor, smaller package (but the EVF is substantially worse and you get only one card slot, still if I could go back I'd get it, the A7 IV is quite big for what I do)

[@ShaeClarke16]

@@nicolaconti17 im gonna be using it for sports photography such as boxing and mma, ive been doing it professionally / semi professionally for a few weeks, and athe sony a6000's auto focus and just some other things about it are holding me back, even though i dont want my camera to do everything for me, i still want a challenge . Im hoping the a7iv will give me a few when i buy it.

[@aaronpaid5835]

Look into the Sony 7C II, it's a better fit for me. Slightly better than the a7IV

[@ShaeClarke16]

@@aaronpaid5835 isnt that for more video?

[@giovannigio6217]

as curtis said, if you need the features of a7iv or a7cii , I may add, or you are wedding photographer where that extra light matters, then it makes sense to consider it, otherwise I would stick to an a6700

[@cuziwin5113]

Absolute best Comparison Video I have seen so far!

[@LeonardoCoutinho]

Very good explanation, I already think it is but no one did that explanation about depth of field and blur. 50mm on FF will behave as 50mm in apsc. Using 35mm lens on apsc to achieve same field of view of 50mm lens on FF change image proportions.

[@ctsxhp326]

Always great seeing a new video from you Curtis, having run both for a while do you think the a6700 is a worthy meaningful upgrade over the a6400 or should I just keep on keeping on with this guy? On paper there's a few things to me that really seem worth the upgrade like the articulating screen, type C and higher tier data transfer capabilities both over cable AND remote to phone, as well as another jump in AF and sensor quality but maaaan the price lol. Could spend that on more lenses too.

[@jordanquinnfilms]

It has a different look because it’s a newer sensor

[@rey16beatsch20]

Thank you for this very detailed explanation Curtis

[@CurtisPadley]

My pleasure! Glad it was helpful mate!

[@pudsboi5203]

Brilliant vid and well explained 🤙

[@CurtisPadley]

Ayyy thanks! 🤙

[@GeorgeMace]

That was a perfect explanation. Thanks very much!

[@teamgio30_yt93]

What would you recommend as a hybrid full frame camera?

[@Oddknott_Plus]

This maybe the best video explaining the topic, thank you so much for this

[@massivejew5065]

Is the difference between 16MP in crop mode on FF really that much different than 24MP on APS-C? Aren’t they both 4k?

[@pokaface564]

The truth about aps-c is that nobody is making true equivalents to the big boy pro lenses for aps-c. And by true equivalent, I mean a 24-70 f2.8 would be something like 16 - 47 f1.8 If Fuji, Sony, Nikon or canon did this, then you could get true FF results with an aps-c sensor. Instead, they are putting R&D on FF (which is understandable) with stuff like the 28-70 f2 To replicate that, you’d be talking 19-47 f1.4 But at that point, why do it? The lenses would basically as big and expensive as the equivalent FF lens (if not more expensive since it may have less economies of scale) Instead, they settle for good enough with aps-c, while extracting the diminishing returns of R&D with FF. And truly, i think it’s fine, if an a6100 and a 16-55 2.8 are good enough for you, then nobody should take that away from you. And if you can justify the a7Rv with the 28-70 f2, then suit yourself.

[@monkeydai]

It was really helpful tips. Thank you ❤

[@massivejew5065]

What lens do you use for travel??

[@ch-ev5ee]

I'm going from crop to FF because the place i mainly shoot doesn't have much ground to go in back, i could use the crop mode on the sony FF to achieve the same results as the apsc line when needed a bit more zoom or on the fly borrow an apsc lens from a friend

[@W_1_3_7]

Can you please show more examples of real world blur and scene experience? Like will I able to shoot nicely some photos with particular lenses of both cameras?

[@BladimirJarpa]

for an apsc camera, a full frame lens and an apsc lens would be the same?

[@amateurgamer149]

Man I am getting a brand new a6600 at 700$ body only. Should I go for it or choose something other?

[@jordanquinnfilms]

I had 6400, 4:49 6600 and went to the 6700 and I like it more. New color science, and new AI features. It’s noticeably better

[@darwinboaventura]

Great video! What happened to the #CurtisPadley hashtag photo features? Will there be no more?

[@renektsorensen]

I'm so frustrated with this/my idea of changing my a7 III setup to a a6700 setup. I usually use the Sony 40mm 2.5 G lens for at compact setup, which is what I'm attracted to. I am both concerned about the DoF with the Sigma 23mm 1.4, and it's low-light performance as I shoot a lot of indoors family photos as well. The a6700 will still be more expensive, so should I just wait a bit and buy an used a7C II? I'm not ISO-scared nor a bokeh-holic, but I do like it smooth. I know the difference will be small but at some point I need to make a decision whether I want to stay FF or switch to APS-C. Any comments?

[@natalesteve]

Great review Curtis👏🏻 my main camera, Sony A7 IV and Bcam Sony FX30

[@CurtisPadley]

Oooo what a setup! 🤩

[@prof_jesus]

Ma man, me needs to know the red thing on that shutter button... I dig the look very much! Would you think that it'd match the a7c ii?

[@christopherguillen6986]

Acabo de ver la mejor comparación de FF y APCc de toda mi vida jejeje, tenía claros algunos conceptos..pero ahora ya entiendo muchísimo más.. feliz con mi humilde a6100. Gracias Curtis y saludos desde Colombia!!😊

[@CurtisPadley]

Ayyy that’s great to hear thanks for the kind words! Glad it was super duper helpful!

[@elwick_photo]

Genuinely think I'd be interested to see what Sony would do if they made a more premium apsc camera, proper 30fps, 30mp, CF type a cards X2....and with all the other a6700 bells and whistles

[@clarasdk]

Will probably not happen as they rather want to sell more expensive fullframe cameras for the segment who needs two card readers, the fps etc. But yes it would be nice.

[@josuastangl7140]

Seems like Fujifilm doesn't have much competition there

[@randolph4717]

I chose Sony FE cameras; a7cll & a74, w both fast glass in both crop & full frame lenses. It walks for me! RW

[@heyimapl]

As someone with aspirations to break into concert photography, all I've ever heard was the importance of owning a full frame, especially due to the inherent nature of working in low light environments. Would you (or anyone) say that's less of an issue now, and you could get away with a quality aps-c and some good glass, or would investing in a full frame still be the right choice here?

[@Thirsty_Fox]

Yeah the glass matters most with concert photography. FF vs APSC depends a bit on if you're doing it for paid work since it may be worth going FF and fast mid-tele (70-200 f/2.8) so you can have great results and dual card slots. If you go FF but get slower glass, then it won't have helped at all. For paid you should also have a backup body and lens in case of a failure. I've worked with one guy who did concerts and shows who used three Fuji APSC setups, one was the XH2 with dual card slot, but the other two were XT series with single cards. His main lens was the 50-140 f/2.8 which seemed to work great for the distances he was at (not that far when you're given press pass at a concert) and the lighting at major concerts is surprisingly bright (compared with bars or small private venues). If you're on a budget you may find it a lot cheaper to get two APSC bodies and lenses, maybe swap out cards a few times to minimize the risk and consequence of a failure.

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

Stick with full frame. You heard correctly.

[@josuastangl7140]

I shoot nightclubs and concerts on Fuji X-T4/3. The FF bug is always in my mind, but honestly I can certainly get great images with what I've got. FF with good glass is a lot more expensive, not just a little bit.

[@gamer-xy1gk]

Hey I am about the buy the a6700 and I am still thinking about which lense to get. Which lense would you guys suggest more the Sony 16-55mm or the Tamron 17-70mm? I am leaning more to the Tamron, however i heard that a lot of people have issues with the VC stabilization of the lense combined with the IBIS of the camera. Any suggestions from experts?

[@marlietomas4070]

Thank you for the insights, planning to buy a Sony A6400❤

[@fuyufx]

I got an a7iv because sony didnt have a hybrid APS-C camera with 10 bit video at the time. I enjoy it now but if the a6700 was out at the time i probably would have got that instead.

[@ndwknss]

I'm about to purchase my first a6700 body right now. I do outdoor photography. Which lens would y'all recommend?

[@CurtisPadley]

Check out the sigma 18-50 F2.8! Top everyday lens!

[@ndwknss]

@@CurtisPadley thanks, I did a bunch of research on that and decided I'll absolutely get the sigma. Thanks for the suggestion man! Absolutely love your work too

[@NagatoKamiPain]

what I still dont get is if I have 17mm APS-C lens and 17mm Full Frame Lens is apsc is still 17x1.5 or its same 17mm?

[@CurtisPadley]

@@NagatoKamiPain Hopefully I can help here. So ANY lens you put on an APS-C camera you have to times that focal length by 1.5x, that goes for lenses design for cropped sensors cameras and FF. :)

[@jamesmcconnon2]

Thankyou, the best explanation of this that i have heard. Appreciate it

[@CurtisPadley]

@@jamesmcconnon2 You’re welcome mate, glad it was super helpful!

[@cziasai]

What a great video! Thanks

[@f.hayashida]

Great explanation

[@CurtisPadley]

Glad it was helpful!

[@Grizzlyjitsu]

Thanks for video. Good arguments and defending the APSC. Still hearing dont buy a6700 its not fullframe ...

[@CurtisPadley]

@@Grizzlyjitsu You’re welcome! I’d say buy the A6700! Such a good camera, I’ve just done my 1 year ownership review of that camera! 🙌

[@DrahcirNiangga]

Hello guys i wanna get into film making and it’s my first time buying a camera. What are your suggestions, Thankyou!

[@ScreenOnTimeYT]

Great video, some really good points. You can take a micro four thirds like the Lumix g9ii and produce amazing images still. Especially as you say on socials 😎

[@CurtisPadley]

@@ScreenOnTimeYT Eyyyy glad you like it! I’ve actually never used a micro four thirds camera before 🙌

[@ScreenOnTimeYT]

@@CurtisPadley I feel like a new video in the works 👀😁😎 Love your content. 🔥

[@Sarahlizardbreath]

I got great quality pictures from the canon aps-c I had…. I just didn’t like its low light performance. Once I reached an iso of 800 it was just noise central so that camera eventually got the boot. Much happier with the full frame I have now.

[@CurtisPadley]

@@Sarahlizardbreath Happy for you mate! :D Low Light Performance has improved drastically over the last few years on APS-C cameras it’s insane! 🤯

[@puckhead1221]

How would the bokeh look if you refocused the image? Might change Cause the subject (the retro camera) isn’t in focus

[@josuastangl7140]

It would still be identical on both FF and in crop mode. I think he wanted to focus on the front of the lens and not the body.

[@CurtisPadley]

No the Bokeh would be the same. The focus was the same for both photos and is in focus on the cameras logo. Bear in mind I’m using a F1.4 aperture that has such a smaller focal plane. There the logo of the camera is in focus and the lens isn’t. I hope that answers your question 😃

[@puckhead1221]

what happens if you create the same shot (composition)? So you'd have to backup with the APS-C or wider lense. IMO you have to create the same frame in order to make a fair comparison.

[@josuastangl7140]

@@puckhead1221 It's never really gonna be the same shot, because compression changes with distance to the subject and depth of field changes with focusing distance or focal length. But yes, if you back up with the APSC, you’ll get more compression and deeper depth of field. If you just get a wider lens, compression stays the same, but you still gain deeper depth of field by the same amount, because of the wider focal length. So in either scenario the bokeh will be reduced by one stop.

[@puckhead1221]

@@josuastangl7140 so it does have less bokeh then 😂 For the Bokeh to be the same the shot (composition) needs to be the same IMO

[@TebboTeo-wq3lw]

Great Video

[@MOTOJendays]

Good video, but I am pretty sure the resolution to low light performance has been debunked. The only reason 61MP is viewed to have "worse" low light performance is because it's a larger image and when you zoom into the image you're gonna see more noise. But if you scale the images from lets say the a7iv and a7rv to be the same exact size, the noise will end up being almost identical, which in the example that you showed the noise was almost identical.

[@DJJSPOOKY]

great video just what i was looking for. thank you

[@CurtisPadley]

You're welcome! Glad it helped 🙌

[@czaczaja]

3:45 which one is it?

[@CurtisPadley]

It’s supposed to be “this is where APS-C cameras hold a bit of advantage over full-frame cameras” Sorry about that flubbing over my own words 🤣

[@jntechreview]

15:20 All I want is a perfect camera...

[@The_MOLF]

Thank you. very helpfull !

[@oscarlarsen7561]

I work as a model and a lot of photographers use apsc

[@gawiederkehr]

Salve do Brasil. Tenho uma Sony A6400 e só uso lente Full Frame. Gosto do resultado. Abraços

[@TheSunnySuttons]

Well said.

[@cranemon]

I think equivalency is rather meaningless for a beginner who has neither a full frame nor an APS-C camera because they don’t have any prior reference for comparison. Crop factor is only really useful when buying lenses, but I would not really consider it when shopping for sensor size because there are an endless amount of lenses that will deliver the same equivalency for either systems. I think that the key points to hammer home are that: 1. Yes, full frame is generally capable of better image quality and higher resolution because you can buy much higher end lenses for it, but APS-C is still very good and more affordable. 2. Full frame bodies usually come with more “pro” features that can be important when shooting professionally. 3. Buy the body that has the features you want, buy the lenses for the image/look you want.

[@CurtisPadley]

Thank you for your comment and thoughts on this video. I think even despite a beginner not having prior experience using either APS-C or Full-Frame it’s a good idea to understand the difference. Which is what I highlighted in this video. However, I can’t agree with some of the points you have pointed out. It’s almost like you haven’t watched the video.

[@cs3818]

To be honest. I don´t get the "Budget" talk. I was in the market for a new camera in Feburary this year. I got the Sony A7C for 1000€ new after the Sony Cashback. The A6700 at this time was 1800€. No Cashback at the time. I got the Tamron 28-200 for 600€. The XS-20 from Fuji was 1300€ at the time and the XT-5 was 1800€. A Sigma 18-50 2.8 is 550€. The new Fuji 16-50 2.8 is 800€. The Fuji 18-120 is 800€. The Sony 18-135 is 500€. So where is the Budget friendliness of APSC? The Lenses are not really cheaper. The Bodies are not really cheaper. So The only advantage left is reach and size. And lets be honest if reach and size are your priority for Wildlife and Nature. Go Micro Four Thirds.

[@comeraczy2483]

I fully agree about the budget, particularly on the second hand market. For lenses, people are victim of the commercial trap that the f-number is the important number, and therefore, they are amazed that an APS-C f-1.2 is so much cheaper than a FF f-1.2. That's a very sad scam, and it is revolting to see so many photographers repeating it. This brings me to the question of the size: again, true only for victims of the F-number scam, but not so much when you compare truly equivalent lenses (native lenses with the same maximum aperture **diameter** and the same angle of view). Finally, the reach for wildlife: the 3rd side of the same scam. Sure, you can find lenses with more reach, but usually at comparatively high cost and low performance. Adapting FF lenses on APS-C is a terrible idea because more than half the light is wasted. For native long telephoto zooms, they are usually pretty slow and not that cheap. On APS-C, there isn't a single equivalent of a FF 150-600mm f5-6.3 (a couple come close). On MFT, there is exactly 1 and it costs $7500 at an equivalent aperture of F-9!

[@cs3818]

@comeraczy2483 honestly I think the A6700 is not performing well in sales. This is the 3rd Video I had in my timeline within the last 2 weeks praising the A6700. The other 2 were german youtubers praising it as "the best prosumer sony Camera currently available" also the talking points were quite similar if not the same. And on prime day the A6700 was around 1100€ in germany. That's quite a hefty drop from the initial asking price. I haven't seen the XT-5 for this price. Sony itself has lowered the official price to 1500€. I am guessing Fuji is winning the APSC game. And the A6400 user are not upgrading because they are satisfied with what they got

[@s.lindland]

most of sony's apsc line are so crippled in terms of features that any advantage is mute, same with canon. But the fx30 and a6700 are a step in the right direction. For a long time the camera companies themselves have thrown apsc to the wayside, and it isn't really the consumers' fault for thinking it was way worse, when it's only technically slightly worse.

[@CurtisPadley]

Agreed 🙌 It’s great to see camera manufacturers really giving these amazing specs in APS-C cameras!

[@HagaishiSama]

The one thing you missed that I wish you addressed is the fact that full frame cameras from 2016 - 2018 are not that far off from aps-c cameras that came out this year aps-c cameras that came out in the year of 2024 2022 2023 has better autofocus has better color science they even have better read out speeds and awesome new AI features and when comparing low light to the a6700 comparing it to the Sony a73 the low light capabilities of the 8700 comparing a full frame camera from 2018 is really not that far from each other. Because of newer technology full frame as well as aps-c cameras have advanced in their capabilities but it seems like that's the one thing people tend to forget

[@Jamie-kv1uv]

Got to be watching for those typos curtis!

[@CurtisPadley]

Do apologies if there is typos, as a dyslexic it is a struggle sometime 🥺

[@Jamie-kv1uv]

@@CurtisPadley ah i'm sorry. Keep it up. Love the content!

[@CurtisPadley]

@@Jamie-kv1uvNo it’s alright, I appreciate people pointing in a positive way. I wish adobe had autocorrect sometimes. And thanks mate, have a brilliant weekend :D

[@MaiElizabeth]

Well said Curtis 11:53

[@Sandeep-px9uk]

Suggest me as a begginer for photography a6700(tamron 17-70mm + sigma 56 f1.4) or a7c mark ( 28-75 tamron + viltrox 85 f1.8) for photography. 20% video rare case

[@denoisd]

I got the A6700, couldnt be happier with it, combine it with some nice glass and you got a great setup

[@Sandeep-px9uk]

@@denoisd I am getting them same price like both steup

[@denoisd]

@@Sandeep-px9uk not sure i understand, you mean these both setups cost the same?

[@Sandeep-px9uk]

@@denoisd so I am living in India I get both body ast same price like 1300usd in India

[@denoisd]

@@Sandeep-px9uk Oh okay, well I would personally go for the A6700, I am a little biased tho, but it never let me down, and apsc lenses are generally cheaper in the long run

[@ph_anto]

Nice video, well filmed, nice pics and set as always. But there are dozens oh these online, and no one add nothing, sorry to say. Also, I want to say it clear: yes, full frame always produce more blurred background, in real life. I don’t know why you creators keep publishing this “same lens different cameras” test for the bokeh. You tell me why do I want to know that a crop photo has the same bokeh but simply zoomed 1,5x, if in order to obtain the same framed subject I will have to step back and reduce the bokeh? Take a foto with equivalent focal length, that will be a useful test: 85mm full frame vs 56 apsc. You creators keep ignoring the most important thing, other than iris, that affect the bokeh, i.e. REPRODUCTION RATIO, which is how big the image is projected on the sensor. Stop, you don’t need other information. No focal length, no distance from the subject needed in this concept. Repeat with me: to make the subject equally framed, with an apsc sensor you have to step back, that will decrease the projection of the image on the sensor and the background will be less blurred. That’s it. Dimensions is another supposed apsc pro. Well, if you have to multiply x1,5 focal length, aperture and iso, don’t even try to tell me a crop 56/1,4 is smaller than a ff 85/1.4, the first one has the bokeh of a fare equivalent 85/2,1, and the full frame world is full of 85/2 small as crop 56/1,4, and cost even less. I really don’t see one advantage in apsc, if not the used market of 10 years old mirrorless such a bunch of canon M, Sony 5000/6000s and old fujis. Is apsc enough for 90% of needs? Probably, but stop trying to justify technical inferiority. I’m not talk il to you directly, Curtis. And I’m leaving out the noise problem, at least you didn’t try to convince your audience that 1,4 on full frame is 1,4 on apsc equally. I appreciate that, but instead of doing every creators the same apsc vs ff video, that’s a missed opportunity to make some real education. Maybe next time. Cheers

[@GroundedTech]

Thanks for the great video. You've convinced me to not go full-frame. For now anyway. Ps. Was going to make this a Super Thanks but I don't see an option for it. Good work.

[@CurtisPadley]

@@GroundedTech You’re welcome mate! What you possibly looking at going for instead? Bizarre that super thanks didn’t show up but appreciate the kind thought! 😃

[@terorvlad]

3:45 Damn, APS-C is even better than APS-C

[@sumitjangraa]

3:47 "And this is where APS-C Cameras hold an advantage over APS-C Cameras" 😅

[@LightshaperQ]

I’ve have the FX3 & FX30 and I don’t feel like the FX3 is was worth the money… the FX30 does everything it does except the 12,800 ISO (which isn’t even a dual base because the performance isn’t the same) That 1 stop is dynamic range is negligible when your image is 6K down sampled….

[@EvanA.]

Actually the A7R V is superior to the A7S III in terms of low-light performance. 9:02 This is because there are more pixels to produce the same image. Sample the A7R V down to the resolution of the A7S III and you will see the improvement. The only advantage of the A7S III is its filming oriented features. It is not superior in terms of low-light. This has been debunked already.

[@elchemyst]

amazing video