Debunking the Crop Sensor Myth: Here's the Truth.

[CROP SENSOR LENSES THAT WILL MAKE YOUR CAMERA RIVAL FULL FRAME]
[Sony E Mount]
Zoom Lens - geni.us/wmxV7 or howl.me/ckuKw0...
Walk Around Lens - 27mm f1.2 coming soon
Portrait Lens - geni.us/B824oj or howl.me/ckuKAq...
Cine Lens - geni.us/DfCZg7i or howl.me/ckuKDR...
Anamorphic - geni.us/kI1UY or howl.me/ckuKDR...
[Canon EF-M]
Walk Around - geni.us/hqeA
Portrait - geni.us/AInBWVB
Anamorphic - geni.us/jP8WP
[Canon RF]
Walk Around Lens - geni.us/TAtpF
Portrait Lens - geni.us/841oJD
Cine Lens - geni.us/tYs5y
Anamorphic - geni.us/j54E
[Fuji X]
Zoom Lens - geni.us/FgqFATM or howl.me/ckuKw0...
Walk Around Lens - geni.us/ec01VB
Portrait Lens - geni.us/jEWIFo or howl.me/ckuKAp...
Cine Lens - geni.us/vW56QN
Anamorphic - geni.us/Dwtog
[Micro 4/3]
Cine Lens - geni.us/T6Tk0
Anamorphic - geni.us/1RgOM2
[Nikon Z]
Walk Around Lens - geni.us/BkiJH95
Portrait Lens - geni.us/8EwZiv
Anamorphic - geni.us/35yenU
GEAR I USED TO MAKE THIS VIDEO
[VIDEO GEAR]
A Camera - geni.us/fCo6 or howl.me/ckVm0l...
A Lens - geni.us/sKvSYgw or howl.me/ck41Fn...
B Camera (Table Top) - geni.us/3deXcAQ or howl.me/clafn1...
B Lens - geni.us/z0GG3y or howl.me/clacIJ...
C Camera (Wide View) - geni.us/FOSOn or howl.me/clacKm...
C Lens - geni.us/nF6Hxa or howl.me/clafjQ...
On Camera monitor - geni.us/t7Fc or howl.me/clacMG...
My off camera monitor - geni.us/AHOu or howl.me/clacNM...
The LUTS I used for this video - bit.ly/42Q58uQ
[AUDIO GEAR]
Microphone (in shot) - geni.us/SAQ4uk7 or geni.us/PgtBlmS
Boom Microphone (out of shot) - geni.us/Tj8RI or howl.me/claeFm...
Cheaper alternative to boom mic (sounds just as good) - geni.us/0rN8FO or howl.me/claeF9...
XLR Audio Recorder - geni.us/yDUf or geni.us/PgtBlmS
USB Audio Interface - geni.us/ZdN1a or howl.me/claeyK...
Wireless Microphone (out of studio) - geni.us/FPC4s or geni.us/j4Wdr
Podcast/Voice Over Mic - geni.us/SAQ4uk7 or geni.us/PgtBlmS
In Shot Mic Arm - geni.us/J7Fp or howl.me/claeHe...
Editing Headphones - geni.us/WmwFC or howl.me/claeI1...
Editing Speakers (super cheap but awesome) - geni.us/wfLkz or
Stand for Boom Mic and Overhead Camera - geni.us/8O8UtdY
[LIGHTING]
Main Light (Key Light) - geni.us/nQQ10
Main Softbox - geni.us/GysBN or howl.me/claeZm...
Light Stand (for Key/Main light) - geni.us/y4HuK4R
Hair Light - geni.us/waB7lTp or howl.me/clae0Z...
Background Light - geni.us/xFjA or howl.me/clae13...
Light Tubes (behind my monitor) - Small - geni.us/5Lvl Large - geni.us/4QPjp
[COMPUTER AND EDITING]
Monitor - geni.us/lLrTKSZ or howl.me/clae6l...
Computer - geni.us/rOHA or howl.me/clae7x...
Dock (one plug for power, audio, monitor, and 6 hard drives) - geni.us/lwJDmz
Keyboard - geni.us/bA16W or howl.me/clae8B...
Touchpad - geni.us/PLaLMh or howl.me/clae9z...
Editing Software I Use - www.apple.com/...
Awesome Free Editing Software (Pros use it!) - www.blackmagic...
* Some links are affiliate links, you do not pay any extra, but I may get a small commissions. Using these links allows me to make more videos like this one.

[@dog4mike]

I've put this out there on other threads, and I know some people get it, some people don't, others may not agree and some get downright angry. But anyway, the way I see it, there are only TWO reasons to buy a camera based on specs/resolution/sensor size etc; 1) because you're a commercial photographer whose clients have demanded a specific output standard, or 2) you just like it. I used to be a commercial photographer, and many clients would want to see my gear list before they'd hire me. Not all, but it happened. If a client is not a photographer, they will not consider skill to be important, only specs ("Oh your photos are great! You must have an awesome camera!"). Others have output needs (like large format prints) where they demand as much resolution as possible, edge-to-edge sharpness, etc. So I had all the full-frame gear for that, the best you could buy at the time. And if this is you, go for it, spend big, earn those dollars/pesos/kroner/francs/yuan/etc. Or if you're new to photography, don't really get art and are a pixel-peeper who just can't be happy with an image unless you can zoom in to 1000% and count the hairs on the fly in the corner of the window of the building you photographed on vacation, then sure, go for it. But if you're a creative person who just wants to make images and tell visual stories in the most accessible way possible, then buy gear that enables you to do that, and stop letting people sell you on what they think you should have. When the pandemic hit and my business fell apart, I sold all the gear and went to a crop sensor. Now I do fine art photography, no clients, no briefs. I go where I want, when I want, shoot what I want. Sometimes it sells, sometimes it doesn't. I don't care, I earn my living in other ways now. But in three years since going APS-C, no one, NO ONE, has looked at any of my images and said, "It's nice, but it would have been better if you'd shot on a full-frame sensor with a 50mm f1.4 rather than a crop-sensor with a 35mm f2". No one. Because - *and here's the point* - people judge images based on what they ARE, not what they are NOT. If you present an image to someone and it's got some noise, soft edges or a little distortion - but the story is told well and is emotive - no one will care. They will look at the image holistically and accept those "flaws" as artistic choices used to tell the story. And if they get caught up in the technical details, they're probably not your audience anyway. Not everyone gets painting, not everyone gets sculpture, and not everyone gets photography. So for me, going APS-C was the wisest thing I've ever done. My kit is small, light and relatively inexpensive. I can have it almost anywhere, ready for the moment and I don't draw a lot of attention. My lenses aren't perfect, and in fact, I've sought out a lens selection based on their character. For you, maybe your decisions are different. If you're doing architecture, then perfect proportions and edge sharpness might be essential. If you're doing sports or other action, fast focus is key. But you don't need full-frame to get those things. Bottom line; define your needs first, get good at what you need to get good at. Then filter through the marketing noise, make a decision that suits your needs and gets you out there taking photos.

[@Pfagnan]

Awesome comment Mike!! 📸👏

[@dog4mike]

Thanks@@Pfagnan. I do genuinely believe in this. Too many people invest way too much in their gear when they should invest in their skills first. Of course, some people just like gadgets, and that's OK too. I just wish more people would be honest with themselves as to why they're buying it. I've known one guy for over a decade who buys a new camera every year, but his photos never get better. I wonder if he'll ever figure it out.

[@waltermayr339]

In this debate about apsc or full frame (which for me means Plaubel 13x18cm), one point is unfortunately always forgotten: which camera is the greatest pleasure to work with and when. For landscape photography I currently enjoy shooting with MFT. Gorgeous, almost no weight and wonderful focal length selection. After 50 years of towing, it's great to be able to walk with a light step. And the image quality is great too.

[@beautgrainger147]

I haven't yet managed to justify taking my own Plaubel out into the field.. maybe one day

[@sonvfave]

The old adage the painter not the paint I wasted so much time learning this For me A vision B composition C tells a story D Beauty And a side note Not until printing on better printers with great paper did any of above become “reel”

[@BubblesPothowari]

The best camera is what we have with us.......

[@kama-kiri6496]

Probably unintentional, but the video understates the real-world advantage of FF. Double the sensor area is double the light. That's your baseline point of difference, everything else comes down to what lenses are available on each system, how well they perform, how much they cost, and whether they are the optics that you want. It's not so simple has "the same performance for half the cost". For example, a FF 50/2 is usually a cheap and high performance lens. On APS-C, you'd need a 35/1.4 for the same basic function, and to get the same sharpness and overall image quality you'd be looking at a much more expensive lens for APSC than the FF equivalent. Generally FF favors wide angle, while crop favors reach.

[@anta40]

To exaggerate the point: consider a 50/0.95 lens on FF. What's the equivalent version on M43? Like... perhaps 25/0.5?

[@veeaa]

FF lenses are not sharper and cheaper by definition. Same "rules" apply for both formats as you can get cheap and soft or expensive and sharp lenses and anything in between. Case in point, on Fuji you can buy the very expensive 1.4 Fuji lenses or go with cheaper, yet very good Sigma, Viltrox and other equivalent lenses. Another example is the Nikon Z 40mm f2 that's not better than equivalent APSC lenses in any way, as you get what you pay for. I believe that you can achieve roughly the same performance in both formats for similar prices for basic photography. Outside of basic photography, both formats have their strengths as you mentioned.

[@sonvfave]

Well My ff is ableto get❤❤ primes in zeiss or older better manual lenses pennies on $$ So $ for $ im crushing either crop Or FF at even sale new pricing!! Have both so😮

[@Ponskippa]

I recently bought a FF for the first time after years of APSC and I can tell you that I see the difference in image quality. Even with a “cheap” 50mm lens

[@harrison00xXx]

Even? More like because of... All of my "worse" 50 and 55mm lenses perform a lot better on FF than on APS-C. But in general you are right, most of my shots done on a EOS RP (FF) and even the modern and highly corrected (in a bad way) RF 50 1.8 are just superior to the ones shot on APS-C camera. On APS-C you lose resolution, especially with not so good/sharp glass compared to full frame. And mostly FF lenses are designed to work on FF the best.

[@MobiusCoin]

I'm going FF in a couple of months, not because I care about FF but because Techart makes an autofocus adapter for Z mount and E mount but not X mount (sad) and I really want to try the adapter and get autofocus on vintage lenses, so I'm really interested to see if this is true. And more importantly as these bodies are double the price is the image quality twice as good. Everything is compromise in photography, let's see if bigger and heavier for better image quality is actually worth it.

[@lay10vids]

Another great video, Mark. I feel like most camera manufacturers have priced out most of the general population from purchasing full-frame. Thankfully, there are ton of wonderful crop sensor cameras and lenses on the market! I’m hoping Viltrox will make some of their affordable X-mount lenses available for other crop sensor mounts, but that’s doubtful. We shall see!

[@BernardoSilva70]

I got their 75mm f/1.2 for e-mount and the image is superb

[@M4Y0_]

buy used. There are great deals to be had. Especially when you get "older" glass. E.g. Canon EF lenses adapt perfectly to the R system and got really affordable, as lots of people are switching to the new lenses. I'm really happy with my EF L lenses, which I would've never bought new.

[@mjsvitek]

The 75mm f/1.2 on M4/3 would be INCREDIBLE ...

[@AndrewVanBeekOttawa]

As a life time photographer and someone who has worked professionally with digital cameras since 1998, I don’t agree with how the argument has been presented here. If you compare a Sony full frame with a Sony cropped camera of the same generation, you will see an obvious difference in noise levels both in video and in RAW stills. Add to this the complexity of comparing different resolution sensors (like the 12mp A7SIII/FX3) and the 26mp, cropped A6700 and ou will see another huge difference. I’m all for APS-C cameras for the size and price so I own both cropped and full frame but I favour my full frames for professional work, especially in low light. The annoying part with Sony APS-C is that people focus more on how big the grip is and creating F1.4-F1.2 lenses, that there is little size advantage to APS-C anymore.

[@markwiemels]

You must have skipped some of the video. Nothing I have said disputes what you have said above.

[@AndrewVanBeekOttawa]

@@markwiemels no, but the whole point of the video is to demonstrate how there’s little advantage to full frame. There is nothing wrong with APS-C but the only advantage in my opinion is size and cost. Both of which are getting more questionable with the increasing size and push towards bigger glass.

[@harrison00xXx]

@@markwiemels I mean he is not wrong, you tried to say they are very similar, but they ARE NOT. Your example with the 50mm on FF and 35mm on APS-C was already a good start where you literally proved yourself wrong.... you can get good 50-58mm 1.4 glass for less than 100$, show me a 35mm 1.2 for APS-C (better 0,95...) for 100$ as well? Especially with the 50 vs 35 comparison, the win for size goes even to the full frame setup since good 50 1.4s are smaller and lighter than even 35mm 1.8s for APS-C. My personal opinion is, if you are "just" photographing and do a little bit of everything or dont even know yet what to do.... go Full Frame if you can afford it. Dont mind modern lenses and adapt older mounts or even M42 etc vintage glass for much cheaper money. If you can not afford, go APS-C camera. But as soon you know what you want to do/are doing already, there should be no question if APS-C or FF is better anymore. Then the basic questions should be easily answered: - low light is a thing? Full frame if affordable, otherwise APS-C with fast 3rd party F1.2s or even F/0,95 lenses. - crop factor/crop/range is a thing.... you might lean towards APS-C or even MFT cameras, APS-C cameras are basically 1,5-1,6x Teleconverters, MFTs even 2x TCs. - lens choices... varying from system to system, you might have to pick your camera and sensor size according to the lenses and usecases you are aiming for! For me this APS-C vs MFT vs FF thing was never that interesting. I learned it the way as you read it sometimes in the comments here: "Date your camera body, marry your lens". I had APS-C for long time, but only because of budget constrains. But when it comes to glass.... i preffered a expensive, better 24mm full frame lens over the less sharper and worse APS-C counterpart. Camera bodies were for long never expensive for me (50-300$ 2nd hand), but i invested in good glass and NEVER REGRET this decision. Good glass holds its value, mostly APS-C glass is the "not so good" glass and lose a lot of value, so APS-C can be definately more expensive than full frame in the long run (even saw it personally at a friend buying APS-C lenses only and he lost more money than i even paid for my glass...)

[@maverick_nyaa]

​@@harrison00xXxespecially for Canon RF users, they only produced 4 RF-S lenses so far, none of them is ideal for low light. If I have to buy RF lenses for full frame, then the price and size advantages are gone.

[@harrison00xXx]

@@maverick_nyaa The main point of APS-C is anyways reach, at least in the canon world.

[@DimitriFarkas]

Well said. This are the reasons I love LUMIX MFT’s system. But, I wouldn’t call small sensors “crop”, more like sensors with crop factor.

[@markusbolliger1527]

As sensor-technology, processors and RAW- converting software have made huge progress, I found that even a mFT- camera would do a very good job for me for any practical purpose. So I gave up my Nikon Z- full frame equipment and went do the awesome OM-1 with it's legendary Olympus Zuiko- lenses, some of them with f/1.2, which deliver an outstanding image quality. And I never looked back. Kind regards from Switzerland.

[@Oncewasgolden]

Yep, I did this too. Good lens with a MFT is way lighter than either an aps-c or especially a full frame camera. This is a huge consideration if you are going to be carrying it around all day.

[@cyberfunk3793]

And I went the exact opposite way years ago and bought a D600 after I had earlier owned a omd em-5. The Olympus can take good pictures but the difference in noise levels is obvious. Even if I could have dealth with that, the dynamic range difference of over 2ev was the deal breaker and it seems that difference is still there 10 years later.

[@KaniNarci]

Technology is so advanced that all cameras are pretty good. Invest in glass not the camera.

[@cyberfunk3793]

@@KaniNarci Well I can easily tell the difference between photos I have taken with crop and FF sensors, but I can't tell the difference between any lenses if the aparture and focal length are the same unless I really zoom in and try to compare to find the difference.

[@markusbolliger1527]

@@cyberfunk3793 Many blind tests show the contrary - even well experienced and competent photographers couldn't tell the difference between mFT and full frame images, even when printed big.

[@Thunderbird1337]

I just bought a Sony A7 III in addition to my A6500 (APS-C) that I've used for many years. Although I will keep my APS-C camera for certain purposes where it has its advantages (compactness for traveling or when you need very long range for wildlife photography), I'm blown away by the full-frame results. It's really a noticeable step up. When I'm shooting portraits outside with my Tamron 70-180 f2.8, the full-frame sensor really makes the crucial difference. At 180mm I'm still comfortably close to the object and the background gets so creamy as I've never seen it with my A6500 (although I have the Sigma 56mm 1.4). It's the small but subtle difference between nice and WOW.

[@harrison00xXx]

Thanks! Thats exactly what he is (intentionally?) missing. As much i like my higher end APS-C body now (EOS R7, for wildlife and video mainly), its nearly impossible to recreate what my entry level FF body (EOS RP) managed to pull off with an older 50mm 1.4 Canon lens, my SMC Takumar 50 1.4 or even the newer RF 50 1.8 lens for compactness and ease of use as well wide open usage. At first i had this moment of "Full Frame Glory" as i watched some photos and wondered: "WOW! That looks great and so realistic, was that even my camera?" Turned out it was my loved EOS RP with the manual focus, vintage 50 1.4 SMC Takumar where i nailed the focus (rare event). Its basically impossible to shoot the same good looking image on APS-C, with much luck with a speedbooster you probably get close to it but it wont be the same for sure.

[@set3777]

That is a stupid comparison. Since your APS-C camera is 24MP, you will have to prove that a FF Camera of 54MP (24MPx1.5.15) of "equal pixel density" is better than a 24MP (APS-C) camera. It is "pixel density" and not "sensor size" that is the issue.

[@harrison00xXx]

@@set3777 I would say its more depending on the lens choice. To replicate with APS-C a 200mm 2.8 lens on a full frame camera you would need something like a 135mm 1.8, better 1.4 lens, this would give the same background blur. Same with for example 50mm 1.8 on full frame. To get the same look and DoF, you would need a 25mm F0,95 lens on MFT or about 35mm 1.4 (better 1.2) on APS-C If you have not noticed, he talks about the creamy background, in DAYLIGHT. The only unfair comparison he made was the same lens on FF vs APS-C. Which is inherently wrong to compare at all since as i stated already... different sensor size means different lenses, especially different focal lengths to be used.

[@set3777]

@@harrison00xXx You are right. A Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro on a APS-C R7 will have the similar DoF and FoV as say a FF R6II with a RF 50mm f1.8 lens. (35mmx1.6=56mm)

[@set3777]

@@harrison00xXx I won't be buying a Sony FF camera because:- Terushi Shimizu, Sony Semiconductor Solutions CEO said in 2022 that "by 2024, in just two years’ time - the image quality of a smartphone will exceed that of a single-lens reflex camera". So small crop-sensor smartphone cameras are going to be better than Sony FF cameras by next year? Sony said so!

[@septimusseverus7237]

At 5:59 in the video : It is said a 50mm lens on a full-frame sensor wil have the same field of view than a 35mm on a crop sensor but a different depth of field "by default". True, yet both lenses will provide the same depth of field if the aperture on the 35mm is adjusted by a ratio similar to the ratio of both sensor sizes, for instance 1.5 for an aps-c. Usually, closing the aperture by one unit of diaphragm will provide a similar enough depth of field on both lenses/sensors.

[@doctorcatnip2551]

I have crop sensor cameras and I have full frame cameras. Huge difference!

[@mohitsharma8912]

Pl explain how

[@dan.allen.digital]

One thing to consider is if you want to use any manual focus vintage lenses. In that case you most likely want to go with a full frame camera that will preserve the original rendering of the vintage lens.

[@markwiemels]

This is true. Some still work well, but you are not getting the entire image charger that was rendered on film cameras.

[@muttishelfer9122]

You can use a speed booster for full frame rendering with vintage lenses on APS-C or mft. I use the Zhongyi Lens Turbo II M42-Fuji X and it works perfectly fine.

[@SchardtCinematic]

My first DSLR was a Canon T3i I bought way back in January 2012. I only had the kit lens. But still had my Dads old Minolta MD mount lenses and my Grandpap's Canon FD mount lenses. I used Fotodiox adapters for both on my T3i and was very happy with the results. I also got a 5D mark III in 2015 and had great results with it too. I know shoot with a Canon 90D and a Canon R7 and the lenses work great on both of them too. You do need to deal with the slight zoom in going from 50mm to 80mm but i can work around that unless I need a wide angle photo.

[@dalrok]

@@CapraObscura I own a lot of these old Takumars, use them on my APS-C EOS 7d and FF EOS 5d II & EOS R. Esp. for portrait photography they perform very good on APS-C but way better on the FF cam, esp. my old Super 8-lens Tak 50mm 1.4. It also has much better image depth with landscape photography than on the APS-C cam. I think the differences on MFT (have no cam to compare) will be more significant because of the 2x crop.

[@natrix]

Couldn't disagree more Dan. If you shoot crop sensor mirrorless, with a single vintage lens you now have the option with an adapter to get full frame +1 of light or an aps-c fov depending on what you need for the shot. So much more versatile, and you have so many more lenses to choose from because you can shoot full frame or apsc glass on a super35 sensor, but it doesn't really work the other way around.

[@vedarius]

I can’t agree more! One more factor to be mentioned here is the weight of the set (did I missed it in the video?). It’s something that really matters when you go out or go to remote lands. I use Fujifilm cameras and they meet all the requirements that I can have. In any situation. And I’m not obsessed with having “the best cam ever made”. I prefer to focus on the artistic side of photography. And yes, most of modern cameras are almost on par from the technical point of view. So, everyone can pick something that suits his hand better without making any trade-off, and this is really nice!

[@derwinjax]

Amen! I have heard soooo many times that my apsc cameras is no good and that I need to get a full frame camera. I am sure they were just trying to help, but as you mentioned, the price difference is HUGE! An excellent photographer once said, “the quality of the lens you put on your camera is what will make the difference.” Another said “the camera you have in your hand is what will be best for you. Make the best use of what you have and you can’t go wrong.” So, I’m happy for those who can afford full frame cameras and their lenses, but MY reality is that I’m happy with what I have. That, to me is what matters most. Thanks for the excellent and very informative video. Cheers.

[@elmono3939]

True. Good review. Could not agree more. It is war of numbers out there. I own 3 FF cameras - then bought a Crop Sensor body for BTSs-type footage. I was more then pleasantly surprised what a quality that CS produces. Now, I use it in "real" situations without fear of quality compromise, and now I even mix them in post with my FF footage - and nobody can tell difference.

[@peterjackhandy]

This is the comparison so many camera users are afraid to make: 4 of us shot a local 1-day music festival with full-on lighting fx etc. There was a Canon, Nikon, Sony (all ff) & my humble Fuji x-t. Of the hundreds of shots posted & in a blind judging, not one person found a consistent difference.

[@kgeo753]

Price was the determining factor when I decided to sell my Sony full frame kit and move to Fujifilm. The 5 year old a7 III still sells for $2,000 and only shoots 8-bit 4K 30. Whereas the Fujifilm X-T5 shoots 10-bit 4K 60 and 6K 30. If I had my pick I would have stayed on Sony and bought an a7R V but I’m not a professional photographer and I can’t justify spending $4,000 on a camera body. For less than the price of a single a7R V body you can buy an X-T5 with an XF 16-55mm 2.8 and Vitrox’s Pro 27mm and 75mm 1.2 lenses. That’s kind of a no brainer in my opinion if you’re not either a professional photographer or an enthusiast with no budgetary considerations.

[@mikeali5400]

Bought an xt5 with a kit lens and viltrox 72 mm and 13 mm..I'm very satisfied

[@markwiemels]

Fuji's are my favourite to use, even though I mostly shoot Sony now, sill like Fuji the most.

[@billyoung9538]

With regards to the bokeh technically if one can open the aperture wider with the crop sensor then they can achieve the same bokeh ball size. For example an APSC (~1.6) crop sensor with a 32mm lens shooting at f/1.8 with have almost identical bokeh as a full frame 50mm shooting at f/2.8, and the crop sensor will also have the same volume of light hitting the sensor as well; however, gain circuit (ISO) will have to be lower as well to compensate.

[@harrison00xXx]

I think it all depends on how the sensor sizes are compared. With the same lens it might be a nice visualisation how the sensor size affects the image you get from a specific focal length, but when comparing FF to APS-C for example with regular zooms, for example on Canon a RF 24-105 F4.... you would need something like a RF-S version with 2.8 aperture to compare (Hint: it doesnt exist yet, all we have is the very old EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM)

[@patrickcazer]

the only lenses i can think of aside from the 17-55 2.8 is the fuji 16-80 f/4 which is equivalent to a 24-105 f/4 or the fuji 16-55 2.8 which is a little closer to a 24-70 2.8

[@harrison00xXx]

@@patrickcazer yeah equivalent in effective focal length, but not close to comparable in depth of field thats why a „fast“ aps-c zoom is 2.8 mostly (F4 FF look) which is „as good“ in DoF as the FF F4s

[@patrickcazer]

@@harrison00xXx ahhh

[@Wildridefilms]

Great video, however at the price range of the FX30, you can get much better camera bodies than the RP, which is notoriously bad for video and doesn't have dual native ISO. Something like the S5ii or even a R8 (still no dual native ISO) would've been a better comparison

[@williamgollatz1911]

Now, if he got an equivalently priced camera, would be be able to feed the trolls for his monetized channel?

[@andrewdoeshair]

Devils advocate here 😂 when full frame cameras started hitting the $1,000 mark (EOS RP) there arrived a lot of scenarios where full frame was smaller and cheaper than matching the equivalent FOV/DOF with a crop sensor. I know you demonstrated that the background blur between 35 1.8 and 50 1.8 is negligible in specific cases, but in scenarios (like you mentioned) where you’re shooting further away and you want that subject isolation still you can get it cheaper, smaller, and lighter with full frame (especially if you’re willing to shop used and DSLRs). If I put a 50mm F1.8 on a Canon 6D I’ve got a FOV/DOF that would require something like a 35mm F1.2 to match with crop sensor. An 85mm F1.8 on many full frame bodies is cheaper, smaller, and lighter than a 50mm F1.2 on any crop sensor body. A third party 85mm F1.4 lens on a crop sensor body can match the FOV/DOF of canon’s 135mm F2L on a full frame for less money, but the FF setup might still be smaller/lighter. Canon’s 40mm F2.8 pancake lens on a full frame would need to be matched by like a 24mm F1.8 lens on a crop sensor, again much larger and pricier than the 40mm F2.8. Lately my daily carry fun camera is a 5D classic with an EF 100mm F2 lens I bought for $199 and what it provides in terms of FOV/DOF is in a tiny and dirt cheap package compared to anything I’ve looked at with a crop sensor unless I want to manually focus. Not trying to argue or say that you’re wrong, just wanted to share that in a few weird little scenarios you can get looks out of full frame for way cheaper and with a much smaller/lighter kit than matching it with a crop sensor.

[@markwiemels]

The old full frame cameras are bargain now, especially if you don't need the video features. Taking price into account, it does make sense to compare old FF to new Crop.

[@Acomyztly]

That is true if you use only FF lenses, i.e a 12mm 1.8 for micro 4/3 have a angle of view like a 24mm, cost 3 times less and is very tiny and light.

[@jonnymurgatroyd856]

Hey Mark.. The point you make about price is so important. I started with a Sony a6400 but watching KZbin, I thought I had to go to full frame to be professional. Long story short its taken me way too long (years) to get a used a7riii, Tamron 17 -28, 28 -200 and Sony 35 1.8 and 85 1.8.. and I still haven't manage to get a 100 - 400 (I do mostly landscapes). Its like it suddenly became clear to me.. I could have been in a cheaper system shooting and enjoying a fuller focal range, practicing, and creating much faster if I'd stuck with apsc. Heck my favorite pro landscape photographer is using fuji Xt5 most of the time (Andy Mumford). Things like affording extra bodies or more easily finding quality hybrid cameras start being possible or trips! My money would have been better spent travelling to practice and take beautiful shots then trying to get the perfect FF kit first. I'm now very strongly considering letting my Sony kit go (thankfully its all used and ill likely get nearly what I put in) and picking up a Fuji (The zooms I'd need are cheap thankfully). I imagine many photographers are in the same boat.. 10yr old cameras with cheap 3rd party glass just for the luxury of saying they're using full frame. Its a dragon I cant afford to keep chasing when I could be creating.

[@d3ci.b3L]

Things to consider when deciding full frame or crop sensor cameras... 1) A 24MP Full Frame sensor is more sensitive to light than a 24MP Crop Sensor is simply by virtue of having larger pixels, but it also has the same resolution as the crop sensor. 2) A 12MP Full Frame sensor is even MORE sensitive to light than a 24MP Full Frame sensor, but at the cost of resolution. Pixels are double in size, so there are fewer of them. 3) A 42MP Full Frame camera has nearly twice the resolution as a 24MP Crop Sensor camera, but isn't any more sensitive to light due to the nearly same size pixels (just more of them due to a larger surface area). 4) Buying Full Frame lenses for your Crop Sensor camera gives you the same FOV as an APS-C lens, but has the added benefit of eliminating almost all vignetting due to the rear element of the lens being oversized in comparison to the APS-C sensor. 5) If reach is what you want, consider a Crop Sensor. A 600mm lens is an equivalent 900mm on a Crop Sensor.

[@ebinrock]

You know, APS-C (crop sensor format) is almost exactly the size of the Super 35mm film frame - a standard we managed to live with for over 100 years for motion pictures projected onto super-large screens (not IMAX-large, but large enough). Only reason we ever got "full frame", i.e., full-sized 35mm frames in still photography is because, due to logistics, we mounted the film in the camera sideways, thus allowing for a larger frame size. Had still cameras been designed like motion picture cameras, all our still photography (except for medium and large formats) would have been "crop" format and no one would have ever been the wiser. Then again, you could say the reverse and we could have had all those years and decades of "Lawrence of Arabia"-sized movies (which would have been EXPENSIVE!).

[@albinliungman1093]

Clarifying what you said about the dof. An apsc sensor camera and a full frame camera with the same f2 50mm lens will show the same amount of subject separation and blur but since the apsc sensor camera has a smaller sensor it’s will only show a ‘cropped, 50mm image that has about the equivalent focal range of a 75mm lens on a full frame camera. To get the same view we have to put a 35mm equivalent f2 lens on the apsc camera and since dof increases with wider lenses, now you will not have the same amount of background blur.

[@fotografalexandernikolis]

The time to be a Fuji user has never been better. 40mp at an affordable price (about half the price of FF 45mp bodies) and the release of several 1.2-1.4 lenses from Fuji, Viltrox etc. I was almost about to switch back to FF because I missed the rendering of the D800 w/ Sigma 35 1.4 ART that I had a long time ago, but I finally feel like the Fuji APS-C system is complete enough that I don't miss out on anything important.

[@MohondhaY]

Which Fuji camera might I ask? I wanna check it out.

[@fotografalexandernikolis]

@@MohondhaY X-T5. It's the most affordable high resolution body out there with 40mp plus top modern AF system.

[@MohondhaY]

@@fotografalexandernikolis Thank you my good sir! 🤗

[@filippetrovic8501]

​@@MohondhaYi got the xh2 and it is a 40mp hybrid shooting monster.

[@danielfortune4283]

40 megapixels on APS-C is a scam - it gives no more detail than the 26-megapixel APS-C cameras (look up comparison tests that have been done). You need a larger sensor (full frame or larger) for 40 megapixels to actually give you more detail in your images. Not all megapixels are created equally!

[@BharaniNath]

In some situations, you just don't have the option of contolling the light. For example, when you are taking photographs at a Live rock show, where they use flashing lights and light keep changing, you cannot control the light. You have no choice but to bump up the ISO to take photographs.

[@smaakjeks]

This was a pretty good video, but some things worth mentioning when deciding on crop vs full frame: -Crop factor conversion (!) -Noise should be compared with similar scaling (not merely viewed at 100%), otherwise high-rez cams seem worse when in print they're not -In video, high-rez cameras will pixel bin, whereas low-rez cameras can use a higher effective percentage of the sensor -Features that come with full frame cameras, like dual memory card slots, focusing systems, viewfinder size, buffer, fps, battery life, etc.

[@peternilsson2372]

Very good explanation! However I feel the need to point out that the difference between price of the lenses for ex. a 85mm f1,4 and a similar lens for crop camera is even greater than double the price. I work with Sony both FF and Crop. A sigma 85 f1,4 for FF is around 1500 euro but an 56 mm f1,4 on my Sony crop sensor, which is the same as 85 mm on FF, is only 450 euro. And if you compare Sigma lenses for crop sensor with Sonys lenses for FF then the price difference is 4 to 5 times higher. Could the reason why crop cameras normally produce more noise because the manufacturer is simply not prioritizing the crop cameras noise handling? When I went from Sony A7RII to A7RII I noticed a remarkable difference in how the camera handled noise even though the sensor was exactly the same. I don't remember exactly but I think I read something later that Sony had added some code for the processor to be able to process noise better in the A7RIII.

[@gluteusmaximus7608]

Might be wrong here but the sensors are not the same a7r ii is CMOS while the a7r iii has a BSI CMOS sensor. BSI sensors handle noise better.

[@timothykieper]

Nice video! I would also be curious about the cost/benefit comparisions between APSC and Micro 4/3

[@fluxibus]

I used a D200 as my first digital camera. Then the D700 now the D750. The only reason I wanted a full frame and the only reason it matters is that I to this day only use my predigital prime lenses exclusively. These are ac far back as S series Nikkors and Ai series primes. With a full frame camera I can side step the annoyance of working out what a specific fo al length morphs into when used without a full frame. That's all.

[@digitalchadtech]

If I ever upgrade my ASP-C camera, it will be for one that is weatherproof. I have too many lenses to switch unless the full frame has a cropped mode.

[@dougsmit1]

While I agree with most of what you say, I wish everyone would realize that there are forms of photography where quality is not measured by bokeh and f/1.4 (or f/0.95) lenses are of no use whatsoever. You obviously measure quality using different standards than I do. Thank goodness there are not f/0.95 macro lenses. Some people take landscapes and prefer more universal sharpness. Some people prefer something in focus and sharp in the photo just to offset all that background blur. I have both a FF and a crop body using the crop more for what I like to shoot. Sometimes I wonder if M4/3 would be acceptable but the ergonomics of the few I have seen leave be drawing the line at APS-C. Perhaps that is why they make so many options? Not everyone defines 'best' in the same way.

[@markwiemels]

Good points. Yes, I totally agree a huge iris does not equal a great lens. I was more talking about lenses like this one - kzbin.info/www/bejne/oaSomGCNoLWckMksi=K4sq5nS_zNsWFZiH Which is one of the best lenses I have ever used, for $549. Something this good on full frame would be $2000+, and as big as a garbage can.

[@nevvanclarke9225]

Use a crop sensor XT5 and if I was posting these photos on a full frame page no one would know they are brilliant cameras now and the low light performance of the crop sensor is outstanding….. On this particular camera I migrated to Fujifilm because of the colour science and Fuji film and I’m loving it. I still have a full frame camera and it does have its purposes but they’re very minimal purposes and I’m keeping it because it does one thing really well at the XT5 probably isn’t good at, but majority of my photography isn’t that genre so it just makes sense to go to the crop sensor camera. The small form factor makes me want to take photos. Fuji cameras noise looks ok too

[@TangerineTux]

The reason why 50mm f/1.8 on FF has a blurrier background than 35mm f/1.8 on APS-C is not directly the higher number since that is exactly compensated by the larger circle of confusion criterion. It’s the fact that “f/1.8” when f=50mm means a larger entrance pupil (aperture) than when f=35mm.

[@markwiemels]

Thanks for the clarification, I was wrong about that and have been meaning to make a follow up video.

[@okaro6595]

The maximum background blur one can achieve when measured on the focal plane is simply the size of the entrance pupil. Everything else is irrelevant. They may affect how close to the maximum one can get i.e. affect for example when the background is not very far. Like if the background is twice as far as the subject you get just half of the maximum and there is where the crop factor plays: if you shoot further way the background is relatively closer. For example 50 mm f/1.8 full frame at 2 meters with the background at 4 meters the blur is 50 mm / 1.8 / 2 = 14 mm. Now with APS-C at 3 meters and the background at 5 meters: 50 mm / 1.8 *(1-3/5) = 11 mm. If you used 35 mm at 2 meters (ignoring the slightly different framing) you would get 35 mm / 1.8 / 2 = 10 mm. Note this is just about the blur otherwise the distance of course affects the relationship between the background and the subject.

[@TangerineTux]

@@okaro6595 Unless I’m missing something (a definite possibility), I think you mean when measured in object space, not on the focal plane (the sensor). The two will coincide only at 1:1 magnification (so at the minimum focus distance of most macro lenses).

[@yousefcreative]

Excellent points and video! Crop sensor is just as amazing as full frame. It's about how you use it! One thing I want to add about aperture is, similar to how you multiply the crop factor to get the full frame equivalent lens, you have to do the same with aperture. A f/1.8 lens isn't actually 1.8 on a crop sensor camera, rather, it's an f/2.7 (multiply by crop factor, 1.5). To get a true 1.8 you need to use a full frame lens that is 1.8 on a full frame lens camera.

[@cyberfunk3793]

Not really just as amazing. When you get into any more serious forms of landscape photography the sensor becomes important and the smaller sensors simply can't compete. Even if you could deal with the extra noise, the dynamic range differences often mean that you would need to bracket the shots on a crop sensor when on ff you could get away with 1 frame.

[@SuperTonda1]

Not totally true. Only for bokeh and blurryness you need to multiplay the aperature. For light gathering its the same

[@tauritaal]

​@@SuperTonda1It is. Smaller sensor and same aperture will result in less light stops. APC-S gathers less light and in order to compensate it, you should also go for faster lens that allows you to have lower ISO that is comparable with FF higher ISO.

[@cyberfunk3793]

@@tauritaal the aperture is a relative number so for example 2.0 aperture with iso 100 and same shutter speed will result in the same exposure on any size sensor.

[@tauritaal]

@@cyberfunk3793 But FF has larger area and that equates to more photons so in reality it gathers more light and image quality will be better. Point is to get like 1.3 stops or so faster lens to make light gathering equal on both sensors. You cant compare FF and APS-C with f6.3 on both because they dont capture light or photons equally. If you use f2.8 lens on FF, get f1.8 lens on APS-C. While FF shoots f2.8 @ ISO2000, you get equal light and performamce on APS-C with f1.8 @ ISO800. Doing f2.8 @ ISO2000 on both sensor sizes will just make FF a winner because the playing ground isnt equal.

[@patoto1689]

I use a lot of different cameras with different sensor sizes. At the end of the day you can get the results you want out of almost anything if you use appropriate glass and grasp what the body is able to do. I spent a month using only a Nikon 1 J1 and the CX 10mm 2.8. The results were fantastic, obviously wont be printing as large as my D850, but for a $50 body I'm not disappointed in the slightest. My Fuji XT4 and XE2 have stunning quality, but I was very selective on glass. They perform easily as well as my Z6II. The Nikon Z30 is also a beast, and can keep up with literally any of my modern FF cameras. Cost is huge, and thank you for emphasizing that. I tell anyone starting off to consider crop sensors because of this, the cost of entry into this profession is extremely high even with a crop sensor system, but it definitely is more palatable, though options are limited for hobbyists about to dip their toes in the water. The low light performance/high iso argument has basically died with flagship crop sensors. A lot of the photography I do is in tricky lighting situations and none of my crop cameras have faltered in this area aside from the ones I have that are like 10+ years old

[@pavelperina7629]

Sometimes high iso matters. Recently I was trying to photograph milky way with Fuji x100 and Panasonic G80 which has 10 years old sensor with the very same pixel density. But ISO is not only parameter that matters. To minimize coma aberration, Fuji can't be used with wide open aperture. Or Panasonic may use longer time and despite star trails long 15 pixels it would be better than photos with stars blurred into bird-like artifacts near image edges. Image stabilization may help in other uses cases. And there is usually enough light for MFT using f2, iso1600 and 1/100s (f1.7, iso3200,1/80s) indoors, unless light is really dim.

[@patoto1689]

@pavelperina7629 my point is relative to modern flagship crop sensors. You can absolutely crank the ISO on an XT4 for instance and still get completely usable results, and I shoot wide open all the time with zero issues. Modern cameras regardless of sensor size are much better at handling high ISOs to the point where when I use mine I don't even consider noise or other artifacts because it's been years since I've had any issues whatsoever

[@mackenlyparmelee5440]

As someone that takes a lot of pictures of birds, I love my APS-C camera. I put a 300mm lens on, I get over 400mm of effective focal length.

[@FernandoSLima]

Excelent video, I did the same math a few months ago, and that why a chose too use Canon 90D, 100mm 2.8, 85mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, 24mm 2.8 and fits perfectly to all my needs. I dont shoot in low light conditions and my aperture most of the time it is above 4. I was a pro photographer on early 90´s and this APS-c cameras today are so amazing....

[@ALWH1314]

The physics of optic let in more light to full frame sensor thus higher speed and shallower depth of field. There is nothing wrong with cropped sensor, it takes great pictures if you don’t mind a f1.4 lens is actually f2.0 which still takes great fuzzy background photos. The reality is most lenses don’t reform their best wide open, so I buy a f1.4 lens I shoot at f2.8 mostly and now it’s a f4 on a cropped sensor and that makes a noticeable difference. I have tiny point and shoot up to medium format sensor camera, they all take great pictures. The choice should be what kind of pictures you like to take to decide which type of camera to get and not a simply debate on crop vs. full. I think borrowing or renting both sensor camera and try it yourself is the best method. I don’t do video so there are different consideration that I don’t pay attention to. A friend of mine uses cropped sensor Fujifilm, stacks up to 100 photos to one picture, so cropped sensor can create huge photo. He shoots landscape only so typically at f11, hence speed is no concern to him. I shoot street, portrait, flower and animals so I use different camera depending on what my primary goal each time. To me, making that selection is part of the fun too. Don’t get stuck with specs, price, brands, your own liking is the most important factor.

[@flyingfox2005]

No an f1.4 lens is an 1.4 lens on any camera. Using it on an APSC camera has no effect at all, in the same way focal lengths are unaffected by sensor size. Optics on FF do not let in more light compared to APSC. An f2.8 lens on doesn't magically turn into an f4 lens on APSC You change focal lengths for a specific angle of view on each format. So a 35mm lens on APSC gives you the same angle of view as a 50mm on FF / 135. If your 50mm lens on FF is set to f2.8 - to match DOF on the 35mm on S35, you have to open the lens 1.5 stops to f1.4 That's it ... however by opening up the lens you have also altered the exposure by 1.5 stops.

[@Scooter-dm3qo]

Another thing to consider. Nikon's Z series full frame cameras limit the image area to the specific crop mode you have set. For example set it to the DX format and that is what will be recorded in the image file. Some complain that other brands recorded the entire sensor data so if they change their minds after taking the shot they can recover the full frame data easily. With Nikon that data isn't there and the file sizes directly reflect that change. This means that the data transfer off the image sensor will be increased. Guess what can happen with that reduced load. A whole bunch of things can happen faster, such as AF performance, release rates, buffer size goes up, transfer rates to memory increase, and higher resolution 60fps video is possible. All it takes is adjustments to the software to take advantage of the reduced data load.

[@jmtphotographymedia]

Good video. Most manufacturers never truly cared about their crop sensor lineup if they had full frame one. If they did most wouldn't need a full frame body because the lenses on crop sensor would be much better. That makes most of the difference anyway when it comes to comparable images between. I think bigger leaps would be made to medium format etc or smaller like 1 inch compact systems for casuals.

[@patrickgamble9014]

Great video I am into M43 cameras at the moment and there are a large market of fast inexpensive prime M43 lenses that give a good result IMHO

[@DigiDriftZone]

Ok but you need f/0.97 to compete with cheap small f1.8 primes on full frame and the super fast lenses are bigger, heavier and more expensive that the full frame ones. The full frame bodies now are also smaller too, I.e. zv-e1

[@TheSannaeriksson]

​@@DigiDriftZoneno you don't need a f 0,95 lens on m43. I often use my OM1 day and night whith my 12-40 mm f 2.8 or my 7-14 mm f 2.8 and the results are amazing. Daytime my favorite lens is the 12-100 mm f4 lens and I can get blurry background, sharp close up pictures, amazing landscape photos and good looking portraits. M43 is a very good system that you can use for proffessionell work. Many bird photographers have gone from sony A9 to OM1 lately also macro photoghrapers are discovering the advantages of the tecnichs in the olympus and OM1 for example in body handheld focus stacking. Now panasonic released the G9ll with some better specs. I have had my OM1 since it was released, can you shoot a sharp image with 2 second or longer shutterspeed handheld whit your camera? I can with mine. And if I want to use my super tele zoom with maximum 2000 mm focal length with the 2× teleconverter I can do that handheld all day. It ways only 1800 g and is super sharp.

[@patrickgamble9014]

@@DigiDriftZone being an impoverished emerging filmmaker I am still honing my skills and feel the full frame is out of my price for now but am feeling the mft works for me but will likely look at full frame in future if I am still into this then

[@briansture4353]

One of the first considerations for what camera to take on holiday is weight. I have suffered with heavy cameras and lenses which doesn't make for an enjoyable day. For the past few years I have been using very light capable camera the RX100 mk3. Good with video and photos being so small and light, packing a punch well above it's weight. Street people don't notice you taking photos. I keep the camera in my left hand on a wrist lead ready for those quirky action shots.

[@Vincent13997]

I shoot a Sony A7III, Fuji X-T4 and Olympus E-M1 mkII. In low light I get less noise in the Sony. Don’t get me wrong, my favorite is the Olympus, just love it, but the Sony is better than even the newer X-T4 in low light. For street photography the X-T4 is a better system for other reasons. As far as price, you are absolutely correct. I can’t see upgrading the A7iii anytime soon.

[@goldeneggduck]

We have been making do with what we have all these years. Knowing what to buy (first hand or second hand) is essential. In many cases, too old bodies get worse outcomes when it comes to white balance, realism of colour, purple fringes handling and basic image qualities (depending how old you reach back). I just made a decision to dig out older stuff and make them work instead of buying yet another round of new stuff. All I needed to do is to throw away stuff that, from hindsight after seeing new stuff, no longer performs and to test and note their limitations. Good lenses often compensates for old sensors. New sensors often gets much more oomph than older sensors. Generation of technology matters a lot but can be compensated somewhat by down selecting the lenses your pare them with. Full frame means weight. Remember, weight is something money cannot solve.

[@lawboss]

In a tight space, shooting with an FX30 and 16mm f.14 lens has its limitations/drawbacks). My general rule of thumb when watching KZbin videos is to see if one follows their own advice --which you do (kudos). You do, however, own at least 2 full frame cameras (which leads to my final point). I'm not a fan of purchasing apsc lenses especially if you believe at some point you're going to add a full frame camera. I enjoy your videos, thanks!

[@lionheart4424]

I get your point, but I also don't see anything wrong with having a FF camera alongside a crop sensor camera. The problem with "tech influencers" and "PRO Photographer" videos is that they always show gear for the sake of content. I like Mark's approach because he distinct himself by introducing options that others won't cover because they only want to showcase the newer stuff. I honestly believe that anyone new to photography should have experience with both types of sensors. The experience is the most important factor when determining if something is of worth for you. Newcomers should buy used stuff, too. In my experience, I have started studying photography this year, and I have gotten a used M50, two used Sony bodies (a6000 and a5000), a used Canon 6D (FF), and recently I decided to jump into Fujifilm with a brand new X-T5. I settled on crop sensor because I think it will work best for me since I want to be better at bird photography for the reach. And the newer Fuji bodies are weather sealed, same with their lenses. I do not like the ergonomics of Sony bodies but they indeed produce excellent results. I am in the process of selling my a6000 and two of my 4 E mount lenses. I will eventually also sell my M50 (I have the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 on it, literally the main reason I keep it, but I like the ergonomics too). I'll stick to my a5000 since it's very compact for a little longer. I plan to stay with Canon for full frame, I like their ergonomics, but man the mirror cameras are indeed heavier! Modern FF are mirrorless and lighter, but they are still quite expensive (with some exceptions). I have no rush though, so I am happy with investing into my new Fuji system in the meantime.

[@markwiemels]

I use the FX30 for it’s features to price, plus the audio handle. For my specific use, in that situation, the sensor size really doesn’t matter as much as everything else, and I can’t afford a FX3. I also have the Viltrox 13, Sigma 30, and Sigma 18-50, that I use with the FX30. To be honest, until I had some success with this KZbin channel, I couldn’t afford a full frame camera, I basically did what I suggested in this video, had crop cameras with really good, but more affordable, lenses.

[@BladeSaliva]

The only thing lacking right now for apsc is fast zooms. Yes tamron 17-70 and sigma 18-50 exists, but compared to a full frame 24-70 f2.8, or a 35-150 f2-2.8, 18-50 2.8 on apsc simply doesn't cut it compared to the full frame counterparts. We need something like a 18-50 f2 but it might be impossible idk.

[@jeremyharris8796]

Great video. I went from Canon FF to Fuji APSC years ago, when I realized I could get more for my money with almost equal performance. No regrets.

[@MattHalpain]

Years ago I bought a used Canon 5D Mark II, then a few years later I upgraded to a used 5D Mark III. And few months later I bought a used Canon Rebel T7. Recently I upgraded to a new Canon R100. I use my 100mm EF lens and EF zoom lens 24-105mm via a mount adaptor on my R100. My Canon 5D camera's are full frame. My Rebel T7 and R100 are cropped. I only use my R100 now. I can't really tell any difference between full frame sensor and crop sensor.

[@tembak88]

You have forgotten to include cost also in your comparison (ie RP vs Fx30)

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

I had a FF Canon R5.... And I "upgraded" to a crop sensor R7, which puts twice as many mp's on my subjects, usually small birds, as did my FF R5. Doing much better now.

[@kirkp_nextguitar]

If cost, bulk and weight aren’t factors I think a larger sensor is always an optical advantage, but taking them into account I went APS-C and got some really nice lenses. And hauling them around is much less of a pain that full frame gear.

[@Ajaredic]

Finally someone to talk about this! I was FF Nikon shooter for 10 years. Moved to Fujifilm 6 years ago and never looked back. I sold all my Nikon gear, bought all new Fuji gear and had a couple of thousand euros left :)

[@LebronPhoto1]

Thank you. As a long time photographer (since 1977) I find myself constantly having to debunk these misconceptions. Great job explaining this. Bottom line, knowing the characteristics of our equipment and understanding how it impacts the scene, helps us achieve the results we want.

[@smaakjeks]

I wish he would have mentioned crop factor conversion, at least.

[@cyberfunk3793]

And as someone that has tried both out personally for landscapes I would say it's not a myth but the difference between Nikon or Sony FF vs. any crop sensor in for example dynamic range are huge and often can mean the difference of needing to bracket or not. I can take good landscapes on any sensor, but I would never buy anything else than FF for the purpose if I did it as a hobby and not just once a year on some holiday.

[@LebronPhoto1]

@@cyberfunk3793 Interesting because I have seen people make prints from Full Frame vs. Crop sensors and have pros try to determine which image was take by which camera, and most have not been able to determine which was the full frame camera most of the time. “Huge difference”, maybe on paper but not in practice. Also, using that logic, people looking for the best IQ would all be shooting medium format. They don’t. Why? There is a point where you get diminishing returns. All cameras have their strengths and weaknesses. I’ve sold as many images captured with my MFT cameras as I’ve sold using cameras with APS-C or FX sensors.

[@cyberfunk3793]

@@LebronPhoto1 The difference isn't in resolution so they aren't going to see the difference in prints. The difference is that when taking the photo on FF you might need only 1 frame when with aps-c you need to bracket or you will have the highlights blown. The shots that the aps-c people missed aren't going to end in the print phase so there isn't anything to compare and while bracketing is an option it's easier if you don't have to.

[@LebronPhoto1]

@@cyberfunk3793 not true. You can get exposures right on target with any camera if you are skilled enough and for those tricky lighting situations where you may be a little off, you can shoot RAW plus JPEG and if the JPEG isn’t on target, you can adjust the raw. Or for scenery, if you are using an Om System camera, there is an HDR feature. There are lots of ways to achieve a good exposure. I for one am not one to bracket.

[@davidfarr3591]

I recently purchased the TTArtisans 35mm 1.4 lens based on your recommendation for my Canon M50. And it's immediately challenging my Laowa Macro lens as my favorite. Just stunning images. And it cost me less than $80! Amazing value, amazing. I really appreciate all the useful information you share with us.

[@markwiemels]

It's absurdly good for the money, and so fun to use!

[@mikeyKnows_]

I also have that lens and I use it for almost everything, I even took it it to Europe. What I like the most is the size.

[@vitormanes3799]

Take your first link: Tamron RXD 17-70mm f/2.8 and put with a Sony APSC... What a super kit! You just can't go wrong! Tks for the great video!

[@Ahnii]

Thank you for the video, I'm currently waiting for a used camera (either fuji or sony) to show up and need to decide between fujis aps-c and sony full frame! Don't forget the "advantage" of full frame sensors, you can use manual vintage lenses on them, and they behave a designed:)

[@liamporter1137]

Thanks for sharing. Pretty confused with all these options for a casual DSLR user.

[@stretch90]

If the sensor size isn't what makes full frames better in low light on average, then what does?

[@markwiemels]

The biggest factors are the tech of the sensor, size of the photosites, and in camera processing. When full frame out performs, it's due to these factors.

[@KlipsenTube]

Instead of comparing sensor sizes alone, you could compare same size sensors with different resolutions. There probably is a good reason why Sony makes three versions of the Alpha 7 family, i.e. the 7, 7s and 7r. If photosite size meant nothing in terms of image quality, economy of scale could make the highest resolution sensor the most profitable choice in all their cameras.

[@vtrip_]

I’ve been using APSC sensors since I converted from film to digital. And even with the crop factor I still get more true-to-film quality from them.

[@Fusionaire]

This makes so much sense, a good reason why the brilliant Lumix M43 cameras are so underrated.

[@europlatus]

This is a great video and an important one. Arguing about which sensor size is best is ridiculous because it's like arguing whether a plate or bowl is best. But the point of your video is important: there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about sensor sizes. It mostly boils down to working distance and field of view rather than anything technical about the sensors. Working distance is obviously going to be an important consideration for some people, but certainly not all, and not in all situations. Sadly, a lot of the comments below are just continuing to peddle the same misinformation that this video tries to correct. The fact remains that, unless you are trying to recreate the exact same conditions between two sensor sizes, you can work with any system you want and get the results you need without even thinking about sensor size. And it's more important to weigh up all criteria (overall weight, budget, genre, etc.) than concentrate on small differences in blur, noise, etc.

[@peterwilson7532]

...and at 5:35 that is why, when you use a smart phone everthing is in focus all the time (except when algorithms cajole the image to artificially blur the background). The focal length is around 4mm in a smart phone, just imagine a 4mm lens on a full-frame camera, obviously everything is in focus, essentially no depth of field exists. If I remember correctly a smart phones 4mm focal length lens at f/2.0 has the same depth of field as a full-frame camera's 50mm at f/22...crazy!

[@GLBArchistudio]

Selecting by purpose the worst (older) FF sensor on the market and set it side by side with a very modern APSC one. I have both these cameras, the Fuji sensor certainly performs better recovering underexposed images, but so does an modern M43 sensor. On the other side of the medal, the FF canon sensor, properly exposed, destroys the Fuji sensor, colour wise and perspective wise.

[@jerryrichards8172]

I just gave in and purchased my first digital camera. I went with a crop censor so I could use all my old glass. Coming from full frame 35mm since 1977 the aps-c was little to get used to. My 35mm 1:4 works out to 52.5 were it really shines is on my longest lense of 200mm is now 300mm. Even though it's tack sharp most of the time with my minolta G lense it seems at time I'm not getting the details on pics where I'm reaching farther out as I was with full frame 35mm film. That's not always the case so maybe it's just myself getting used to the new format. The instant pictures and no film fees are really nice. Looking forward to getting lightroom and or photoshop.

[@walkerhjk]

What precisely do you mean by 'crop sensor' ? There are many different sizes of sensor apart from APS-C

[@beautgrainger147]

I think theres still a bit to add to this.. I've been looking at video cameras for next year, the Lumix GH6 and S5II.. maybe add the G9ii and the reality is a neck and neck comparison when it comes to image quality, mostly just with some different features.. but one is FF and two aren't.. then look at the lenses. You can get some of the lenses as FF or crop, and the max aperture is faster for the crop versions, on top of that, one can use a speed booster to help with the DOF. In theory there should be a hardware advantage with FF, but the practical advantages are often not relevant, or sometimes even real.

[@teresabrubaker]

Please don't forget to include Pentax! Excellent cameras and lenses/glass for decades and still very popular in other countries! Thank you!!

[@jeghedderhenrik]

i missed more talking about the smaller and more compact apsc + lens setup.. not only for street and travelling, it also draw less attention from others , allowing other photos

[@markwiemels]

Yes, I only left that out because Sony is making some really small Full Frame cameras now, but you are right, on average the APS-C stuff is still smaller.

[@uyims56]

The other advantage of the small sensors cameras in low light is you can shoot with the aperture wide open and still get adequate depth of field when required (eg. group photograph) and use a lower ISO.

[@paintspirationsunlimited]

I don't think so. It all comes to the focal length of the lens. The wider the lens, the less background separation. Full frame and crop sensor will see the exact image, only apsc is cropped abit

[@kuba6156]

@@paintspirationsunlimited but with APS-C you need to multiply the depth of field by the crop factor. That's why F1.8 lens on an APS-C have x1.5-1.6 DOF than F1.8 on a full frame. That's a bad thing when you try to get a nice bokeh for a portrait but can be a good thing when you want more scene at focus and have not enough light.

[@paintspirationsunlimited]

@@kuba6156 you're assuming that you have to get closer to get the exact framing or size of the subject. I am saying they are seeing the same thing at same distance. obviously the Fullframe will get more bokeh as you need to get closer to get the same size of head (portrait) than an apsc, reducing the depth of field as you move closer. They see the same thing, the only thing that changes is the size of the whole image

[@kuba6156]

@@paintspirationsunlimited of couse but in real world scenario we want to take the same picture with both cameras, so the dept of field is different on the photo taken and that's what matters.

[@danteedee8204]

Excellent video makes me feel better about keeping my apsc camera and investing in great apsc lenses. I figured I am an amateur, and the cost of getting full frame did not make sense, and bokeh is not everything.

[@simon0yeung]

There’s the point of sufficiency, and beyond that you pay a premium. In most situations for most people, APSC is sufficient. Perhaps for super low light such as astronomy photography, hangup wall size posters, you need the extra sensitivity or pixels. Otherwise non issue

[@mohitsharma8912]

I bought Sony ZVe10 with kit lens + sigma 56mm f1.4 for $1200 which is half the price of Sony basic full frame camera a7c with kit lens +an 85mm lens. It does 90-95% of the work that ff could do at half the price. Why does everyone fuss about low light.. Get more lights, they are cheap and that will get you light years ahead of other enthusiasts. And even ff can't see in the dark. But yes.. if you got money to spin get whatever you want. But that wont do anything magical vis a vis apsc.

[@scotthullinger4684]

Crop sensor is the smallest format you should choose if your goal is achieving within the range of well beyond marginal image quality. Crop sensor can be logically used for a variety of professional needs, just about anything except for full blown commercial photography. The trade-offs are noticeable, but only marginal. For example, both crop sensor and Full Frame cameras can logically be used for wedding photography. More than anything, what matters most is your choice of lens, and the technical quality derived from it. YES - a good lens DOES matter. Any by the way ... you'd need very fine eyesight, and a huge print, to take notice of any differences. And your computer monitor can reveal more flaws than a physical print can reveal, especially if your photographic paper is textured, which is rather common from professional labs.

[@stlflyboy86]

I hear the points you are trying to make and generally agree with you. But the images of the RP are crushing the images from the FX30.

[@daveN2MXX]

Your insight is profound. Look, full frame system IS BETTER compared to a crop sensor camera system. But.....is it worth the additional (often double) money for the boday and larger lenses? For a professional, the answer is likely yes. For the hobbyist, the need for an incremental quality improvement is questionable. Recent aps-c lenses from tamron and sigma offer remarkable focal lengths and small apertures which were not available previously....so this conversation is much different compared to 6-10 years ago.

[@HarryLewinASR]

Thank you! My reaction to anyone who is going to reveal "the truth" is always a shudder. Nevertheless, your nuanced approach to this topic is valuable and overlooked. Thanks again.

[@daysandwords]

Great video! I'm sure I'm not the first one to say this, but eeerrrrkkktually, focal length doesn't technically have an impact on depth of field... It's all about the apparent distance to the object. So if you go 200 metres back and shoot your Winnie the Pooh with an 800mm lens at f8, the depth of field would be the same as at 35mm f8 so long as the subject stayed the same size within the frame... But the background will look so stupidly close that it will APPEAR that the DOF is thinner... in actual fact the DOF is the same but just blown up to look huge, and thus more out of focus. You can test this yourself in a more practical setting, e.g. 24mm f1.4 vs 50mm f1.4 but about twice as far back (or whatever distance is needed to keep the subject the same size in the frame).

[@18CC]

where it costs less ? Did you actually look at the prices?

[@abram-green]

My biggest regret starting photography is going full frame. Started with a Canon R8, probably would have been just as well off with an R10, plus I could've stomached the cost of the lenses a little more!

[@YTGtr1]

Thank you, very useful. So basically, I can get some 500$ -ish 1.4 lens for my a6400 and get some great results. And if I understood correctly it might even outperform full frame camera regarding video quality?

[@asystasyorg]

2:52-2:59 I also notice in this comparison that the camera's colour is quite visibly different across both JPGs, but I guess this comes down to the JPG codec in each model of camera.

[@DanaPushie]

Thanks for this video Mark; I appreciate your approach to the topic. I went through the FF vs APS-C issue myself a couple of years ago. I went with APS-C for the cost as you explained and the smaller size and weight. My only regret is not going for weather sealed gear, but I just act accordingly. My biggest frustration with photography YTers is when their opinion appears to be presented as fact. I wish you continued success. Cheers

[@onestepbeyond3171]

Every camera (system) has it's own strength. Full Frame with up to 8 stops of in-body image stabilization (IBIS) beats any f 1.4 with crop sensor. We shouldn't forget that full frame with 40 - 60 MP can be cropped easily while the crop sensor loses quality. Of course is double the money is a strong argument against full frame. Also double the weight and a computer with a lot more power is needed. However: with full frame and 40 - 60 MP you can catch more information than with a crop. It's on the user to take advantage of that - or waste the money. and G-Master

[@spooky_lights]

Being a Leica and Fuji X user I can confirm that the difference is very minor but there is a difference. With crop-sensor you get the smaller size and smaller price, but you loose some of the detail when printing and cropping. With full-frame you get a shallower depth of field and less noise, but the cameras can get huge and expensive. Unfortunately if you want the small size of crop-sensor with the image quality of a full-frame Sony, you have to spend a ton on a Leica rangefinder to get the best of both worlds in the size and image quality department and you loose autofocus. I think fujifilm has the best value cameras in image quality and size. The other camera brands are too tanky and clunky for me which I why I went with a Leica and Fuji.

[@1maticsportsandGames]

I have question that's driving me nutz, if a DSLR in video mode has only, aperture control, iso control and exposure lock but no shutter speed option to change, how is the video shutter set to its proper settings 1/60 when shooting at 30fps? I don't get it? Does it set it to a default setting when in video mode? I lock the exposure to what I want by pointing in light or low light and the video is great. No stutter everything is good, it has that very slight blur when paused , 24fps has more blur pause which this I understand fine. Any help would be great, you seem very knowledgeable and make great content👍📷

[@professionalpotato4764]

The RP vs FX30 test needs a lil grain of salt. The FX30 doesn't have a physical shutter, so image quality will be slightly worse (about 0.5 stops worse DR or so). When you look at Photons to Photos, the a6700 which uses the same sensor is consistently about 0.7 stops cleaner than the RP. Regarding the price point, that's quite true. However on the E-mount, we have plenty of 3rd party options that are great. E.g. the Tamron 28-75mm or Sigma 24-70mm cost the same as the Sony 16-55mm. So it's not definitive that full frame is always more expensive. It is only if one looks at the top tier lenses. For the vast majority, 3rd party is good enough. One other way to look at the price point, is "Buy it nice or buy it twice". Buying into an APS-C locks the person into an APS-C ecosystem even within the same mount. If it's just for photos, a used A7ii + 3rd party lenses will be far cheaper than new APS-C bodies with all the extra features a beginner doesn't need. Subsequent lens purchases will be full frame and there is no loss incurred when selling off APS-C just to upgrade.

[@markwiemels]

Good info on the FX30, thanks! I agree about the great 3rd party lenses, but those 3rd parties make aps-c lenses, and they are 1/2 the price most of the time too. Comparing a Sigma 16mm crop to 24mm full frame for example. There are exceptions, but for the most part they are 1/2 the price.

[@professionalpotato4764]

@@markwiemels Indeed. It won't happen for all focal lengths, but there are some lenses where they cost almost the same, maybe $100-200 difference. E.g. I can buy a FF Samyang 24mm f1.8 for the same price as the Sigma 16mm f1.4. Depending on one's needs, FF can be the same price or cheaper.

[@mattcero1]

I have two APS-C cameras, an X-S10 and a ZV-E10. After these I got a Nikon Z6ii and have not looked back. I'm selling my Fuji because I can't use the lenses on the others. I got an adapter that let's me use my Sony lenses on the Nikon and this is the optimal two camera setup.

[@VideoInformation]

Using M50, while I agree with everything, a Canon r8 is much needed upgrade for switching to 4k with clog. So upgrading, but will keep m50 as well. The crop is hard to beat.

[@mikefoster6018]

My understanding is that full frame sensors gather far more photons of light, in any given moment and in total across all its sensor pixels, than a crop sensor will - due to the size. The full frame therefore benefits from a better consistency of light capture from pixel to pixel, as per the 'shot glasses in the rain' metaphor of how light is gathered. In other words, even though the intensity of a photo will be the same on both sensor types, the full frame is better at avoiding the inconsistency and fuzziness that's revealed by higher ISOs. (If you have a massive resolution, you instead have more insistency from pixel to pixel ... but so many tiny pixels that you'd have to zoom in far to notice). Having said that, yeah a full frame lens has to go much narrower with its aperture to get the same depth of field as a crop sensor. I love the range of depth of field on my crop sensor 33mm (50mm equivalent).

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

This is for the most part correct. The size of the sensor is not really the issue though - it's the size of each individual pixel - - which is the fundamental part of the sensor that actually gathers the light. Each pixel is responsible for gathering its own light and producing a.....well...pixel. So, if you have a 24 MP crop sensor and a 24 MP full frame sensor, each individual pixel on the full frame sensor is larger, ergo it collects more light information - - this is why larger sensors are generally better at handling low-light situations. The same amount of light is hitting the sensor - it's just that each pixel can gather more light - more information, so it doesn't have to "fabricate" information, which is what digital noise ultimately is : the pixel basically saying, "well, it was pretty dark; this is what I THINK it looked like...." When you have a lot of pixels that are having a hard time gathering enough light, it manifests as grain on the final image, which is why - all other things equal - an image recorded on a sensor with smaller pixels has more noise. The biggest difference from an image quality standpoint is this. Full frame sensors are simply better had handling low-light situations. The other things - like background blur have to do with the physical size of the sensor and thus the perspective you get. For example, a crop sensor creates an image that appears more "zoomed in" than a full frame. It's why they call it a crop sensor. The resulting image appears like a "crop" of a full frame image. Let's say you are taking a picture of a person standing in a room. 10 feet behind this person is a rose bush. With your crop sensor, you stand 10 feet away from the person and get your image. You are 10 feet away from the subject (in focus) and 20 feet away from the roses. With a full frame sensor, you have to get closer to the subject to have them fill the same amount of the frame. Let's say you only have to be 5 feet away to have them framed similarly to the crop-frame photograph. Now, you are 5 feet away from the subject (point of focus) and 15 feet away from the roses in the background. So, in the crop photo, the background was twice as far away as your focus point - - but in the full frame image, the background is 3 times farther away, so it will appear more out of focus than when that background was only twice as far. This is why the background appears more blurred on a full frame photograph. The sensor isn't doing anything special. The camera isn't doing anything special. It all has to do with where you have to position the camera in order to match the composition of each photograph - and when you do that, the ratio between your subject (point of focus) and the background is larger on a full frame sensor. Thus, you get more background blur when using a full frame camera - not because the sensor does something special, but because in order to match the composition, YOU have to move into a position to change the ratio between the point of focus and the background.

[@mikefoster6018]

@@willoughbykrenzteinburg The size of the sensor is still important. Hypothetically, if a crop sensor and a full frame both have the same size pixels and the same number of pixels then, all else being equal, then yes they'd perform about the same. But from what I know, that's not a realistic example when comparing two contemporary cameras. If a crop sensor and full frame have the same pixel size it would usually mean more pixels on the full frame, which means the fuzz of high ISO is reduced to more of a fine haze. But in most cases the full frame goes for bigger pixels rather than bigger resolution. I don't think your "fabricate" example is as accurate as my shot glass example. Most of the variation that leads to ISO fuzz is caused by there being more variation between light hitting each pixel in low light, whereas it averages out more when there's more light. Some is also from noise/heat coming within the electronics. When you add the 'gain' of high ISO, it exaggerates those differences causing ISO fuzz.

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

@@mikefoster6018 It is not physically possible for a full frame and a crop sensor to both have the same size pixels and same number of pixels. I never claimed the size of the sensor was not important. The size of the PIXEL is far more important with regard to light-gathering capabilities and signal to noise ratio - and signal to noise ratio is....well.....fundamental to noise. All sensors and their receptors are going to produce noise, but if that noise is overwhelmed by light, the "signal" is WAY higher than the noise. However, if not much light enters the pixel - either because it is dark OR the pixel is small (or both), then the signal to noise ratio is a lot smaller, hence the "noise" (which was always there) seeps through the signal - and you see the noise that was always there; it's just that the signal was not strong enough to drown it out because the pixel did not collect enough light. With the advancement of technology, there are other things cameras are doing to reduce noise, but fundamental to everything else, the PIXEL SIZE is absolutely - without any doubt - the number one contributor to noise. The larger sensor in itself doesn't make photos less noisy, it's the fact that you can fit larger pixels on a larger sensor without sacrificing resolution. THAT is the key element to the full frame sensor regarding its low-light performance. Suppose you have a football team, and only 30 players were allowed to be on the team. You have a school bus that carries 30 football players (TEAM A) - all about 5 foot 8 and weighing about 150 pounds. Then you have another football team (TEAM B) - still with 30 players, but their bus is way larger, and their players are all 6 foot 2 and weigh 220 pounds. Team B is the better football team. Is it because their bus was larger - - or because the fact that the bus was larger allowed them to fit bigger players on that bus? Which one is more fundamental? The larger bus carries the better football team, but the large bus in itself isn't the reason the football team is better. It's the reason the better football team could fit.

[@johnwinter6061]

Good video. Incidentally a case for zoom lenses and moving your position to get equivalents!

[@anaraquelsilva9117]

I have a Sony ZV E10 body with 3 lenses: a Sony 50mm 1.8, a Sony 55mm 210mm, and a Viltrox 20mm 2.8. Still half the price, and I enjoy working with them a lot. 😃

[@giovannigio6217]

full frame just happens to be the same size of the classic 35mm film, so they designed full frame sensor using the same size trying to follow a non written convention. APS-C did exist also in the film era as "half frame", instead of shooting 36 pictures per roll you could shoot 72. talking of film sizes or digital sensor sizes is like dealing with different power plugs around the globe: everyone has a different one and you have to deal with them somehow. fortunately in digital era the most common sensor sizes list length dropped to 4. (micro 4/3, aps-c, ff, medium format)

[@JoeHinton-bp4nq]

How does the ability/quality of a crop sensor (and full size sensor) compare to that of film?

[@bittertruth6175]

So realistic and amazing comparison. Impressive.

[@KaelthasProductions]

this is still what i'm thinking i have very old dslr cropped sensor that has lots of problems and im planning to upgrade to mirrorless i have 50mm prime but i want to capture more of the frame so i'm still choosing whether i buy cropped sensor body and wide lens or full frame body and use my existing lens

[@BracaPhoto]

I'm a full frame snob - one of the arguments for cropped sensor is the price - i agree that the camera body is usually more expensive but the cropped lenses are usually more expensive than comparable full frame lenses Let's discuss 👍👍

[@BracaPhoto]

Canon RF 50mm f1.8 - $200 Fuji 35mm f2.0 cropped $400 Canon RF 100MM macro - $1000 Fuji 85mm macro - $1200

[@grimlightwildoutdoors]

I’ve been involved in photography for over 35 years been professional for 20 plus years plus ( weddings, portraits, commercial ) never shot full frame never had a need or want to shoot full frame. The sensor doesn’t matter to clients it’s the quality of the end results this is where investment in the right glass and lighting matters way more than sensor type. Even now not interested in full frame.

[@johnpelham8710]

How about depth of field. Smaaler sencors give a greater DOF therfore at the same distance ,you get a greater depyh of field. There is also less choice of prime lenses at the cheaper prices of crop size lenses. This applies to Nikon F mount lenses .