Why I Prefer APS-C Cameras for Landscape Photography over Full Frame

I attempt to explain why I often prefer APS-C cameras over full-frame cameras for landscape photography based on size, weight, and depth of field.
This is the last video in the studio before we repainted it.
Look for me on Vero @philthach
If you would like to make a much-appreciated donation to help keep this channel going, send it to [e-mail] on Paypal or @phil-Thach on Venmo.
Maven Filters maven-color-coded-magnetic.kc...

[@ianthrussell9135]

Yes I agree .. We senior photographers love the lightweight 👍👍

[@Mr09260]

I am 72 and find the new Nikon Z cameras as light as anything >> Get fit is my advice

[@NECPER]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[@davidclode3601]

You make some very good points, thank you.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@mikemitchem4846]

Great insight sir!

[@PhilThach]

Thanks, Mike!

[@erikpapp]

Thanks for the good advice, I totally agree with it.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you, Erik!

[@samuelsoundararaj]

Hey Phil , love this breakdown and it makes so much sense as well . Hope you are doing well . Take care .

[@PhilThach]

Thank you, Samuel!

[@christopherrodriguez7223]

Wise words Phil. It’s been awhile I hope you and the family are well.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you, Christopher! Same to you and yours.

[@redpillnibbler4423]

This is very true.Another way of looking at it is that smaller sensors allow a lower iso setting to achieve the same depth of field at a certain shutter speed because of what the video explained. I’d say M43 to full frame is all a happy medium range.Each will have inherent advantages and disadvantages that can be worked with one way or another.

[@nicholasowilliams1]

I was a APSC shooter on Canon for years for landscape, and to be honest I took for granted the extra depth of field. I switched to full frame for the lenses in the end and though miss the depth of field advantage I would never go back due to corner sharpness. The canon trinity are just superb. I appreciate your point though, good video.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@Blue_Newt_01]

Interesting… and I assumed the opposite because of the wider frame ability with full frame. But your take on the lens POV makes perfect sense. Recently purchased the Fuji X-PRO3 for messing around with Film Simulation recipes via Fuji X Weekly and it’s becoming my go to for walkabouts or with walking the dogs because of the size. Size makes a huge difference with deciding wether or not to pick up a camera on the way out the door!

[@PhilThach]

Thanks, Mary!

[@jtes1442]

You make some good points, but I’m sticking with my Z7 and 14-30 F4 for my landscape work . However APS-C is great for landscape too . Nice video .

[@PhilThach]

The Z7 and 14-30 sounds like a great combination for landscape work! Thank you!

[@stevelink3]

Phil, thanks for this video and perspective. I agree with your points, except for one additional consideration, i.e., printing large. As a landscape, product and occasional wildlife photographer, I went from the superb Fujifilm X-System APS-C cameras to FF Nikon Z System, ONLY because I often print quite large (30" x 40" and up), and I simply obtain prints with more sharpness and detail retention in large prints with a larger FF sensor system. Granted, if I only shot for digital media, then I fully concur that the APS-C systems are more than sufficient, and yield excellent results. But once I started printing large, I found that the image needing less enlargement (FF for example) for the output size will be sharper and retain more detail/information than the image needing greater enlargement (APS-C for example). Thanks again!

[@peterviragphoto]

Great summary /reasoningPhil! I miss landscape photography a little these days:)

[@PhilThach]

Thanks, Peter! Maybe it's time for you to change it up and make a waterfall video. I bet your landscape photos are fantastic!

[@peterviragphoto]

@@PhilThach want a waterfall in the backyard😀

[@ses4vols]

I agree with you on the depth of field being a function of the lens used. I moved to a full frame sensor and like the other benefits (i.e. better dynamic range, less noise, etc.). For hiking I have the Nikon 24-70mm f4. This is a smaller lens and easy to hike with. I bought a peak design capture clip for my backpack. It clips on the shoulder strap of my backpack and frees up both my hands. I highly recommend it.

[@PhilThach]

I still regret not getting the 24-70 f/4 when I bought my Z6.

[@jamesking4225]

What camera do you use?

[@ses4vols]

@@jamesking4225 Nikon Z6ii

[@robertdavis1255]

Thanks Phil for sharing your experience with great comments.... Although I am a hobbyist & don't have full frame cameras, I am always interested in hearing about the differences in results from different gear...My D500 gives me the results I like with my limited range of lenses...I use a 12-24mm for my wife angle..... cheers from Australia 😀

[@PhilThach]

Thank you, Robert!

[@FuckPedophileBiden]

Great lens!

[@matthewsinger]

The elephant in the room that never seems to be discussed is the angular distortion that comes with wide-angle lenses. Sometimes that distortion is the look we are going for. But many times, it's just the look we live with because we are shooting such small formats - and I consider 35mm (full frame) to be a small format. Where we shoot 16mm on a full-frame camera to get a wide framing, we might shoot 50mm on a medium format camera, and even 100 mm on a large 8x10 format. And what we get with these larger formats is a more natural perspective while retaining the wide framing. On larger formats, the diffraction from stopping down to f/64 is negligible because the source image is larger to begin with. Those Ansel Adams classic shots just wouldn't look right if they had been shot on 35mm, let alone APS-c. For this reason, if we are out to make high-quality fine-art landscape images, larger formats are desirable. If we are making landscape photographs for a more informal purpose - to sell at art festivals or to display online / in print with articles, then hiking with an APS-c camera is more than acceptable.

[@PhilThach]

Very interesting comment, thank you!

[@redpillnibbler4423]

Not to mention large format cameras often incorporate tilt & shift mechanisms to ‘naturalise’ wide angle shots.

[@martinlundkristiansen3859]

I don’t understand why you’d get a “more natural perspective” with a larger format. Will a smaller format have more distortion when comparing equivalent fields-of-view?

​@@martinlundkristiansen3859 no, I don't understand why it would make any difference either. It will have the same distortion with the same field of view (or equivalent) no matter the sensor size

[@adrianalfordphotography]

Thanks for sharing Phil. I still prefer my full frame cameras for landscape, and love my lenses, low light dynamic range and large printing quality, but can understand your point of view. Funny thing is a vid I just finished was on the crop sensor vs full frame. Remember when I did that Z50 astro and took a shot with the D750? Finally got to it, haha! I tried the Z50 for bird photography the other day, haha oh boy what a mishmash, haha, I need to practice! 🤙🙏

[@PhilThach]

I think I would prefer full frame over APSC for astro based on using higher than 100 ISO on astro. I didn't realize you owned a Z50, I thought you borrowed one to use on your 13mm Viltrox review. Z50 does fine for perched birds. I think I prefer it over the D500 for perched birds. Birds in flight I like the D500 better. We can't agree on everything. :) Looking forward to your videos, the one you mentioned, and all the rest.

[@adrianalfordphotography]

@@PhilThach Hey Phil - yes I'm actually renting this Z50 for next to nothing for 6 months. Thought I'd give a try first.

[@randybocksnick3750]

PHIL-- I always prefer APSC for landscapes like my Z50 and the 16-50 lense! I shoot many landscapes at f-11, can be very sharp! WOW! very interesting video and you explained very professionally!! Randy Bocksnick(Montana)

[@PhilThach]

Thank you, Randy! One of my favorite waterfall photos I ever made was with the Z 50 and the 16-50 lens.

[@randybocksnick3750]

PHIL-- My 100-400 Z lense work good for Landscapes! Randy

[@dalefrolander3583]

I fully agree. I was using the Nikon D7100 (apsc), and switched to the Sony a7r3. I really like FF, but miss the depth of field and small lenses of apsc. Now I have the a7R5 too, and have some apsc lenses for when I want to go small and light and want that greater depth of field. I use a Sony 10-20mm f4 apsc lens on my a7R5 for landscapes.

[@PhilThach]

I need to try that lens. I have the Sony 11mm 1.8.

[@ianthrussell9135]

I agree 👍👍

[@PhilThach]

Thanks, Ian!

[@ammadoux]

exactly my think, but for m4/3 if i stoped the lens to 5.6 which is equivalent in DOF to f11 but without losing light so no need to increase iso. in fact one can go for very low iso and very slow shutter to get waterfalls sometimes i use 1/5 sec with or without support of my elbows, the nice 5 axis IBIS works it magic and the shot is sharp edge to edge. thanks Phill.

[@PhilThach]

One day I'm going to try a m4/3 system. Seriously.

[@ammadoux]

you will love the 300 mm f4 prime.

[@1992tlp]

Phil, Interesting observations and I think the key point might be summarized as: use the smallest system that will yield the print/output quality you require (most of my photos end up being displayed on a 43” Samsung Frame or shared digitally). As for the points about depth of field and field of view, I’m of the opinion that comparative depth of field and diffraction render this a virtual tie. Depth of field is perceptual (there’s only one plane of critical focus at any aperture, everything else is up to resolving power). The full-frame sensor at comparable MP will produce better depth of field than the crop sensor with the same lens at comparable display size, and better optical performance at comparable small apertures because of diffraction.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you, Phil!

[@redpillnibbler4423]

What’s a 43” Samsung frame?

[@terryosborn]

Totally agree with you Phil and find my Fuji cameras are great for landscape. Looking at changing to a Canon R7 (better autofocus for my birds of prey photography) but where are the wide angle lenses at a reasonable cost?

[@PhilThach]

Hi Terry. I use the ef-s 10-18 adapted with the Ef to RF adapter. It works great at landscape type apertures, f/8 f/11. I bought mine used for around $200.

[@clickonmike]

Thanks you've just made my mind up for me. I'm getting an aspc camera. Thinking seriously of getting a 90D. Would like to know what would be the better lenses aspc or full frame.

[@PhilThach]

For an ultra wide on a 90d I’d get the Ef-s 10-18 apsc lens.

[@clickonmike]

@@PhilThach Thanks.

[@melaniezette886]

Dof is related to distance and diaphragm. diameter for 50mm f/2 is 25mm, 25mm is 12.5mm When you change one parameter you have to change other(s)

[@chrisbrown6432]

Look at Nature’s Image photography and there is more to depth of field than you are talking about. Very good points you are mentioning though. Fir example hyper focal distance is most important for depth of field too. It would be interesting to see the difference in detail between a full frame image and a apsc image if the same scene, with the same size of objects in it.

[@WelcometotheJones]

Phil I always enjoy watching. I’ve been a crop sensor photographer until I purchased my first 5D MK2. For low light there’s no beating full frame, but I must say the practicality of crop sensor gear has its advantages. Canon has always been my brand of choice, but the cost of a new lens is beginning to price me away from Canon. Another disadvantage in using crop sensor cameras are the quality of low aperture lenses. I wish there was a better solution to combine them both! Happy shooting!

[@Mr09260]

GO Nikon and the cost is even higher but then you get what you pay for with Z Lenses

[@WelcometotheJones]

@@Mr09260 Well I’ve gotten my essentials Canon lenses, but moving forward I’ll have to make some hard decisions on new purchases! I love what I get from my original R & R5!

[@PhilThach]

I agree, full frame is better, MUCH better in low light. But, for landscape photography, you are usually on a tripod so you can shoot at 100 ISO and just use a longer exposure time to get around the low light issue. However, some scenes have bright areas that you need to expose for and that might leave you with other areas of your image that are dark. These areas might be cleaner after you lift the shadows using a full-frame camera than an APSC. That is certainly something to consider. Thanks for watching!

[@WelcometotheJones]

@@PhilThach Great points, maybe you could do a video on long exposure(if you have time)? I’d surely appreciate it!! Thanks

[@PhilThach]

@@WelcometotheJones I'm hoping to do some long exposure this winter. Also, I like your long exposure if you have the time joke. That was clever!

[@peterwilliams6114]

Love your laid back style and you talk a lot of common sense - The only digital camera I have is a Nikon D7000 - I've owned it from new in 2012 , I've taken over 120,000 shots with it and it's still going strong - however [ there's always a however ] ... The time has come to think of buying a new camera and I believe the problem we APS-C owners have is we think we possess ' inferior ' cameras - why do I say this ? Well , every professional Landscape Photographer either shoots Full Frame or Medium Format - every photograph [ well , MOST photographs ] in my collection of Landscape Photographer Of The Year books have been taken with Full Frame cameras , it's VERY rare to find photos taken with DX cameras AFTER FX cameras came onto the scene , why is that ? So this tends to play with the minds of APS-C camera owners , we feel we're not real photographers , we feel inferior [ leastwise I do ] so we yearn for a D750 , a D810 , a D850 , sometimes even a D4s , but then we think ' What about all those DX lenses I've invested in over the years , what do I do with them now ? ' . We either have to start off all over again or we buy a better DX camera , in my case this would be a D500 . However [ there's another one ].....my main interest is Landscape and who buys a Nikon D500 for Landscape Photography ? I'm going round in circles . Do I buy a D500 and get on with things or do I buy a D750 , D4s , D810 or a D850 and start building up a new collection of lenses ? I'm a bit of a Luddite so I'm not interested in Mirrorless - don't trust adaptors . Be interested in your thoughts .

[@PhilThach]

The D500 is a fine camera for landscape photography, it also happens to be a great sports and wildlife camera but you will love it's tilt screen over your fixed D7000 screen. Pretty hard to find a new D500 since they quit making them but you should be able to find a used one.

[@peterwilliams6114]

@@PhilThach I can access a new D500 from a reputable shop I've used in the past - thing is it costs the same as a D4s with 9k on the clock or a D850 with 13k shots taken . I'm never going to be interested in Sports Photography but living where I do I am surrounded by wildlife so it is something I'm considering . I would need to invest in better lenses whether I go FX or go with a D500 - I do already possess a few DX lenses [ 12-24mm , 16-85mm x 2 , 55-200mm ] - I also own a few older lenses and a new Tamron 90mm . A D4s would also be good for Wildlife but would cost me the same as a D850 - also I'd need to take into account the cost of CF / XQD cards which then makes me think of the D750 [ you see where I'm going with this and why I'm finding it difficult deciding ? ] - I also have mobility problems so weight of camera could be significant . At the moment I'm leaning towards a D500 / D850 / D4s [ weight ] - all will require XQD/CF cards , all will require an upgrade in lenses . The good news is I gave up alcohol 15 years ago and I've never smoked !!

[@angelsepulveda9211]

Interesting take Phil, most people always say full frame. I got the R7 for price and functionality. I wanted the reach for wild life and I do landscape too. I use sigma ef 18-35mm for landscape and rf 100-500 mm for wild life. I have the rf-s 18-150 mm kit lens too. Which one you think works for landscape?

[@PhilThach]

I’d say all of those would work but I would probably use the 18-150 the most of those three. I like the EF-S 10-18 on the R7.

[@pepper6253]

Interesting concept ,(lots of #s) lol..I prefer APS-C for landscapes with Nikon d5300 and my Tamron 18-400 lens, just incase a cool animal or bird shows up. Love nature . Thanks for sharing your knowledge, much appreciated .😀

[@PhilThach]

That's what my daughter says when I start talking about cameras. All she hears is random numbers. LOL That 18-400 is a very versatile lens for sure!

[@pepper6253]

Its my favorite all use lens. Happy shooting

[@chazM6116]

add in the 'circle of confusion' as well , oh I have a 7.5mm lens

[@PhilThach]

7.5mm! Cool! Fish-eye?

[@Lesterandsons]

You can replace focal plus f number by just aperture diameter, 15/2, 30/4, 21/2.8...

[@redpillnibbler4423]

Can you elaborate please.Is there an easy equation?

[@poultrieguist]

I just use focus stacking. My D850 can shoot a full focus stack in under 2 seconds.

[@PhilThach]

Sounds like a great solution.

[@coolay11]

true.. but i guess the advantage of full frame is about sharper in details on Large prints.

[@PhilThach]

Large prints is a very good point for full frame and even medium format. Even though my R7 is 32.5 megapixels, there are still many higher MP options out there in full frame and medium format cameras. Thanks for watching!

[@mt-nv4jd]

Ansel did pretty did pretty well with Medium and Large Format. But I would be curious how well he would have adapted to Digital if he could have.

[@PhilThach]

That would be interesting.

[@thehappyclam3942]

Ansel had mules to carry his equipment .

[@johnbentley1056]

Interesting enough Large Format landscape photographer, David Muench, went digital. I believe he uses small sensor Canon and Lumix cameras. I also believe that he has published a book with images from these tiny cameras.

[@erichaas]

There are 8mm lenses available for APSC cameras.

[@PhilThach]

Nice, thanks Eric!

[@lewcehjitl3282]

You should try Sony cameras they are small compact and have outstanding dynamic range. And you get to keep the full frame sensor since the Sony cameras are small to begin with.

[@PhilThach]

Maybe someday I'll give them a try. Thanks for the suggestion.

[@RogerZoul]

There is the issue that many landscape shots are not wide angle at all! In fact, some say that wide angle lenses are not landscape lenses. Plenty of them use a 70-200 f/4 lens for landscape, and even the 100-500 can be a great landscape lense because many scenes have interesting features within a small angle of view. Finding vistas in the US that are truly wide is not so easy, so you are going to be cropping out pixels if you go really wide. Oh, and what about poor Hassleblad with their new, $8000 medium-format 100 MP camera aimed a landscape and studio shooters? I bet they are going to be disappointed with your thoughts. :) Finally, though, over the years, apsc format cameras have been treated as second-class citizens in the camera world (I guess Fuji is a notable exception here), so many of them don't have such great dynamic range, and you know those guys love to not bracket and just lift shadows 6+ stops or more. haha. Anyway, I get your overall point.

[@PhilThach]

High Anthony. I agree, often a long lens is best for landscape work, but often times only an ultra-wide will do. For example. I was at an 80' waterfall recently and there was basically no place in the area under the falls where anything but an ultra-wide would work. In one of my shots, even using an ultra-wide, I had to make a three shot vertical panorama. I do agree about lifting shadows, that is one area where a full frame or medium format camera will surely have an edge. Thanks for watching and for the well thought out and insightful comment.

[@eltinjones4542]

Cannot disagree with you Phil I've MF3, Crop and Full frame for landscapes The only advantage with Full frame us that you can crop especially from 35mp plus but if your compositions are spot on you don't need to. The Apsc's are definitely not as noisy as mf3 in poor light

[@marcp.1752]

Into good light, APS-C is virtually no difference to pseudo "FF" (it's being called Kleinbild Format, hence Small Picture Format, which already Ansel Adams himself used) I don't want to lug heavy, huge 35mm AF lenses, say Canon & Nikon. Shooting since the 80's. One can get 2023 the "FF" look (hence: DoF) with the 27mm F1.2 Viltrox on any X-Mount Fujifilm, for instance. X100, 2x X-E1 (black & silver) X-E2 (black) and X-T1 shooter here (graphite) Also own Canikon & Sony 35mm gear, but using it quite less.

[@longfas2007]

One thing we admit that full-frame picture quality must always be better than APS-C!😁

[@PhilThach]

Maybe.

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

Focus bracketing

[@PhilThach]

That's a great solution.

[@xyphoto]

The DOF argument is actually wrong. Shooting APSC doesn't have any DOF advantage in reality. The reason is that you can just stop down the aperture by 1 more stop if you shoot FF and get the same DOF. Since the FF sensor will have 1 stop better noise performance, you don't lose anything in image quality. So it's a wash. In fact you gain 1 stop more dynamic range with FF.

[@PhilThach]

In my example, I’m assuming that both the APSC and the full frame camera, in an effort to attain maximum depth of field, have stopped down the maximum amount that they can before defraction starts, which should theoretically be the same amount so your idea of stopping down the full frame camera a little further doesn’t work, because defraction will degrade sharpness.

[@PhilThach]

Sorry, I accidentally deleted your reply. But basically, you said APSC makes diffraction more noticeable because it has higher pixel density.

[@Mr09260]

I prefer Full frame for all Genres Especially Landscapes where 60 M Pixels is better than 45 M Pixels and the Best Sharpest lenses are full Frame >> If you need extra depth then use a 100-400 instead of a 24-70 2.8 ..There is no weight advantage between say a D500 and say a Z7 >> in Fact a Z camera is lighter all round

[@PhilThach]

Hi Peter! Not everyone is going to agree and that is totally fine. I agree about the best and sharpest lenses are for full frame cameras. However, when you are shooting landscape photography, you are usually stopped down to f/8 or f/11. At those apertures the differences are negligible. Wide open the differences are more apparent. I agree, a D500 is heavier than a Z7, however a Z50 is much lighter and it has the D500 sensor in it. I've got to disagree about your suggestion of using a 100-400 instead of a 24-70 to increase depth of field. The 24-70 is going to have more depth of field than the 100-400 at any aperture. That is kind of the whole point of this video, wider focal lengths have more depth of field than longer ones and APSC will always use a wider focal length to frame up the same shot as a full frame camera. Thanks for watching, Peter! I hope you have a great day.