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

Fullframe made her hair look greenish

👉What was the distance between the cameras and the subject?

At certain distances to the subject, they look very close to each other. A difference in colors can be adjusted, but as far as noise and sharpness they look very similar. I would have liked more low-light comparison. Nice demo.

APSC has more value to the FULL FRAMEşFull frame is double priced but the differance is less than 5%,,,For 5% you pay 50% more???Then the super 35mm cinematic lenses are fit for APSC more than Full Frame,then its better if you dont have much money,APSC is enough for all...

The asp-c camera here is just horrible. Every image displayed is a reason to not buy it. Its not even a close comparison. Were the images processed the same because the aps-c was so bad?

Just not understanding why jpeg in case spending $ or $$$ on gears aps-c or full frame. Like buying an expensive car but saving on tyres.... no reason. Once I spend $ on my gear, I d like to use the benefit shooting RAW files and edit pictures on 24 or 32 screen. That makes sense. I also updated from aps-c to full frame a month ago but not because of quality, but flexibility of full frame 24MP and size of gear what reminds me more on old time cameras, Nikon D300 or Canon D30 what I had and liked the grip to hold safe. Now I enjoy the benefits and happy to shoot in RAW, and I keep jpeg for iphone or p&s camera users.

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

This isn't a great comparison because the lenses aren't the same. It's not possible to discern whether any differences in sharpness/clarity are due to having a better lens on the full frame camera or due to having a physically larger image being enlarged on the screen. I should also note that differences in color tone and contrast are apparent, and are not directly a result of sensor size, but of sensor generation, processing, and the optics of the lenses used.

Is it the lighting or the lens in your portraits? The color gradations (tonality) are really awful… e.g. not there! There are like zero gradations across the skin… very flat images!

Sigma lenses are crap! They’re terribly built, which shows up in use where consistency of autofocus matters… buying the original manufacturers brands definitely pays… they’re more expensive up-front, but they are much better and lasting… and another thing… yeah I bet the sigma is sharp, but does it have any mentionable color fidelity? The more glass you add in the lens elements, the less light makes it through, and Sigma is legendary for not taking care to limit element count… because the more elements you add, the more you can control sharpness… but everything else in terms of light passing through suffers

The colors on the left are god awful. My GOD.

Photography is not about pixel peeping, not about the sharpness in every corner etc. It might be good to take a look at lens sharpness so that you know, what optimal aperture for a given lens is, but I think it is a complete waste of time to focus mainly on the sharpness differences of two very sharp lenses.
My conclusions are: almost all aps-c cameras will deliver a superb quality in good light. Full Frame has the advantage in low-light situation (both noise and colour reproduction) and in portraits. I personally don't like a6300 for low-light stills (therefore I use it mainly for 4K video) even when paired with a quite fast Sony 50 1.8 OSS - just don't like the colors straight out of camera in low-light. As a wedding photographer I used several cameras and lenses in different situations. My advice for one of the best portrait combo for amateurs: used Canon RP with e.g. 1.8 50RF or some 85 lens. Cheap and great quality straight out of camera. Will shine also in low-light. Great Canon colors, don't need to bother with raw files in most cases.

Hands down i like the full frame look again its just a prefernce for someone who shoots a verity of sensor sizes.

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

FF camera F 1,4 ok.But,Apsc (1,5 crop)camera should be F1,2

great video and great comparison, as a beginner that likes to bokeh everything, as others have mentioned and in your video, the bokeh is slightly different, but if it's say ff on f2.8 vs crop at f1.4 (these aren't exact numbers) would the bokeh be the same? i also noticed huge colour differences in the photos between the two cameras. well, i think for my skill level the $1000 set up will be more than enough, but you only live life once, so why not FF :) first world problems! keep up the great videos!

There's only a 200€ difference between A6700 and A7C in Europe. Is going for the older but FF a better option?

There would be lesser difference in low light if APS-C camera had a BSI sensor

There is no need to choose. You need to buy the cheaper one, too. Because you can hide the more expensive gear behind it from your wife. And you can leave the epensive gear at home.

If you had the opportunity to choose one as a beginner (professional work for video and portraits). Would you say the new Sony A6700 ($1,400) is a better option than something like Canon R8 ($1,500) or even an older camera like A7iii? (Need the 10 bit, 4k 60 and versatility for different jobs, not only the best in one thing).

A note of advice for the one, who are ready to spend 1000 bucks on this. Nikon D300+Nikkor 50mm F/1.4 Ai - 200-250 bucks for all if bought in good condition. Absolutely amazing budget setup for portraiture and general photography. Then you can spend the rest of the money for a decent tripod and lightning setup, which is imo way better investment, than overpriced camera and lens.

aps-c pictures look 'tight', it's hard to describe but to me there is a noticeable difference

For me, I take snapshot from moving kids, they are usually at room that is quite low light.
So I need fast shutter, at least 250/s and limit the ISO to 6400
Full Frame with F/1.8 is definitely my first choice.
Good video to let me rethink about APS-C in outdoor
I admit that in outdoor, it can have 90% quality in 80% situations for half the weight.
very usable.

I am really confused on your comparisons? On almost all of the side to side comparisons the A7c pictures were clearer? Is there a $1000 increased difference no. To me the a6100 skin tones were to warm. By the way I own a a6400, not a biased opinion.

Thank you. Excellent comparison, enlightening.

excelente video. muy didáctico👍.

On my screen, I don't see any noticible difference for most of the side-by-side comparisons. Yeah, bokeh is different, buth they are both blur enough!

Your wife looks really pretty 😍

great modeling by your wife to keep the photos as close as possible technically. I can't get my partner to even look at me if I'm holding a lens. 😅also, not sure you mentioned this but, smart move using the 85mm vs 56 since the crop factor will make the framing nearly equivalent.

A7C looks like grab more detail than A6100

I think another thing to consider is cropping, highest crop sensor map camera is the r7 at 32 MP which allows you to crop more, but normally I wouldn’t suggest not setting up your scene with with a crop sensor. Also the full frame camera depending on brand allows you to go between lenses. Also dual sd cards, features etc. Even though i believe every release cameras are becoming closer and closer, the r10 for 800 bucks shoots like 15 fps a second for sports. I think if you want high res Full frame and weather seal etc, if you want good photos that get the job done m there is nothing at all wrong with a crop sensor. Also if you are considering line of work. A lot of employers, clients get kind of interested in what you are using. I had a Fuji x-t3 that was amazing but jobs wanted canon/Sony.

Full frame is superior.

i want cool Photos as Wallpaper so i need 6000 x 1080 if i see the diffrence i need the fullframe, because i love low light shots and i can't down scale

I would love it if Sony would make an APSC camera with a central EVF.

Full frame for lowlight

I have the feeling we focus too much on pixels and enough on the picture itself. Even outside of bokeh, 85mm gives a distinctly ”compressed“ look which is very appealing and that the 55mm struggle to deliver.
50mm got me into photography as a hobby, I love this focal length and it’s Ok for portrait but not as good as 85mm

Very interesting video. Thank you for sharing.

There is too much to comment on. And how we compare photos is/are different (sorry for my broken English). Some photos I agree with you on, and some not.

And too much detail is not a problem, that can be edited right ? PS. I am not a professional, just my humble opinion.

The most interesting were the light and colour differences. I like both setups. But for my budget, the cheaper setup is fantastic. Great video.

A7c is worthy totally its good for videos too. Allrounder camera.

A7c is worthy totally its good for videos too. Allrounder camera.

What about the difference in videography on both cameras?

Your wife must be pretty happy and blushing the time you compare the photos and say “wow! Look at that, isn’t it amazing”
Dream Husband you are 😄
She wants to hear it all the time 😅

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

Stop with these dumb misleading thumbnails.

I like the warmer look of the crop sensor. But that really could just boil down to JPEG color settings in the camera?

I just got the A7c and kit lens for 1500 USD so im guessing this might be worth the increase in cost at this point. Especially given i dont really care about 10 bit colour video.

I think clots pop more on APSC.

While I agree with the point you are making but isn’t 1.4 in APS-C equals to f2 in full frame in terms or bokeh? Please educate me?

Would have loved to have seen the 85 on the 6100 :-)

I don't know if you guys could see but the difference is massive. worth the +2K in my professional opinion, which again, for professional use. There's something about the full frame pictures that my clients liked, without them able to point out why. My photos gets printed to massive size like billboards so tiny imperfections like noises and harsh contrast gets very apparent. Full frame cameras produces less defects which leads to bigger amount of taken pictures that I could actually use in post processing.
Though i'm still using my old a6000 with an 18-105 for travels, they're relatively cheap and therefore less worrying to carry.