Full Frame v's Crop Sensor - Which Camera is Better? (Print comparison)

👉👉 Quick question, which sensor size do you prefer and why? 👍👍

I saw no issue with either image. Those are great prints. I would like to see this done with 2 Canon cameras. I'm sure the results would be comparable. Thanks!

Fuji All Day Long and Twice on Sunday !!

I have used both systems since the X-pro 1 came in 2012. For more and more work the Fujis where my main system, and now I am using the X-H2 everyday and I'm very happy with it. And so is my neck and back. And the files and the colors are just a pleasure to look at. I shoot a lot of architecture and interior and it's just so perfect for that. Some say the smaller sensor is not for pros but that is so wrong.

Totally pointless, everyone sees differently and not everyone has perfect vision.

It's a matter of personal taste & price, weight...to say it clearly. For instance, i like the better shallow DoF with 36x24mm Sensor gear, but that changed nowadays...for instance, one could get the "fullframe" look with the newly released Viltrox 27mm F1.2, in terms of DoF, onto that beautiful Fujifilm APS-C gear.

For instance, if i don't want to lug a heavy (L) lens, i just grab my 5D II with the 24-85 USM. The gear does cost nowadays next to nothing, well, compared to the original price into 2008...usually, APS-C/DX based gear is a stop behind in terms of DR, behind "FF" gear.

I believe that a fuji raw photo processed with Capture one will be much better than the process here.

Aps-c is close enough to “full frame” for everyone without a loupe; for a real difference, medium format is required..

DXO sensor ratings answer this question. Dynamic range, color and higher ISO capability is simply dominated by larger sensors. That said, you can get great pics with either sensor size.

Sometimes I miss the small size of the apsc. That's why when I travel I sometimes bring only apsc lenses to use with my Sony a7R5 which is still 26mpx in apsc mode. I recently went on a trip to a wedding at the Grand Canyon and I brought the Sony 10-20mm f4, Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, and the Sigma 56mm f1.4.

Micro Camera = Portrait
Full Camera = Landscape

Small Camera has more Sharpness

I did a similar test on my own with the canon r6mark2 vs fuji xh2s, but there were more significant differences. I had quite a bit more detail and sharpness in the canon files, the fuji looks always soft, especially on 200%. I returned the Fuji but I used Lightroom to compare them, so know I am a little confused if that was a fair comparison😅

Hello I just can't decide which to buy between this 2 choices since they are both priced similar at $1500

a. Sony ZV-e10 with Sigma 16mm 1.4 & Sigma 56mm 1.4

b. Canon eos RP with Canon Rf 16mm 2.8 & Canon Rf 50mm 1.8

what would be your choice? at first I was sure with Canon cause its full frame but now I am slowly getting attracted with the Sony option because of that sigma lenses.

PS. Gonna use them for event photogaphy/video.

Very interesting, as I sit here next to my 16-55mm and X-T5 (which is basically identical to the X-H2 for photography).

good

good

The obvious question is why you chose two different brands rather than using a Canon APF-C or a Fuji FF. This would eliminate to some degree differences caused by the low pass filters or processors (The R5 and R7 both have Digic X processors). That would also allow using the same lenses for both but the crop difference would compromise that since the FF body would be using corners not always the best. It would have been better to shoot each image at least three times refocusing each time (I hope you used manual focus and magnification) to establish that there was not a bad frame or a minute difference in focus or even wind buffeting. Depth of Field is a myth when you blow something up enough. Focus errors matter more in macro but it is still possible to miss infinity. Why did the Canon files have to be processed in Lightroom rather than Canon recommended DPP4 or the same DXO you used for the Fuji? Quick answer: One needs both. For landscapes and studio, full frame seems preferable but I shoot more wildlife and macro which favors the high pixel density of the cropper. There is no such thing as a 'best' anything unless you amend that award with a 'for what'.

crop crap ;) lol
it depends if enjoy or ok to enjoy ;)

Honestly, even just with Adobe's recent-ish release of ai-based denoise in LR, even older cameras with much smaller sensors clean up to look great as shared images online or even smaller prints (8x10 or 11x14 in my tests, so a bit smaller than A3). At this point, I've sold off my Fuji GFX gear and pretty much just use a mixture of 3 different sensor sizes for ILC's: MicroFourThirds with an E-M1 Mark III and E-M5 Mark II (the latter being just 16mp and older, but still a fun camera that takes solid images, especially after some modern processing), APS-C with a Pentax KP, and Full Frame here and there with my Pentax K-1 Mark II. I've been testing cameras like the Pentax Q-7/QS-1/MX-1 and getting some great results for what it is.


I'm ready to sell my K-1.II and E-M1.III for a G9 Mark II if it actually comes out and has specs on par with the OM-1. If not, then either a used OM-1 or OM-1 Jr if that actually comes out. The KP punches way above its weight in terms of IQ/low light performance. The resolution isn't going to match Fuji's new sensor, but I don't need sizes that large TBH. If I did, and it's a still subject, the E-M1.III's HiRes shot takes a LOT of detail coming in close to my GFX 50R for a lot of shots. Similar results with my KP and K-1.II with PixelShift (and less worry about movement due to only using 4 shots compared to Olympus' I think 6 or 8, it's gotten to require less and less over the years compared to the E-M5.II's version of HiRes).

IMO, in terms of the video, the Canon, and It's locked out platform would NEVER be worth that price for me personally. It's better in a lot of ways out the box, for sure, but is it over 2 times better? Not for me; I'd rather use the money to travel and actually use the gear.

Title of this should've been Full of Crop haha. I don't mean anything negative, I was just playing with the words there. Anyway, both sensors are good and really it depends what type of photographer you are.

I chose full frame instead of crop sensor years ago because of the relatively lower price of wide angle lenses.

You are comparing apples and orange even if you compare the same camera flag cameras😅

Love your work and you're a great teacher. Thank you for sharing your knowledge 😎👌

I use a Nikon D7500 and it takes amazing photos. I shoot wildlife and landscapes and can get crystal clear, highly detailed photos. It has a very good dynamic range and very good high iso tollerance. I always shoot jpeg, as 1. I hate editing and 2. It makes me a better photographer as I have to compose and get everything correct before taking the shot. I also prefer to take my time to capture the exact scene that I want in camera, which is absolutely possible.

Wow! I was always sure that difference between crop and FF should be much move visible. My Canon camera is quite old and soon or later it will probably stop working and I will need to buy something new. I thought "well, probably its good time to switch to FF". Just about a month ago I decided to take a look at what is on the market. I noticed that since I checked prices last time many years ago, FF is still way more expensive :) In addition I will need to change all my lenses. So, switching to FF would cost a lot for me. Honestly, I didn't research in depth about difference in quality, that's why this video is so shocking for me. Yeah, there is a lot of info about DoF, dynamic range ,etc. But difference is so negligible for me. Yes, if you make money on your photos, you probably always need top quality. But for hobbyist like me switching to FF looks completely pointless. Well, at least this is my opinion, other people can think differently.
Thanks a lot for your video! You saved a lot of money for me :)

I have never owned a full frame. And I have never owned crop sensor only lenses. The idea of crop sensor = smaller is not real to me. The crop is used to take photos where you would have to crop big time on the FF. That happens to be the majority of my needs. I get better shots from my R7 than I would get from cropping an R5 image by 2. If you want to go wide etc. then FF is better. An R5 with a 16mm F2.8 lens is about the same size as a R7 with 10mm F1.8. So where is the size thing?
I shoot mainly birds here on my land and my 20 year old 400 F5.6 L on my R7 is fantastic. For landscape- I think few cameras can match GFX. Even the old 50R and S. They just have a shit AF system. Even worse than Fuji crop cameras-which dont come even close to Canon or Sony. Shooting flying birds with a modern Fuji is almost like taking out my old Canon 40 D…. I did that successfully back then but why now?
I use Darktable software and the R7 files are fantastic. DT certainly outperforms LR but it requires more time and know how. Thats fine with me. I enjoy the process and its a hobby. I do think the image quality of crop sensors are now pretty good. I am happy with what I can get in DT up to ISO 3200 easily- more if conditions are good.
In the end it is about the glass. It becomes easier to make better glass, the bigger the sensor. It just costs more. An R5 on an RF 800 F5.6 will be better than my R7 on a EF 400 L 5.6, it just costs more. And I doubt it will be noticeable if you cant do a side by side comparison

I have both Canon RP (Full frame) and Canon M6 Mark II (APS-C). No doubt, using the same lens (Usually an EF lens with an adapter) there is little to no difference, however, there is a huge difference with noise and the way the software treats the noise (I don't use DXO Pure Raw, but rather Topaz Photo AI). Since the RP has lower resolution it can soot in much higher ISO with better denoising result. I can easily shoot at 6400 ISO on the RP, but the M6 would really strugle.

Very interesting Ian, I use both sensor sizes but APSC the most mainly because equipment is normally lighter to carry smaller in size and also give great results for me.

Love Carew, but it can be challenging

If anyone says the Canon images are £5000 better they are fibbing. Cameras are SO much better these days and the sensor size makes less difference than it used to. About 18 years ago I had a full frame and crop sensor Canon, and the difference was night and day. I'd happily have the Fuji and £5000 to go travelling (and less of a sore back from saving 500g!)

Love shooting Fuji. It’s like the underdog of the industry

The daft 'background music' drove me nuts!

What’s the camera bag you have there

The best camera is the one you’ve got. You learn how to use it, inside and out, and you’ll get great results. But shooting conditions will cause you to sacrifice something once in a while. I always sacrifice my shadows and ISO to get sharp motion shots. Pure Raw 3 is a big help and with the newer Fujifilm sensors, I can safely recover shadows.

Hi, I was curious what camera do you use to record your videos?

Ff is only better if you print humongous. For standards, they are the same.

Great video. But, put one fuji picture in a room and a canon picture in another room and i promise no one will be able to say which was which.

I agree with every point youe make Ian! Often it's the quality of the lens what makes the difference - as well as the processing software, not the size of the sensor. In my experience DxO Pure Raw 2 or 3 makes a huge difference especially for Fuji-files: It narrows extremly the gap to full frame- files. But of course you can also develop your full frame files with DxO, and you will get better results compared to Adobes RAW- converter. You then will almost get medium format quality out of your full frame files.
In practice the difference doesn't matter in most cases. Some of my best selling images were made with a mFT- camera, and no client complained that it wasn't full frame. Netherless I love my Nikon Z- full frame system - the ergonomics of the bodies are outstanding, and so is the optical quality of the lenses.

The Fuji shots are 2/3rd of a stop underexposed...

Is full frame worth double the cost??? Going from my Nikon D3300 to Sony a6600 would be major jump, but I am considering Sony a7III.

I'd like to see a comparison of the PureRaw3 plugin and the raw engine in CaptureOne. I changed from Lightroom to C1 as I was not happy with the results I got in Lightroom. As for FF vs. cropped: I have a Leica Q2 and an X-Pro3 - the Leica files have of course more detail, but nonetheless I mostly grab the Fuji, as it's lighter and I really like the rangefinder OVF. For snapshots as a "point and shoot" the Leica is great, but when I'm in the mood to take "thoughtful" and "artistic" pictures the Fuji gives me the flexibility I need.

Is there any free processing alternative?

Interesting comparison Ian. A lot closer in some respects than I thought too. When I tested the Fuji XT-3 and 16-55 lens combo I found that the sweet spot for the lens was around f5.6 towards f6.3 at the longer end so maybe the fuji could do better? Of course you lose DoF but could be worth it. I think if you did most of your work in low light situations then the FF camera would be the better choice as shown, a good test could be a sunrise shot with a large DR. In reality though the differences are small enough to not be a real issue in my view. Any of the current cameras from any brand are capable of producing outstanding images. Also double the cost is hard to justify on the results shown for what is a marginal gain.

Imagine having one of these cameras 10 or 15 years ago??

good test, for the money and weight i am fuji haha

Is this still a thing?

Both cameras can do a lot sharper with prime lenses, especially Fuji with the latest primes like 18, 33, 56 or that Viltrox 75, since the 40mp sensor is a 91mp FF equivalent, which old primes or zooms could never resolve.

Fun to look at the results. Good test. Thanks.

Great video 👍

Negligible difference. Not worth extra weight and cost .

Thank you for the video.

Interesting. Just a shame that you didn't use a Canon ASP-C camera as well, so we could see the difference between the X-trans and the Bayer sensors.