Full Frame vs APS-C for Portraits

They are so close, that anyone but a picky professional would notice. Save your money and go with the APS-C.

The average person that has their portraits taken have no idea what kind of camera and lens you're using they just want a nice picture, unless you're photographing rich or famous people that are paying a boat load of money a full frame camera is not necessary. What is more important is your skill as a photographer, your lighting and lens selection, if you are not working in a studio, location is important.

this guy just wants to show off her beautiful wife 😩

Could not settle on which format I liked. But man, I sure like her. You did good. 👌🏼

it just feels like the full frame has better lighting and the skin just seems more real life than what seems duller and greyer on the APS-C......or maybe im biased?

I think it's important to note that if we're trying to motion freeze, a full frame is the way to go, if we're trying to get lots of motion blur, an APSC would be better, assuming same pixel density.

As such, if lets say you're taking pictures for sports trying to get a frozen picture, the APSC is a definite NO GO unless you're hoping for a very noisy image to do lots of post-processing work.

If you're just taking lots of stills and don't really care about freezing the action, then get an APSC.

If you're trying to take moving wild-life, or kids running around doing things, or sports etc, get a full frame, and get a very fast auto-focus setup.

Is it just me that prefer the FF? Better colours, less noise

For me, the main difference is the higher contrast with APS portraits, taking away a smoother overall look. This could presumably be corrected later

For a job ff and for fun aps-c

Honestly if you put up some images for comparison without actually telling which one is the full frame and which one is apsc 90% will not even know the difference… okay i agree low light performance is better in full frame but are you really gonna be using 3000+ iso with 1.4 wide open at 200SS maybe for sports photography at night yeah but other than that its overkill

Awful information

Hi I'm using a A7iv with the 200-600mm lens for birding. Recently I purchased the A6600 as I want more reach (I have a TC 1.4 but the images are soft). I can say that although the AF is weaker in the A6600, it is not by much. The images are great and even at ISO 6400 a lot can be saved using modern denoise software like the latest Adobe AI denoise, Topaz, etc.
I'm now very tempted to move back to apsc as Sony's apsc is well supported (lenses-wise) and its smaller, easy to carry, lighter and cheaper overall. Still in the phase of consideration.

In these examples, I actually prefer the APSC. Perhaps that's the differences in lenses.

Thanks

Sony FX30 has entered the chat 😅

One of the best comparison video between FF vs APS-C

I have a Canon T6i and wonder should I spend that 1k or 2k on lens or get a full frame mirrorless A7M2 or RP for upgrade?

Very well done comparison!!!!! Really interesting results. The fuji with a aps-c is a bit like analog camera: not just because of the handling, but becaise you should get the shot right, when you take it, because of the missing dynamic range. I enhoy the challenge.....

The bokeh difference has nothing to do with the sensor size. The bokeh is affected by two things one is focal lenght, which changes compression, the other thing is the aperture. In this case focal lenghts are almost identical 85 vs 56x1,5= 84. So the difference is because of the aperture. 85mm one is f1.8 whereas 56mm one is 1.4 which is actually 1.4x1,5 (crop factor)= f2.1 meaning they don't have the same aperture if they did the result would be identical. The biggest advantage of a full frame sensor is its light gathering capability. As it is larger it produces photos with less noise under the same lighting conditions as opposed to aps-c sensors. For the 99.9% of the world full frame cameras are overkill especially with their bulky and expensive lenses and bodies compared to the aps-c equivalents.

I use aps-c for my 'magazine cover' portrait/product promotion and the result is stunning

Wel tbh I don’t see why anything would change, it’s just a bigger sensor for more megapixels

Good video. Nicely and clearly explained. Thanks ,Man.

I a bit late to see this video but I consistently liked the full frame portraits.The difference lies in the statement- I could easily soften it up later( for the 56mm combo).

Great video!

APSC is capable of sharp and bright pictures, but I see the difference Like a Mona Lisa from Leonardo in the photo and with my own eyes .. APSC gives, as it were, plastic images .. for me.

gorgeous

Can’t say exactly why, but to me the ff shots appear slightly more harmonic in this comparison.

excelente análisis

Good stuff. I’m a working pro and I shoot both formats. Over the years I’ve made tens of thousands of $$$ with my APS-C gear. My clients have no clue. Just shoot what’s best for each situation.

on apsc you are always limited in good widaangle shots

Full 1.8 vs Apsc 1.4 ???? Why??😳😳😳🤔🤔🤔

Is the girl in the video his wife, if yes, WELL DONE MATE!!

I have both aps-c and ff, I personally think ff is better and its the goto camera. Its better in lowlight & It just seems to achieve more depth & details in the photos.

For portraits FULL FRAME still edges out APS-C, don't know why but whomsover i show my pics they always like full frame ones. For day to day photography, street or landscape, esp when not printing photos then TRUST ME save money and get APS-C.

too late i already spent on a7iv 😢

"bang for your buck" - that is a sentence which exact meaning everyone should think about very carefully, what it actually means. Say in my case, im no pro - i just take family photos and the sort for fun, so my Pentax K70 apsc would have been really more than a little adequate ....but when i got chance to get a pentax K1ii fullframe just when my daughter was born, i ran for it. ...i mean on the long run the cost of FF vs having the best possible photos of my baby is imho neglible.

As i said im not pro (at photography) - but if you do any kind of serious professional work and start to think about "bang for your buck" on the most important tool in your profession - well, i have to say i dont quite agree with that strategy (speaking only about the money investing to "working tools"). I now i could be perfectionist and i am working in different field - but "good enough" has never been the standard ive been happy with in my own work.

But obviously for any non-pro, whose not so willing to invest in photography, the bang for buck route is ofcourse the obvious one.

One of the nice things about building a full frame kit is that you can add an APS-C body and double your lens kit. Mount your nice 24mm f/1.4 lens on an APS-C body and it shoots like a 35mm f/2.1. A 45mm f/1.8 becomes a 67.5mm f/2.7, and an 85mm f/1.8 becomes a 127.5mm f/2.7. It's like having a teleconverter that works on all of your lenses, not just select telephotos.

1.5 crop factor applied to aperture makes the f/1.4 effectively f/2.1, so the full frame f/1.8 should be a little smoother.

even if u swap picture sides I wouldn't tell a difference.
at least that's not what I'd call a difference.

Thanks! It would be great to write a distance to the object on every shot.

Would the bokeh be exactly the same if the same lens were used, or is it always going to be better with the full frame dslr?

just the colour is different..

Throwing my APSC in the trash after this video lmao

at the last two months of 2022, there are more and more new e-mount lens for crop sensor. There is the Sony trio. Tamron has the 17-70, and 11-20. Sigma has the trio plus the 18-50. reasonable prices too. I'm so glad I got the 6600 as every one except the Tamron 17-70 has IS.

hey....i i have problem what to get.
1. SONY FE 50 mm f/1.8
2. Sigma 1.4 56mm Sony E

Im runing Sony A6000

thanks for saving me big$$'s