Is Full Frame Better Than APS-C? Here's The [Annoying] Truth...

If you don't agree, that's fine! Let's talk in the comments👇🏻
Just be nice. I'm nice. My subscribers are all super nice... I just want everyone to be nice to each other... 🤷🏻‍♂️Mkay? Thanks! 😎🙏🏻

Honestly as someone on the fence of upgrading to a7c from a6300, I can say a good lens makes the photos look great esp when paired with wider aperatures like 1.8, that said I’m learning more about how to use my camera correctly especially on low light to get the least noise possible. You definitely need some good wide aperture lens’s on apsc to get nice bokeh and better low light performance in darker settings. I’ve gotten great night shots this way.

Still the best full frame cameras quality is better than the best apsc cameras especially in 4k 60p

So a 35 mm Not Full Frame Objektive cropped in on full frame camera ?

some things that fellow beginners would like to know is that it’s easier to get more reach with apsc sensor
firstly get a 24-70 and a 70-200 f2.8 whatever suits you and your budget then buy a 2x teleconverter essentially you get like 600mm max focal length for the cost and weight of maybe a 300mm at best. Performs roughly the same as a full frame with a 300mm and 2x teleconverter

Wow, that was exactly what I needed to learn. Thanks :)

Besides a few mirrorless models today, like the R7, the Nikon D500 shows just how good APS-C bodies can be. Even though it was released in 2016, it is, in my opinion, still the best APS-C DSLR one can buy right now (and I’m a Canon shooter!). The capabilities, even in low light and especially for wildlife photography, are simply without competition in terms of APS-C models. When it was released, it blew the 7D Mark II (another fantastic APS-C) out of the water and became the king of APS-C. It is also undoubtedly better than a suite of earlier mirrorless models, and I think, ignoring autofocus capabilities and FPS, it rivals my R7. It’s IQ simply amazing.

I didn't buy our first digital. It was gifted to my wife. When it self destructed... I was forced to make a purchase. I picked up a Nikon D-7200. I didn't know what a crop sensor was. I liked the camera... so did my wife. That is the camera I still shoot. Its kind of like drag racing... "run what you brung". It is just fine with me. That camera is better at taking pictures than I am at being a photographer. So the problems with my pictures is user malfunction... mostly. This video makes me feel like everything is fine... just fine.

My back started to give me problems years ago. A day's shooting meant I'd be in pain the following couple of days. I got a Panasonic GH2 and a couple of lenses. The difference in strain on my back was remarkable. Even though my back's got significantly worse, I can take three lenses with me on a day: a 28-280 zoom, a 200-600 zoom and my delightful Leica F1.4 50mm (all lenses 35mm equivalent), and this despite me now having the heavier G9. With a bit of care I can avoid needing extreme ISO and my images blow up to A2 without problems. I'm impressed by MFT. I do a lot of video and Panasonic excels in that. I would assume APC would be indistinguishable from 35mm in the vast majority of situations. That said, if my back still worked as it should, I'd have probably gone for a mirrorless full frame, and definately a Panasonic.

The right tool for the job and your style is all that matters. I have a Sony FX3 for video and a Fujifilm X100V for photos. Full Frame or Crop Sensor… who cares. My beef is with hybrid cameras. I’ve tried many of them and ultimately find the way to go is to get genre specific gear. Video camera for video, photo camera for photos. I got tired of making major compromises on both ends trying to get them in the same body.

German here, you pronounce it more like Folkswagen... [ˈfɔlksˌvaːɡn̩]. Thanks for the video!

I haven't seen yet an apsc sensors that outperforms even a decade old Sony A7s in terms of high ISO performance. Maybe it would be a case if we had a modern, low pixel desnity apsc sensors with less megapixels, but I haven't seen any recently.
So you have more noise on a sensor, and at the same time, in most cases, slower apertures, and 1.5 multuplied focals, which require higher shutter speeds. That is, unless you uses hyper fast apsc lenses, like f0.95, which do exist, but most of them are manual. While I love an ability to have a much smaller and ligher setup with apsc, it does comes with a substantial tradeoff in a low light performance.

This makes me laugh, everyone has a smartphone, and the sensor size and lens are way way smaller, smaller than the next size down micro 4-3rds and nothing wrong with 4-3, and have to say for my photos and videos I’m happy with results as not printing large prints can and shoots pro raw, theses days software is not talked about enough and it highly enhance the smaller sensor and lens, once again, APS-C sensor is huge compared to my smart phone and better quality so if you
APS-C be happy with the much cheaper price, weight, conscience and reach for wildlife, yes full frame can do wildlife but at the extra cost and after all second hand market for older kit means you can have both if you want 🤩🤩😎😎, enjoyed watching and new subscriber 😎😎
Ps. Low light like Wedding or night time the full frame will be better image but there are a few work arounds for APS-C 🙃

Thank you for this video! It helped me so much in deciding ☺

I've been shooting canon FF and Fuji APS-C. I don't mind which sensor I use if it gets me the same results. My question is which will give you better highlight recovery? I see people go on about low light - but what about when you get the sky in a shot that you didn't notice and it's blown out. Which sensor will give you that information back? that's what I care about, more than resolution, or frames per second or depth of field (although the more background separation I can get the better - if I need it)

I agree what you say...nice info👍👍👍👍

I have watched a lot of videos on this issue. I have an old Canon SL1 that I want to upgrade to a mirrorless canon. But most of my day-to-day photography is done using my iPhone 13 Pro. So I decided to go with the R10 since I mainly do event and street photography and rarely do portraits and sometimes wildlife. the APS C should be fine. Canon's eye tracking continues to be an issue with the R10 but careful attention to settings and setup and reduce the pulsing to a minimum. As for video the camera is less important than the lighting and Audio setup in many cases (*Check out Apples behind the scenes video to see how they used their iPhone 15 with about $500k worth of supporting equipment and a well-functioning production crew.)

Seen somebody print full frame and APSC both at 300 dpi. No noticeable difference printing really big. They couldnt see the diference.

What's the point of having better "image quality" of a boring uninspiring image? I'm more interested in the image itself, the content, framing, creativity etc. If a picture is no good, all the "image quality" in the world isn't going to make it any better 😂

"The photographer is the instrument not the camera" - Eve Arnold. I couldn't care less what someone uses just show me the results and I'll tell you if it's any good. 🙄🕺😂🪬

As for me
It is like with a Rolls-Royce car.
If you ask what is better, Full Frame or APS-C for me, then full frame is not for you.

one more thing worth pointing out (if nobody has done yet, I can't find in the comments) is that the crop factor can come in handy in certain situations (e.g. wildlife ph.):
using for instance a 300mm lens on FF means actually carrying around a 300mm lens, while on APS-C you could get a similar reach with a smaller lens such as a 200mm,
or, you could still carry an APS-C camera and a 300mm APS-C lens (usually lighter than the ones for FF with same focal length) and have a reach that would require a 450mm lens on a FF.

Either one is good, I use a Pentax k7, and it's Boss, and I have a full frame, canon 6d, I use my k7 more, nice video 💯📸 the full frame is good for low light situations with less noise at higher ISO's, that's it and alittle, slight more depth, but its so Little of a difference, he's right, neither is better than the other just different 💯👈📸

I hope you're doing well. I've been exploring the idea of upgrading my current camera, the NIKON D5300. I'm quite passionate about portrait photography and recently started experimenting with videography as well. I've heard some positive things about the NIKON Z30, but I wanted to get your advice on what you'd recommend.

My primary concerns are having a camera with reliable autofocus and excellent low-light performance. I've got a budget of around $1000 to work with. Any insights or recommendations you could share would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you so much for your help!

There is one significant distinction. Hollywood uses the super 35 format, which is almost the same as APSC. Why?

The big advantage is a very controlled depth of field. They need to have enough for the story, but also to isolate the main story, to flip from front to distant subject focus in an instant, no focus breathing. It is an ideal size.

So if you are into filmmaking, super 35 or APSC is the ideal..

If into still photography, full frame.

Any discussion of this issue which fails to quantify sensor noise is fairly pointless.

What to choose A6700 or A7M3

Although I agree with a lot of this the problem is if you’re wanting the background blur for portraits or the latest in technology with other aspects you basically have to go full frame.

You forgot a low light. There will be much less noise and dynamic range is also better on FF.

Be carefull not to overspend on gear and get stuck at home because you are afraid of scratching it or get stolen. I am guilty.

Makes totally sense to compare sensors individually regardless of format.
But FF-Lenses on APS-C bodies are a waste of money and lost weight advantage.
You do not mention APS-C also makes sense for wildlife and sports due to more reach with that crop-factor.

I honestly prefer APS-C cameras at this point in time, mostly shooting wildlife photography. APS-C cameras allow me to get more pixels concentrated on the subject. Also built in 1.5 crop allows lighter/cheaper lenses, vs a full frame 600mm.

Best video to understand

As someone who has both APSC and full frame - and actually prefers APSC - I think the hype over full frame's supposed superiority has become a self-fulfilling prophecy that has defied logic to become a reality.

The hype has led to most camera and lens manufacturers prioritising full frame over APSC, with most of the innovation going to FF cameras and with FF cameras getting the best lenses. For example, I shoot Sony and E mount lenses "top out" at the medium-high range for APSC (we are lucky to get even a couple of G lenses), whilst FF gets the truly high end lenses like Sony's own GM and Sigma's "Art" lenses.

You can use FF on APSC, but then you loose the portability advantage - which is one of, if not the, main reasons for shooting APSC in the first place.

Superb, thanks so much for this

i need 1/250 and f/1.8 in low light to capture kids snapshot, only FF can do that.

I was planning to buy Tamron 17 70 to my sony zve10
But the biggest delima is what if i switch to full frame in future...

Slap 'em

So basically sensors are like penises, right?

Politely disagree! Full Frame and larger have a "signature" 3D-pop due to the greater size of the medium and amount of light that can travel through bigger lens elements, causing "binocular disparity" (even though it is only one lens). It is the same effect that makes you see three-dimensional with both of your eyes acting as a bigger/wider surface of the medium (sensor/film/retina), you cover one eye and reduce the size of the medium this effect gets greatly diminished. A larger sensor with glass that is made for it is able to "wrap around" the subject in a more pronounced way than on a small sensor. APSC does NOT provide this effect to the same extent as full frame, just as full frame does not provide this effect as pronounced as a medium format sensor/film. It is also a matter of low element count lenses. The more modern the lense, the more glass and correction goes into it, the less pronounced the effect. That is why Leica sticks to the rather classic formula of optics. It is THE factor that sets Full Frame apart from APSC! And yes, you absolutely CAN tell the difference, even on social media (as long as it is not cropped in images). I would ALWAYS chose a full frame camera over an APSC and that is why I sold my Fuji X Camera again, because I acted against my education, buying into the hype. What now? I go back to my 12 year old Full Frame DSLR, because it is the better camera in every single aspect (besides size and weight perhaps).

Excellent summary. I agree with the technical aspects.

I would add that if you're just starting out professionally and want to pick up work, many jobs - especially weddings - specify that full frame is required. It's unfortunate and arguably petty, but it may be a factor to consider until you get established and have a solid portfolio of your own.

Another factor is cost to performance. There are many f1.4 lenses for both formats, but the depth of field difference for a given focal length is noticeable in portraits. E.g. the Fujifilm 33mm f1.4 vs a Sigma or Canon 50mm f1.4 will give you roughly the same focal length, but NOT the same DOF. And you'll pay a premium for the Fuji. I see used 5D Mark III's for $500 and 50mm f1.4's for $200. The 33mm f1.4 alone costs $800 new and maybe $750 used. BTW, I shoot Fuji and love the system, but wouldn't for pro work due to reliability and battery life. Food for thought.

The biggest reason for me having a high mp FF is the ability to crop. I'm in apsc mode most of the time shooting birds just for the extra reach and then still sometimes crop. A 24ish mp apsc would not allow this. My camera in apsc is 18mp which is totally acceptable

Great video. The Lumix S5 M2 (Full frame) just dropped and that's equally priced to the XT-5 (APSC). What should be the pick.

So if I am shooting a boar in a forest in early morning on a 1.5 crop at 300mm, assuming I bought a full frame for the same job, I would need a 450mm lens, my question is, would the fact of a longer lens mean higher ISO and therefore cancel out the better ISO performance of the full frame camera because of having to use a longer lens?

Apsc isn't as good as full frame. Full frame is better!

The reason I use FF is not about high dynamic range or bigger print or DoF but because I still use some 35mm film bodies, and I don't want crop factor. For example my favorite 50mm lens will behave like a 80mm-ish lens on APSC. Ouch. I'm sure some of you are old enough to remember APS cameras (the film equivalent of APSC). Unfortunately the lens choices for this system are usually very limited.

If you don't shoot with film, probably pick APSC or M43 instead: smaller, lighter, more affordable....

For plane spotting, can APS-C work or does it have to be full frame?

" It's not the tools, it's the carpenter " 😉