Debunking the Crop Sensor Myth: Here's the Truth. 

In this debate about apsc or full frame (which for me means Plaubel 13x18cm), one point is unfortunately always forgotten: which camera is the greatest pleasure to work with and when. For landscape photography I currently enjoy shooting with MFT. Gorgeous, almost no weight and wonderful focal length selection. After 50 years of towing, it's great to be able to walk with a light step. And the image quality is great too.

Pro optical engineer here…. My suggestion is that people analyse these issues in terms of the physical size of the aperture - the physical size of the hole in simple terms. For a fixed aperture size and field of view the amount of light entering the camera is fixed irrespective of focal length or sensor size. For a given sensor technology aperture size is the only significant factor that determines real low light performance- not sensor size. The depth of field is also determined by aperture size irrespective of focal length or sensor size. Let’s consider a specific example: a 50mm f/4 lens in front of a full frame sensor will give basically the same image as a 25mm f/2 lens in front of a m43 sensor - same depth of field and very similar image noise (for a given shutter speed and sensor technology). This is simply because both cameras have the same aperture size.

When digital cameras were first out most cameras made at that time were crop sensor cameras, pro photographers were using and making beautiful photos with crop sensor cameras because they understood the different factors that come into play to create such a photo. Subjects, lighting composition and exposure along with lens choice are what make a compelling photo regardless of sensor size.

Pausing this video at 3:22. Keep in mind the RP is not only old but it has been the cheapest full frame camera from the day it launched and it still is the bargain leader among full frame cameras. The FX 30 is nearly twice the price so that was an unfair comparison. And on video performance you omitted the key fact that Sony markets the FX 30 as a cinema camera. It damn well better out perform the RP for which video is an afterthought. Continuing the video now.

I've put this out there on other threads, and I know some people get it, some people don't, others may not agree and some get downright angry. But anyway, the way I see it, there are only TWO reasons to buy a camera based on specs/resolution/sensor size etc; 1) because you're a commercial photographer whose clients have demanded a specific output standard, or 2) you just like it. I used to be a commercial photographer, and many clients would want to see my gear list before they'd hire me. Not all, but it happened. If a client is not a photographer, they will not consider skill to be important, only specs ("Oh your photos are great! You must have an awesome camera!"). Others have output needs (like large format prints) where they demand as much resolution as possible, edge-to-edge sharpness, etc. So I had all the full-frame gear for that, the best you could buy at the time. And if this is you, go for it, spend big, earn those dollars/pesos/kroner/francs/yuan/etc. Or if you're new to photography, don't really get art and are a pixel-peeper who just can't be happy with an image unless you can zoom in to 1000% and count the hairs on the fly in the corner of the window of the building you photographed on vacation, then sure, go for it. But if you're a creative person who just wants to make images and tell visual stories in the most accessible way possible, then buy gear that enables you to do that, and stop letting people sell you on what they think you should have. When the pandemic hit and my business fell apart, I sold all the gear and went to a crop sensor. Now I do fine art photography, no clients, no briefs. I go where I want, when I want, shoot what I want. Sometimes it sells, sometimes it doesn't. I don't care, I earn my living in other ways now. But in three years since going APS-C, no one, NO ONE, has looked at any of my images and said, "It's nice, but it would have been better if you'd shot on a full-frame sensor with a 50mm f1.4 rather than a crop-sensor with a 35mm f2". No one. Because - *and here's the point* - people judge images based on what they ARE, not what they are NOT. If you present an image to someone and it's got some noise, soft edges or a little distortion - but the story is told well and is emotive - no one will care. They will look at the image holistically and accept those "flaws" as artistic choices used to tell the story. And if they get caught up in the technical details, they're probably not your audience anyway. Not everyone gets painting, not everyone gets sculpture, and not everyone gets photography. So for me, going APS-C was the wisest thing I've ever done. My kit is small, light and relatively inexpensive. I can have it almost anywhere, ready for the moment and I don't draw a lot of attention. My lenses aren't perfect, and in fact, I've sought out a lens selection based on their character. For you, maybe your decisions are different. If you're doing architecture, then perfect proportions and edge sharpness might be essential. If you're doing sports or other action, fast focus is key. But you don't need full-frame to get those things. Bottom line; define your needs first, get good at what you need to get good at. Then filter through the marketing noise, make a decision that suits your needs and gets you out there taking photos.

1. I don’t think people were claiming every single full frame camera has better high ISO performance than every single crop camera. That’s pretty naive. Clearly, advances in sensor technology play a role too. When people say full frame has better high ISO performance, they mean “all else being equal” 2. This is flawed reasoning too. The larger sensor size necessitates using longer focal length to get the same field of view. No one jumps over to full frame and just keeps using the same focal length as they were before and just accepts that every shot is wider. In reality people select focal lengths and camera positions in order to get the desired composition. 3. Yeah, I mean no one is making the argument that full frame cameras are the same price. That’s not how I’ve interpreted it at all. The claim is that there’s a higher ceiling on these factors by using full frame. You can buy lenses with larger image circles and take advantage of the additional light. You can position yourself closer, all else being equal, to get a shallower depth of field.

I have crop sensor cameras and I have full frame cameras. Huge difference!

I’m weirdly attracted to APSC vs Full frame videos and there’s tons of these on RU-vid. I’m very respectful of both formats and their advantages and disadvantages. That said, this video is really the most misleading one I have seen on this niche topic. It’s somehow effective regarding the practical results but really oversimplified regarding the optical properties of each format. Full frame is almost presented as a scam orchestrated by manufacturers…

Almost a year ago i got Nikon Z30 with the kit lens and then added a 50mm F2 manual lens few months later. All of it was a total of 650 dollars. I am not a professional , just an enthusiast and just wanted to get into dedicated cameras. The thing is the jump in the image quality and versatility you get over a smartphone vs an APS C camera is way bigger than an APS C vs a full frame camera. and for what its worth most people would be better off with an APS-C system.

FYI cropped is not spelled croped. 😢

Probably unintentional, but the video understates the real-world advantage of FF. Double the sensor area is double the light. That's your baseline point of difference, everything else comes down to what lenses are available on each system, how well they perform, how much they cost, and whether they are the optics that you want. It's not so simple has "the same performance for half the cost". For example, a FF 50/2 is usually a cheap and high performance lens. On APS-C, you'd need a 35/1.4 for the same basic function, and to get the same sharpness and overall image quality you'd be looking at a much more expensive lens for APSC than the FF equivalent. Generally FF favors wide angle, while crop favors reach.

I would not compare the cheapest full frame (with 2017 sensor inherited from 6D mark II) on the market with top notch apsc. In low light the later can be better but if you would compare it with R6 mark II or Sony Zv-e1 then I would say full frame would be significantly better. More area to let the light in does the job here.

I bought Sony ZVe10 with kit lens + sigma 56mm f1.4 for $1200 which is half the price of Sony basic full frame camera a7c with kit lens +an 85mm lens. It does 90-95% of the work that ff could do at half the price. Why does everyone fuss about low light.. Get more lights, they are cheap and that will get you light years ahead of other enthusiasts. And even ff can't see in the dark. But yes.. if you got money to spin get whatever you want. But that wont do anything magical vis a vis apsc.

Devils advocate here 😂 when full frame cameras started hitting the $1,000 mark (EOS RP) there arrived a lot of scenarios where full frame was smaller and cheaper than matching the equivalent FOV/DOF with a crop sensor. I know you demonstrated that the background blur between 35 1.8 and 50 1.8 is negligible in specific cases, but in scenarios (like you mentioned) where you’re shooting further away and you want that subject isolation still you can get it cheaper, smaller, and lighter with full frame (especially if you’re willing to shop used and DSLRs). If I put a 50mm F1.8 on a Canon 6D I’ve got a FOV/DOF that would require something like a 35mm F1.2 to match with crop sensor. An 85mm F1.8 on many full frame bodies is cheaper, smaller, and lighter than a 50mm F1.2 on any crop sensor body. A third party 85mm F1.4 lens on a crop sensor body can match the FOV/DOF of canon’s 135mm F2L on a full frame for less money, but the FF setup might still be smaller/lighter. Canon’s 40mm F2.8 pancake lens on a full frame would need to be matched by like a 24mm F1.8 lens on a crop sensor, again much larger and pricier than the 40mm F2.8. Lately my daily carry fun camera is a 5D classic with an EF 100mm F2 lens I bought for $199 and what it provides in terms of FOV/DOF is in a tiny and dirt cheap package compared to anything I’ve looked at with a crop sensor unless I want to manually focus. Not trying to argue or say that you’re wrong, just wanted to share that in a few weird little scenarios you can get looks out of full frame for way cheaper and with a much smaller/lighter kit than matching it with a crop sensor.

Enjoy you vids Mark and respect you and your work. But - I respectfully DISAGREE. :) Of course it all depends on a given user's budget, needs, their audience (and how much that audience cares about image quality), the display device, etc. I mean, by your logic, everyone should just use their phone. After all phones take "good" pictures, and, the best camera is the one you have with you. Yes, for 80 percent of us 80 percent of the time, a smaller-sensored camera will be absolutely fine. But... Larger-sensored cameras DO, almost always, take a "better" picture or video. The image just simply looks better. Of course if you choose an OLDER full-frame camera and compare it to a NEWER crop-sensor, the difference will be smaller - but even in that case the FF camera will win 98 percent of the time. And for me, full-frame IQ's goodness goes beyond specs. Or maybe it's the way the specs add up - the image just LOOKS better - less noise, more detail, more color depth, etc - it all adds up to an image that looks more "real", more 3D, "clearer". More "analog". Something like that. But it adds up to better. For me, anyway. Is that neccessary? Or even noticeable in well-lit images? Esp if viewing on a phone? Maybe/probably not. Depends on the viewer. But overall, and esp as the light falls and the demands of the audience increase, FF wins. Believe me I'd like to carry smaller/cheaper, but for me, it just doesn't work often enough.

I recently bought a FF for the first time after years of APSC and I can tell you that I see the difference in image quality. Even with a “cheap” 50mm lens

Sports photog here, often shooting at very high ISOs. My crop sensor cameras, of the same general generation as my full-frames, do poorly in comparison when it comes to handling noise in both video and photos. In addition, when I put my full-frame cameras in DX mode (turning them into crop frame cameras) in those low light conditions, I have very little room to crop in post as the images fall apart quickly. Now, during a nice bright day, at low ISOs, you can't tell the difference between crop and full-frame unless you do some extreme cropping.

I'm just getting into photography but have had an interest in it for many years. Something I don't see mentioned is how it is harder to do super wide angle photography with a crop sensor. This is just because you might find something like a 10mm lens, but it would be 15mm equivalent in APS-C. ALL your lenses get the FOV cropped, and some super wide FOVs are just impossible with a crop sensor as a result. I got an APS-C camera and don't really mind this, but just an observation.

You can take beautiful photos even with a phone, but sensor size will affect the way you will have to use your equipment to get the image you have in your mind. Sensor size IS a big factor in perspective and depth of field so it deffinitely plays a role in image creation. There will be some images impossible to create on APS compared to full frame, but any APS image can be created with FF (you can always crop). Quality wise, it will always be comparing apples to pears, every person has to decide what he/she wants, as you said.

At 5:59 in the video : It is said a 50mm lens on a full-frame sensor wil have the same field of view than a 35mm on a crop sensor but a different depth of field "by default". True, yet both lenses will provide the same depth of field if the aperture on the 35mm is adjusted by a ratio similar to the ratio of both sensor sizes, for instance 1.5 for an aps-c. Usually, closing the aperture by one unit of diaphragm will provide a similar enough depth of field on both lenses/sensors.

Well said. This are the reasons I love LUMIX MFT’s system. But, I wouldn’t call small sensors “crop”, more like sensors with crop factor.

I think there is no real 'better' when comparing sensor sizes. It's all about 'what do I use the camera for?' I use different sensors with my old 5dII and EOS R, EOS 7d, RX100V depending on what I want to achieve. The RX100V e.g. is great for street photography and surprise shots. It always accompagnies me to get surprise shots too. For serious portrait work it's nearly useless compared to the others, esp. FF. When I do astro-photos the FF is the only option. It's like with every tool You buy: it has to meet Your needs. The artistic quality of a photo is never depending on Your camera-sensors but Your own 'optical sensors'.

Your video is misinformation. The highest end Canon APS-C sensor mirrorless is the R7. Please compare the Canon RP to the R7 in noise comparison. The larger sensor captures more photons - it has physics working for it. The RP noise performance is still more than a full stop advantage over the R7.

Thank you Mark, someone who is making sense in this debate. I have always felt a little inadequate with my APSC or Super 35 sensor (as I like to call it) with those who have spent big dollars on a Full Frame system. Quite honestly the results I'm getting on my Sony A6400 in both video and photography have been outstanding at a fraction of the cost. I have some amazing Sigma primes that are beyond my expectations. You are right there are some RU-vidrs waving the flag of FF as being the step up from APSC and APSC being for beginners. Hopefully your piece will start the flow of common sense around this topic.

My. D750.24. FX FULL. FRAME 35. MM. TOP. GUN. USA. ARMY. CHICAGO. WEDDING'S 🎉🎉🎉🎉. EXTREMELY. GREATEST. ON. LOW. LIGHT 🕯️. WEDDING 💍💒

Another great video, Mark. I feel like most camera manufacturers have priced out most of the general population from purchasing full-frame. Thankfully, there are ton of wonderful crop sensor cameras and lenses on the market! I’m hoping Viltrox will make some of their affordable X-mount lenses available for other crop sensor mounts, but that’s doubtful. We shall see!

If you want to compare depth of field performance between full frame and crop sensor, you need to apply the crop factor to the max aperture as well. So the APS-C equivalent of a 50mm f/1.8 full frame isn’t a 35mm f/1.8, but is a 35mm f/1.2. (1.8 / 1.5 = 1.2) The crop factor for APS-C is 1.5.

Great video, however at the price range of the FX30, you can get much better camera bodies than the RP, which is notoriously bad for video and doesn't have dual native ISO. Something like the S5ii or even a R8 (still no dual native ISO) would've been a better comparison

Been very happy with the Sony a6600 crop sensor body and G lenses.

Yeah, there are too many reviewers and content creators on here who make it seem like APS-C is a terrible choice. I have a few friends who tried to get into photography and they are still stuck with their kit lens because they blew all their budget on the full frame body and can't justify another expensive lens.

As a life time photographer and someone who has worked professionally with digital cameras since 1998, I don’t agree with how the argument has been presented here. If you compare a Sony full frame with a Sony cropped camera of the same generation, you will see an obvious difference in noise levels both in video and in RAW stills. Add to this the complexity of comparing different resolution sensors (like the 12mp A7SIII/FX3) and the 26mp, cropped A6700 and ou will see another huge difference. I’m all for APS-C cameras for the size and price so I own both cropped and full frame but I favour my full frames for professional work, especially in low light. The annoying part with Sony APS-C is that people focus more on how big the grip is and creating F1.4-F1.2 lenses, that there is little size advantage to APS-C anymore.

An important point that you don't emphasize in your discussion: if you want to get background separation (i.e. you want to shoot wide open on fast apertures), you are limited by the available lenses. To get the equivalent of 35mm f2 on APS-C, you need 24mm f1.4, for a 50mm f1.4, you would need 35mm f1 etc. For most modern APS-C systems, there exist no autofocus lenses with the required apertures. If you are going the manual route, you can adapt many beautiful lenses with fast apertures, but that means you are going to miss many shots. The situation is even worse for zoom: the fastest zoom lenses for APS-C have f2.8, which is equivalent to f4 on full frame.

I've been a photographer for 45+ years..... and, in all modesty, a pretty fair one! I find it strange that you seem to make a 'big deal' ('myth' - 'truth') of of things that my generation learned 'at our mother's knee'. Of course it's not the length of the lens in mm, it's how that length relates to the format of the camera. Pentax Spotmatic - 35mm terefore standard lens is 50mm. Mamiya C330f 6cm x 6cm (medium format) standard lens is 80mm. Olympus EM-1 MFT. standard lens is 24mm...... pretty simple, really!

I'm so glad you covered the cost differences. That's often ignored in these discussions in favor of just looking at on-paper performance or size/weight differences which, in real life, are often pretty minor. I recently got back into photography and had to make a choice of what ecosystem I wanted to get into. I ended up choosing one that is focused on APS-C for this reason. There was just no way I could justify spending so much more for pretty marginal IQ improvements.

What a wonderful video. Communication is clear, direct, and accurately informative. no b.s. Thank you for making and sharing this video and I'll be watching more of your content. 🎉🎉❤

This video is very true. I've battled with camera brands with this myself. I remember when the Nikon z50 came out, it destroyed every camera brand in low-light, full-frame or otherwise, at least in my experience. And this is probably true to this day!

This video is just wrong. To compare apples to apples you have to multiply this triplet: Sensor Size x 1.5 - Apperture x 1.5 - Focal Length x 1.5 Example: a lens A(50mm f/1.4) on FF camera gives the same geometric results as a lens B(33mm f/1.0) on APS-C camera. A+FF and B+APS-C have the same: field of view, bokeh, depth of field, light gathering, weight and price. Dynamic range is lower on crop sensor because pixel bucket size is smaller due to smaller sensor area ( area divided by number of pixels (square, x 2)). But exposure and low-light capabilities are the same. More APS-C-sensors have low pixel count, big pixels and elevated ISO-performance , and many FF-sensors with extra high pixel count can have more noise per pixel; but the image quality is equivalent between the two because the noise level and the number of pixels cancels out. By tradition there are fewer top quality lenses to choose from on APS-C, but there are no technical reasons for this difference. The problem in this video is that FF and APS-C is compared using the same lens, same apperture and same focal length. Sensor size, apperture and focal length must all be relative by the same factor - e.g. x 1.5 - to make a sensible comparison.

Price was the determining factor when I decided to sell my Sony full frame kit and move to Fujifilm. The 5 year old a7 III still sells for $2,000 and only shoots 8-bit 4K 30. Whereas the Fujifilm X-T5 shoots 10-bit 4K 60 and 6K 30. If I had my pick I would have stayed on Sony and bought an a7R V but I’m not a professional photographer and I can’t justify spending $4,000 on a camera body. For less than the price of a single a7R V body you can buy an X-T5 with an XF 16-55mm 2.8 and Vitrox’s Pro 27mm and 75mm 1.2 lenses. That’s kind of a no brainer in my opinion if you’re not either a professional photographer or an enthusiast with no budgetary considerations.

With regards to the bokeh technically if one can open the aperture wider with the crop sensor then they can achieve the same bokeh ball size. For example an APSC (~1.6) crop sensor with a 32mm lens shooting at f/1.8 with have almost identical bokeh as a full frame 50mm shooting at f/2.8, and the crop sensor will also have the same volume of light hitting the sensor as well; however, gain circuit (ISO) will have to be lower as well to compensate.

Dude, a Canon EOS R8 + Canon RF 35mm 1.8 is $2000. A Fujifilm XT5 + Fujinon 23mm 1.4 is $2600, and the canon will take better pictures. Any time. I have both systems, I've proved that to myself a number of times...

Things to consider when deciding full frame or crop sensor cameras... 1) A 24MP Full Frame sensor is more sensitive to light than a 24MP Crop Sensor is simply by virtue of having larger pixels, but it also has the same resolution as the crop sensor. 2) A 12MP Full Frame sensor is even MORE sensitive to light than a 24MP Full Frame sensor, but at the cost of resolution. Pixels are double in size, so there are fewer of them. 3) A 42MP Full Frame camera has nearly twice the resolution as a 24MP Crop Sensor camera, but isn't any more sensitive to light due to the nearly same size pixels (just more of them due to a larger surface area). 4) Buying Full Frame lenses for your Crop Sensor camera gives you the same FOV as an APS-C lens, but has the added benefit of eliminating almost all vignetting due to the rear element of the lens being oversized in comparison to the APS-C sensor. 5) If reach is what you want, consider a Crop Sensor. A 600mm lens is an equivalent 900mm on a Crop Sensor.

APS-C is clearly a 2nd tier system and FF a 1st tier one

The only thing lacking right now for apsc is fast zooms. Yes tamron 17-70 and sigma 18-50 exists, but compared to a full frame 24-70 f2.8, or a 35-150 f2-2.8, 18-50 2.8 on apsc simply doesn't cut it compared to the full frame counterparts. We need something like a 18-50 f2 but it might be impossible idk.

As sensor-technology, processors and RAW- converting software have made huge progress, I found that even a mFT- camera would do a very good job for me for any practical purpose. So I gave up my Nikon Z- full frame equipment and went do the awesome OM-1 with it's legendary Olympus Zuiko- lenses, some of them with f/1.2, which deliver an outstanding image quality. And I never looked back. Kind regards from Switzerland.

Crop sensor is the smallest format you should choose if your goal is achieving within the range of well beyond marginal image quality. Crop sensor can be logically used for a variety of professional needs, just about anything except for full blown commercial photography. The trade-offs are noticeable, but only marginal. For example, both crop sensor and Full Frame cameras can logically be used for wedding photography. More than anything, what matters most is your choice of lens, and the technical quality derived from it. YES - a good lens DOES matter. Any by the way ... you'd need very fine eyesight, and a huge print, to take notice of any differences. And your computer monitor can reveal more flaws than a physical print can reveal, especially if your photographic paper is textured, which is rather common from professional labs.

This is a weird comparison. By your logic we could say that an 8 cylinder engine isn’t more powerful than a 4 cylinder engine; “Here we have a 1982 Buick with an 8 cylinder engine, it’s less powerful than this 2023 Civic Type-R with only a 4 cylinder. See, 8 cylinder engines aren’t more powerful.”

I have the same opinion. I have a Panasonic LUMIX GX85 with the Leica 25mm F1.4 and wow I love the results

I'm just getting into photography but have had an interest in it for many years. Something I don't see mentioned is how it is harder to do super wide angle photography with a crop sensor. This is just because you might find something like a 10mm lens, but it would be 15mm equivalent in APS-C. ALL your lenses get the FOV cropped, and some super wide FOVs are just impossible with a crop sensor as a result. I got an APS-C camera and don't really mind this, but just an observation.

While I agree with most of what you say, I wish everyone would realize that there are forms of photography where quality is not measured by bokeh and f/1.4 (or f/0.95) lenses are of no use whatsoever. You obviously measure quality using different standards than I do. Thank goodness there are not f/0.95 macro lenses. Some people take landscapes and prefer more universal sharpness. Some people prefer something in focus and sharp in the photo just to offset all that background blur. I have both a FF and a crop body using the crop more for what I like to shoot. Sometimes I wonder if M4/3 would be acceptable but the ergonomics of the few I have seen leave be drawing the line at APS-C. Perhaps that is why they make so many options? Not everyone defines 'best' in the same way.

I'm sticking with crop it gives me more range and saves me money. I use 35mm for portraits I'm not looking for for perfect sharp I'm looking for quality work. Understanf gow the camera works and buy a lens thst nets you the range you want. 22mm = 35mm on a crop. Figure it out. They all take pictures get a good lens.

Solid info. Though even Canon themselves nowadays make some pretty good FF lenses for very little money, RF 50mm f1.8 and 16mm f2.8 for only 200-300 eur/dollars each is pretty damn good deal for example.

Or buy pentax. The DA crop 50mm and 35mm work great on a FF k1 even though they arnt meant to. And you have load sof old lenses to use. And if you like old manual £20 lenses like I do. You want a full frame. You see, the old lenses unless they were top top top of the range are not often as sharp as good modern one. They are not bad however. Not at all. On a crop, much like using a teliconverter. It simply blows up and makes worse all those errors. Crop lenses actually need to be a higher quality to get the detail on that smaller size sensor. With a full frame. When you frame the shot for the same thing. You will be making the projection on the sensor a larger image. So the errors are a lot less noticeable. Don't pixle peep an old lense. You didn't on your old 4x6 prints. But you get the picture the lense was supposed to make at the detail it would on an old film camera. And some of those £20 lenses will give any modern one a run for the money. OK you can’t crop the immage and it be perfect. But what did you want for pocket money?

I really like the clarity of your reasoning and your very down to earth and useful advise! Thank you.

I have a Sony ZV E10 body with 3 lenses: a Sony 50mm 1.8, a Sony 55mm 210mm, and a Viltrox 20mm 2.8. Still half the price, and I enjoy working with them a lot. 😃

I certainly agree with your first point. I've settled on MFT and FF, because after using several cameras from about four different makers I've found that any advantage that APS-C might have over MFT is far outweighed by the smaller, lighter and less expensive gear in the MFT format. Only FF has enough of an increase in noise performance and dynamic range to motivate me to invest in a larger sensor. BTW, I wish when people talked about "crop sensors" they didn't only refer to APS-C. Micro four thirds is just a better balance of IQ with weight, size and cost than APS-C.

Nikon and Sony's full-frame photography sensors outperform APSC sensors period no exceptions. Some of Canon's full-frame cameras were subpar in 2015-2017 but it looks like Canon is catching up to Sony's sensors so from now on all Full Frame sensors will be much better than APSC. In the studio with perfect lighting, a cell phone will take a great image. When your subject is moving in low light crop frame sensors fall apart. Full Frame is the best by far.

Thank you for sharing, don’t forget for landscape togs crop sensor gives u more depth of field and the lenses are also lighter in lugging around. I switched from FF canon to Fuji APSc and I haven’t noticed hardly any difference in Image Quality if anything I prefer the colors and skin tone from the Fuji and i paid much less for the system.

OK, could someone out there give me a real world answer to this: Should I buy a Nikon Zf (full frame) or a Fujifilm X-T50 (crop sensor) money is a minor factor, but not a huge one. Can I get equally sharp images out of the Fuji with 40MP but a smaller sensor, compared to the 24 MP full frame Nikon sensor? I am NOT concerned about video at all, I only shoot stills, and I shoot at f/8, so not concerned about bokeh.

One reason to spend more on the full frame body is that you can use old lenses on it. Those older high end lenses dont have to sit on the shelf. My old EF lenses actually perform better on my R6 than on my old 600D. The only drawback is the resolution when using old lenses. Add much better software and AF with eye detection and usb C on full frame cameras, I would still advice against older crop sensor cameras. Also the ability to spend more on full frame lenses in the future that will now work with the camera you spent money on. You spend more but you also get more.

Just bought a Sony a6700 with a Sony 16-55 2.8g and 70-350 mm g lens. Cost me a lot less than a similar full frame line up, gives me 24 to 525mm range and has a total weight of 1600 grams. For a hobby photografer who just want to make pictures and be able to bring the gear on trips and vacations it is amazing.

My personal opinion of reviewers has gone way down once I realized they all come out within hours of each other with a new release of a piece of glass or camera. If the reviewer bought the item with their own money and are using it in their work flow I will lend more credibility to what they have to say.

I have watched quite a few of your videos and am subscribed to your channel, but this video I have to disagree with whole heartedly. I mean, even YOU disagree with it, and then try and qualify your statements with "buts": On low-light/high ISO: "...if you take the average crop sensor camera on the market right now and look at its performance in low light or high ISO conditions, if you look at your average full-frame camera and how it performs in low light or high ISO conditions on average the full-frame camera is going to outperform the crop sensor camera, but..." On bokeh: ...full-frame cameras allow you to get a more blurry background and better subject isolation and shallower depth of field than you can get with a crop sensor camera and this is true, but..." You mention things like the image quality/bokeh is "good enough" with the crop sensor cameras and seemingly justify everything based on price. Stating you can get a crop sensor camera with a kit lens and two primes for the same price as a full-frame camera and a kit lens. As a long-time Fujifilm digital shooter, I have heard these arguments from Fujifilm fanboys for years but in reality I do not see it myself. In fact, the primary reason I moved off of Fujifilm is the low-light/high ISO noise that you cannot get away from as their entire X line are crop sensors. Take their two highest megapixel models, the X-T5 and X-H2, coming in at 40MP. Comparing that to Nikon's Z5 crop sensor 24.3MP camera, the Nikon has better image quality at high ISOs. Comparing Fuji's 40MP crop sensor to Nikon's full-frame sensor, like something in a Z7 II 45MP, the Nikon completely destroys the Fujifilms. Using Imaging Resource's Comparometer can easily show this side-by-side. Bokeh is something that the full-frame sensor will always win vs a crop sensor. It doesn't matter why somebody thinks it does vs why it actually does, it just wins. You can get smoother, creamier background blur with full-frame - period. You also need less aperture to get the equivalent bokeh, which affects lens pricing. As far as pricing, it's not as drastic as you make it out in every circumstance. You can certainly get full-frame bodies at good prices, some even better prices than crop sensor cameras. For example, if you wanted Fujifilm's "best quality" X-series sensor, you'd want their 40MP X-Trans 5 in the X-T5 or X-H2. Those two bodies with kit lenses cost this: Fujifilm X-T5 with 18-55mm f/2.8-4 lens - $2099 Fujifilm X-T5 with 16-80mm f/4 lens - $2199 Fujifilm X-H2 with 16-80mm f/4 lens - $2299 The Fujifilm lenses apertures adjusted for crop factor are more like: 18-55mm f/4-6 16-80mm f/6 Compare that to Nikon Z5 full-frame sensor body with kit lens options: Nikon Z5 with 24-50mm f/4-6.3 lens - $1296 Nikon Z5 with 24-70mm f/4 lens - $1593 Nikon Z5 with 24-200mm f/4-6.3 lens - $1696 Nikon Z5 with 28-75mm f/2.8 lens - $1993 In fact, you can get a Nikon Z5 with 24-70mm f/4, 28mm f/2.8 & 40mm f/2 lenses for $2145 (all of these are B&H Photo prices). The full-frame sensor is also going to give people another big advantage, which is keeping your wide angle field of view. A 20mm lens is really 20mm instead of 30mm on a crop sensor body. You can always crop in post to get less FOV, but you can't get more FOV in post, which is another reason why most professionals prefer full-frame bodies. Sure, the crop sensor will have more reach on the telephoto end, but that is something that can be cropped in for. I also caution people starting out in photography when they are leaning crop sensor "to save money". I try and steer them to cheaper full-frame options like the Z5, or older/discontinued full frame bodies. That way, they are spending their money on full-frame lenses, and don't end up with a bunch of crop sensor lenses that will be relegated somewhat useless if they ever upgrade to a full-frame body in the future.

Nice video! I would also be curious about the cost/benefit comparisions between APSC and Micro 4/3

Every camera (system) has it's own strength. Full Frame with up to 8 stops of in-body image stabilization (IBIS) beats any f 1.4 with crop sensor. We shouldn't forget that full frame with 40 - 60 MP can be cropped easily while the crop sensor loses quality. Of course is double the money is a strong argument against full frame. Also double the weight and a computer with a lot more power is needed. However: with full frame and 40 - 60 MP you can catch more information than with a crop. It's on the user to take advantage of that - or waste the money. and G-Master

A used FF 50mm 1.8 is around $100, the equivalent will be F1.2 for APSC lens which is pretty pricy.

Other than price, there's also the topic of size. Comparing the performance of Fullframe f1.8 lenses with APSC f1.8 lenses in nonsensical because f1.4 APSC lenses have the same size & price as FF 1.8 lenses. That means you almost completely eliminate the bokeh advantage and also add 2/3 stops of light to eliminate the ISO advantage. The only advantage FF has left is with f2.8 zooms, because there are no f2 zooms for APSC to balance it out like it happens with primes. However, you still can't defeat physics, the FF f2.8 zooms are significantly bigger than APSC f2.8 zooms. So every photographer has to ask if they are willing to carry that weight around on a regular basis for the little advantage. The extra cost might seem less relevant in a few years but the extra weight to get f2.8 zooms and f1.4 primes on FF are there every single day.

For many non-professional photographers, the full-frame issue is a matter of snobbery. Professionals have to earn a living, thus much of their gear will be the best going (in other words, in the majority of cases, full-frame). A large number of enthusiasts want to look "professional" - hence they buy a full-frame camera. I own both APS-C cameras and full-frame (one of which is an RP). I can't say there is a lot of difference in my photographs when I use an APS-C and full-frame on the same shoot. Another point is that It's not just "influencers" who diss APS-C cameras - many of those who comment below-the-line do, too. Issues unrelated to image quality in general favour APS-C/micro four-thirds. For instance, these cameras and lenses tend to be smaller and easier to carry around (as well as being less expensive).

Another myth are the ISO performance. Its not about that, but it is about eksposures. You can get noise at base ISO and lesser noise at higher ISO. Noise comes from lack of exposures.

In some situations, you just don't have the option of contolling the light. For example, when you are taking photographs at a Live rock show, where they use flashing lights and light keep changing, you cannot control the light. You have no choice but to bump up the ISO to take photographs.

Agree with you.. I'm a newbie more visual based thsn math. Just step or 2 back for a fuller frame! For aperture and clarity and bokeh i can live with the minor differences. Thanks for making the video!

You know, APS-C (crop sensor format) is almost exactly the size of the Super 35mm film frame - a standard we managed to live with for over 100 years for motion pictures projected onto super-large screens (not IMAX-large, but large enough). Only reason we ever got "full frame", i.e., full-sized 35mm frames in still photography is because, due to logistics, we mounted the film in the camera sideways, thus allowing for a larger frame size. Had still cameras been designed like motion picture cameras, all our still photography (except for medium and large formats) would have been "crop" format and no one would have ever been the wiser. Then again, you could say the reverse and we could have had all those years and decades of "Lawrence of Arabia"-sized movies (which would have been EXPENSIVE!).

The physics of optic let in more light to full frame sensor thus higher speed and shallower depth of field. There is nothing wrong with cropped sensor, it takes great pictures if you don’t mind a f1.4 lens is actually f2.0 which still takes great fuzzy background photos. The reality is most lenses don’t reform their best wide open, so I buy a f1.4 lens I shoot at f2.8 mostly and now it’s a f4 on a cropped sensor and that makes a noticeable difference. I have tiny point and shoot up to medium format sensor camera, they all take great pictures. The choice should be what kind of pictures you like to take to decide which type of camera to get and not a simply debate on crop vs. full. I think borrowing or renting both sensor camera and try it yourself is the best method. I don’t do video so there are different consideration that I don’t pay attention to. A friend of mine uses cropped sensor Fujifilm, stacks up to 100 photos to one picture, so cropped sensor can create huge photo. He shoots landscape only so typically at f11, hence speed is no concern to him. I shoot street, portrait, flower and animals so I use different camera depending on what my primary goal each time. To me, making that selection is part of the fun too. Don’t get stuck with specs, price, brands, your own liking is the most important factor.

What I've found is after returning to Photography after a 20yr break is most are ignorant and more bothered about numbers and comparing gear rather than actually learning about photography itself and the technical skill it requires, the crutch of AF and not being able to Manual Focus is the funniest thing I've seen so far....In the 10yrs I used my D200 for low light live music photography, not one person said 'Ooooh your not using Full Frame...." ; ) Not one person knew or gave a shit, great video BTW. : ) Most YTs these days are just pretend salesmen....Shame your decription is full of boring AL's otherwise I would have subbed, you forgot the one for what underwear your wearing....

I just bought a Sony A7 III in addition to my A6500 (APS-C) that I've used for many years. Although I will keep my APS-C camera for certain purposes where it has its advantages (compactness for traveling or when you need very long range for wildlife photography), I'm blown away by the full-frame results. It's really a noticeable step up. When I'm shooting portraits outside with my Tamron 70-180 f2.8, the full-frame sensor really makes the crucial difference. At 180mm I'm still comfortably close to the object and the background gets so creamy as I've never seen it with my A6500 (although I have the Sigma 56mm 1.4). It's the small but subtle difference between nice and WOW.

I'm a disabled pensioner, price point is an issue. I have no shelf full of camera's, I owned the decades I suppose, I have 2 CCCD pannies, that are still pristine taking offers. I have a Nikon handycam that I enjoyed. I bought a Sony 6400, last camera I think I'll buy... unless it dies. It's great, I don't know that buying better is a better thing though better exists I understand it does anyway.

I teach Avtech at a high school and I specializing in adobe premier certification. I preach this to my students. As a matter of fact your discussion and arguments are so on point they are going to watch this video today. The school system has the funds to go full frame we have FX3 at the school. I just bought my first actual cinema rig a few weeks ago. I am a teacher and just don't have the funds available to do full frame. I bought the fx30 for EXACTLY what you are preaching. Good job sir! Everyone in the camera market should watch this video. Earned a new sub for this video. Keep it up! as a matter of fact I am going to ask my students to subscribe to your channel your content on your channel like this is worth my kids subbing to.

I have two APS-C cameras, an X-S10 and a ZV-E10. After these I got a Nikon Z6ii and have not looked back. I'm selling my Fuji because I can't use the lenses on the others. I got an adapter that let's me use my Sony lenses on the Nikon and this is the optimal two camera setup.

Great discussion. Crop cameras have their advantages in focal length \ DOF for certain applications. Also, it gets complicated once you bring in speedboosters, regarding DOF. Id say people should be looking at what sensor theyre buying instead. Eg : A nikon z7 in DX mode is identical to a z50 file wise. So the full frame camera isn't really better than the crop.

I’m a m4/3 diehard tbh… I am not a National Geographic photographer lol so i dont need full frame or even aps-c and those are so expensive compared to m4/3… id rather have a lightweight package and smaller, less expensive lenses than the absolute bleeding edge in performance. Besides, m4/3 is no slouch, it takes fantastic photos.

True. Good review. Could not agree more. It is war of numbers out there. I own 3 FF cameras - then bought a Crop Sensor body for BTSs-type footage. I was more then pleasantly surprised what a quality that CS produces. Now, I use it in "real" situations without fear of quality compromise, and now I even mix them in post with my FF footage - and nobody can tell difference.

I’ve been involved in photography for over 35 years been professional for 20 plus years plus ( weddings, portraits, commercial ) never shot full frame never had a need or want to shoot full frame. The sensor doesn’t matter to clients it’s the quality of the end results this is where investment in the right glass and lighting matters way more than sensor type. Even now not interested in full frame.

I think it all depends on how the sensor sizes are compared. With the same lens it might be a nice visualisation how the sensor size affects the image you get from a specific focal length, but when comparing FF to APS-C for example with regular zooms, for example on Canon a RF 24-105 F4.... you would need something like a RF-S version with 2.8 aperture to compare (Hint: it doesnt exist yet, all we have is the very old EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM)

Sensor pixel size in relation to lens resolution is realy is what makes the difference. I shoot Canon and Nikon cmos & ccd sensors, full and crop body's with vintage manual lenses and AF lenses. I can see very well what combos render the best in my opinion.

The factor of size and weight is very often overlooked in my opinion. The amount of bulk that a full frame camera + full frame lenses commands over a similar APS-C setup, is pretty signifcant, if not in the size of the camera, definitely in the size of the lenses. And that's really why it's important to use purpose-built lenses for the camera that you're using (only exception being for long zooms, using a longer, full frame lens can be a good way to get extra reach). To me, APS-C is in that perfect goldilocks zone, between the large and expensive full frame cameras that gather all the hype and the more compact options from micro four thirds that start getting in the "that sensor is too small" territory. Most of my cameras are APS-C, exception made of the Sigma SD Quattro H that is APS-H (why was this format abandonned again?) and the Nikon D700 which I treat kind of like a larger format camera that I only use to really take advantage of that larger sensor or the rendition of vintage lenses. Speaking of vintage lenses, full frame definitely the way to go with those if you're after the rendition of the image rather than the performance the lens can give you. If however you see vintage lenses as a way to get good quality glass for cheap, then I'd recommend using APS-C cameras for that. The reason is quite simple: back in the film days, lenses could be smaller, and that was for a very good reason : light rays didn't have to be corrected. The film was almost a perfect plane, and the photo sensitive crystals would get teh light no matter if the light came in straight or at an angle. That changed with digital: light does not go on a perfectly flat plane of focus : they come at an angle, that grows more acute as you get closer to the edge of the image circle. On the other hand, pixels are like little wells. There is a micro lens that focuses the light on a photo diode, but there needs to be space for that, and the photo diode is quite a bit lower than the micro lens on the sensor. If the light comes in at too much of an acute angle, some of it will be lost, not being focused on the photodiode by the microlens. That's in parth why digital lenses are so much bigger than film era lenses : light rays need to be corrected and come straight if you don't want to suffer from vignetting in the corners. Using an APS-C sensor means that you only keep the center part where this isn't as much of an issue. On some cameras, there was no choice, but to use engineering to combat this. Typically, the Leica M8 which was the first digital Leica, needed to be fully compatible with film era lenses as it kept the same lens mount. On that camera, the micro lenses are offset compared to the photodiode, and they get more offset the closer you get to the edges. But that's an exception amongst digital cameras really

But the fact is, sadly, full frame is indeed better than aps-c camera in low light since it has better physical, that's why we call it FULL FRAME, it has full light, full pictures and so on.

I think the deciding factor (in the choice between FF and APS-C) for a lot of people should be “How important is shallow depth of field across a variety of focal lengths?” For people who grew up looking at pictures taken with 35mm film SLRs (or rangefinders) paired with relatively fast 50mm lenses, and who want to be able to achieve the same look, full-frame is generally better. A fast 30mm or 35mm lens is more expensive than a fast 50mm lens, and will wipe out much of the cost-savings associated with buying an APS-C camera.

The source of much of the problem is due to language. Full frame. Crop. "Full frame" meant using all the available film frame (whatever its size), but now it is synonymous with 135 film frame size. Any sensor/film size can be used in a crop mode. You can use medium format in crop mode to get a 35mm film capture area, or larger or smaller. I will assume "full frame" becoming synonymous with 135 film capture size evolved in America, as that is the usual place English becomes bastardised. So now we're in a time where "full frame" means a specific format. Why wouldn't you want "full frame"? Because well, it's "full frame". It's full! It's complete! Medium format is not even "full frame". Yes, I've had discussions trying to get across that the "full frame" sensor is actually not as large as medium format! I've had to Google sensor size comparison images! Every sensor size has its pros & cons, but people get unknowingly influenced by the current "Full Frame" and "Crop" terms. (The abuse of these terms could have also been deliberately exacerbated by salesmen selling 135 sensor size equipment.) I suggest from now on, every format is named by a type of "frame" to address pointless mental bias/assumption and level the playing field. "Advanced Frame" for APS-C, as that is what the A stands for. "Greater Frame" for GFX. "Four Thirds Frame" for MFT or something. I'm going to use the term Advanced Frame from here on! (It's easier to say too, which could also explain why or how "Full Frame" now means "35mm film format equivalent", which admittedly is rather a mouth full.) It's not a crop if you're using the full frame! (You'll get the Tim Brooke-Taylor baked beans treatment if you don't get it right). There's likely a higher percentage of latest release Advanced Frame cameras that can do open gate capture more than Fool Frame cameras, so Advanced Frame are in fact what should be considered full frame rather than crop sensors!

Straight up facts, yet gearheads will complain about it then wonder why many apsc shooters photograph better images than they do. They’re to focus on specs. One of the two reasons why I shoot with Fujifilm: 1. The Colors 2. The Price Tag. Crop Sensor portraits/wedding photographer here and yet people love my photographs.

Ah yes the good old “circle of confusion” - an f1.2 is an f1.2 all day because it’s calculated on the actual lens - if the position of the camera is changed to match a MFT to a ff camera then the ff will require a higher iso thus increasing the noise - so it’s actually the iso performance which changes in that scenario - so MFT are fantastic for close up shots especially product presentations

I can’t agree more! One more factor to be mentioned here is the weight of the set (did I missed it in the video?). It’s something that really matters when you go out or go to remote lands. I use Fujifilm cameras and they meet all the requirements that I can have. In any situation. And I’m not obsessed with having “the best cam ever made”. I prefer to focus on the artistic side of photography. And yes, most of modern cameras are almost on par from the technical point of view. So, everyone can pick something that suits his hand better without making any trade-off, and this is really nice!

This has always been controversial. Best advise. Buy a current AI eye focus FF camera if you can they will almost always have an advantage, check DXO. Maybe a current APSC for macro only photography. Budget is usually the reason people buy APSC but there are a glut off FF lenses out there, get those, use them on APSC of FF. But try to get the FF. But reality is what you shoot will definitely determine if a FF in necessary. 4/3rds has its place so again it is controversial but if you are on a budget, older FF lenses put on AI eye focus cameras either FF or APSC will probably be the best, probably Canon will be best value.

One thing to consider is if you want to use any manual focus vintage lenses. In that case you most likely want to go with a full frame camera that will preserve the original rendering of the vintage lens.

When 35mm film first came in, it was considered 'amateur / toy'. Eventually technology made 35mm format better than roll film format. The move to digital was the quantum leap. So the move over. Given a few more years and FF digital may go the same way. The mirrorless will be part of that quantum step to APS-C as the standard!

Although two cameras may have the same number of pixels, say a 24MP APS- C vs a 24MP full frame camera, the full frame camera's pixels will be 2.3 times as large as the APS-C pixel. Pixel size affects image quality. Larger pixels collect more light. This means full-frame cameras perform better in low light situations. Also larger pixels also give full-frame sensors a wider dynamic range so they will perform better at high ISO settings.

Thank you! My reaction to anyone who is going to reveal "the truth" is always a shudder. Nevertheless, your nuanced approach to this topic is valuable and overlooked. Thanks again.

I started out with ASC-C, and it made very nice photos. The issue was that I love taking photos at night, and I wanted lenses with larger apertures. To match an f/1.4 lens on a 35mm sensor, I would have needed an f/0.95mm lens. Back then, very few such lenses existed, they only existed around the 50mm range, and their image quality was compromised enough that it would sort of ruin the advantage of the fast aperture in a lot of scenarios. With my Sony A7R3 and fast lenses, I just get more total light hitting the sensor - at the cost of size and a much higher price tag. But I can shoot handheld in extremely dark locations, and get usable results. Had f/0.95 lenses been more prevalent, at more focal lengths, and with better quality glass, I would probably have stayed with ASC-C. But there would have been disadvantages there, too. It's more difficult to correct an f/0.95 lens than an f/1.4 lens, so the quality still wouldn't match larger sensor sizes. As far as I know, no f/0.95 lens has autofocus, which would make them more challenging to use for events. And to achieve something like an f/1.2 lens, an APS-C sensor would need an f0.8 lens, which is getting insanely close to the legendary f/0.7. There's always a trade-off somewhere.

My biggest regret starting photography is going full frame. Started with a Canon R8, probably would have been just as well off with an R10, plus I could've stomached the cost of the lenses a little more!

Thank you for sharing! Wish I knew this a year ago before going 6k CAD, in debt, thinking I had to go full-frame or bust!

A Fuji with a crop sensor is beautiful, a canon RF mount with Crop Sensor looks just wrong.

That's why i shoot MFT.