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! 😎🙏🏻
Actually I subscribed to your channel because of this video, I totally agree with what you're saying, and the advise at the end regarding lenses is SUPER, a lot of issues regarding low light for example can be fixed using better lenses.. date the camera and marry the lens!
Excellent video. Thanks for posting this! I'm a working pro shooting FF and crop, depending on the circumstances and the client. Everyone is always happy. Life is good.
I love this so much. When I was first getting started people are used to try to do a gear flex on me. Just because they had the most expensive gear. I shot with a crop body for a long time before upgrading to a full frame I’ve even shot on point and shoot because that’s what I had with me and believe it or not I’ve sold professional shots from my point and shoot just because I had the eye for a shot and the subject I was shooting loved them and wanted to use them commercially. I think people tend to forget that a lot of what you do as a photographer is based on learning how to use any camera you have, having an eye for what you’re shooting, and knowing how to get the shot. As a professional today I still see folks trying to do that gear flex on new photographers and I’m always willing to talk to new photographers and tell them to shoot with what they have and get good at shooting with what they have. You don’t need to have the most expensive new camera as soon as it comes out. Invest in great glass, bodies come and go, the glass will sustain itself.
Spot on Diane. Somehow folks tend to talk about a cameras shortcomings rather than it’s strengths. I’m willing to bet you’ve taken som great shots from your phone as well. Haven’t we all? Lol.
This video and this comment by Diane is pure golden truth. I feel that alot of people trained and untrained to the eye, professional and beginner will find that unless they are doing large prints, and even if so sometimes, still may not be able to tell which of the two cameras took the photos, as far as the technology itself goes, when looking at a finished product... Lenses truly are so important. The bodies do really come and go. As far as the bodies, just try to make sure it has the features you may need for the style/type of photos/subjects you will be interested in taking pictures of in my opinion. The lenses in my opinion do the heavy lifting, they carry the work, and they get the rest done. Don't underestimate the power of your lenses. I believe it's your skill and ability first, your lenses second, and the body third...contrary to what many believe.. The lense is the extension to the body, the bodies limbs. The lenses are what reaches for the bodies goals.. the body can have all the technology in the world yet still no potential at all without the lens. Pick a body that have settings for your line of work and pick lenses, compensate, compliment, and accomplish what you are going for..it's really about the lenses..people are putting some pretty big lenses over some pretty cropped sensors....it's not about the size, it's about the motion of the ocean... Especially if you're a beginner; why buy a 1000cc Supersport when you can't even fully harness and push a 600cc super sport to its maximum potential on the tarmac?...to be skilled and proficient enough to push a 600cc sport bike to its limits is more fun and freeing, than to have more power than you know what to do with, and not skilled enough to fully and competently control and hone. Power you can't even utilize... I believe it is the same with any trade/art...what is a $100 paint brush to someone who can not paint, is the equivalency of $20 brush. It's not that either type of cameras is better than the other, necessarily, they just go about things differently. They solve math equations differently. I hear beginners Trump themselves all the time by going off of what they hear and have a mentality of "full frame or nothing" and it's truly a limiting and misguided misconception. If that be the reason some curious kid doesn't pick up a camera and start a hobby; that saddens me...and equally, if it be a reason someone is slowing down on starting a new entry level career. I know many others that use cropped, and make thousands of buckos a month delivering professional grade batch, work, lol.. they are not even professionals themselves............ To get a desired effect, you just have to accept that you need to do different math with your lenses.. every camera in the world is limited to its lens no matter what, anyway.... This car takes 91, that car takes 93, another car may be happy on 87octane to preform optimal to its combustion rate.. All cameras are great and fun, and pack their own punch!
This is a fact. I absolutely SUCK at having an eye for a picture. My buddy, uses his cell phone and captures amazing pictures because he has an eye for it. I am definitely trying to learn, but its a talent to some degree that I hope I can figure out someday.
@@DarikStone if u ya talkin photography… yeah. However, video is a whole diff story. Full frames usually have better codecs, fps, etc. There is no 10 bit in Sony apsc, you only get it if you go full frame. For pics, apsc is almost as capable as full frame. Not so much if we talkin video
@@luismoracmyk yes, with that I agree! There's isn't really anything that will make up for that. I would sway someone to full frame if they were getting into any kind of cinematography, or needed a good hybrid, for sure. Great call!
Ferari Volkswagen analogy is good too. An economical car for daily usage and a super sport car to race are different levels. Bigger sensor gives better low light performance and shallow depth of field for object isolation. Smaller sensor gives more zoom capability in same diameter lenses and more depth of field which is useful on macro photography. So apsc better for photography which needs more zoom or macro shots. To shoot birds from distance apsc gives more zoom with crop factor in same diameter lenses. Or when someone shoot macro photograpy the eyes and the legs of the bee must be clear. and Apsc has advantage. But in low light conditions if somone shoot a wedding in night time fullframe has advantage. Also if someone want to shoot portraits and need object isolation, fullframe is better.
Couple of additions from a fellow-pro: (1) when you compare sensors, make sure you compare same generations. A 10y old full-frame sensor may indeed not have better low-light performance compared to a brand-new designed aps-c sensor. Same for medium format compared to full-frame. Note that most sensor manufacturers focus R&D on full-frame first, and then apply that to aps-c later. (2) the advantage of ‘not using the full image-circle’ with an aps-c sensor is only valid when you buy and use full-frame lenses on an aps-c camera. E.g. Fuji XF and Canon EOS-M lenses are designed for aps-s and have a smaller image-circle, so these lack that advantage compared to e.g. Nikon, Sony and Leica. By the way, when using full-frame lenses on an aps-c camera, you largely loose the size/weight/cost advantage of aps-c. (3) the shallower DoF of full-frame is due to the difference in focal lenght when applying the same field of view. So an aps-c lens of 56mm (85mm) equiv. has a DoF associated with a 56mm lens compared to the shallower DoF of a native 85mm full-frame lens. The longer the focal lenght, the shallower the DoF, assuming same aperture and distance to subject. So, when comparing apples with apples, a full-frame camera has indeed better low-light performance (or higher resolution), better dynamic range, greater tonality and shallower DoF compared to an aps-c camera. Consequently a medium format camera usually does even better on these things than a full-frame. I fully agree that many enthusiast don’t buy what they need and loose themselves in pixel peeping at 200%, rather than develop their creative skills. The camera industry thrives on that ;-)
Buying APS-C lenses almost doesn't make sense anymore. You can't use them on full frame cameras, whereas the opposite is not true. Unless you are absolutely positive that you are never going to switch to full frame, and for that matter, that manufacturers are going to continue making APS-C cameras that you can replace your current one with, you are kind of rolling the dice if you invest heavily at all in APS-C lenses.
Life was great when we all had 35mm cameras (cheap rangefinders to SLRs like Canon and Nikon). We chose from Tri-X, Plus-X and Panatomic-X for black and white photos. For color, we usually chose Kodachrome 25 or 64. Life was so simple then.The difference between them is the speed of the film and how tight the grain is. But I didn't care. I had fun taking photos for work and for pleasure. No one cares, no one pixel peeps. People just like to see pictures of themselves and family members, especially babies.
I would say just for IQ overall first Canon full frame Canon 5D is to me better than ANY! aps-c to date in terms of pure image quality and color depth and pixel sharpnes.. and it's since 2005 if I am not wrong.
Point 2 is not correct, unless you tested the apsc lens on a full frame camera. I used to think the same thing untill i saw some Pentax da (crop lenses) could actually be used on the Pentax k1 (full frame) without cropping too much so depending on the design apsc lenses can have a larger image circle. It's not strictly true and is dependent on the lens.
Great video. Nothing wrong with using APSC or M43 for professional work. People were using far inferior equipment not so long ago to even the entry level stuff today and getting incredible shots. Learn the craft first and then get the system that suits your needs and complements your needs. Stop reading forums and watching videos on all the latest equipment and instead go out there and practice. You will know what gear you need when you start honing your craft.
I agree, some of my best images come from my Olympus camera's...but for my pro work I need a FF body, it is just more workable in DR, crop ability, and details for large commission and weddings when you often don't have idea scenario's. Although I have gotten some great wedding and portrait captures with apsc as a backup to a full framer. I have even got some adorable wedding images with a phone! :)
A good photographer will be a good photographer regardless of APSC or full-frame. The differences in the formats are about specific use cases where the limitations are more apparent. You can even consider pixel pitch as a useful difference that is often in favour of APSC.
I went for Sony's APSC lineup...even though I really liked a friend's A7C. I'm pretty sure I'll stick to APSC since I take it with me when hiking and camping which often entails me climbing up over mountains. The size and weight savings definitely helps and the cheaper body and lens cost helps me save some money to go towards my outdoor gear.
In the film era, I shot small format, medium format, and large format. In the beginning of the digital era, my first digital cameras had thumbnail size sensors. Later, I began shooting cameras with a larger micro 4/3 size sensor. Next, I used cameras with APS-C size sensors. Lastly, I used cameras with full-frame sensors. For me, the difference in image quality between the APS-C and the full-frame is insignificant to nonexistent.
I agree, it's not about image quality from the sensor. For a long time, Canon and Nikon and Sony don't really make "great" APSC lenses, they make all the L or GM or whatever lenses full frame. Canon and Sony seem to also mostly make the higher end tech only in FF cameras. Especially Canon, if you want the top tier lenses and tech, it's all in FF. But for landscape in daytime? My 80D APSC was very good.
Tokina makes some boss mode crop sensor lenses that run $300… while I like my rf 15-35, it’s totally not even close to being worth $2200…. Lessons learned
I’m using my m50 for professional video work and only shooting in 1080. As long as the lighting is good the quality is great and the clients like it. No one has asked me what camera I’m using 🤷🏼♂️
@@JorisHermans good glass is more important, you could do a video showing how different lenses make different images. Rubbish glass on a full frame v good glass on the m50 😁
Unfortunately, ours is an expensive passion, and the majority of amateur photographers don't have anything near the financial resources to acquire their dream kit. The good news is that passion for photography, combined with lots of practice (a combination that is often referred to as skill) is everything when it comes to enjoying the fruits of your efforts. Open your eyes, follow your soul, get lost in the moment, and hone your technique. Above all else, shoot for your own gratification; don't judge your results on what you think other people will like. This is my humble opinion.
Used full frame all my life until recently switched to Fuji aps-c. For my current needs, nothing is better than a MODERN aps-c. I have great image quality, less weight, less costs, less volume, ok low-light performance.
I agree, my Fuji's APSC is fine for my hobby work and as a back up, but not for serious weddings and large commissions. I still get all of the above with a FF with top rated DR and low light abilities, for just a bit more dinero...it's about the glass too.
@@nellatrab Man, I and everyone else used to shoot wedding on film with 100-400 ISO, manual focus and no exposimeter. No one needs fullframe for weddings.
@@Nessunego 100%. I’m too young to have actually used film in its hay day however I do a lot of street photography on film and recently sold all my full frame Sony gear and invested in Fuji. So far I don’t regret my choice at all and I want to go out and shoot on my Fuji a lot more. I’ve used my full frame gear for plenty of professional work and I have absolutely no doubts my new Fuji gear will perform just as well.
Many people are Fuji users and love shooting with it whether an Instagramer, enthusiast or a “professional”. So it goes back to what you need and will work for you. Lighting is key, but if you shoot low light situations then a full frame might work better for your needs. Otherwise, an APS-C will work just fine. Invest in a good piece of glass and you can get some great shots.
Advantages like better IBIS (APSC sensors are easier to stabilise), smaller cameras with less weight and the additional reach you get from telephoto lenses make APSC camera significantly better for certain applications. Like travel, sports & wildlife photography. Full frame is better for portraits, higher resolution large format printing & some product work. But Joris is right, the differences are far less than you'd expect.
The little difference on a print or a portrait because of dof will make the difference for sure. Some super high level professional portrait photographers working in the fashion industry will NEVER use an apsc
The car analogy I always make, is that everyone keeps telling me to buy the Porsche, because it is the faster car, despite the fact that the the speed limit is 120km/h, the Porsche has no seat to speak of in the back, eats tyres, guzzles gas, makes an immense racket and drains your wallet as far as road tax is concerned, while the other car gets me there in a comfortable, affordable and safe way. Maybe I like to listen to music when I am driving, undisturbed by engine and tyre noise. So, after all, maybe the Porsche is not the car for me.
Great video! I just hate the marketing push sony or canon are putting on FF; they failed miserably vs fuji or even MFT with their APS-C lineups so now theyre making FF 'affordable', so they get some of that sub-$2000 market back. People should understand how this is mostly marketing ripoff.
which APSC mirrorless would you suggest which is bang for every buck? It will be my first camera and don't want to spend too much for FF just yet. I might little bit professional work if I get.
Finally someone that knows what they are talking about when comparing APS-C vs fullframe! The only time you will see a major difference when you zoom in 200% into your picture, and even then, the difference is really small and not sometimes not noticeable.
After years of playing with different cameras and systems, I eventually stuck with Fuji. Works the best for my style, but I will admit that to me a 50mm on a FF just has a certain look that I love.
exactly !!!! As an APS-C shooter, full frame equivalence means nothing to me in practice. I relate to the lens focal lengths as they behave on my (APS-C) cameras, not on how they would behave on a full frame camera which I don't own and never have. if I ever bought a full frame camera I would need to think the other way (APS-C equivalence) until I developed a feel for the full frame camera's field of view.
I shot apsc when l started, then upgraded to full frame because it seemed more professional!😂 but l actually just switched back to apsc after 5 years of shooting on full frame cameras. Traded my A7iii for an XT5. Mostly for the fun of fuji! But lm actually so happy with what the camera offers. I thought l would see a bit of a downgrade but have been surprised
Actually for me my preference towards APSC is the price of the lenses. An 85mm full frame lens from the same manufacturer could be double the price of a 55mm equivalent in APS-C.
@@domtomas1178 actually I was wondering about that, and would love to hear an explanation of why the background separation is different. Though, Arthur R did a pretty good comparison of the Sigma 56mm f1.4 and the Viltrox 75mm f1.2
The biggest lie in photography is that you need full frame. Nonsense! Just look at the websites of all the camera manufactures- OM System, Panasonic, Fujifilm, and others. Pro's are using these cameras and doing AMAZING work! Why carry the huge bricks?
Another thing to know about crop factors: It changes with aspect ratio. 16:9 images cropped from 3:2 sensors will have a 5% crop added. This makes Canon's APS-C crop in video 1.7x.
There is no best camera. There is no best lens. There is no best sensor. There is only a best camera, lens and sensor for *you* . For *your* purpose, *your* kind of work, etc. All the comparing videos are basically BS since nobody takes the same picture using two cameras and then goes pixel peeping at 200% to spot the difference. It's all "nerdspeak". No pro photographer gives a flying f***. In my work, we use APS-C as well as FF bodies and nobody will ever know which camera took what image. In the prosumer to pro segments, there are no bad cameras anymore. Period.
Agree to a good extent. I am just an enthusiast specially into bird photography and Sony A6400 + 70-350 mm lens gives me 525mm equivalent and unless its very early in the morning (when sun is still near horizon); I am having a perfect combo at a price which is cheaper than any FF camera body only.
Nice I have the same set up. The only thing I don't like about that lens is not a fixed aperture when zooming in. I also do some bird photography and am thinking on getting the arii and use the aspc mode with the lens and see what I get.
NO! You don't get a 525mm equivalent - you get 350mm. You can't change the laws of physics. A 350mm lens will produce an image of a bird of the same size at the same distance, no matter what size the sensor is. It's a CROPPING factor, not a magnification factor.
@@migranthawker2952 But an APS-C sensor has a much higher pixel density than a FF sensor would at the same total number of pixels. So an APS-C image is not "just a crop" of a same-megapixel FF image, as that would imply that the APS-C image somehow looses resolution, which it doesn't. It's a full-resolution image, just "zoomed in" to cover just the central part of what the lens sees. Which is basically the same as magnification. Hence, the usefulness of equivalent focal lengths as a measure in the first place.
@@migranthawker2952 You can also think of it like this: a 32 megapixel APS-C image with a cropping factor of 1.6 (like on a Canon 90D) would be the same as a central crop of a 32*(1.6^2) = 82 megapixel FF image on the same lens. Unless you find a FF camera with 82 megapixels (Canon's FF DSLR's top out at 51 megapixels, for example), you simply won't be able to reproduce the APS-C image by cropping a FF image. In other words, an APS-C image on a 350 mm lens really is "more zoomed in" than any FF image on the same lens could ever be. (Specifically, by 1.6 times if we compared APS-C and FF sensors with the same total pixel count. If a small bird covers 200x200 pixels on a FF sensor, it would cover 320x320 pixels on an APS-C sensor using the same lens, assuming a cropping factor of 1.6 and the same sensor megapixel count.)
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.
The desire for background blur is what normally drive people to buying full frame and more expensive lenses, sometimes without having the necessary money to do it. This is what happened to me, but I ended up almost never shooting portraits. For landscape APS-C is good enough, and I actually prefer because it weights less.
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 😂
It's a fact that full frame sensors is better in low light :) You have to compare sensors from the same day and age! But even old fullframe sensors outperforms new crop sensors, for the most part.
@@bartden9668 I like crop sensors as well 😊 The one in my Fujifilm Xpro3 is amazing.. but it's a fact that in low light fullframe is about 1 stop better. Just physics..
Its upgrades vs downgrades. If I sold all my Fuji gear for an old DSLR full frame it would be a waste of money. Selling all my Fuji gear for a Sony A1 is a game changer. It all comes down to what you want out of a camera. Spent 5 years as a die hard Fuji guy. Tried 1 sony Camara and was embarrassed I thought Fuji was even comparable. Theirs no comparison, it's like owning a really nice Ford Focus and getting into a sports car, they both drive you around and are luxurious. But one is a waaaaaaaay nicer ride. For people starting out I would always say stay cheap, learn the basics and build a massive kit on a cheaper system so that once you've decided what your dream camera is you can sell all that and get what you want. But I would never tell someone to sell their modern fullframe for a modern APSC. It's just not worth it.
Bokeh addict is the novice, and after he has spent mosto of his revenue in ff camera and lenses he come to the conclusion that is pure bullshit. Buy a telephoto for an aps-c and you’ll get all the bokeh you want for 1/3 of the price. And then start stopping it down becouse photos are not organic but only very annoying for your eyes with too much blurriness
One element that gets forgotten a lot with these kind of videos: FF bodies tend to be treated as more professional bodies by camera manufacturers, and therefore are outfitted with more professional features. For example, FF bodies tend to get more buttons/knobs/recall options a bigger screen, higher resolution viewfinder, better weather sealing, more features/tech etc. There are also usually more online resources/users who know what they're doing for you to learn from, and sometimes more lens support as well. There are also wide shots you straight up can't get due to the crop factor. Let's be real. No one is buying a FF body over a crop sensor JUST because of the slight increase in image quality. People with these bodies tend to need the functionality that comes along with the sensor. You don't need to be doing large format prints to reap the benefits of a full frame body, just maybe a knowledgeable enough photographer to benefit from the extra bells and whistles. Of course there's nothing at all wrong with smaller sensors, they're insanely capable these days, but don't forget you're buying way more than just a slightly larger sensor.
there is a precision to be made, because you got a little bit confused here : A lens will always have the same redition of an image, what ever the sensor size is. If you slap the same 35mm lens on a full frame or an APS-C camera, the depth of field, bokeh rendition etc will be the exact same. The angle of view will change. What make people think that depth of field is bigger on APS-C cameras is because we're talking in equivalent focal lenght. Depth of field is related to the focal lengh of a lens. The bigger the focal lenght, the shallower the depth of field is. A 35mm lens at f4 will have considerably bigger depth of field than an 85mm lens at the same f stop (we can't really say the same aperture since the "f" number is tied to the focal lenght as well, that's another subject) So if we're talking about equivalent focal length, let's say 50mm. On a full frame camera you'll use let's say a 50mm f/1.8 lens. On an APS-C camera you'll use a 35mm f/1.8 with an equivalent focal length of 52.5mm. You'll have the same viewing angle, but the actual focal length is different betweent the two cameras, and depth of field being related with focal lenght, the camera with the bigger focal lenght will have the shallower depth of field, thus the saying "you have shallower depth of field on full frame cameras". if you were to put a 50mm lens on an APS-C camera, you'd get the same depth of field as a full frame with the same lens (maybe even shallower thanks to the pixels being smaller, if the resolution is the same) If you got blurrier background with the same lens on both cameras, it's because you try to match the frame, but the full frame camera has a wider angle of view so you need to get closer. And the closer to the lens it is, the smaller the depth of field is, that's how optics work
Shot APSC for years! Back then there was a huge difference between full frame and APSC. I switched to Sony full frame a few years ago and didn’t notice the difference because APSC technology caught up. I then switched back to Fuji and have been happy ever since. Their new XH2s is now on par with full frame cameras for video.
@@gavinjenkins899 I wasn’t speaking from a physical standpoint. I was talking about the gap between the quality of the image between APSC and Full Frame. Back then there was a huge difference that was noticeable and most people even someone brand new getting into photography could see the difference. Now the APSC quality is so good that arguing full frame is so much better is just not true. There are advantages, but the quality is there in APSC
Nice review, just like many, I've used APS-c and full frame cameras. If you try the DP review studio scene comparator, you will find a clear low light ISO advantage on a full frame sensor compared to the same generation sensor on an APS-c camera. If you are a low light photographer, generally, the full frame provides clear advantages. If you shoot in ample light, then an APS c camera provides a far lighter package, as does your phone camera.
I use an olympus omd em1 mk III. Fantastic camera. Granted it doesn't have the low light performance of an ff and to get really good bokeh requires a good prime lens, but the Ibis combined with features like live ND and starry af, means I basically only ever have to lug the body and lens around. Plus the focal length means wildlife photography is easier to afford. It's great! M43 is hugely underrated and if the system should ever disappear in the future (it won't) it basically spells the end of affordable photography. Great video btw, I hate the FF vs aps c vs m43 argument. Every system has a unique advantage.
I agree about the M43 cameras . I have an Olympus EM5 Mii and it's a fantastic travel camera. Rugged, weather resistant, great stabilization, ergonomic with a great lens lineup. I actually prefer it to my Sony a6300 for travel. I should note, however, that I should stills, rarely video when travelling.
This absolutely spot-on. I don't think anyone has explained it better. I was guilty of going full frame when possibly I should have considered aps-c. My only redemption was that I didn't buy a new body, although the glass was new. I was shooting with film previously, then after taking a break I moving to digital. But it's like a drug, you're always searching to gain the satisfaction you feel when you see the end result. Maybe it's just one picture you've taken that day, and it turns out even better than when you reviewed it on your camera.
Something that needs to be considered is size. I got my first 35mm SLR when I was 15 in 1969 but throughout the years I migrated to a 110 camera which used 16mm film and basically looked like a James Bond spy camera. Fact is I have so many photos that never would have been taken if all I had was my SLR because I just wouldn't have been lugging it around in those situations. Even when digital photography began to take over in the late 90's I stayed with the small point and shoot cameras like the Nikon Coolpix line. Of course that genre has been supplanted by the cellphone now but I still hung on with an APSC DSLR because of the portability although it honestly is not so much a difference from a full frame. So in that regard it probably just comes down to cost.
Don't leave out Micro Four Thirds! My Olympus and Lumix cameras are still going strong. You can get good glass for less money (not to mention less bulk and weight) this way, and that's important. If you really need something closer to that full-frame aesthetic, you can adapt glass. I have a Viltrox EF-M2 0.71x speedbooster and a Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 ART lens attached to my Lumix G85. It ends up being equivalent to a 26-50mm f2.4 in full frame. My next lens purchase might either be the Sigma 50-100mm f1.8 (71-142mm f2.4 equivalent) ART or the Olympus 45mm f1.2 (90mm f2.4 equivalent) PRO.
3:15 lens designed specifically for aps-s i also have to apply the crop factor? sorry i new to this, so i got a canon r10 it come with a RF-S 18-45mm. so is that means even it says 18-45mm but i should apply the 1.6 crop factor to it, so it very means 28.8-72mm?????
Yes. A 50mm is ALWAYS a 50mm. It's a physical property of the lens. It's the sensor size that changes the angle of view. It's just. that the image circle of an aps-c lens is smaller (probably cheaper to make) so you can't use it on a FF.
Buy quality Lenses. 💡 Cameras are just tech, like Mobile Phones, always evolving, too regularly. Lenses, Glass quality has longevity. Buy Camera with HIGH Dynamic Range, more important the resolution. Use base ISO.
Usually ff camreas have the superior tech. I don’t know many apsc cameras with dual sd slot, something that can save your a*s many times. A better sensor gives you better opportunities.
@@RameezRazaRiaz99 for me lower mp is a plus I’ve 26x30 prints for people and family and they have been brilliant. Sadly the next sensor for m4/3 is rumored to be either 26 or 30mp. I don’t need it and if it’s good enough for canons full frame top of the line dslr that came out last year it’s plenty for me.
Sure until you do low light situation then cameras cry for help, no natural look if you add in artificial light, No offense FUJI are really good and I've used one the XT3 but decided to ditch it for the EOS R coz Lowlight sucks. But for me as a Videographer that shoots wedding its not the best run&Gun, but for the price though its great.
The jump between APS-C to FF is honestly not that big, better invest to medium format or good fast lenses if light is always your problem. There’s some latest APS-C sensors which is better than FF like XT3/4 vs Sony A7III (sorry sony users)…
The point is that better lenses typically are made for full frame and might not be optimal for APS-C. The camera manufacturers deliberately do not make better lenses for APS-C so that they can sell FF bodies.
Just sold all my full frame gear and completely switched to APSC, the Fuji xt4. I understand the limitations of the apsc sensor but they’re really not as limiting as you think. Having a system specifically designed around APSC like Fuji is the best choice as now I have access to super nice glass that’s specifically designed for apsc and as such is smaller, lighter but still just as premium as full frame glass. It just makes sense to me and it makes no sense that 95% of the newer photographers I meet seem to be aiming towards eventually upgrading to full frame. Apsc is absolutely good enough for professional work and for some photographers, the better choice.
i did the same switch from canon ff to fuji xf 8 years ago and never looked back. enjoy the light weight and performacne of the fuji xf system. none of my clients really noticed the difference. that said i still enjoy shooting 120 on a hasselblad 500 sometimes ;)
u're right I have both the cameras nikon D7200 and nikonD750 but the image quality that they produce using kit lenses r the same n later I bought sigma 50-100 f1.8 for my apsc n 70-200 f2.8 for my full frame but believe me apsc camera with apsc lense can blow ur mind ....I both use for wedding photography but I mostly like nikon D7200 with sigma 50-100 f1.8 the deadliest combo ever with the sharpest images.......
I've been using APS-C since 2002. I now mostly use full frame. I do like that apsc cameras are generally lighter, but full frame just has so many more benefits.
I do not think that buying FF lenses for an APS-C body is great advise. Check out which system gives you the lenses you need and are willing to use (willing because I might need a 600mm F/4 lens sometimes, but I also wouldn't want to take such a bazooka anywhere with me). The weight, size and cost advantage of an APS-C body over a FF body is not huge, especially with mirrorless systems. The advantages are only there when you put an APS-C lens on an APS-C body, and since Cannon, Nikon and Sony do not have a very big APS-C lens lineup, it would be hard for me to recommend an a6600 over an a7C, because of the lack of great lenses. Fuji however offers a fantastic set of APS-C glass, and so if you want to go APS-C, going for Fuji makes sense.
@@JorisHermans There are of course always exceptions to this rule. The APS-C Nikon D500 is still popular with bird photography in combination with a FF 600mm F/4 lens, as the crop makes it effectively a 900mm F/4 with much better quality than you get with a 1.4x teleconverter or cropping the FF image in post. Also, don't forget that less depth of field can be a huge advantage! Especially in landscapes where you need less focus stacking when using APS-C, but in general, you just have less probability of having the subject out of focus (or the nose sharp, but the eyes are already out of focus)
Just moved to an Aps-c Canon Camera, from a Full frame because I wanted a lighter-weight / cheaper set-up and you have answered all the queries I had about the differences - Thank you. Plus, you answered some considerations I hadn't thought about.!! Your style is great and I like your humour. So all I need to do is move slightly further away from the subject - no problem and probably an advantage in not crowding a subject. Keep it up.!
Good video. I have had no issues with APS-C cameras for my shoots. Neither does my client. They love the videos and I am getting better with them everyday. Good video and here's to the upgrade of Full Frame. 😉
You don't have to calculate the crop factor if you begin with an apsc sensor and stick to it. You get used to the field of view of a specific focal distance and you refer to it when you switch lenses. The reference to full frame was relevant when cropped sensors appeared or is when you transition from crop to FF or any other size.
I agree that you can produce amazing images with either APS-C or Full Frame cameras, or even with M4/3 or a smartphone camera, but I also think that (as someone who has shot with many sensor sizes) for the most part having a larger sensor is objectively better if you compare concurrent generations. I would even recommend buying a ten year old full frame camera over a modern APS-C camera if you're not interested in video. I recently purchased a Nikon D800 for just $700 as a backup camera to my Z6, and the pictures it produces are mind blowing. It's 36MP so I can tons of latitude for cropping, I'd only recommend APS-C to someone who wants to shoot video on a budget, or if they like the experience of shooting with Fuji's control system, but in either case the smaller sensor size doesn't provide a benefit to the actual performance of the camera.
There’s also a case to be made for the size/weight advantage. Sure, my XT4 body isn’t that much smaller than an a7iv, but the lenses are half the size/weight. As someone who shoots both for fun where I want to travel light and professionally, having one system that caters for both uses is really damn useful. Granted, if it wasn’t for my Fuji x100v completely changing the way I viewed photography with its manual controls and amazing SOOC images, I’m not sure I’d have ever switched from my full frame setup to say Sony APSC or Nikon or canon etc. Now if Fuji could just fix their damn autofocus for video it would be the perfect system for me.
Ok! I'm not a pro at all, so, I think I should stay with my canon T7i for now, I just bought a canon 100-400 lens for my trip and I wanted a full frame camera because people keep telling me that the camera that I have is not enough for that lens 😅 so I don't know.
I use viltrox speed booster + canon 50mm STM lens. I use it for photography and small video. There's this disadvantage of mirrorless is you can't see your subject when using strobe light or flash in studio. I have to crank up ISO to view my subject to fix focus then again come down to take a snap. You are absolutely right about sensors and the image they give out in specific size. I never go above 18 x 15 inch with M50.
Turn the exposure simulation (Expo.simulation) off from the third submenu of the shooting menu. The Canon EF-M 32 mm f/1.4 is likely sharper than the speedbooster + 50 mm. Sigma has also comparable 30 mm f/1.4.
I've got a Canon 6D and a SL3/250D. I love the 6D full frame camera image quality, color reproduction looks better and it handles high iso like a champ, but I've only been using it for wildlife lately... Maybe I'm lazy, but I love carrying around the tiny sl3 with some pancake lenses for most everything but Wildlife. I know I'm backwards, most seem to like crop frame for wildlife but I'm usually seeing critters early and late and I like to shoot wildlife hand held so I can move around easier. That means it's usually high iso, fast shutter settings and the 6d handles that better than my sl3. Now if I found a crop frame that worked as good at high iso I'd be all in... the 6d with a 50-500 gets pretty heavy. It's not the camera anyways. More people need to learn the craft. I've taught a kids courses and some of those kids took better pictures, with point and shoots after learning a little, than camera club going, money hogs, shooting ABCD5000Mark17's.
Here's my advice for amateur photographers: If you've no ambition to become a professional photographer, then forget about full frame and stay with APS-C. Unless, of course, you're rich. And of course, before buying a lens, always watch reviews. And most importantly: Before buying a full frame lens for your APS-C camera, be sure to watch reviews where that particular lens is tested on an APS-C body! Because often full frame lenses aren't quite sharp enough for the higher pixel density of an APS-C sensor. Especially the more affordable full frame lenses can be a problem. And where do you find such reviews? There are probably several options, but Christopher Frost makes loads of lens reviews, and he always test full frame lenses on both sensor sizes.
Your recommendation regarding FF lenses on an APS-C camera is well taken. I recently purchased the new Sigma 100-400mm DG DN OS FF lens for my lowly A6000. The reviews of this lens were unanimously great, as were the many sample images posted on various photo sites. But when I used it on my A6000, I was less than impressed. I wasn't seeing the sharpness I expected. I like both landscape and surfing photography, and honestly, other than the reach, this lens wasn't performing as well as my 18-135mm lens. I figured it was a bad copy, so I went back to the shop. After a lengthy discussion on whether it was a problem with the camera, I decided to buy the 70-350mm lens, which also got good reviews. The results surprised me. Despite the Sigma being a technically superior lens in virtually every way (the exception being the weather sealing on the Sony), it did not produce as good results. I have tried in every lighting condition, and in various environments, and I cannot get the Sigma to provide as consistently sharp images as the Sony. And I really wanted the Sigma to be the better lens, and I really wanted the extra 50mm reach for surfing photos. Anyway, the results are what they are, and the Sigma is going back, and the Sony has a new home. And the $200 I am saving will go towards an upgrade to a 6500 or 6600 :-)
@@tvm2209 Anyone who wants a relatively affordable mirrorless dslr that takes terrific photos, arguably performs better than any of the A7 lineup below the A7III, shoots 11 fps, has a great EVF, can accept a wide range of lenses, does very good video, is weather sealed, has a built in flash, has IBIS, and all comes in an incredibly small form factor. In other words, pretty much anyone other than a professional photographer.
As an analogue photographer primarily, I'll say one key advantage of full frame bodies is the ability to use (and capture the character of) vintage lenses. Sure, you CAN put a Helios-44 on a APS-C, but you won't get the same bokeh effect. On APS-C, a vintage 20mm will not be a wide-angle at all, it will just be a "bad" lens, inferior to kit 18-55mm in every way. For other use cases, crop factor can be APS-C's greatest advantage. Put a 500mm lens + 2xTC on a APS-C, and you are at 1500mm for free.. For photographing moon, I'd pick my APS-C camera over full frame anyday.
As I understand it - and I am no professional by any means - depending what sensor size gap you're trying to close, you can have the same or similar field of view as well as depth of field* *but* with totally different sharpness fall off, also known as the mystical entity of "3D pop". I visualize - I could be totally off with this, though - the sharp area as a flattened egg sorta shape, laying on its side - with blurry edges. And that's where full frame and smaller sensors are different. On full frame, the "sharpness egg" has less blurry edges, meaning it goes from completely out of focus to completely in focus, keeps the sharpness and then plops off again, hence the 3D pop. On a mft sensor on the other hand, the egg is rather blurry, meaning less 3D pop, since in order for the subject to be entirely in focus, it needs a bigger space that goes from meh bokeh to meh sharpness. It's still a matter of taste and purpose, though. I like both, I actually prefer less 3D pop though, since you can easily get way too used to it and then end up over doing it. It can be pretty unnatural and distracting. * using a focal reducer/speedbooster
You got the wrong idea on crop factor. The 500mm doesn’t give 800mm magnification “physically”. It’s like taking your full frame photo and use photoshop and crop it down taking the middle part (aps-c : FF) of the picture, and you get a lookalike 800mm photo as it appear bigger when zooming in. The quality of the subject or the moon doesn’t improve from the 500mm as that’s you physical lens ability.
7:49 I don’t think that person, who couldn’t pay extra 500-1000$ in FF camera in the beginning will be able to invest in full frame lenses after that. So if you have plans to get system with bigger sensor, I’d suggest to save some cash, wait a little and buy camera you really want. Because switching systems will be more expensive in the end
The "full frame iq is better" argument is about as dead as Windows Vista. It was viable years ago when the difference in dynamic range and low light capability where more noticeable than it is today. Not that aps-c ever was bad. But what really set them apart (and still does today to some extent) is that many ff-housings where more professionally built in terms of button layout, durability and build quality/image quality of lenses. However these differences have become much more minor during the years due to better built aps-c houses, optics and a metric shit ton of better software both in cameras and for editing. All of this naturraly does not apply to fuji since they are the best, greatest and nicest looking camera systems there is with an unlimited amount of "my dad is better than yours-pontential" #fanboys! 😉
I use a Micro 4/3 Panasonic LUMIX GH6. I have no problem with image quality on that. It’s better than the phone. Since I do videos more than I do photos, it’s the best available one right now I could get for the price. Full frame cameras are expensive. I think a really good one for just the body itself costs $3000 minimum. Since these companies refuse to put a lens to work with in the box.
Full frame is definitely better in low light by definition of a larger sensor picking up more light, of course there could be an exception where a certain crop censor camera is better but for the most part I would say that’s a fact, and good low light performance may be very necessary for some people especially on video, and full frame camera also have more powerful processors for more FPS and more gimmicks like eye autofocus etc. But I do agree the price difference can be giant so it may not be worth it for lots of people to get a full frame just to post 1080p quality images on Instagram if that’s all they’re doing.
I have made 36x24 inch prints and 40 inch prints from images captured on a 12 megapixel APS-C sensor. They look great! I used a bicubic fractal plug-in to gradually up-res the pixel count, apply strategic sharpening, anti-aliasing, de-noise, etc… and the images look fantastic! Part of that is being selective in the print process, using high quality, coated water color paper from Hannemuhle and the best ink sets, color profile… etc.
I've printed plenty 60/60cm (approx 23,6/23,6 inches) for exhibitions and clients works from some 24 mpix APS-C cameras, and it always came fine. I've done some portrait work and weddings as well, and as long as I stayed in the capabilities of my cameras it was always sufficient. Before that, I was convinced that Full Frame war far superior, because it was the case in 2009. But now, full frame is just slightly superior, and APS-C and even MFT can produce amazing results in most cases. And during exhibitions, as my prints are big and mostly squares, two frequent questions I had were : "Which film do you use?", and "Is this medium format ?".
@@photographer8486 every micro4/3 and aps-c cameras can produce professional results. Look for a sturdy camera with good af, and wide aperture lenses. You can’t go wrong with fuji xt line, and the new pentax k3iii seems to be great but this brand is behind the others in terms of modern lenses ( but there are plenty of great vintage options).
@@baptistepayendessinphoto I was looking into cameras. I found FF Canon RP is cheaper than Xt3 and also has dual card slots plus a completely rotating display. What do I do now? Also FF Sony A7 m2 is about the same.
@@photographer8486 canon rp is a great camera but fuji xt3 has a far better construction. Lenses for canon r mount are heavier and bigger. FF can achieve thinner depth of field than Apsc, so if you’re looking for great bokeh effects it’s cheaper to go full frame with entry level cameras and some fast primes.
@@baptistepayendessinphoto its so difficult to decide :( I want the smallest lightest value for money camera than I can keep with myself 24x7. I guess FF significantly adds to the size and weight of camera so I will have to restrict myself to APSC. And even get APSC lenses only. Probably a6000 is the only good choice?
I think it depends on your needs. I shoot videos where I work with my hands on fairly small things, and the 1.5 crop is ideal in these conditions. You simply won't have enough magnification on your 24-70 at full frame and you'll still have to either switch to crop mode or use lenses like Sony 90mm macro or Sigma 105mm. But I would say that it won't be enough. Wider field of view makes perspective distortion If you move the camera closer to the object, so you have to leave your camera at one position to get right perspective. So my FF 28-70 on a 1.5 crop sensor is a absolutely outstanding at this situation. I'm still thinking about Sigma 105mm Macro to shoot me working with a really small things on video.
after watching what feels like hundreds of videos on APS-C vs. Full Frame, I decided that there were other reasons to buy one camera over another. Sensor size is only one part of the equation. I bought the Sony a6600 (APS-C) for the unlimited video capability, something the A7III can't do.
@@namjitharavind Not when using a tripod or fast shutter speeds. A fast shutter speed is almost guaranteed in bright daylight. You can use additional lighting indoors which will allow fast shutter speeds.
If ultimate image quality is your goal, then the larger the sensor, the better - quite seriously. It's not a question of the number of megapixels. That's a separate topic. Compare, for example, the image quality - not specifically the detail revealed - between a 20 megapixel full frame camera, and 24 megapixel DX camera. The full frame image is going to be much easier on the eyes, especially when the dynamic range of light is greater. Greater shadow detail, etc. Then compare it to the highest megapixel phone camera of the variety which has a seriously tiny sensor from a few years back.
I use both a Canon EOS 90D (aps-c) and a Canon R6 (full frame). Both give absolutely phenomenal results! Despite being a DSLR with a crop sensor, the 90D is a beast! I mean it has a 32.5 MP sensor, great low light performance and impressive auto-focus tracking. I do landscape photography with that one all the time, while the R6 is meant for portraits and professional gigs. The landscape photos from the 90D are extremely sharp and because of the high amount of MP, they have great dynamic range. I do a lot of focus stacking, HDR, and panoramas for those landscape shots. No one can tell they were shot with an aps-c format sensor.
@@spirg Yep! It's a fantastic camera. I've been using my 90D since 2021 and haven't had a single issue whatsoever. Is it cutting edge like the latest mirrorless cameras? No. That doesn't make it a terrible choice, though. In 2023 photographers could still use it and shouldn't have any problems. Even professionals can use the 90D. Just because it's aps-c format doesn't mean anything. I've done product photography with that camera and not one company has complained. It's more than enough to get the job done.
I like Both full frame and APS-c. They work well for different things. My very favorite lens "for some unknown reason" is my old Canon 10-18mm ultra wide. I LOVE what I can do with it. But on an APS-C I lose 6 or 7 MM on it, and for a WA lens, that is a huge amount. But with my 24-70 on the APS-C, i get additional length, so that's great. I think it's perfect to have Full Frame, and then an APS-C as a backup and for getting those altered MMs....Great video, joris!
I do not get your argument of losing 6-7 mm. Are you comparing to some imaginary 10 mm FF lens? Canon does have 11-24 mm for full frame. It just costs ten times what the 10-18 mm does. Closest to the 10-18 mm on full frame is 16-35 mm f/4. It costs three times as much.
The 10-xx APS-C ultrawide are equivalent to 16-xx mm ultrawide on full frame. Those are the affordable and common ultrawide lenses on full frame. The rare 11-xx mm Ultrawides cost easily twice what a compareable f-stop 15/16-xx mm ultrawide costs. Even the new RF 15-35/2.8 is cheaper than the EF 11-24/4.
I shot some protests with my fuji xt20 using an old 50mm canon fd lens. I had to stand way back but the cropping made for some great semi-close-up shots (jpegs straight from the camera were beautiful). I used to think it was a bad thing but now I realize, along with an Xmount and the fujifilm sims, it DEFINITELY has its place :)
Was a Sony shooter for years, and then sold my A7IV after my girlfriend bought me a Fujifilm x100V for my bday. The colors fuji produce straight outta camera are wonderful! I also noticed very little difference in IQ, Dynamic range, tonality (if any at all). And after using her XT-4, I plan on buying the the X-H2 40 megapixel version in fall.
Pixel size DOES NOT mean 'more efficient light gathering'!!!!! Total sensor area and aperture (amount of total light gathered) is what matters! All other things being equal, a full frame sensor will produce better images in low light. Stop spreading the smartphone reviewer, marketing BS that pixel size matters. Look up Tony and Chelsea's video on it. The moment a reviewer says 'pixel size is larger so expect XYZ' I'm immediately writing them off as ignorant. The information is out there, you can do your research and know the facts and spread the factual information, you just haven't. Thus more misinformation spreads. Come on, man. It's so frustrating.
Full frame is objectively better under every circumstance, except if you need range or small form factor. That being said - It doesn't really matter. If you're new, young or broke. Get APS-C. If you got money, is a professional or rich, get Full Frame. Also, I'd rather have a newer Sony APS-C because of the features than an older Full Frame lacking newer features. I use A7rIV and a6400 profesionally. Both are great. Clients can't tell the difference - but full frame produce better results (more dynamic range, less noise, more depth of field).
Great comment! I've been using ff for past 15 plus years but recently picked up a apsc camera for travel. I'm getting old and as much as I like f1.2 lens, I'm bot carrying those for travel and street
I agree with you. Even accepting than in low light a FF is better, for instance, 1 stop better than a 1.5 cropped sensor of the same generation, when you need depth of field, you must stop down that stop in the FF. For instance, you may take a cropped picture at f/5.6 ISO 800, and at FF you must do it at F/8 ISO1600 for the same shutter speed... The results are the same in quality... This is true in real professional world... In wedding photography, for example. And when you take the budget in account, and you must have a backup camera, that doubles the already doublet budget.
On the flip side, for shallow depth of field pictures you need to stop down a lot less with full frame,in fact you might need a very fast lens for aps-c to achieve the same effect which can be very expensive and large/heavy.
I'm thinking of getting a full frame camera because I thought the most common social media work was gonna be better but this video made me realize that it's not about the body only but the good quality full frame lens you're gonna use! Thanks a lot ! 🙌🏼
Full frame camera is better than APSC, fact. Crop is not bad, these days is brilliant actually, but again, full frame is better. “Full frame is not better than APSC” is a beautiful song for people who do not want to or do not have budget for expensive gear. You can get awesome deals on entry level full frames, like Canon 6D. In the end, give it a try, and decide for yourself. Full frame being better than APSC is not BS!
@@raffkatvideo So a Canon 5D FF Mk 1 with 12MP sensor is better than my APS-C with a 24MP sensor? Never. Full frame being better than APSC is NOT always true! OLDER sensors have other circuitry between the light collectors. Modern APS-C sensors have have the other circuitry in CMOS layers beneath the light collectors. So the light collectors can be the same area even though the APS-C sensor is smaller than FF sensors.
Wise words here on the vid and in the comments. I have a Fuji xt4 and x100v and I spent the last 4-6 weeks going round in circles about buying a Leica Q2 for FULL FRAME (maybe replacing the x100v). Having eventually talked myself out of that I then looked hard at the new x-2H. However, I love the traditional lay out of the xt4 so decided to get better lenses, 33mm f1.4 future-proofed just arrived wit the new 56 1.2 WR on order. I’ll wait for the xt5 next year which might well have a 40 mp sensor. Get the best lenses, chose the system that works best for you, go out and take pictures!
Use the tool that works best for the job at hand. Everything else being equal (like megapixels, lenses), an APS-C camera is going to get you closer to elusive wildlife and birds, while a full frame is going to give you a more impressive landscape or Milky Way shot. Otherwise, a lot of the inherent differences, such as noise and low light performance issues, can be greatly mitigated by firmware and post software.
True on traditional cameras but many modern full frame cameras have very high megapixel counts. Remember it is the pixel density, not the crop factor that matters as one can always crop in post.
@@okaro6595 True, but many APS-C cameras are pretty high megapixel as well, meaning you have the advantage of cropping PLUS the advantage of being (seemingly) closer to begin with. An example, the Canon R5 in APS- C mode gives you about 17 megapixels. Not much more cropping can be done. The R7 is already "cropped" to APS- C size and gives you 32.5 megapixels. Quite a bit more cropping can be done. Also, an APS-C camera, even one with a fair amount of megapixels is going to be way cheaper than a super high megapixel full frame. I generally like having both a full frame and an APS-C in my bag. Another consideration is file size. 45, 50, 60, 80 megapixel files become increasingly more difficult to work on, requiring more computing power and more and bigger hard drives. Maybe not a concern for a professional, but certainly can be for a hobbyist.
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.
I don't agree entirely, but you have good points. I've had several cameras, but most recently swapped my Nikon d750 (FF) for Fuji Xt-3 (APS-c) - mostly because I love the fuji brand and I needed some better video specs. What I will say, is that I'd rather have a top-spec APS-c than a budget FF, but as much as I love my XT-3 (and I do) the stills can't compare to what I got from my D750. It's harder to get wide without distortion, and there seems to be a bit of bittiness to the images that some might like, but I don't - it's a bit more instagram, a bit less commercial - if that makes sense. I'm still not sure what it is and could just be my lack of skill (I'm not a pro, just a serious hobbyist with the occasional paid job). The Xt-3 delivers beautiful images, of course - but not as good as the D750 - that thing made my jaw drop sometimes and I often wonder if I shouldn't try to get a budget used one for stills again. I believe the smartest choice when buying is deciding on the lens-system you want to buy into - and when buying used I'm very pro Nikon as you can buy incredible lenses for very cheap. Secondly, I would look at the features of the camera - flash sync, focus peaking, silent modes, focus stacking - the kinds of things that open up new possibilities for you to create. Here, the fuji is exceptional - amazing 'pro' features for a lower budget. So while I would say my APS-c is a much better camera, the images from my FF were better. But it all depends on your use case. Just remember to budget for lights, they add more to your toolset than a lens or better body. Hope this all makes sense - and I hope I also sound like a nice guy. I really am :)
I also bought a Fuji X-T3 with the intention of selling my D750 (and D810) and Nikon lenses, but as much as I absolutely LOVE my X-T3, both in terms of use and image quality, I couldn’t give up the image quality of my Nikon cameras, so now I kept both systems, the Fuji for travel and general lightness & convenience, and my Nikon cameras for occasions when the image quality for large print (or cropping) is a requirement.
![Is Full Frame Better Than APS-C? Here's The [Annoying] Truth...](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
