Full Frame vs APS-C for Portraits
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 06. 2020
- In this video I see just how much better portraits from a full frame camera (Sony A9) are when you compare them to an APS-C mirrorless camera (Sony A6100). The results were surprising.
Where to buy a Sony A6100: geni.us/MyFavorite
Sigma 56mm for APSC: geni.us/Portrait
Where to buy a Sony A9: amzn.to/3dAlQUr
or on B&H: bhpho.to/2Vn86GF
Sony 85mm for full frame: geni.us/SHARP85
Camera I used to record this video: geni.us/BestAPSC
Lens I used for this video: geni.us/Street
-------------------
Gear That I Use & Recommend:
CAMERAS:
For Photo & Video
▸ Sony A6100 (My Favorite) - geni.us/MyFavorite
▸ Sony A6400 (Better) - geni.us/BetterAPSC
▸ Sony A6600 (Best) - geni.us/BestAPSC
▸ Sony A7C (Full Frame) - geni.us/FullFrameA7C
For Video
▸ Sony ZV-E10 (Good) - geni.us/ZVE-10
▸ Sony FX30 (My Favorite) - geni.us/BeastASPC
APS-C LENSES:
▸ Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 (My Favorite) - geni.us/BestZoom
▸ Sony 11mm F1.8 (Best Ultrawide) - geni.us/BestUltraWide
▸ Sigma 16mm F1.4 (Best Wide Angle) - geni.us/Popular
▸ Sigma 30mm F1.4 (Affordable Street Lens) - geni.us/Street
▸ Sigma 56mm F1.4 (Best Portrait Lens) - geni.us/Portrait
FULL FRAME LENSES:
▸ Sigma 20mm F2 (My Favorite) - geni.us/FFSigma20mm
▸ Rokinon AF 14mm F2.8 (Best Ultrawide) - geni.us/Rokinon
▸ Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 G2 (Best Do-Everything Lens) - geni.us/TamronV2
▸ Sigma 85mm F1.4 ART (AMAZING Portrait Lens) - geni.us/SHARP85
▸ Sony 50mm Macro (The Only Macro I Own) - geni.us/SonyMacro
AUDIO:
▸ Zoom F3 (Love this Recorder) - geni.us/zoomf
▸ Audio-Technica AT875R Mic (What I Use) - geni.us/at875rmic
▸ DJI Mic (Best On-The-Go) - geni.us/djimice
▸ Acoustimac Sound Panels (Must-have) - geni.us/soundpanels
LIGHTING:
▸ SmallRig RC220D (Great Value) - geni.us/rc220dlight
▸ SmallRig RC220B (My Key Light) - geni.us/rc220
▸ Sofirn SP33 V3 (Best Mini Flashlight) - geni.us/bestflashlight
NICE-TO-HAVE ACCESSORIES:
▸ Feiyu Scorp Pro (Big Gimbal) - geni.us/scorppro
▸ Zyihun Crane M2S (Travel Gimbal) - geni.us/cranem2s
▸ Atomos Ninja V (Recording Monitor) - geni.us/ninja5
▸ SanDisk SD Cards - geni.us/sandisksd
▸ Sony ECM-B10 (Camera Mic) - geni.us/ecmb10mic
Complete Gear List:
▸ kit.co/ArthurR
-------------------
Disclosure:
Most of the links above are affiliate links, which means at no extra cost to you, I will make a small commission if you click them and make a qualifying purchase. If you want to buy something else, you can also use this link to Amazon:
🛒 Amazon - geni.us/shoparound
-------------------
Supporting The Channel:
▸ If you wish to support the channel with a donation, you can donate via PayPal here: paypal.me/arthur213
▸ Buy me a coffee here: www.buymeacoffee.com/arthurr
▸ Follow me on Instagram: / arthur213
-------------------
Professional & Sponsorship Inquiries:
For professional and sponsorship inquiries, please email me at arthur2@live.com
As a shooter of both FF and APS-C, i think the difference is drastically less than people make it out to be.
a FF file is way more flexible, especially in low light. FF has a lot more DR to play with.
@@ItsOrestis Unless you can easily financially justify the diminishing returns of a full-frame, I dunno why any hobbyist or amateur would need to worry about getting one though. It's a lot of money to pay for a little less grain and a little more dynamic range that could be dealt with using post processing, especially with companies like Topaz Labs putting out incredible denoisers for less than $100.
@@Kodagraphy i agree that if you are a hobbyist or amateur, aps-c is good enough. Its not always about the noise. With an aps-c camera after 3200 iso the raw file becomes very weak in terms of the flexibility, especially in color. Basically the image starts to "break" if you push it. I have a a6300 myself but i've tried a a73 many times and in my perspective the difference is there, the main one being color munipulation and the flexibility of the file in high ISO.
The only advantage full-frame might have in low light is larger available lenses.
@@Kodagraphy Ive changed from the a6400 to the A7III and its def a difference. Spec the Bokeh, the Lowlight Performance is better, IBIS, the dynamic range.... But at the end its ,,only,, Gear and for the most of the people the difference is wayyy to small to spend way more money on the gear. Do you need it to take good images ? Def no, but i also realy dont ,,need,, my 3500euro stereo system to listen to music. The more the gear costs, the less is the difference (mostly). It is in Hifi, in Camera Gear... I think everyone just should try it out and make their own experiences with their photography style...
This is probably the best comparison I've seen. And your wife is unbelievably good at maintaining a facial expression from shot-to-shot!
Very informative. I appreciate the side by side comparisons and your assessment of strengths. You’ve been very helpful to me in my growth using an a6400. You’ve reinforced, through demonstration, the value and quality of the Sony APS-C sensor. No need for this amateur to go full frame. Your presentations are consistently helpful. Keep up your good work!
Great comparison. A serious photographer with side-by-side images will see differences, but the average person, used to smartphone images, will be quite impressed with the images from either system, especially in reasonably good light. Great to see your son growing happy and healthy!
I've watched dozens of your videos (from 2016 to current) over the past couple of weeks, and wow, they're all fantastic. I highly appreciate the work you put into this! Thank you for your incredible and highly unbiased videos :)
Thank you for doing this video. I have a Fuji X-T4 and I can honestly say I'm happy with my choice for APS-C. Yes, full frame is a hair better, but I'm okay with not paying through my nose and carrying my gear in a suitcase for that difference. If you're doing it professionally and that's what you absolutely need, then that's another conversation of course. But, otherwise at an enthusiast/hobby level, many things like skin tones and whatnot can be adjusted in post. I'm also not a bokeh fiend so I'm alright with what I can get from a cropped sensor - in fact often times I don't even go close to what the camera or lens can provide because I don't need to. I heard a great photographer who goes by the name of Kenneth Hines, Jr. say that a great image always has at least two layers of information in it - foreground, and background. If you blur your background out to oblivion, then you might as well remove it completely because you're not telling a story anymore and 10-15 years down the line, you'll be staring at the photo wondering where you were that day, because you can't tell from the background.
Same here, super happy with my X-T4!
I had the xt4, went with s5 instead. Apsc is bulky enough to be an issue, the added bulk of ff doesnt disturb me until i get to telezoom territory. The primes are 300-400g or so. On the flipside, compression, dof, low light, battery and video in general is better. I miss the continuous af on the xt4, the s5 is unusable in that regard.
I'm on Kenneth's side. Why would you want to destroy the background??
Arthur, you have such a beautiful family. It is a gift that you make to your loved ones to offer them the most beautiful pictures you can.
The most important thing is your point of view, the relationship you build with your subject, your attitude towards him and the way in which the technique goes to the service of creation (and not the opposite).
The biggest thing people miss when performing "equivalence" tests is how ISO factors into the picture. You inadvertently did it in the video. When comparing the Sony full frame and APS-C sensors, you must apply a crop factor of 1.53, but not only to focal length. For true equivalence, you must apply that same crop factor to aperture and ISO. In fact, when you apply it to ISO, you must actually square the crop factor. In other words, to truly have shot an equivalent pair of photos at 8:50, your full frame settings would have had to be: f/2.8, ISO 16000 (yes, I had to round up because there are no settings for f/2.754 and ISO 14981.76 lol). Had you set it that way, you would have seen the same level of noise in both photos. Not surprisingly, if you were to reverse the calculation, you'd find the APS-C camera and lens unable to meet the values needed: f/1.1, ISO 2500.
That is one of the primary differences between the different camera systems. A full frame sensor gets you about 2 stops of light over a micro four thirds, and about 1.3 stops of light over an APS-C. Whether or not you actually need that advantage is completely up to you and your use case.
I just learned something - great comment, thank you!
@@ArthurR glad I could provide some food for thought. Here's another little tidbit: equivalence for aperture is only for depth of field. f/1.8 lets in the same amount of light regardless of sensor size. Why? Because the value of aperture is a ratio of focal length to diameter of the lens opening. Looking at the two lenses used in the same example I described in my first comment, the full frame lens is 85mm with an aperture of f/1.8 and the APS-C lens is 56mm, also with an aperture of f/1.8. This means the diameter of the aperture opening on the full frame lens is 47.2mm and on the Sigma lens, it's 31.1mm. At an aperture setting of f/1.8, both lenses let exactly the same amount of light through. This is also why crop sensor lenses are typically so much smaller than their full frame equivalents. For example, take a look at the Panasonic Leica 200mm f/2.8 vs the Sony 400mm f/2.8. Same equivalent focal length. Same constant max aperture. However, the PL lens is less than half the length and weight of the Sony. Oh, and the PL lens costs 1/4 of the Sony.
So, wait, why would you ever even consider full frame then? Because that larger sensor camera gives you a 2 EV advantage over the micro four thirds. That's not the ONLY difference between the two systems, but for the context of this discussion, it's the only relevant one. As I stated in my first comment, whether that advantage is worth it is completely up to you.
Thanks for this info!
Such a good explanation. Thanks.
LOL at everyone who believes this crackpot ISO theory. Also, the reason you don't see much difference in these JPEG snapshots is because there's so little difference in perspective and lighting between them. With that background distance you might just as well used a 1" sensor.
As an APSC user who has done concerts for years and also a Sony sales rep who shoots Nikon and Fuji I am always out here telling people they’re thinking of this wrong and that FF isn’t the ultimate best for everyone. It surprisingly shocks people to see a crop sensor being used for client work and I’m just like “You clearly haven’t using your camera right” lol
I agree, and they're actually agree 100%.... I have a Fuji XT5 and a Nikon D850 they are similar in terms of megapixels, low light performance. They probably on a par and that is because the D850 sensor now is six years old, but it's still very good. The new sensors in the new crop centre cameras are absolutely mind blowing Lee good for low light performance and It depends on what Lindsey use and how you focus and also making sure that you focus exposure right
@@nevvanclarke9225 like, if it's so dark you're at 12800 ISO or higher, isn't it time for bed anyway? xD
It's not the extreme ISO where the FF systems shine, especially Sony mirrorless, it's the dual native ISO. There's tons more wiggle room in regards to the need for artificial lighting compared to the aps-c. But yeah this is all very contextual and one can get away with a lot when using an aps-c. @@JustSendItAlready
I really liked this video, it is a practical reminder that not everyone needs a full frame to make beautiful photos.I have had the a6000 since it was released, I am just now thinking of upgrading and I was torn between the a7iii and the a6600. Because of the price drop and sometimes sale price of the a6600 it is now what I am leaning towards.
Thanks for the video
What have you decided at the end?
You always find the best things to compare. The things that really matter for us! thanks! Would love a follow-up for comparing FF to APSC for things like macro, landscapes, interior and astro. Portrait was for me an important one though, so very happy with this one!
Nice comparison, Arthur. As a landscape and product photographer curently using the APS-C Fuji X-T3 System, I do get sharp images with good dynamic range. However, as I've recenetly been printing more very large poster prints (30" x 40"), I believe that the larger sensor of a FF system (i.e., Nikon Z7 for example), combined with the higher resolution sensor (45MP v. 26MP), would yield much greater detail and dynamic range in LARGE prints! That said, I also believe that for most any other usage, the APS-C system is sufficient. Thanks!
Excellent comparison. As an advanced amateur who values size/portability, APSC shines with me. Carrying around the family and gear on vacation is cumbersome so a tight/quality package is paramount. I’m very impressed with these crop bodies and prime lens combos.
Comparison should've been done in RAW rather than in JPG to bypass any post-processing. This will facilitate more honest sensor format differences without any difference in JPG processing done by each camera.
If you on that level that who shoots in RAW, you should care less about this comparison.
pretty sure this video is for hobbyist or amateur that plan to start taking picture with real camera and they start wonder if they need to upgrade to full frame or not...
Eventually you have to convert the image. Raw is like showing people your film negatives. It doesn't matter what format you shoot in, what matters is if you got the picture you (or the client) want.
These responses are sadly missing the point.
By comparing in RAW, we can better compare the sensor format differences (hence the video’s title) by eliminating any influences of JPG processing settings in each of the camera. Whether an audience is a hobbyist or will be outputting into JPG is irrelevant.
All in all, when everything else is held equal (both cameras capturing in RAW, equipped with as equivalent lenses as possible in terms of aperture, sharpness, distortion, aberration, etc.), the main difference between Full Frame and APS-C will be negligible. However, Full Frame sensors generally have better dynamic range & ISO performance.
When completing two formats, a key consideration is accounting for ~1.5x crop factor on APS-C lenses to ensure similar end result. For example, 56mm F1.4 lens on APS-C will be equivalent to ~84mm F2.1 lens on Full-Frame.
Raw processing is not the same across cameras, there is some huge difference across camera models, and the difference is artificial in LR, they deliberately make worse cheap and old cameras.
The lesson I learned from this video is that you really have a beautiful family ^_^ .
Thank you for the photo it makes me feel good about my APS-C camera , neglicable differences for enthusiast like me .
I have a couple of a7iii’s and a couple of a6xxx series cameras, and while for most paid work I’d lean towards the full frames, the a6xxx’s definitely have some benefits for me: unlimited recording time (6600 and 6400), extra reach due to crop factor for sports and wildlife, smaller/lighter lenses for landscape hikes, faster/more consistent autofocus, and personally, I like the a6600 feel in the hand better than the a7iii. If the a6600 had a joystick I think I’d use it over the a7iii for everything I do except photographing weddings/events.
I shoot full frame because I needed an ultra wide fast lens. Such as the Tamron 17-28mm F2.8. If APSC ever makes such an equivalence lens that would be nice. Great video. It's not really the sensor that makes the differences, but rather the actual camera or lenses that come with it.
Sony recently released some superwides for APS-C. A 11mm f/1.8, a 10-20mm f/4, and a 15mm f/1.4 G lens
Finally !! A voice of reason !! As a casual shooter/hobbyist I have been finding this push to full frame being made by the industry and many influencers annoying. The reality is that APS-C cameras nowadays produce images which are more than high quality enough for most people's needs and they have advantages over full frame in some circumstances. They are smaller and lighter as a rule when considering equivalent field of views. They, and their lenses, are cheaper. As travel cameras where most shots are taken in good light they are great ! Yes, full frame is better in low light but in many situations using a flash is a perfectly good alternative, sometimes even better than relying on slow shutter speeds, super fast lenses and high ISO e,g, at indoor functions. Of course professionals need to go for the very best gear and it's great that camera companies are producing fantastic bodies and lenses for them. I sometimes feel, though, that they have neglected the consumers who really funded the mirrorless boom through their purchases of APS-C cameras such as the Sony a6xxx series. Sony .... where are the weatherproof zooms and prime G and G master lenses with OSS for your APS-C line ? With Olympus's future doubtful now, consumers looking for a high quality compact, weatherproof, affordable kit for travel are somewhat in the lurch.
@Foto4Max honestly I'm glad he used the Sigma lens to compare. Yes, the kit lenses and some cheap ones are going to look like crap, but his point in this video was to show the small Gap between the two formats. I liked the color better on almost all the full frame versions, but I also think these are raw unedited images. Aside from color/exposure, they both look really good, which makes me feel better about my APS-C decision.
I've just picked up a Sony a 6000 as a casual camera and am quite happy with it. Prefer it to my old D7200. However I will still use full frame (D750) for real estate work because its a cleaner image and I can lift the shadows nicely without blotchiness. For serious landscape work and proper photographic enjoyment I grab my D810. It's unrivalled by any apsc camera and the only camera that came close to my Sigma SD1 (untouchable in the right conditions but too much of a pain). The D7200 always seemed a bit grainy whereas the D810 is more refined with beautiful detail.
I find equivalent full-frame lenses often to be cheaper, smaller, and lighter.
After I read the announcement of the planned sale of Olympus, my EM 5 and all my lenses immediately stopped working.
Let's see what Pentax come up with. I'm still shooting with my K3 and have no intention of of going full frame. Unless you are habitually shooting in low light there is a strong economic argument for staying with apsc.
I needed this comparison video, thank you, you have answered if I should make the jump to full frame or just going with a better Fuji APS-C body
Ok.. you have me again to buy my 3. Sigma for my a6400. No need for a FF to portrait my little family. This is the review I silently looked forward to see. So nice the quality for the price tag. Well done!
Thank you for a great comparison!
Benefits of full frame typically come out in editing. You can usually push, edit and grade photos more before they start degrading. IMHO
One of the most informative videos I have come across!
Good comparison. I kept my 70D when I "up graded" to the 5D MKiii. The 70D with 55-250 will occasionally out perform the 5D with the 70-200. Very surprising. And that is why I don't get rid of old equipment. Great model also, bravo sir...
She’s stunning! Great video, helped a lot!
I have both a Sony A7III and a Sony A6400. I agree that in general, you can get similar results. The main difference to me is the handling and ergonomics. The A6400 is more cumbersome and complicated to get the same results, beyond the best performance in hard conditions and access to wide focal lens. In short, in my case it is more about the experience obtained with each system than the final result.
Which one u wl suggest for the videography? Im confused between a6400 and a7c !
Arthur, the question of upgrading to FF camera or not has being stayed in my mind for a long period. Thanks for making this great video and sharing these important opinions to clear my mind.
Since years I was thinking to switch to FF. Your video underline my decision to stay with aps-c. Since I switch from the heavy D7 to a lighter NX1 I have no pain in the arm; in my country we call this fenómeno Tennis-arm. Lens for FF are much heavier than the ones for aps-c.
You did a great video which show clearly that the price vs performance is on the aps-c side.
LG
Bernd
That Sigma 56mm though!!! Great video dude
Every camera performs better when there is a beautiful object. FACT!
Indeed 😆😆
awwwwwwwwwww
too bad for u she taken lol
Really appreciate all the work you did for this Arthur. It looks to me also that on a cleaner image at lower ISOs, you see a lot more character from the lens - vignetting, contrast, etc. In lower light/ higher ISOs, sensor size wins out.
That sigma is nice! I just got the a6100 and 16-50mm bundle deal from B&H and looking forward to putting it to the test!
Great video! That camera moment towards the end 😂
Don't forget that if you are using a tripod and a static scene low light performance of APS-C is still fantastic because you can set it to ISO 100 and just use a longer shutter speed. I've been doing a lot of this lately with an a6600 and noise just hasn't been an issue.
Is there any place where I can see your photos in low light with aps-c sensor? Like Flickr or Instagram?
When you get the same equivalent Dof , same PP and overall look there is no difference (hard to tell if not in extreme comparison side by side). Maybe the bigger sensor can give a little better 3Dimensional feel but the physics behind is still the same.
Of course you wouldn't see major differences in those areas, but you haven't tried to compare them in the trickiest situations, especially in low light.
A FF camera is fine at going beyond ISO 12,800 in the dark, while ISO 6400 on APS-C is already too much before the image starts to fall apart, and you can barely recover anything from its RAW files.
Also, you simply cannot bring your APS-C camera in the wild and expect it to capture great fast-moving animals like you do with FF cameras. Heck, I haven't even found a single APS-C camera that rivals the focusing capabilities of the A9II or even just the A7III. Not even Sony's APS-C lineup have any.
You can say that those things don't matter to most people, but then you're not really investing your full time into proper pro photography, because if APS-C cameras were really that good, then those pro photographers themselves should be using them instead of FF cameras when taking their best photos at any situation.
You would simply just want to have all the extra details and information that you can recover from your camera as much as possible, and FF cameras simply offer much more than APS-Cs do. There's no problem if you just want professional-like photos and videos but not serious enough in pro photography, but let's not try to invalidate the presence of FF cameras, as they are the entire reason why DSLRs have become the thing of the past now.
If anything, you should actually be thankful, because most of the powerful features of FF cameras will trickle down to APS-C cameras once they have evolved to have something better up their sleeves.
@@troy5568 Actually, a lot of wildlife photographers prefer to use APS-C cameras because of the zoom advantage, particularly for birds and other subjects that are hard to photograph at close range. To achieve the same zoom with full-frame, you have to cart around much larger lenses so it's just not as practical, even before considering the cost advantage.
@@troy5568 90d
Great video! Thank you for explaining in detail. I am a newbie to the Photography world and clips like these help me out when hunting for a camera. How about a MFT vs APS-C comparison?
I'm really tempted towards the Sony A6600 but can't ignore the cutting edge IBIS on the Olympus EM1.3 and their M.Zuiko optics (even though they just sold their imaging section)
Thanks for the comparison Arthur! Just got my A6400 yesterday and still setting it up. It has so many more functions than my old A6000 and I want to use that new sticky tracking AF like a pro! Do you know of any "hack" to circumvent the lack of a 2nd card slot? Lets say, I got asked to shoot a wedding one day. Can you think of a certain "workflow" or maybe using the app to transfer copies to the phone while shooting?
5:05 why do i see a meme template there 😅
Make it happen!
This is what I talked to you through Instagram and I asked you to try the 85mm in the a6XXX to compare the results from the 85mm vs the 56mm in crop sensor. Would you please consider that, Arthur R.?
an actual comparison, not a random set of pictures taken in completely different settings as other youtubers show you. Thanks for the work!
Great video, thank you! I wonder if a6600 would show even better results in comparison to Sony’s FF? Or there would be no difference in picture between a6000 and a6600?
I shoot on the a6400. Love it. Want a full frame so I can have a wider lens with a fast aperture for Astro shooting.
If you want to do any Astro shooting should you avoid an APS-C camera?
@@danielmiddleman8613 I would love fill frame but as far as my shots look. They are pretty nice. I'm shooting at 14mm f1.8 ISO 1600 for 13 sec for pinpoint and 20 sec to print.
APSC isn’t really that far behind, a good lens to go with it can produce amazing images. I’m very happy with what my a6600 and 1655g can do. I do kind of miss my old RX1, but mostly for the handling and more mechanical feel. Thinking about purchasing a X100V to get that feel back 🤔
What a great video. This is the best one I’ve ever seen lately
NAILED IT. Perfectly said and shown.
Just got my sony a6100, greate video! Thinking to upgrade to the sigma 30mm f1.4👌🏻
I think it would be a better comparison if both shots had the same ISO and aperture settings and only vary shutter speed if necessary.
how about the availability of lenses, especially wide lenses, at fullframe they having 12-24mm, is there a lens that is as similar as fullframe ?
because I work in photo architecture, a wide lens is very important for me
Great video with some super examples of the pros and cons of using each format.
I love my Sigma 56mm. It is small and light and just takes fantastic photos.
Thanks for the comparison. You have a beautiful family ❤❤❤
Nice work! Good to see them compared side by side
If I had to choose one len overall for Sony A6400 which one would you choose? New to photography and willing to learn. Might use it for food, portrait and products photography.
And also if I had to choose one overall len for Sony A7iii which one would you choose? Asuming the same I said before.
sony a6400: maybe the sigma 18-50mm f2.8 (I don`t know about the closup quality or minimum focus distance)
sony alpha 7 III: tamron 28-75mm f2.8 gen 2.
I think you already chose your camera after 1 year^^
My mistake was buying an A6000 as my first camera. Now I am doomed to forever view all other cameras as being overpriced! Lots of great features on the newer models but I can't justify the cost to upgrade until Sony gives us a brand new sensor. Hopefully Sony will release a pro-level aps-c within the next year. Thanks for this comparison, I'm still psyched on my A6000!
Well done on buying the A6000. I would not upgrade if I was you. Max i would by the 6100 or 6400 ....thats it. There are great cameras.
I got this as an upgrade years ago and you're right. I'm not willing to upgrade until there is a really major upgrade. APS-C is mora than enough for my needs.
The biggest thing pushing me to full frame is what Sony decides to leave out of its APSC lineup (new sensors, fast card slot, third dial, et cetera). That new 28-200mm lens is actually pretty affordable.
Love your channel. Really appreciate the way you explain things
Excellent comparison. It's so close. Great job. I have an A7ii and a fujifilm xf10 and the newer apsc sensor is actually cleaner than the older full frame
11:40 that part of video is beautiful 😆
Thanks for the video to understand about full frame and APC sensor.
That was actually the worst part, where the camera he was using was on auto instead of manual for her to appear in the shot. Maybe he should of used his Sony camera, since he is pushing it here as that was pathetic. You know cameras on auto adjusting to the light in front of them with that hair color the camera had a hard time adjusting and it was all blown out when she appeared.
Diminishing Returns.
Thanks, that was informative. Great comparison & family!
Very helpful comparion! Thank you! I have decided I want to switch away from Nikon and choice is between Sony A7iii or A6600 and am leaning towards APS-C. Fujifilm X-T4 is a contender too, but the Sony lens ecosystem is much further developed.
I am currently shooting with sony a6400 with Viltrox 85mm f1.8 and it is amazing, after firmware update it became f1.6
Love my a6400, sigma 16, sony 18-105 are my usual pickups...
Enjoying your channel a lot! Thanks!
I’m in the process of upgrading from my trusty A6000. I would be interested in seeing a comparison between the similarly priced A6400 and A7II. Perhaps between the two available kits A6400+18-135/3,5-5,6 and A7II+28-70/3,5-5,6?
Hi, thanks for this important and very informative upload. The unbiased comparison helps a lot indeed.
Even though the results are close, there's just something about full frame images that reminds me of rich mahogany 🥰
Indeed, they look more artistic, whereas the other pictures had something of an ''electronic'' feel
When she kissed the cameras 😂😂
She kissed the APS-C first tho! Makes me appreciate my X-T4 a lot more now!
Starlord Stavanger forreal!! I’m a m50 user 😳
She’s so weird 😯
Jenessa Brooke 🤣🤣
@@StarlordStavanger lol bro don't question your xt4 it is an amazing camera lol the best apsc on the market. And the noise in low light actually looks like film grain which gives it more character in your photos. Not like sony digital grainy stuff. I shoot a silver xt4 myself and its amazing🙏👌🏼
Thank you so much for this. I don’t need spend a lot of money for a full frame. Now i decided to purchase a budget XT2 and a Fujinon 50mm f1.0 for killer portraits.
Hi Arthur!! Love your videos, I never miss a single one. I have a question... I bought a Sigma 30mm 1.4 for my A6400 and I am absolutely loving it. I was thinking about getting the 16mm 1.4 as well, but then I came across the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and I am seriously thinking about selling my 30mm and buying this instead (along with a DC11 adapter, of course). I would really love to see a comparison between these two options (16 and 30mm 1.4 vs 18-35mm 1.8). Would you be interested in making such a video? Thank you so much in advance, I love your work!
The difference with fast glasses is so little, that's why I'm sticking with smaller apsc system. Yet I wish a6xxx had a dual sd. I would be less stressful at commercial shoots. That's why im considering Fuji or even g9 as a next step, cuz Sony putting all efforts in their full frame format.
The MFT system has a lot of cheap and good lenses, don't be deterred by everyone saying it is inferior. If you want portability and god tier IBIS and not breaking the bank, MFT will be good to you. Keep in mind, for best autofocus results, pair panasonic lenses with panasonic bodies and olympus lenses with olympus bodies, but it isn't unusable if you mix and match.
It's the fast glass, where you actually get the major difference. Slap an 85 1.4 on that ff and we're talking a whoole different kinda game. Wide open appertures are what make ff worth while. There's plenty of photographers taht have made a career out of shooting the canon 50 and 85 1.2 wide open.
@@room007 Yeah, because everyone needs razor thin depth of field, so the nose is out of focus on portraits... You'll have to stop down anyway. Bokeh != professional
Honestly, would have been curious to see the Raw images instead of jpeg. Thanks for another informative review.
You're dealing with mostly enthusiast most of them shoot jpeg asides it's kind of becoming a mute point. I've never heard anybody ask me if it's jpeg or raw when it's on a gallery wall..
I love your video, nice comparison, and content. You look tired but you got great family just like me. Awesome.
11:40 epic commercial moment lol, great video as always arthur, and your family is beautiful too :)
Thats a trick haha
In my eyes, the full-frame images looked more artistic and creamy, whereas the cropped sensor pictures had something of an ''electronic'' feel. I feel that in photography this difference is what makes your clients go WOW instead of "pretty good!".
Agree, in comparison is seems like a tiny difference, but final result can be broken by that tiny defect.
I think that clients care more about the quality of the photo in terms of capturing the moment, framing, light and other details that depend on the photographer... and less about details that depend on the camera... a good photo always goes to depend more on who takes it than the camera they use...
@@clagccs Agreed, but when we're talking about two excellent photographers (which is often the case when competing for clients) and making a fair comparison, these small things will have a weight on the client's decision on who their next job will go to.
No. They won't. Only photographers who want to brag about having full frame and commercial clients care about that.
Getting the A6500/A6600 with the IBIS would help equalize the performance in low light light. It will enable you to set you shutter speed lower by at least a stop and use lower iso to achieve the same performance as the higher iso settings of the full frame.
Not sure if I'm right, but isn't there some vignetting on the FF lens? I know it is shallower depth of field, but it seem is quite darker at the corners, especially in the portrait in the woods photos
Great Content! Thanks for doing this!
Good review. Thanks Arthur. If I were trying to profit from my photography I'd go FF. Since I mainly shoot family portraits for free I'm quite happy to stuck with the APS-C. My clients are pleased with the quality.
Same. The extra cost of F.F. is just not worth it for the few hours a week this weekend Dad shooter gets in
best APS-C comparison channel I have ever seen on internet.
If you're new here, definitely check out his previous videos. He has an a6000, a6100, a6400, and a6500 (I think). Oh, and a NEX-3 as of recently haha (Sony's first foray into interchangeable APS-C cameras). As he tests various lenses, he swaps what camera he uses which demonstrates that it doesn't necessarily matter what camera you have if you have a great lens.
He's pretty thorough in details about the hardware and always shows samples (pictures/video).
Thanks a lot for your dedication. Great video!
Man you did the best comparison. Subscribed!
Biggest factor for me is going to be low light performance. I love my A7III. I love my X-Pro3. But I'm more likely to take my A7III for low light situations.
As a user of both systems I can tell you that the actual difference is all about aperture, because in APS-C you have to multiply the aperture by 1.5 to obtain the same result as in FF. So a 56mm F1.4 lens in APS-C is equivalent to a 85mm F2.1 lens in FF. Therefore the difference is that in FF you can go to F1.8 or even F1.4. In this case the difference between F2.1 and F1.8 is not that large but with other lenses it becomes much larger, so you have to think about which lenses you need. For example, kit lens FF is 28-70 mm F3.5-5.6 whereas the APS-C kit lens is 16-50mm F3.5-5.6, which is equivalent to 24-75mm F5.2-8.4 in FF, so you're losing quite a bit of aperture especially in the telephoto range. Same if you compare the outstanding Sony 16-55mm F2.8 APS-C lens with the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 FF lens. The Sony has F4.2 equivalent aperture and it's even more epensive than the tamron (£1069 vs £699 in the UK). Then in high telephoto lenses you don't have any large aperture one in APS-C whereas you have 200mm 2.8 FF lenses. So in the end it's all about the lenses, not the sensor!
good information 👍 thx
Then you realize that you can get the A6400, Sigma 16mm, Sigma 30mm and Sony 50mm f1.8, for about the same as you can get the A7iii and perhaps the kit lens. And then you further realize that the aforementioned combination will cost you less than most decent full frame lenses, at which point it becomes painfully obvious that the marginal improvement in image quality that you gain is only important to those who are pros or have money to waste.
Arthur, please tell me if the petal lens hood is attached to a Sony SEL 18-55 - will it rotate when zoomed?
Hi Arthur, I noticed that the SS on your APSC was 1/100. When I use the Sigma 56, I found that I cannot go passed 1/160-200 SS handheld because when zoomed in I can see the subject is blurred due to no IBIS or OSS. How did you get your images so sharp at that SS?
Both great pics but I give nod to full frame. Colors are much better on the A9 imo
Yeah nah, color is the last thing you should look at, easy fix in post processing, bokeh, sharpness and overall quality should be of importance. Which is just as good on the APSC all in a smaller and cheaper package. Easy win.
But is that due to the lenses?
Amen!! Full-frame has it's place, but it is overrated. Good points, valid points, and I totally agree.
It's not overrated, the advantage comes in editing, the smaller sensor, the less you can improve your photo/video by editing, anyway APS-C is best compromise between quality, cost, weight and size.
Thanks buddy, love your style and personality. Request/Question, could you compare vintage lenses, liek Helios, Minolta on A9 vs APSC like 6400 that you are huge fan boy of ????
I shoot with 7D MK2 and a Sigma 70-200 lens. Night sports is the biggest struggle area with ISO punching 16000 most times. I want to get better at setting for portraits with this set up, but feel like I should upgrade as I want to do more paid work. Have tried A7R4, A7R3, R5, and looking at R6. Thoughts on these models?
learning to use your camera is much better than owning a full frame. 😊 I think that's the key takeaway on this video. thanks Arthur.
Is this why $80,000 cinema grade cameras are used instead of 1000$ consumer 1080p cameras? Oh I see so why the need to 100,000 arri cameras? Wake up fool, the Photo and Video industry has been playing with the consumer market for decades playing these games. 35 mm sensors should be standard for all Photo cameras back 10 years ago. The reason why FF is expensive is because morons think it's expensive. They are kept and merchandised for the Pro market which of course can spend 5000$ on a camera kit every other year. The price of them is artificial because Canon, Nikon and all other companies make the bulk of their money from the Professional market. For video cameras this is even worst, $10,000 is minimum for even entry level document cinema style quality.
Also the lenses market is completely for the Pro's, they are not even marketed to consumers. Consumers were stupid for buying these inferior products, if they told Canon and Nikon to FUCK OFF with this APS-C and Micro shit garbage, all consumer cameras would be 35 mm sized sensors. So we went from 35 mm film cameras back to the shit 110 and APS-C size? LMFAO!
Excellent review. I am using Sony a6600 with 16-55 f/2.8. I love it for it's compactness and better battery. I had Fuji XT-2 and XF 16-55 f/2.8 which I sold long ago. Fuji's auto focus is not as good as Sony also that combination was bulky. Though my a6600 also has some limitations but I never feel tired to carry this combo.
Do you think that Sony may one day come out with an even better low light performing apsc camera on par with full frames?
You need to apply the crop factor to get similar DOF. For an APS-C lens on 1.4 the equivalent aperture on a full frame system would be f/1.4 x 1/1.5 = f/2.1
You can achieve Aps-c photos with 0 grain making longer exposure shots.
Mostly 4 times longer exposure than FF, at least comparing my a6100 vs eos 6D mk II
@@ptrykbr8737 With an a6300 I've measured 1/3 expo. in a f3.5 aperture at ISO100 for perfect result at the worst possible light (matching sight visibility, not in the case of augmenting artificially the light appearance), from there it's only a matter of making the conversions: with an f1.2 I could shoot at 1/25 (ISO100)
I think the bokeh on the full frame look smoother, softer more pleasing.
That's not due to the camera, different lenses produce different bokeh.
@@agoodjoe6910 nope it is because the full frame has more blur cause the apsc is 2.1 equivalent bokeh compared to full frame
And FE 1.8/85 has harsher bokeh than other 85's.
@@shzammpatapon9865 no, he specifically used the word "smooth", I'm well aware of the crop factor considerations. You can have more bokeh which is harsher, so no, I am right.
@@agoodjoe6910 in part you're wrong the full frame plays a big difference, I have the a6400 and a a7iii, I tested both same setup with the sigma 16mm f1.4 compared both on picture and also on video and you can see a big difference!
Great review as always! Do you think sigma 30mm 1.4 is great all round lens for fashion/fitness photos/videos for instagram and youtube. I think 16mm is too wide and 56 is too zoomed, what do you think? Thanks in advance
Yes, the 30mm is great. Thats what i use for my talking head shots in my small youtube room.
Like always! Great video
What a win for the APS C! Amazing! Great comparison vid.
Not a win in everyone's eyes! Lol - full frame defense is strong in the comments.
You'll definitely notice a difference when you edit the raw files. The colors are richer and you can recover the shadows and highlights much easier with a full-frame camera. If you're on a budget just go with the aps-c and get a sharp fast prime lens.
Not so.
@@FlatWaterFilms If you can't tell the difference between a full frame raw file and an aps-c one you need more practice and training.
@@dragonfist25 Not sure how many clicks I did this year? I'm estimating a good 10,000. Not a camera snob, just an artist. It's the content that's important, the story being told, what is being unfolded. The images and music working together. Knowing how to position oneself. The subject matter. I'm self taught and am keeping it that way. Pure expression, all that is good beautiful and real.
"Technology has also reduced the gap between the crop-sensor and full frame cameras, and some of the crop-sensor cameras provide with the quality that is barely short of full frame cameras. Also, in expert hands, a crop sensor camera can produce the same results as a full frame camera. As photographers tend to say, it is all about the glass." www.photography-raw.com/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor/
Can u do a video on the differnce between sony 50mm prime lens and sony 16-50mm kit lens?
Thank you for making this point! Most camera reviewers on CZcams never factor in the price or value for money. Of course a $3k camera is better, but is it good value? They called the A7mk3 an "entry level camera" which is ridiculous. Who is the audience for that review? The E-mount is lacking a really good zoom though, no value 24-70 f/2.8 equivalent lens.