TECHNICAL: Full-frame lenses on APS-C cameras is USUALLY bad
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 07. 2024
- BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL!! northrup.photo 35% coupon BF2019
Millions of photographers use full-frame lenses on their APS-C cameras. For example, they'll get a full-frame 24-70 f/2.8 lens and put it on their Canon 70D, Sony a6000, or Nikon D5600. That's almost always a bad idea, however. First, APS-C cameras use less than half the image produced by full-frame lenses, so you're carrying around a lot of glass that isn't being used. Second, you're also PAYING FOR that glass that you're not using. Finally, you're capturing less than half the detail the lens is producing, so if you use the same lens with a full-frame body, you'll almost always see sharper results.
Of course, being photography, it's not always that simple. If you have to crop anyway, such as when shooting wildlife, APS-C cameras with a higher pixel density will show more detail than the full-frame camera. Even without cropping, you might see sharper results if the APS-C camera has more megapixels, a weaker AA filter, or a deeper depth-of-field.
In this video I test several camera and lens combinations to give you the information you need to make educated buying choices.
I use full frame lenses on my D500 for two reasons: 1) I find the image quality excellent and very similar to using Cropped prime lenses 2) When I upgrade to a full frame in the future there won’t be the further cost of new glass.
That is actually only partially true. Because of this, you have excercise and familiarization with certain field of views (that is 1.5 crop of the focal length). If you switch to full frame, you suddenly use field of views much bigger than before. Now, you have to buy different lenses for matching field of views, if you want to keep your way of shooting. I have seen many people realising this mistake after the switch. For some focal length, however, you may have luck: A 50mm lens is the substitute for a 35mm on a crop. You may already have those two lenses. But a 85mm is no substitute for a 50mm on a crop, there is still a considerable difference in field of view. So, all in all: Buy lenses made for the sensor size, because after the switch, you buy new lenses most probably anyway.
me too. he's lost his faculties on this.
Andreas Buder That’s not a big problem, also a 50 on crop is a 75 so yeah an 85 is a good enough replacement on full frame, you won’t miss those 10mm
2 nd point is valid for me...
I told myself that I'll keep the lenses when I upgrade, too. I'll never be able to afford to upgrade, lol.
When I was starting out buying camera gear and lenses, I had trouble justifying APSC only lenses when I knew in the future I wanted to upgrade to full frame
That's what I was going to say. Especially with so y since no adaptation is needed.
Just starting to watch now; was hoping he covered this. It's a major factor in the upgrade path.
When I had my old D50, I bought full-frame primes and 2 APS-C zooms, with the intention of going full-frame eventually. Worked out pretty well a decade later when I moved to the D750 and then the D850.
I went straight to a sony a7iii then i bought my wife an a6400. Now for shooting wildlife or macro the cropped sensor is superior so it depends what you want to shoot. having both is wonderful though I might be happier with a single riv though i wouldn't have a backup.
@@footsy420 Right there with you, but having a A6400 separately for video work and wildlife/macro and sharing video/photography with your wife is a lot better than be restricted with just 1 camera. Now having the A7IV and a A6400 but better having an A6600 because of the batteries is the winner combo. That being said, there is always a better option which cost probably a lot more money and if u can afford it go for it. I think the A7III and the A6400 is a great value for the results we get which is imo what counts.
So bottom line use the best lens you have and if you're happy with the results it's all good.
It took him 19 minutes to say that? Lol
What happens if you haven't got a lens. Which is the best lens to have? Think that is the real question. Don't want to buy a tons of lenses to determine that. Ye?
@@pow9606 well if you don't have a lens then you only have half of a DSLR right. otherwise think about what you want to shoot and get a lens that works for that. there is no best lens, there is only what works best for you.
"When you put an FX lens on a DX body, you're capturing less than half the detail that that lens is producing."
This is incorrect and misleading. You're comparing images taken with different sensor sizes and inferring that the results are attributable to the lenses. The volume of detail is not a function of the surface area of the lens but of the sensor itself. You don't lose any of the potentiality of the lens by strictly using it's central portion. In fact, as you pointed out, the central portion is typically the sharpest part of any lens.
Ding ding ding ding ding! Gold star Robert. You are absolutely, 100% correct and you said it much better than I did. This video is complete nonsense.
No, you are incorrect.
When you put a FF lens on a crop body, you are indeed throwing away a lot of the detail that the lens produces. That same lens on a FF body will produce a much sharper image than on a crop body.
So if you think you get the same performance of that FF lens on a crop body you are wrong.
BUT crop lenses are usually of the same (or lower) optical quality than FF lenses.
So the FF lens will perform just as good as the crop lenses. So in that regard there is no reason not to use FF lenses on crop cameras.
If not for the fact that usually the FF will be more expensive than the crop lens as it has a larger image circle, which means more glas, which means higher price.
@@marcdevries9027 absolute nonsense. You are not throwing away any detail in the manner you think. The image circle is larger than what the sensor can resolve, yes. But the only part of the image that isn't being resolved is that tiny area around the edges that is larger than the sensor. Your not losing one iota of detail from what is being passed to the sensor within it's field of view. That is just complete nonsense and a total misunderstanding of how camera and lenses actually work. A DX sized sensor can only resolve a DX sized image circle regardless of what size image circle the lens produces. Your not magically loosing photons from within that circle that are adversely affecting the image in any way. Sorry but you are one hundred percent dead wrong.
@@toddrobbins4608 It seems you have completely missed what I have explained. (And I think you misunderstand what Tony is saying as well)
Let me try to explain it in a different way :
Let's assume perfect FF and crop-C sensors that capture every bit of detail that the lens has resolved.
And let's take FF and crop lenses that all have exactly the same optical quality. NOT perfect theoretical lenses, but lenses that have the resolving power of real lenses. And the FF and crop lens have the same optical quality for both lenses.
We'll take a fictional FF zoom lens so that we can use the same lens to compensate for the different field of view with crop. We'll assume the zoom lens is equally sharp across the range. And use the sharpest f-stop.
This way we can shoot equivalent pictures where the lens performs the same in each situation. In real life this is impossible to accomplish, but for understanding the point assume such a zoom exists.
We now have three options: FF sensor + FF lens. APS-C Sensor + FF lens. APS-C Sensor + APS-C lens.
We shoot three equivalent pictures and display them at the same size. e.g. fullsize on your PC monitor.
The results will be as follows:
The pictures from the APS-C sensor + FF lens and APS-C sensor + APS-C lens will be EXACTLY the same. (Which I think is also what you are saying above)
But the picture from the FF sensor + FF lens will be a lot sharper.
In this regard there is no reason why you should not use a FF lens on an APS-C sensor as it produces the same image quality as the APS-C lens on the APS-C sensor.
BUT the situation can change when we consider real life lenses. Especially for wide-angle lenses.
Making a wide-angle lens that has a large image circle is more difficult and uses more glass than a lens with a smaller image circle.
So if I use the same quality glass in a FF and APS-C lens, the FF lens will be more expensive and heavier.
Now the part where I disagree with Tony.
In most situations you don't have equal FF and APS-C lenses. Even with Canons big lens line-up there are only a few situations where you have comparable lenses.
@@marcdevries9027 now go back through, let's assume that all your givens and work arounds and all that if we lived in a theoretical universe and your still dead wrong. What your trying to do here is say that because one image is "higher megapixel" that it's sharper. No, it isn't. It's just a larger image size on the full frame and mp equals length times height. That does not mean that the higher mp image is automatically sharper. At no point we're magical photon stealing Gremlins involved. Very simple test to prove my point. Take a full frame lens, attached to a FF camera. Coat the exterior lens element in Vaseline. Take a test shot. Then take an APS-C lens or a full frame lens, your choice, on an APS-C sensor and shoot that without Vaseline. The lower mp apsc shot will be sharper. The amount of mp does not equate to image sharpness. It's that simple. This perceived mega pixel argument is complete hogwash
I've used full frame lenses on a crop body because I knew I was going to eventually move to full frame and didn't want to have to re-invest in full frame lenses. With the differences being so minimal for a recreational shooter, that was the smartest financial decision for me.
Thank you. This has been the question I was wondering. I plan on upgrading my body eventually.
It would have made more financial sense if you'd just stuck to using your cellphone
@@touristguy87 What are you trying to say?
@@potatofuryy read
@@touristguy87 kinda long-winded way to say "read" but ok ig
"The same FF lens would be better on a FF body than on an APS-C body"
Okay, yeah, but the real question is *"would that same body be better with an APS-C lens instead of a FF lens?"*
If you're going to use an APS-C body either way, then which is better? The constant should be the body, not the lens.
Dude I was thinking the same thing. The whole time I was thinking DUH! Obviously no one needs to be convinced that FF cameras capture more detailed images. People use FF lenses on aspc bodies because as long as you don't mind accounting for the crop factor you probably figure it's just as good as the aspc equivalent, and you have a lens that works on both of your cameras with no other downsides.
@@mikulmusic32 cept the aps-c lenses are cheaper (and often smaller and lighter) , and for good reason: they don't have to match the ruggedness, sharpness or speed of FF lenses
Honestly, I use Sony A mount and only have full frame Minolta lenses. They are cheap (like I got my 50mm 1.4 for 40€ with a flash, film camera which I still use, a second Sigma zoom lens and a few other things) and of superb quality. Yes, the edges don't live up to modern 1000€ lenses, but guess what, I don't use the edges on a crop sensor, so get tack sharp images all the way to the edge of the frame.
Dude is asking the wrong question. Of course FF sensors/bodies are better. They need to be to justify the extra weight.
I agree with everything Tony says about comparing lenses on cameras of different sensor sizes, but as to the title subject of this video, full frame lenses on APS-C cameras, I somewhat disagree. I shoot a Nikon D7100 and have a mix of full frame and APS-C lenses for it. I tended to choose my lenses more for what they cost versus what format they were designed for and found some great values on used full frame lenses. I'm not a pixel peeper but have found very little difference in sharpness between the two lens formats on my camera.
The reasoning behind why I think this issue is overblown is this: glass is glass. All lenses are designed primarily to render a focused image at a certain distance. The size of the sensor at that distance should have nothing to do with the sharpness rendered per unit of sensor area. Now, I can see where APS-C lenses could have some slight advantages in some areas. For example, they may have less errant refraction of light because of the smaller light gathering area needed and lower amount of glass the light must travel through in order to render a smaller image window, but I've found, and believe the data backs me up, that these differences are pretty slight and that full frame lenses will indeed work fine with APS-C cameras. As an example, the Nikkor 35mm 1.8G DX lens has a lower DxOMark sharpness score on the D7100 than any of the 3 Nikkor 35mm full frame prime lenses listed there.
So, my advice is to buy whatever is cost effective for what you want to shoot.
Jeff Berg good point but one thing to mention. Dxomark score of 35mm dx f1.8 lens is not true. They didn’t measure f2.8 and estimated it by averaging sharpness at f1.8 and f5.6, unlike other measures. Lenses tend to get drastically sharper at f2.8, which means the score doesn’t make sense at all. Dxomark “tries” to be accurate and I respect their work but we should be careful not to trust the numbers regardless.
The Nikkor 35mm 1.8G lens costs substantially less than the FF alternatives. If you used a pro DX lens it would make for a better comparison
That 35mm 1.8dx is such an inexpensive and amazing lens. Everyone who owns a Nikon DX camera should own one! I use it with my D500 and it's one of my favourite lenses, and I only paid 120€ for it!
I would buy full lens for my Crop Sensor in preparation to get a full frame camera.
@@3W14 I checked on what you say, and it's true there are no results listed for the 35mm DX lens between f1.8 and f5.6, but comparing the 35mm f1.8 DX lens to the 35mm f1.8 ED lens in those settings where both were tested it looks like the results were almost identical at f5.6 and f8 while the DX lens looks sharper at f1.8 and the ED lens looks sharper at f11. Would testing the DX lens between f1.8 and f5.6 have changed the overall score? Possibly, but I saw nothing there to indicate that the DX lens is going to be automatically sharper on an APS-C camera and stand by my original assertion. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancies though.
The difference your showing is to do with focal length not crop factor.
The fact is there is no difference.
The part of the image circle that hits the cropped sensor is exactly the same part of the image circle that hits the part of the full frame sensor that correlates to the cropped sensor.
It just has the extra bit of sensor that gets the extra part of the image circle.
Your comparison is valid only in the sense of achieving the same composition, but that is a different thing.
One would need to use a prime lens and then compare the same sensor area (the central part of the full frame v the cropped sensor) and then it's more really comparing the fidelity of the individual sensor.
The guy on the video uses vague arguments and asumptions, a more scientific approach please.
That isn't how you use lenses. People don't deliberately crop their FF framing to match APSC when they shoot. You would pick a 55mm in APSC and then 85mm in FF to get the same field of view when you shoot. Tony is right to say that using FF lenses on APSC bodies will generally be more expensive, heavier and deliver less sharpness than using APSC specific lenses.
Technically if you compared the same image circle of the lens of course it will perform identically. But then it's like buying a 50 MP camera then measures the image sharpness after cropping to APSC format - that's deliberately putting FF at a disadvantage.
Your´re right. This experiment doesn´t make any sense. To compare the image quality of both lenses, he should have compared a full frame lens with an APSC lens on the same APSC camera. If you modify all the variables of the experiment, in the end there is no way to identify what influences the results. This experiment is very poorly planned.
@huepix ^ this is exactly why this video is skewed, nobody seems to understand this lol
Shoot at the same focal length but magnify the image. You're shooting at two different focal lengths of the lens so this isn't a good comparison. A zoom might be sharper at one focal length vs another. Use a prime.
John Williams he talks about this 1/3 of the way into the video.
The 2 other things he suggested, adjust the distance and adjust the F/n, will end up with the same apple orange problem. The lens should be kept exactly the same for the 2 shots, the comparison then made between 2 equally physically cropped areas. Of course provided the pixel counts are not too different.
@@robph8421 I suggested this also. D850 Vs D500/D7500 would be the ideal comparison because their pixel densities are almost identical
David Ellinsworth I always like Tony’s posts except wherever he brings up issues that concern crop vs full frame, where I think he’s off both theoretically & practically.
@@robph8421 As odd as it may seem, I think for practical information on this subject we should compare prime lenses of focal lengths that are relatively shorter than the crop format lens, by approximately the crop factor amount. So we should for example compare a FF 35 mm prime (on a mount adapter) vs an APS-C 55 mm.
man all this pixel peeping when most of people's work end up posted on instagram where all these minute differences make 0 difference lol.
All my lenses are full frame "pro grade" and I used them on my Lumix GH5 and even my G85 with no problems and no complaints from actual clients. It looks great and best of all they will look great on my full frame Lumix S1R and which ever other camera body I use. Marry the lens, date the camera body.
Mary the lens date the camera. Too right!
whenever I receive a notification from this channel, I prepare myself for a discussion and explanation on the words 'sharpness', 'sharper', and 'not as sharp'.
I don’t see what’s the big issue. There’s a reason why Nikon does not produce many DX lenses. IMO you can use FX lenses with no issues. 🤷🏻♂️
I don't think there is a big issue either. Nikon has been run into the ground on the other hand.
Chosen Idea that’s because they didn’t get into the Mirrorless game for a while. Before that they were fine
@@TCGhits yes, that was their first mistake.
Nikon has been going downhill for a long time. Producing new lenses costs money which they lack. The best Nikon pro aps-c standard zoom is still the 17-55 2.8 which is quiet bad by current standards. Even 10 years ago you had to buy a FF lens for your pro Nikon aps-c camera.
Yanis, that is not just your opinion. That is an absolute, empirical, proven fact. This video is complete nonsense.
I'm so glad you addressed the issue about shooting wildlife. This should be a video all on it's own so us bird photographers don't spend extra money. I shoot mostly small birds and used crop sensors for years. I recently upgraded because of all the hype and feeling like I'm missing out by not shooting full frame. What a disappointment the first few days shooting in good light and comparing heavy cropped images against my crop sensor. I was expecting incredible detail from my new A7III camera. Unfortunately they were equal or worse than my crop sensor images. Of course features, focusing, and low light are amazing but I couldn't understand where's the detail?? Now I understand! Wish I watched the whole video when it first came out.
Did you factor in the megapixel comparison of the crop vs. FF? The crop should look better if it has more MP on the subject. A large MP full frame camera should show an image improvement if it has more MPs on the subject.
As usual you are discounting a major factor. The fact you're blowing up the apsc twice as much as the full frame certainly is affecting the visible sharpness. Also as you point out zoom lenses aren't always as Sharp at all focal lengths could be a factor. If you wanted to test accurately you'd take both at the same focal length, then crop the FF down to 1.5 crop, and compare.
Oh wow that's so interesting.
Blowing up the apsc image? Both use 24mp i don't think tony blow up any image... Yes different focal length in zoom can give you a slightly sharper image and usually it is sharper in the wider end of the zoom lens and it means the crop body should have sharper image... Yet the test result speak differently... If you use same focal length and do the crop then you will blow up the FF image since it will be 16mp ff vs 24mp apsc...
Josh Sporre agreed
@@alphaxfang honestly I don't understand how you don't get that viewing an image from two sized sensors at the same size causes a discrepancy.
Well, yeah, that's why the FF is sharper, because APS-C is more magnified. But in the wildlife section I showed APS-C is sharper if you have to crop. We totally agree with each other.
Thank you. I shoot 10 mp Canon 40D with 300mm crop lens for wildlife. I often need to crop. I was worried about that with the low megapixels of the camera to start with, but now I know if I an conservative on cropping it will most likely do little to no harm.
Wow.. I didn't know perceptual megapixels existed. I just thought the image was projected from the lens to the sensor.
haha...you're right..no such thing as perceptual megapixels..it just sounds good to Tony
You know what he means -- you're just trolling him now. PMpix is simply equal to the result you would get in a perfect scenario with a sensor with that many Mpix. With a perfect lens, PMpix = Mpix.
@@MrYankee853 Of course PMpix exists. With a perfect lens, the f stop and t stop are equal, and with that perfect lens PMpix = Mpix. In all other cases, PMpix < Mpix. Simple.
With sigma's contemporary trio, 16mm f1.4, 30mm f1.4, and 56mm, the Sony aps c cameras are the best option for people with low budget. They produce professional quality results and are affordable. Fujifilm's equivalent lenses are probably slightly better but cost twice as much.
Canon and Nikon can't compete YET.
So many CZcamsrs seem to ignore those lenses for some reason.
Great video as always Tony. To give you a quick run down on my own experience, I used to have a Canon 70D and my go to lens was the Sigma 18-35mm. Yes it couldn't focus through the viewfinder. But, if I shot it using live view, it perfectly grabbed focus virtually everytime. The only reason why I don't have that combination anymore is that I recently upgraded to a Nikon D850 with Tamron glass (70-200 and 15-30 G2's). I definitely wanted the larger MPs for wildlife and the 20MP 70D wasn't really cutting it anymore. If I hadn't had to sell all my APS-C gear to help fund the D850, I would still have them and would have been very happy with that combination.
I have nothing against you Tony, but there is so much wrong in this video, I can't believe for a second that you don't realize it. You could've cropped the FF image to match the crop sensor, because this is exactly how a crop sensor works.
Use the same lens, same distance, same aperture, and same focal length if you're using a zoom, then you can actually say that you are comparing the results objectively.
I'm sure you know this already, which makes me think that you used zooming (or suggested changing the distance) just so you can prove your point. Using your method to test _will_ produce skewed results which makes your conclusions inaccurate and misleading.
So in a real-life scenario you'd crop the FF image instead of zooming to fill the frame?
@@MrJed_s this has nothing to do with real life scenario. This is a test of lens performance on different sensor sizes. lenses don't perform the same when you change zoom, aperture or even focus.
Albeit this is irrelevant to this discussion, but you asked: yes, I would crop instead of zooming if that would give me a better picture.
@@HussainAlkumaish what I'm getting at is that in real life, the composition of the photo isn't dictated by the sensor size. So Tony's experiment reflects what any normal photographer would do, standing in the same spot, wanting the same composition with either a fx or dx body in hand.
It is only natural that you don't get the same _result_ from different-sized sensors when using the same lens, but that doesn't make the lens any less or more sharp.
The image will still look as sharp on FF when you're using the same focal length, in fact it might look even less sharp on FF than on crop because zoom lenses are usually less sharp as go further away from the center.
If you still can't see how inaccurate and misleading the video was: Think of primes, it is simpler. No zoom, is it still not as sharp on a crop sensor?
@@MrJed_s this isn't about real life. It's a scientific test of how a lens performs on different sensors. In other words, to be scientific there can only be ONE variable when comparing, I.e. the sensor. You CANNOT change sensor AND focal length then make your mind up for yourself which variable is responsible for your observation.
I agree with theoretical base, but in practice I would say it all depends on the particular lens. Sometimes they're (FF vs APS-C) equal, sometimes any part wins.
I use my 50mm F1.8 on my apsc and its GREAT
Another point to consider here is the fit of focal length ranges with sensor size. I bought an EF 24-105 f/4L for my APS-C Canon as an upgrade to the EF-S 18-55 kit lens, and a stepping stone towards my then ambition to eventually go FF. Yes it was a "better" lens, but I was constantly frustrated by the lack of a wide enough angle. 24mm on a crop body is not very wide at all, & having that 18mm had made a lot of difference. I eventually bought the EF-S 17-55 f2.8. It was a big improvement on the 18-55 kit lens, and had a far more useful range than the 24-105.
Great discussion, Tony. Some good comments, too. In practice I find that shooting technique is at least as important as technical lens sharpness in attaining sharp photos. By carefully limiting the effects of camera shake (by using high shutter speeds and/or a sturdy tripod) and focusing carefully, I get excellent sharpness from my Nikon 7100 with 18-140 kit lens. (Of course, I almost never print larger than 11 by 14.)
I'm a photography geek so I get this but objectively, the situation is absurdly complex especially for consumer products.
This argument fails when you shoot two images in two different focal lengths. Changing the focal length changes the optical property of the lens, that should not be difficult to understand.
That means, it isn't the same lens anymore. The more accurate comparison could be cropping the FF image to match the APSC image.
The optical property of the lens does not change based on the camera body, it is the sensor itself that is responsible for different sharpness. It is a very well known fact that crop bodies have cramped photo-diodes compared to full frames. Then comes the processing capability of the processor, this can also make a huge difference. In digital photography everything falls into signal processing, the more capable the sensor and processor are, the better images they can produce.
Summary: the image quality differs due to the sensor and processor, not because of the lens.
For me, the experiment shown in this video doesn´t make any sense. In my opinion, to compare the image quality of both lenses, he should have compared a full frame lens with an APSC lens on the same APS-C camera. In this way you can compare if there are quality differences in the same sensor. If you modify all the variables of the experiment, in the end there is no way to identify what influences the results. This experiment is very poorly planned.
Wow so tony doesn’t know that 16-35 is least sharp at 35mm?? Did he rent the lens!!
This was fantastic and answered many questions as I struggle to pick from a A7rii vs a6500.
I’m pretty sure the pixel distance also plays a role in this. The smaller aps-c sensors usually have the pixels closer together, I think like 4nm apart, similar to the 61mp A7r iv, which ties in to the other concepts you mentioned.
You have to take pixel pitch and total pixel count into account, to determine the pixel edge spacing, and you can always take that out of the equation (as you should) when comparing subfames to full-frames with the same lens. otherwise you run into the generic problem of putting an average subframe behind the lens, taking shots, then putting a good fullframe (with better AF and IP) behind the lens, taking similar shots, and comparing the results, and then generalizing about putting FF cameras behind FF lenses instead of subframes behind FF lenses. The point is that what may be true for a particular combination of lenses and bodies is not therefore inherently true for all combinations of lenses and bodies.
Well, the only full frame lens I use regularly with an APS-C body is the EF 35mm f2 IS USM. I’ve been perfectly satisfied with the results this combo produces, kinda like having an image stabilised nifty fifty. I tried the 30mm f1.4 from Sigma, and while I was able to take some pretty good images, I too have been struggling with the AF, it would just not focus more than half of the time.
Advice for aps-c lenses owners to try on full frame : if you like square pictures , try them by unchecking the crop mode when aps-c lens is detected (in the menu). On several lenses the heavy vignetting will be cut out anyway in post . It is certainly the case with the DX version of the Nikon 35 f1.8 that can be found cheap when used; in my case on a D610 , also cheap used.
So using speed booster will make ff lens on apsc body better than using ff lens straight forward?
smaller sensors do not affect aperture/DOF. "stepping back" to "match the composition" affects DOF. taking photos on the same spot with a 50 1.8 will have the same dof/bokeh as a m43's/apsc/fullframe/medium format with a 50 1.8 taken on the same spot.
Nobody’s disputing that
Lol what!? You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Sensor size absolutely matters, you just have to take a lot more steps to counter it, Tony already did a video a while ago called like "Does full frame matter" or something. There's a reason my phone, having a 135mm F2.2 telephoto, doesn't get any Bokeh in shots. Put a 135mm 2.2 lens on an APS-C and that changes drastically.
Mc GetRekt I don’t know what phone you have, but I’m 99% sure it’s not a true 135mm, just the equivelant to a 135, which is a lot different. The iPhone ‘28mm equivelant’ main camera is actually a 4mm lens or something, and that’s one of the reasons it produces no natural bokeh, it’s just a huge crop of a 4mm 1.8 lens, replicating the look of a 28mm f13 on ff.
Tony has addressed this many times, but Bruno is also totally correct here, a 50mm lens will produce the same DoF on any sensor, it’s just smaller sensors crop into the image more, making it look more like a longer lens, and when you compare that against the equivalent longer lens with the same aperture on a ff camera, the original lens has less dof than the longer one you have to compare to.
They’re both right, and no reason to get emotional over it.
@@WilliamJohnston The Huawei P30 Pro. It is a true 135mm. It's a 70-135mm F/2.2 8mp sensor, and main sensor is a 40mp 34mm F/1.6 sensor.
Mc GetRekt I’m sorry that you think that, but you’re just wrong - the p30 pro has a 1/1.17” sensor with a crop factor of 4.6x... so your ‘135mm f2.2’ is actually a 29mm f2.2 which behaves more like a 135mm f10, even though it has the brightness of f2.2. So the reason there’s no background blur is it’s a 4.6x crop of a 29mm f2.2.
Look it up, sorry to sound rude but you’re just wrong. If it was a 135 f2, on your 4.6x crop sensor phone camera it would behave like a 620mm lens...
If I take my full frame sensor out of my camera and with a knife cut it down to a APS-C and put it in the camera again.
Did a FX lens suddenly get worser than a DX lens??
very nice analogy !
Dan Ausec 😊👍
Hi Tony, is the loss of sharpness by putting a FF lens on a crop body caused by the increased pixel density? If you cropped the centre portion out of an image taken with the a7r4 and compared it with an image taken by a crop camera (eg a6600) and used the same lens, would you expect very similar results due to similar pixel density? The AA filter may make a difference but that difference aside, would you think the results would be the same?
These vids rock and I appreciate your approach with real world interest. Would you please consider tests like this using color and focus charts hung on the wall? I know it sounds contradictory but really like scrutinizing objects along with those charts during zoom ins and crops. Thanks for considering.
When my budget Nikon gear "disappeared” I got to pick a system from a blank slate. I decided APS-C was good enough for my "enthusiast" use. I also decided I wanted to be able to choose good lenses designed for crop sensors. This led me to Fujifilm. It has worked for me.
Wendell, I agree completely. Some of us are happy with APS-C quality so APS-C lenses make sense. I am 67 years old and have no intention of ever going to a FF camera. (If I want to shoot FF, I'll use my Canon 35mm film cameral). Right now, I love the Fuji line but my budget says used Canon 60D/70D is what I can afford right now.
@@jamesdarnell8568 ...no, seriously, you won't shoot your 35mm film-camera. Because there is a long list of good reasons why you shoot APS-C instead of that camera.
Tony again you're wrong!!! I'm a professional photographer and I use full frame lens on a D500 in all sorts of conditions and no problem. In fact during the old days of a D1x and D2x we could only use older large Nikon lens from Nikon film cameras . I've gotten many front covers for WSJ, Washington Post, Boston Globe, CNN etc. My photo editor at AP had no problem and the picture editor is like god. So your wrong bro sorry.
exactly..thats why wildlife photographers like Steve Perry do the same thing..dont know why Tony puts some of this stuff out there
He never said you can’t get professionally sharp images with dx/dc combos, only that in some scenarios, using fx lenses in dx bodies can be bigger, heavier, more expensive and less sharp than an equivalent lens designed for apsc... which he admitted isn’t always possible, and he addressed wildlife separately where dx has some advantage unless using a 60+mp ff sensor.
Watch the whole video next time before jumping to wrong conclusions!
I'm sure he also is a professional photographer, but he made experiments and investigation, so why do you think you know more? To start with, he says it is less sharp than in full frame bodies, not that they are not sharp at all
It comes down to what aperture you are using, as I have seen in several reviews. You have to use a higher aperture, which for me, as someone who never shoots without the sun shining and shoots landscapes, would never be a problem. Yes, there are issues which might come up when it comes to using my Sony FF lenses on a Sony a6400. I can deal with that if I have to in post-processing. But, I would prefer to have a couple APS-C lenses and probably will purchase them for cityscape and landscape, but, never a kit lens since they seem to be horrible. Thanks for this video, which answered many questions.
I'd really like to know your opinion of the new Sony 70-350 mm zoom which you referenced. I am thinking seriously of getting one to use with my A6500.
Thanks!
The problem must be the sensor. That's the only logical explanation. The output of a lens does not change, no matter what camera.
Yes, the issue is the sensor. One is twice the size as the other and thus captures twice as much information.
@@marcdevries9027 Bigger pixels matter. A 10MP Full frame sensor would be better than a 24mp full frame sensor in low light, due to lower pixel density. The bigger each pixel, the better it's ability to capture more light, having more pixels at a smaller size, gives you less overall light.
@@marcdevries9027 I would jump in but I have seen your previous comments, and know better than to engage someone who does not understand there is no such thing as 'capturing half the detail the lens can capture'......
Senor Tony, I have been waiting for your Review of the Canon 90D, but the camera has been out for months now, and have yet to see any mention of the 90D after you posted the Camera's announcement.
The 90D with it's High Megapixel Sensor is having the same issues as the 5DS, where users are having to use Higher Shutter Speeds, and Lenses with Higher Resolving Power, to keep from getting soft pictures.
When I saw the title for this video, I thought it would be a completely updated video from the original, and mention the 90D as the exception to the rule for FF Lenses on APS-C Bodies, but a lot all of the information is the same as the original video.
The addition of more up to date camera models, and sample pictures to show the differences was great.
Michael the Mavin, has been on the forefront with information on the 90D, and even recommends your book SDP in one of his first videos of the 90D. Michael has been doing a great job, but with you being one of the first CZcams'ers I followed when getting back in photography many years back, I love and respect your extremely analytical approach and am still waiting to see your Hands on Review of the 90D, and would Love to see you address and test the 90D issues with the Resolving power of lenses.
I was in a wedding where the second photographer was using a Canon 5Dmk4 with a Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 (for crop sensor), and she didn't understand why the corners were so dark when at wider focal lengths; she said they came out fine when corrected in Lightroom. I get so frustrated at these kinds of people. If you are going to claim to be a professional, at least know the tools of the trade. You don't have to be an expert, but at least know the basics.
LOL!
I use the Samyang AF 35mm and the Sony 85mm 1.8 Fullframe Lenses on my 6400 and i`m realy impressed / satisfied from the sharpness and overall look, spec. for my photography style and use, theyre realy great. And i think after i compared it to my pictures with my previous apsc lenses, theyre a little bit better than (for exmple) my previous Sigma 60mm 2.8 APSC lense. I think its not a bad idea & money saver to buy and use FF lenses spec when you want to ,,upgrade,, someday to a Sony fullframe system. when you stay in the apsc sector i agree to buy apsc lenses and save money for the next photo travel ;- ) - at the end i`m happy with my 2x FF lenses that i bought a few months ago
Each and every Christopher Frost video corroborates this as well.
Mark Pitsilos I was thinking exactly the same 👍
except that he doesnt compare a lens at 2.8 on apsc with a lens at f4 on full frame. seems tony did that here because of his non sense "fstop equivalence"
well, not exactly, because 20MP FF and 20MP Crop sensor have very different pixel density, you would need to compare a 46MP FF to get a 20MP Crop sensor equivalent as far as pixel density goes... you would probably get the same results if you did it that way
Yes, especially the chromatic aberration test
@@marianksiazek7115 He, i.e. Chris, essentially does this (at least to the extent it's feasible) by comparing lenses mounted to Sony FF cameras using their 42MP sensor vs. Sony APS-C cameras using their 24MP sensor. Not quite the perfect ratio, but close enough to make the point.
I love the one I am with: a6400 with 100-400mm gm for birds and other wildlife.
it seems to me that half the wildlife photo world use full frame lenses on crop sensor to achieve greater "effective" focal length. I doubt they would do this if they were producing inferior images.
Thanks, Tony! I agree with most of what you say. As an older person, I value light weight more than younger photographers might. For me, the lightest weight with high image quality comes from an APS-C body with IBIS and unstabilized primes. For equal sensor technology, each pixel on an APSC sensor captures half as many light quanta as a pixel on a full-frame sensor. So, to get the same noise, you need half the shutter speed on an APSC camera. This makes IBIS all that much more important in low light. So, sorry Fuji.
B&H has promised me delivery of an A6600 on Monday, to replace my trusty A6500. This, and a collection of really nice primes, is my fun setup when I don’t need full frame. I do use the wonderful Zeiss ff 135 f/2.8 also as an ultra sharp tele on my APS-C setup.
A6600 is not that much lighter than A7III. You hardly saving any weight at all. Good lenses on APSC is equally heavy compared to full-frame, in fact losing a 3rd stop of light. If you try to match functionality (which I doubt you can), FF system is only 100gms heavier than a comparable APSC system.
@@malaybasu961 , I'm sorry, but I just don't agree and my arms and wrists certainly don't. I am talking about total system weight, not just the weight of the body. I made it clear in my third sentence that I was speaking about my experiences as being an older person. I mostly do wildlife and landscape photography where I need full frame usually and where I can compensate for my weaknesses with a tripod. For simple travel photography, for scouting, and for family and social events I want something lighter. I hate to compare the two, but getting down on the floor or on a low seat amongst a crowd of young children and recording a few moments of their lives is very much like bird photography. You have only minimal control over the lighting or composition. A typical child's expression and behavior can change repeatedly and dramatically in seconds. You have to blend in as a non-threatening and uninteresting part of their play space. Once they start staring at you cautiously, you are no longer recording their natural behavior.
Anyway, I am running on. Lens weight varies enormously with several factors. Compare the weight of the Sony fe 2.8/24-70 GM, the Zeiss Distagon FE 1.4/35, and the Zeiss Sonnar 1.8/24 APS-C. Given what I had on hand, these were the choices. Had Sony released the A6600 in time, I would have used it with the third option. Instead, I decided to take my A9 with the GM zoom. Since I hadn't used that combination in a while, I practiced for a few minutes. That was more than enough to convince me to go instead with the A9 and the middle option, the Zeiss 35. I also took the Zeiss Apo Sonnar 2.8/135 for distance shots. Note that only the GM zoom is image-stabilized so I was relying on the camera's IBIS.
Again, Malay Basu, we can both be right for our particular needs and situations.
I'm using A7r4 with the 70-350 apsc lens for wildlife while traveling. What do you think?
Is he still messing up crop factor?
please check out sdp.io/crop and tell me specifically what i'm messing up.
I can confirm for the sigma 1.8 zooms. I own both. The 18-35 has pretty random missed focus and the 50-100 is almost unusable due to missing focus constantly. Should have gone full frame :(
I have these lenses also and my workaround has been just shooting in live view. It's kind of a pain, but in live view I have not had the same issues with the lenses missing focus.
@@Lokix182 I actually hadn't tried live view since it's usually not very good. I'm gonna give it a try, thanks ! :)
Yeah, I got the Sigma 18-35 for my D500, and was devastated to see so many of my images be completely back focused. Even after I got it calibrated, the outer AF fields are unusable. Really disappointing considering the main reason I got the D500 was because it's AF points covered more of the frame than Nikon's FX cameras. Still salty that practically *none* of the camera reviewing channels realised that this was an issue. I'm probably gonna sell the lens, though I am curious to see how it would perform on a Z mount camera with the F to Z adapter.
Outstanding summary of the mixed use of APS-C and Full-frame cameras and lenses. I commend you on addressing complicated topics such as this video that have value for many of us amateurs. I do have a question that may already be answered in your video but I not sure: If you use the A7RIV in crop mode with the FE 100-400 GM and you then take the same photo in full-frame mode with the same lens and later crop the image to match the pixel dimensions of the crop mode image, will the quality of the image be the same? I ask this question because it is much easier to locate a flying bird or airplane when I am not in crop mode.
I use a Canon 90d with a Canon 70-300 L lens for wildlife photography, mostly birds. This camera/lens combo works out really well for me, especially when cropping images in Lightroom (Tony talked about using full-frame on APC-C for wildlife in his last video-it is an exception to the rule). I use a medium EF-S zoom (18-135) for general purpose photography. The lens delivers sharp images, but because of heavy marketing and CZcams blabber, I was close to replacing it with a Canon 70-105 L lens. Thanks, Tony, you just saved me $1,000+ bucks.
There's definitely some exceptions to this. My personal experience has been, if you're shooting with cheaper lenses, kit lenses or even something more expensive, but still aps-c, and then switch to a pro-level lens, the results can be significantly better. My example here is going from a tamron 16-300 to a canon 70-200 IS on a canon 70 and 80d. The images from the 70-200 were significantly and repeatably better. Granted the two lenses can't take equivalent images across the range, but inside the ranges where they can compete, the 70-200 was just better, sharper, cleaner. Guess there's just a point where the full frame lens really is that much better than the apsc lens.
So if I have got it right You blowed up smaller sensor and full frame one to match them up. That would mean your magnification for dx sensor is
much higher than FF ONE. Or You compared them with 100 % enlargement each?
Jerzy Pietak yeah looks more like he ended up comparing sensors more than the effects of glass.
It is getting pretty common to use cropped sensor lenses on video where the 4K is cropped, bringing the image back to “normal” well related to the crop on the sensor. E.g.: eos r 4k.
So how does this work and is this a viable solution?
I’d upgrade to full frame, but then keep my crop camera for stuff like macro photography. Best to have one of each instead of one or the other. The sharpness issues are also related to the different focal lengths
The difference is so small you're practically pixel peeping. Any difference you point out is swallowed by the skill or lack there of from the photographer
jariol thank you
That's true, but he did mention that the results are purely academic.
If you have to zoom in 4x to see the smallest difference, it doesn’t matter. That is just nitpicking.
A FF lens will spit out the same image circle regardless of camera body type; you have not explained why the portion of that same image circle captured by the smaller aps-c sensor will be less sharp than on the FF sensor. Please explain how the quality of the image circle is different from one camera type to the next. You are comparing sensors and not lenses.
Lenses have a max amount of detail they can output. The crop is taking that information only from the center and throwing the rest away.
I can explain more if you need.
@@joeaddison You're spot on. The same way, if you crop in a full frame, it'll look lower quality than if it was zoomed out. I'm pretty sure, camera sensors are actually restricted by lens 99% of the time. A 75mp sensor would need insane glass to be able to utilize it's full potential, the lens would suffer diffraction and softness way before the sensor does, even on top of the line lenses.
Joe Addison - please do. Your comment does not address my point that Tony is not comparing lenses, he’s comparing sensors because the lens circle of projection is of the same quality regardless of what body it is on. The only difference is the amount that overlays the sensor. The cropped out portion is simply the cropped out portion, you are not losing any detail for the circle of projection that overlays the sensor.
Fantastic video as always! Thx for all the info and especially all the attention to detail from your test results. U can tell a lot of work goes into these techy vids. Answer to ur Q - For 2 years, I used a refurb'd 24-120mm Nikkor on a D5200; saving it for when I could afford a D810 or D850. I didn't mind it at all.
I've used Nikon 35 F1.8 Dx on full frame Nikons in crop and non-crop mode and discovered that this particular lens in non-crop format (once I have removed the obvious vignetting ) give me an equivalent of 40mm which quite useful, better than using the 50mm f1.8 FX lens. In crop mode the 35 DX wastes too many megapixels, though.
Larger sensors offer less high ISO noise and shallower depth of field. These are facts. Both these are very important for amateurs and professionals. Lenses for larger sensors aren't necessarily sharper or brighter than lenses for smaller sensors. The truth is that most lenses of high optical quality with reasonable prices are made for full frame cameras. Theses lenses can used on APS-C cameras with good results. Also in comparison to the variety of prime full frame lenses, the variety of Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron prime APS-C lenses for dSLR cameras is very very poor.
During the film era, full frame film and full frame lenses weren't always the best choice. Many professional photographers preferred medium format or large format film and lenses for sharper results and shallower depth of field. However the full frame film and full frame lenses at the end of film era became the norm for professionals and amateurs. APS-C film appeared very late during the start of the digital photography without real success. So full frame lenses continued to be very important during the digital era and still are.
With the recent mirrorless revolution Sony and Fujifilm have introduced a significant good variety of prime APS-C lenses. APS-C lenses aren't mostly zoom ones with mediocre quality.
Definitely an interesting topic. The original crop factor video was great so it's good to see a refreshed version.
I upgraded from the a6000 to a7r ii and found that the crop lenses came in handy for shooting video where the super 35 mode is much better quality. That's about the only time they come in handy.
Thanks CZcams for inserting this video in my feed right before I purchase a lens. I have a Canon M50 and a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (APS-C) with Canon EF-M adapter. I wanted to upgrade to the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8 (Full frame) and pair it with a Viltrox speedbooster to get me around f/3.2 compared to f/4.5 on the Tokina (when accounting for crop factor (2.8 x 1.6)). I want the extra speed. Now I'm having second thoughts.
When I upgraded from from a D70 to a D200 I decided I needed a better normal lens. I bought the Nikon 17-55 f2.8. Now using it on a D300 and 500. Great results.
This is just false..
so when I look trough a smaller window I see less details of the outer world? I don't think so...
bingo !! he is so wrong
Or - if you crop into a 35mm film frame, it would be less sharp than the edges?
Perfect example! Right on the spot, sir.
When your eyes are smaller and the window has a limited amount of details it can project on your eyes, than YES you would see less detail through a smaller window.
That's where your thinking go wrong.
But let me explain it in a different way that would be easier to understand. Lenses have a limited amount of detail they can resolve. That image with that limited amount of detail is projected on the sensor.
To make it easy to understand I'll compare the resolving power of on the sensor with a resolution of detail per inch: dots per inch.
Lets say the lens can resolve 1000 dots per inch at the distance of the sensor. And let's say my crop sensor is 1 inch wide. That means I have 1000 dots in the width of my shot with the crop sensor.
A full frame sensor is about 50% wider. So on the width of that sensor I have 1500 dots.
So the picture show with the full frame sensor has 50% more detail in the width of the shot. (and of course also the height)
It's exactly the same lens, with exactly the same sharpness. But in the full frame shot you get more detail.
Now of course the edges on the full frame are worse than with the FF lens on the crop body. But those edges have to be really bad before the crop looks better, because that FF starts that big advantage. If the edges are 30% worse in FF than in crop, than it's still equally sharp. You need to have a lens with really soft edges before the crop cameras has an advantage in the edges.
@@marcdevries9027 thank you for the detailed reply! Hopefully I can test full frame glass on my crop sensor camera soon and see what's de real difference compared to my dx lenses.
I started off with Nikon APS c camera bodies but soon started buying only full frame lenses with an eye towards an eventual upgrade to full frame. I then added a Fuji XT-1 and wanted to start using my large collection of modern and vintage Nikon lenses on the Fuji. This worked out well enough with the notable exception of the Sigma 8.5mm fisheye which lost most of its "fisheye" characteristics. Like most Fuji users , I quickly discovered that the Fuji lenses were always just better than the adapted Nikon lenses in sharpness and of course having auto focus was great too. I am using Nikon lenses now on my Fuji XT-3 but somewhat less since that my collection of Fuji lenses has widened. I'd say if you want to adapt , then give it a try but it won't beat the real deal although it is cheaper than new fuji lenses.
Thanks for all the information you pass in your videos. I always learn a lot from them. One thing that I haven't seen (maybe I missed) and is still weird to me regards the focal lengh of a cropped lens on a cropped body. Let me explain what I mean: I own a Sony a6500 (cropped sensor) and a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 C (which I learned is a cropped lens). So when I use this setup do I get a 30mm result or do I still have to apply the crop factor to understand the result? Again, thanks a lot for your time and effort sharing knowledge
Is it simply because the crop bodies essentially magnify the imperfections in the glass where you on a fill frame body you wouldn’t necessarily see these imperfections until you crop?
Yes, pretty much.
yeah, ASP-C bodies produce higher magnifications. You're basically blowing up a smaller part of the lens.
@@TonyAndChelsea What about FF Lenses on a Panasonic GH5s?
@@TonyAndChelsea but if you treat the APS-C + FF lens like an actual crop, IE comparing the full image of the APSC-FF combo to a 1.6x crop of FF+FF image, shouldn't the APSC+FF combo be sharper? Doesn't it come down to pixel density at that point?
@@fernank017It depends.
If you use a same lens(let's say 50mm FF lens), then put it on a 36MP FF body then do a APS-C crop. The result will be the same as that lens on a 16MP APS-C camera. So that's with the sensors with the same pixels per area.
However, if the total pixel count the same for both cameras then the APS-C will appear to look worse.
If the lens has infinite resolution power, then the result will be the same for both system.
FF lens doesn't magically become worse on an APS-C camera body.
I used for some few years a 70 - 200 f2.8 IS II Canon lens on Canon 7D and 7DMII APS-C crop bodies and results were impressively superb. Even comparable to the same lens on my full frame EOS R in spite of the higher sensor resolution.
what are your thoughts on using focal reducer/speed booster while running FF lenses on a crop?
I realize I am commenting on an old video but I use a Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 with a Canon T6i and I am very pleased with the results. I mostly photograph raptors and using the 600mm full frame lens with the APS-C sensor gives me a 240-960mm equivalent focal length range.
Never had a problem with a f-f-lens on an apsc camera. The problem might come up, when you have some weak lenses, then you might see more of the flaws because of the higher resolution. Of course the full-frame camera performs better, that is the whole point of full-frame cameras, but this is a quality of the camera, not of the lens. Otherwise they would be a complete waste of resources.
Very true, it has nothing to do with the lens but with the sensor.
"Of course the full-frame camera performs better, that is the whole point of full-frame cameras, but this is a quality of the camera, not of the lens. Otherwise they would be a complete waste of resources."
DING we have a winner! although he doesn't know how or why he won....
FF bodies pretty-much ARE a waste of resources compared to subframes for this very reason!
You can't really isolate IQ differences to the BODY because the larger sensor "crops-in" more lens flaws than a subframe does.
You put the same lens on a fullframe and now you have to worry more about the lens than you had to before as the lens simply will not perform the same when placed in front of a larger sensor at the same offset. And thus this entire video!
My Canon 70-200mm F2.8L is absolute garbage on my 7D, but phenomenal on my 5D mk iv.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade hi, why is it bad?
Unfortunately they don't usually make fast lenses for APS-C bodies at an affordable price, like primes.
fujifilm does ;)
Yeah, I do discuss this... what it means is that many people who want those lenses should prioritize upgrading their cameras to FF.
Yes they do.
the excellent trio of f1.4 sigma lenses for sony apsc cameras cost from 300 to 420 each. There is however a huge lack in affordable
quality primes, at least for sony
I pretty much just bought a used Canon 6D, which is not cheap in my country, and it's coming by mail. Finally I will be able to use a 85mm as God intended.
I was thinking about downgrading from my a7iii to the cheaper a6600 ...thank you. It would be nice to see a comparison between aps-c and super35 mode with the same lens. For instance 24mm gm on the a6600 (35mm field of view) and 24mm gm in super35 mode on the a7iii
if you shoot wildlife it might still be worth it.. and why i'm still planning to with my 200-600 sony lens.
but its great to have this data now.
What about vintage MF lens on Sony with curved sensor? Are you seeing any notable issues?
Pixel peeping will destroy your cameragear.
Exactly - If you peep at those pixels too long, they die!
I use apsc cameras with full frame lenes and nobody notices. The average person isn't going to check the camera and lens combination . They just want the good results.
Thank you!! I sold my 1.8 twins a long time ago because of the AF issues. They're definitely amazing for MF video though. Probably the best "budget" zooms ome could buy for video.
The Northrops have been very adamant about their beliefs around light pass through and sharpness. They are working professionals (at least they used to be. they may be full time influencers now). As a working professional that started in the film days (1992--till now). My response to them is that none of what they have focused so much time on has mattered for a second to working professionals. I have shot every format. I've shot NFL and NHL APS-C (starting 2007) and never once worried if the f stop on the lens was literal or not. The Northrups think acceptable imagine started somewhere around 2013--whereas those of us who made a career in photography published and exhibited with whatever we (or our clients) could afford. Doesn't matter. I shot full frame lenses on APS-C for ESPN this week on a Canon 7D. 20 year old lens on 10+ year old body. Same paycheck. Same awards. Same "likes". Sorry, but any videos about stills photography made after 2013 are mental masturbation.
I am sorry, but applying crop factor to aperture is simply wrong. Crop factor applies to the angle of view, not exposure. Aperture applies to exposure, not angle of view.
Please stop conflating the two. I have never seen a light meter with a crop factor. Have you?
@tyvek05: Some FF cameras have a “crop mode”. Theses cameras all work in basically the same way. Crop mode only uses pixels in the center area of the FF sensor.
You can use “crop mode” with a full frame lens. This is equivalent to using a FF lens on a crop sensor body. Guess what the images look like when the camera is in FF mode vs Crop mode.
The images will look identical. The only real difference is the crop mode produces a cropped version of the full frame mode image.
BTW, when you find a light meter with a crop factor, please let us know.
To compose the image exactly the same, you apply crop factor, like you said. However, aperture isn't only used to determine exposure, but also depth of field. You may apply the crop factor to aperture because to frame the photo the same way with a crop sensor you either have to zoom out or get further away from the subject, and both will increase depth of field.
So, my 50mm f/1.8 on a full frame will have more background blur than my APS-C because I have to get further from the subject to frame it the same. If you multiply the aperture by the crop factor, and use the new number on the FF, you'll get equal bokeh in both pictures.
No one says exposure is effected by crop factor.
Correction: Tony does say that exposure is effected. Because ISO is based on light hitting per square inch, a smaller sensor gets less total light in a given picture. However, because sensor size isn't taken into account, full frame or crop sensor cameras will have the same ISO with equal apertures and shutter speeds. This is misleading because the sensors on crop cameras, though the ISO number is the same, actually need higher gain which is why crop sensors tend to be noisier at higher ISOs.
So no, a light meter doesn't have to account for crop factor because the software in the camera does. However, that light meter won't tell you how noisy the picture will be.
I think this can be demonstrated with a 6mm sensor, the pupil, and an astronomy telescope. If aperture is the focal length divided by entrance pupil, then a 1000mm focal length scope with a 100mm entrance pupil will have the same aperture as a 100mm focal length scope with a 10mm entrance pupil, but the 100mm entrance pupil is 10 times the diameter of the smaller, so, much more light is being let in. Not even linear since area is on a curve.
So, the pupil being the sensor and staying the same, two telescopes with equal apertures have vastly different light transfer. Take that to a crop sensor, and it sees 1.6 times less surface area for a given focal length as the full frame. So, the light reflected off of a surface reaches the lens, but 1.6 times less of the area, so total light is 1.6 times less, thus a darker picture. The camera accounts for this and increases gain, but the light hitting per square inch is the same, so while it has to be more sensitive, the ISO number stays the same. Thus, noisier for the same ISO, but no noisier when given equal light. So, your aperture may say f/1.8, but be closer to an f/2.8 in light transfer with a crop sensor. Thus, all things equal including the framing of the shot, the crop picture will have more noise. If you take the same shot, but change the aperture of the full frame to 2.8 leaving the crop on 1.8, and increase ISO to account for the less light coming in, you'll get similar noise levels, because light levels are equal.
In summary, the settings on your camera will not change from a FF to a crop with a given aperture, but noise will because you're getting less light to the smaller sensor which then needs to compensate.
It does affect the f-stop by definition.... so you do need to apply the crop factor to both or to neither.
You are correct in saying that crop factor does not apply to exposure.... as that is t-stops and not f-stops
What about using full frame glass through a speedbooster?
A white paper I read on speedboosters claimed MTFs for e.g. a Nikon 50mm f/1.2 ai-s looked better with a speedbooster. However, since a speedbooster introduces more lens elements, it's bound to adversely affect IQ.
@@yourtallness Again it's one of those "in theory" things. In practice even with an inexpensive booster, I found that image quality tends to go up because of the enhanced resolution, rather than down because of the extra lenses. The lens in a booster is really very minimal and simple. So I imagine, it's pretty hard to get too wrong.
I used to use my old tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 on my D750, at 16mm it did make a big enough image circle and was a pretty good 16mm f/2.8 full frame prime! Not very sharp on a bigger sensor though
Looking back on my purchases, I bought dedicated wide angles for my DX D7100, and I bought FX telephotos to take advantage of the extra magnification when used on a DX body. All used, because Nikkors are built to last. Now that I also have a D810, I'm enjoying using the screw focusing D lenses on both! BTW, the screw motor on the D810 is much stronger resulting in faster focusing. Where I agree with Tony is in getting the dedicated fast 'normal' lens for each camera for low light situations. The only lenses that stay in the closet are the slow and limited kit zoom lenses.
This is simply incorrect. You cannot compare sharpness between sensors if you are using a zoom at different focal lengths. That zooms perform differently at different focal lengths is a straight up fact, so doing this comparison is like using two completely different lenses.
The whole "we use different focal lengths to get the same field of view" does not make any sense when trying to compare sharpness. The correct comparison would be to stick the same lens at the same focal length (using a prime would be ideal) and at the same aperture in an aps-c and a full frame body, and then compare the sharpness between the crop sensor and the full frame being used in crop mode (or cropping it in post).
It's sad that such a big CZcams channel is misleading less experienced photographers, specially by making videos masked behind a layer of supposed science to prove their opinions. And comparing two things which are not in equal conditions is just not a correct comparison.
@Chris But the point is not to test how much sharpness can you get at a fixed field of view by using different lenses, this actually would depend on the available options in the market and not be a good comparison. Sharpness varies when using different lenses or a different focal length (which by the way also affects depth of field). The point here supposedly is to check if a lens performs differently depending on the sensor, not vice versa. And to do that you need to be rigorous (or get "some nerdy numbers matching" as you call it), which is what Tony is trying to do but failing at.
Tony, just because of form factor, i think you should have changed the aperture also... When you was using the full frame lens on a6600 at the begining of the video... I mean... if you shoot f2.8 with full frame... Equivalent to APSC, aperture should be 2.0 on a6600
Am i wrong?
Exception:
What if you actually shoot the same lens at the same focal length and then compare image sharpness. Yes, the APSC sensor is going to be a tighter shot because of the crop, but that is one of the advantages of a crop sensor. I bet once you enlarge the FF image to match the cropped APSC image, the APSC is going to be sharper than the FF. It’s capturing that cropped area at full resolution where the FF will be lower resolution.
.... I just noticed that you addressed this. I use my a7III FF lenses on my 6500 and for video they work great. I do have ‘wider’ APSC glass that are not available in FF. All in all, I love the higher resolution from the cropped APSC when I need that reach, yet using the 10-18mm f4 on the 6500 for a wide angle is not as nice as the 16-35 f4 on the a7III but it’s ideal for gimbal work. So, you live with it. :-).
I've been using a A6000 with Sony FE 85mm F1.8 for sport photography for over a year and it gives great results. I'd love to go full frame with a 70-200 zoom but don't have the budget so spending £500 gives me approx 130mm focal length and is nice and lightweight with sharp images.
24MP FF vs 24MP A-PSC isn’t a like for like comparison
It's a perfect like-for-like example for this particular topic. A FF lens on a FF 24MP camera will use the full image circle (make best use of the optics of the lens) as intended by the manufacturer. The same lens on a 24MP aps-c camera will use far less of the image circle (use less of the glass) to still cover 24MP. So using less than half the lens to cover the same MP will clearly give a less detailed image. Keep in mind every lens only resolves a certain number of lines per mm of resolution. Going from FF to aps-c with the same lens is effectively asking the lens to resolve more detail out of less glass, which it cannot do, hence the resulting lesser detail.
cooloox my point is that the comparison is flawed from its concept, too many variables, pixels pitch, AA filters, colour array filters, analog to digital converter... they are two different sensors, the only test that would have eliminated this variables hasn’t been carried, and that would have been to use the Sony A7R4 with both the 16-35 lenses and compare the apsc area of the images, then with the caveat of the sensor variables compare the image to the ones taken on a 24MP cropped sensor with the two lenses...
Every lens has a peculiar line x millimetre resolution, as you rightly point out, however it is the sensor that changes, the lens is still the same, it won’t physically change irrelevant of what camera is mounted on; so if you use a lens designed for a 60MP FF on a cropped sensor that has 24MP it will perform better than a apsc lens designed for a 20MP apsc, or worse than an apsc lens designed for a 30MP sensor.
With the exception of Fuji, camera manufacturers have stopped producing pro glass for apsc bodies more than a decade ago, when apsc were around 12MP, so even the old few pro apsc lenses are nowadays obsolete, whilst new kit lenses have a better line x millimetres resolution, still are kit lenses....
The second part of the video is more to the point, I would have started with the second part then use the images comparison to point out that in 2020 apsc users are facing being short changed by camera manufacturers...
Yeah that was his point. He even pointed out that the ff24mp body is more like 10mp when its cropped and that's why its not as sharp. He is trying to make sure people understand what happens why they buy an entry level full frame and continue to use crop lens they are actually downgrading the image quality not upgrading.
@@cooloox you said it. Using the FF lens on APSC means using less of that particular lens.
Now what about this lens on a 40+Mpx FF sensor vs a 20+Mpx apsc sensor.
On the APS-C sensor only the best part of the lens is used (=center) on the 40+Mpx FF sensor the corners will have less sharpness than the corners on the APSC image exactly because the APS-C is using the best part of the lens...
The flaws of a lens are obviously more visible with the increase of Mpx of sensor. So that's why I agree that 24mpx FF vs 24Mpx APS-C isn't stressing enough to show that flaws of the inner lens properties.
how could a great FX lens get to know that it's mounted on a crappy DX body, to produce a less sharp image for that DX?
It could not. It has no idea on which body it is mounted, so it will deliver always, always, Tony, FX lens will always produce image of the same quality, no matter what body and what adapter you use. It is a given fact.
If you want to argue about that, please argue off camera, because people who could believe in that argument wold not be able to even open youtube, and the rest of us know that any particular lens, on any day of the week, no matter what, is always producing the same image quality: one lens - one image, one sharpness, one bokeh, one microcontrast(though i do not believe in the latter).
The lens will produce the same image sharpness but the camera will not (at the same framing).
For wildlife photography, the alternative to cropping could be using a teleconverter on a full frame lens. The Nikon TC 1.4 III does not degrade the quality very much, though you loose one stop of light. Also the new Sigma TCs is very good. Using 1.4 TC usually keeps the autofocus, 2.0 does not. Using a 1.4 TC on a 300 mm convert the lens to 420 mm, on a 500 mm it is 700 mm.
Teleconverter reduces the aperture so it’s crap. You can’t take full advantage of a 400 mil f2.8 for example
So. I have a Canon 6D and 7D. I have some decent glass for them. 70-200L II, sigma 15mm 2.8, older 28-70L 2.8, a 50mm f2.5 with lifesize adaptor, sigma 150-600 contemporary and I am trying to get a sigma 150mm 2.8 macro contemporary but grrr expensive :-)
I just bought a 5Ds and will sell one of the other bodies. I was going to sell the 6D and keep the 7D so I can have both a crop and a FF but its seems from this I might be better off keeping the 6D for the FF benefits and better IQ with FF Glass. Does that sound logical to you? suggestions?
"Academically..." ??!!
I think he meant Mathematically :-)
u should add tele-converters to the equation aswell
popcorn param did that tonight with snowy owls, worked perfectly
@@tedemery82 APS-c or tele-converters which one would u choose ?
@@popcornparam APS-C, definitely. Steve Perry did a test if you are interested, if the megapixels are the same the crop camera definitely gives more detail at a given distance, plus the autofocus usually works better since you aren't losing any stop of light.
Ofc if you are comparing stuff like an A7rIII or even better an A7r IV to a 24 mpx APS-C there is no point in using the APS-C since the FF crop gives you the same resolution anyeay
@@v0ldy54 that's the thing i want to know which one performs better APS-c with 30mp or FF with crop mode with 24mp
@@popcornparam if we only talk about sensor performance, a cropped full frame behaves exactly like an APS-C, so 30mpx will give you a bit more detail than 24.
Christopher Frost does great reviews on lenses mounted on different bodies with different sensors and the results are interesting. It does make a difference.
I love his reviews.
I am using a Nikon 5600 and as the video said I'm a bit limited on glass. I currently use my 35mm DX Nikkor lense majority of the time but was looking at buying a 35mm FX lense to get close to the Nifty Fifty and also a 50mm FX to get closer to an 85mm range. Looking at getting more into Portraiture and after watching the video I think I'll still invest in those lenses because eventually I will be upgrading my camera body. Rather not by to many APSC lenses. Also if you haven't purchased Stunning Digital Photography yet, stop waiting! Great Video as usual
Still, buy what you want just understand the tradeoffs.
yeah, that's what this is about. Just making educated buying choices.
@@TonyAndChelsea I have the Eos M50. I cant find anyone that has a solid comparison of the Canon 32mm and Sigma 30mm prime lenses for apsc. I don't know which I should buy. Any experience with the two?
the beauty of the Fuji System... all the lenses are calculated for only APSC, and the X T-3 is ISO invariant.. so usable Lowlight Performance as well ;)
still not quite up there at the higher ISO levels of the best FF sensors though..
I love my XT3 and its glass irrespective of this though in most cases
Except it lacks IBIS and no IBIS is a deal breaker. GH5 has better video features and IBIS.
@@cmdr.shepard The Fuji X-H1 has IBIS tho
@@cmdr.shepard and the AF is rubbish comparatively
the world has moved on from the GH5 tech in a lot of ways
There is nothing sacred about "Full Frame"; it is just digital 35mm! Back in the day, when we spent all our hours in the Dark Room, 35mm was considered a SMALL format.
As far a lenses go the rule of thumb is: If it fits, and you have a use for it, USE IT ( and if it doesn't fit, use an adapter) !
That wasn't a very smart post. FF generally gives MUCH cleaner images at high ISOs than crop sensor cameras. That's a fact, not an opinion. That one trait alone makes it superior. ISO noise is the one thing which manufacturers just haven't been able to overcome (yet). All APS-C cameras give noticeably noisy images at ISO 6400 and above. Modern FF cameras are much much cleaner.
If you shoot wildlife and don't want to spend a fortune on long lenses then APS-C is a big advantage, except, you still get that crappy noise if shooting in anything less than ideal light conditions.
@@cooloox So in other words, I should sell my Medium Format Hasselblad 500C/M camera and buy a digital 35mm"Full Frame"so I can get the superior, much much cleaner image ?
As I did not mention APS-C cameras at all, perhaps your post was the one that was not very smart!
I thought I was crazy with the focus issues yesterday, until you bought up the idea that the Sigma 18-35 had focus issues on Canon bodies. I use the 90D + Sigma 18-35 for now.
I want to get a Sigma 70-200 next, mainly because I want to switch to Full Frame, hopefully (to avoid drastically losing money in the future).