Small Sensors Suck... Right? (Full Frame vs APS-C vs M43 vs 1in)

Small sensors suck and full frame is king, right? Well, no, not really. I mean, sure, they have their pros and cons, but so do all sensor sizes! In this video, I'll be covering some of the practical implications of using big and small sensors and how they affect your photography!

🔴 Thank you to Saal Digital for sponsoring this video! 🔴
💸Get 50% OFF all Saal Digital products using the links below! (Offer valid until September 20th 2024)

🖼️Get my Lightroom Preset Pack 🖼️

📸 Used Cameras & Lenses 📸

--------------------------------------

💀 VIEW MY MERCH LINE 💀

🤘 FOLLOW ME 🤘

--------------------------------------

⏳ TIME STAMPS ⏳
Intro - @0:00
The Cameras - @1:00
The Lenses - @1:40
Crop Factor - @1:53
Pros & Cons of Crop Factors - @4:48
Depth-Of-Field x Crop Factor - @6:34
Size & Weight - @8:18
Price - @9:05
Aspect Ratio - @9:28
Digital Noise - @10:16
Image Quality - @11:30
Print Quality - @13:00

--------------------------------------

💰My YouTube Studio Equipment 💰

📷 Sony ZV-E1

📷 Sigma 24mm f/2 DG DN
🇬🇧 TBC

📷Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8

📷 Insta360 X3

🎙️Movo VXR10

💡Sirui Dragon Series RGB Lights

💲 Affiliate Links: The links above are affiliate links, which means that any purchases made using them may give me a small commission. This comes at no additional cost to yourself but does go a long way to help support the channel, so thank you in advance for using them.

--------------------------------------

⚠ PLEASE NOTE ⚠

All of the opinions expressed in this video are my own based on my personal experience whilst using the equipment/software featured. Whilst some videos may include paid sponsorship, I never allow manufactuers to dictate what I can or can't say about their product(s). Their money helps to cover the cost of video production, it does NOT buy my opinion.
My videos are designed to be both informative and entertaining and are made to the best of my abilities. I am only human so I do occationally make mistakes, and whilst corrections are always welcomed in the comments, please be polite and courteous and refrain from being a total cockwomble. 👍

[GrimYak]

Came from apsc, then “upgraded” to full frame. After years of that I found myself in M43 and couldn’t be happier. Olympus has one of the best and sharpest lenses in the market today and in a small package.

[anthonytang]

Shot at a wedding recently using a full frame and a m4/3 camera. Anyone who saw the pictures never asked ‘What camera did you use?’ It’s about capturing emotions and telling a story.

[anshmahagade]

I only have three conditions for a camera
1. Working focus
2. Outputs in RAW
3. Doesn't blow up
:)

[matthieuzglurg]

little correction about the depth of field thing : crop factor doesn't really affect the depth of field. It has an indirect impact on it, but there is much important stuff to consider when trying to figure out where the depth of field even comes from.

There is only really 2 factors for depth of field : focus distance and aperture diameter (note I didn't say aperture number). Nope, even the focal length has very little play in this.

To keep it simple, the wider the aperture gets, the shallower the DoF gets. And the closest you focus your lens, the shallower your DoF gets as well.

practical example : if you have a 50mm f/2 lens, that lens has an aperture of about 25mm. If you want a micro four thirds to match the exact framing and depth of field, you will need to match the angle of view, but you will also need to match the aperture diameter. So angle of view gets matched with a 2.0x crop factor : so 25mm lenses should do the trick. Now if you get a 25mm f/2 (to match the exposure) then you get a DoF that is about twice as deep as the one you had on your full frame camera with your 50mm lens, because now your aperture diameter is not 25mm, but 12.5mm. You need to match the aperture diameter to get the same DoF at the same focus distance, meaning you need a 25mm aperture diameter on your 25mm lens : you need a 25mm f/1.0

But as it stands, the depth of field always comes from the lens and the focusing distance, NEVER from the sensor itself. You can achieve the exact same DoF on a 1" camera as a FF camera using the exact same lens... you will just have to deal with the much tighter framing. Most of the time, you end up taking a step back, but then you're focusing further away, which increases the DoF. In short, you should really think about what lens you're using before even thinking about the sensor size. If you start with the sensor size, you will take the 18, 5mm lens as a "50mm equivalent", while it fact it's still very much an 18mm rendering with the angle of view of a 50mmm, and you might end up being dissapointed. The only way the sensor impacts depth of field is because you will need wider lenses with smaller aperture diameters (again, not f numbers).

[mrdubert]

I have been using M43 for about 15 years now. Today I bought my first full frame camera. The Sony a7c ii with the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 G2. I am very impressed by the image quality of this combo and how far it can be pushed in Lightroom. That being said, I will never sell my Lumix GX8. Still absolutely love this thing. I will keep using it for tele (full frame tele is just too large and expensive for me) and also just for fun.

Btw, I guessed right without cheating.

[leulnrt]

µ4/3's name is actually totally unrelated from the aspect ratio.

µ4/3 takes it's name from the older 4/3 DSLR mount, just micro because of the shorter flange distance. That standard does not specify any aspect ratio only a diagonal size, so a 4/3 sensor can be 3:2 as long as it's around 22mm in diagonal.
4/3 stands for 4/3", but the sensor isn't 4/3", it's from an even older standard for video camera tubes where a sensor that size would need a 4/3" glass tube.

TL;DR µ4/3 naming is cursed.

[marcus_burk]

Thank you for this! Owning a range of M43 equipment I was lurking into the APS-C or even FF lines... and now realized I am completely fine and should shoot more pictures, instead of buying new gear. Especially your large printouts and the hint with AI noise reduction opened my eyes!

[Joh]

My sweet spot ist APS-c. More reach with telephoto, more dof with macro, lower costs, lower weight and lower size as fullframe. It´s enough for me for milky way shots and anything else. And for portraits I have some 1.4 lenses. For me full frame is no upgrade. I pay for things which I don´t care, and carry things that are bigger and heavier. But that´s my point of view, others can see this totally opposite.

[angelorenna]

I have been shooting at events and ceremonies since fifteen years. I’ve been using fullframe, apsc and now micro4/3 since a couple of years. I have always printed albums (from Saal) and no customer has ever complained about the quality. I don’t look at the photos on the monitor 100% and I don’t worry about the noise. In print it counts for little.

[probably-nobody]

I currently shoot on a GFX 50s and an x-pro2 and can say with 100% certainty there is a massive difference in dynamic range. The amount of shadow recovery medium format is capable of is jaw dropping. The x-pro is still fantastic, but there is a difference in DR for sure. (I'm late to the party, but I wanted to chime in.)

[marzios]

As you said, the most important decision factor is the type of photography you mainly do. For exanple bulk and weight is very important if you are a travel photographer.

[MinoltaCamera]

One of the best videos I ever seen on the photography community. Thank you

[philadler]

The point he makes about the lens quality is spot on. After 2 frustrating years with Fuji I finally dumped it for Olympus. The OM1-mk2 and their lenses for me was what was missing

[echobenav]

Very nice and informative comparison! Thanks for taking all the time to produce this. Your results prove that a normal viewing distances, megapixels really don't matter. I'm always amazed when I pull up old images shot on Nikon D1 on a 65" 4k tv. You'd never know they were a mere 2.7mp.

[AstroCampTV]

That’s soooo right! I can’t understand why everyone says Full Frame gives you shallower DoF.
If you shoot a portrait of someone with the same Field of View (angle) in an APS-C and FF sensors, the one shot with the FF looks like a shallower DoF because you had to get CLOSER to the subject in order to achieve the same frame. If you shoot from the same distance and same aperture on an APSC and FF, the DoF would be exactly the same and the difference would only be the FoV! (Without considering things like resolution, noise and other variables that would make other differences).

[madfinntech]

If you do video work with fast pans or action, full-frame sensors generally have lower reading of the sensor and result in way more rolling shutter than APS-C or M4/3 sensors.

[Mtikcus]

There is a sweet spot for most types of photography, however you can do them all on most size sensors.
APS-C is my sweet spot, for portraiture an F/1.4 lens is shallow enough (at least for pro work where you need both the eye and nose in focus), faster than that for artistic use, most of the time I stop down to F/2.8 or F/4 for portraiture work whether I'm using Full frame or APSC

If i was video first, I'd probably consider the M43 system, smaller sensors, faster readout speeds (if all things are equal), same for wildlife photography

[comeraczy]

Thanks a lot for this great video. At 12:50, I think that you are giving the best summary: it's about the lens, more than about the sensor. For those who are interested, there is a recipe to produce on a crop sensor images that are identical to full frame images (with native lenses that have the correct image circle for the sensor): on the crop sensor, divide both the focal length and the f-number by the crop factor, use the same shutter speed, and set both cameras to auto ISO (without auto ISO, on the crop sensor, divide the ISO by the square of the crop factor: 2.6 for Canon APS-C, 4 for micro four third). This recipe is useful to compare the lens selection between two camera systems, for a specific genre of photography. For instance, for "budget" wildlife, the lens of choice for full frame would typically be a super-telephoto zoom at 600mm/f-6.3 on the long end - in a price range of $1000-2000. On Micro four third, this would be equivalent to 300mm/f-3.2- and there isn't a great selection there - everything under $2000 is one or two stops slower (doesn't mean it's bad, just that there will be important trade-offs).

[ericplatt]

Excellent rundown across that minefield of parameters having to do with sensor size.
After 50 years of doing photography, I settled on Micro 4/3, and I’m really enjoying it.

[norskradiofabrikk]

One of the honest and balanced views on this subject on YT. Thanks!