The TRUTH about full-frame vs APS-C cameras!

Chelsea & Tony Northrup answer the question: Should you upgrade to full frame? Are full-frame cameras better than APS-C cameras? DO YOU NEED FULL FRAME?? The answer is... YES! Or no. It depends, but they help you determine whether full-frame will improve your images or whether you should just buy a better lens or speedbooster.

0:00 Introduction
0:51 KEH spot
1:21 Full-frame vs APS-C: Same lens
2:00 Full-frame vs APS-C: Equivalent lenses
2:31 Blind image quality test
2:52 Crop factor math explained
3:28 Full-frame vs APS-C: Best available lens
5:16 Speedboosters
6:18 Dynamic range & sensor size
7:09 Optimal image quality
7:42 Wildlife photography & pixel density
9:33 Summary

[ryan]

Went from full frame to APSC, much prefer the size and weight of the lenses and you can still get amazing results with some fast primes.

[CMSTOCK]

I am a hobbyist. I have a Canon 5D4 and an X100v. I have owned an Olympus MFT and a small sensor lumix. Don’t forget full frame is a marketing gimmick. All cameras fill the frame. When photographers refer to “full-frame” they actually mean 35mm. In the days of film cameras most wedding photographers used medium format.
Compared to the 6x6cm negative size of medium format cameras 35mm is cropped.
If you’re a hobbyist get whatever you can afford. Most people don’t give a fig for what camera you use, they just look at the results.
Also a10 megapixel image is big enough for an A4 sized image in a magazine.

[PieterBreda]

I think lots of people will get better results by investing in a photo course. A full frame camera is no guarantee for better pictures.

[kennygo]

I shoot "all three", MFT, APS-C, and FF. There's a time and place for each sensor size. An example, on a rainy night, I like to shoot with MFT... a fast prime on MFT (great stabilization with my MFT cameras) will give me a larger depth of field while still being bright enough (bokeh isn't required all the time) and I get better results from the city lights. Really... you don't always have to have bokeh. Sometimes, it makes your pictures look worse. When shooting automobiles at night, in the city... the smaller sensor with a large aperture prime, will give you better results. The greater depth of field of the smaller sensor cameras actually help you in low light, when you need greater depth of field. Almost no one on YT mentions this... and most new photographers are really frustrated by these situations. That's why this "old guy" shoots all three sizes. There are a few situations where smaller is better... and even more when bigger is better.

[RiceCubeTech]

A good photographer can get images regardless of sensor size.

My issue is when people who shoot with MFT or APSC say dumb things like “full frame is a waste of money there’s no benefit”. There’s clear benefit, but it doesn’t always mean it’s that much better depending on the person.

Every person needs a different setup.

[Chris-NZ]

I own APSC and FF and have done so for well more than a decade, each has their advantages and disadvantages starting with price but at the end of the day without zooming to 400% most people would be happy with the results from either system from any of the big manufacturers and the weak point in most of the equation today is the user not the gear.

[NumberOneBlackGuy]

I went to full frame for the low light capability compared to apsc. I'm happy with my purchase but I do miss the apsc camera I had. Both systems make good images and I took my all time favorite photos on my apsc camera. I literally am not making better photos because I am on full frame, the photos are the same creatively. Just now I can shoot at 12800 iso and be fully satisfied with the grain. But apsc it just bothered me above 6400. So to me the move to full frame was worth it.

[sl-rtkv]

The fundamental reason why people don't get better images by switching from smaller format to full frame is that doing so does not change their capabilities as a photographer. It is also true that people have captured truly great photos with all kinds of cameras including those that are technically inferior to the best modern cameras in almost every way.

[hugoingelhammar]

Fullframe cameras opened up a new world of photography for me. I had been shooting with my Canon 60D for 10 years, which also have created some great images. But since I live in Sweden, where you barely see the sun for 6 months of the year, photography was not that fun anymore and I only brought my camera in the summers while travelling.

But now I bought a Canon 6D full frame, and its amazing how many more situations it can handle! Last three months I have taken more great photos than in the last 5 years or so. So I really recommend to go for a cheaper fullframe, it makes photography much more fun, easy and less frustrating.

[Treeburnify]

As others have remarked, I would also factor in weight of bodies and lenses. About four years ago, I sold all of my Canon full-frame gear including the “L” lenses in favour of a Fujifilm X-T3 and in the last few weeks an X-T5. For me, as primarily a landscape photographer, weight reduction was a significant influence, reducing backpack weight for hiking. In addition the Fuji X-T design ethos of traditional control dials was hugely attractive.

[mattroberts]

Thank you Tony and Chelsea! Just wanna say I found your channel about 5 years ago and knew nothing about cameras. Now I shoot commercial product photography/videography full time, it wouldn’t have happened without your YouTube channel!

P.s. currently using R7 for video work, and d810 for catalog and lifestyle images. All sensor sizes welcome in the workplace!

Matt

[ChadWilson]

My takeaway from this is that the lens makes the biggest difference of all. I also took away from this that I should own BOTH and have fun! 😆

[Magellan]

One point that was not brought up was the size of full frame bodies and lenses. I left FF Sony and moved to Fuji specifically for this. I’m a landscape photographer and hiking with a camera that’s half the weight of a FF makes a big difference!

Side note: 40mp on the new Fuji X-T5 is spectacular!

[knorke]

I am happy with every bit of noise (grain) my Fujifilm X-H1 produces...or my X-T2. If I expose correctly and choose a fitting Film Simulation, get creative with my choice of lenses and compose my shot properly...I do not need or want "full Frame"... I fill the frame with whatever my eye sees and always get results that please my eye. I believe, the whole discussion about "Full Frame" vs. "Crop" is useless. There are countless professional Photographers of all different genres, who earn their money with cameras, regardless of sensor size. Advocating for "Full Frame" over APSC, gets old really fast. I switched back from "Full Frame" Canons to APSC Fujis because it´s not all about the size of the sensor, or the megapixel count...and more about the colors I can get right out of the camera, providing I know how to compose and light the frame. Plus...there is no "better" Bokeh in "Full Frame"...different.. yeah, but not better. Bokeh and its "quality" has also a lot to do with the lenses and their character. And let´s not forget about Micro 4/3... Great cameras, great choice of lenses...or DMF. Full Frame this and Full Frame that, is nothing more than marketing blurp.

[kiodrag]

the best camera is the one you have with you. If APS-C Body and gear is smaller and lighter (e.g. Sony a6xxxx) and you can carry this on hiking, it might have more noise than ff but it is still the one in your hand taking the awesoe shots you would have missed otherwise when keeping your bulky ff camera at home ...

[cdnr]

Something to clarify is that an f2.8 apsc lens let's in the exact same amount of light as an f2.8 full frame lens. The only time people would need to multiply the aperture by the crop factor is when they want to achieve the same "look" aka depth of field as a full frame sensor. But in terms of speed, both lenses are the same.

As for low light, to clarify, it's really the pixel density that dictates which one is "better" between apsc and full frame. Technically if both had the exact same pixel density, (using generic examples) they should have the same low light performance.

Lastly, if depth of field is not the issue, lets say its just low light performance then it's sometimes a wash. You can use lower apertures with apsc and still have a workable image where the depth of field isn't too shallow, therefore use lower ISO. So it's not really fair to compare the exact same ISO (e.g. 12800) for both, cause in full frame you'd have to stop down your aperture vs in apsc you don't.

[Timoleon]

I've shot dirtbike/enduro at NIGHT in Sweden in November with the X-T1, X-H1 paired with the 16 1.4 and the 50-140 2.8. A bit of noise reduction in LR and I'm satisfied.

[flaviotaneli]

I recently UPgraded to apsc 😅 dropped my A7III and f2.8 lenses and bought the FX30 and A6600 with f1.4 prime lenses and I couldn’t be more satisfied ! The gap in image quality between apsc and ff is not that big and any recent apsc camera is 10x better that any ff from 10 years ago anyway. I’d say any gear is so good these days it can’t be an excuse for bad results, so I prioritised cost and size/weight

[photonspark]

It's all about the application. I would never accept the size and weight of full frame lenses hiking to get that special landscape shot. (and couldn't afford it) I can carry an assortment of M43 lenses in a small sling bag and get great results. FF bodies are getting smaller, but lenses still twice the size and weight of other systems. If you're an indoor low light event photographer most of the time, sure go full frame. But many hobbyists would like to travel light and easy and get good results, like myself and many others.

[JasonMilner]

As a Fujifilm APS-C shooter, I am happy to recommend this video to anyone deciding between the two formats. The only thing I would add is to be sure to consider the cost, size and weight of FF lenses (especially those "holy trinity" f/2.8 zooms), & not just that of the camera body. If you're still not sure, consider renting one of each, & comparing for yourself before committing to any one system.