Is Full-Frame Better Than APS-C? The Annoying Truth People Often Don’t Believe

Small Sensors suck right, and Full-frame is the best, right?! Well, not necessarily! Just because the internet says so doesn’t make it true. Each sensor type has its own pros and cons, and that applies to every sensor size. In this video, I’ll explore the real-world implications of these differences!

Gear That I Use & Recommend:
For Photo & Video

For Video

APS-C Lenses:

Full-Frame Lenses:

POV Setup

Audio

Lighting:

Disclosure:
All links above are affiliate links, so if you make a qualifying purchase after clicking, I’ll earn a small commission at no additional cost to you. If you’d like to explore other items, feel free to use this link to Amazon as well.

•••Music •••
Music - Epidemic Sound, COPYRIGHT FREE MUSIC FOR CREATORS!

[Albertoabrian]

APS-C.. specially A6700 and Fuji XS20 or XT series.. are not budget camera anymore in these days 😅

[bassyey]

Skill is the difference lol. Hand me the most expensive full frame you can think of, hand an aps-c to a pro. Watch me butcher full-frame photos.

[jerry]

I got fed up with carrying around a heavy full-frame DSLR, and moved to micro four thirds a few years ago. I had found that I was carrying around a sophisticated compact camera rather than my DSLR, and I was doing just as well (if not better) in camera club competitions with images taken on the compact camera. So I decided to move to micro four thirds, which had a fairly similar sensor size to my compact camera, but which had interchangeable lenses.

Because micro four thirds lenses are designed for the smaller sensor size, they are much smaller and lighter than lenses that can cover a full frame sensor.

I have no problem with image quality using my micro four thirds setup, and it is much lighter for travel, walking and just doing observational photography.

I have no regrets from downsizing.

[Thirsty_Fox]

Very well done video on the topic that, as you say, many don't fully understand. As someone who shoots with both, I've given it lots of thought and experimentation. FF generally only offers a small advantage if you have lenses that can take advantage of it -- one stop of aperture (for equal f-stop) and one stop of ISO/DR if shooting at the same f-stop value. If you have a 1.5x crop APSC and take a photo at 50mm f/1.2 ISO 100, it will look pretty much identical to a FF at 75mm f/1.8 ISO 200 in field of view, depth of field, and noise/dynamic range (assuming similar sensor technology). Of course if you have a FF with f/1.2 lens, there is no such equivalent on APSC.

So for me, full frame helps when you need fast f/2.8 zooms since you get that one stop advantage over the APSC. At higher ISOs (over 800 typically), FF tend to have dual gain sensors that give an extra stop in noise performance. But the question becomes whether that one stop of noise and potential for one stop of aperture is worth a big jump in price of bodies and lenses, along with the big jump in size and weight. I don't bring my expensive wedding photography gear on family vacations or packed in my motorcycle. But something like an a6700 with a couple of small, fast, and sharp lenses is perfect. There are so many great options now in the f/1.2 or f/1.4 for crop sensor and the difference in photo quality is negligible in many situations.

So for me it's APSC (a6700) for personal use and light duty work, FF (a7RV) for wedding and event work (for fast zooms, dual card slots, and the potential for one stop more subject separation). I will add that modern APSC are better than older FF sensors in most regards. Even some new FF sensors like the Z6iii have given up dynamic range in the pursuit of sensor readout speed for high-framerate 4k, less rolling shutter, and better burst.

[comeraczy]

Excellent video, thanks. Perhaps, there are a couple of inaccuracies that could be addressed to improve the impact of the message. For instance, at 4:00, it its not focal length + aperture + focus distance; instead, it is angle of view + aperture diameter + focus distance. Basically, if you apply the crop factor to both focal length and the f-number, you will get exactly the same depth of field. For instance, any DOF app will show that at 10 feet, a 50mm FF at f-3.2 has the same DOF (2.3 feet) and angle of view (47 degrees) as a Canon APS-C 31mm at f-2.
Similarly, at 7:30, when you say that "FF is better in low light because it has a larger sensor and the pixels are more light efficient". This is not true at all - quite the opposite. The main benefit of larger pixels is that they can accumulate more light before being saturated, but that's obviously irrelevant for low light situations. In fact, smaller sensors are frequently more efficient at converting light into images. For instance, a mid-range full frame sensor will convert 50-60% of the light into an useful electric signal (called Quantum Efficiency - QE). The full frame camera with the best QE today is the Canon R3 at 68% QE (with a huge price tag). In comparison, there are several micro four thirds sensors with a QE greater than 80%. From 55% QE on the Canon R6 II to 81% QE on the OM-1 II, that's a huge difference in favor of the OM-1 II, at similar price. I believe that the misconception comes from the fact that people do these comparisons at same ISO, which used to be a very relevant methodology with film cameras - not so much with digital cameras.

[clarasdk]

For the money and on a budget I would buy a APS-C with a better lense over a fullframe with a less good lense any day! I have the A6700 with the Sony 16-55G and the Sony 70-350G and the quality paired with the size and weight of the setup is just amazing. It might not be a professional setup, but I would argue that even advanced amateurs would be hard pressed to hit the limits of such a modern ASP-C setup. The autofocus, dynamics range, hell even the ISO capabilites are just amazing.

[GilbertTV]

great vid, with the new Denoise tool in Lightroom, poor ISO performance is hardly an issue these days . Personally I have an a7riii & a a6400, I love them both

[RoadReality]

Man, this video really does 3 things for me: 1, you clearly explained the differences between APS-C and FF. 2, you showed clear examples of each - thanks!

and 3, the Lego Polaroid cartridge earned the sub :D

I shot with a Sony ZV-1 for a year, Nikon Z30 for a year, and now have a Canon R6II... and they're all "tools to get the job done" - not that I'm getting paid, but they each have clear use cases for me. Glass is SO important - and this is where the APS-Cs get it wrong, IMO. The manufacturers put slow/cheap glass on them, and it really shows in the final result. I am SO HAPPY with my R6II photos when compared directly with my Nikon. And IBIS... what a boon for walking & talking.

FWIW, I bought the R6II with the 24-105 F4 USM lens. I may never need another lens for that camera.

[donsoley]

Best ever video on the differences - excellent!

[JairAmadofilms]

Wonderful breakdown bro!!🙌🏼🙌🏼 Been using my Sony a6700 for months now and it’s been an absolute beast!🔥

[Princeton_James]

The a6700 is the best apec camera out now. I love mine especially for travel. Zero shots out of focus. Colors are beautiful. Grip is better than my A7CR.

[okosakaroklenni]

At last a comprehensive comparison! Only one question left: does a 1.3EV of dynamic range advantage matter (something like an a6400 vs an A7c)?

[m_agatek]

Oh my! Perfect film for me. I use micro 4/3 system and I've been thinking about upgrading for some time. At first I wanted to go full frame but I'm afraid it will be too heavy, I'll be angry and in the end the camera will gather dust on the shelf. I'm not a professional, I take photos as a hobby. And now I'm starting to think more and more about a6700...

[bondgabebond]

Excellent video. This has to be one of the more difficult concepts for beginners to understand. This video clears that up.
I have the A7R3 and a6700. I love them both. Depending on what I want to shoot, I choose wisely. To be honest, every once in a while I feel the aps-c is not up to the job. Then I shoot some macro photos of very detailed flowers and leaves, and I am blown away again. One huge benefit with aps-c is the number of cheap (not in quality) lenses coming from China.

[Joh]

Three years ago I started with an old A6000 and a kit-lens. Today I have a used A6400, the Sigma 18-50 2.8, the Sony 70-350, the Sigma 30 and 56 1.4. I want upgrade my Samyang 12 2.0 with the Sigma 10-18 2.8 and want to change my cheap macro lens. Next year the change to the A6700 because of IBIS and Focus bracketing for macro woud be nice. But step after step. My descsion is APS-c, so I can one piece at a time optimize without to break the bank, but to be honest, although it is all used it´s a lot of money.

[haphong]

Hope you can release a video tutorial on editing photos using Lightroom

[giovannigio]

recently I used a windows tool to read files metadata and collect statistics on entire folders. I wanted to know which is the average ISO of all my 2024 photos. the result was about ISO 217. 81% of the photos have an ISO number <=500. even if I pick a folder where I have only night time photos the result was ISO 453, in that case I used the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. this alone was enough to not shoot at high ISO settings at all. I already knew I didn't need a full frame camera, but I also wanted statistical evidence.

[achaycock]

The timing of this video is very apt for me. I use Micro Four Thirds as my main system as it has proven to be a low cost way of getting those pro features (dual card slots, rugged build and amazing lenses) without spending a fortune. However, as I want to use my vintage lenses as intended and to occasionally be able to get that full frame look without jumping through hoops, I have also just bought a first gen Sony A7S. It was cheaper than the required speed boosters and the amazing low light performance was appealing (hence my choosing the lower mega-pixel sensor). It was nice to have some confirmation bias.

[smoke]

Love my 6700. I use Full frame and APS-C lenses. Thanks for the in depth explanation. Love your POV keep up the awesome work.

[W___]

2:38 thanks finally for a proper explanation of how blur works. I was looking for that in many videos.