Debunking the Crop Sensor Myth: Here's the Truth.

Thanks for sharing. Pretty confused with all these options for a casual DSLR user.

Clarifying what you said about the dof. An apsc sensor camera and a full frame camera with the same f2 50mm lens will show the same amount of subject separation and blur but since the apsc sensor camera has a smaller sensor it’s will only show a ‘cropped, 50mm image that has about the equivalent focal range of a 75mm lens on a full frame camera. To get the same view we have to put a 35mm equivalent f2 lens on the apsc camera and since dof increases with wider lenses, now you will not have the same amount of background blur.

There is no myth in saying that FOV/DOF of full frame lenses produce not only a different bokeh, but also the subject in the center will look different between say 75mm full frame lens and 50mm cropped due to the different perspective distortion at different distances from the subject's face. This is the main reason why people go full frame, there isn't really much to debate there...clearly the money is not as huge of a factor as people think it is

Hello I just can't decide which to buy between this 2 choices since they are both priced similar at $1500

a. Sony ZV-e10 with Sigma 16mm 1.4 & Sigma 56mm 1.4

b. Canon eos RP with Canon Rf 16mm 2.8 & Canon Rf 50mm 1.8

what would be your choice? at first I was sure with Canon cause its full frame but now I am slowly getting attracted with the Sony option because of that sigma lenses.

PS. Gonna use them for event photogaphy/video.

There are not enough wide angle crop lenses . Period

I just bought a Sony A7 III in addition to my A6500 (APS-C) that I've used for many years. Although I will keep my APS-C camera for certain purposes where it has its advantages (compactness for traveling or when you need very long range for wildlife photography), I'm blown away by the full-frame results. It's really a noticeable step up. When I'm shooting portraits outside with my Tamron 70-180 f2.8, the full-frame sensor really makes the crucial difference. At 180mm I'm still comfortably close to the object and the background gets so creamy as I've never seen it with my A6500 (although I have the Sigma 56mm 1.4). It's the small but subtle difference between nice and WOW.

Performance of crop sensor cameras in low light conditions is always inferior compared to full frame. Simple physics: more surface -> more light. The difference is the software which tries to correct typical low light effects like noise. So to be fair you actually have to turn of any noise reduction in full frame and APS-C and only then make a comparison. And, as somebody here already pointed out, there's no APS-C equivalent to a f1.4 full frame lens. Talking about prime lenses, sure, they increase the image quality of crop sensor cameras. But the same is true for full frame cameras, so what's the point here?

This is all extremely misleading. FF sensors of the same technology as an APSC sensor will have better dynamic range and therefore better High ISO performance if the pixel count is the same. (Or more pixels with the same DR).
You indeed explain why a bigger sensor gives a shallower depth of field, and then explain why it's not the bigger sensor that is responsible for it. But this is just nonsense. At the end of the day, a bigger sensor with a lens with the same field of view and aperture will give more background blur on a larger sensor.

I think the idea with the lower noise comes from the fact that a full frame camera with the same number of pixels (say 24 Megapixels) will have less noise compared to a crop sensor.
What is unfortunate though is that most crop sensor cameras are also "cropped" in terms of functionality. Want to have 2 card slots? Well, go full frame. Unless you take the OMDS OM-1 but that is the same price as a Sony A7 IV.

I think the whole 'crop vs full frame' discussion is so dull. The time that people spend arguing over gear they could be becoming better at taking photos through practice, workshops or studying photobooks and legends of photography. I agree that if you're on a budget, that crop probably gets you more for your money (generally). However, if you're on a budget, you can get great primes from decades ago. They may have more 'character' than the modern ultra sharp lens, but again, if you're able to use your gear effectively, you can work around any compromise.

Equally, someone might invest in a full frame system with a kit lens, knowing that they'll upgrade lenses in the future, so they are thinking long term, rather than buying into a crop system and then feeling stuck later. Someone on a budget might get a used full frame flagship from a year or two ago, or a brand new crop system, considering that the flagship cameras often have a lot of extra features.

Let's say for example you want to shoot film and digital, and adapt vintage lenses onto a digital body, and you want a specific lens (such as an ultra wide or portrait lens) to behave the same way on both bodies. What I see is people with crop cameras often exaggerating to justify the choice they made, downplaying the alternatives, rather than just accepting that different people have different priorities. It comes across like they need to prove other people 'wasted' money or just 'buy into marketing' and somehow aren't savvy enough. Then again, I see a lot of what I call banal photography on social media taken with the latest and greatest kit, and not just test photos but things people presumably post out of pride. And I'm not saying I'm not also guilty of banal photos, I just don't show those ones.

It's really the marketing hype from the manufacturers that has people so concerned with updates and comparisons (instead of working on technique). Sure, in the film days, there was still hype for the latest body or lens, but there weren't such an endless list of features and specs to study, nor at such an alarming frequency, with such an abundant source of places to argue over it.

It is not common knowledge, that’s why dpreview studio comparison is a great tool to check which camera does what in high iso, even m43 can outclass really ancient giants like the 5dm2, sensor tech has gone far. Typical knowledge is full frame, more versatile, bigger sensor, more dynamic range, more megapixel, but for older school digital guys like me, who started with d70 with only 6 megapixel, with 50f1.8 still takes better pictures than most camera phones with 200mp or 108mp, tone mapping maybe can’t match image stacking of modern phones isp pipeline, but image looks more artistic. Would not match an older ff with 85f1.8 but smaller & lighter.

But definitely considering cost, lenses, you can achieve full frame like qualities. Nikon zf is pretty though and the 40mm pancake, crop sensor I would take om1 with 75f1.8

In some situations, you just don't have the option of contolling the light. For example, when you are taking photographs at a Live rock show, where they use flashing lights and light keep changing, you cannot control the light. You have no choice but to bump up the ISO to take photographs.

For me, the real sensor , the king, just to say the first one, is the Super35 Sensor. there's nothing to say, all the digital film cinema camera that revolutioned the system were Super35, like RedOne, Arri Alexa or other. Fullframe never did the revolution of the digital cinema, the Super35 yes! No body can beat that!

After that, fullframe and Super16, or Super8 and others, just existe to compite to the first one, the Super35. People say there're more adventage with fullframe over Aps-C, yes, but just because of politics of the fullframe company sensor. Tying by any cost to promote more the fullframe sensor than the super35 in today market.

Anyone knows that the Super35 Crop compare to the frullframe crop is 1.5x vs 1.0x. Right! But why the company who make lens cameras, like Sigma, Tamron, Sony, Canon, Nikon never produced lenses equivalente to 1.0x of the fullframe aperture for Aps-C, to match to focal and the aperture of the fullframe camera?
Why sigma make a 35mm f1.2 fullframe lens, but for Aps-C they just make a 23mm f1.4 lens, equivalente 35mm f2.1 = FF?
For me, the answer is clearly, if they make an Super35 lens with a equivalente about 35mm f1.2 for the Aps-C sensor, so the fullframe would died very soon.

If they just make a new autofosus lens line-up with F/0.8 aperture, like a 23mm f0.8 lens (35mm f/1.2 = ff), believe me nobody gonna say more fullframe is better than aps-c. Never!

I'm allway ask to myself, if the sigma 18-35mm f1.8 is so popular, why they don't never thinking to remake a mirorless version of this lens for sony, fuji and nikon? It's the only real f/2.8 equivalnete aperture zoom lens we have for Aps-C until now. If they do that, things gonna change quickly.

Thanksfuly, we recently begining to have a revolutionary lens collection for Aps-C that gonna change the Aps-C vision seriously: "The Viltrox Pro Line Lens F/1.2."

They just release the 75mm f1,2 (112mm f/1.8 ff) and the 27mm f/1.2 (40mm f/1.8). I'm sure we'll see more on the future, maybe some 16mm f1.2 and 70mm f1.2. But, with the aparition of those lenses, the market game gonna change very soom. More company gonna try to make autofocus lenses with aperture about f/1.2 or wider than that for Aps-c verry soon.

Even, if sony just make and Aps-C camera with 12Megapixels Sensor of the Sony a7SIII, with the same ISO and Dynamic Range capabilities, so it gonna out perfome the fullframe camera on the market.

All that, make me think that Aps-C is still a better system than fullframe today at the end. It have many adventage over the fullframe, even many company block the super35 sensor for business quetions. But, without that, The Aps-C would shine clarly as the king it has allways been.

Having watched the video, I don't really understand why you made it. If you take features out of the picture (which is where APS-C and Micro Four Thirds manage to make up a significant gap in pricing v.s Full Frame), a FF sensor wins everytime if you have similar megapixels. Bigger sensors mean more light is able to hit each cell, thus having better performance. Now, there's arguably less visual difference between, say, a 20mp Micro 4/3 and a 60mp FF until you start to print big, but that's another discussion.

To demonstrate my point, look at the first/second generation of the Sony RX1 versus the X100V. Taking features out of the equation (save the lens, which Sony takes), the RX1 takes better pictures. I love my X100V, a lot...but the Sony is better, even if it's not by leaps and bounds.

I feel like you would have been better served by saying "Hey. Full Frame is historically king, but here's why I think you should seriously look at cropped sensor offerings." That, and maybe add a little context regarding professional use versus yahoos like me (literally Me) that just like to take pictures.

Please don't forget to include Pentax! Excellent cameras and lenses/glass for decades and still very popular in other countries! Thank you!!

The camera can only take pictures you create images ❌💀

I can’t agree more! One more factor to be mentioned here is the weight of the set (did I missed it in the video?). It’s something that really matters when you go out or go to remote lands. I use Fujifilm cameras and they meet all the requirements that I can have. In any situation. And I’m not obsessed with having “the best cam ever made”. I prefer to focus on the artistic side of photography. And yes, most of modern cameras are almost on par from the technical point of view. So, everyone can pick something that suits his hand better without making any trade-off, and this is really nice!

Things to consider when deciding full frame or crop sensor cameras...

1) A 24MP Full Frame sensor is more sensitive to light than a 24MP Crop Sensor is simply by virtue of having larger pixels, but it also has the same resolution as the crop sensor.

2) A 12MP Full Frame sensor is even MORE sensitive to light than a 24MP Full Frame sensor, but at the cost of resolution. Pixels are double in size, so there are fewer of them.

3) A 42MP Full Frame camera has nearly twice the resolution as a 24MP Crop Sensor camera, but isn't any more sensitive to light due to the nearly same size pixels (just more of them due to a larger surface area).

4) Buying Full Frame lenses for your Crop Sensor camera gives you the same FOV as an APS-C lens, but has the added benefit of eliminating almost all vignetting due to the rear element of the lens being oversized in comparison to the APS-C sensor.

5) If reach is what you want, consider a Crop Sensor. A 600mm lens is an equivalent 900mm on a Crop Sensor.

Selecting by purpose the worst (older) FF sensor on the market and set it side by side with a very modern APSC one.
I have both these cameras, the Fuji sensor certainly performs better recovering underexposed images, but so does an modern M43 sensor.
On the other side of the medal, the FF canon sensor, properly exposed, destroys the Fuji sensor, colour wise and perspective wise.

You said it ! Everything is 100% true.
I guess people are sometime more obsessed about who have the best camera on paper instead of really using it.
Having the best camera, maybe make them feel better photographer ?

On the subject of low light performance, new technology gives the solution in the form of f/0.95 lenses for under $300. Another more recent development are dual ISO sensors like on a few of Blackmagic Design's cameras. Even the Pocket Cinema 4k has a 400/1250 dual native sensor with an MFT mount. Pair it with an f/0.95 lens and you can get some rather low noise shots under moonlight if you want.

Very good explanation! However I feel the need to point out that the difference between price of the lenses for ex. a 85mm f1,4 and a similar lens for crop camera is even greater than double the price. I work with Sony both FF and Crop. A sigma 85 f1,4 for FF is around 1500 euro but an 56 mm f1,4 on my Sony crop sensor, which is the same as 85 mm on FF, is only 450 euro. And if you compare Sigma lenses for crop sensor with Sonys lenses for FF then the price difference is 4 to 5 times higher. Could the reason why crop cameras normally produce more noise because the manufacturer is simply not prioritizing the crop cameras noise handling? When I went from Sony A7RII to A7RII I noticed a remarkable difference in how the camera handled noise even though the sensor was exactly the same. I don't remember exactly but I think I read something later that Sony had added some code for the processor to be able to process noise better in the A7RIII.

All the full frame cameras released by sony, nikon & canon cameras released in last 5 years has better low light noise performance than nay APSc camera out there.

It’s so weird seeing a Sony label on a Fuji camera.

I have seen many skipped the crop size and dive into full frame system, end up giving up photography as a hobby as it’s too heavy to carry out for the trip.

Excellent technical analysis. The people who view my photos neither know nor care about the camera equipment I use to produce photographs. I have yet to have anyone ask me what size size sensor I use. What is critical is the quality of my printing. Stop obsessing about sensors and just enjoy your work/hobby.

I recently bought a FF for the first time after years of APSC and I can tell you that I see the difference in image quality. Even with a “cheap” 50mm lens

Thank you!!

The only reason I buy full frame is so I can get wide aperture zooms, aka the F2.8 holy trinity zooms. If they released more lenses similar to the Sigma F1.8 18-35mm & 50-100mm with updated autofocus and put more pro features in apsc camera bodies, I’d for sure buy more apsc than just my FX30.

i have a 5d MKIII that is gathering dust because I am mainly using the r6 mk I. I still hold the 5d as as backup but someday I'll replace it with a r7.

I wouldn't say that an APSC lens at 1.4 is the same as a full frame lens at 1.4. Yes, technically they both are 1.4 by the way an F stop has to be measured, but when it comes to light gathering, it's not the same, specially for astro Photography.
If you have a, APS-C camera and you're doing astro photography, the extra light that the full frame lens will gather for the full fram sensor is signifficant. Or look at it this way, you don't need an 1.4 lens when an F 2.2 lens will gather about the same amount of light IF both cameras have the same amount of pixels in their sensors.

I do agree that getting high quality glass is cheaper for APSC, i own a Canon M50 and among many lenses, the Sigma 16mm F/1.4, that thing is a beast for astro photography, it has plenty of clarity and it makes the M50 be worth keeping imo. But a FF Camera with an 1.8 lens will gather more light than the APSC camera with the 1.4 lens, assuming both are 24 megapixels.

APSC is enough for most uses unless you really wanna go balls to the wall with the amount of light or sensitivity taht you need.

Nice video BUT in low light performance you compared ff camera canon eor rp with aps-c camera sony fx30 thats over 2 times more expensive than canon. And then you're saying "that crop sensor camera is about half the price of FF camera"... Lol. I get it but it also does prove another point: throw money at everything, then specific specs doesn't matter. There's probably somewhere a 4:3 sensor camera that beats aps-c as well as FF, it's just very expensive XD. Still liked the video, just wanted to point that out.

Dude, a Canon EOS R8 + Canon RF 35mm 1.8 is $2000. A Fujifilm XT5 + Fujinon 23mm 1.4 is $2600, and the canon will take better pictures. Any time. I have both systems, I've proved that to myself a number of times...

1. I don’t think people were claiming every single full frame camera has better high ISO performance than every single crop camera. That’s pretty naive. Clearly, advances in sensor technology play a role too. When people say full frame has better high ISO performance, they mean “all else being equal”

2. This is flawed reasoning too. The larger sensor size necessitates using longer focal length to get the same field of view. No one jumps over to full frame and just keeps using the same focal length as they were before and just accepts that every shot is wider. In reality people select focal lengths and camera positions in order to get the desired composition.

3. Yeah, I mean no one is making the argument that full frame cameras are the same price. That’s not how I’ve interpreted it at all. The claim is that there’s a higher ceiling on these factors by using full frame. You can buy lenses with larger image circles and take advantage of the additional light. You can position yourself closer, all else being equal, to get a shallower depth of field.

I like Winnie the Pooh.

Your theory is like saying 110 film was as good as 35mm. We know how that went.

what is full frame ? ....4x5 plate, ... 24x36mm ? ... In school I learned on a Rgobertson 16x20inch using sheet film darkroom camera.... someone want to forward this to Tony Northrop ........... I'll watch his reaction when it gets done

An important point that you don't emphasize in your discussion: if you want to get background separation (i.e. you want to shoot wide open on fast apertures), you are limited by the available lenses. To get the equivalent of 35mm f2 on APS-C, you need 24mm f1.4, for a 50mm f1.4, you would need 35mm f1 etc. For most modern APS-C systems, there exist no autofocus lenses with the required apertures. If you are going the manual route, you can adapt many beautiful lenses with fast apertures, but that means you are going to miss many shots. The situation is even worse for zoom: the fastest zoom lenses for APS-C have f2.8, which is equivalent to f4 on full frame.

Great discussion.
Crop cameras have their advantages in focal length \ DOF for certain applications.
Also, it gets complicated once you bring in speedboosters, regarding DOF.
Id say people should be looking at what sensor theyre buying instead.
Eg : A nikon z7 in DX mode is identical to a z50 file wise. So the full frame camera isn't really better than the crop.

At last a guy with brains

Will somebody introduce affordable medium format camera? Now it's only Fuji GFX, but it's not affordable at all...

Man you make it sound so scientific 🤠

Great video. My doubts right now are that I can buy a almost brand new Sony a7ii for less the price of a Fuji xt30ii. I have hard time justifying the Fuji.

The advantage to full frame is that you have a larger sensor with larger optics. For some, this is necessary, for others, it's not. It really depends on what you're shooting and in what style.

this is quality content. Also, Camera Conspiracies in his own way comments on the "bokeh" and blurry dof rat race and I agree with him. Blurring everything but the eyes of the subject is just a cheap trick to hide a lack of composition skills and creativity. APSC gives me ideal DOF, and I've tried FF and while interesting, it isn't my thing as better noise on FF cameras gets nullified by the need to use a proper F-stop that isn't 2.8 or lower. I'd use 2.8 on APSC on a 50mm and get the same results as FF on 3.5 75mm and that better noise isn't really better anymore. Also, with AI noise reduction in Lightroom, I can quickly transform a raw image shot in the middle of the night with moonlight on iso over 20k to something that looks great. I've tried it with Sigma 56mm 1.4 prime. combined with Sony A6400 it's a low-light monster. a6400 is lighter and cheaper, and given those circumstances, it performs on par with similar generation Sony FF cameras a7iii let's say, and a7c. One thing FF sony cameras are better in is that they offer dual SD cards, but using rugged and reliable SD cards keeps the risk of losing images to a minimum. Some like FF and I get why, but it's not IMHO "better", it's nowadays (especially with APSC gems like a6700 and now supercheap second hand a6400) just different.

Well Fuji has proven time and time again that you can match aps-s sensor to ff if you put as much money and effort to get maximum quality out of it. The true is simple. Most aps-c cameras are lower level there fore they tend to have limitations in image quality.

Low light candle 🕯️ test. Pitch black room with only one candle 🕯️ to illuminate. Thats the true comparison. How good camera can hold in extremely low light conditions. Any camera will do great at best light conditions. Worst camera with good enough light 🚨 will beat the best camera in bad light.