Love this vid. I started with an APSC and upgraded to an APSC and plan to once again upgrade to another APSC. Crop sensor bodies are not a downgrade. Some camera spec nerds will say it's all FF or nothing...it's not. It's just as professional as a Full Frame if you know what you're doing. No one cares about those fine details, but other camera spec nerds. I've shot weddings, maternity, engagements all with an APSC and I never heard a bride or mom say, "!!But The Dynamic Range!!" 🤣

When I show my Olympus micro 4/3 photos to my Nikon Z 7II buddy, he tells me my images are more than good enough. I like my small gear. If a camera is fun to use, you will use it more.

Good comparison but I’d note a couple of things. 1) The Fuji and Nikon sensors are totally different, Nikon and most other companies (including Canon and Sony) use the Bayer sensor while Fuji mostly uses the X-Trans sensor. Because of that Lightroom is known to have issues demosaicing (decoding) Fuji raw files. Using Capture One instead of Lightroom would produce better results but I would say a fairer comparison would be between a Nikon full frame and another Nikon aps-c camera to keep everything as similar as possible. Also the lenses make a big difference in the details captured too, it would be fairer to compare a Nikon pro lens against a Fuji pro lens. 2) There is not only a noise difference between the crop and aps-c cameras, there is also a depth of field difference as the aps-c camera is cropping in on, say, a 35mm lens, while the full frame camera is using the full image circle. While this doesn’t affect image quality per se it is something that affects the images themselves as it may impact the kind of photo you want to get and the kind of lens you would need to get the same look as full frame. I think that’s something worth mentioning, particularly in terms of the cost of lenses and as the difference in DoF is quite noticeable in the night example. 3) There won’t be a huge difference in dynamic range in ideal conditions as both cameras are very good and have modern sensors, where you would really see a difference is in more extreme situations like a sunset with the sun in the frame causing both very bright and dark areas. The full frame camera would perform better because of the size of the sensor but that comparison would be interesting to see. 4) There’s also quite a big resolution difference between the two cameras, 19mp is a lot and you’d expect it to produce more detailed images. I think it would be fairer either to shoot the Nikon in a lower megapixel mode or to compare the Fuji with something more similar to its megapixel count. For what it’s worth I currently use a full frame Sony A7iii and have a crop Fujifilm X-T30ii as a travel camera. I’ve also found the difference in image quality between them to be less than expected. Both produce fantastic images, particularly when paired with good lenses. Where I notice the difference is in extreme conditions like sunsets and high ISO situations like astro, for those shoots and when I need a full frame look I always go for the Sony. What the Fuji offers in exchange though is a smaller and lighter system that is easier to travel with while still offering excellent quality and as I get older, that weight difference is something I really value. I’m lucky to have both and can choose but for most people, particularly those starting out, I think crop makes the most sense as it’s a good balance of price, features and performance

When I shot film, I used the same camera for 20 years. I now shoot digital on a crop sensor, I have no desire to upgrade. No one has ever told me that my images were lacking in some way, whether film or digital, or landscapes or portraits. I think people can get too concerned about the gear and not enjoy the process and outcomes, that getting out and taking photos, can give you. Have to say, some of the more creative images I’ve enjoyed seeing, were taken with a phone.

This will of course never stop being discussed. I have an APS-C camera purely for private, hobby photo and video shooting. And would perhaps be able to make the monetary effort to "upgrade" to full frame. However... I am a person that like to keep life comfortable and uncomplicated. Add a pinch of laziness and APS-C is for me the right size to lug around. I am not always satified with the photos and videos I take, but have yet to be able to blame it all on my camera. As a consequence I am busy "upgrading" my own skills and talents as it seems smarter than just buying a new, bigger camera. :)

Just a note for the Fuji details looking off. That comes down to how Lightroom processes the files. Capture one doesn't have the same issue

This is July 2023 - I have very recently purchased the Fujifilm X-T5 and used the 16mm lens with stunning results. This morning I printed one of the images - Stunningly sharp (landscape). Ive been a NIKON user for some 30 years or more and currently still have my NIKON Z7 II (having sold my D850 with all f mount lenses …. trying to reduce carry weight as old age doesn’t help). Possibly will sell my Z7 II + lenses. My X-T5 at this point fulfils my need to reduce weight in my camera bag without losing image quality. Nikon equipment sold🙊

I only had one main camera which was a Canon 5D, which I used to take on holidays. In the kit I had the camera body, a 24-105 lens, a 50mm fixed and a 100-500 tele, a flash unit, several filters and spare batteries and cleaning gear. I carried them in a Lowepro backpack and the weight was 7 kilos (the maximum allowed on planes). My camera bag was quite bulky as all the gear is on the large end of the scale. I also wanted to add some other small items to the kit but was unable to due to weight. When going on a trip overseas (we are based in Australia) I decided to go to a Panasonic G9, with a combination of Olympus 24-200 lens, a Panasonic 24mm fixed and the Pana/Leica 100-400 lens, flash gear, spare batteries, and sundry gear in a smaller Lowepro backpack. The weight was less than 5 kilos and the space saving was considerable. The sensors on both cameras are about the same size, so I was more than interested to see how the Micro4/3s shots stacked up with the full frame. The only time I see the little sensor losing out is in very low light scenarios, with noise becoming more obvious. But most shots with the G9 I find the quality of shots are excellent, and it was quite a relief to find that the full frame didn't leave the Panasonic behind. I am very impressed with the smaller sensor camera and it's gear, and will continue to use it for some time. The very good quality shots, the size and weight savings to be gained, and the difference in price are well worth considering. Great effort Marc, keep up the good work.

People who faff about fuel frame being better than apsc, haven’t seen medium format…! The Fuji GFfX are insanely great! In any case, it’s not a matter of sensor size, it’s a matter of pixel pitch… the size of each pixel, which in truth defines the ability of the sensor to gather light (and with a set amount of noise)

Would be interesting to see a similar comparison with an R7 and a full-frame camera with a comparable megapixel count

I know a full-time wedding/portrait photographer who uses an APS-C Canon DSLR, can't remember the exact model. It's not even current generation. Their stuff looks fantastic.

When most photographers at the time were using medium format cameras there was a chap that went for 35mm. His name was Henri Cartier-Bresson. People don't say 'oh that's got amazing dynamic range and I can see lots of detail in the shadows'. They do sometimes say 'I really like that photograph you took. In an ideal world I'd have one of each type of camera with a good range of lenses for each. Until that day the camera I have will more than suffice.

Very happy with my X-T3 and A7IV primary cameras. Very little difference in quality in good light. It's when the light drops that you start to see differences but that's when you use equivalent lenses. One stop of light, like for like. I think people get to obsessed with sensor size, do you really need the big camera with the big sensor and big lenses? Yes, they are better but better does not mean the same thing for everyone.

A better comparison would be the Nikon D850 or D5 and a Nikon D500, imo.

I use a M4/3 camera. I find with DXO I just don't worry about noise anymore. I am happy with the weigh and size i save with the system. That's what was important to me.

No image has worse quality than the one not taken because I left the gear at home because I couldn't bear the thought of lugging that size and weight around. The low light images, the crop sensor image may have more noise but overall looks more pleasant.

Nice video…. For what it is worth I would like to add 2 points for your viewers…. When considering image quality - comparison should be done with true “equivalence”…. For example: f/2, ISO 200, 33mm on the APSC vs f3, ISO 800, 50mm on a Full-Frame… I used to lug around a heavy “full-frame” until I used a m43 camera… I have found that so long as you keep the ISO below 3,200 on any crop sensor (since 2018) the image quality in print under 16x20 at dpi 200 is virtually indistinguishable…. In short - I sold everything and can now carry my entire kit on any vacation in a shoulder bag! My current kit is a Panasonic G9, Panasonic-Leica 15mm, 25mm, 42.5mm and 100-400mm all in a small shoulder bag…. So point #1 is at true equivalence the image quality is really not significant… And point #2 the size, weight and cost should be considered… But a final point that makes me miss my full-frame (occasionally) is when you want to take full-body portraits at close distance - like at an indoor party…. The angle of view of a 25mm on a m43 is still far more acute than that of a 50mm on a full-frame…. So… although the “field of view” is the same the compression is truly evident! Portraits are not as pleasing! That being said - Using a 42.5mm and stepping back will return facial features and the compression distortion is not evident…. You however due to being further from the subject lose some of the ability to blur the background easily…. What this has done is cause me to be a better photographer…. I now have to place my subject carefully in relation to the background…. Still…. If having a more blurred background provides a more pleasing bokeh - then accept the need to keep a full-frame for indoor portrait shoots….

I'm a nikon user I use the D700 D850 and D7500 the 700 is my camera of choice for events like weddings and birthdays I do some wildlife and the 850 is my weapon of choice but my little 7500 is my daily driver it's smal light and powerfull for its scant 20mp it's my favorite to take everywhere with a nikkon 105mm prime.

Thanks for doing this. A couple thing. First, regarding detail. For me the take away from your comparison was that a 45 mp sensor will provide more detail than a 26 mp sensor. Perhaps a more appropriate comparison would have been the Fuji compared to say, a Nikon Z6 or a Sony A7 III. The huge difference in resolution of the 2 sensors compared, makes me question, is the result a reflection of the sensor size, or is it more about sensor resolution?. What I would have love to see is a comparison of the images under normal viewing conditions. Is the difference relevant when viewed on a laptop at full screen? How about a 32 inch monitor or a 65 inch T.V. again at normal viewing distances? Finally print a couple at say, A2 and view them from a normal viewing distance. Now what do you think about them? How do they compare? Ironically, I'm heading out on a tour of the National Parks of the American Southwest in a couple weeks and I'm conflicted over whether to bring my A7 IV kit or my A6600 kit. Rationally, I know that none of my images will be viewed (except by me) at 200% or printed at A1, but there is always that techie part of my brain that tells me not to compromise. Tough decision.

I think we all get sidetracked by trying to capture an ultra sharp image etc, A pleasing image doesn’t have to be tack sharp, I shoot on APS-C & FF but one of my favourite images was taken on my little Sony RX100 mkiii 1 inch sensor

Thanks for the video. All these arguments in the comments are not needed. 🙈 You are correct, cameras are tools of the trade. I've been shooting a combination of digital 35mm =, "full frame" and APS-C "cropped" for decades. Before that we had different types of film, sizes, resolution, sensitivity. Someone shooting product photography may well use a very high MP CCD sensor all lit by carefully calculated strobes etc. You wouldn't want to carry that lot around 😅. Also, in the old days everything was printed or slides produced, now it depends on what you do with your files. If you just post to Instagram or other Web applications, tbh a good phone camera can give decent results. If you want to print large then what tool you use makes a difference. The two photos in this video of Haystacks over the lake are a good example of this. The lower dynamic range and lack of details and smudging in the shadows and foliage of the smaller sensor would not make a good fine print. The other file would be much better but for the web both are fine. APS-C cameras have as many advantages as disadvantages, I still use both. Decide what you are going to do with your photos, pick your tool, spend more time learning composition and digital darkroom skills. 😊

I use both for different situations. With small well-defined indoor spaces (imagine a restaurant), a crop body with an f1.4 prime is nice, small and less intimidating/distracting to a subject for spontaneous photos. When you need versatility and lighting is challenging, a wide aperture zoom on full frame works well (imagine museum or concert). I know how zooms fall apart in low light on crop bodies but full light outdoors a crop body zoom can work ok (hiking on vacation). I use full frame Sony a7iv in a sling bag with a f2.8 trio, 16-35 GM, 24-70 ART, and 70-180 Tamron when I don’t know what I’ll be doing. Packs decently small.

Having a Sony A6600 and my wife's cousin having a Sony A7iii and an A7iv, we played some comparison games. Yes, low light there are noticeable differences. Not that we both use higher end G and Gmaster lenses. But for 90% if our shots we were hard pressed to notice an big differences outside of low light. He did mention one thing that we both agreed was relevant. He said "I would enjoy taking your camera (a6600) and a couple lenses for a day of street shooting, but I find it a heavy pain to do that with gf, so I tend not to bring it out as often" I think both systems have pluses and minuses, and it comes down to what works for you.

I have a cropped sensor Fuji but I shoot raw and process the files using DXO Pure Raw. Then I use ACR /Photoshop. The files are very good looking when you put some effort into the post processing. The one reason I am considering full frame is for the depth of field. I like the bokeh on full frame better but other than that the cropped sensor IQ is more than enough.

One thing to note is if you're going to get a high MP ff camera then you need good glass that can resolve that much detail otherwise there isn't much point. That will probably push up the cost and weight too.

I have dabbled back and forth about changing and in the end, I decided to stay with CROP SENSOR [APS-C] the reason is that after pixel peeping and for what I do, it wasn't worth the expense.

I've just gone from a Canon 80D (APSC 24.2mp) to a Canon EOS R6(FF 'only' 20mp) and the improvement is staggering. The 80D struggled with noise badly at anything over ISO 800, but the R6 will give good results up to ISO12800, even in low light. The dynamic range is also far larger than the 80D so for me it's one of the best decisions I've made as I shoot most of my shots in lowish light. On a really bright day the difference wouldn't be as great, but the sharpness of the R6 (using adapted EF lenses that I used on the 80D) is much better then it was. Great video and analysis, thanks.

There’s no right or wrong when choosing a full frame or crop sensor camera - both are capable of producing excellent images, depending of course on the skill of the photographer!

That painting effect is something that will happen with X-Trans images (Fujifilm) when over sharpened in Lightroom. Known as worming effect. There´s many ways to work around this if you like me still want to use Lightroom. This is not happening in Capture One (they say)…

Great video. Subscribed! Thank you for your clear, dispassionate explanation. Bravo!

The defining characteristic of full-frame is that it flattens a much widened field of view. Compare old-timey HUGE negative cameras to a smaller format to see the difference. There is no advantage of FF for most landscape shots.

Might have been interesting to have compared a FF and Crop sensor of the same Manufacturer and similar resolution... For example Nikon's D750 and the D7200... with a quality lens attached... No sensor or processor can account for deficiencies in the glass...

Hello, I have watched a number of videos on You tube channels, on here and they all come up with the same result. The full frame is somewhat better but not by much. You really have to look close to see the differences, but they are there. I think both images from both cameras are great. It all depends on if you crop your images a lot. And not a big difference. I think where the differences will be in going to APS- C to a full frame medium format camera sensor. That when the medium format is going to shine. Thank you for the video and the testing.

If I want to “upgrade” crop sensor, I’ll just go to medium format. Don’t see the point of full frame…for me.

The most important detail of any camera is that you go out and take photos with it. To many people spend enormous amounts on stuff they never use. A full frame in a drawer will not capture a waterfall early in the morning unless the owner leaves the bed.

I stopped caring years ago and with todays upscale and denoise I care even less. I had the privilege to win photograph of the year and best nature photograph in Swedens biggest photography magazine a few years back. Shot on Fujifilm XT2 and the Xf55-200mm. The image was also cropped more than 50% to only 11.3 megapixels. I was up against Leicas, Hasselblads and GFX etc. No one ever asked me what it was shot on. I did a limited edition of the print 1/5. I got 1 left. The first sold for 400usd, the second 1000usd and the last one is now up for 3000usd. A 7 year old APS-C image cropped more than 50% printed as an A3 shot on a kit you can buy used for 800usd these days.. I still use my XT2 as much as I can.

Great video, and good examples. I'm sending a link to a fellow photog. We were discussing this very thing this week.

In the low light test, would shooting a 35mm at 1.4 on the crop sensor be more equivalent to the full frame 50mm f2? It seems that the increased depth of field of the 35mm at f2 makes noise more obvious since there is more background detail.

Very interesting video, thanks. I'm APS-C (thinking of upgrading) and another thing I notice is the crop factor. I have a 17-70 Sigma lens which is approx 25 - 100 on full frame. If you want longer focal lengths e.g. for sports APS-C is probably a plus. if you need a wide angle or do astro photography where low light performance is important full frame has a clear benefit. Otherwise I thin a lot depends on if you need to print large if the cost and other benefits make sense with full frame.

Diferent lenses can make a big difference than just the cameras sensor size southern are many factors to consider

i loved your video thank you for this. i have a question. i am a crop sensor user planning to upgrade but so confused if i take the highend crop sensor or the full frame. Budget does play a part in the decision making. Is the megapixel difference not going to make the difference. at 23:13 on your video i loved how the full frame has captured the rocks in the water vs the APS-C.

Good guidance

Thank you. Awesome video. The noise difference seems negligible but you do retain a lot more details in FF sensor at night. Look at the bottom of that sign, on on crop sensor it's pretty much just all black.

Started with APSC 400d,40d, 60d, 70d,600d moved on to APS-H 1d2 then got full frame 5d3, currently have 1 of each and also micro 4/3 an Olympus OMD-EM1X which I'm enjoying using.

I think more than sensor size, resolution and lenses are going to be key along with good technique. The only real advantages of FF vs APSC was (and is somewhat today although less so) is the high ISO noise abilities. FF has typically done better but with modern APSC sensors, I'd say that they rival that of 5 year old FF cameras, and so my answer would be "it depends". If you have a choice between a modern day APSC camera like an a6100 or a6400 or an R7 or Z50 over a 5-7 year old FF camera, I might be inclined to choose the modern APSC camera and take the extra money I would have saved and put it towards good lenses.

I have both a D850 and a D500. In my opinion each has its own merits. For me one issue to consider is if you plan to crop your image full frame is much more flexible. If, on the other hand, you consider that the crop sensor image is near the final image with little or no cropping, crop sensor is great. If you work out the full frame size you need to crop down to the 20 or more megapixels crop sensor size you get a larger image size equal to or more than many full frame cameras! There is also the consideration as to the type of photography you are using the camera for as, again, each system has it’s own benefits! Generally though it was always thought in the past that bigger image size is best! 🤘📷😁👍

When looking at the night time photographs, I thought that the crop sensor photograph was better. This is because the brickwork behind the columns on the building behind the letter "h" looked clearer with the crop sensor camera and this was apparent before zooming right in.

And a further comment. How do the lenses used compare? Are they similar in terms of sharpness across the frame etc. etc.

Really useful thanks

Really good video Marc 👍 I agree with your thoughts and having owned Olympus micro 4/3, Nikon and Fuji crop sensor and Nikon full frame the noise is noticeable but only under certain conditions so not an issue for a majority of situations. I’m pretty much using full frame all of the time now but that is purely my preference and not to do with the sensor. Some of my favourite pictures were taken with my Olympus and Nikon crop sensor cameras and for me the best camera is the one you have in your hand. I 100% about weight of equipment but mirrorless full frame is much lighter and smaller than their DSLR equivalents. Great content Marc 👍👍

I haven't CHANGED the system, I just added a full-frame to my crop camera as an addition. I have had a Canon 90D since... basically since it came out, and it was a great investment and is amazing for wildlife, with its 32,5 megapixel CROP sensor, you can really get much farther than with a full frame... bearing in mind the low-light conditions, of course. Which is why I went for a Canon R6 to cover that aspect of my photographic interest. Don't get me wrong, 90D is a very capable camera even in low-light, depending on what you want to achieve. If you don't crop too much, it's quite usable and I have plenty of photos to prove it. But I've always been planning to move to full-frame and I've been buying ff lenses, mainly from Tamron, and it's always in the back of my mind how much light I'm collecting with those lenses that don't make it to the sensor. :D With R6... even 25k6 ISO is quite decent.

Very interesting video! I’m completely happy with my Olympus OM Cameras (and also with my Nikon)! The new OM-1 is AMAZING!

Clients don't care or understand... They like the pic, that's all that counts. Changed from Canon to Fuji... Did shoots for BMW, Reebok, and Disney... Never a complaint not being FF

I went from canon 80d to Olympus em5 ii to Sony a7iii and finally x-h1. What I realized for portrait and wedding work is about light. I still needed to fill in shadows with full frame but at a lessened level. High iso for crop is 6400. High iso for full frame is 12800. These both depends on print size. For me the weight of full frame wasn’t worth it. But Sony came out with new lighter lenses after I sold all my kit. For me buying a pro level camera with dual card slots was the biggest winner.

Just swap my a7iv to xt5, best decision I’ve made. Yes, you’ll get more obliteration in the background when wide open but that’s it. But the lenses or rather price difference is enormous ie fuji xf 16-55 f2.8 £950, Sony gm 24-70 f2.8 £2700😵‍💫

Need help.. If any full frame camera shoots 4k 60fps in apsc mode. Does that mean using 50mm f4 vl work as f6? And low light performance will be same as apsc camera (only using subset of pixels as sensor is acting as super 35)?

If some hasn't said anything about this but you are comparing different sensors, which makes very little difference in the long run. From my experience I can honestly say that it all depends on your usage of your camera. If you are a professional than by all means, buy a full frame camera as long as you have the write-off or budget from your business to pay for it. If you are a hobbyist, someone who shoots for the fun of it, I would go with the APS-C because the difference is hard to find and it costs much less than the full-frame camera and glass (lenses). As a hobbyist you should remember this very important point, don't get hung up in your gear. Get out of the house, shoot, and most importantly, have fun doing it. And, look at light-room or Topaz to adjust your photos in post production.

Great video you should make an update video with Fuji’s new 40mp sensor, also is very important to disclose what lens you used,because that can affect the sharpness of the images. I used to own the xt4 and now the xt5 is more sharper and the new Fuji lenses are very sharp. So a update of this video will be more than appreciate

Judging by the clouds difference, would have been better if the photos of the landscape were taken in the same moment in the same day, because the crop sensor landscape is much more hazy, and we don't know if it is atmospheric condition or variability in image productions.

I kept my cameras as I "moved up" to larger sensors. I actually shoot most of my shots with MFT cameras. It's because of the size and weight. It's so easy to grab the smaller camera with a much smaller and lighter lens, and get out and shoot. The GX-85 with a 20mm 1.7 lens is almost always with me. My "favorites" are still my Nikon APS-C cameras. The D7200 and D300 feel "just right" when I use them. I think less and shoot more. If I can carry the larger gear, that's usually what I take. That said, my Z5 is nice. It just "feels" awkward to me. The lenses are bigger, and the third party primes are MUCH heavier. If I'm shooting at night, or in really low light, I get it out. That said, I could easily live without the full frame kit. I'm in my 60s, and the ability to get the camera and lenses out to where I want to shoot seems to be the most important factor to me. Of course, I'm shooting for me. If I was actually selling my photos, it would change the way I look at creating them.

I took pictures of my children school functions, with stage lights. Most of my camera moments happens in very low light conditions. I borrowed cameras for both functions. In one function, I used crop sensor. The other, I used full frame. Full frame produced much better and usable pictures. Don't care what experts says. Full frame ALWAYS produces better pictures in my case. So if you are an beginner/amature, and can afford it, go full frame. Pros can probably overcome the light sensitivity handicap.

Light Room still doesn't play well with Fuji files. It would be interesting to see a comparison using Capture 1. I think the Fuji files would hold up better. DX0 also does a better job.

awesome test. thanks

I've shot with both FF and APS-C , All that matters is if you, (or your customer) likes the final results. In many years of shooting, not once did I have a customer ask me what sensor format I used. All they cared about was a quality print, viewed at a normal distance. To me, The quality from the lab was the most important thing.

I wonder what would be the difference with similar megapixel size, for example if you compared against the Fuji xhs.

I found an image of a mother and daughter woodland scene. He mother was helping her daughter put her cardigan back on after the pic-nic had come to an end. The image was taken in the 1930s. The camera was basic. The B/W film was definitely low tech and the lens was a converted beer-bottle! Would I put this image in a gallery? Absolutely! Why? The image was full of emotion and told a story. The sheer lack of image quality didn’t detract from the the story being told. In fact, the lack of image quality enhanced the story being told and the emotion being evoked. In fact, if the image had been hi-res, the story would have suffered. It demonstrated that the vision of the photographer was key. Not the camera. Not the film and not the lens. From this image, I learned that an image with ‘wow’ factor, comes not from pixels, lens sharpness, or sensor size. It comes from the heart.

A very interesting subject and a difficult one to assess across different brands. Ultimately, it comes down to how much light each photosite receives, pixel pitch and algorithms a manufacturer uses.And every camera has it's place. I use the Nikon Z6 full frame and the Z50 crop sensor. So you have a full frame 24Mp v 20 Mp cropped. Surprisingly, when shooting wildlife, landscapes or architecture, I do prefer the Z50. Especially if I want to further crop the image with a given lens. The images seem more detailed and a lot sharper, but it does lose a little in the dynamic range.There's plenty of flexibility still in Lightroom though. My conclusion is the Z50 has a far better pixel pitch since less cropping is required and therefore more detailed, the trade off is in the dynamic range, but not much in the noise amplification. The Z6 would only be displaying 16Mp for the matching crop sensor equivalent. Let alone doing any further image cropping in post. However, for portrait work & pet photography, the reverse is true. Because I can utilize the full frame sensor area for a shallower depth of field, maintain a better compression to the perspective for a given lens, and handle dynamic range more. Consequently, detail isn't as a big issue (except for the eyes) because its lost in a softer bokeh. For Landscapes, there's surprisingly very little between them, again the z50 crop sensor is sharper. The Z6 may handle dynamic range better, but then the resolving power is lost because its cramming in more detail from a wider angle lens range. So, I really need a Z7 for Landscapes involving wide panoramas. And this is where I miss the resolving power of my d800.

Good video and exactly what I expected? I have both systems the Nikon and the Fujifilm. For landscapes I prefer my Nikon system when I shoot large vistas, when I shoot casual and anything not too far away I will use the Fujifilm. The Fujifilm is very good with large objects and closer ones, the Nikon for everything is excellent. Good video and I just subscribed. Thank you. For noise reduction though I use a different software.

First I had an APSC camera (Canon M6). I was quite happy with it, took nice photos, was lightweight. Then I bought a Canon RP (full frame) and got a good glass (Canon RF 24-105 mm f/4 L). I can say that I do see better performance of the full frame, combined with superior glass. But of course it's bulkier and heavier.

Well done, excellent video, I shoot Fuji, Leica digital and Agfa 120 film........bang for buck I love my iPhone 13 pro max. I've done Canon & Sony. Olympus is very much fantastic bang for buck. Bottom line is, image & process. Software rules, IMHO, "IF" the image is a "keeper". I conclude, they are not so easy to attribute to a systems, as much as the artists eye.

This was intresting! If you also compare the size and difference in price. It gets just more intresting. For me as an amateur. I think I will continue with the apc camera. When you also have to carry all the gear in the mountains...

I think when you compare the dynamic range, you could have compare the shadow on the floor tiles. How much of the floor tile detail can be recover from the each of the RAW file.

I don’t really think that it matters what size sensor you shoot on if you are not pixel peeping. Surely it is the scene and its composition that matters more. This is even more true if you print a lot of your photos like me, as the limits of the printer change the resolution anyway. When prints are viewed from normal viewing distance you cannot tell what camera has been used. I have printed to A3 from a 20 year old compact camera 5mp and people have asked me for copies and had them framed professionally! We admire photos from the past taken by masters of the trade - and what old cameras were they using?

That was a helpful comparison. I've only got an entry level nikon d3500 and I'm pretty happy with the quality I'm getting. My skills haven't got to the stage where the camera is holding me back. Full frame would be nice but at the moment I can carry my camera, 18-55mm lens, 70-300 lens, a 35mm prime lens, extension tubes, some filters, a flash and a tripod in a cheap camera bag from Amazon. I'd probably have to leave some stuff behind if I wanted to go full frame.

Could you do the same test, but use a similar MP sensor? Canonn 6dMk ii comes to mind.

The first thing anyone who wants to improve their photography before anything else is to go see a optometrist. Make sure that your eyes are seeing as sharp as possible before you look into a camera or examine a single photo.

Hi Mark I have both the Sony and Fuji systems. In image quality for landscape my A7Riii at 42mp will out perform my A7iii at 24mp. Both full frame. The difference between the Fujifilm XT3 26mp and the A7iii is much smaller. I am not surprised with the results of the low noise test as sensor technology has come a long way since the Canon 5Div was released. To be fair to Fuji, Capture One is better at handling their raw files although Lightroom is getting there. Also regarding image quality I feel the choice of lenses can make a huge difference. Don't buy high end cameras and the save on lenses. It is a waste of good money. Sorry I know this is long but as you mentioned, my Sony gear is twice the weight of the Fuji. When i am out hiking guess which one comes with me? If one cannot take a good photo with any modern camera, it's not the camera. Enjoy your videos Mark.

you don't have to zoom in to see the difference. the FF is just more pleasing to the eye. You can see the difference in the depth of field also. When I bought my Sony A7Rii, even when using APS-C lenses, I got better pictures than my a6600. The annoying thing is, as much as I want to keep at least one of my APS-C cameras, I can't get myself to use them anymore.

For video, full frame has been so much better. Other sytems, you need to monitor exposure carefully and keep to the right and protect highlights. With full frame, i can set the exposure to the right but there is so much room before clipping that it is essentially set and forget on the exposure.

Maybe the amount of detail also depends on the quality of the lens, using different lenses could distort the results when comparing detail?

Nice video! In my opinion, Fuji is maybe not the best APSC to do this test... I mean, the fuji noise is just not as bad as other brands in APSC, I would say that fuji noise is even better (aesthetically) than many full frame bodies. It has less color noise, so is more pleasant.

Discuss :- 'There isn't actually that much more noise in the Fuji, it's just that it's more noticeable because it's been blown up to match the image from the Nikon.' I know it's what you get in the final image that matters, but I think that the Nikon only looks less noisy because it's more finely etched. In fact I think the colour noise from the Nikon is considerably worse than the Fuji.

I used dc cameras for twenty years, kodak, olympus, pentax ist ds, pentax k-01, sony dsc-r1, Samsung nx500 (very underrated!). Pictures always satisfied me. But, I have bought a sony a7 iii last month with adapters to use my old lenses, and the difference is Amazing ! The field of view, bokeh, dynamic, each are a little better than crop sensors, but together, it's night and day ! I'm not a professional, just an enthusiastic, but with my full frame camera, I have seriously improved number of good shots compared to crop sensors.

in the first picture it seems to me that the picture section is shown larger in FF, so it is normal that more details can be seen when you zoom in.

Perfect comparison. Can you tell me, what papersize means 100% at Full-frame and 100% at APS-C?

Great video. No real surprises. This really tells me that other factors are more important than FF & DR. Hand held vs tripod, Lens selection, gear weight & transportation to & from your subject, IBIS or no IBIS, night vs daylight emphasis, absolute number of pixels etc etc. The vast majority of people don’t care about noise when viewing how the photo is intended to be seen. I doubt whether anyone is going to try to see the leaves on a particular tree a kilometre across a lake. Only the photographer is going to worry about FF & DR. Some of my most appreciated photos have been technically some of my worst (IMHO), and taken on technologically outdated equipment. We worry too much about these minor things.

I would argue that Image Quality should be compared with the ISO you can shoot at a certain scenario. With DpReview test images, a FF sensor generally has at 1-2 stop advantage. If u wanna make crop look similar you need to provide the camera more light. For example in crop , iso 3200 image will be equivalent to a iso 6400 or even 12800 image in FF. So that’s using the tool for intended purpose. If you own crop sensor you should invest in wider apertures to counter that. That’s why even MFT users are getting great results since the Olympic and Panasonic make large aperture lenses to get that amount of light. I paired a crop sensor camera with a sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 zoom, which makes great kit. Compared to a FF+24-70 f/2.8 it lacks the wide end, but gives equivalent light on a smaller package

Agree the full frame is marginally clearer, but worth noting that some canon cameras have noise reduction bakes into the raw. It’s well done, but does make some of these technical tests hard to gauge.

Thank you. it would have been nice to compare the same sensor technology and same glass. e.g. a cmos crop sensor with the same glass. good video, thank you

If you can put a price (say x) on the delta of the image quality, you can figure out if it is justifiable to get a full frame by the number of pictures you will take times x.

I love carrying my X-S10 around but for dynamic range and wildlife, Nikon D850 is not replaceable.

If only my skills ever get good enough that moving off of APS-C would matter. I much prefer the lighter weight, and more affordable lenses. This also took me down a rabbit hole where i started looking at zoom-ins of van gogh and other paintings. Gave me a newer appreciation of the blur wit the 200% + zoom. Different definitions for quality.

I fear that once you experience full frame you never want anything less. Ten years ago I bought a fixed lens full frame camera - Sony RX1 and despite it's undeniable limitations it was my go to camera almost all of the time. Do you really need full frame? Maybe not but if you want to take your photography as far as you can, the camera has a significant role to play.

Maybe comparing FF bayer vs APS-C bayer sensors instead of bayer vs x-trans. There are so many software and hardware variables have to be accounted for before a like for like comparison can be analysed, especially regarding details.

The biggest lie in photography is that you need full frame. Nonsense! Just look at the websites of all the camera manufactures- OM System, Panasonic, Fujifilm, and others. Pro's are using these cameras and doing AMAZING work! Why carry the huge bricks?

The only reason I use big sensor is depth control. The noise is about similar when the depth is equal between sizes.

I have Canon 50d which is heavy magnesium body , how ever I quite fancy the Fujifilm X T 2 they are getting on a bit but have good quality, but then I learned on a canon 50d, so it's pulling on my heart strings , so I'm right on the fence.

Thank you for the video . I shoot Fuji XT4 raw The Fuji uses an Xtran sensor and the FFs a Bayer sensor I have a lot of experience of Fuji XT4 in low light situations. The noise beyond 3200 iso is unacceptable and below that is only acceptable when Topaz Denoise Ai is applied I would like to use a full frame camera however you hit the nail on the head at the end of the video ….all about weight of gear ….also the price differences. If you have not done so already check out a fully functional 30 day free trial of Topaz Denoise Ai for your higher iso images As for the difference in sharpness in good light . Check out Topaz Sharpen Ai . The Topaz products are amazing

I would have preferred the same brand in FX and DX. Furthermore, the same megapixels in both FX and DX. Is this possible?

I am going to recommend to "Not" use any profile created by Adobe as they are heavy handed and add contrast, sharpening and junk that is not needed and actually destroys your file. Either create or download and install a "linear" profile and you will be surprised how much destruction is created with Adobe's profiles and how much better your images will be by starting with a linear profile.