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.

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.

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.

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.

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! 😆

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

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.

I shoot both……there nailed it.

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.

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.

I LOVE that no matter what question I've had about learning photography you two always seem to have a video for it. You two are awesome! Thank you so much for these videos.

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.

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!

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.

Another fantastic comparison. Thank you guys and a happy new year.

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.

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.

Great job Tony and Chelsea, best video I have seen in explaining the pluses and minuses of APS-C and full frame. I mainly shoot wildlife, especially birds in flight, and have been very happy with my Fuji APS-C camera, and it has worked just fine for portraits and even low light situations. So worthwhile to understand what you want to shoot and what works best for your budget.

Happy New Year folks, your videos are so great. Very informative. Thank You 📷😊

That's what I love about your channel you consider viewers from all walks of life!

Thank you for always posting relevant content that I’m actually interested in watching! Your videos are always so informative and easy to digest. Keep up the amazing work guys! ❤️

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 ...

Hello from Montreal Tony and Chelsea! Thanks for always sharing the best content on KZfaq, love all your videos and tips. Happy New Year ✨🙏🤗🎊

Great video! I've watched all your older videos about crop factor and this one kind of pulled all of those main points into one concise video and even gave examples and recommendations. This might be one of your best videos. Well done T&C.

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.

I miss the point that you don’t tackle is that FF manufactures such as Nikon, Sony and Canon don’t have high quality bodies or lenses for APS-C, as they see the system as a step-up to Full Frame. .It is only Fuji that has high end APS-C lenses and body. So for the users using Sony, Canon and Nikon upgrading means moving to Full Frame.

Appreciate you do an updated videos every year or so!

Loads of great info. Cleared up a lot of questions I had but......I still watch your videos to see Chelsea.

It also depends what you do with your photos. Most people see mine on the internet, and more often than not they see them on their phone. It seems a waste of money for me to buy decent kit. I recently dug out my 16 year old 6MP Nikon D40 and took a few shots. In decent light it's not bad, although I couldn't remember how to get the exposure right on my Christmas Day walk on the beach. Mirrorless cameras make it pretty obvious that you need to use the Exposure Comp dial. With the DSLR it's a bit clunky. Goodness knows how I managed 50 years ago with film.

Tony, with regard to your comment about Zooms for MFT remember that Panasonic Leica offers two zooms at F 1.7 aperture that equate to F 3.4 on fill frame which is not far off F 2.8 for DOF.

Thanks so much for your entertaining and informative videos. Happy and healthy New Year to you both.

Thanks Tony & Chelsea. And.. thank you for steering me to KEH and giving a coupon code. I have been using them regularly and it has allowed me to build a good lens line up I would not have been able to do at retail prices! You are right, they are amazing and stand behind their stock.

Another difference is that separation from the background can be much great with the full frame camera. This goes along with the boka test you did at the beginning of the video.

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

So does this mean if I use a handheld light meter the readout is wrong for APSC sensors, or can I buy one that's APSC specific?

How do the lens sizes compare between APSC and full frame? Whenever I see my friends' full frame lenses they look very unwieldy compared to my XF lenses.

This is the best comparison video I have seen between the sensor sizes. It's more concise than some of your older videos discussing crop factor and bokeh, and this video gets straight to the point of why one sensor size or the other might be better for different users. Nice job!

Great talk Tony. Picked up a Z6 refurb from Nikon and a 24-200 zoom to upgrade from my Z50 with 18-140. After a week I am comfortable withe improvements in the quality of the body, and the lenses. For me the bigger pixels on the sensor and bigger glasses just seem to pass the resolution along much better. I tried maxing out the small sensor with a Sigma 18-35 1.8 and got good results. But that lens weights the same as a Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z. I am sorry but that is the same weight with a lot more flexibility and the more robust optical path. I was going to sell off all the DX stuff but now my wife wants to keep the Z50 for her use. My 70-300 AF-P looks a lot better using the whole lens. Pete

I want to upgrade my gear. Currently I'm using the Nikon d5600 with sigma 150-60mm f5.6 lense Ave mostly do wildlife. I want to get the Nikon d580. Is that a good choice, or such body or liebe lense should i get?

One of the most comprehensive and well explained overview on the topic I have seen! Thanks for your work!

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.

I find it interesting that at the high iso low light comparisons both full frame and apsc are bad. A little more or less noise isn’t a big deal if they both are bad.

Thanks so much for teaching us from your “hands on” photography knowledge and not just reviewing things to buy (although you two do those well also). Could you please have a segment on the video-centric aspects of the same topic included in these videos if possible?

Thank you. Happy new year! You are a nice couple.

Very nice comparison. I'd love to upgrade to a full frame sensor but I've got a lot of APS lenses and don't want to sell them and replace them with full frame equivalents, it's just too expensive. I also, love the extra reach for wildlife and motorsports. Then again, it would be nice to have a full frame system for landscapes. Maybe some used full frame gear, just for that purpose.

Ha Ha There are so many full frame vs M 4/3 comparisons where the “experts” can’t tell the difference between enlargements that are 20”x30”. Certainly bokeh is better in a full frame, and low light condition too, but if you are doing landscape in good lighting, experts can’t tell the difference. Photography is an art, sensor size doesn’t matter.

Great video that explains the real world behaviors of the different platforms. Well balanced content covering technical and aesthetic issues.

First off, thanks for your videos. They are very helpful. I chose the Canon R7 APS-C body partially based on another video you did. That said, what was lacking here was discussion about video, and other sports photography (i.e. auto racing). I recently shot Formula 1 with both still and video, and was very satisfied with the results of capturing 200 mph cars. I’m totally an amateur, and I only had the camera for a couple weeks. The versatility, and ability to shoot long videos without overheating was a determining factor in my purchase. Bottom line, I like the way you qualify your opinions, and leave room for the pro or amateur to decide what’s right for them.

One thing I have noticed is that my full frame works better under low light compared to an APSC using RAW. Higher ISOs can be used with less grain. However under reasonable light, with a good lens there is very little difference in image quality.

Wouldn’t you use medium format if your primary objection is optimal image quality?

Happy New Year 2023! A big and warm THANKS for the year 2022! You are best! God bless you both and your whole family as well! 🙂💯👍👍👍💓💓💓

Excellent video guys! Because you have been in a bit of a rut lately. :) Nice detailed yet easy to understand technical comparison. This videos reminds me of that great video about the F number equivalency.

I decided to change brands and at the same time go from aps-c to full frame, however, I changed my mind about going full frame. Why? It's good enough. I compared ISO 12800 files from Sony A7II with Fujifilm X-S10. About 6 years separate both cameras where A7II is the older one, and guess what, Fujifilm X-S10 performed better in my opinion. If a full frame just 6 years ago was good enough for a professional work, then a more advanced APS-C with the same or better low light performance is also good enough today.

I have been a Nikon user since 1981, but I wanted something smaller and bought in to Fuji a couple of years ago, I love the feel of the traditional camera, I have no problem crop frame in any regard, except for portraits. I love the compression of the 85mm lenses and on a crop sensor, that takes you too far away and the result is not the same. For that reason, I will stay with fuji, especially for travel for the time being, but I will probably move to the Nikon Z in the future, similar size and weight, but full frame.

What cameras/workflow would you use for panoramic stitching? What cameras do this best in camera? How has in camera stabilization affected this process?

Good stuff guys. Happy New Years!

Interesting video! You guys almost always make think about my choices a bit. I think the important thing is to consider your use case. For me I mostly shoot birds and the occasional family event. I have full frame, APSC, and M43s in the OM-1. I don’t get paid for my work. I used to have a photography company. I did weddings and other events and I found that Nobody but me could see the difference between the full frame ind the M43s except for me. I shot a two day event for a charitable foundation on whose board I sit. One day I used my OM-1 and on day 2 I used the Canon R6i. I just went and looked through the pics from both days and on my 13 inch screen theatre wasn’t much difference. I am older and have a chronic sore shoulder that I damaged in motorcycle crash years ago. The light the gear is the happier I am. I find the OM-1 being my choice most days.

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.

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.

This was a great video! Just upgraded to the R6 MkII and can't wait to see how it performs in low-light scenarios compared to my old 70D.

I love that you say full frame has an advantage in wildlife as you're holding the most ridiculously oversized, heavy, impossible to travel with and literal hell to walk around with for several hours lens 😂

Personally MFT or micro four thirds is my favorite format, due to it's amazing capabilities for it's size. I can get images on par or better than full frame cameras due to the added stabilization and compact size.

I’m doing event photography. For the moment i’m shooting with Nikon D7200. Do you think it is worth to do a upgrade to sony a7iii or nikon z6ii, there will be a bigger difference in the quality of photos?

I hoped FujiFilm X-T5 with its new 40 megapixel sensor would be tested here. Specially if you ad a speed booster and that canon 600mm lens. How would that stack up for a APS-C wildlife camera? Or the X-H2?

As an a9 user, I was tempted to rent the a6600 for a little bit of more reach with the 200-600 lens, but realize after this video that I can easily just crop or use the 1.4TC as well, if there is enough light. Thanks for your thoughts on this subject!

Maybe we should strike the word "upgrade" from the conversation about crop vs FF

'I have to bend way down!!" I LOVE THAT ONE !! Sorry Chels...but your facial expression is priceless!! Happy new year both of you btw!

Thank you for the rich information. Would you please give some information for the best lens to get some astronomical pictures

My problem is primarily the lack of equivalents and the weight/cost/size you have to take on for those that are comparable for aps-c. By the time I built up my last aps-c kit, I could have gotten a lighter full-frame with the range of lenses I needed for less. That's just me of course. But as I try to look for a new mirrorless aps-c kit, there are compromises I don't want to make.

I could tell the full frame, means i gotta spend more money

Great video Chelsea and Tony. Lots of great tips and other information !

I'm looking to get a new Nikon. I want cropped sensor f mount. Is the d500 still their top cropped-sensor DSLR? I know they've pretty much moved on to the mirrorless stuff, but just wanted to check I'm not missing anything before I buy.

Personally I'm not a Bokeh chaser which is why I switched from full frame DSLR Nikon to APSC Fuji. Occasionally I wish I had more low light capability and considered the canon RP but for my portraits and most events the photos are good enough

I think in general we can all agree that full frame (in nearly all situations) is giving better image quality. But strong reasons to use APS-C are the weight and to a lesser extend the price. A camera only makes good pictures if you bring it. Especially for travel weight is a big factor. A Sony a6600 with 10-20mm, 16-55mm and 70-350mm set to cover all situations weights 1800 grams. A Sony A7r V with Sigma 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 100-400mm weights 3430 grams. Is that full frame set likely giving better results, absolutely, but it is 90% heavier and 75% more expensive and the difference in quality is nowhere near as big.

Appreciate this video. You answered a question I've been fighting with for a long time. Seriously thank you. And thank you for code at KEH haha, I love them

Hi. So am using a Canon R7 and with a couple of ef lenses.. so if I understand clearly am loosing quality by using ef lens on an apc.. I thought the only difference. Was that if I wanted to shoot wide .. say @ 24 I'd have to use a ef 15mm.. but I didn't know I was loosing quality.. see there are no 2.8 or faster lenses that are rfs or efs.. would a speed booster help quality?

Having an apsc camera I was starting to feel a little despondent with the first ¾of this video until you got on to wildlife which is my main aspect of photography along with aircraft, which both result in me using the centre of the picture and cropping in post. Now I feel a lot better about my choice. Thanks for explaining the difference clearly and an easy to understand way.

My Fuji setup (XH@ and XH2s) have served me well professionally. My results are about the same as my old Sony setup (A9 and A&RIII) as long as I use the larger aperture lenses available from Fuji and third party manufacturers. Viltrox just dropped a 75mm f1.2 for Fuji that looks amazing. I'm perfectly happy with APSC right now. The lighter weight comes in with the lenses. Makes a big difference when you are shooting for long periods of time. The crop factors make the most difference when it comes to focal length. An f2.8 lens is still letting in the same amount of light whether FF or APSC, it's just the APSC sensor has different pixel density and the FF has larger pixels to capture more of that light.

Quick question: Teleconverter vs speed boosters... both trying to get to the "same" settings... which one is generates a better image?

I'm glad I still could see the difference right away on the first picture, there is a reason I just switched to full frame high mp count to up my game

Another thing that somewhat levels the playing field, at least for DSLR, is the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 lens. With it on the APS-C and a common f2.8 lens on the full frame you can more easily get full equivalence. I've read where people claimed that the full frame body gave better colors and in particular better colors for portraiture. I'm not able to test that. Upgrading from APS-C to full frame can be very expensive because the full frame lenses will typically cost more

I am happy with my Fuji xt5: I love the external dials. It is the experience of taking pictures, that what you explained in the other video. I fully agree with that. Also -to me- nothing wrong what you said in this video, though. However I use the workaround: no zoon lenses. For the wide angle I have the 16mm f1.4! Also 1/100 of a sec still works ok. Hence enough options to avoid shouting at high iso. I am very proud of the photos I made indoor with a small 35mm all at f2.0.

Hi!please advice! which combination provide sharper/contrasfull image during wildlife photography in lower light? 1. full frame+1,4 TC+lens or 2. aps-c + lens My prognosis is 1.= softer but cleaner image 2. sharper but noisier Please comment…Thanks!Zsolt from Hungary

Hello great video help. I have a quick question between the sony A7 3 and the Sony A6600. I’m not a photographer I just want to take great photos of trips, vacation quick photos of my families here and there and kids sports like wrestling and football. I think for what I need would be the Sony A 6600? What are your thoughts and would love the help. Again not professional don’t do wedding just photos to remember Thanks keep up the great work. Roland

Shooting in low light, I really prefer the results from my 12MP Nikon D700 to my 24MP Canon M50, even at the same equivalent f-stop, but a Fuji X-T30 beats both

The speed booster results were interesting. I think part of what makes the Fuji noisier looking (besides the obviousness of being a crop sensor) is Lightroom isn’t the best at handling Fuji’s “wormy noise” (as others have called it), due to being X-Trans instead of Bayer. I use Capture One for my Fujis and Lightroom for my Nikons.

Great comparison I am looking to upgrade my rebel T6 confused between Used ESO R or R7 love features of R7 but don't want to spend much will appreciate your recommendations

Sigma Art Zooms 18-35mm 1.8f and 50-150mm 1.8f are both miracles for the m4/3. And when combined with a speedbooster AND the 1.8f, that's something I'd LOVE to see you compare here.

KEH must be pushing hard for the endorsement of all these big photography content creators. My experience with them is that they clearly under represent the condition of your gear so that they can justify offering less than the quote. And they know you'll be tempted to take the offer as opposed to going through the hassle of having the gear returned to you and then selling it yourself. I know I won't deal with them again after rating a bunch of like new condition lenses a few grades low.

I recently went from the 90D to the R5 - the only real-world difference I've seen are dynamic range that I can push in post processing, Silent Shooting mode & 20 FPS - I haven't seen any difference in low light ability with FF over the Aps-c - I only shoot Wildlife. I wished I'd just saved my money for a longer period & purchased a prime lens instead.

Tony and Chelsea, I watch your videos very often and I enjoy and learn. I am a Pentexian, I have Pentax LX, Pentax Superprogram and Pentax K-1, also a Rolleiflex, which I have not used. Anyway, I have collected so many lenses, but my favorites are: 18-36mm f/2.8-4.5 Tamron; Pentax HD 24-70mm/f2.8 (Constant aperture throughout), and HD 70/f2.8 (Constant aperture throughout). And I don't need anything else. I am trying to attach a few pictures, which I took with my Pentax LX. I tried, but could not attach.

What is the video camera and lens that you are using for the video itself T2min? Love the bokeh and the sharpness

Also, don't disregard older DSLR full frame models, such as Nikon D850, it can be found used for around $1200. Still a great camera with amazing 45mp sensor. Tons of lens choices as well.

See people think automatically that because they get a FULL FRAME camera the image quality is going to be better, NO, the size of the sensor doesn't have anything to do with the Image Quality. it's a combonation of things, first is the image quality the sensor reads out, weather it's APSC or Full frame, and also the Lens, you could have the best camera that has the best image quality sensor, but if you put a shitty lens on it, it's not going to matter the image quality will be crap. Full Frame doesn't mean you will get better image quality, the only thing you will get out of full frame vs ASPC sensors, is #1, you will get better low light quality. #2 You will be able to blur out the background easier, doesn't mean APSC can't blur out the background, yes it can but you have to take extra steps do get that to work, such as zoom in and get closer to your subject or go 1 stop below in aperture then what the full frame camera was set at.. There is 1 other advantage with full frame as well you can blow up your pictures in closer with less quality loss then with APSC camera's. Because the sensor size is bigger to begin with and also higher megapixels are more common in full frame vs APSC, I don't think there is and APSC sensor camera that has 50 Megapixels or higher, but there is with full frame, and that means you can crop in and blow up your picture a lot more with cleaner images then APSC. So those are the only advantages you get Using Full frame vs APSC. Image Quality with APSC is exactly the same as a full frame camera the sensor size has noting to do with image quality.. Because of price i can get a ton of good lenses for APSC and take just as good pictures and video as with a full frame, and it cost me a lot less.. If your shooting Weddings yes i would say go for the full frame, but if your taking landscape or wild life or fast action shots like sports, then i would say APSC Camera's are just as good. And even portrait in a studio is just as good as well, but if your doing work where you can't control the lighting like weddings or in door activity then Full frame has the advantage. That is why most Wedding photographers rather have full frame then APSC because they can get good exposed pictures in lower light situations.

Hi sir which cellphones is good for photography or camera thanks and God bless

I totally get this. I shoot on the Pentax K-1, and K3iii, and the differences you're pointing out are exactly my findings of where the strengths lie with each sensor size. cheers!

I think everyone who is an advanced photo enthusiast should own one apsc camera and one full frame camera. That way a shooter can use the right tool for the job. Apsc cameras tend to have smaller equivalent zoom lens and bodies great for travel and wildlife shooters. Full frame will give superior results in image quality and low noise in low light conditions and also better for post processing lifting shadow detail. As either an advanced amateur, semi-pro or pro, most of us will eventually own 2 camera bodies. However If I could only own one, I'd pick full frame for overall image quality in most cases (except maybe for wildlife). However, if shooting in good light during daylight hours, with low ISO, or using fast primes, the difference can be much less. Great review!

My choices were easier as an astro-photographer. I use the APS-C Pentax K3 together with about 30 Pentax lenses spread across from the 1960's till today. Perfect for my wide angle lens and magnified telescope images. But I just use a Canon 6D Full Frame body only when mounted on the telescope for wider angle views. Maybe one day I will actually buy a Canon lens..LOL

Happy new year guy's... cheers.

I think you have mentioned it before but where did you get/what brand is your leather fuji case?