you win the internet today sir

yanasitta ,maybe get a modern day Laser pointer...😃

But it lacks that satisfying ability to smack things! The stick made the video for me. That is some old school teaching right there.

Ah, but if you get a powerful one, you can sizzle things!

this comment made my day hahaha

... but the noise in hight iso....

GBlaugrana I get your pint but I have shot a crop system for years and finally saved up enough for a D750. Sadly due to financial issues had to send it back after a week of shooting with it. Here's what I learned. What they tell you: The only benefit to full frame over crop is low light noise and bokeh. What I learned: Though the low light performance was great, most opinions I've listened to don't tell you HOW great. Example, my crop camera would never venture too far past ISO 1000 due to poor noise and camera shake due to low shutter speed. In those cases, I pull out my speed light but that adds more complexity to setting up the shot such as clashing white balance (ambient vs flash) and harsh shadows. With Full frame I was MORE than comfortable shooting in dim to dark situations at ISO 8000 and still get great image quality using only ambient light! Meaning you get to keep the mood lighting of your shot without screwing it up with a flash. Huge advantage. As far as other benefits you never hear about, there are actually quite a few. Yes bokeh is more present, that's simply because your depth of field, compression, and viewing area are more visible. Bigger the sensor, the more you'll see. This brings up another point, lenses behave properly on a full frame. 50mm is really 50mm and not 75mm. 85mm (~130mm on crop) is one of the best lenses I use and became my only lens to use on the D750 as it was wide enough to do group portraits and have amazing depth with the shallower depth of field of the FF. That brings me to my last point. Compression, or at least that's how I understand it. With the larger sensor, all of my images seemed richer in detail. That is, details I felt would normally be hidden or flat in my crop camera stood out and were ever present in the FF shot giving the photo a feeling that the subject was much closer to you and not zoomed in from far away like I feel I get with crop. I've reviewed many shots between my two cameras (Crop and FF) and the FF has a slight edge every time on image depth (I won't say quality, such as sharpness and color, because that isn't much different however the depth and separation of layers [foreground, subject, and background] of the image itself is). In short I learned 1) that the Full Frame was more solidly built (D7100 was my crop camera), 2) much more pleasant to shoot with as it was more forgiving in challenging situations such as lighting and tight spaces, and 3) created images with a depth and richness only found it the full frame sensors that you just don't get with crop. Question is, does all this justify the high price tag? That is up to you. FYI: As of this post, you can get a refurbished D750 for $1,399 from Adorama.com. That's what I had originally and it was pretty much a new camera with only 200shots (presumably for testing) on the shutter.

yes.. ill sell my crop camera and buy a full frame

+WSWEss But just ask yourself, when was the last time you've ever needed high iso? Do you always film in the dark? I'm just a noobie at photography but I've already deeply understood Zack's point, and it's that full-frame sensors are pretty much a fashion statement lmao, its primary focus is only so you can show off to your friends. Buy full frame sensors? Congrats! You're an attention seeker!

DOGE™ I get you're point too. No you don't always shoot in the dark, but that's not where you'd be most concerned about it. Try shooting your crop indoors without a speed light. The idea behind the high ISO isn't that you'll need the shot in the pitch black corner of a room. It's the idea that you can maintain a high shutter speed (which reduces light exposure) and smaller aperture for larger depth of field (also reduces light hitting the sensor) in a situation where light is limited. Try taking your crop sensor camera inside and adjust it to 1/250th and f8. Chances are pretty good that you won't get much of anything unless you crank up your ISO which on a crop isn't a good idea. With the FF you can do any of that without much worry of loosing image quality due to noise. This is why pros use FF, versatility. By no means is crop bad or useless, I've taken award winning shots on my D7100. My point was to express why FF is desirable. Any other pros I've asked that have made the switch have said it was the best decision of their career and that they'd always choose FF if the situate allowed. I believe Arias himself said that as well. Now for a casual shooter, that kind of advantage isn't necessary since you won't use the FF to its fullest potential. But if you have the extra cash, go for it!

+jsong21 Yet in another wideo, he squeaks like little girl, arguing about how MF is way better than FF...

+CrashPCcz which one?

I stumbled across that one somewhere on DPReview forum. It felt epic, knowing about this video for ling time. If I manage to find it, I´ll bring it. :-)

Yes, it should be for beginners, who still do not understand the differences between the Pro HQ lenses and the cheap ones. One day they will. If you do not understand the differences you can use even the cam of your phone. The example with the both cameras into the video is more or less advertising, and cannot be an example for CROP vs FF.

sport photography and wildlife photography made 35 mm camera king of all format and this moron can shoot biggest event on earth olympic with apsc camera and medium format

the best comment so far

L. Willis But then I'd get a bad case of buyer's remorse.

Like with a medium format Hasselblad that the author of this video uses for his pro work? Maybe if he used Fuji for that, I would treat this video more seriously

Good point

Lumix enginer didnt watch this video before they start producing their fullframe camera.. lol..

Yep

+1

Why would you limit yourself to printing?

A print can show a lot more detail, because it isn't constrained by a locked number of pixels the way a TV or monitor is. You can put a 50MP image on a UHD display, and it will only ever look like an 8MP image because that's all the display can physically show. If you made a print the same size as the display, it would show all 50 MP in the same-sized area...loads more detail.

nicodimus2222 That's only if you REDUCE the actual size of the image on the monitor. If you look at it at 100%, I find it FAR better than printing. When I make skyline photos, that's the only way I want to look at them. Not to mention that printing at such levels is ridiculously expensive.

+"SUCH IS LIFE" wow thats something you dont hear everyday, but i kinda want to do the same thing for my canon 70d. just get rid of it and pick this up with some good glass.

+parula321 Agreed! I am a firm believer that "better" equipment and lenses doesn't produce better pictures, it is photographer.

+parula321 I agree however I personally won't use anything under APS-C simply because I do large landscape shots and I need to be able to use a wide angle lens.

+Vic Vinegar What? Where is your scan back.... If you actually want landscape printed 6 miles wide... Stitch I've got 3mp camera point and shoot multiple picture shots stitched 24 high and 6 feet wide... Still sell the photo quite often. It ain't the gear. It is light, timing, and the photographer.

Yoyo Ma I could do that but for me it's easier to use a single wide angle lens and take 1 shot of a landscape. I've only been doing photography for a year and I like APSC and I can't see myself using anything smaller. I have a APSC wide angle lens which was $250 and for me that's a lot. I just can't see myself going down in sensor size.

Same here. I was thinking about dumping my 80D for 6D and I just realized, it doesn't really matter.

Try first then decide.

Same same,

every camera has its advantages look at the full package, a camera offers , full frame sensors are better, but it is not everything, crops are great too. Lenses all plays a part. At the end of the day it is the photo, is it good enough, not the gear, but yes you need good enough gear to get good results if crops work for you fine, if film work for you fine, if full frame or medium format work for you fine! The best camera for you are the one you own and use. When you can afford it upgrade, but use your present camera as well as you can, because I agree with him , the photographer is the main party to take a great photo.

You should definitely dump the 70d lol, he was targeting the fuji in this video, although all are aps-c, fuji have significant advantages over canon/nikon/sony because of their dedicated lens, Fuji treats aps-c as an ultimate product while all other companies market aps-c as a gateway size for beginners, later luring them in to full frame. And differences in lens quality can be huuuuuge. Of course unless you're using good quality FF lenses on the aps-c bodies than don't bother switching.

Same 😊

Lol me too about my 5300

+Alfredo Muciño me 2 . .d5200 in the house Lol...

+Faramir Braufighter I've been using my D3300 for a while... and I couldn't ask for a better camera for the price. As with any camera, if you take your time with the shot, it'll turn out beautiful.

+Spencer George I've seen better shots with a d5200 than witht a d810. And I make better shots with my little d3200 than a lot of people with d810 and full frame.

Goes to show, its not the camera, its the idiot behind it. Full frame/ Professional cameras have their place, but amateur/semi-pro are equally capable

regardless of skill, with a better camera all else being equal you will always have the better shot or image quality. it's too easy to go overboard and say "I'm great I don't need auto focus or instant photos" until you actually need to deliver results on the same day or shoot moving targets without time to plan or pose. No crap photographer will get great shots just due to having a $30k camera, but at the same time no pro photographer can get a clear image of a moving target at over iso 6400 at night using a tiny sensor and natural lighting. You need a good combination of the right skill, knowledge and gear for any given situation.

"You need a good combination of the right skill, knowledge and gear for any given situation" - Exactly. Very well said!

I saw that, and thought it was really interesting at the price some people said it would be. Would it really be a $1000 medium format camera? That's an amazing price point for MF from that I know about MF

It is amazing, indeed.But if (good) Fujinon APS-C lenses are quite expensive, you don't want to imagine the price of those medium format lenses! Or the weight, for that matter. To put it in perspective, the "natural" focal length for full frame (35mm) cameras has always been 50mm (except when everybody started to get fixed lenses rangefinder cameras in the 70s, they preferred 40mm or maybe 45mm). And thus a good all around 50mm lens would be f/1.8 (some f/1.7; the really expensive f/1.4). For a Mamiya 645 (6x4.5 which is the crop sensor of medium size) the natural focal length is 80mm, and about f/2.8, which is a huge lens! Have a look: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/567932-REG/Mamiya_210_603_Normal_80mm_f_2_8_Autofocus.html "only" $2,000 and this is just for the equivalent of a Fujinon 34mm f/0.9 (bigger aperture to gather same amount of light into a smaller sensor: those are really big lenses) Imagine the size and price for a telelens! The equivalent to a 135 format 300mm telelens would be around 520mm...

It's $6500, with the cheapest lens running at $1500. Cheaper than the competition, still, but not at all attainable to anyone other than pro status (and even then, still a sizable amount for pros, I'd imagine).

I was playing around with one of these in a store the other day. Pretty badass thing, with a somewhat attainable price. Personally, it even hurts me when I have to spend $500 bucks on a lens... let's hope someone pays me the big bucks someday.

Amen

Amen

It's true it's sort of arbitrary what is considered "full frame" but something has to be a standard point of reference. Without it focal length and f-ratio becomes inscrutable. So full frame is 1x, based on the 135 film standard and all the available lenses for system cameras. Knowing that, you can determine what is normal, wide, and tele on different size sensors. E.g. what equivalent field of view a 9mm lens will yield on a 1" sensor with 2.7x crop (50mm.) Or a 100mm lens on 6x7 with 0.5x crop (50mm), and so forth.

@@13squier Thats true but not necessarily that standart format has to be "professional"

dude with 5D III

5d

Mohammad Ardy Wiguna Pan x nope. a 5D doesn't do you any good if you can't compose and expose correctly.

Obviously the dude with the 5D III. kappa

+United States of Embarrassment because they both still 9 yo xD u didn't tell me their ages.

Actually APSC sensors are more similar in size to film used in motion pictures than full frame sensors are. Super 35 or academy format 35mm film has dimensions of approximately 22mm x 16mm whereas a full frame stills camera will have a sensor height of 35mm. So yes, full frame dslr sensors are indeed designed for stills.

On a consumer flatbed probably, but on an actual scanner NOPE not even close.

@ The Photo Showw: "I am willing to bet that a medium format, low iso, transparency scanned up to a 50mb file would be out done by a modern APSC size image file." Dont bet - you will loose. An Imacon-scanner will give you about 80Mpx from a 6x9 MF-slide. And the limiting factor is the scanner not the film, which could deliver up to three times more information than that, assuming that you have a capable lens AND know how to shoot it to yield those results.

All good points but how many pro photographers, shooting for magazines and advertising are doing that today? I shot professionally for years on a Hasslebald, with a lot of images published, and work from modern cameras is consistently better.

Actually the ‘35mm’ still camera size was designed for the format. It allowed the sprocketed film to be transported horizontally. The film ran vertically in cine cameras and the format shot with its longer side between the sprocket holes, therefore a smaller format than still.

Cant agree with you more! I have seen this video a few years back and I have revisited it today when sharing it with a friend and I laugh the same way I did years back ahahah :D

Sounds like trap music 🤣

Carrie Carden famous ikea sticks?

phrenzy1 yeah, from the short film he did called Transform. Have you seen it? It's a must watch. Powerful and inspiring stuff.

Carrie Carden How much does a photographer get paid for shooting pictures? do most photographers live off of this?

Karl Hans Well that all depends. It's really up to the individual. You can most definitely live off the money you make as a photographer. It's all a matter of what you're shooting, and the quality of your work. For years I specialized in wedding photography and did really well financially, BUT the stress and pressure that comes with shooting the most important day of someone's life is no joke. And then the amount of post work in editing was insane. So I earned every dime of the money by the time all was said and done. Because of some health issues and personal struggles I've had to take a break from taking on paid work. But I still love to get creative and express myself through my photography. Hoping that I can dive back into it full time sometime soon. So in short, yes there is money to be made. Lots. But you are only going to get back what you are willing to put into it. Hope that made sense and helped answer your question! Wishing you luck in whatever your journey into the future holds.

Carrie Carden Thanks for sharing this, I'm new to photography but I want to create great pictures like the ones I see from professional photographers. Thanks now I know a bit more what to expect.

great point

2 years later, most new photograhpers are adopting mirrorless.

+MUHAMMAD BURHAN UL HAQ He saved me making a costly mistake too !

Hahaha! Thanks!

I just returned a Sony A7II because I could not use the (for me) tiny and poorly placed controls, and the battery life was horrible, so for now I'm sticking with my "man-size" Canon APS-C. The X-T2 looks like a great camera, but a bit pricey for my budget. Enjoy!

Underlining Zack's point in this video, I find it really interesting that Fuji has decided to ignore FF entirely and go even bigger with the upcoming GFX. Their engineers believe that APS-C sensor noise will eventually equal FF, so it makes sense. And if they can figure out a way to sell the GFX for around $5K with a 3x zoom I'll bet landscape and portrait photographers will jump all over it. Go Fuji! Oh, and I've got an EOS M5 on the way, so I'll get to have an EVF too if I keep it.

+toocoolforu As with everything, always comes down to what and how you shoot. Unless you literally HAVE to run, and gun at midnight, anything+tripod can suffice just fine. Only new argument against FF today would be D500 for the beast of a package you get for the price like never before, so its sensor size becomes somewhat secondary of a decision.

The Sony A7S is an outstanding low light performer. But it has nothing todo with the FF-Sensor. This cam beats every FF, too. If you use the same sensor technology, the noise is comparable, if you shoot exactly the same picture. Many people compare FF and m43 at the apperture. In this case the FF will have 4 times lower noise. But you choose the apperture depending on the deep of field. So you must compare 1.4@m43 with 2.8@FF. Voila, same DOF and same noise. FF advantages (2.8-Zooms, there is no 1.4-Zoom at m43; higher MP), but not in DOF and noise.

Funny. The guy in the video was just talking about you

+André Adami a7s is the king of low light... period

toocoolforu Sony sucks, though. I’ve used the a7sii and a6300, even the RX100, for more than 2 years now. Full frame Canon/Nikon still wins!

Go into the woods and pick one up...

you can pick up yours in the woods...it have nice things there...really!

Gian But does the woods have quality sticks like he uses though???? :)

Tom Kuhlman you must find the best one and heat it in oven...and it will become a stick of quality. :)

Gian At what temp and amount of time do I have to heat my stick from the woods??? I don't want to over or under heat it, I want a top QUALITY pointer stick when I'm done!!!! :)

Thank you!

+Aurelie Nani very funny comment I laughed, thank you.

+Aurelie Nani i call it DIAPER AND PEE REVIEW

+Lone Mic Productions i agree with you, but take a picture with nikon d90, then take the exact picture with 60d, and see the difference. 60d looks like shit. :)

Well said. They used unpublished standards and equations too.

The world is full of people who prefer to believe that perceptions and feelings trump facts. And full of the kind of people who aren't willing to take the small amount of time to understand exactly what DxO is measuring and what it means. Differences in performance can be small or large and objective tests will reveal the degree. If you're too stupid to distinguish between big and little differences, then yeah, you'll probably resent DxOMark.

I shoot both a 1DX and a 7D mark II and there are average folks who do notice the different between the full frame and crop shots. Without me telling them which is which, most of the time they tell me they don't put their finger on it but they like the full frame shots better. I might not agree totally with Mr. Zack's video but he is sure an entertaining teacher.

St. Francis Cainta How is the High Iso performance of 7d ii ? I am split between 6d and 7dii but can't trust 6d for professional work because of the Af points.

Monstermayank "10 years" ago there were no cross type points, and we did a great job; If U need more than 11 AF points, than you're one of sold souls in todays marketing...I have 3 EOS bodyes, best 4 me is 6D. Better suits me than 7D and 5D; It's easyer to use, better low ISO, better portraits, lighter,... the main difference you'll notice between 7D in 6D (seriously, how often do you use more than center point??? And get what you aim at? Sharp? Really?) high ISO, low noise, way better indoor photos, more natural photos without speedlite etc, etc; 7D is Ok for Outside photo with enough light, but "bad use" of L glass; I never wanna go with CROP body; A frame more in a second is close to nothing. Learn how to do it; wan't to do it - because you've read somewhere 7D is better because of AF points,that's not true. Center point of 6D is much better than center point of any EOS today. On paper, Samung galaxy S5 is the winner...So why buy big fat EOS than :)

Zoran Veličkovski Agreed that 6D is lighter but I have lost out on photographing opportunities as an amateur at 3.7fps so I know for sure that 4fps wont suffice to my needs. I would have gone for 7D mark ii but I generally have to reach for ISO 1600-3200 so crop sensor isn't for me it seems. I am not the sort to splurge money which is why used D750 is tempting me too because for the cost of just the 5Diii I can build a basic full frame kit with it.

Monstermayank D750 is great camera, that came out a year too late for me :) I allready spent too much on Canon EF glass and speedlite.

🙌🙌🙌

Amen.

I'm pretty sure that ZA is talking about studio photographers when he said "no one has made a lifelong career using 35mm film." It seems like the online photography community likes to assume that you fall into one of just a few types of photographers when it hands out advice, i.e. staged/studio photographers, wedding photographers, and casual/beginner photographers. If you are anything else -- e.g. street photographer, landscape photographer, etc. -- you have to remember to mention it, otherwise you'll be getting advice like, "Use this MASSIVE BEAUTY DISH to change the lighting," as if something like that is practical for street photography or the wilderness.

he said Dslr, not 35mm FF. He also made a point to say life long career, 20 - 30 years.

Actually you can discredit critics when they say "You aren't professional if you don't have a full frame camera," or some variation of that supposition. He's not saying one is better than the other. He's saying that neither size is any more or less professional than the other. It's all based on the person and the job.

DSLR..