apsc sensors has also advantages, if you're a photographer who like longer focal lengths then choose apsc, most of the apsc sensors has 1.5x focal length multiplyer
@fluxx3671
11 ай бұрын
Also big disadvantage being the apeture is also affected by the the crop so a good 1.8 lense you’re paying for is still gonna be an f2.8, dosnt seem like much but that’s an extra 4 stops apeture
@mrbassett4388
11 ай бұрын
@@fluxx3671only in terms of relative depth of field, the light gathering is the same on both eg an f1.8 lens will make the same exposure on aps-c or full frame
@mrbassett4388
11 ай бұрын
@@fluxx3671also f1.8 is one and a third stops brighter then f2.8 not 4 stops like you said. So f1.8 let's in 1.3 times more light (133%) then f2.8 but it's still the same on full frame or apsc, the only difference is relative depth of field
@flowwwxd
11 ай бұрын
@@fluxx3671 the sensor size doesn't really affect the aperture, this has been proved at some point and you should look for it too 😉😉
@ch_boki
11 ай бұрын
You might need to revisit school... your math is wrong, like a solid 100% wrong@@fluxx3671
@ChrisBaitson
11 ай бұрын
You’re actually wrong a lot in this video.
@mushious
11 ай бұрын
APS-C has the advantage of pixel density (compared to a full sensor of the same megapixel), as well as free 1.5x magnification. Don't just write it off because it has a smaller surface area.
@willoughbykrenzteinburg
11 ай бұрын
Well pixel density isn't necessarily a good thing. The pixel density of a crop sensor is also an advantage for the full frame sensor. The fewer pixels there are in a given area, the larger each individual pixel can be - which means the better able each pixel is at gathering light - which means the cleaner the image (less noise). Overall, the quality of the image is better on a full frame given the same resolution. A 24 MP image captured on a full frame sensor will be higher in image quality than a 24 MP image captured on a crop sensor. Also, the magnification of the crop sensor is not really magical. It's an illusion. All other factors the same, an image taken on a crop sensor is not a "zoomed in" version - - but rather a CROPPED version - - hence the term "crop sensor". If you put a lens designed for a full frame sensor onto a full frame camera, the image projected by the lens is large enough to cover the full frame sensor. If you put that same lens on a crop sensor camera, the image projected by the lens is the same size - - it's just that the crop sensor is only capturing the center of that projection; not the whole thing. A lot of the projection is just falling on wasted camera innards. When you take the image captured on the crop sensor and blow it up to the same size as the one captured on the full frame sensor, the crop sensor image appears more zoomed in. It's not really zoomed in optically though. It's as if you took the image captured by the full frame sensor, cropped the middle out of it, then blew it up until it reached the same size as the original uncropped full frame image. Obviously, so quality is lost in that enlargement. This is essentially what a crop sensor does - - since you're pulling your images from crop sensors and full frame sensors into the same computer and viewing them all at the same size, the ones from the crop sensor are just enlarged more; not optically zoomed in more. They have to be blown up to a larger degree because the sensor they were recorded on was physically smaller.
@melody3741
11 ай бұрын
I love the really subtle use of speeding up less important sections to fit in as much info as possible without it being ridiculous
@rafa_pinheiro
11 ай бұрын
Explain why full frame has shallower depth of field. AFAIK, thats not true. You need to consider de “crop factor” when doing de comparisons. You can achieve the same depth of field using equivalent (technology wise) full frame and APS-C.
@matthewsylvester5835
11 ай бұрын
the actual physical DOF is determined by the glass, yes- but a full frame sensor will give you more of the scene, meaning more out of focus elements. A crop sensor will literally crop out significant portions of the out of focus parts of the scene. For equivalent focal lengths and aperture, full frame will show you more blur. It will not give your lens a shallower DOF.
@richardfrieman
11 ай бұрын
Imagine this: you have a 35mm f1.4 lens. You attach that lens to a full-frame camera. You take a photo of a subject. This photo will display a certain amount of background blurring, bokeh, depth of field. If you put this same lens on an APSC body, you’ll need to move BACKWARDS away from the subject to match the same field of view as the one that full frame camera captured with that same lens. At this farther distance from the subject, the background separation and broken will be less pronounced as on the full frame. You’d need a larger aperture with the same focal length to achieve the same background separation/depth of field/bokeh at the further distance to match the field of view. This guy is clearly biased against cropped sensors, and isn’t telling the full story.
@rafa_pinheiro
11 ай бұрын
@@richardfrieman Exactly! Sadly, people without this knowledge will listing to these biased arguments and spent a lot more money on something they don’t need or just get frustrated with the equipment they have because they don’t know how to properly use to achieve the results they want.
@boudrisboudj
10 ай бұрын
The crop factor Also applies to lens aperture. Add to that the distance needed to have the same frame and you end up with a greater depth of field!
@breadnoodle
9 ай бұрын
depth of field is determined by focal length, distance to the subject and the aperture size (and technically pixel size but for now we'll assume they're the same). Since APS-C sensors are smaller they have a smaller field of view as opposed to full frame sensors. If all the variables (focal length, aperture and distance to the subject) remain constant there won't be any difference in the DOF, but since full frame sensors have a wider field of view achieving the same effect as on an APS-C sensor means changing either the focal length (longer focal length) or distance to the subject (getting closer) and both of these changes make the DOF shallower.
@touristguy87
2 ай бұрын
Comparing those two cameras is like comparing a Martian woman to a Venusian man. At least start with a pair from the same planet. A pair like the D750 vs the D7100
@daesong1378
11 ай бұрын
No I’m pretty sure black magic went with super 35 format because it was the most common size used in film since the 1980’s. And about processing power, not really, the amount of information is more related to pixel count. For example the Sony A7S3 is full frame but it is only 12.1 MP, if they are using the same type of sensor (Bayer) and bitdepth, the amount of data is less coming from the lower Resolution full frame sensor. (Per frame) Another example is ARRI PL Mount, Arri is an actual high end cinema camera manufacturer. And their standard PL Mount technically is not designed to cover full frame. They later fixed this with the LPL Mount. But looking at this, due to the popularity of Super 35 film, for years lenses were made for Super 35, so it makes sense for black magic to develop their camera with a Super 35 sensor. Now their is a shift towards larger sensors in the cinema world, and with the motor of “bigger is better” they’ve also shifted and black magics newest camera is also full frame. This is accompanied by a concurrent shift towards higher and higher resolution as the Red raptors shoot 8k. Arri on the hand has chosen to stick with lower resolution as they believe that a larger pixel size (not count) produces a better quality image. It’s hard to argue against their results. TLDR; black magic most likely didn’t choose super 35 for data processing, but rather because it was the defacto standard for film. This has changed though and now we’re seeing more lenses developed to cover full frame sensors.
@touristguy87
2 ай бұрын
"It’s hard to argue against their results. " not if they don't provide a satisfactory explanation and documentation for how they generate those results. Image SNR is not all about pixel size. Image linear resolution is definitely about pixel count across the image. And total effective pixel count is 1/3rd of the total physical pixel count. The basics of SNR say that noise power is a baseline above which image SNR is measured and that SNR increases with increasing pixel size but that's not all there is to the physics of sensors and definitely not all there is to image-fidelity. The main issue I would think would be to start with the lenses normally used for such recording and design the lens interface and the camera electronics backwards from there. You can always use better lenses but then you either need to graft them onto existing digital cameras or redesign the cameras to match. So in this case you have two clear starting points and need to choose one. Do you start with film lenses or digital camera-bodies. If I'm a director shooting 1080p for current broadcast standards, I'd want to maintain at least that level of fidelity if I'm switching to a different lens or sensor format. That means the minimum amount of change. Once you start to change the gear then you have to make corresponding changes in the shooting techniques used. You have pros and cons for each change. How much of a problem are they, sometimes this question answers itself.
@graham2088
10 ай бұрын
Your recording lens looks weird. Idk why and if it's an effect or something but it's weird in not a good way.
@FA-lg9cx
10 ай бұрын
Full Frame is the same size as 35mm (135) film. APSC has the same size as a 35mm motion picture film gate, that’s why a lot of cinema cameras have APSC sized sensors. Kinda confusing tbh
@iamyoucefdjoudi
10 ай бұрын
Aps c has the same size like super 35 35mm is the equivalent of ff
@FA-lg9cx
10 ай бұрын
@@iamyoucefdjoudi yeah i just realized i was wrong. I assumed 135 film was the same size as 35mm motion picture film. I will edit my comment
@namvet_13e
25 күн бұрын
Movie film (cinema) used a format that was wide across the 35mm media and the height of the image was along the length of the film strip. Film ran vertically through a movie camera or a projector. APSC is similar to the cinema format. When the early Leica 35mm film camera was introduced the 35mm film was used but with a horizontal orientation which gave us a larger format than the cinema size. Grain is not apparent in a movie because the grain is smoothed. You can't see the grain until you stop the movie and look at the individual frames so a smaller format is more forgiving in a movie than in a still picture.
@zawhernos2541
11 ай бұрын
Day 30 : Current smartphone camera Day 31 : Older full frame sensor vsnewer crop sensor
@refsjourney
11 ай бұрын
One big advantage of crop sensor is most professional full frame lens is heavy af. While crop sensor one is lighter and cheaper, sure technically its better. But again it's heavy Most wildlife photographer (me kinda) still use crop sensor as it add more reach. Sure there'll be noise and stuff, but hey it's 2023 AI sharpen and denoise is your bestie. Use the advantage of technology 😊
@frostyfeet3063
2 ай бұрын
me laughing in Fuji XH2S
@neilfilms
10 ай бұрын
Super 16 super 8 also
@StitchTheOtter
11 ай бұрын
I dont know why but it kinda feels like my 24mpx apsc Nikon D3400 produces way more detailed images than my sony a7ii. How is that possible? It even feels like i can stretch the raw files on the Nikon further than on the sony
@zawhernos2541
11 ай бұрын
Sony has less sharpening to make it more cinema quality... So there is a huge chance older nikon might feel sharper
@matthewsylvester5835
11 ай бұрын
Could also be your lens. The Sony 28-70 kit is pretty soft.
@StitchTheOtter
11 ай бұрын
same lens on both camera @@matthewsylvester5835
@shura0808
10 ай бұрын
Странно
@NeroMC
11 ай бұрын
God bless the micro 4 3
@artart5404
11 ай бұрын
is micro 4 3 good?
@marijn17s
11 ай бұрын
@@artart5404 mweh its decent but i would go with aps-c if i were you
@NeroMC
11 ай бұрын
@@artart5404 its my system....i like it a lot
@J.Turren
11 ай бұрын
@@artart5404 it’s not bad depending on the camera, but it gives you a less shallow depth of field compared to large sensors .
@CMSTOCK01
10 ай бұрын
Every sensor is “full frame”. And 35mm was always a compromise. The standard was always genuine medium format.
@namvet_13e
25 күн бұрын
Medium format is not really very large. Real photographers used 4x5 or larger plates.
@Jaskalabombaclat
11 ай бұрын
just geht a canon 6D
@mikepenney5726
10 ай бұрын
35mm film was never the "standard" for professional photography... 4x5 inch and then 6x6cm were.
@camallenphoto
9 ай бұрын
Full frame is not better than APSC bc of the size. Canon black magic and ARRI (which movies are filmed on) all have cropped sensors for cinema work and they are not cheap either
@joshuathomas4934
8 ай бұрын
Saying full frame has better image quality is kind of silly. If you took a photo of a small bird with a full frame camera on a 500mm lens and that same bird with a apsc sensor with the same lens. If both cameras were 24mega pixels, you would have to crop more of the photo out of that 24 mega pixels to get the same effective focal length. The crop sensor would retain more detail. And if you used the crop mode of the full frame. You would also be losing even more resolution.
@Timootius
10 ай бұрын
Yes, but the Blackmagic 6K is not a high end cinema camera. It's on the low budget end for professional video and cinema cameras.
@Elions
11 ай бұрын
If fullframe digital is expensive, then just buy a 35mm camera? 🤨
@PookySharif
11 ай бұрын
Why would it take less computing power to process a crop sensor? If that's the motivation, why not use a full frame sensor with the same resolution?
@doctorbohr1585
11 ай бұрын
Just buy a vintage Olympus, Pentax or Minolta. Full frame at an eighth of the price! Better talking points too.
@DPG_photo
11 ай бұрын
So confused. as a landscape shooter (not birds) is the r6ii worth the $1500 more over the r7?
@Jesus.is.kingg.
4 ай бұрын
Crop vs full frame, which one can I afford? None of em
@Latelifter
11 ай бұрын
So is the fx30 better than the canon r8? (please someone help me choose)
@trektaco
10 ай бұрын
Use full frame sensor and crop the photo! Yes that’s it! Ha
@aaaaaadammm
10 ай бұрын
Please position your captions a little bit more up, it’s covered by the youtube name. 😁
@ioandavies8864
11 ай бұрын
Cinema cameras use smaller than full frame sensors because many of them are using sensors that are equivalent to the area of film exposed in I film cinema camera.
@tahrimhere
11 ай бұрын
Crop sensor helps with wildlife photography because of the crop factor
@OnlyBlix
10 ай бұрын
Isn't that false though? If you have a 50mm canon crop sensors camera your focal length is still 50mm, but the field of view is what you would get on an 80mm full sensor, but you're not actually getting 80mm focal length benefits. Or have I misunderstood it?
@tahrimhere
10 ай бұрын
@@OnlyBlix you're quite correct, from what I know though, the only benefit you'd be missing out on is that you will not get the full frame equivalent aperture like f1.2 lens would more like f1.8 on a crop body
@skullxd5788
11 ай бұрын
Sir one video on s23 ultra after iPhone 15 plsssss
@MillieMoocher
10 ай бұрын
So you like full frame cameras?
@vitum.records
10 ай бұрын
why it takes less computing power on a small senzor compared to a full senzor? 4k on both is not the same amount of computing?
@namvet_13e
25 күн бұрын
No, a larger sensor does not change the computing requirements if the pixel count is the same. The physics is changed and thus some properties of the image will be different. The size of the lens required is changed. The cost of a larger format photo system will increase enormously with size. The number of pixels is already more than sufficient in all the common formats, and the vendors incentive to offer larger formats and higher pixel counts is actually in the interest of selling a more expensive product. Before digital cameras, much of the competition was between rival film vendors who would develop better emulsions. Now the competition is to make larger and better sensors.
Пікірлер: 70