Is going FULL FRAME an « upgrade »?

I shoot with an R5, but my wife shoots with an R10. Every time I use her camera, I think “man these smaller form factors are so much easier to handle and travel with!”

I switched from APSC to Mirrorless Full Frame, and for my case, landscape photography in some difficult light conditions, the performance of full frame to capturing high dynamic range is much better. It helps to preserve dark tones and high lights.

As a new photographer your channel is very helpful. It has helped me not to go down rabit hole of equipment specs and rather helped me focus on my art. Congratulations on reaching 500k

Simon, thanks for the best explanation of the differences in sensor sizes I’ve ever heard. A couple of years ago I switched from Canon full frame down to Olympus micro 4/3. The change made sense for me because as an older photographer, I am 67, the weight and bulk of a full frame system was getting in my way of the joy photography. I wanted to upgrade to a mirrorless system and I didn’t have a fortune to spend on the new system. I got two bodies and a good selection of lenses for half the price of full frame. And I’m a happier photographer. I’m pulling my camera out and shooting a lot more than I did before. Different strokes for different folks. And I’m not saying that sometime in the future, I might not get back into full frame for some reason. After all cameras are just tools, and we get the tools we need for the jobs at hand. Again, thanks so much.

This is a YouTuber who has earned and deserves the 500k subscribers he now has.

Most photography sites focus on generalizing everything: camera choices, lens choices, camera settings, camera reviews and what camera is “best for you”. Very few of them even acknowledge that we’re all inspired for different reasons and shoot different subjects. I appreciate that you acknowledge this simple truth.

Its simple, if you are wildlife photographer or sports and want better zoom range. Just go for the crop sensor cameras. If you want better low light capability then go with the full frame. A lens that is f/1.8 in full frame is going to be around f/2.8 depending on what crop sensor camera you have. And you will get shallow depth of field with the full frame cameras. There is a reason every sensor size exists. There is not one sensor size that is for everyone. Depends on what you want it for.

i switched from sony a-mount apsc to a-mount full frame and those full frame lenses i was using on apsc finally feel less claustrophobic and confining and more 'natural' to me. i find this beneficial in pretty much every situation and have no regrets, sold the entire apsc kit afterwards. illiminating another conundrum ("hmm, do i take my ff or apsc body with me") is definitely freeing

After using Nikon Z50 (crop-sensor) more than 2 years, I switched to full-frame Canon R8. I have been using R8 for more than 6 months now. What genre of photography I do? Travelling, landscape, portraits of my family and friends. I use R8 with 2 main lenses: basic RF 24-105 f4-7.1, EF 70-200 f4. Yes, this combo is bigger than my old Nikon Z50 + 2 kit lenses. But, in my case, it was totally worth the switch (I also often use the RF 50mm F1.8). I explain a little bit: - for travel: the R8 is small enough to get it everywhere. I love how this camera manages a lot of situations: indoors photography (and I love to take indoor shots of palaces, churches, cathedrals etc). Even with the 'cheap' 24-105mm the image quality is much better overall: colors, noise etc. Also, for outdoor, the images are superior: much detailed, the highlights are recovered much better, also the details in the shadows are better. Now, I feel that I worry less about the dynamic range, I know I can recover highlights/shadows information in post-processing. And when you travel and walk the streets of old Italians, Greeks, Spanish towns, it is very comfortable to shots knowing the details will all be there. - landscape: as nature lover, I did also quite a lot of landscape photography. Not for selling, but also for landscape R8 is better (and not having the cutting-edge lenses). The details and the dynamic range make a lot the difference. - for portraits: oooo, yes, here it is absolutely no doubt the change was well worth it. The focus of R8 is amazing, the multiple way you can setup up how the camera will focus on subject is a big advantage. The subject tracking, again the high ISO management (when fast shutter speed needed), all is so good, worth every penny. With R8 I started to love portrait photography. - I didn't do wildlife. Except few tries on zoo, but this is not wildlife, with 70-200mm. And yes, you feel the need to have more reach, much longer focal length. But so far, so good, it is not my main interest. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Conclusion: using this R8 is a joy, having a camera I can rely on for a lot of scenarios: indoors, outdoors, low light, portraits, speed ... Everything is better, is higher quality, is close to professional work I could do one day with this camera. For me for me it was worth.

When I moved to mirroless, I went from canon full frame to fujifilm crop sensor, best decision as a wedding photographer. Smaller kit means my back and wrist don’t hurt at the end of a 10 hour day. Cheaper lenses mean I get to experiment with more focal lengths without breaking the bank. And I view getting a deeper depth of field at wider apertures a benefit as weddings can be notoriously dark.

Every video from you always contains so much knowledge to learn. The only issue is we all tend to forget!

My main camera right now is a Fuji X-T5. I love the small size of the camera and most of Fuji’s lenses. I can fit the camera plus six Fuji lenses of widely varying focal lengths into a small backpack. Even Fuji’s XF 70-300mm lens is relatively small. I shoot a wide range of genres including travel, street, events, sports, and aviation, but only usually as an unpaid amateur for friends and family. I’m sure I’d like the low light capabilities of FF plus Fuji’s autofocus isn’t the best. But I prioritize small size and weight, and I know the camera well and can work around its less than perfect autofocus capabilities. So for now, this Fuji system works great for me.

After shooting with my gf's Rebel T7 crop sensor for a year, I decided to get my own. After months of picking through details, I settled on the EOS RP full frame. I've taken it in the woods, to the beach, to the city. Wonderful camera for my area of Nova Scotia in the south. I picked up a 2nd hand 70-300 and have even gotten some good shots of wildlife.

I have been a crop sensor shooter for years. I shoot wildlife about 50 percent of the time and with my lens budget and the fact i don't shoot professionally it seemed to make the most sense. The other 50 percent of the time I shoot urban and wildlife. Recently however, I decided I wanted to dabble into full frame. My local camera shop had a canon expo and had two canon rebates on the RP making it 599.00 dollars so I said I can't go wrong dipping my toes into full frame at this price. I know its an older body with limited autofocus and burst rates but all my landscape and urban work is done with single point and single shot. Long story short I have absolutely no regrets and now only use my crop body for wildlife. The full frame definitely ads more depth to the images. I think all my RF primes ( non L but the 1.8, 2.0 and 2.8 versions) are much sharper on the full frame also. Not saying their bad on crop just better on full frame. Yes I see an R6 II in my future.

My simple minded solution for better bokeh? Greater separation between subject and background. Not always possible, but something to look for when composing the image. Another option would be to choose a lens with a short minimum focus distance. Get closer to the subject to throw the bakground out of focus.

As someone who has both the difference is just night and day, not in a good/bad way, just that one format is better for some things than other formats APS-C is simply better when you need higher pixel density, for example with supertelephoto lenses or with macro Full Frame on the other hand is better where you want background seperation and more dynamic range, for example landscape, astrophotography or portraits Full Frame also has the big advantage that the bodies themselves are usually higher-end so you get a lot more features you don't have with APS-C, and just with a rule of thumb, especially because of the lower pixel density, you can get away with using ever so slightly softer lenses, they appear sharp on fullframe while you see softness on APS-C

After using a nikon d7000 and d7100 for 10 years, I bought a nikon z6. I mostly shoot wildlife, take basic snaps when traveling and some family photos at Christmas. While both my d7100 and z6 have a 24mp sensor, the reason I upgraded was because of the better lenses. The basic kit lens (24-70 f4) on the new mirrorless system is light years ahead of any crop sensor lens I ever owned. Similarly, the difference in the iso performance of my two cameras is mindblowing. I don't attribute all the gains to the sensor size, because there's also a difference of 5 years in sensor technology. But still, being a pixel-peeper, I very much appreciate the benefits of the new system. (Well not really new. I bought a used z6 that's 6 years old, but still.)

There's also something to be said about "The best camera is the one you have with you". I shoot Fujifilm, the AF performance is sub-par, its an APSC sensor, the menus are outdated, the app is wonky. But I just LOVE holding this camera, and using it, and bringing it out, and the lenses are so nice. The camera ENCOURAGES me to want to go out and use it and play with it. I think that's super important too, even if you are a professional! You can achieve anything if you ENJOY your equipment and it makes you happy :)

Congratulations on passing half a million 🎉 you deserve it!! Thanks for all the educational info and advice for all types of photographers.

As a crop sensor Canon user I appreciate your giving time to the topic. Not surprisingly you’ve hit 500k so quickly. Best from Texas!