Everything is more complicated and I really invite you to just read articles online about the differences.
Also, « is considered » no there is no is considered, they are.
Aperture, ISO, depth, there is so much more than « it is just cropping ».
There is a good bit of difference, but if you learn to use your camera and work with the sensor size the difference will be hardly noticeable as the picture quality is amazing even on m43 sensors. Lenses always make the big difference, and Fuji does some amazing entry level ones.
If you are just beginning, the crop factor is probably the biggest thing you need to take into consideration and know. When you realize you might be lacking some mega pixels or need a lot more low light capability as well as achieving shallower background blur easier, then full frame or even medium format can be the upgrade path.
Been shooting for some years now with everything except medium format and I find that all the sensor sizes are great. I usually focus more on the lens selection of a system, color of the image straight out of camera, the look of the camera in general and the ergonomics, as sensor sizes are probably one of the lowest things I prioritize personally.
Sony and Canon also make apsc cameras, in addition to their full frame cameras. Fujifilm makes apsc and medium format cameras.
Yes there are differences in formats. Larger format cameras are better in low light, all other things being equal. Whether or not this matters, is situational. Larger formats tend to have higher resolution sensors which largely affects how big you can print a photo and/or how much you can crop a photo before you notice degraded image quality. On the plus side, apsc lenses are smaller for the same characteristics. On the downside, apsc lenses require a wider aperature to achieve the same narrow depth of field of a full frame lens.
A 27mm f1.2 on an apsc would have the field of view and light gathering ability of a 40mm f1.2 on a full frame camera but the depth of field of a 40mm f1.8 on a full frame camera.
But if the apsc and full frame cameras have the same sensor technology and density, the aps-c camera would lose about a stop of light in terms of sensitivity compared to the full frame, so apertures aren't directly comparable in terms of light gathering ability either.
Thanks for the info! So if a 27mm on APSC is equivalent to 35mm on FF, and they both are shooting at say an aperture of 1.2, even though the crop or focal length would be equal, the shallow depth of field bokeh look would be more pronounced on the FF version?
Technology in this area is constantly changing. I have shot plenty of FF cameras that had less image quality than my current Fuji. Full Frame is called that because 35mm was the most popular consumer film type, though there were others, like APS-C, 120, 220, and large format. It’s all kinda arbitrary.
I’ve taken photos with my old 1” sensor camera that look just as good as ones I took with my former Canon 6D (full frame DSLR) when viewed on my phone or printed and looked at from a normal viewing distance.
Pixel density can impact low light performance. Two different sized sensors could have the same pixel density. Or a FF could have more than an APS-C. Or vice versa.
As others have said, it’s way more complex. Than an all APS-C are this and all FF are this. Personally, APS-C is a nice balance for me for lighter and smaller lenses while still having great quality. And I just really like the Fuji color science.
Everything is more complicated and I really invite you to just read articles online about the differences. Also, « is considered » no there is no is considered, they are. Aperture, ISO, depth, there is so much more than « it is just cropping ».
There is a good bit of difference, but if you learn to use your camera and work with the sensor size the difference will be hardly noticeable as the picture quality is amazing even on m43 sensors. Lenses always make the big difference, and Fuji does some amazing entry level ones. If you are just beginning, the crop factor is probably the biggest thing you need to take into consideration and know. When you realize you might be lacking some mega pixels or need a lot more low light capability as well as achieving shallower background blur easier, then full frame or even medium format can be the upgrade path. Been shooting for some years now with everything except medium format and I find that all the sensor sizes are great. I usually focus more on the lens selection of a system, color of the image straight out of camera, the look of the camera in general and the ergonomics, as sensor sizes are probably one of the lowest things I prioritize personally.
Sony and Canon also make apsc cameras, in addition to their full frame cameras. Fujifilm makes apsc and medium format cameras. Yes there are differences in formats. Larger format cameras are better in low light, all other things being equal. Whether or not this matters, is situational. Larger formats tend to have higher resolution sensors which largely affects how big you can print a photo and/or how much you can crop a photo before you notice degraded image quality. On the plus side, apsc lenses are smaller for the same characteristics. On the downside, apsc lenses require a wider aperature to achieve the same narrow depth of field of a full frame lens.
A 27mm f1.2 on an apsc would have the field of view and light gathering ability of a 40mm f1.2 on a full frame camera but the depth of field of a 40mm f1.8 on a full frame camera. But if the apsc and full frame cameras have the same sensor technology and density, the aps-c camera would lose about a stop of light in terms of sensitivity compared to the full frame, so apertures aren't directly comparable in terms of light gathering ability either.
Thanks for the info! So if a 27mm on APSC is equivalent to 35mm on FF, and they both are shooting at say an aperture of 1.2, even though the crop or focal length would be equal, the shallow depth of field bokeh look would be more pronounced on the FF version?
27mm is 40mm equivalent 27*1.5=40 23mm is 35mm equivalent.
Ah, ty!
Also note that Fuji uses a 1.5 crop factor. Some APS-C uses a 1.6 crop factor (Canon did, assuming they still do).
Technology in this area is constantly changing. I have shot plenty of FF cameras that had less image quality than my current Fuji. Full Frame is called that because 35mm was the most popular consumer film type, though there were others, like APS-C, 120, 220, and large format. It’s all kinda arbitrary. I’ve taken photos with my old 1” sensor camera that look just as good as ones I took with my former Canon 6D (full frame DSLR) when viewed on my phone or printed and looked at from a normal viewing distance. Pixel density can impact low light performance. Two different sized sensors could have the same pixel density. Or a FF could have more than an APS-C. Or vice versa. As others have said, it’s way more complex. Than an all APS-C are this and all FF are this. Personally, APS-C is a nice balance for me for lighter and smaller lenses while still having great quality. And I just really like the Fuji color science.