Lately, I have seen repeatedly, in events that I participate, photographers and videographers, to give an immense value to the question of the camera, to be or not to be Full-Frame.
In my opinion, there is an exaggerated appreciation by the professionals of the environment, on this issue. More even than it should. I particularly agree and disagree with the thought that Full-Frame is much better than cropped cameras ...
From the point of view of the camera not exclusively, but from the point of view of the ISO only yes. I will explain why: The field of view of an image depends much more from its point of view (departure) in relation to its point of arrival (object) ... That is, the captured image depends on the point at which the person is before the object to be captured. Be photo, be video. More or less distant from the captured object. And of course the lens used, giving a larger or smaller amplitude in the image, according to the objective in question. And in most cases, you are an image professional (photographer or cameraman), you can always move to get the best framing and positioning before the target in your scenes. You're definitely not nailed to the floor.
Unless you're working in the middle of a show, inside an "anthill of people" let's say, you're completely unable to move and change the "settings" of your scenes. Other than that, I believe that everything can be changed. Everything. In practice, I believe that if you step back 5 to 8 steps, you would already have a more "open" image and the result would change, and you could approach the result captured by a Full-Frame camera. So I must really conclude, that in practice, everything is quite relative:
1- Relative to the object,
2- Relative to the used camera,
3- Relative to the lens used,
4- Relative to the aperture of the lens used (diaphragm), preferably F1.4, F1.2 ,F0.95
5- Relative to the light used to obtain an image of great quality and expression,
6. Certainly, everything is relative. And in fact, everything is related too.
Never a single feature (Full-Frame or No), should or may determine the final quality of an image (photo or video). And I believe that in fact, it is always a set of characteristics and factors that will determine the final quality of the work obtained.
And that actually photo and video, basically follow the same principles ... I'll say, that video is nothing more than a photograph that took Red-Bull. (rsrs). On the other hand, another question that in practice always called me more, (actually much more), my attention was the quality of Full-Frames cameras in relation to cropped cameras, from the ISO point of view. And look, I've already done a lot of analysis tests ... And they were not few ... And the truth be told, normally Full-Frames cameras always have a much higher ISO than cropped cameras. And in this case, the Full-Frames show a lot of their superiority to cropped cameras. Especially when you, (like me) act in large part at nightly events. Not because the camera is Full-Frame only or not, but because it has a very high ISO, far superior to cropped cameras, which allows it to produce high-quality images. In what I call, of images with "satin texture".
This yes, the ISO, in my opinion, makes an absurd difference in the final quality of the image, be it photo, or video. A great example, to illustrate this situation, is the darling among American filmmakers and the rest of the world too, including Brazilians.
It is the Sony A7s and A7SII camera, which has a low resolution standard, very low by the way, about 12.2 megapixels, only. However, an absurd amount of ISO. Above 400,000, making them one of the most expensive camera options, be it DSLR or MIRRORLESS. Few cameras, dare to have this ISO standard. Very few, actually. And this, in my opinion, changes the quality of the generated images. And it changes everything. Everything. And it's ISO, whenever it shows me the gigantic importance for those who act with photos and videos, especially at night. Where events usually have terrible lighting. Today, making a quick overview of the current cameras is: Sony, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Leica, Fuji, etc ... I realize that there is no camera today. Not bad current lenses.
There are yes, bad professionals ... Or unprepared, certainly.
All cameras and lenses produced today can produce great results ... It's not uncommon to see "professionals" with very good cameras, producing limited or poor results. Very suffering, actually. But I insist that: as long as you understand the real limitations of each equipment (yes, everyone has) and everything that it can truly offer you or not. Mainly how these equipments will be configured and used, it makes all the difference ... I clearly perceive, among the said professionals of the area, a huge distortion of perception in what is important or not, in order to obtain high quality images.
ISO = LIGHT SENSITIVITY, CAPTURED BY CAMERA SENSOR
They say good guess, it is a guess "bought" and not donated. But if you had to give a tip to all those who seek to achieve excellence in their work: evaluate a lot, question a lot, compare a lot, before making any purchase decision ...
Because the equipment is usually quite expensive and you can use it better, part of the investment of a Full-Frame camera in additional equipment or even high-aperture lenses with wide aperture. I think everything can be questionable ...
Obs: In my opinion, professionals are those who study their trade relentlessly, not those who buy Full-Frames.
To the next!!!