Advice on my possible switch from DSLR to Mirrorless...

[splproductions]

I have been shooting a 6D for a while with various Canon glass - L zooms (24-70 2/8, 70-200 2.8 ii, 16-35 f/4) and some primes (50mm 1/4, 85mm 1.8). I shoot people, landscapes, and lately I've been doing travel photography.

I just purchased a Fuji XT2, the 16-55mm 2.8, and some of the Fuji weather resistant primes at f/2.

I love the thought of a lighter-weight set up. I love the handling of the Fuji. The only thing I'm disappointed with when comparing these two cameras is the amount of bokeh I get with the 6D vs. the Fuji. I understand this is pretty much just the fact that the 6D is full-frame and the Fuji XT2 is crop sensor. For landscape this isn't a big deal, for travel photography it's not a deal-breaker, but for portraits - I'm having a hard time.

Are there incredible people out there doing portrait work with crop sensors? This is my one hang-up to switching to the Fuji system. (I know Sony makes a full-frame mirrorless, but I like the Fuji system, and the Sony w/ lenses doesn't seem any smaller than DSLR setups.) Any advice?

 

[jcdeboever]

If you want bokeh, have you tried the 50 140 f2.8? I borrowed one and it's pretty darn nice portrait lens, check out Flickr and x photographers images on this lens. The 60 macro is pretty impressive.

 

[splproductions]

If you want bokeh, have you tried the 50 140 f2.8? I borrowed one and it's pretty darn nice portrait lens, check out Flickr and x photographers images on this lens. The 60 macro is pretty impressive.

I haven't tried the 50-140 f/2.8 yet. If I sell off the Canon gear, I would get the 50-140 to replace my 70-200 2.8.

I know Fuji has the 56mm 1.2 APD that is supposed to be gorgeous. I guess I'm trying to figure out if the Fuji system can completely replace my Canon gear, or if I'm going to need to keep the Canon and some primes and just use that when I'm doing portrait work. It would be nice to have the extra money by selling the extra Canon gear (versus keeping the body and a few lenses).

 

[jcdeboever]

If you want bokeh, have you tried the 50 140 f2.8? I borrowed one and it's pretty darn nice portrait lens, check out Flickr and x photographers images on this lens. The 60 macro is pretty impressive.

I haven't tried the 50-140 f/2.8 yet. If I sell off the Canon gear, I would get the 50-140 to replace my 70-200 2.8.

I know Fuji has the 56mm 1.2 APD that is supposed to be gorgeous. I guess I'm trying to figure out if the Fuji system can completely replace my Canon gear, or if I'm going to need to keep the Canon and some primes and just use that when I'm doing portrait work. It would be nice to have the extra money by selling the extra Canon gear (versus keeping the body and a few lenses).

Well, I sold all my Nikon off but I would never suggest you to do that. I am very happy that I did but I was able to try a friend's xt1 prior to that decision.

 

[goodguy]

I don't get this, you have what you want with the Fuji and Canon so why not keep what you have and enjoy both worlds ?

 

[DarkShadow]

I would use the fuji XT-2 for landscape,action shots and travel and use the 6D for portrait work, seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Gary A.]

Take a hard look at the Fujinon 90mm, F/2. If you're shooting your 6D portraits at F2 or lower (1.8/1.4/1.2) then you'll never match the OOF/bokeh, but if you're shooting the 6D at F/2.8 or higher, then you should be able to get a similar OOF/bokeh at a stop or so lower. The DOF of a FF @ F/2.8 is about equal to the DOF of an APS-C @ F/2. There is a lot more to DOF and bokeh than aperture, but I would start there. For similar equivalents, as an example:

6D w/ 135mm @ F/2.8
=
XT2 w/ 90mm @ F/2

Remember that zooms are different animals than primes and may, or may not, produce similar DOF/Bokeh equivalency looking background(s).

 

[table1349]

FYI bokeh refers to quality of the OOF area not amount of OOF area.

 

[Gary A.]

FYI bokeh refers to quality of the OOF area not amount of OOF area.

Yes, as gryphonslair99 pointed out, DOF is different than Bokeh. DOF is measurable, Bokeh is a sense/look of quality. While you may attain the same equivalent of DOF, you may never attain the identical/similar bokeh as different lens designs will deliver a different bokeh.

 

[Derrel]

Austin commerical shooter and portrait specialist Kirk Tuck has moved through a lot of camera systems in the digitial age, from medium format digitial to m4/3, and has settled on using the smaller-format Sony cameras as of late. He mentioned specifically about eight months or so ago that he's found that selecting the background areas and blurring them in software (I'm not sure exactly how he's doing the blur operation) is giving him a look that is more like conventional, larger-sensor background blurring.

As I see it, the biggest issue people have is that the smaller sensor cameras lead people into using short focal length lenses; the shorter the lens, the closer to the camera that the lens approaches its hyperfocal focusing distance. This is a simple physics and optics issue, and can not be changed, so what happens with the 1.53x Nikon or Fuji APS-C sensor is that the photographer can find himself at say,10 feet, and wanting to do a full-length portrart of a standing person. In order to get that full-length, he zooms to 27mm on his 18-35mm zoom. Indoors, with his studio flash, he's got the flash power low, and it's still delivering an f/8 exposure at ISO 100.

Depth of Field, Angle & Field of View, & Equivalent Lens Calculator - Points in Focus Photography

As you can see, f/8 on APS-C at 27mm delivers a Tall frame that is 8 feet and just over 9 inches high, and 5 feet 9 inches wide. Depth of field? From 6 feet to 29 feet 8 inches--or a total DOF band of 23 feet 8 inches. This means, in-studio that the background paper will show up pretty clearly; this is why APS-C is not the preferred format for indoor studio work: too much DOF for modern strobes and their typical power settings, too doggone much DOF to throw backdrops well out of focus on things like a full-length standing person.

On the FLIP side: the increased depth of field, per picture height, or per picture angle can be a huge BENEFIT to the photojournalism,street,scenic, landscape, or home interior shooter, where having MORE depth of field is almost always a desired thing! APS-C is a pretty good compromise between the ability to defocus backgrounds "somewhat", using fast lenses and close camera-to-subject distances, and the ability to do deep DOF shots without the need to focus stack multiple images. By the time we move to the new digital medium format of roughly 43x33 mm or so, DOF is VERY shallow at close-distance and at normal portraiture distances at f/8.

So...if you want to defocus backgrounds on APS-C or on m4/3 cameras, you need to use wide f/stops, and not get too far away from the camera; longer distance from the camera moves the lens closer to its hyperfocal distance, and that RAPIDLY builds DOF/recognizability of objects behind the subject in a portrait. Hence, Kirk Tuck's use of background blurring in software when using small-sensor Sony cameraa for professional portrait work.

 

[Solarflare]

I have been shooting a 6D for a while with various Canon glass - L zooms (24-70 2/8, 70-200 2.8 ii, 16-35 f/4) and some primes (50mm 1/4, 85mm 1.8). [...]

The only thing I'm disappointed with when comparing these two cameras is the amount of bokeh I get with the 6D vs. the Fuji. [...]

If you consider yourself a Bokeh addict, you already have the perfect system - just sell the other Canon lenses, keep the 50mm f1.4 or replace it with the 50mm f1.2, and get the famous 85mm f1.2.

Right now, on Fuji X, you can get the same shallow depth of field as with the 85mm f1.8 with the 58mm f1.2. Its also in the rumors that Fujis been working on a 33mm f1.0, which would be the equivalent to the 50mm f1.4, but that rumors been around since years, so its probably not coming anymore.

I know Fuji has the 56mm 1.2 APD that is supposed to be gorgeous.

I would strongly suggest to NOT get the APD version of the 58 f1.2:

1. The APD filter works as a slightly closed aperture, i.e. your DoF is less shallow.

2. From what I can tell from example pictures on the net: the Bokeh of the base lens is already excellent and additional effect from the APD is near invisible.

3. The APD version is about 50% more expensive. Sorry, but thats absurd.

Its btw the same with my AF 105mm f2 DC on Nikon: the base lens Bokeh is already so good, the difference in Bokeh quality is miniscule and other lens attributes seem to rather decrease if you activate the DC mechanism.

 

[beagle100]

I also made the switch to mirrorless ........ nice
(and I can still use those big DSLR lens)

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[table1349]

Wouldn't that be like using a FF lens on an APS-C body???

 

[nickgillespie]

I've shot Canon professionally for about 15 years and recently picked up a mirrorless (I won't say which because of how crazy people get about brands). Needless to say... I only reach for the mirrorless now. I love the fact that the evf is "what you see is what you get."

I love that you can use any lens on the planet with an adapter and I LOVE that you can do focus zoom with the old manual lenses. I have always been a huge fan of old glass, but hated that I missed the focus so often on my 5d (the viewfinder on those is more just for composing... forget focusing).

As with anything, rent it or borrow it. I shot for an hour with a friend's mirrorless and knew that I had to have it and I haven't for a minute regretted it.

 

[PhotoRob06]

I completely understand the want to switch to mirrorless. Love my D800, but I think mirrorless is the way of the future. With electronic eyepieces now there's no need for mirrors and pentaprisms etc. they take up space and add cost / weight.

But having said that, I would go with a full frame mirrorless (Sony) or wait for other brands to jump on the full frame mirrorless. If you want that beautiful crisp no-noise quality that is. Just my two cents.