Sharing my thoughts and feeling about moving from APS-C (Crop Sensor) to Full Frame camera

[fjrabon]

Honestly, as amazing as the little Fuji cams' sensors are, they're still not quite up there with even some of the last generation full frame cameras.

Here's a shot from my Fujifilm X100S (Same sensor as the X100T/XT-1/XE-2) at ISO 6400, overexposed on purpose to minimize noise in post.
View attachment 98951

Here is a similar shot on my Canon 6D at ISO 12,800.
View attachment 98952

And a 50% zoom comparison
View attachment 98954

And here's a comparison after I bring the Fujifilm file's exposure down 1 stop.
View attachment 98955

The Fujifilm file at 6400 is slightly cleaner after the exposure is brought down than the Canon file at 12,800.


The Fujifilm sensors are quite spectacular in terms of dynamic range, noise quality (it really is much more randomized and filmic than Bayer array sensors) and even in terms of the amount of noise the camera produces. And their shadow noise is VERY well controlled when compared to Canon cameras.

However, these are not Holy Grail cameras. They still "suffer" from their smaller sensor size. The difference is pretty negligible in any real world sense, but it is there. They're also at a smaller resolution, so if the 6D files were downsized to 16 MP the it would also further minimize noise.

I love Fujifilm and Canon has kind of become an industry punchline, but I think saying the current APS-C X-Trans sensors are superior in low light to FF Canon sensors (or any current FF sensor) is wishful thinking.

But in the right hands they probably are better and they fit in your pocket

In the right hands...they're still going to produce noise... there are probably some situations where the noise isn't as apparent, but I've owned both cameras long enough to understand the finer points of what they're capable of. A properly exposed photo from a Canon 6D has less noise than an identically exposed photo from the 16 MP Fujifilm sensor.

The Fujifilm handles over and underexposure better, however, when shooting at high ISOs, I still ETTR when possible.

Better is subjective depending on what your criteria is. In this regard, I've seen enough of my own photos with both cameras in a variety of situations to have a clear understanding of the technical qualities of the photos produced from each camera.

I've found the X-Trans II sensor is amazing as an APS-C sensor. If Fuji comes out with a full frame sensor, I have no doubt it will be more capable than Canon.

Choice-supportive bias - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Read 10 things and 5 say Fuji, 5 say canon in this regard. I don't really know or care for sure which one is better. Noise wise, to me they are very different in how the noise looks so that its hard to just look at and tell. As you noted fuji's noise is almost sorta like film grain, due to the semi-random color filter pattern. So I guess, maybe that makes it less noticeable to me, since what noise there is, it's borderline pleasant.

Regardless, it's certainly not the difference we used to see between a rebel and a 5DClassic. Or D300 and a D3

As a side note, I think it's more likely Fuji makes a medium format camera than a 35mm. Though I think neither is particularly likely right now.

Speaking of medium format, now that's where the game truly changes. The difference between aps-c and 35mm is basically nothing compared to the difference between 35mm and medium format. These days it's difficult to look at a picture and immediately know if it was aps-c or 35mm. One glance at a medium format picture and *you just know*

 

[Ysarex]

Low light performance isn't single faceted -- what's the noise look like. Low light performance is also measured by how much usable data is recorded: Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO In pragmatic terms, actually taking photos, the differences evident in that chart are entirely academic. (Oooooooh, but look how that APS camera just trounces the FF at ISO 200!!).

Joe

 

[Gary A.]

Generally, there definitely is "The Grass is Greener" thing going on with many photogs that haven't used a FF. (I am not saying the OP is one of those ... but I have seen this crop up time and again ... "If I only had a FF ...".) My first 'real' digital camera was a 20D ... back in 2003/2004 there was a significant dif in IQ between the 20D and a FF camera. Today, for stuff less than 16x20 ... I don't see any significant differences. For me. for how I shoot and what I shoot ... timing and composition has significantly more impact on the success of the image than the differences between a modern APS-C sensor or a modern FF sensor. Okay ... granted that typically this has always been true that the subject has greater impact than the medium IQ ... but for me the difference between APS-C and FF is so insignificant it is meaningless. (I am sure there are exceptions out there to my statement ... but I haven't seen or shot them yet.)

 

[fjrabon]

Generally, there definitely is "The Grass is Greener" thing going on with many photogs that haven't used a FF. (I am not saying the OP is one of those ... but I have seen this crop up time and again ... "If I only had a FF ...".) My first 'real' digital camera was a 20D ... back in 2003/2004 there was a significant dif in IQ between the 20D and a FF camera. Today, for stuff less than 16x20 ... I don't see any significant differences. For me. for how I shoot and what I shoot ... timing and composition has significantly more impact on the success of the image than the differences between a modern APS-C sensor or a modern FF sensor. Okay ... granted that typically this has always been true that the subject has greater impact than the medium IQ ... but for me the difference between APS-C and FF is so insignificant it is meaningless. (I am sure there are exceptions out there to my statement ... but I haven't seen or shot them yet.)

Yeah, it's really interesting to see how many photographers these days are choosing to leave 35mm behind, several great shooters here, guys like Hobby and Arias, etc (granted zack has his phase and hobby does sometimes still use 35mm). Just as Nikon is really pushing 35mm as the way to go too. I adore Nikon, but it seems they always screw market trends up.

I liked my D600, but I didn't really feel anything when I sold it. You will pry my X100T away from my cold dead hands. No screw that, I'll be buried with it. Honestly at this point I think the only non-film 35mm I'd bother with would be a D4 or 1DX, but I don't shoot enough sports paid to remotely justify either right now. If I was going big time wedding I'd just skip 35mm and do medium format and aps-c mixed together.

 

[rexbobcat]

Low light performance isn't single faceted -- what's the noise look like. Low light performance is also measured by how much usable data is recorded: Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO In pragmatic terms, actually taking photos, the differences evident in that chart are entirely academic. (Oooooooh, but look how that APS camera just trounces the FF at ISO 200!!).

Joe

That's what I said. The Fujifilm has more DR than Canon. Their DR expansion mode is also much more useful than Canon's, because, for one, it saves more of the highlights, and two, it doesn't completely destroy the shadows like Canon Highlight Priority does at ISO 200.

I mean, I took this photo I took accidentally at ISO 6400. If this were Canon, chances are, the photo would be trash. However, I had the DR expansion on and...

Now, after bringing it down 3+ stops.

This is one of the reasons I have no fear ETTR with the X100S. It handles it so much better than Canon and I would say, even Nikon in some instances.

If Fuji can up their autofocus game, I would have no problem switching entirely to Fujifilm. I just think there's a lot of dogma against Canon at this point because of their lackluster sensor improvements over the past 7 years.

 

[rexbobcat]

I just like to ruffle feathers, because as much as I have been disappointed by Canon in the past, I think people want their cameras to be worse than they actually are.

Here's a good video by Zack Arias describing why the difference between APS-C and FF is really somewhat pointless, because the two formats aren't even that different. He explains that the real debate should be for APS-C/FF against medium format and large format. That's where you see the real change.

 

[fjrabon]

Low light performance isn't single faceted -- what's the noise look like. Low light performance is also measured by how much usable data is recorded: Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO In pragmatic terms, actually taking photos, the differences evident in that chart are entirely academic. (Oooooooh, but look how that APS camera just trounces the FF at ISO 200!!).

Joe

That's what I said. The Fujifilm has more DR than Canon. Their DR expansion mode is also much more useful than Canon's, because, for one, it saves more of the highlights, and two, it doesn't completely destroy the shadows like Canon Highlight Priority does at ISO 200.

I mean, I took this photo I took accidentally at ISO 6400. If this were Canon, chances are, the photo would be trash. However, I had the DR expansion on and...

View attachment 98979

Now, after bringing it down 3+ stops.
View attachment 98980

This is one of the reasons I have no fear ETTR with the X100S. It handles it so much better than Canon and I would say, even Nikon in some instances.

If Fuji can up their autofocus game, I would have no problem switching entirely to Fujifilm. I just think there's a lot of dogma against Canon at this point because of their lackluster sensor improvements over the past 7 years.

I like canon, if I was going entirely sports id probably go 1DX and all canon glass. I just never did like their low light performance and it hasn't really gotten better. But 99% of the time that doesn't matter. They still run the game when it comes to long, fast telephotos.

I think TPF is weirdly obsessed with DR and low light performance in sensors, but then we get the flip argument from Canon people that they're "really just as good." My general position has been that they're definitely behind in those areas, but that doesn't matter to a lot of people in a lot of situations. My issue comes when people try to argue that Canon isn't actually behind. To me the reason to buy canon is to use canon glass. And that's a pretty dang compelling reason.

I worked professionally for a couple years in a canon studio and I liked their cameras generally, but I liked my nikons and Fuji better.

 

[pixmedic]

Canon has in fact, gotten a lot of flack about using the same old sensors in their cameras year after year...and rightly so in my opinion. However, given the most recent canon offerings (and rumored offerings) it seems like canon could finally be on the verge of shedding the "old sensor tech" mantle and stepping up their game by quite a large margin for both video and still shots.

Before all the scoffs and sneers ensue, I would like to point out that up until recent years, both Tamron and Sigma shared a common perception by the more advanced photographic community of being largely inferior quality wise. Now however, their newest offerings are very close to their OEM counterparts with some lenses being equal to or even surpassing the OEM versions.

Maybe Nikon has been resting on its (and sony/toshibas) sensor laurels for too long as Nikon's main draw over Canon, possibly neglecting breakthrough engineering in other departments.
If canon closes the sensor gap with their next few model releases, AND has >/= ISO and AF performance.....oh my, what WILL the nikon fan boys do then?

Not that i have any plans on switching mind you...I'm too heavily invested in Nikon, and it's a system that works well for me.
But it will be interesting to see what the next big camera race will be.
I wonder how long before mirrorless cameras equal or overtake traditional DSLR'S in overall performance. Seems like all they need now Is comparable AF and EFV before both canon and nikon are in big trouble.

 

[gsgary]

One thing nobody has mention when shooting in low light is viewfinder brightness and coverage how does the Fuji and Nikon compare because I know my camera would win on both

 

[pixmedic]

One thing nobody has mention when shooting in low light is viewfinder brightness and coverage how does the Fuji and Nikon compare because I know my camera would win on both

I think it's all purely academic at this point.
I've owned DSLR'S since 2004 and never really had any serious complaints about viewfinder coverage. I somehow manage to get the shots.

Viewfinder coverage is nice, but not near the deal-breaker for me like iso or AF performance is

 

[fjrabon]

One thing nobody has mention when shooting in low light is viewfinder brightness and coverage how does the Fuji and Nikon compare because I know my camera would win on both

well, Fuji's are an EVF, so how bright it is mostly depends on how bright you want it to be, except for the X100T and X-Pro, which have hybrid OVF/EVF rangefinder-style viewfinders and they're both really bright, because they don't involve a mirror or prism to dim things down. Looking through the X100T's viewfinder, it's perfectly bright because it's just going through a single lens element. It's literally as bright as however bright the ambient light is. I think the Fuji OVFs are just as bright as a Leica or any other range finder and they have greater than 100% OVF coverage, they also have a live parallax correction frame for close focusing with the OVF.

Every Leica lover I've ever seen has adored the X100T's OVF.

 

[gsgary]

One thing nobody has mention when shooting in low light is viewfinder brightness and coverage how does the Fuji and Nikon compare because I know my camera would win on both

well, Fuji's are an EVF, so how bright it is mostly depends on how bright you want it to be, except for the X100T and X-Pro, which have hybrid OVF/EVF rangefinder-style viewfinders and they're both really bright, because they don't involve a mirror or prism to dim things down. Looking through the X100T's viewfinder, it's perfectly bright because it's just going through a single lens element. It's literally as bright as however bright the ambient light is. I think the Fuji OVFs are just as bright as a Leica or any other range finder and they have greater than 100% OVF coverage, they also have a live parallax correction frame for close focusing with the OVF.

Every Leica lover I've ever seen has adored the X100T's OVF.

I was going to buy an xpro 1 but bought the Sony A7 and Voigtlander close focus adapter for my Leica fit lenses

 

[fjrabon]

One thing nobody has mention when shooting in low light is viewfinder brightness and coverage how does the Fuji and Nikon compare because I know my camera would win on both

well, Fuji's are an EVF, so how bright it is mostly depends on how bright you want it to be, except for the X100T and X-Pro, which have hybrid OVF/EVF rangefinder-style viewfinders and they're both really bright, because they don't involve a mirror or prism to dim things down. Looking through the X100T's viewfinder, it's perfectly bright because it's just going through a single lens element. It's literally as bright as however bright the ambient light is. I think the Fuji OVFs are just as bright as a Leica or any other range finder and they have greater than 100% OVF coverage, they also have a live parallax correction frame for close focusing with the OVF.

Every Leica lover I've ever seen has adored the X100T's OVF.

I was going to buy an xpro 1 but bought the Sony A7 and Voigtlander close focus adapter for my Leica fit lenses

I'm pretty sure there are really good adapters now for the Fuji system to get you into Leica glass, though that's a rabbit hole I haven't personally ventured down yet.

According to Zack Arias, there will probably be a Fuji X-Pro II, though it's hard to tell if that's his own wishful thinking or "secret info" from Fuji.

 

[syaudi]

I've noticed a significant improvement in my photography after switching from an APS-C to FF, but that's probably because I went from a 20D to a 5DIII.

I have no problem shooting lowlight handheld shots with my FL.

 

[gsgary]

I've noticed a significant improvement in my photography after switching from an APS-C to FF, but that's probably because I went from a 20D to a 5DIII.

I have no problem shooting lowlight handheld shots with my FL.

I wouldn't class that as an improvement in your photography just an improvement in the quality of the file