Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
APSC - FF sensors
#1
Hi all,

I want to know your opinion: now I am an APSC user (old Canon user and now with Fuji XT2). Do you think that changing to FF sensor worths it?. Is there a bit difference (image quality) between APSC vs FF sensor?

Thanks in advance
#2
I use both, for landscape photography I can see no difference, I even prefer APS-C for the lightweight and the ease to have enough depth of field at medium apertures, for portraits especially in low light full frame is better but bare in mind, that ISO advantage is around one f stop, with adequate lenses yes you have more DOF but you can achieve very close results with lenses like 56f1.2
#3
To me, it's just two reasons for FF: Shallow (and not more!) DoF (Depth of Field) for Portraits, but also for all pictures when I want to isolate the subject. The other reason is ultrawide-angle, which in APS-C has never the resolution of details. Saying so, I take very good glass for granted, not many lenses resolve 60 MP from corner to corner when it comes to ultra wide.

The expenses are higher, but the quality at certain circumstances is also higher. Plus, all FF can switch to APS-C (for saving diskspace or gaining a bit of tele-reach), but with APS-C one needs to stitch pictures to get better resolution. One can always crop FF. However, I still keep my Fujis: When it comes to batterylife, three batteries are hard to beat. Glass is also good although dated. All f/1.4 and f/1.2 are between 10 and 15 year old designs... the 8-16 ultra wide is not something compact, while a Nikkor S 14-30 is cheaper, lighter and can use screw in filters. I hate Nikon's slow pace of filling up the gaps in their lens line up, but in terms of handling and ergonomics Fujifilm falls short compare to the Z.
#4
For me FF is preferred for a variety of reasons, other than more DoF control, less noise, etc.

I've shot with APS-C cameras myself up to and including the Canon EOS 400D and 40D, and handled basically all of them until the most recent models. What I do not like at all is the tunnel vision of these cameras, and if Nikon hasn't improved on this over the last 10 years, it is no better IMO.

Then there is IQ: a larger sensor puts less strain on the lenses, basically because the pixels are bigger, and somehow that translates to the image files IMO. I really prefer FF over APS-C as a result. In addition, FF lenses tend to be better and faster than APS-C lenses, especially when it comes to professional glass, which often is not available specifically for APS-C, possibly with the exception of Fuji amd/or some 3rd party lenses.

Basically, I started with a Canon 350D as my first dslr, not long after it appeared, and I had the budget for a 5D (classic), which appeared around the same time. Had I known, I would have gone straight for the 5D, which I eventually bought anyway Smile.

Actually, now is a very good time to get into FF, basically because you could get a used FF dslr for a very good price, or get straight into one of the new Nikons or Canons. However, as a starter FF body, the Canon EOS RP would be my recommendation currently. The OEM adapter that comes with it is very, very good, and allows seamless operation with EF lenses, at generally faster and more accurate AF. In addition, the EVF shows you how the endresault, jpeg-wise, is going to look, and there are a bunch more improvements. Coupled with, initially, the 35 F/1.8 IS Macro or the RF 24-105L IS, you would have an absolute winner combination.

I do own a full set of MFT cameras and lenses as well, and I am happy with those too, basically because IQ IMO is just as good as APS-C, but overall the system is lighter, so great when I do not have the room to carry the bigger FF setup with me. Essentially, with both I am very happy, and lucky enough to be able to afford great lenses for both setups in addition. This reminds me of another thing: certainly the new Canon lenses are basically in a new class - they will d great with the upcoming higher MP bodies, I am absolutely sure. No idea really about Sony or Nikon, but I am very, very impressed so far (owning 4 of the 5 currently available RF glass).

Thwo more thoughts, regarding Canon: if you have a higher budget, I'd recommend the EOS R, which is thought 1, and thought 2 is that if you have an even higher budget available, I would wait a couple of months, if you can and want to, as I expect the EOS Rs or whatever it is going to be called, the replacement for the Canon 5 Ds/5 Dsr, to make an appearance before the end of the year, and possible a 1Dx II type mirrorless body sometime in the first half of next year (and potentially a few other bodies as well, but that may well be a bit later next year). I do expect all new bodies from the end of this year to have IBIS, BTW.

I you are unsure, and you do have the opportunity to rent a FF camera and one or more lenses to go with it, I would certainly suggest you do so, to clear your mind on the matter.

HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 1 zoom, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, extension tubes, an accessory plague, and an Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II and Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ...
#5
In my opinion, the only reason to consider FF over APS-C is if you are interested in the possibility of more shallow DOF (and you have access to FF lenses that provide that, or the finances to acquire them).

When you use equivalent settings, FF does not offer any real advantage.

Another possibility to look at certain FF cameras is the higher resolution sensors, making big prints with more details possible with single shots (think Canon EOS 5DS, Sony A7r IV). But you need expensive lenses to take full advantage of such resolutions too, so things get expensive very quickly.

So, it depends on what you look for, and what you feel you lack now, if FF is something to go for, or not.
#6
Hi Brisco, if you can afford full frame gear and don't mind the heavier set up go for it.
#7
I fully agree with BC's comment.
FF is only interesting if you want to mostly shoot at f1.4 or f1.2 (few lenses qualify here) or really need more than 24-26MP.
As far as DOF goes, these setups would provide identical looks (in terms of FOV and depth of field - and I'm considering APS-C with a 1.5x crop factor which doesn't include Canon as it features a 1.6x crop factor):
- 16mm f1.4 APS-C = 24mm f2.1 FF
- 35mm f1.4 APS-C = 53mm f2.1 FF
- 56mm f1.2 APS-C = 84mm f1.8 FF
- 16-80mm f4 APS-C = 24-120mm f6 FF
If you think you'd be happy with these and 24-26MP, then there is no reason to move to FF.
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#8
I think, if Fuji used a Bayer sensor a lot fewer ppl would go FF, because their lenses are good enough on Aps-c really, FF lenses in the same price bracket aren't better and are often a stop slower too, so concerns about blur quantity & noise aren't relevant.
#9
(08-23-2019, 08:59 PM)Sinasina Wrote: I think, if Fuji used a Bayer sensor a lot fewer ppl would go FF, because their lenses are good enough on Aps-c really, FF lenses in the same price bracket aren't better and are often a stop slower too, so concerns about blur quantity & noise aren't relevant.

Really? You think, just screw in a Bayer pattern and fewer people would go FF? Update your half-knowledge!

56/1.2: 890.-, same lens with 
APD 1250.-
vs.
Nikkor 85/1.8 G (same DoF, ⅔ stop slower): 550.-
Tamron 85/1.8: 770.-
Nikkor Z 85/1.8 S: Amazon offered it yesterday for 800.- and its isn't even in stock yet

23/1.4: 830.-
vs.
Nikkor 35/1.8 G: 545.-
Tamron 35/1.8: 600.-
Sigma 35/1.4: 800.- (and not even a stop slower...)

16/1.4: 870.-
vs
Sigma 24/1.4: 750.- (and not even a stop slower...)
Nikkor 24/1.8: 820.-

Actually, I don't see (to my own surprise) a difference in favour of Fuji. On the contrary, I see a lot of old lens designs (that stupid clutch is annoying because AF-C + manual focus override don't go together).

It is not possible to miniaturize a camera system and reduce it's price the same way. At best, it's somehow even, but usually making things smaller cost more.

And one word to Bayer vs. Fuji patterns: If you're unhappy with the way Adobe crap renders the Fuji file, just try a better converter, that helps a lot - Capture One is available in a special Fuji only version.
#10
(08-24-2019, 11:55 AM)JJ_SO Wrote:
(08-23-2019, 08:59 PM)Sinasina Wrote: I think, if Fuji used a Bayer sensor a lot fewer ppl would go FF, because their lenses are good enough on Aps-c really, FF lenses in the same price bracket aren't better and are often a stop slower too, so concerns about blur quantity & noise aren't relevant.

Really? You think, just screw in a Bayer pattern and fewer people would go FF? Update your half-knowledge!

56/1.2: 890.-, same lens with 
APD 1250.-
vs.
Nikkor 85/1.8 G (same DoF, ⅔ stop slower): 550.-
Tamron 85/1.8: 770.-
Nikkor Z 85/1.8 S: Amazon offered it yesterday for 800.- and its isn't even in stock yet

23/1.4: 830.-
vs.
Nikkor 35/1.8 G: 545.-
Tamron 35/1.8: 600.-
Sigma 35/1.4: 800.- (and not even a stop slower...)

16/1.4: 870.-
vs
Sigma 24/1.4: 750.- (and not even a stop slower...)
Nikkor 24/1.8: 820.-

Actually, I don't see (to my own surprise) a difference in favour of Fuji. On the contrary, I see a lot of old lens designs (that stupid clutch is annoying because AF-C + manual focus override don't go together).

It is not possible to miniaturize a camera system and reduce it's price the same way. At best, it's somehow even, but usually making things smaller cost more.

And one word to Bayer vs. Fuji patterns: If you're unhappy with the way Adobe crap renders the Fuji file, just try a better converter, that helps a lot - Capture One is available in a special Fuji only version.

You picked some of the most expensive Fuji lenses. I was thinking more along the lines of 35mm 1.4 vs. ZA 55 1.8, 23mm f2 vs. 35mm f2.8ZA. Even the Fuji 16-55 2.8 is fairly reasonably priced, if you compare it with a decent F4 zoom from some mirrorless FF systems, like the Nikon Z. But you are totally right, if we look at the best of Fuji vs. best of FF lenses it's an inevitable loss, but you gotta pay for the difference.

As for Bayer vs. Xtrans. I have been down that road many times. It's difficult to avoid smearing with even the best democratizing algorithms. It's not even about pixel peeping, if you are someone like me who likes shooting landscapes with a lot of green in them, the lack of detail (especailly with grass) can be obvious without even needing to zoom in on a 40" screen. There is a reason why Bayer is the mainstream array on sensors. Fuji is using Xtrans to eliminate moire, which is great when it comes to advertising Fuji cameras, it's a nice buzzword even, but at the end of the day it can occasionally produce really ugly results. 

I have tried in camera Fuji jpegs, Capture One & even Irident Developer. Interestingly enough I found one method to get much better results, but it was too much work to integrate it into my workflow and it introduces new, albeit less annoying artifacts.  This involves using Darktable and selecting a different demosaicing algorithm from default.
Adobe released an update to LR classic recently, it makes things much improved, but it's no perfection by any means.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)