I'm missing full frame, but I know I shouldn't be.....

EspressoJunkie

EspressoJunkie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,886
Name
Greg
Edit My Images
Yes
I've shot lots of systems over the years (FF,APSC,M4/3) and I've got supurb shots out of them all. I only shoot for pleasure ( that may change at some point but only ever in a 'weekend warrior' type of way).

I'm currently using a Fuji X-T2 and some lovely Fuji glass ( 10-24, 24 1.4, 56 1.2, and the 18-55). Its great, it really is, and the images are also lovely. But lately (especially since I've been sorting through a lot of old RAW files, I've really found that I miss the quality of image I was getting from FF. It's not the the Fuji images aren't good, they are, in fact in most situations they're great. but looking through old shots has made me realise that although they have that certain 'Fuji' look, they ( in most situations) don't have the same look/quality as my old FF RAWS.

I love the Fuji's size and operation, and I know it's me being daft but I'd be interested to know if anyone else has been in the same boat and what they ended up doing.....
 
... going back to FF, for me its the ideal sensor size, cost vs performance its hard to beat (DSLR), with Fuji you could always keep 1 lens like the 18-55 and a get a cheaper body like the XT1 for a great travel camera.... or depending on budget go with something like the A7 series (Id only go a7rii upwards plus native (expensive)).
 
Last edited:
Is it full frame as such you are missing, or rather the specific qualities of whatever full frame camera you were using previously, and the raw conversions you made from its output? That might be especially when comparing with Fuji raw files, which some generic raw converters (including Adobe's) don't necessarily get the best out of.
 
EspressoJunkie said:
I've shot lots of systems over the years (FF,APSC,M4/3) and I've got supurb shots out of them all. I only shoot for pleasure ( that may change at some point but only ever in a 'weekend warrior' type of way).

I'm currently using a Fuji X-T2 and some lovely Fuji glass ( 10-24, 24 1.4, 56 1.2, and the 18-55). Its great, it really is, and the images are also lovely. But lately (especially since I've been sorting through a lot of old RAW files, I've really found that I miss the quality of image I was getting from FF. It's not the the Fuji images aren't good, they are, in fact in most situations they're great. but looking through old shots has made me realise that although they have that certain 'Fuji' look, they ( in most situations) don't have the same look/quality as my old FF RAWS.

I love the Fuji's size and operation, and I know it's me being daft but I'd be interested to know if anyone else has been in the same boat and what they ended up doing.....
Click to expand...


I run a Nikon FF system alongside a Fuji one - best of both worlds! The Nikons do a few things better than the Fujis but the Fujis are waaay more portable so get taken out more often.
 
twist said:
... going back to FF, for me its the ideal sensor size, cost vs performance its hard to beat (DSLR), with Fuji you could always keep 1 lens like the 18-55 and a get a cheaper body like the XT1 for a great travel camera.... or depending on budget go with something like the A7 series (Id only go a7rii upwards plus native (expensive)).
Click to expand...

Sony's, as lovely as they are, are probably way out of budget, I like the colour output of the newer ( and therefore most expensive!) models, but I've never liked that 'Sony' look that the older more affordable models produce.

Retune said:
Is it full frame as such you are missing, or rather the specific qualities of whatever full frame camera you were using previously, and the raw conversions you made from its output? That might be especially when comparing with Fuji raw files, which some generic raw converters (including Adobe's) don't necessarily get the best out of.
Click to expand...

It's more the FF thing as a whole, I was sorting through files from a 5Dmkiii, 6D, D700 and D750 and there wasn't a particular one that jumped out. I'm using Irident X Transformer for my Fuji files and it does a good job. I actually find the Fuji files take a lot less processing than most other brands.

Nod said:
I run a Nikon FF system alongside a Fuji one - best of both worlds! The Nikons do a few things better than the Fujis but the Fujis are waaay more portable so get taken out more often.
Click to expand...

You've hit the nail on the head there really. Size was a major factor in why I switched ( from 6D to X-T2), with 5 kids I simply wasn't taking the 6D out ( the AF was also not the greatest) but the X-T2 and 18-55 are so much easier to stick in a little bag for days out etc. But then for 'proper' photography stuff I know that FF would give me a few advantages. I can't afford to run two systems though ( 5 kids!!!) so it's a tough call to make.
 
EspressoJunkie said:
Sony's, as lovely as they are, are probably way out of budget, I like the colour output of the newer ( and therefore most expensive!) models, but I've never liked that 'Sony' look that the older more affordable models produce.



It's more the FF thing as a whole, I was sorting through files from a 5Dmkiii, 6D, D700 and D750 and there wasn't a particular one that jumped out. I'm using Irident X Transformer for my Fuji files and it does a good job. I actually find the Fuji files take a lot less processing than most other brands.



You've hit the nail on the head there really. Size was a major factor in why I switched ( from 6D to X-T2), with 5 kids I simply wasn't taking the 6D out ( the AF was also not the greatest) but the X-T2 and 18-55 are so much easier to stick in a little bag for days out etc. But then for 'proper' photography stuff I know that FF would give me a few advantages. I can't afford to run two systems though ( 5 kids!!!) so it's a tough call to make.
Click to expand...

What's your budget? Tbh it looks like you could go dual systems.
 
I have had similar experiences. I'm an unashamed, self-confessed shallow depth of field junkie and APSC sensors just don't cut it in comparison to full frame. I've downsized twice before now and both times missed the full frame output too much to resist.
 
twist said:
What's your budget? Tbh it looks like you could go dual systems.
Click to expand...

Realistically whatever I could sell the current kit for, so say roughly £2700ish, but having looked I reckon that would just about get me the equivalent in a FF kit ( body, ultrawide, 24-70, and and 85, and that's forgoing the 23 1.4 equivalent). I would want to ( if I was to switch) go for decent glass, esp in the ultrawide, which wouldn't make it cheap.
 
grotty said:
I have had similar experiences. I'm an unashamed, self-confessed shallow depth of field junkie and APSC sensors just don't cut it in comparison to full frame. I've downsized twice before now and both times missed the full frame output too much to resist.
Click to expand...
That's certainly a factor esp with pics of the kids, it's not the easiest to get them into an ideal position and the FF DOF can 'save' a picture with a messy or not ideal background.
 
Get an A7 and some compact lenses and you'll have a package the same size as a Fuji. Shoot raw and process the pictures for best effect. I'm sure you can get over your dislike of the Sony look if you add noise, tweak colours or otherwise fiddle to get over what you don't like. Personally I see nothing wrong with the Sony look but I've always shot raw and processed for the look I want.
 
Don't change, you will always find fault no matter what.

It will be too heavy or too light, or you wont like the menu or grip or skin tones or battery life and so on.
 
woof woof said:
Get an A7 and some compact lenses and you'll have a package the same size as a Fuji. Shoot raw and process the pictures for best effect. I'm sure you can get over your dislike of the Sony look if you add noise, tweak colours or otherwise fiddle to get over what you don't like. Personally I see nothing wrong with the Sony look but I've always shot raw and processed for the look I want.
Click to expand...
I had an a6000 for a while but it just didn't click with me colour wise even in RAW, it's not that I couldn't get decent photos out of it, I just found that there was more processing involved with it.
 
GTG said:
Don't change, you will always find fault no matter what.

It will be too heavy or too light, or you wont like the menu or grip or skin tones or battery life and so on.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying but it's not a case of looking for faults. If I was to switch it would be to one of two cameras that I've already used and have been happy with (5Dmkiii or D750). I know all too well that there's no ideal camera or system but I might as well try to get myself to as close to perfect as I can.
 
EspressoJunkie said:
I had an a6000 for a while but it just didn't click with me colour wise even in RAW, it's not that I couldn't get decent photos out of it, I just found that there was more processing involved with it.
Click to expand...

The a6000 AF also kills the a7 AF. Even if you overcome the IQ issue of both (I couldnt, as you say, to much time in post, especially indoor light ime).

£2700 would get you a d750 new, 24-70 used, 50g used, 85g used and probs the 24 ART used.

Personally I'd go d750 24-120 kit, 35 ART used, 50 ART used, 85 ex dg hsm or 85 1.8g. I see little value in a superfast UWA.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
The a6000 AF also kills the a7 AF. Even if you overcome the IQ issue of both (I couldnt, as you say, to much time in post, especially indoor light ime).

£2700 would get you a d750 new, 24-70 used, 50g used, 85g used and probs the 24 ART used.

Personally I'd go d750 24-120 kit, 35 ART used, 50 ART used, 85 ex dg hsm or 85 1.8g. I see little value in a superfast UWA.
Click to expand...
Yeah the D750 is one of my favourite cameras I've ever used. Thing is though a huge amount of what I shoot is Urbex so an Ultrawide is an absolute essential. I think I could probably cope with an UW, a 24-70 and an 85. I like having a 35 but I could manage without it.
 
EspressoJunkie said:
I had an a6000 for a while but it just didn't click with me colour wise even in RAW, it's not that I couldn't get decent photos out of it, I just found that there was more processing involved with it.
Click to expand...
An A6xxx isn't sn A7. Download some raws before you write the idea off or maybe you just don't want a Sony? If you want ff your choices an A7 or RX1, spending big on a Leica or a dslr.
 
woof woof said:
An A6xxx isn't sn A7. Download some raws before you write the idea off or maybe you just don't want a Sony? If you want ff your choices an A7 or RX1, spending big on a Leica or a dslr.
Click to expand...
Oh I've no bias against Sony, in fact I think they're one of the most innovative camera manufacturers out there. I'd have no problem going for one if I liked the output. I'll have a look at some RAWs. What I have noticed is that what I've seen colour wise from the newer Sonys seems to be great.
 
The biggest problem with most of the crop formats is lack of true wide angle lens coverage.

If you want real wide angle, Full Frame is the only way to go.
 
Brian G said:
The biggest problem with most of the crop formats is lack of true wide angle lens coverage.

If you want real wide angle, Full Frame is the only way to go.
Click to expand...


What makes you say that? there's plenty of UWA action for smaller sensors.

I gave up on FF a while back as the lenses were just too big to lug around my travels, especially my Nikon 16-35 which was just a beast.
 
I too have a family and can only afford one system, so I'm all Canon. My main camera is the 6D and the pocket size camera is the EOS-M10, which used right can produce good images.
I love the output from my full frame 6D. I can't see myself changing any time soon, but it's all just gear, it's what you do with it that counts. ;)
If you want a smaller body and full frame, the Sony A7 series is the only option. Add the 16-35mm f4 to cover your wide angle, but forego the 24-70 and get a Sigma 35 Art, Sony 55mm and perhaps the Sony 90mm f2.8 macro (instead of an 85mm). Should be possible in budget if you look at secondhand.
If you want full frame with better AF, the Canon 6D Mk2 is also in budget, but it wouldn't leave you as much for glass unless you found one secondhand. But you could get a 17-40L, Sigma 35 Art and Canon 85mm f1.8 for that budget.

I think you should try to work out what the current gear isn't doing for you, where is it lacking. Also work out what you want and what is a priority: size, weight, full frame, easy/lack of processing, AF speed.. and what can you compromise on.

If like full frame and want a light body, try a film SLR ;)
Seriously though, shooting a bit of film gives you an appreciation of all the digital advancements in photography ;)
 
ABTog said:
I think you should try to work out what the current gear isn't doing for you, where is it lacking. Also work out what you want and what is a priority: size, weight, full frame, easy/lack of processing, AF speed.. and what can you compromise on.
Click to expand...

This is the clincher, I should be perfectly happy with what I have, but honestly it mainly comes down to IQ, low-light (which as good as the Fuji is it's still not as good as FF) and that 'FF look'(DOF etc). Even the 56 1.2 (as lovely as it is) doesnt beat a much cheaper 85 1.8 on FF.

However I do also love the size and operational advantages that a good mirrorless camera provides (EVF, AF, etc). And it seems that Sony is really the only option for FF and mirrorless. The A7rii looks appealling but the Sony system as a whole looks to be expensive ( although I'm sure the lenses are worth the price quality wise). I don't really want to spend any more money than I get if I was to sell, but I also don't want to compromise in quality (body or lenses). Also (AFAIK) it's single slot which isn't a problem at the moment, but if I was ever to shoot a wedding etc again it would always be in the back of my mind.

As I said I SHOULD be happy with the Fuji it's a great camera and system (and in many ways I do love it) but there's definitely an itch there that may need to be scratched.

We shall see.....!
 
I couldn’t go back to APSC now after ‘returning’ to the 35mm format with 3 different ‘full frame’ cameras.

The files are very different and it’s not just the superior low light or the scope for less dof, it’s the intangible factors too that are less easy to create (although not impossible) on the smaller formats.

I mainly enjoy these benefits for portraits though and haven’t really employed the same logic (yet) to landscape/architecture so well have to wait and see on that. FWIW my ‘best’ photo ever was taken on a one inch sensor, my favourite one on full frame.
 
You're not alone. I really enjoyed my X-T1 but eventually sold it went back to my Nikon D700. The X-T1 is brilliantly portable and a joy to use but for IQ it couldn't match the D700 and being as most of my work is macro or small product, the portability factor wasn't really an issue. I have an X10 as a travel camera if I need to travel light.
 
Brazo said:
I couldn’t go back to APSC now after ‘returning’ to the 35mm format with 3 different ‘full frame’ cameras.

The files are very different and it’s not just the superior low light or the scope for less dof, it’s the intangible factors too that are less easy to create (although not impossible) on the smaller formats.

I mainly enjoy these benefits for portraits though and haven’t really employed the same logic (yet) to landscape/architecture so well have to wait and see on that. FWIW my ‘best’ photo ever was taken on a one inch sensor, my favourite one on full frame.
Click to expand...


This is very true, there is a certain 'something' to FF files that, while it can be replicated with an APSC, seems to be more effortless when using a FF.

I'm currently looking through my old 5Dmkiii files and even many of the casual family shots seem to have that special 'Canonish FF look' about them, which is exactly whats driving the thought behind this thread. Will 99% of people notice the difference? Of course not, but I do and that's quite the motivator.

I'm seriously torn at the moment. On one hand I'll lose the smaller system which, as I mentioned, was a major motivator in switching, and the X-T2 ( and mirrorless bodies in general) feel more up to date in terms of operation etc, but (especially having gone back and looked through my old files) I would gain the IQ (I'd forgotten what an excellent performer the Canon 24-70 MK1 is) and low light performance that I am currently missing, even if it meant sacrificing portability.

Realistically,(as with so many things in life) it's head vs heart .....
 
I miss my Canon 5dii terribly, have a Canon 7dii and a Sony a6000, both great cameras but there's something missing which leaves me a little disappointed each time I view the images that's the full size sensor.
 
Last edited:
EspressoJunkie said:
This is very true, there is a certain 'something' to FF files that, while it can be replicated with an APSC, seems to be more effortless when using a FF.

I'm currently looking through my old 5Dmkiii files and even many of the casual family shots seem to have that special 'Canonish FF look' about them, which is exactly whats driving the thought behind this thread. Will 99% of people notice the difference? Of course not, but I do and that's quite the motivator.

I'm seriously torn at the moment. On one hand I'll lose the smaller system which, as I mentioned, was a major motivator in switching, and the X-T2 ( and mirrorless bodies in general) feel more up to date in terms of operation etc, but (especially having gone back and looked through my old files) I would gain the IQ (I'd forgotten what an excellent performer the Canon 24-70 MK1 is) and low light performance that I am currently missing, even if it meant sacrificing portability.

Realistically,(as with so many things in life) it's head vs heart .....
Click to expand...

I think it’s the 3D spatial quality that comes with a larger sensor. Even more pronounced with larger format sensors too.
 
EspressoJunkie said:
This is very true, there is a certain 'something' to FF files that, while it can be replicated with an APSC, seems to be more effortless when using a FF.

I'm currently looking through my old 5Dmkiii files and even many of the casual family shots seem to have that special 'Canonish FF look' about them, which is exactly whats driving the thought behind this thread. Will 99% of people notice the difference? Of course not, but I do and that's quite the motivator.

I'm seriously torn at the moment. On one hand I'll lose the smaller system which, as I mentioned, was a major motivator in switching, and the X-T2 ( and mirrorless bodies in general) feel more up to date in terms of operation etc, but (especially having gone back and looked through my old files) I would gain the IQ (I'd forgotten what an excellent performer the Canon 24-70 MK1 is) and low light performance that I am currently missing, even if it meant sacrificing portability.

Realistically,(as with so many things in life) it's head vs heart .....
Click to expand...

The other problem is the lenses. The Fuji system has some decent lenses but only a few and nowhere near the choice of Nikon F. With Nikon I have literally hundreds of lenses I can choose from, new and old and if I need to be a bit thrifty I can buys some fantastic glass from way back for peanuts.
 
twist said:
Thats what credit cards are for :sneaky:

So, what you setup decided on?
Click to expand...
Well IF I do end up switching I'd probably end up getting a 5DMkiii. I know the D750 is technically the better camera but there's just something about the Canon files that I've always loved. So I reckon I could get a Mkiii, 16-35, 24-70 and an 85 in budget.

Ironically this is almost the same set up I shot with about 3/4 years ago, and I could have saved a fortune by just keeping it instead of changing about so much, but it wouldn't have been so much fun...!
 
Get a GX, even bigger sensor and even better IQ, and the same size as a DSLR
 
Nawty said:
What makes you say that? there's plenty of UWA action for smaller sensors.

I gave up on FF a while back as the lenses were just too big to lug around my travels, especially my Nikon 16-35 which was just a beast.
Click to expand...
The thing that makes me say that is I have both crop and FF cameras, and if I need UWA coverage the FF is the one that gets used.
 
THIRTYFIVEMILL said:
The other problem is the lenses. The Fuji system has some decent lenses but only a few and nowhere near the choice of Nikon F. With Nikon I have literally hundreds of lenses I can choose from, new and old and if I need to be a bit thrifty I can buys some fantastic glass from way back for peanuts.
Click to expand...

The fuji primes are really nice though!
 
Brazo said:
I think it’s the 3D spatial quality that comes with a larger sensor. Even more pronounced with larger format sensors too.
Click to expand...
It's an unquantifiable quality not unlike bokeh. I have a Canon 5DSR and a Pentax 645Z and the only featuress that the Canon wins out on are extreme wide angle and portability (body and lenses).
 
Canon Bob said:
It's an unquantifiable quality not unlike bokeh. I have a Canon 5DSR and a Pentax 645Z and the only featuress that the Canon wins out on are extreme wide angle and portability (body and lenses).
Click to expand...

It is. Your right. And it’s partly due to lens choice too. It is however a phenomenon that I don’t notice in smaller sensors. Talking smaller than apsc
 
@EspressoJunkie A lot is down to the choice of glass, the Fuji lenses that you have are good, but not what I would call special, have a look at the XF16mm, XF23mm F1.4 and the XF90mm before you make your decision, the 90 especially really is something else, especially wide open.

At the end of the day it's down to personal preference, and if the Fuji isn't doing it for you then it's time to move it on
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top