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

Stick with what you have got and put the time in to make the pictures - you must have seen some of the work people have produced with the XT2 and Fuji lenses. So it isn't the system. Maybe you just need to do like me and put more thought in, rather than jumping from one system to the next, which means you have to learn a whole new set of controls again. That itself isn't good for intuitive results.
 
Well the decision has been made and the Fuji kit is in the classifieds.

What really swung it for me was looking at some of the quick snaps of the kids that I'd taken with my 5DMkiii a few years ago. As much as the Fuji gives me nice images (and it does there's no doubt about that) it can't replicate what I was looking at today.

So if anyone has a 5Dmkiii they don't need, let me know :D
 
EspressoJunkie said:
Well the decision has been made and the Fuji kit is in the classifieds.

What really swung it for me was looking at some of the quick snaps of the kids that I'd taken with my 5DMkiii a few years ago. As much as the Fuji gives me nice images (and it does there's no doubt about that) it can't replicate what I was looking at today.

So if anyone has a 5Dmkiii they don't need, let me know :D
Click to expand...

This is your ideal opportunity to change to Nikon.. don't miss out! :D:D
 
For portraiture I think you’ve made the right decision. Be it the shallower dof or bokeh quality or 3D spatial quality, there are some aspects of larger sensors that simply cannot be recreated with a smaller sensor.

If I didn’t take pics of my kid and family then I would probably be happy with a Sony RX10 and it’s excellent 24-200(600) lens. Although it completely lacks the aforementioned qualities
 
twist said:
Did you ever watch that YouTube video where they compare the 5d3 file output against d750 in a quiz. Check it out. I think quite a few were surprised. Go to about 19 min.

View: https://youtu.be/EsZtUZvoeO0
Click to expand...
Yeah ive seen it and I was one of the surprised ones! I think the D750 is as close to Canon colours as Nikon have ever gotten, but looking side my side at my stuff on the PC at home, for me personally Canon still has the edge.
 
Brazo said:
For portraiture I think you’ve made the right decision. Be it the shallower dof or bokeh quality or 3D spatial quality, there are some aspects of larger sensors that simply cannot be recreated with a smaller sensor.

If I didn’t take pics of my kid and family then I would probably be happy with a Sony RX10 and it’s excellent 24-200(600) lens. Although it completely lacks the aforementioned qualities
Click to expand...
Definitely, it's that 'I can't out my finger on it' quality that I'm really noticing now that I'm actually looking at the files. Don't get me wrong, the Fuji files have their own look and quality, but it's not the same as the FF images.
 
EspressoJunkie said:
Yeah ive seen it and I was one of the surprised ones! I think the D750 is as close to Canon colours as Nikon have ever gotten, but looking side my side at my stuff on the PC at home, for me personally Canon still has the edge.
Click to expand...

I think colours quite personal as I thought the d750 files were more accurate. But I also prefer a slightly flatter file in post to work with or id just shoot jpg. I believe the mkiv has taken this approach with LR.

Main thing is you know you'll be happy as it's a camera you've shot before and gotten good results from. I came full circle again recently back to d750.
 
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...
...and that is why I had to move away from the excellent Olympus m43, for my Fuji works, but only just - unfortunately for me I almost never took out the D750, but yes looking back the DoF was just brilliant, but if it comes down to sometimes taking the camera out or almost never I guess Fuji was the right choice.
 
EspressoJunkie said:
Well the decision has been made and the Fuji kit is in the classifieds.

What really swung it for me was looking at some of the quick snaps of the kids that I'd taken with my 5DMkiii a few years ago. As much as the Fuji gives me nice images (and it does there's no doubt about that) it can't replicate what I was looking at today.

So if anyone has a 5Dmkiii they don't need, let me know :D
Click to expand...

I don't think you're a newbe and I'm sure you know what you're doing but I'll say this anyway :D

Could it be the lens characteristics or the effect of the shallower depth of field or a combination of both that you're seeing and preferring?

I ask because I tend to use older lenses on my Sony A7 because I like the look that a some of them give and I wonder if some of what you're seeing could be down to the lens and its characteristics rather than the camera.

Thinking about this might not alter your decision to go to a 5D as if it's the lenses and the look that they give that's tempting you those same lenses would give a different look on a Fuji.

I'm just wondering :D
 
woof woof said:
I don't think you're a newbe and I'm sure you know what you're doing but I'll say this anyway :D

Could it be the lens characteristics or the effect of the shallower depth of field or a combination of both that you're seeing and preferring?

I ask because I tend to use older lenses on my Sony A7 because I like the look that a some of them give and I wonder if some of what you're seeing could be down to the lens and its characteristics rather than the camera.

Thinking about this might not alter your decision to go to a 5D as if it's the lenses and the look that they give that's tempting you those same lenses would give a different look on a Fuji.

I'm just wondering :D
Click to expand...
I see what you're saying but the lenses I was using with the Fuji (2 of them at least) were bought intentionally to give me that FF look (the 23 1.4 and the 56 1.2) and while they go some way to replicating it, there's still that overall 'look or feel' that I keep refering to, that simply wasn't there even when using those lenses.
 
I know what you mean. Canon does have a nice look to it no matter what lens you put on it. Its vibrant, colorful and pleasant somehow.
 
EspressoJunkie said:
I see what you're saying but the lenses I was using with the Fuji (2 of them at least) were bought intentionally to give me that FF look (the 23 1.4 and the 56 1.2) and while they go some way to replicating it, there's still that overall 'look or feel' that I keep refering to, that simply wasn't there even when using those lenses.
Click to expand...

I thought it was worth asking :D

I don't have an APS-C camera, just my Sony A7 and a couple of Panasonic MFT cameras but apart from the rather obvious 3:2 v 4:3 format difference I find that MFT gives me a similar look to what I'd get from "FF" if I apply the crop factor when using MFT and shoot wide open to f4 or so. MFT and APS-C can't easily get close to what you'd get from FF and for example a 50 or 85mm f1.4 but maybe can get close to the look of shots taken with FF at f1.8 to f2.8 or smaller. Not pixel peeping helps too :D

I hope the move to a DSLR works out.
 
Brazo said:
For portraiture I think you’ve made the right decision. Be it the shallower dof or bokeh quality or 3D spatial quality, there are some aspects of larger sensors that simply cannot be recreated with a smaller sensor.

If I didn’t take pics of my kid and family then I would probably be happy with a Sony RX10 and it’s excellent 24-200(600) lens. Although it completely lacks the aforementioned qualities
Click to expand...
does the bokeh quality improve with FF over crop with same lens eg 50mm 1.8,if so is it the xtra light?
 
If your not sure why not go along a more budget conscious root ?
I always fancied another Canon as I shot a lot of film with my older Canon FD and EOS systems.
So I made what I thought at the time was reasonable decision?
I always fancied the 0rigonal Canon 5D now often refered to as the classic which is still capable of excellent image capture.
And I carefully added lenses from past experience Canon 85mm f1.8 was my first purchase followed by Sigma HSM 50mm f1.4 as opposed to Canons Choice of 50mm lenses
I was almost tempted to stick with just primes but I wanted a UWA as that tends to be my preferred focal length
So having previously owned Sigma EX 15-30mm f 3.5/4.5 which I had replaced my Nikon AFS 14-24mm f2.8 with, I managed to get the same Sigma in Canon mount :)
A set of cheap Ext tubes and I was ready to go I already had a MK 1 28-80mm usm lens from my old Canon RT.
So for a little out lay compared to buying new I acquired another FF camera that sit in the cupboard along with my D3 D700 & D810 and a arsenal of lens.
I guess I haven't missed them as they are still tucked away.
But I find myself picking up either my Fuji X or Oly OMD these days.
But I'm pretty sure you could get back to FF fairly cheaply if you wanted to still run a mirrorless system.?
 
Last edited:
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
does the bokeh quality improve with FF over crop with same lens eg 50mm 1.8,if so is it the xtra light?
Click to expand...

I did not notice any difference between d600 / d700 with 50mm 1.8 and d7000, d300, d90, d5500, d7100.

There may have been some difference but it wasn't like, oh it has quality bokeh like a Fuji lens all of a sudden
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
does the bokeh quality improve with FF over crop with same lens eg 50mm 1.8,if so is it the xtra light?
Click to expand...

If you apply the crop factor for focal length and aperture you should get a very similar looking shot from FF and APS-C but of course to get the equivalent of a FF 50mm f1.4 on APS-C you'd need a 33mm f0.9 and there aren't too many of those on the market. Once you stop FF down to f2 an APS-C 35mm f1.4 should get you a similar look. However, how the bokeh looks is not decided by the size or the aperture alone as the lens design and the character that introduces into the picture could make the FF 50mm f2 and APS-C 35mm f1.4 shots look rather different... but the size or the out of focus bokeh balls would be very similar :D
 
The blur of out of Focus areas from a 50 mm lens Will be the same in a FF and apsc sensor and is dependent of size of apperture and distance from focus to out of focus subjects though the FF sensor with the bigger areal will have the extra room as mentioned earlier.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
soeren said:
The blur of out of Focus areas from a 50 mm lens Will be the same in a FF and apsc sensor and is dependent of size of apperture and distance from focus to out of focus subjects though the FF sensor with the bigger areal will have the extra room as mentioned earlier.
Click to expand...

The problem with using the same lens on FF and APS-C is that the focal length effectively changes and if you move back with APS-C to give the same field of view you'd get with FF you change the perspective. To keep the perspective you need to apply the crop factor and use a wider lens on APS-C and to maintain a similar DoF you need to use a wider aperture too, because you're using a wider lens.

If you want near enough the same picture from FF/APS-C you need to stand in the same spot to keep the perspective and change the focal length and aperture.
 
Last edited:
If you only shoot for pleasure then you shouldn't really be able to tell a noteworthy difference in general day to day shooting. I think a little pixel peeping is warping your mind and filling your head with G.A.S. ;)
 
Photopaque said:
If you only shoot for pleasure then you shouldn't really be able to tell a noteworthy difference in general day to day shooting. I think a little pixel peeping is warping your mind and filling your head with G.A.S. ;)
Click to expand...
just to set the record straight young mr Paque:eek::p
I was responding to a poster that said the bokeh was better on a FF sensor. I thought the bokeh would be pretty much the same as its the same lens, hence the question.I have no intention of buying FF as I am more than happy with my Nikon d3300 :rolleyes::LOL::ROFLMAO::wave:
 
I went from Bridge cams to APSC to Full frame back to APSC and now I shoot MFT .... never missed anything after switching from any one system to another, I adapt to whatever I use at that particular time. I can still get plenty shallow DOF with a micro four third sensor when I want it. I prefer the extra reach and deeper DOF this system offers without having to stop down to silly apertures. I don't miss the gigantic files from the D800E and I'm finding the G80 more comfy than the X-T1. I barely see any difference between RAW files produced by the G80 and that Fuji X-T1, they can be noisier at higher ISO but I knew that going in. What I get in return is excellent IBIS with any lens attached, and that was the main reason for me to give it a go. Hand-held, sharp images at 1/2 second? no bother, even up to 1" with some practice.

It really depends on your personal needs, I don't think anyone else can make these decisions for anyone else. If Shallow DOF is extremely important to you, I'd wonder why you went APSC at all? Personally, I find the whole shallow DOF craze a bit baffling, I'm never going to prefer one image over another simply because it has slightly better 'bokeh' or OOF areas, I tend to look first at the overall feel of an image, the colours, the contrast, the mood, then I'll look to sharpness perhaps in the intended areas of the image, and 'pop' if the image is going for that, shallow DOF is possibly the last thing I'll note. The very last thing I'll check is what camera or sensor was used.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
The problem with using the same lens on FF and APS-C is that the focal length effectively changes and if you move back with APS-C to give the same field of view you'd get with FF you change the perspective. To keep the perspective you need to apply the crop factor and use a wider lens on APS-C and to maintain a similar DoF you need to use a wider aperture too, because you're using a wider lens.

If you want near enough the same picture from FF/APS-C you need to stand in the same spot to keep the perspective and change the focal length and aperture.
Click to expand...
Argh equivalence talk. GO AWAY :LOL: I really dont care about doing math about this. My lenses are 12, 24 and 60mm and their dof are those og a 12mm, 24mm and 60mm at the respective distances i use them. Just the field og view are different
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EspressoJunkie said:
I would want to ( if I was to switch) go for decent glass, esp in the ultrawide, which wouldn't make it cheap.
Click to expand...

If you went back to FF, dont discount other branded glass, I have a Irix 15mm 2.4 firefly and its a superb lens, sharp where it needs it and with some lovely features you won't find on other makes. New it's about £430 or less if someone is selling one off.
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
just to set the record straight young mr Paque:eek::p
I was responding to a poster that said the bokeh was better on a FF sensor. I thought the bokeh would be pretty much the same as its the same lens, hence the question.I have no intention of buying FF as I am more than happy with my Nikon d3300 :rolleyes::LOL::ROFLMAO::wave:
Click to expand...
What are you talking about. My post was to the original poster. It's not all about you this forum! Admittedly you are in every camera thread though! Hehe.
 
Photopaque said:
What are you talking about. My post was to the original poster. It's not all about you this forum! Admittedly you are in every camera thread though! Hehe.
Click to expand...
lol I must have been feeling paranoid because you normally track me like a hunter :LOL::ROFLMAO:
 
soeren said:
Argh equivalence talk. GO AWAY :LOL: I really dont care about doing math about this. My lenses are 12, 24 and 60mm and their dof are those og a 12mm, 24mm and 60mm at the respective distances i use them. Just the field og view are different
Click to expand...
It's not math it's basic stuff that could help anyone looking to go from FF to APS-C or MFT or from those to FF, it helps to know this stuff as if you don't you can end up shooting MFT or APS-C and being disappointed.

I get that you don't care and what's more I don't care that you don't care :D but someone else out there might just be helped by knowing that appling crop factors when setting the gear up makes a difference.
 
woof woof said:
It's not math it's basic stuff that could help anyone looking to go from FF to APS-C or MFT or from those to FF, it helps to know this stuff as if you don't you can end up shooting MFT or APS-C and being disappointed.

I get that you don't care and what's more I don't care that you don't care :D but someone else out there might just be helped by knowing that appling crop factors when setting the gear up makes a difference.
Click to expand...
Funny thing is it never was much of a subject when talking 24x36, 645, 6x6, 6x7, 4x5" and 8x10"
 
soeren said:
Funny thing is it never was much of a subject when talking 24x36, 645, 6x6, 6x7, 4x5" and 8x10"
Click to expand...

Yes it was, everyone knew that focal lengths and DoF behaved differently when you changed formats, but since 99.9% used 35mm film only, and lenses were not interchangeable between formats anyway, it wasn't that relevant.

But the big difference today is that we use the same lenses on both FF and APS-C cameras, so unless you know that both focal length and f/number have to be multiplied/divided by the crop factor to make accurate comparisons, you could come unstuck. Eg 100mm f/2.8 on FF delivers the same field of view and DoF as 67mm f/1.9 on APS-C with 1.5x crop factor.

There are also a couple of trends going on now, with some people downsizing to smaller formats to save weight, and others moving the other way to gain the DoF advantages of FF. They need to know what they're getting.
 
Equivalent, schmivilent

As for sensor size concerns, let Zack Arias spank some sense into you. Everyone fussing over sensor size differences should be made watch this:

 
Cagey75 said:
Equivalent, schmivilent

As for sensor size concerns, let Zack Arias spank some sense into you. Everyone fussing over sensor size differences should be made watch this:

Click to expand...

He's trying to make the point that the difference between full-frame and APS-C is "negligible". Well, he would, wouldn't he - that's what Fuji paid him to say.

But the difference is not negligible. APS-C is less than half the sensor area of full-frame. Boil that down to pure physics, and full-frame has over one stop of ISO advantage, one stop of DoF advantage, and no APS-C camera/lens has ever managed to equal the sharpness advantage of full-frame.

One stop might not sound much, and maybe it isn't to some people, but to others - for example, those that are ready and willing to pay twice the price for a 70-200/2.8 vs the f4 version - that "negligible" difference has substantial value. The same applies to many other similar focal length lenses, often more so.
 
HoppyUK said:
He's trying to make the point that the difference between full-frame and APS-C is "negligible". Well, he would, wouldn't he - that's what Fuji paid him to say.

But the difference is not negligible. APS-C is less than half the sensor area of full-frame. Boil that down to pure physics, and full-frame has over one stop of ISO advantage, one stop of DoF advantage, and no APS-C camera/lens has ever managed to equal the sharpness advantage of full-frame.

One stop might not sound much, and maybe it isn't to some people, but to others - for example, those that are ready and willing to pay twice the price for a 70-200/2.8 vs the f4 version - that "negligible" difference has substantial value. The same applies to many other similar focal length lenses, often more so.
Click to expand...

He's not the type to say as he's told,. He uses FF cameras regular too, also MF

I don't need to be told what i see, I've used FF for years, and APSC and now M43 ... it really is negligible between systems. They all have different strengths and weaknesses, I happen to like exploring them all ... God forbid I'll ever be tied to one
 
Cagey75 said:
He's not the type to say as he's told,. He uses FF cameras regular too, also MF

I don't need to be told what i see, I've used FF for years, and APSC and now M43 ... it really is negligible between systems. They all have different strengths and weaknesses, I happen to like exploring them all ... God forbid I'll ever be tied to one
Click to expand...

The difference between FF and M43 is negligible?! A four-fold difference in sensor area? Not even Zack agrees with that. Unless perhaps Olympus...? No, perish the thought.
 
HoppyUK said:
The difference between FF and M43 is negligible?! A four-fold difference in sensor area? Not even Zack agrees with that. Unless perhaps Olympus...? No, perish the thought.
Click to expand...

Are you high? Take a breath .... BETWEEN SYSTEMS ... as in, between FF and APSC, Between APSC and M43 .... please tell me how I can make it simpler for you
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Are you high? Take a breath .... BETWEEN SYSTEMS ... as in, between FF and APSC, Between APSC and M43 .... please tell me how I can make it simpler for you
Click to expand...

High? You're the one dishing out the midnight spankings ;)

How many negligible negligibles does it take to become noticeable? If you can't see a worthwhile difference between formats then happy days, but don't expect everyone to agree with you.
 
HoppyUK said:
High? You're the one dishing out the midnight spankings ;)

How many negligible negligibles does it take to become noticeable? If you can't see a worthwhile difference between formats then happy days, but don't expect everyone to agree with you.
Click to expand...

It's my birthday [actually], I'm allowed! :p

I don't care who agrees with me, I know that's the usual response, but if you knew me .... *virtual shrug*
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top