Switching to Fuji...Missing the full frame look?

Well I'd disagree the tamron produces fabulous results and the other is the 35 1.8
I've known several pros who have that tamron, and for good reason
 
Last edited:
Price and performance you'd be hard pressed to find 3 better lenses
 
petert said:
Well I'd disagree the tamron produces fabulous results and the other is the 35 1.8
I've known several pros who have that tamron, and for good reason
Click to expand...

do you actually take photographs yourself or are you just a "gear spotter"?
 
petert said:
Then add 3 fuji lenses and how much are we talking then?
Click to expand...

Why would I do that? That would be a bit too much like making a comparison which as you have said you were not doing.

I was just trying to help you by explaining to everyone that £913 & £486 were the same
 
petert said:
Who Cares? As above just saying what you can get for same price. The XT1 isn't better than the d7100
Click to expand...

As somebody who has owned both, I would say the D7100 is better at AF only. Everything else and the Fuji is better IMO.

You seem to have an expert opinion on everything and would argue in a phone box. You have been using the camera for a few weeks after people like myself tried to advise you what to buy including the lenses, so how you can make a justifiable decision is beyond me!

It's a good comunity on here, so have some respect for the members, especially the staff who work hard to make this a great forum.
 
Swanseajack said:
It's a good comunity on here, so have some respect for the members, especially the staff who work hard to make this a great forum.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that there are a couple of explanations here... trolling or genuinely held views that other people think are ill-informed and/or extreme. In ether case maybe people have expanded too much energy now and maybe it's best to imagine round two in that phone box... :D

Reminds me of a Monty P. sketch...
"Is this the right room for an argument?"
"I've told you once..."

PS. I was using a CSC today and I realised it was so much easier to use than a DSLR and would be a great choice for someone moving up from a compact :D
 
Last edited:
For the OP. These two photos were taken less then a minute apart. One is using a Nikon D800 (using a rather expensive prime) and one a Fuji X-T1 (using a slightly less expensive prime). Both have been processed of course. But there isn't a lot of difference between them.Less at this size (and I shan't be posting bigger before anyone asks)

11782-1433872041-771eff7b48e231b3b6e54f8044087e2c.jpg







petert said:
T and anything else you can think of pros are still using dslrs I don't see any with mirrorless so they've hardly taken over, I wonder why?:p
Click to expand...


I'd like hear your spouting on the above . But its not a comparison don't you know.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
For the OP. These two photos were taken less then a minute apart. One is using a Nikon D800 (using a rather expensive prime) and one a Fuji X-T1 (using a slightly less expensive prime). Both have been processed of course. But there isn't a lot of difference between them.Less at this size (and I shan't be posting bigger before anyone asks)

11782-1433872041-771eff7b48e231b3b6e54f8044087e2c.jpg










I'd like hear your spouting on the above . But its not a comparison don't you know.
Click to expand...
Your point being this was taken by a pro using mirrorless?
 
Last edited:
petert said:
Your point being this was taken by a pro using mirrorless?
Click to expand...

yes - I took one using mirrorless, the other using a d800. Can you tell the difference? Of course had you managed to read that was all pretty evident in my post

Of course pros don't use mirrorless
 
Last edited:
Well if he'd read my posts properly I've never argued iq differences but then if I state price differences I'm comparing cameras so hay how:-D
 
Last edited:
Then I stand corrected I should have said most
 
Going back to the original question (remember that?!), I did miss the full frame look, and went back to full frame by way of a Sony a7ii. It's nowhere near perfect but I would miss mirrorless more than FF, so it was the best/only compromise. Immediately with the a7ii images they had that certain something I can't put my finger on, Fuji are closer than anyone in getting their APS-C system remarkably close to a 'full frame look', and glass like the 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2 narrow the gap even further. Having said that, Sony have Zeiss on their side and the rendering and 'pop' from their glass is just something else, when I first loaded files from the Zeiss 55mm 1.8 into LR I was blown away. I'm willing to trade terrible menus and some silly omissions (auto ISO with configurable minimum shutter speed, direct AF point selection) for that, but it's a very close call.

The Fuji X system is exceptional, everything is geared towards the photography experience, every design decision and menu location appears to have been guided by real life photographers, the glass is incredible and the pace of firmware updates and new glass is unheard of. I couldn't recommend the system strongly enough, but it's an APS-C system at the end of the day, and if you want the benefits of FF the Fuji system is unlikely to be for you.
 
Last edited:
minnnt said:
There was a review on the net of someone comparing a Canon FF and Fuji APS-C somewhere...
Click to expand...

Can anyone link to this?

This would have been an interesting thread if it kept on topic. I don't think the idea was to discuss mirrorless vs DSLR focus abilities. Most people using mirrorless are well aware of the differences and have usually made an informed decision to use mirrorless based on their own evaluations of what it can offer them for their needs. No system exists that is perfect. Every single one (even money no object) presents pros and cons. We accept as consumers what our needs are and what compromises we are buying into, be it cost, weight, size, ergonomics, image look, image quality, lens range, manufacturer support/direction/innovation/reliability.
The best camera is the camera you get out and use the most. For some, this is indeed a camera phone, and why should that be a problem for anyone?

Going back on topic...

The full frame "look" is surely talking plain and simply about the shallowest depth of field we can possibly achieve. If you come from using full frame with mainly f/2.8 zooms, then you may not miss the "look" at all, if you were to purchase faster glass on the Fuji X system. Some people using full frame may even be using slower lenses than f/2.8 (heaven forbid!) ;o) This is somewhat unlikely I admit, given that anyone shooting full frame is likely doing so due to the very benefit of shallow DOF and fully utilizing it with fast glass.

I think it comes down to priorities. I currently use MFT gear. Would I like shallower DOF? Yes, which is why I am considering Fuji X and or Sony Alpha. Ignoring cost to simplify, the Fuji X system's very appeal is that it sits in the middle of the two in terms of size. A good compromise on sensor size and ability, vs system size and weight. How often do you need super shallow DOF as well? I can get "enough" with MFT and my olympus 45mm f/1.8 to produce some images with nice bokeh. Depends how you define enough.

Hmm...I'm waffling on my fence here. Sorry lol
 
clicktor said:
I think it comes down to priorities. I currently use MFT gear. Would I like shallower DOF? Yes, which is why I am considering Fuji X and or Sony Alpha...

How often do you need super shallow DOF as well? I can get "enough" with MFT and my olympus 45mm f/1.8 to produce some images with nice bokeh. Depends how you define enough.

Hmm...I'm waffling on my fence here. Sorry lol
Click to expand...

I'm a bit of a shallow DoF fan at times but IMVHO it can be done to death and most of my time with cameras I've been fighting for more DoF not less. Maybe shallow DoF is just something of a phase we go through. Not that you can't do shallow DoF with MFT, step forward and reduce camera to subject distance, use a longer lens, open aperture, et voila! :D
 
Last edited:
Sorry, its taken so much time to come back to this thread - been away and also super busy lately to get back on here and formulate replies! Anyway, thanks to everyone that has kept the thread on topic and for supplying sample images.- it's been really helpful. :)

minnnt said:
Here...

http://andrewvanbeek.com/fuji-x-lenses-and-full-frame/

There is also extra compression of having longer lenses on FF though so the dof and 'look' is exaggerated more so.
Click to expand...

This is more of what I was looking for! He's using my the exact current combo along with the Fuji equivalent so the differences are very clear to see.

Judging by the photos, it's kind of disappointing to see that the 23 1.4 is probably around the just under f2.8 mark - I was hoping it was around f2 (which is where I'm generally at when shooting with the 35L). However, saying that I've seen a number of 23 1.4 images which appear to have plenty of gorgeous shallow dof (due to the scene, background distance, etc) which is making my decision very hard indeed! If I can live with the greater dof for the added advantage of a light system I can carry around everywhere, I may be able to convince myself to switch.

If anyone else still has a FF camera with a fast 35mm lens as well as a Fuji with a 23mm 1.4 it would be awesome to see more comparisons when shooting close to wide open on FF compared to 1.4 on the Fuji. :)
 
pridash said:
Sorry, its taken so much time to come back to this thread - been away and also super busy lately to get back on here and formulate replies! Anyway, thanks to everyone that has kept the thread on topic and for supplying sample images.- it's been really helpful. :)



This is more of what I was looking for! He's using my the exact current combo along with the Fuji equivalent so the differences are very clear to see.

Judging by the photos, it's kind of disappointing to see that the 23 1.4 is probably around the just under f2.8 mark - I was hoping it was around f2 (which is where I'm generally at when shooting with the 35L). However, saying that I've seen a number of 23 1.4 images which appear to have plenty of gorgeous shallow dof (due to the scene, background distance, etc) which is making my decision very hard indeed! If I can live with the greater dof for the added advantage of a light system I can carry around everywhere, I may be able to convince myself to switch.

If anyone else still has a FF camera with a fast 35mm lens as well as a Fuji with a 23mm 1.4 it would be awesome to see more comparisons when shooting close to wide open on FF compared to 1.4 on the Fuji. :)
Click to expand...

The equivalence calculation for DoF changes between formats is easy - f/number x crop factor (same as focal length). So the equivalent to a FF 35/1.4 on 1.5x crop is 52mm f/2.1.
 
*mumbles something about DoF*

Although IMO you can go too shallow! 35/1.4 on APS-C is plenty really isn't it? ;)
 
Last edited:
Is it really wver enough? I want 85mm f0.1 so just the tip of one eyelash was in focus. :D

Fuji are going to be releasing some cracking lenses within the next year. The 90mm f2 renders beautifully by the looks of things.
 
HoppyUK said:
The equivalence calculation for DoF changes between formats is easy - f/number x crop factor (same as focal length). So the equivalent to a FF 35/1.4 on 1.5x crop is 52mm f/2.1.
Click to expand...

I believe it's 1.6x...but are you saying that you can use this multiplication on the aperture to work out equivalent dof? If so, I never new that! So in effect to get the dof of a 35 1.4 on FF, I'd have to use a c.50mm at f2 on a crop?

JYC said:
*mumbles something about DoF*

Although IMO you can go too shallow! 35/1.4 on APS-C is plenty really isn't it? ;)
Click to expand...

Haha, not really (sometimes) - the 3D effect can be more pronounced at 1.4 on FF...it's not quite the same on a crop (although still good).

minnnt said:
Is it really wver enough? I want 85mm f0.1 so just the tip of one eyelash was in focus. :D

Fuji are going to be releasing some cracking lenses within the next year. The 90mm f2 renders beautifully by the looks of things.
Click to expand...

Yh an 85 f0.1 would be awesome, but will probably weigh an absolute ton and cost the earth haha! :D

I'm not sure who does tight portraits with only the eyelashes in focus, but 3/4 and full length portraits at 85 at 1.2-1.8 look magical. Hence my love for dof. Saying that I don't shoot like I used to anymore so it may be something I can live without. I'm just after more comparisons to push me over the edge. ;)
 
pridash said:
I believe it's 1.6x...but are you saying that you can use this multiplication on the aperture to work out equivalent dof? If so, I never new that! So in effect to get the dof of a 35 1.4 on FF, I'd have to use a c.50mm at f2 on a crop?

<snip>
Click to expand...

Fuji XT-1 crop factor is approx 1.5x, actually 1.53x (take the long side of 35mm full-frame film, ie 36mm, and divide by the long side of the XT-1 sensor, ie 23.6mm = 1.53x).

Yes, you've got the DoF conversion right. If the crop factor was 1.4x (ie sensor exactly half the area of FF) the DoF difference would be exactly one stop. For 1.5x, one stop is close enough in practical terms (by the same calculation, M4/3rds is two stops) though it's strictly a fraction more than that.

For actual DoF calcs, this is a handy converter http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
 
To be honest the difference between APSC & FF isn't really worth worrying about. They both look 'small' and 'mean' to me (I'm talking about the feel of the images) but serve a purpose on digital, being the only affordable option to get quick results.

If you care about the medium then, well, at least medium format is the way to go. It's like you can step inside the image and a MF negative will scan to a stupidly high MP on a basic photo flatbed.


Moochin around Center Parcs by _Jo Gray, on Flickr


Moochin around Center Parcs by _Jo Gray, on Flickr

(nothing decent there, not uploaded to Flickr for ages)

Hell, even a cheap film camera will do if you want FF:

Moochin around Center Parcs by _Jo Gray, on Flickr

Or even something left field like a Hasselblad XPAN can be had for less than the price of a FF body or (some) lenses.

First shots on the Hasselblad XPAN I by _Jo Gray, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
If you want shallowest DOF then buy a 35mm size or above sensor with reasonably long fast lenses. If you don't care so much then buy an APS-C and save a few quid and weight. SLR, ILC, Whatever.
 
jojo90 said:
To be honest the difference between APSC & FF isn't really worth worrying about. They both look 'small' and 'mean' to me (I'm talking about the feel of the images) but serve a purpose on digital, being the only affordable option to get quick results.

If you care about the medium then, well, at least medium format is the way to go. It's like you can step inside the image and a MF negative will scan to a stupidly high MP on a basic photo flatbed.


Moochin around Center Parcs by _Jo Gray, on Flickr


Moochin around Center Parcs by _Jo Gray, on Flickr

(nothing decent there, not uploaded to Flickr for ages)

Hell, even a cheap film camera will do if you want FF:

Moochin around Center Parcs by _Jo Gray, on Flickr

Or even something left field like a Hasselblad XPAN can be had for less than the price of a FF body or (some) lenses.

First shots on the Hasselblad XPAN I by _Jo Gray, on Flickr
Click to expand...

One catch. It's not digital mf unless you spend ridiculous amounts of money.
 
twist said:
One catch. It's not digital mf unless you spend ridiculous amounts of money.
Click to expand...

MF cameras are crazy cheap nowadays, film isn't too bad, and if you process at home it's very reasonable. 12 (ish) frames per roll makes you think a hell of a lot more about the shot. The experience of shooting with something like a Rolleiflex blows away anything FF+Digital. The thing is, unless you need instant results, I'd wager £3k spent on MF Film Vs £3k on FF digital would yield more keepers, those keepers would have a much higher resolution, be more organic looking, be sharper, and have spot on colours & amazing tones.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top