Full Frame or Crop

Folks are comparing AREA, rather than comparing the LINEAR differences between format sizes. And if you compare the Vertical (short) dimension, you can equalize the differences in aspect ratio. Using 8"x10" print size as a common size (1.25:1), the short axis is fit to the 8" dimension, and the aspect ratios are clipped on the long side to fit the 10" dimension of the print.

• APS-C 15mm: FF 24mm = 1.6x linear
  
• FF 24mm: 645 43mm = 1.79 linear
  
• FF 24mm: 4x5 93mm = 3.875x linear
  
• FF 24mm: H6D-50 32.9mm = 1.37x linear
  

ecka wrote in post #18480975
Meaning, after Fuji started paying him for what he is preaching, he changed his mind and became a salesman. Yes, that's exactly my point.
The reality is that crop sensors have improved just as much as FF sensors have improved and nothing really changed. There's the same difference of over twice larger sensor area ... always will be. And the difference between FF and crop is larger than the difference between FF and the kind-of-affordable pseudo-MF (44x33). Fuji crop is as far from FF as any other APS-C is.
$1 isn't going to transform magically into $2.50, no matter how much we'd pray for it. Everything is negligible when a lesser tool is good enough for you. Most people do not need better cameras. And I have no idea why they keep arguing about stuff they cannot utilize or even percept when viewing snapshots on technologically dated 22"(ish) LCDs or small prints, despite that it is the end of 2017. This is like saying that Elon Musk's SpaceX is a waste of money and that all we'll ever need is a train.

The point is and has been that it's gotten to a point where it flat out just doesn't matter for the majority of shooters/subjects. It's to a point now where the only people who bring it up are measurebators who insist that FF is the ONLY way to get a quality image, which is pure nonsense to anyone who's paying attention.

I view my photos both in print (sometimes large) and on various high resolution displays at high resolution, they look great. And as I've discussed with you in the past, I've shot with different cameras of various formats, the difference is negligible. Prove me otherwise.

Charlie wrote in post #18481115
Add AF to that list

I'm surprised he didn't... he's usually the first person to do so

AF has been working a treat for me though

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18481240
The point is and has been that it's gotten to a point where it flat out just doesn't matter for the majority of shooters/subjects. It's to a point now where the only people who bring it up are measurebators who insist that FF is the ONLY way to get a quality image, which is pure nonsense to anyone who's paying attention.

I view my photos both in print (sometimes large) and on various high resolution displays at high resolution, they look great. And as I've discussed with you in the past, I've shot with different cameras of various formats, the difference is negligible. Prove me otherwise.

I'm surprised he didn't... he's usually the first person to do so

AF has been working a treat for me though

I use my Fuji for many situations but for absolutely reliable, consistent and accurate blazing fast AF in low light the fuji is NOT my tool of choice. In those types of situations my mirrored bodies clearly is superior with focus assist with speedlight infra red assist. Nothing to do with crop sensor vs full frame but the fuji electronics having the limitation on some of the lenses in the fuji lineup.

Put a speedlite (infra red AF focus assist) on a Canon or Nikon during events photography in very low light and compare that with the keeper rate of a Fuji Xpro2 or X-t2. I'll say many pro photogs will say AF on the mirrored bodies destroy's Fuji's AF performance in low light. With my extensive tests I virtually never miss a shot using AF with my Canon while my Fuji X-t2 with Fuji EF-X500 flash stops dead in it's tracks hunting to acquire focus. This is nothing new as it's well documented all over the internet if you dig in forum discussions. I've read where a photo personally owns both Nikon and fuji systems. he goes to the trouble of even using Fuji for weddings where he can get away it and uses Nikon for the ceremony and reception for rock solid AF performance vs using fuji (read in on FM iirc)

If you discuss IQ and Fuji crop sensor it's a great system with good to moderate light. The X-t2 with 56mm is such a stunning combo. Just can't wait to test my 5d4 with the when I eventually purchase an Canon 85L f/1.4IS. The difference I would say the Canon 5dmk4 with fresh new 85L f/1.4 will be substantially sharper and killer micro contrast vs the Fuji 24 mega pixel sensor with 56 f/1.2. However at the end of the day my Fuji with 56mm f/1.2 is "good enough" to produce beautiful images. However I'd be certain to say as a Canon shooter that uses a 1dxmk2/5dmk4 full frame under scrutiny will have a much sharper image with beautiful Canon colours with an 85L f/1.4IS. My 85Lmk2 f/1.2 is an older gen lens that is very sharp but it's definitely not going to be as sharp as the new 85Lf/1.4IS.

My point is Crop vs Full frame is not just talking about the sensor itself. It's the entire system that will also determine how photogs decide on a system. The lenses must also be noted as part of the equation for ultimate image quality in the end. With Fuji the IQ is the strong point but when I miss photos due to the !AF (cannot focus) all the beautiful IQ cannot replace a soft blurry misfocus image due to failing fuji AF in low light.

I observe many high iso images from less performing (high iso) crop sensors are often hit with clarity and turned to Black/white images. Some are a style choice for visual impact but I think it's not uncommon that photographers can also use b/w for noisy/grainy/softer images (due to high iso application) that just need alot of work when it remains in colour.

There are times I've had an urge to throw my Fuji crop sensor against a wall not due to IQ but for AF performance issues in low light. Something I rarely ever experience with my mirrored bodies so composition can be more of a priority rather than trying to get focus to capture a "moment". Yet ......I still own crop sensor and full frame for different reasons.

If my X-T2 performed like my Canon 80D in the reliable AF department I'd be so happy. Sadly this is not reality for situations I shoot in.

Charlie wrote in post #18481120
you're thinking in absolute size rather than ratios. Fuji's mini MF is definitely NOT double the size of a FF sensor. On top of that, you'de have to consider that the aspect ratio is 4:3 or something, so that effects the way your crop. If you like wide crops, the the mini MF advantage is diminished even further, however if you favor the more squarish look, then the mini MF can very well be double the cropped FF size.

on pure size,

35mm 1: 1.72 mini MF
APS-C 1: 2.27 35mm

Phase supersize 1: 1.5 mini MF
Phase supersize 1: 2.58 35mm

so the smallest jump is mini MF to large MF, then 35mm to mini MF then a moderate jump to APS-C to 35mm then 35mm to Phase supersize.

Yes I am talking the relationship of size in total of the sensors. Taking in percentages is fine but an increase of 50% of a small number is a lot less that an increase of 40% or a much bigger number so possibly a better way of seeing just how big something is compared to something else. Quoting ratio won't change the fact that the 'mini MF' fount in Fuji, Hasselblad etc... had a bigger area increase then full frame has over APS-C, not twice the size just the increase in area is larger. 580 is more than 480.
So in the jump from sensor size: APS-C >480< FF >580< MFm.

I said "Fuji's small sensor to their bigger one is 1068, that's about twice the jump as full frame." Not that MFm is twice as big as FF: APS-C>1086<MFm in area.


It was way past my bedtime when I dribbled out that post, numbers might be a little off

AlanU wrote in post #18481313
I use my Fuji for many situations but for absolutely reliable, consistent and accurate blazing fast AF in low light the fuji is NOT my tool of choice. In those types of situations my mirrored bodies clearly is superior with focus assist with speedlight infra red assist. Nothing to do with crop sensor vs full frame but the fuji electronics having the limitation on some of the lenses in the fuji lineup.

Using AF assist is all well and good as long as you understand the limitations, it only works with some of the AF points on your camera, your subject needs to be within ~15 feet for it to work, really after 10 feet you are going to struggle. Your AF needs to be on single and not continuous. So if you subject is close to the camera and in the centre of the free you have the benefit of the AF assist beam, if they are not then you are screwed. You have to know your tools. Mirrorless cameras now have an assist beam to help in low light, available if you use a Godox flash. If tested that and it works good.

AlanU wrote in post #18481313
I've read where a photo personally owns both Nikon and fuji systems. he goes to the trouble of even using Fuji for weddings where he can get away it and uses Nikon for the ceremony and reception for rock solid AF performance vs using fuji (read in on FM iirc)

I read where pro photographers have dumped nikon and are using Fuji for weddings and being able to get the shots through out the day/evening with no problems The little FB group has nearly 4500 members now.

AlanU wrote in post #18481313
I use my Fuji for many situations but for absolutely reliable, consistent and accurate blazing fast AF in low light the fuji is NOT my tool of choice. In those types of situations my mirrored bodies clearly is superior with focus assist with speedlight infra red assist. Nothing to do with crop sensor vs full frame but the fuji electronics having the limitation on some of the lenses in the fuji lineup.

Put a speedlite (infra red AF focus assist) on a Canon or Nikon during events photography in very low light and compare that with the keeper rate of a Fuji Xpro2 or X-t2. I'll say many pro photogs will say AF on the mirrored bodies destroy's Fuji's AF performance in low light. With my extensive tests I virtually never miss a shot using AF with my Canon while my Fuji X-t2 with Fuji EF-X500 flash stops dead in it's tracks hunting to acquire focus. This is nothing new as it's well documented all over the internet if you dig in forum discussions. I've read where a photo personally owns both Nikon and fuji systems. he goes to the trouble of even using Fuji for weddings where he can get away it and uses Nikon for the ceremony and reception for rock solid AF performance vs using fuji (read in on FM iirc)

If you discuss IQ and Fuji crop sensor it's a great system with good to moderate light. The X-t2 with 56mm is such a stunning combo. Just can't wait to test my 5d4 with the when I eventually purchase an Canon 85L f/1.4IS. The difference I would say the Canon 5dmk4 with fresh new 85L f/1.4 will be substantially sharper and killer micro contrast vs the Fuji 24 mega pixel sensor with 56 f/1.2. However at the end of the day my Fuji with 56mm f/1.2 is "good enough" to produce beautiful images. However I'd be certain to say as a Canon shooter that uses a 1dxmk2/5dmk4 full frame under scrutiny will have a much sharper image with beautiful Canon colours with an 85L f/1.4IS. My 85Lmk2 f/1.2 is an older gen lens that is very sharp but it's definitely not going to be as sharp as the new 85Lf/1.4IS.

My point is Crop vs Full frame is not just talking about the sensor itself. It's the entire system that will also determine how photogs decide on a system. The lenses must also be noted as part of the equation for ultimate image quality in the end. With Fuji the IQ is the strong point but when I miss photos due to the !AF (cannot focus) all the beautiful IQ cannot replace a soft blurry misfocus image due to failing fuji AF in low light.

I observe many high iso images from less performing (high iso) crop sensors are often hit with clarity and turned to Black/white images. Some are a style choice for visual impact but I think it's not uncommon that photographers can also use b/w for noisy/grainy/softer images (due to high iso application) that just need alot of work when it remains in colour.

There are times I've had an urge to throw my Fuji crop sensor against a wall not due to IQ but for AF performance issues in low light. Something I rarely ever experience with my mirrored bodies so composition can be more of a priority rather than trying to get focus to capture a "moment". Yet ......I still own crop sensor and full frame for different reasons.

If my X-T2 performed like my Canon 80D in the reliable AF department I'd be so happy. Sadly this is not reality for situations I shoot in.

TLDR version; I often need an IR assist light, which don't work on MILC bodies, therefor DSLR's work better for me in certain situations.

That's all well and good (and been covered to death, even in this thread if memory serves correctly), but as we also have discussed, when it comes to not using an IR light MILC bodies in general focus better than DSLR's do in low light.

As for your arguments about high ISO, I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to get at other than humble dissing people who like to turn high ISO photos into B&W (did you ever consider that perhaps it's not to hide colors rather that light quality and therefore color just isn't usually flattering in dim light?). I noticed a long time ago that my Fuji files (even the X-TransII) have better color fidelity at high ISO than 2 of my previous FF bodies (6D and a7R). I pretty much never use any NR beyond the standard import settings for LR with my Fuji cameras, I also rarely have to tweak HSL channels... that definitely wasn't the case with either my 6D or a7R (though I was very satisfied with my a7S usually, other than skin tones).

wow what a read, I find my full frame does produce the better images but not in every case, a far off bird, nope, once cropped it gets soft compared to 7DII which gets more sharp feather detail but only in the better lighting. for every day photos Id rank my cameras 1 the 5DIII 2 the X100 and the full frame images are not that far ahead of it, and 3 the 7DII. The 7DII is way better auto focus than the other two but you work with what you have. I just came back from a trip to Cambodia and only took the X100, very few images were out of focus, I had no issues with that and the X100 is now an old camera. In the end yes the bigger sensors are the best but it does not seem to stop people grizzling when they produce crap images and feel they need to change cameras or brands

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18481539
TLDR version; I often need an IR assist light, which don't work on MILC bodies, therefor DSLR's work better for me in certain situations.

That's all well and good (and been covered to death, even in this thread if memory serves correctly), but as we also have discussed, when it comes to not using an IR light MILC bodies in general focus better than DSLR's do in low light.

As for your arguments about high ISO, I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to get at other than humble dissing people who like to turn high ISO photos into B&W (did you ever consider that perhaps it's not to hide colors rather that light quality and therefore color just isn't usually flattering in dim light?). I noticed a long time ago that my Fuji files (even the X-TransII) have better color fidelity at high ISO than 2 of my previous FF bodies (6D and a7R). I pretty much never use any NR beyond the standard import settings for LR with my Fuji cameras, I also rarely have to tweak HSL channels... that definitely wasn't the case with either my 6D or a7R (though I was very satisfied with my a7S usually, other than skin tones).

My point is at this moment in time DSLR is superior to Fuji AF when it comes to low light photography where Nikon/Canon speedlights aids the body greatly with infra red AF focus assist. I never ever misfocus or get AF HUNT using my Canon dslr when a speedlight is bouncing flash and the body is getting AF focus assist from the red beam of light. I understand the limitations of my Fuji so this is why I do not use it for bounced light photography because it fails me from time to time. Not acceptable and I cannot tolerate hunting for my personal standards.

No dissing.... it's an observation and I thought it was quite common knowledge that many photographers use black and white for either faster workflow hammering out BW files or when they've blown out the highlights so bad that the image can be recovered by BW. Also I must add noisy images look better in BW than colour when they push the limits of the sensor. There are also that just like BW in their style of work. What I find interesting is some photogs crush the black so severely that there is absolutely no detail in the image.

In good light I do well with the Fuji. AF is still noticeably slower in Fuji land but tolerable in most cases. It is what it is and I get that.......

For Canon land the old 40D/50D/7D cannot even touch the image quality of the 7dmk2 or 80D. This is where buying a new technology crop sensor is not a lateral move like going 40d to 50d. However if you truly compare a 7dmk2/80D to a 1DXmk2/5dmk4 you can see a difference in IQ even when shooting good light. If you cannot visually tell the difference I want your eye sight :P

I will say if you look at Fuji Crop sensor files the image quality really does seem a different level to my 80D if I compare to my Fuji X-t2. But beside sensor debate I must discuss body performance. I will say I'd take the marginally less image quality of the 7dmk2 if I was hired to document an event to assure that I capture "everything" with zero AF issues in all kinds of lighting situations and having dual memory card redundancy. Some photogs may just shrug if they missed a money shot but i just can't stand missing a shot due to gear fault if shooting low light environments.

Everyday..... you and I have a totally different requirement and demand on gear. I'm vocal about gear limitation regardless if its crop or full frame. I just find it difficult to understand many commenting that there is little difference in IQ between crop and full frame. It's obvious to me especially when you push the sensor hard in low light. There is still no comparison between a X-t2/Xpro2 vs D850/D810/5dmk4/1DXmk2 in low light performance both in AF and cleaner images with faster shutter speeds that reduce chances of motion blur when shooting natural/available light. That alone is why I still love to shoot both Canon and Fuji for different reasons and applications.

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18481334
Using AF assist is all well and good as long as you understand the limitations, it only works with some of the AF points on your camera, your subject needs to be within ~15 feet for it to work, really after 10 feet you are going to struggle. Your AF needs to be on single and not continuous. So if you subject is close to the camera and in the centre of the free you have the benefit of the AF assist beam, if they are not then you are screwed. You have to know your tools. Mirrorless cameras now have an assist beam to help in low light, available if you use a Godox flash. If tested that and it works good.

I read where pro photographers have dumped nikon and are using Fuji for weddings and being able to get the shots through out the day/evening with no problems The little FB group has nearly 4500 members now.

Kim I think the red infra red assist beam from a canon and Nikon is not obnoxious and hardly noticeable in many cases to the subjects.

Is the Godox emitting a white LED burst??? is it similar to the white light from the Fuji body?? This is where I think the white beam has less distance and very aggressive on the subjects eyes especially for candids in low light.

I still have a bunch of godox flash units in my Amazon shopping cart. I've yet to pull the trigger as I do not consider my fuji for hired events. I've been using my Fuji EFX500 flash lately for personal experimentation using family as test subjects. I'm still genuinely experimenting......jus​t haven't found comfort zone yet with the AF hunting in low light interior shots. My little 80D never misses a beat in landing shots using bounced flash AF focus in dreadful light.

The FB group is growing!! great but only 4500 in the world of FB????

I'm going to reply to this in the Fuji thread here: https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18481854

AlanU wrote in post #18481830
No dissing.... it's an observation and I thought it was quite common knowledge that many photographers use black and white for either faster workflow hammering out BW files or when they've blown out the highlights so bad that the image can be recovered by BW. Also I must add noisy images look better in BW than colour when they push the limits of the sensor. There are also that just like BW in their style of work. What I find interesting is some photogs crush the black so severely that there is absolutely no detail in the image.

I just find it difficult to understand many commenting that there is little difference in IQ between crop and full frame. It's obvious to me especially when you push the sensor hard in low light. There is still no comparison between a X-t2/Xpro2 vs D850/D810/5dmk4/1DXmk2 in low light performance both in AF and cleaner images with faster shutter speeds that reduce chances of motion blur when shooting natural/available light. That alone is why I still love to shoot both Canon and Fuji for different reasons and applications.

To the first paragraph; Highlight recovery isn't really any different in B&W or Color, so I don't really see what you mean there. Are you referring to if an image were so blown out that there's no color left in the sky? That seems like a rare occasion to force yourself into black and white these days. Also, you failed to address my main point, which is that your original post claimed this conversion to black and white to 'cover tracks' or whatever it is you're implying, is not restricted to APSC (though I personally don't see it happening in most cases regardless, I think it has much more to do with the fact that color in dim light just isn't as pleasing as it is in better light, as I stated before).

To the second paragraph; I'll ask the same of you that I asked of Ecka, prove me otherwise. I keep seeing people making these claims all the time, yet the only examples they can ever show me are when the shot is examined at 100% or greater view, and even then the difference isn't usually immediately noticeable. If we're talking ISO6400+, sure I'll give you that, FF can have an advantage, but as I've stated before (and had to realize for myself) the vast majority of most people's shots are below ISO1600, where the difference is minimal.

I still don't understand this obsession with OUTRAGEOUS iso's...

I think I may have used ISO1000, once...just to see what it was like, the rest of the time, my camera does not move from ISO100.

And, If it had an ISO50 setting, it'd probably be stuck there...

Just saying...

DSMS wrote in post #18496751
I still don't understand this obsession with OUTRAGEOUS iso's...

I think I may have used ISO1000, once...just to see what it was like, the rest of the time, my camera does not move from ISO100.

And, If it had an ISO50 setting, it'd probably be stuck there...

Just saying...

You just don't shoot enough situations, there are several cases where high ISOs are needed. I think we have been down this road before, haven't we?

DSMS wrote in post #18496751
I still don't understand this obsession with OUTRAGEOUS iso's...

I think I may have used ISO1000, once...just to see what it was like, the rest of the time, my camera does not move from ISO100.

And, If it had an ISO50 setting, it'd probably be stuck there...

Just saying...

It really depends on the circumstances where the photos are being taken, along with the available lenses.

I was taking photos at an inside wedding reception, and didn't want to bother people with a bounced flash. I was using a 6Dc and a 24-105 f/4 lens. I had to use an ISO Of 12,800 to get the shutter speed high enough to stop motion... and it was close, even at that.

Now, if I'm outside using a tripod, I agree with you... ISO 100 and get the stabilization from a good tripod.

DSMS wrote in post #18496751
I still don't understand this obsession with OUTRAGEOUS iso's...

I think I may have used ISO1000, once...just to see what it was like, the rest of the time, my camera does not move from ISO100.

And, If it had an ISO50 setting, it'd probably be stuck there...

Just saying...

Not sure if you're trolling or just lacking creativity...

High ISO can be extremely useful. Sure, most of my shots are below ISO3200 (thanks to fast glass), but when I need to push to 12800 I'm happy I have the ability to do so rather than just saying "oh well" and packing up my camera.