Jump to content

picture quality compapring to full frame


Recommended Posts

Hi,

I'm just about to sell out my Canon 5D (initial version, no mark) in favour of XT1.

There is a lot of marketing for quality of the fuji sensor (no filter) and attempt to claim that the output quality is equal to full frame. But I wanted to ask the practitioners about your subjective judgement.

IS X AS GOOD AS FULL FRAME?

(I propose to rank the answer 0 -not at all; 1 -comparable but not yet acceptable, 2 - comparable, almost equivalent, 3 as good as full frame).

Before I drop my Canon system I want to make sure I will not miss it. I did the same when having XP1 and it was good approach. XP1 was not performing well in studio.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • arnold_w

    8

  • Petrus

    6

  • pksa

    4

  • K1W1_Mk2

    3

Its not possible to really compare APS-C with Full Frame.

If very high ISO or shallow depth of field is important to you then keep your FF gear.

Same if you shoot sports or wildlife with big guns. Otherwise you can switch.

All I can tell you is that I sold all my Nikon FF pro gear to move to Fuji X and do not regret it AT ALL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I selling my 5D3 and all lenses. High ISO I do not have to keep my 5DIII. The X T1 does a very good job. It is loosing a little bit detail. But does a better job when I look at the color noise. So There is not much advantage for me with the Full Frame. Not enough to keep the Full Frame.

Depth of field. Fujifilm has some nice fast lenses so. For me also no brainer for this issue. I was using lenses like the Canon 16-35 II 24-70 II and the Fujifilm primes I use the most like the 35mm and 56mm have a very nice depth of field. So also no reason for me to keep the Full Frame.

Why lugging around with heavy gear when you can do the job with les weight and more fun ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting sports with the original 5D is a joke as it is with de mark II (they share the same AF sensor). The X-T1's AF is no match for the 5D or 5D2. The 5D3 is another story.

Comparing IQ with full frame in general isn't an option, because there are too many different sensors out there. But the 5D "only" has an 12,8mp sensor which is easily beaten by de X-trans in terms of sensor noise and resolution. Add the fantastic Fuji lenses to that comparison and I dare to say without a doubt that you have a winner.

I did the comparisons myself with the 5D mark II and found no particular reason not to sell my Canon gear to make a complete switch to Fuji. Only my 5D mark III made me hesitate, but at last I sold all my pro Canon gear and never regretted.

Voxen is right about the DOF, it is different. But it all depends on what you shoot most.

You have a one stop disadvantage in depth of field with cropped sensors when shooting wide open. But to landscape photographers it doesn't matter because they mostly shoot at smaller apertures. And like Koban said: Fuji has some great fast primes which to me perform better than the expensive L-lenses that I had.

Link to post
Share on other sites
vague_logic

I can only give a similar answer to the previous respondants. I was Nikon full frame with two D700s and alot of heavey glass. After buying an X-E1 and seeing its' RAW output quality, I sold one D700 and most of the lenses and when the X-T1 was announced part exchanged everything else.

The reduced weight to carry has more than compensated for the slightly better low light performance of the D700. I don't do sports so can't comment on that aspect. Subjective opinion about image quality can be misleading; there are too many factors involved including post processing software. You need to make your own assesment however, from a 5D to X-T1 I don't think you will be dissapointed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am running the Fuji system (X-T1 / X-Pro1 / X-E1) along side full frame Nikon gear (D800 + fast aperture zooms). Both have strengths and weaknesses but I am finding more and more that I reach for the Fuji gear first.

I'm not suggesting the below is a complete list of pros and cons but these are the things I consider when I reach for the bag...

Pros for the Fuji System:

- Compact and light weight - more likely to take a wider selection of lenses on location

- Excellent fast primes, especially the 14mm / 35mm / 56mm

- Smaller camera is less intrusive for subjects

- Quiet - in the case of the X-T1 almost silent - great for performance photography

- Excellent high ISO and dynamic range

- Straight out of camera JPGs are superb

- 8fps burst rate on X-T1 is faster than my D800

- Very good optical image stabilization on all zooms

- Live histogram in the viewfinder while you shoot - boy do I love this!

- 16Mp is the sweet spot in resolution for most things

- Ergonomics that work really well for my shooting style

Pros for the Nikon System:

- Weather proof lenses and fixed aperture fast zooms (but both coming to the Fuji system this year)

- Faster auto-focus in very low light or on low contrast subjects (but rarely a deal breaker)

- Much better flash implementation - if you rely on an on-camera speedlight for event photography the Fuji EF42 is no match for Nikon's speedlights (or presumably Canon's) in terms of usability, speed and build quality (this can be deal breaker)

- Longer telephoto lenses such as the fast 300mm prime and the 80-400mm zoom

- Better battery life (but expensive batteries...)

- Better video quality & controls and uncompressed 1080p video from the HDMI port

- 36Mp does give a lot of room to crop...

So your question "Is X as good as full frame"? - no simple answer, but what do I enjoy using most? - Fuji wins hands down - and when I am enjoying what I am doing I take better pictures...

Link to post
Share on other sites
boulevardier

The X-T1 has the best part of a decade of development over the Canon 5D, which came out in 2005. That's forever in digital terms. You need to compare modern full frame with a modern APS-C for a realistic comparison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love XT1 (having also the experience with XP1) for many reasons.

But I want to narrow down the discussion to the quality of the picture.

PS

regarding telezoom - there is one in Fuji roadmap

regarding weatherproof lenses - there are more in Fuji roadmap

regarding flash - at least nissing is coming with i-41 + fuji EF-42

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in the "XT-1 vs. OM-D E-M1" thread people are equating a 60% smaller sensor to the Fuji.

I think it's sometimes a close call, but generally Fuji wins out.

Similarly comparing APS-C to FF.

Sensor tech has come a long way, but it does so with all sensor sizes :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am running the Fuji system (X-T1 / X-Pro1 / X-E1) along side full frame Nikon gear (D800 + fast aperture zooms). Both have strengths and weaknesses but I am finding more and more that I reach for the Fuji gear first.

I also have both an extensive Nikon kit and 3 Fujifilm cameras (see below) Simon gives a very good list of pros and cons of these systems. For certain profession assignments D4 and D800 are unbeatable (as is the IQ of D800e), but often I also choose the Fujis, especially documentary type stuff where I want to be slightly more invisible, of want to travel light for practical reasons.

When I got the X-Pro1 2 years ago I made a straight comparison against my 5D2. Fuji with 35mm F/1.4 gave same quality as 5D2 with 50 Canon macro, 50mm f/1.4 on Canon at full open was truly awful compared to the Fujinon at full open. Even if 5D2 has slightly more megapixels. No APS-C sensor can touch D800 though, so it is not possible to say if X-Trans is better than a FF, I would say it is better than all FF below 20 MPix and about equal to at least older 24 MPix FF sensors. At the same time the Fujis are smaller and more quiet and unassuming. I is simply easier to approach people with those than with big and loud DSLRs, which results in better pictures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
darngooddesign

Hi,

Before I drop my Canon system I want to make sure I will not miss it. I did the same when having XP1 and it was good approach. XP1 was not performing well in studio.

I'm a little confused as it sound like you have already used an X-Pro. If so you already know how the X is in relation to FF cameras, and you can easily read what benefits the X-T1 has over the X-Pro. If I misunderstood you please clarify.

I love XT1 (having also the experience with XP1) for many reasons.

But I want to narrow down the discussion to the quality of the picture.

PS

regarding telezoom - there is one in Fuji roadmap

regarding weatherproof lenses - there are more in Fuji roadmap

regarding flash - at least nissing is coming with i-41 + fuji EF-42

The X-T1 and X-Pro have very similar picture quality with the T1 being a little better in high ISOs. What the X-T1 does have is faster operation, much better AF tracking, and a much better EVF. Other things like the physical controls and handling you can decide for yourself on. Fuji has an official lens roadmap that describes the upcoming release, what are your specific questions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even think about it and I have no plans to sell my D600 and huge collection of lenses.

I wouldn't take them with me on my next trip to the store either.

That's why I have an X-E1 and an X-M1.

APS-C quality+compactness=day-to-day "utility" camera of choice most of the time.

For me,that is;everyone evaluates his/her own needs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe you will see any improvement in image quality moving from the 5dmkI to a fuji x camera. However, you will be getting newer technology, which means newer functions, and a smaller camera. Do not expect better image quality, because you will be disappointed. When comparing really good cameras such as the 5d and the x camera, you have to consider the fact that 99% of The quality of the image will depend on your skills/ability to use the camera, and 1% will depend on the camera, and only 0.1% will depend on the differences between these two cameras.

Link to post
Share on other sites
boulevardier

Based on appearances, resolution is maxed out with current sensor technology, and people shouldn't expect big leaps in IQ from any manufacturer until a new generation of sensors appears. Focus speed and EVFs are improving, but mirrorless cameras still lag behind DSLRs, especially with battery life. Lens range is much smaller.

The real bonus is the size of cameras like the X-T1 and the Sony a7 series, especially for a full kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on appearances, resolution is maxed out with current sensor technology, and people shouldn't expect big leaps in IQ from any manufacturer until a new generation of sensors appears. Focus speed and EVFs are improving, but mirrorless cameras still lag behind DSLRs, especially with battery life. Lens range is much smaller.

The real bonus is the size of cameras like the X-T1 and the Sony a7 series, especially for a full kit.

I'm not sure what the "resolution is maxed out" comment really means. Full frame sensors like the 36Mp Sony device used in the A7r and D800 overall offer better ability than lower resolution full frame sensors, and certainly much more than any APS-C camera. Even the latest Sony FF 24Mp device clearly shows more resolution than any APS-C camera. With the gradual withdrawl of the Sony APS-C 16Mp device, most manufacturers (with the exception of Leica and Fuji) are moving to the replacement 20Mp or 24Mp devices, which offer similar overall ability whilst also offering more resolution. This is largely a result of evolution (refinements) rather than revolution (new technology). The 16Mp Olympus sensor has about the same pixel density as the 36Mp full frame device - hence it's noise performance is about 2 stops lower, due to the lower resolution. I suspect the newly announced Sony 12Mp FF device is going to have exceptional DR, low noise floor, and colour reproduction - and may well also offer relatively good resolution if it is AA less. One of the major evolutions in sensors over the last few years have been greater quantum efficiency (more electricity from the same amount of light, in part of a result of the other evolution of better sensel design (micro lenses etc) and more effecient wiring. It is interesting to note that the 1" sensor used by Nikon and make by Aptica has 2 sets of connections to each pixel - one for low ISO use (better DR, colour etc) and one optimised for high ISO use (low noise). There is still lots to do with sensor performance without any radical new technology - successive generations of sensors which all use the same basic technology have shown that, as every new sensor with higher resolution still offers lower noise and typically more DR and better colour depth. I actually think a move to 14 bit raw data in all sensors would bring some major benefits, since it is far from universal in cameras at the moment.

I do however agree that other aspects of mirrorless camera design and performance still have some way to go, and could offer the photographer greater improvements and options for the picture taking process.

Link to post
Share on other sites
boulevardier

I'm not sure what the "resolution is maxed out" comment really means.

Sensors are improving, no question, but the advantages are incremental and in all honesty, for the screen sharing use most are put to, who can tell the difference between a full frame DSLR, an XT-1, or one of the small sensor cameras? Certainly not me. I think consumers expect a wow factor for each new generation of cameras that's unrealistic, which leads to disappointment and swapping between brands.

For people who want to print from their files on a regular basis, full frame sensors still have an advantage. Roughly speaking, the competing virtues are low noise at high ISOs and image quality at big enlargements. Sony's development of the lower count, larger pixel a7S is an interesting development. It will be interesting to see some stills from it, even though it emphasises its video capabilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but mirrorless cameras still lag behind DSLRs, especially with battery life. Lens range is much smaller.

I'm just wondering why everyone is complaining that much about battery life. Have you ever tried to squeeze 350 images out of an dSLR with only live view enabled? Bet you won't reach that number. LCD's and EVF are very power consuming, no wonder that you can "only" shoot about 350 images. Other mirrorless camera's are no exception to this, Olympus is doing about the same.

The batteries are relatively cheap compared to those from dLRS's. With the 5D mark II the maximum image count is about 800 or so. Just buy yourself a couple of cheap extra batteries and your done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to get a real camera, get a Sony RX1 or Canon s120. Canon s120 has a touchscreen enabling you to focus on what you want just by touching the screen. Works while filming video too. It's the greatest camera ever invented. I haven't tried one yet though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped buying Canon Powershot S-series cameras with the S100 because I believed

then and I believe now they offered no significant IQ improvement on an already

impressive product.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheShaheen

If you Google you will find that Fuji X Series, i haven't checked the others, but X100s is beating the life out of Leica M8, top Canon and Nikon DSLRs. I presume it's the same with other cameras with the XTrans sensor..

I was shocked the other day when i looked at my Canon 5D RAW files and found out that they are only 16 Mb compared to my little Fuji's nearly 35 Mb..

So my 5D, with a 16-35mm and 70-200mm Canon high-quality glass is sitting in the corner of the room sobbing..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...