Trying out new cameras and lenses

[bastibe (Bastian Bechtold)]

@europlatus

the extra 1-stop difference in DR or low light performance

The DR difference is completely moot these days, in my opinion. Modern sensors are so good in that regard, it doesn’t matter any more. I can shoot MFT directly into the sun, and still have enough detail in the blocked out foreground.

Low light noise is a different matter. ISO 6400 is as high as my camera can reasonably go. 12800 with AI denoising (and all its related artifacts). Bigger sensors have a real advantage there.

I know DR and noise are highly related mathematically. But somehow it doesn’t seem to play out that way in practice.

[bastibe (Bastian Bechtold)]

@betazoid

Ok guys, what do you think about an amateur photographer who already has a 16mm lens (full frame) but thinks he needs a 9mm?

Early on, I thought I wanted the widest lens I could get. All it did was make even the most majestic mountain range look small and pedestrian in the frame. I was SO frustrated. These super wide angle lenses are surprisingly hard to shoot.

These days, I rarely want to go wider than 24mm. I prefer to show size by merely hinting at large objects partially outside the frame.

But if wide perspectives are your thing, by all means go for it! 150° is quite the FOV!

[europlatus]

@bastibe

The DR difference is completely moot these days, in my opinion.

Moot maybe in terms of how much you need or notice, but relative to each other, there seems to still be a fair difference. According to the graph below, there’s a good stop of difference between the A7Cii and the X-T5, and about 1.5 stops at ISO 400.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20X-T5,Sony%20ILCE-7CM2

This just a graph and I do agree with your general point. I think artistic intent is far more important than pure dynamic range considerations. Still, the more you have to play with, the better, I’d say.

@bastibe

These days, I rarely want to go wider than 24mm.

18mm for me (12mm on APS-C) is about as wide as I would go, but 24mm (16mm APS-C) is a sweet spot, I agree.

[ChristopherPerez]

Excellent. Slitscanning was next on the list of Things to Try.

[snibgo (Alan Gibson)]

@betazoid

Ok guys, what do you think about an amateur photographer who already has a 16mm lens (full frame) but thinks he needs a 9mm?

If he thinks he needs it, he probably does.

[garrett (Garrett LeSage)]

Firstly: I’ve used film, full frame, MFT, and APS-C cameras over the past few decades.

The summary of this very long post: Sensor size affects lens size and weight. Don’t let size and weight stop you from bringing a camera.

---

All the details, with photo comparisons and everything…

Full frame (and film) is really only “better” at a few niche things at this point in time:

1. Extreme background blur (but really not that much more than APS-C, when you have the right lenses — I often have to stop down lenses like my Fuji 35 f/1.4 and 56 f/1.2 You can get absurd blur in APS-C and there are even “cheap” f/0.95 lenses for even more if you want it).
2. Adapting antique lenses (full frame will use the lenses fully… and APS-C will either only use the “sweet spot” or require a “focal reducer” adapter, aka: “speed booster”)
3. Wide angle (but there are excellent ultrawides these days, even on APS-C, and going extremely wide, as mentioned above, has challenges — I just got a Sigma 10 - 18 f/2.8 for my Fuji and it’s superwide… more than close enough to when I used my Sigma 12 - 24 on my 5DmkII)

Most of these are irrelevant in most cases, except the adapted lenses (unless you get a good speedbooster — skip the cheaper Zhongyi Lens Turbo and go with something like a Metabones or a Viltrox — or are fine with the crop).

A long while ago, it also used to be the case that you’d need full frame for very high megapixel images (without stitching), but that changed over the years. (The X-T5 is 40 megapixels, which is an excessive amount for most photos, but means we can crop a lot.) Low light and dynamic range were also reasons for a time, but APS-C and even MFT caught up as sensor tech got better. Everything is really absurd in low light now, especially if you have an ISO invariant camera (not all are, but I know Fujis and Ricohs are), which can pull up shadows to an impressive degree.

However, something that every full frame brings along with it versus APS-C and MFT: Larger, heavier lenses overall, especially for zooms and higher quality lenses. If you’re shooting with primes, you can get away with smaller and lighter lenses sometimes, but you could find even smaller and lighter lenses on APS-C and MFT too. The more lenses you haul around and the longer you haul them around, the more fatigued and annoyed you’ll be, until you decide to not bring them along all that much.

---

Here’s a an extremely quick and dirty comparison of my new Sigma 10 - 18 f/2.8 (constant aperture) on my X-T5 versus my old Sigma 12 - 24 f/4.5 - f/5.6.

That’s visibly a big difference in size and the weight is 833 vs. 1425 (the Fuji is 0.58 the weight of the Canon). Apologies for the quick and cruddy photo from my Pixel 6 Pro. It’s night here (so it’s quite dark), and I just have two banged up scales in the kitchen.

The thing is, this is not exactly a fair comparison:

1. Fuji and the new Sigma lens are both much higher quality in every single way.
2. The newer camera and lens are also a decade and a half newer.
3. The Sigma lens, despite being smaller and lighter and higher quality overall, also has a constant wider aperture! It’s some magical feat. I’d imagine if they had a higher f/stop, Sigma could probably figure out a way to make it even smaller and lighter somehow. (FWIW: There’s the Laowa 9mm manual prime for APS-C that’s even smaller and a touch wider.)
4. In addition to the aperture difference, the new Sigma focus much, much, much closer… so if you want a ridiculous photo that’s wide angle and has a lot of background blur with good bokeh, this can deliver. The full frame lens can’t. (Background blur and bokeh is usually odd on an ultrawide, really.)
5. The range is pretty close, but not exact. The old Sigma on the full frame Canon can go a little wider, and the new Sigma can go a little closer. It’s a 15 - 27 equivalent for the new lens vs. 12 - 24 on full frame. But they’re both pretty close, really. The old Sigma gets very distorted with low quality and vignetting when zoomed out fully wide on a full frame camera, however, so I often had to zoom in a little.

If it’s a still subject and you don’t shoot wide often, consider shooting multiple images and using a stitching program XPano or Hugin instead.

---

Another fun “equivalent” comparison:

(I should’ve kept the paper underneath to make the cameras more obvious against the backdrop. Ah well.)

The Canon is considerably larger than the Fuji. The size of lenses goes generally goes up more the more you want to zoom. The weight is 895 vs. 1528. Here, the Fuji is 0.585 the weight of the Canon. (Yet again, almost half.)

This is the kit lens of each system, and they’re close to equivalent lengths for most purposes. Both lenses are considered very, very good; people have said “the quality of a prime, but it zooms” for each.

1. The Fuji is still smaller and lighter.
2. Fuji is 18 - 55 f/2.8 - 4, which is the equivalent to 27 - 82.5; Canon is 24 - 105 f/4 (constant).
3. The Fuji lens lets in more light when it isn’t zoomed in. When fully zoomed in, they’re both f/4, and the subject isolation will be more on the full frame Canon for these two lenses (due to sensor sizes).

---

Okay, now let’s kick it into ludicrous size:

The Canon is absurdly larger and even more weighty. It weight so much that the old scale (which is yellowed) had “Err” on the screen, so I had to swap the side for each camera… This is the Canon 70 - 200 f/2.8 L IS vs. the Fuji 70 - 300 f/4 - f/5.6. The Canon is 2333 vs 1160 for the Fuji. This time, the Fuji is 0.497 the weight of the Canon.

1. The Fuji is higher quality and zooms more (especially on an APS-C, so it’s 300 x 1.5 versus 200)
2. But the Canon lets in more light @ f/2.8. (This Canon zoom was top of the line when it came out in August of 2001. There were also variants without image stabilization and some at f/4. The f/4 versions were half as heavy.)

However, each of these examples are just a camera plus a lens. Now think about all the other lenses (1, 2, or more) you might be bringing along too. It all adds up quite a bit, for both space and weight, and the weight gets more annoying over time.

Everything above is “unfair” in one way or another. I’m comparing very old gear versus pretty new gear. There have been lots of advancements. All the mirrorless cameras these days are usually smaller and often lighter than a DSLR. However, a full frame camera isn’t going to be smaller or lighter than the Fuji — at best, it’ll be the same size and weight (it’s impressive what Sony has done, as they do have some approximately the same size and just ~120 grams heavier)… but the lenses will still be larger and heavier, especially for zooms. So the main point stands: If you upgrade the sensor size, you’re also increasing the size and weight of lenses, generally.

The thing is, if you get a couple of small primes and a reasonable zoom (I probably should’ve gone with the Canon F/4 back in the day ), you can have a small and light enough Sony or Nikon camera without all the size and weight. Primes are usually smaller and lighter than zooms. But not always. The full frame primes are still going to be larger and heavier overall, but the difference won’t be that big, as they’re smaller and lighter and simpler than zooms.

But: Please consider your back. It’s not fun when it hurts and you’re forced to change camera systems.

---

Extra bonus round: Let’s compare APS-C versus APS-C!

Here’s the Ricoh GRIIIx versus the Fuji X-T5. Both are APS-C. The Ricoh has a 26.1mm f/2.8 lens and the Fuji has the 27mm f/2.8 pancake. The Ricoh weighs 260 versus Fuji’s 645. The Ricoh is 0.4 times the Fuij.

Here’s the Ricoh versus my phone, the Pixel 6 Pro. My phone’s 245 grams… which is close to the weight of the Ricoh, really.

1. The Ricoh fits in a pocket. (Not just a coat pocket, as the X-T5 can, but also even a jeans pocket.)
2. The Pixel takes absolutely awful photos, as it’s a phone camera. It was considered “the best camera” for a phone when it came out in 2021. It’s awful though — the JPEGs are overbaked trash and the raw files are DNG and sometimes (but not always) pretty decent thanks to darktable. This is why I eventually bought a Ricoh GR, as I can’t always bring my Fuji along, but I can pretty much always bring the GR.
3. It’s tiny. Much smaller than my MFT Panasonic GF1 + 20 f/1.7 pancake, which I gave to my sister. (The GF1 was around the same size as my Fuji + 27 f/2.8 pancake, and both are the same 40mm equiv.) Seriously, I don’t know how Ricoh shrunk down an APS-C camera with a great lens (that also has a macro mode) into something this small. Magic?
4. This shows that any APS-C body maker can probably make their bodies at least a little smaller, but they might have to cut corners. Ricoh didn’t have to add in a mount, for example. Ricoh GR cameras also don’t have weather sealing (sadly). I do know that Fuji does have some smaller bodies than their X-T line (X-E4, for example); other APS-C makers might as well.

The point of this last one as well as the above comparison of full frame versus APS-C is this: Bring a good enough camera with you. If it’s smaller and lighter, you’re more likely to bring it with you. Switching to full frame means larger lenses, which will get in the way of you bringing your camera with you. (To varying degrees for everyone, but it larger and heavier will get in the way for everyone at some point in time.)

---

I personally think the APS-C sensor size, when you have lenses designed for it, is a perfect sweet spot when you consider everything. Others think that sweet spot is MFT. Some are happy enough with full frame. Others don’t mind the bulk of medium format somehow. Any modern enough camera will be great though, as long as you take it with you.

Don’t make a mistake of switching your camera body and lenses to have something that you realize is a chore to bring around however, especially as there isn’t much benefit for full frame versus APS-C, and there are drawbacks too (not just size and weight… if you want to zoom further, APS-C is actually better).

[europlatus]

Thanks, and I appreciate the effort you put into your post. It’s nice to see some actual size examples, although as you point out, some of them are not “fair” comparisons.

It’s very interesting to me that the Sony A7Cii is actually lighter and slightly smaller than the X-T5. That’s quite the feat, although I don’t know whether we should be praising Sony for the feat or admonishing Fuji for making a big APS-C camera! Especially when you see what Ricoh are doing. This size argument becomes even more debatable when you look at Fuji’s X-H2 cameras, which are bigger still.

But as you said, it’s the whole package that needs to be taken into consideration, which means lenses as well. I guess you could stick to primes or use APS-C lenses in crop mode for a really compact kit, but then you have to ask yourself why bother going FF in the first place.

[garrett (Garrett LeSage)]

Fuji does have smaller APS-C cameras than the X-T5, like the X-E4 and the X100 series. But nothing’s the size of the Ricoh. But Fuji’s cameras usually have viewfinders (although the X-E line doesn’t) and flip out screens… Ricoh has neither.

Sony A7Cii’s size and either are amazing for a full frame camera body. When comparing it to the X-T5, it should be noticed that the X-T5 has dual card slots, a larger viewfinder, and more dials… these all add size and weight. But, even still, Sony did do quite a feat on shrinking down their full frame camera for sure.

I’m happy that no matter what camera body we choose, we can get something nice these days. All of the manufacturers seem to optimize for one thing or another (size weight, feel, speed, AF, video, still, overall experience, features, JPEG style, etc.), as do all of us when choosing a camera. But they’re all quite good at all of these things, and some excel at some more than others (depending on the attribute, maker, camera model, etc.).

[europlatus]

Compared to the X-T5, I feel like you’re really paying extra just for the full frame sensor with Sony’s A7Cii (and R version). That’s just about it (maybe the autofocus too, but probably not a massive difference). In other areas, Fuji’s offering has higher specs and probably feels more premium.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, one of the key things I want to try on the Sony is the viewfinder on the side to avoid the squishy nose problem I have with most SLR types. I guess many of their APS-C offerings have this too. It’s also a reason why I’m very interested to see what rangefinder styles Fuji does next, hopefully a new X-Pro. If I don’t try out another manufacturer, I could see this as being my second camera…

[priort (Todd Prior)]

Nikon Zf???

[europlatus]

A very nice looking camera, but not really compact. Would love to try that one too though.

[afre (Alan)]

Pretend to be a journalist or reviewer. Join their fancy release or review party. Have some fun on the house. Sell your soul. Now, you know what the camera/lens is all about.

[snibgo (Alan Gibson)]

@ChristopherPerez

… re-create the Jacques Henri Lartigue racecar effect.

[bastibe (Bastian Bechtold)]

Thank you for your long post. I agree with you on every point.

I’ll add that the camera is impossible to tell from most pictures. Any picture online, can you tell if it was taken by a 10 year old full-frame Canon 5D2 with its measly 8 MP, or a nice Olympus with its “tiny” sensor but great IBIS, or a recent Sony with its fantastic autofocus? You can not. These are variables of interest to the photographer, but irrelevant to the photo.

The only cameras you can sometimes recognize are phone photos, on account of their aggressive overcooking. Even that can often be worked around with appropriate post processing and good light.

As a corollary, I find it useful to ask yourself what kinds of pictures you like to take first, and make a decision about camera requirements from that, second. I mostly do people pictures of my family in a run-and-gun fashion. Corner sharpness and maximum blur is of little import to me, but decent autofocus and speed of operation very much is. An X-T5 and GR are my weapons of choice. A landscape photographer friend of mine rightfully enjoys lugging around a D850 and a tripod. If you’re into birds or astro or studio portraits, this will dictate different gear choices.

[ChristopherPerez]

Thank you. This confirms the slitscan approach can work.

[ChristopherPerez]

Considering size, I’m still surprised at how large Fuji APS-C are.

Visiting a local swap meet for all things photographic, and just for grins I put a Sony A7 FF next to a Fuji APS-C.

Going the other way, I took a Ricoh GR and put it next to a Sony NEX-5T. Hmmm… interesting things are a foot at the Circle-K.

[europlatus]

@bastibe

I find it useful to ask yourself what kinds of pictures you like to take first

Yes, very useful tip. The problem for me is that I like to take pictures of absolutely everything! I guess I’m not really into astro, but I’ve never actually tried it. I consider myself primarily an outdoor photographer, shooting natural and urban landscapes. But I also like to take pictures of wildlife and my family. I’ve even dabbled in macro.

For now, APS-C seems to be a sweet spot for my needs, as I appreciate its benefits in portability, depth of field and extra reach. Although a case for Micro 4/3 could be made… damn, now I’m going to have start researching that!
Of course, the other solution is to have a camera of each sensor size…

[elstoc (Chris E)]

@garrett you’ve perfectly summarised the reasons I moved from Canon to FujiFilm. I’ve always been more than happy with APS-C performance and never felt the need to go full frame, but Canon seem to see APS-C as merely a stepping-stone to “proper” cameras, and this was all the more obvious when I decided to move to mirrorless.

Yes they have some really good enthusiast APS-C cameras but their APS-C lens range is mostly cheap plastic (although some of them are still good lenses) and they would clearly prefer people to “upgrade” (after buying the APS-C cameras and some lenses first obviously). Unfortunately, while the cameras are light, I found that to get decent glass I needed to buy the big heavy FF lenses, thus pretty much negating half the reason for getting an APS-C camera.

I know Fuji make some consistently decent lenses and I know they fully support the APS-C format, rather than treating it as something only for the amateurs. Both me and my back are all the happier for it, and I still make good use of my Sony RX100m3 for those days when I really don’t want to carry lots of gear.

[independent]

Generally simplifying, if we are talking cameras for photo and I know it’s fun and everything but all cameras made in the last 5 or more years with a Sony or Canon sensor are good enough. More than that, all Sony sensor cameras made in the last 8 years look the same. For photo anyway. Exceptions might be the A7s or Something with a starvis style sensor *Gh5s? Those are pretty nice and have a lovely subtle quality to them.

So, what can you put on them? Something like E-mount is great for playing with old lenses. A7s with it’s slightly thinner sensor and great DR and everything is still an amazing camera. Just getting old now.

For video, how much processing goes on is all the difference here. IMO all the DLSM cameras suck in one way or another in this regard. Too much processing.

[europlatus]

@elstoc

Yes they have some really good enthusiast APS-C cameras but their APS-C lens range is mostly cheap plastic

I got out my old Canon Rebel T3i/600D APS-C yesterday just to have a play with it. I was amazed at how loud the clicking was on the front command dial. It sounded like a cheap plastic toy from the 1980s. Good camera for its price, but not a premium feel at all. Likewise, the 18-55 kit lens it came with is just plastic and doesn’t zoom smoothly at all. These things didn’t matter to me at all when it was my main camera, but I definitely feel the difference now that I shoot a modern mirrorless camera.

I do appreciate that Fuji APS-C cameras and lenses all have a high-end feel to them, even the kit lenses. You certainly pay for that as far as the lenses are concerned, but they don’t generally feel overpriced compared to the competition.