I started with an APS-C camera when I got into photography and stuck with that as it is more friendly on the budget, and weight and size of lenses to get a certain reach at given aperture also is a consideration. I do sometimes want more dynamic range for night-time shots. And a full frame sensor would give me an advantage there. But a real step up would be to go to medium format then -- I've not yet been convinced, that the extra dynamic range of a high-res full frame sensor is worth it for me.
26mpx is enough, with 40mpx you need very good lenses to have a better image. If you put low-end tires on a Ferrari what's the point of expecting super performance, same thing for photography.
I think I'm in the APS-C camp as well. I do see the advantage of full frame in certain conditions, but the price difference and lens setup is definitely a consideration. I used to chase the new and shiny tech gear, but I think when I upgrade from my basic beginner kit (Canon Rebel T3), I'll pick up something in the APS-C lineup.
Год назад
Went from Canon to Fujifilm X last year. So incredibly happy with the quality! Images are sharper due to the fact that the X-Trans sensor does not need a low-pass filter. If there is noise, it looks nicer, too. Very pleasing JPGs and robust raw-files, too. Would have had to invest easily double the money to get a comparable set of camera and glas for Canon. And would have to carry a lot more weight. So Fujifilm X APS-C was the best upgrade for me!
I would stay with Canon if RF mount were open. The good quality RF glass it's crazy expensive and there aren't alternatives allowed. I would love Canon opening RF mount even in a controlled way, like "only APSC lenses". I think that would benefit Canon too.
I wonder what a comparison would look like for a sunrise or sunset image, where there is a high dynamic range or for an astro-image, which is often shot at higher ISO in low light. Another question is to what extent this comparison tests the sensor, or the lens. Is softness in corners result of lens softness, or lack of light? Hard to test that one!
Never forget that above the sensor there's a pattern of Red, Blue and Green square so the sensor can "read" the colours of the scene. Most camera's manufacturers ( Sony, Canon, Nikon ... ) use the Bayer sensor while Fuji is the only one using a pattern of its own hence X Trans. It's impossile, for me, to go into the details of the differences ( mostly bigger groups with more green squares ) but it's easy to find anywhere on internet. Fuji being a very small part of the camera market ( 5 or 8% may be ) Adobe has never developed a specific way for demosaicate ( sorry for my english ) the X Trans pattern while Capture did it quite early ( as with every other brands you can get a specific C1 Express for your brand ) and DXO only did it last year ( previously they didn't even tested the Fuji optics mostly because of this non Bayer pattern ) So, yes, RAF files in LightRoom don't get their full potential as opposed to DXO Please tell me in the comments if i'm wrong ( not for my english, i'm sure i am )
While X-Trans are not properly demosaic-ed in LR, recent versions have done a great job in my experience. I've even stopped using Iridient X Transformer to convert DNGs. Iridient was way too RAW for me, exposing all the flaws of the X-Trans that were by default corrected in a RAF file. I did a few tests using various strengths of noise reduction+corrections with Iridient X vs LR native import and was surprised that most of the time LR did a decent job.
I confess not doing full proper tests in Lightroom, but I can confirm that my RAF files in Capture One please me more than my sony arw files in Lightroom and Sony's own raw editor.
As I gain more experience I am valuing the cost and performance of the lenses far more than the sensor size. APS-C performance from Fuji has been improved by, I hate to say, the “latest and greatest” glass. Better image quality and hit rates for sure, even though many older lenses remain excellent choices. I’m resisting FF as mostly unaffordable for what I’d actually be gaining.
Hi Ian, I did a similar comparison actually because I own a Nikon D850 and I've recently printed some of my work from my Fuji film XT5 which I've had now for about three months. I found it really really difficult to find much difference to be honest in the detail level it was actually a little bit of difference in colours, but that's just the colour science of the sensor and you will always get that. I actually found the Fujifilm to be sharper. Yeah I probably get more dynamic range out of my Nikon D850 and I understand that but that's okay that will always be the case. But the most situations I felt the Fujifilm camera actually was just is good. What I did preferred I was the colour of the Fuji in your comparison. I actually feel the Canon was a bit washed out now. I know that some little bit a personal preference and maybe I'm inherently a little bit biased towards Fuji, but I actually liked the colour in the Fuji better I light the texture. I don't like washed out types of photos where there's a little bit of white in the image and I thought that was in the Canon that I was looking at, but that's just a personal I think and it was a great video to compare to. I don't think you're losing a lot. Lightroom has just been updated as well with some more de noise software and it looks pretty good. I have never been a big fan of using external software
Totally agree. Pure Raw 3 "saved" me from switching to something other then Fuji. Noise, sharpness and clarity dissapointed me more and more since I print regulary. Pure Raw works magic. I get the same sharpness and clarity as my full frame camera. Highly recommend. You can try it for 30 days without limitations or watermark.
I downloaded recently and agree …. It does wonders …. The clarity in high frequency detail is incredible. I have recently compared an ISO200 woodland image on LrC Enhance detail with either new Denoise vs PureRaw 3 and PureRaw 3 is clearly better. A couple of years ago I did a similar comparison of LrC standard, LrC Enhance detail, CaptureOne and Iridient X Transformer plugin for LrC …… LrC standard was clearly worse, while the other 3 were very similar. PureRaw 3 really steps it up another notch ….. that said I think I prefer the LrC colours …. PR3 seems slightly cooler. LrC is a great piece of software otherwise, just the raw demosaicing for xtrans is a problem.
I shoot and print Fujifilm photos and my SOOC are very clear and very sharp. You will get noise and clarity issues with any camera. You learn how to use the camera you have to deliver the results you want. Totally agree, though, that Pure Raw 3 is a fantastic companion to LR to help enhance the photos where I have had to sacrifice ISO to get sharp motion pictures.
I have used both systems since the X-pro 1 came in 2012. For more and more work the Fujis where my main system, and now I am using the X-H2 everyday and I'm very happy with it. And so is my neck and back. And the files and the colors are just a pleasure to look at. I shoot a lot of architecture and interior and it's just so perfect for that. Some say the smaller sensor is not for pros but that is so wrong.
I have both Canon RP (Full frame) and Canon M6 Mark II (APS-C). No doubt, using the same lens (Usually an EF lens with an adapter) there is little to no difference, however, there is a huge difference with noise and the way the software treats the noise (I don't use DXO Pure Raw, but rather Topaz Photo AI). Since the RP has lower resolution it can soot in much higher ISO with better denoising result. I can easily shoot at 6400 ISO on the RP, but the M6 would really strugle.
Comparing camera quality using different price point, is so unfair. Comparing using same aperture is unfair also. The aperture should be different, because of different focal length. we all know about aquivalence right?! it should be: Same field of view (different focal length), same aperture equivalece (different f number), same shutter speed, the ISO is the thing that should follow to make a correct exposure. Comparing Fujifilm XH2 VS Canon R6 is more fair because of the same price point. using fair comparison, i'm sure that crop sensor is better.
Very thorough and interesting comparisons, Ian; but not surprising. The improved performance of the Canon in low light would be totally expected. To me, the remainder of your tests showed that proper understanding of your system and processing technique will lead the user to similar results in either case. I've used Nikon, Fuji and Sony. I do like the full frame size and that's mainly for cropping ability without over compromising on the number of pixels. However, I'm not about to give up my very capable and lighter Fuji X-T3 and 16:55mm lens which give me very comparable landscape images to my Sony system. Again, nice job Ian.
It's a matter of personal taste & price, weight...to say it clearly. For instance, i like the better shallow DoF with 36x24mm Sensor gear, but that changed nowadays...for instance, one could get the "fullframe" look with the newly released Viltrox 27mm F1.2, in terms of DoF, onto that beautiful Fujifilm APS-C gear. For instance, if i don't want to lug a heavy (L) lens, i just grab my 5D II with the 24-85 USM. The gear does cost nowadays next to nothing, well, compared to the original price into 2008...usually, APS-C/DX based gear is a stop behind in terms of DR, behind "FF" gear.
I made my own comparison with the same camera brand, the same software , the same depth of field and same focusing.point. The FF was better than the APS-C (.detail, noise, dynamic’ colour rendition)
Very interesting. I went through that process of choosing between full frame and cropped sensor less than a year ago. I ended up with an APSC camera, the Canon R7, for landscape photography. I figured that when I was using a tripod, low light performance was not as critical. I like the extra reach of the APSC system when I want to catch a mini scene in a busy environment (lots and lots of trees in Canada!). Also, shallow depth of field is probably not as desirable for landscape. I might buy a full frame camera at some point, but Ian's video makes me wonder if it is even necessary. Great video, as always!
Sensor Size has no real barring on better or worse. It's the rest of the camera that does. Neither. That goes for all cameras. The faster people learn that these are TOOLS the faster these debates end. Full Frame has less depth of field than APS-C based on field of view. APS-C has less shallow depth of field than Full Frame based on field of view. Which is better? APS-C and Super35 which are the standards of most working professionals who put food on the table. Lens design is the real reason to choose Full Frame. APS-C has greater pixel density which makes it better for distance. Full Frame systems are upsold to photographers to help camera companies stay more profitable. APS-C sensors have higher read speeds, yet the manufacturers don't allow for the same or higher frame rates 😅 Smaller the sensor, faster the read speeds b/c of the physical size difference. If they were to put the same tech in APS-C they'd cannibalize the FX market. Same tech such as AF, Memory, Shutter, etc. This question is easier answered when you compare Full Frame to Medium Format. Is a Full Frame sensor better than a Medium Format sensor? Depends on the NEED and what's allowed not to collapse its own market.
There isn’t really a dof advantage to APSC for landscapes since you can just stop the lens down on full frame. You’ll get exactly the same results shooting at 16mm f8 and 100 ISO on apsc as you would a 24mm at f11 and 200 ISO on full frame. The only time you’d actually get a deeper dof benefit you couldn’t replicate on FF is if you’re shooting at f22 on apsc, since FF lenses generally don’t stop down to f32. But the pictures would be terrible by that point anyway.
"As a landscape photographer, image detail is very important". Image detail is a landscape photographer? Or did you mean to say "TO a landscape photographer..."?
I have never owned a full frame. And I have never owned crop sensor only lenses. The idea of crop sensor = smaller is not real to me. The crop is used to take photos where you would have to crop big time on the FF. That happens to be the majority of my needs. I get better shots from my R7 than I would get from cropping an R5 image by 2. If you want to go wide etc. then FF is better. An R5 with a 16mm F2.8 lens is about the same size as a R7 with 10mm F1.8. So where is the size thing? I shoot mainly birds here on my land and my 20 year old 400 F5.6 L on my R7 is fantastic. For landscape- I think few cameras can match GFX. Even the old 50R and S. They just have a shit AF system. Even worse than Fuji crop cameras-which dont come even close to Canon or Sony. Shooting flying birds with a modern Fuji is almost like taking out my old Canon 40 D…. I did that successfully back then but why now? I use Darktable software and the R7 files are fantastic. DT certainly outperforms LR but it requires more time and know how. Thats fine with me. I enjoy the process and its a hobby. I do think the image quality of crop sensors are now pretty good. I am happy with what I can get in DT up to ISO 3200 easily- more if conditions are good. In the end it is about the glass. It becomes easier to make better glass, the bigger the sensor. It just costs more. An R5 on an RF 800 F5.6 will be better than my R7 on a EF 400 L 5.6, it just costs more. And I doubt it will be noticeable if you cant do a side by side comparison
I’d be interested if you did the same process but pushed the boundaries: greater dynamic range and higher ISO. Under the conditions you shot in, a micro 4/3rds probably would have come out excellent, and maybe even bested them in high res mode. DxO: I was weeks away from selling my Fuji X T3 and then I tried DxO Raw 3. It was as if I went from having the worst lens ever made to the greatest. Best money ever spent.
As a hobby photographer... crop or full frame doesn't f'ing matter. Nobody sees or cares about my pictures. I just shoot with what I have. It's all good.🤪
Don't ask which ONE to buy, but ask how many we pay and get what we expect. Using much higher cost to get similar pictures are questionable. Nowsday people use smartphone to take daily images and share them via social networks at once. That demands push phone camera development towards professional way, they always applied more ai tools or technology.
Really interesting comparison Ian, long gone are the days when perhaps full frame had an obvious difference or advantage! One thing for sure the apsc is great for when you want more pixels on a particular subject, then the difference can be quite obvious! I use both apsc and full frame, interestingly I’ve gotten some superbly detailed pano shots using a slightly longer lens with apsc, the detail can be outstanding. For those of us who don’t make a living from our photography a decent apsc system can be used for virtually and photographic discipline if one has the knowledge and understanding. Think I said before, your new office is looking very smart indeed! Cheers and all the best. 👍👏😀
Thanks buddy, yeah the office is looking better, just need to get a nice light and softbox that will fit in my room, my old one is a meter wide, I cant get through the door now. lol 🤣🤣
If anyone says the Canon images are £5000 better they are fibbing. Cameras are SO much better these days and the sensor size makes less difference than it used to. About 18 years ago I had a full frame and crop sensor Canon, and the difference was night and day. I'd happily have the Fuji and £5000 to go travelling (and less of a sore back from saving 500g!)
Ian, good comparison and analysis of the two sensors. I am glad you mentioned software. Lightroom by all accounts does a good job on Nikon and Canon RAW files, but much less so the RAW files of other makes. This is definitely an area DXO excels. Personally, I think it would have been a fairer comparison if you had made the depth of field the same on both cameras - so shoot at f5.6 on the Fuji and f8 on the Canon. This would have meant adjusting the ISO on the Canon to get the same exposure and although this may not have made a huge difference it would have given the Fuji a one stop advantage. In turn, this is likely to have brought the two cameras closer together in terms image quality in the shadow areas.
Sometimes I miss the small size of the apsc. That's why when I travel I sometimes bring only apsc lenses to use with my Sony a7R5 which is still 26mpx in apsc mode. I recently went on a trip to a wedding at the Grand Canyon and I brought the Sony 10-20mm f4, Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, and the Sigma 56mm f1.4.
Title of this should've been Full of Crop haha. I don't mean anything negative, I was just playing with the words there. Anyway, both sensors are good and really it depends what type of photographer you are.
Thanks for the effort in preparing the video. Love your work and i have been a follower since. One thing that surprised me was your decision to shoot the same aperture on both systems. The only reason why it caught my attention is because i shoot using canon, fuji and olympus systems. I sometimes adapt my canon 'ef mount' lenses on my fuji and m4/3 olympus cameras. One thing i learned the hard way was the so called 'lens sweet spot'. Now this is non-scientific but i leanred from experience using the same canon lens on all 3 systems that diffraction is dependent on sensor size and pixel density and not the lens. I own canon lenses that are razor at f/11 on canon bodies but found that f/8 would give me optimum results when mounted on Fuji and f5.6 on olympus. Again, my findings are not scientific but i thought i would share it.
I shoot portraits. And Canon...I se the same thing in the Fuji-lies as I do In Nikon files...this green-ish tint. I just don't like it. But that is me. :)
Wow! I was always sure that difference between crop and FF should be much move visible. My Canon camera is quite old and soon or later it will probably stop working and I will need to buy something new. I thought "well, probably its good time to switch to FF". Just about a month ago I decided to take a look at what is on the market. I noticed that since I checked prices last time many years ago, FF is still way more expensive :) In addition I will need to change all my lenses. So, switching to FF would cost a lot for me. Honestly, I didn't research in depth about difference in quality, that's why this video is so shocking for me. Yeah, there is a lot of info about DoF, dynamic range ,etc. But difference is so negligible for me. Yes, if you make money on your photos, you probably always need top quality. But for hobbyist like me switching to FF looks completely pointless. Well, at least this is my opinion, other people can think differently. Thanks a lot for your video! You saved a lot of money for me :)
Very instructive video Ian, thank you. I've already seen some great shots from you with the x-t3 and the xf50-140mm f2.8 and with the new AI denoising option in Lightroom, which is compatible with .RAF files, I'm going to keep my X-T4, less expensive, less heavy and after some reviews and tests with the XF150-600mm, there is less diffraction with a smaller 26mpx, compared to a 40mpx of an x-t5. I also use DXO Photolab6 with DeepPrime XD but with the new denoising AI option in Lightroom the competition is fierce. Thanks a lot for this comparaison !!
Excellent comparison! Would have loved so see though how the print looks when also the Canon R5 went trough DXO. Maybe it looks better if printed than on screen. It would also be really interesting to see the comparison for a more challenging (light) situation. Maybe a follow up video? Though it is great how well the Fujis compare, good to have that confidence.
Excellent comparison, thanks for analyzing this for everyone! I moved from an A7riii to a Fuji X-T3 a couple years ago and I don't regret it at all. The one and only scenario where the full-frame sensor pulled ahead was shooting straight into the setting sun, which I rarely do anyway. On another note - I'd be really interested to see a X-H2 print comparison using Lightrooms new AI noise reduction versus DxO Pure Raw 3. My expectation from my own experimentation is that the Lightroom AI looks cleaner, but a lot softer than DxO Pure Raw (I guess because DxO also sharpens). Anyway, mad kudos for all the hard work you do for us landscape geeks, thanks again! ---@lodestone_photography
Interesting comparison Ian. A lot closer in some respects than I thought too. When I tested the Fuji XT-3 and 16-55 lens combo I found that the sweet spot for the lens was around f5.6 towards f6.3 at the longer end so maybe the fuji could do better? Of course you lose DoF but could be worth it. I think if you did most of your work in low light situations then the FF camera would be the better choice as shown, a good test could be a sunrise shot with a large DR. In reality though the differences are small enough to not be a real issue in my view. Any of the current cameras from any brand are capable of producing outstanding images. Also double the cost is hard to justify on the results shown for what is a marginal gain. Imagine having one of these cameras 10 or 15 years ago??
Thanks Ian for the comparison. Now that Fuji has updated the focus I have a great all round camera in my xh2. Canon not allowing third party lenses is a huge negative as their lens prices are ridiculous compared to what is available for the Fuji system .
100% agreeing with you on the canon's decision to close their doors to 3rd party lenses. Long time canon user here before i added fujifilm into the mix few years ago. I still use canon though by adapting some of my great ef lenses. For landscape, the xh2 can compete but when shooting events and sports, i would still rely on my canon system. Even the fuji xh2s can't match with canon's recent af sysyem. I have tried it myself. I have not owned a sony but i believe their system can also br a good alternative for those who still prefer full frame experience as they have huge 3rd party lens support. Canon's decision to close.its doors to sigma and tamron i feel is a selfish decision specially that their quality lens offerings are too much for average income earners.
Canon lenses are very good but stupid expensive. Canon are very clever. The stuff they produce is for pros. BUT they know ordinary photographers want to be as good as pros and will spend the money to emulate them.
I think that the differences you saw in the shadows, could be mitigated if you had exposed to the right of the histogram, as you should do when shooting raw with the intent to edit before finalizing the image… exposing to the right, brings the shadows out of the noisier range of the spectrum, regardless if you shoot apsc, full frame, m43 or medium format. On film, expose for the shadows, this is where the most detail is kept on celluloid
Very interesting Ian, I use both sensor sizes but APSC the most mainly because equipment is normally lighter to carry smaller in size and also give great results for me.
Use to use Nikon 35mm format changed to Fuji, size, weight and cost. If I wanted to push quality to the extreme to print massive, beyond 60" on long side I would use GFX 100s. Please remember all cameras are full frame when they have the correct lens. If used an Apsc lens on a 4 thirds camera then it is cropped. The crop rubbish came about when Canon put an apsc sensor in a 35mm body with the lens designed for that camera hence the crop (many years back).
Hi Ian. This is a terrific piece of work. Your point about the quality of glass is very well made. For the Fuji system getting the Tamron 17-70 and Fuji 70-300 would save cash and deliver great optical results. Both are almost free of chromatic aberration. And with an X-T5, which I have, that saves another 200 quid. Those savings would more than cover the investment in DXO Pure RAW. Congrats for challenging very successfully the FF frame supremacy.
- High ISO noise: you can use a denoise program with better and better results with every new iteration - Lack of dynamic range: new software improves highlight and shadows recovery. The difference is not that huge between FF and APSC, but it's there. I think most of the time is not a concern even in demanding situations - D.O.F., there are pros and cons, for portrait is not a problem. Any APSC with a 85mm f 1.4 have shallower DOF than what's needed. If you want only the eye in focus, and the ears and the tip of the nose not in focus, well, maybe you will need a FF camera. But for a good normal subject isolation an APSC camera is more than enough, today we have ultra fast lenses that work very well fully open. A 50mm or 75mm, at f1.2 on a APSC camera is more than enough and could be better stopped down a bit. I don't understand the "ultra shallow DOF" fashion in newcomers to photography, as the old teachers said, at least the ears and the tip of the nose in focus please!!!! - Size: APSC is somewhat smaller. Not a big difference everytime, but APSC is at least smaller enough to be a factor in the decision - Price: a huge factor, price is sometimes even double with a FF system - Lenses: Sony and Fuji have a good system with a lot of good lenses. Fuji I think is the best for good quality at lower price, just for being APSC. Now Nikon Z, Sony and Fuji have access to Sigma, Viltrox and other manufacturers lenses. I think APSC is a very valid option, even the best option for the most people and pros. Full Frame growing cost and size can be only justified for the most demanding professional photographers.
The best camera is the one you’ve got. You learn how to use it, inside and out, and you’ll get great results. But shooting conditions will cause you to sacrifice something once in a while. I always sacrifice my shadows and ISO to get sharp motion shots. Pure Raw 3 is a big help and with the newer Fujifilm sensors, I can safely recover shadows.
I get the same results between the Nikon z6 and the Fujifilm xh2s. I think Fullframe is now getting like the story The king's new cloths everyone is drinking the Coolaid
Brilliant! Informative and to the point. This kind of content is exactly why you are one of my favourite youtubers. Now I´m even more satisfied with my X-T5 and XF 50-140😄👍
Hello I just can't decide which to buy between this 2 choices since they are both priced similar at $1500 a. Sony ZV-e10 with Sigma 16mm 1.4 & Sigma 56mm 1.4 b. Canon eos RP with Canon Rf 16mm 2.8 & Canon Rf 50mm 1.8 what would be your choice? at first I was sure with Canon cause its full frame but now I am slowly getting attracted with the Sony option because of that sigma lenses. PS. Gonna use them for event photogaphy/video.
Excellent comparison Ian, very much agree with your 'whole system' approach to the production of an image. I think it's fair to say DXO Pure RAW has changed how people will view APSC files. Previously I would have said my X-T3 image quality was 'good enough' and was happy to choose it over a full frame camera when taking the package as a whole (image quality, feature set, weight, etc). But since I've tried Pure RAW I'm even happier 🙂
For most of my pictures (mostly birds) I found that, DXO and Topaz both do a phenomenal job when it comes to removing noise, but sharpening is very hit or miss. With some pictures it looks great and very subtle, with others it just looks ridiculously over-sharpened, even when doing as little sharpening as possible. I really don't feel that well with relying on these programs too much, I usually use topaz to remove the noise and stick to C1 when it comes to moderate sharpening. Anyway, it seems like the 40 MP actually do make a lot of sense. Would be interesting to see, how it stacks up against lower megapixel FF cameras.
Honestly, even just with Adobe's recent-ish release of ai-based denoise in LR, even older cameras with much smaller sensors clean up to look great as shared images online or even smaller prints (8x10 or 11x14 in my tests, so a bit smaller than A3). At this point, I've sold off my Fuji GFX gear and pretty much just use a mixture of 3 different sensor sizes for ILC's: MicroFourThirds with an E-M1 Mark III and E-M5 Mark II (the latter being just 16mp and older, but still a fun camera that takes solid images, especially after some modern processing), APS-C with a Pentax KP, and Full Frame here and there with my Pentax K-1 Mark II. I've been testing cameras like the Pentax Q-7/QS-1/MX-1 and getting some great results for what it is. I'm ready to sell my K-1.II and E-M1.III for a G9 Mark II if it actually comes out and has specs on par with the OM-1. If not, then either a used OM-1 or OM-1 Jr if that actually comes out. The KP punches way above its weight in terms of IQ/low light performance. The resolution isn't going to match Fuji's new sensor, but I don't need sizes that large TBH. If I did, and it's a still subject, the E-M1.III's HiRes shot takes a LOT of detail coming in close to my GFX 50R for a lot of shots. Similar results with my KP and K-1.II with PixelShift (and less worry about movement due to only using 4 shots compared to Olympus' I think 6 or 8, it's gotten to require less and less over the years compared to the E-M5.II's version of HiRes). IMO, in terms of the video, the Canon, and It's locked out platform would NEVER be worth that price for me personally. It's better in a lot of ways out the box, for sure, but is it over 2 times better? Not for me; I'd rather use the money to travel and actually use the gear.
One small observation (as a Fuji user), the Canon (FF sensors) has more pleasing highlights to me - they seem to create more dimensionality and depth. The Fuji's highlights feel... flatter.
I'd like to see a comparison of the PureRaw3 plugin and the raw engine in CaptureOne. I changed from Lightroom to C1 as I was not happy with the results I got in Lightroom. As for FF vs. cropped: I have a Leica Q2 and an X-Pro3 - the Leica files have of course more detail, but nonetheless I mostly grab the Fuji, as it's lighter and I really like the rangefinder OVF. For snapshots as a "point and shoot" the Leica is great, but when I'm in the mood to take "thoughtful" and "artistic" pictures the Fuji gives me the flexibility I need.
Both cameras can do a lot sharper with prime lenses, especially Fuji with the latest primes like 18, 33, 56 or that Viltrox 75, since the 40mp sensor is a 91mp FF equivalent, which old primes or zooms could never resolve.
The Fuji X-H2 should probably have been shot at f/5.6 for 2 reasons. To get similar DoF, and also to avoid diffraction. It kicks in pretty early and at f/8 Fuji does some internal sharpening to reduce it.
Geez Ian, this video may provoke a response!! haha!! All camera these days are producing great results if good lenses and software are used. I must admit that seeing the results from PureRaw3 have made a noticeable impact …. Just wish such capability didn’t require the creation of a new DNG file, so workflow is slower … but not a big deal for landscape photography where the volume of images edited is relatively small. The main advantage of the full frame sensor is probably type extra stop of dynamic range, but unless the image is very high contrast, or heavily underexposed, it’s not an issue. The shadow on the roof may have been the R5s dynamic range, but more likely that PureRaw does tend to deliver a more contrasty default output than Lightroom, A little clarity or texture on the R5 image may help display the fine detail better. Working a bit harder with APS-C files yields excellent results. …. It’s up to us as photographer to create compelling images ….. gear has less than ever to do with it (admittedly some other genres do depend more on the gear)
What you see in forms a darker shadows on an processed files isn't as much about dynamic range as it actually is about tonality. The larger sensor simply has better tonality and thus becomes less contrasty unprocessed. Talking about dynamic range however as in lifting shadows and pulling highlights fuji really doesnt hold up to any ff offerinings today in my experience. I've played around with files from both the R, R6 and R5 and I've been able to pull stuff out of my ass I wouldn't dream of being able to do with my x-t3. That being said, you can work wonders with LR:s new denoise AI. Also, many do no know this but lenses actually impact the dynamic range quite a bit. Especially when shooting towards the sun or harsh light.
I agree with every point youe make Ian! Often it's the quality of the lens what makes the difference - as well as the processing software, not the size of the sensor. In my experience DxO Pure Raw 2 or 3 makes a huge difference especially for Fuji-files: It narrows extremly the gap to full frame- files. But of course you can also develop your full frame files with DxO, and you will get better results compared to Adobes RAW- converter. You then will almost get medium format quality out of your full frame files. In practice the difference doesn't matter in most cases. Some of my best selling images were made with a mFT- camera, and no client complained that it wasn't full frame. Netherless I love my Nikon Z- full frame system - the ergonomics of the bodies are outstanding, and so is the optical quality of the lenses.
DXO sensor ratings answer this question. Dynamic range, color and higher ISO capability is simply dominated by larger sensors. That said, you can get great pics with either sensor size.
Great Video Ian, the differences are so minuscule why would anyone bother spending double the price, especially When I actually prefer the colours out of my XT4 and XH2s compared with my previous Canon R6 when using Capture One.
Thanks Ian, very helpful although I am using C1 for Fuji as well as Sony/ Nikon - makes life easier. I am currently still happy using Xtrans III 24 MP bodies (X-H1, X-E3) and am generally very happy with the Fuji output, both jpeg & raw. I usually use DR on Fuji, underexpose by 1/3 of a stop and pull up the shadows in C1 a bit for very good results. Can't see much difference to my old Nikon DSLR gear with better sharpness and much lighter gear...
thank you for this comparing video... I have the R5 and the PureRaw (ver 2) and those days I was wondering how Fujifilm would be compared to my system. My friend sent me some raw file from his X-T5, but having side by side the same photo it helps a lot.. great job. One thing, not sure if it happens to you too, but with my R5, I have to change my "color space" because Adobe RGB does not render good color for the R5 (maybe just my case)
I use a Nikon D7500 and it takes amazing photos. I shoot wildlife and landscapes and can get crystal clear, highly detailed photos. It has a very good dynamic range and very good high iso tollerance. I always shoot jpeg, as 1. I hate editing and 2. It makes me a better photographer as I have to compose and get everything correct before taking the shot. I also prefer to take my time to capture the exact scene that I want in camera, which is absolutely possible.
Finally put my 7D MK2 down recently and picked up it's natural successor, the X-H2S. A huge learning curve but the first thing I noticed was how sharp the photos were. People will suggest that might be down to the lens? They were sharper using my existing Canon EF lenses with a Fringer adapter! I am told it is down to the X-Trans sensor. All I know is that I am really pleased to make the change.
apsc because easier to get sharper images and i shoot on a 35mm slr and a medium format forlind rangefinder for shallower depth of field. Apsc lets me adapt lenses fpr my 35mm camera onto the 🎉digital camera, cause i like the quality of the glass. Also can get more sharpness at lower apertures, for low light street photography, and i really ike how a 28mm lense and 50 mm lense read croped into the lense to wquivalents of 44/45mm and 75mms
I appreciate your approach to results driven, realistic comparisons. Of course all RAW files are designed for editing/development post capture. Nostalgia aside, there is no credible argument that says cameras should do it all. I recall in the days when slide films ruled landscape photography, many of us bitched about how restrictive slide technology was. Yes Adobe can't be bothered making a decent interface for .RAF. It's their loss that they are opening the door for me to drop Ps+Lr and Adobe completely since very soon, within a years so DXO, Capture One and ON1 will offer functionality that will eliminate the exclusiveness of Photoshop's features.
Thank you for the video. Interesting. Just a shame that you didn't use a Canon ASP-C camera as well, so we could see the difference between the X-trans and the Bayer sensors.
I use XT3 which I love, I am constantly thinking about the next step and your investigation confirms that the gains I would get from full frame are not worth changing my system and losing all the wonderful Fuji red badge lenses I have invested in. ( I use capture one anyway so lightrooms Fuji laziness is not an issue ) Low light detail is an area of interest but I find exposure bracketing fixes that for me in all but a few cases. If I do take the plunge it will be to GFX50s11 but keep the X trans system for lightweight travel, super wide and super telephoto. Thanks for a really well put together video Ian.
I would love a comparison like this with prime lenses, as the latest fuji primes (18 and 33 particularly) are so sharp. I know landscape photographers does not use so much prime but just to compare
I saw no issue with either image. Those are great prints. I would like to see this done with 2 Canon cameras. I'm sure the results would be comparable. Thanks!
I tried it on an ISO800 woodland shot … much better detail in the PureRaw (DeepPrimeXD) converted file …… the Denoise in LrC also adds the enhance detail function, but Adobe don’t seem to handle xtrans well …. The reviews suggest the noise reduction is very good with the new Denoise…. Just not the same detail
