Full Frame v's Crop Sensor - Which Camera is Better? (Print comparison)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июл 2024
- 📷 Level up your landscape photography game with my composition ebook - www.iworthphotos.com/store/co...
Join me on a photography adventure - Check out my workshops and tours - www.iworthphotos.com/workshops
Check out my Zine & Print packs👉 www.iworthphotos.com/store
Today I compare the difference between a full-frame sensor and a crop sensor camera, I share image quality comparisons in Lightroom and also in print. I did this comparison from a landscape photographer's perspective.
Please let me know your thoughts in the comments. 👍
Artlist Max - The best music, sfx, templates, plugins, editing software! Use this link to get 2 months free on any annual subscription plan: bit.ly/Artlist-Ian_Worth
Best stock footage around - get 2 free months: bit.ly/Artgrid-Ian_Worth
Awesome VFX/Motion graphics assets: bit.ly/Motion-Array-Ian_Worth
Free video editing software: bit.ly/FX-Home-Ian_Worth
The BEST plugin for Fuji raw photos - Try it for free - DxO PureRaw3: tidd.ly/3wFxKIP
---------------------------------------📸------------------------------------------
👉 JOIN THE PHOTOGRAPHERS CLUBHOUSE www.iworthphotos.com/clubhous...
👉 VISIT MY WEBSITE - www.iworthphotos.com/
👉 MY FREE NEWSLETTER - Don't miss a video! - bit.ly/2Y7uDZN
👉CHECK OUT MY CAMERA GEAR - www.iworthphotos.com/my-gear
---------------------------------------🎥-------------------------------------------
VIDEOS YOU MIGHT LIKE -
5 photo techniques I use all of the time: • 5 Intermediate Photogr...
Pro photographers do this, so can you: • Pro Landscape Photogra...
landscape photography with the Canon R5 : • FULL FRAME Landscape P...
landscape photography with the fuji x-h2 : • A Jaw-Dropping Evening...
Binge-Watch my vlogs - Playlist - bit.ly/3kJoK2u
---------------------------------------📱---------------------------------------------
CONNECT -
Web site: www.iworthphotos.com/
Email: ianworthphotography@yahoo.co.uk
Vero @ian_worth
Instagram: @ian_worth / ian_worth
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
00:00 Intro crop sensor v full-frame sensor
00:42 taking photos with full frame & crop sensor cameras
#cropsensor #fullframe #photography
The above may contain affiliate links, which incur no additional cost to you but may earn me a small commission.
👉👉 Quick question, which sensor size do you prefer and why? 👍👍
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.
APS-C for price, weight and crop for tele. Best compromise. The new 40MP (X-T5) and DXO Pure RAW or the new LR Denoise a NoBrainer.
APS-C but if possible APS-H
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.
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!
Exactly the same. The Eos 5D stays more and more in the office... very happy with the XT-5
Images are sharper due to higher pixel density
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.
Awesome Ian. Thank you for taking the time to do this. Still love my X-T2.
Awesome 👍
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😄👍
Thank you so much 😊👍
Ian... fantastic and informative as always!
Thanks buddy
Well done, Ian. Excellent comparison!
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.
Thank you for a thorough and comprehensive review.
Thank you so much for this video! It made my day, wait - it probably made my year!! 👏👏👏
Awesome 👍👍
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.
Yeah, it really does make a big difference to fuji files in lightroom 👍
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.
Love your work and you're a great teacher. Thank you for sharing your knowledge 😎👌
My pleasure! Thanks for watching👍👍
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.
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 🙂
awesome mate. 👍
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
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.
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.
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.
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 🤣🤣
Great comparison and info, thank you for the hard work comparing these two great cameras. One thing to note is that though the size and weight of the bodies is quite similar it is the lenses weight and size that create the greatest difference in FF vs APSC systems. You can get lenses of similar size and weight (like the Fuji 50-140) but you also often have the option to go with much smaller and lighter lenses of similar quality (maybe with a 1 stop deficit of f4 instead of 2.8) for when you want small and light. For example when you are hiking or traveling or just headed out for a day with friends etc. It is also going to depend on what you predominantly shoot. i.e. for thing like sports, motorcars, birds in flight and wildlife in general you are going to want (need) the best and fastest AF in the industry as well as high buffer speeds. I would venture to say that for 95% of non professional 'togs todays MFT, FF or APS-c will meet their needs perfectly. Those who specialize or shoot professionally will know exactly what their needs are in a camera body and lenses...basically for the 99% of you reading this you can't go wrong with any brand high-end camera body on the market today. The other 1% are pros and they are not reading this review :) Two thumbs up Ian! Cheers. PS: I shoot Fuji and Sony FF
Like you said Matt, what you shoot will dictate what system is best for the individual. Sports, Astro and wildlife, probably FF , high end advertising - medium format, everything else I would go with apsc. 😊👍
Fun to look at the results. Good test. Thanks.
Thanks for watching 👍👍
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!
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.
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 !!
Thanks Alain 👍
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.
Very interesting, buddy 👍👍
This is a great video that touches subjects that have stymied my workflow for a long time. In order to get equivalent detail and image quality from a Fujifilm XTrans camera, you have to go to greater lengths, spend extra time, and confuse everything by constantly chasing the best conversion for the Fujifilm. I use PURE RAW 2 for the X-H2s. It is night and day against almost every other converter I have used. XTransformer does a good job as well.
I have found that using the exact same lens and a Bayer Fuji, the details are far better than the XTrans version using the same lens. And, the same APS-C lens put on a Canon S1R @20MP, the amount of detail that is pulled from images favors the S1R. I am probably in the tiny minority out there, but I really wish Fujifilm used Bayer in their H2 rather than XTrans. It would fix basically ALL the problems necessitating using Ai applications like RAW 3.
In the end, I have opted to move away from Fujifilm because in a high-count image pipeline (I shoot catalogues and magazines and advertising for new products), including stacks, the amount of time and number of steps to achieve nearly as good IQ that I get from Bayer sensors without extra work, isn't worth it. The X-H2/s platform is beautiful and well made. I wish Fujifilm could put aside their pride and go Bayer.
Very good comparison 👏
Thanks 👍
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.
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.
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!
DxO Pure Raw 3 saved me from going back to full frame from Fuji. The large prints I am getting from my XH2/XT5 files are amazing now.
Yeah, I agree 👍
Thanks Ian, really interesting.
Glad you found it interesting 👍
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??
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)
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...
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.
Thanks buddy 👍
Great video 👍
Many thanks 👍👍
- 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Really good comparison, both really good cameras and lenses. Would have been interesting ifyou had gone upa bit more in iso during nighttime.
yes I agree, i only had the canon for 3 days though so I kind of ran out of time to do any more testing 👍
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
Thanks for the video! DXO PureRaw 2/3 have been a godsend for using Fujifilm files in Lightroom with my X-T4/X-T5 (and hopefully soon X-H2). I would have switched systems by now if not for the AI noise reduction benefits provided by PureRaw and Topaz.
Awesome 👍
I do notice a reddish tint on the Canon files, and a more neutral colors on the Fuji files. Personally I use Nikon cameras and Fuji XT3 and I like them both. Except here you are using the 40 megapixel sensor of the Fuji camera and that renders good detail to compare to the Canon 45 megapixel files. Good test on your part Ian. Thank you.
Thanks buddy 👍
thanks Ian. Using DXo as well and its a game changer for us Fuji shooters who use Lightroom. This comparison will also save many a lot of money!! great work.
Thanks Tony 👍
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.
Absolutely. In many Pure RAW 3 processing, Fuji photos have lot of artefacts.
Pretty interesting comparison, of cause this comparison is only interesting because of dxo pure raw, but that tool will become very popular among fuji users over the next years so it's a fair comparison. Personally I tried all the full frame options out there but always comes back to fuji
Thanks buddy 👍
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.
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.
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.
I've just picked up the 70-300, have to say I'm pretty impressed 👍
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.
The daft 'background music' drove me nuts!
Very interesting, as I sit here next to my 16-55mm and X-T5 (which is basically identical to the X-H2 for photography).
I remember doing all the comparisons over the years and generally found not all apsc are equal and in fact some perform poorly. Fuji on the other hand possibly due to the different sensor tech (Xtrans) is out on its own My last comparison was the D850 with the XH2 and it led me to change over completely With the right lenses the xh2 performed more or less the same as the D850 slightly more noise at higher ISO but not enough to notice unless at 400% DXO pure Raw was the final move from XTransformer but be aware of the massive file size.
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.
A point that I would make however is apart from Fuji, most other manufacturers are full frame focussed, so all their efforts seem to go there for the latest tech they innovate, best lenses etc so while apsc has reach and can be helped with denoise software now(apsc iso always bothered me on my 70d), I prefer to use full frame.
@@djstuc it's just been my own experience when I used to have a 70D, then to a 5D4. So much cleaner looking files.
The half kilo difference makes the point
Yeah, weight is definitely a major factor, especially for camping and hiking trips 👍
And it’s good for the neck and back as well.
Hi Ian, really nice video!! Did you try the new denoise ai of lightroom? Seems on par or in some cases even better than pure raw.
I haven't had a chance yet, but will do very soon 👍
Interesting that there's a distinct colour difference in the A3 prints despite the identical shooting times. Both look great, btw.
Yes the colours are different, i noticed that too, I had the WB set to cloudy i think.
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).
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.
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.
Great video. But, put one fuji picture in a room and a canon picture in another room and i promise no one will be able to say which was which.
very true 👍
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.
Awesome Robert 👍👍👍
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!
Holy smokes that DXO Pure Raw 3 is the business. It's early days, but this may be the final nail in the coffin for my full frame gas pains. 🙂👍
it really is a great plugin 👍
Love shooting Fuji. It’s like the underdog of the industry
Got to love the underdog 👍
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.
Just curious to see how those two compared with Capture One as the software render Fujifilm's files better than Light Room.
Difference between GFX (medium format) and full frame sensor is much larger than between full frame and cropped sensor
true
Thank you for doing this comparison. As with all matter’s Photography. It’s ‘horses for courses’ . I am a hobbyist and mainly take landscape (incl street, cityscape/urban). What your comparison shows. From a pure ‘output’ perspective my Fuji setup makes more sense and certainly kinder on the pocket. I have DXO (stand-alone and Lightroom ‘plug-in’). Do you run the Fuji RAW file through DXO first converting to a DNG and then importing to Lightroom. Or do you import the Fuji RAW into Lightroom first, sending it to DXO to save as a DNG back to Lightroom to continue edit. Also when the Fuji RAW is opened in DXO are you simply saving as a DNG or do you get DXO to do anything else to the RAW file other than saving/converting to a DNG. Sorry for long winded comment/questions.
Usually i import all of my photos straight to lightroom, then select the photos i want to keep and batch convert them to a dng ready for editing. 👍
@@ian_worth Thanks for your reply. Have you made a video that incorporates this element of your workflow? Must admit to being a bit of a novice here and new to DXO.
Can you do the same with SOC jpegs?
I think a better comparison could be done within the same systems. Comparing full frame and apsc for canon and fuji separately.
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.
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.
I shoot m4/3 and happy with it. I have a large lens selection, smaller bodies(depending), smaller lenses plus IBIS.
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)
r u stitching from fuji to canon if so why as thought u ejoyed fuji ive got nikon and olympus and considering swapping to a fuji not sure either the xh2 or xh2s or both camera bodies have u tried the fuji xf 18-135 lens
No I'm not switching systems, just interested to see how things compare to other brands. 👍
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 :)
What if you focus stacked?
Hi, I was curious what camera do you use to record your videos?
Hi Mike, its the fuji XS10 you can view my full gear list here - www.iworthphotos.com/my-gear
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.
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.
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.
We're you doing a review of the lenses or the bodies??
I went from Nikon to Fujifilm and happy with the results. Even my Leica is not that much better than my Fujifilm XT5
Will you be looking at the new Lightroom Ai Denoise features as it support X-Trans? Be interesting to see how that changes the game if at all.
yes, i will be taking a look into that, it looks very interesting 👍
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
Fuji All Day Long and Twice on Sunday !!
Would probably have been better to use Silkypix pro to process both as the processing could have been kept identical
Is full frame worth double the cost??? Going from my Nikon D3300 to Sony a6600 would be major jump, but I am considering Sony a7III.
Love Carew, but it can be challenging
indeed it can, buddy 👍👍
Hi Ian thanks for the great video. Does AI within DXO conversion produce any weird artefacts like using up scaling software with AI?
I haven't found any artifacts so far 👍
From other reviews, yes it can ….. I haven’t noticed in landscapes / woodland, but did see a review where it did show on one section of text …. That said there are several settings for the conversion … I was using DeepPrimeXD, which makes the biggest impact … the other options don’t use AI, or less AI
@@grantnewton5705 I wasn’t aware you could use less AI, I guess will also get better as time goes by.
@@ian_worth Hi Ian what AI settings did you use for the conversion out of interest.
@@martinparker5872 I’m not sure of all the details, but there are several settings - DeepPrimeXD takes quite some time to create the new DNG while the other methods are quicker, but I understand they have less effect, but I had a finely detailed image, so went for the biggest impact …. The 30 day trial is worth downloading to see if it works for you
Very interesting comparison! Of course, since I shoot Fujifilm, I'm happy to hear there's a negligible difference between the FujiFilm and Cannon systems! What was the most interesting was the price-to-value ratios though. The Canon was far from twice as better than the Fuji setiup so the more expensive FF didn't deliver the value for the price. Thanks for this informative video.
yeah, in terms of image quality there's little difference, there's plenty of other reasons why someone may choose one system over the other though, I know a lot of wildlife photographers are pretty keen on canon full frame gear. Similarly, a lot of street photographers like the smaller fuji system. I guess there's no right or wrong answer, just what fits the individual. 👍
@@ian_worth and cameras like the Canon, Nikon, Sony are built to withstand heavy use and abuse while with the Fujifilm APA-C bodies you have to be very careful how you treat them. I shot Nikon for many years in all types of environments and weather with zero problems… so there’s that. Thanks again.
What’s the camera bag you have there
Sure, its by lowepro, you can check out all of my gear here 👉 www.iworthphotos.com/my-gear
That is why Fujifilm shooters might consider DxO Photolab Elite 6 as their main RAF processor. I don't use any Adobe products so DxO is the number 1 choice.
yes, I've got Photolab too, its a nice piece of software 👍
I concur about the low light limitation of Fuji, vs FF. Still apart from that I love how Fuji renders landscapes. Will certainly try DXO camera raw 3 on my XT5 files, thanks for your thoughts
Many thanks 👍
good
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.