livefromphilly wrote:
I have an X100V which I love but APS-C just isn’t the same.
I have prints from my many Fujis over the years. Online, and in print up to 20" or so, APSC is just fine.
I'm not sure what shot I'd take with a Z F that couldn't be done on an X100 and deliver measurable gains in those under 20" realms, all while losing the things that make the Fuji a far more compelling one-off camera (if you're after a 35mm equivalent of course).
RoamingScott wrote:
I have prints from my many Fujis over the years. Online, and in print up to 20" or so, APSC is just fine.
I'm not sure what shot I'd take with a Z F that couldn't be done on an X100 and deliver measurable gains in those under 20" realms, all while losing the things that make the Fuji a far more compelling one-off camera (if you're after a 35mm equivalent of course).
Um.... You don't think that you could get shots with a longer or shorter lens on a Zf that you couldn't get with a X100V and it's permanently attached 23m F2 lens?
oguruma wrote:
Um.... You don't think that you could get shots with a longer or shorter lens on a Zf that you couldn't get with a X100V and it's permanently attached 23m F2 lens?
1) i wasn't talking to you
2) i was talking in the context of buying a Z F as a single prime lens one off camera
RoamingScott wrote:
I have prints from my many Fujis over the years. Online, and in print up to 20" or so, APSC is just fine.
I'm not sure what shot I'd take with a Z F that couldn't be done on an X100 and deliver measurable gains in those under 20" realms, all while losing the things that make the Fuji a far more compelling one-off camera (if you're after a 35mm equivalent of course).
Low light is the big one for me; shooting ASP-C at high ISOs looks significantly worse than shooting with full frame. You can mitigate some of it with software (DXOMark’s PureRAW is great at this) but full frame has always given me better results.
livefromphilly wrote:
Low light is the big one for me; shooting ASP-C at high ISOs looks significantly worse than shooting with full frame. You can mitigate some of it with software (DXOMark’s PureRAW is great at this) but full frame has always given me better results.
'Significantly'? I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Nothing visible in 'normal' use, at A3 or A2. Sure you an see it at 200%, and measure it, but it's largely irrelevant now in use, unlike 10 years ago.
livefromphilly wrote:
Low light is the big one for me; shooting ASP-C at high ISOs looks significantly worse than shooting with full frame. You can mitigate some of it with software (DXOMark’s PureRAW is great at this) but full frame has always given me better results.
That's funny because I bake grain into my X100 jpegs...I like em grainy! If I want clean I'll shoot my Z8.
gyoung143 wrote:
'Significantly'? I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Nothing visible in 'normal' use, at A3 or A2. Sure you an see it at 200%, and measure it, but it's largely irrelevant now in use, unlike 10 years ago.
Gerry
I acknowledge that “normal” is relative, but I regularly shoot at ISO 12800 on my full frame Sony bodies and get much better results than on the APS-C cameras I own (right now just the X100V and Ricoh GR III). I’m not much of a pixel peeper either, at least not with high ISO shots.
gyoung143 wrote:
'Significantly'? I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Nothing visible in 'normal' use, at A3 or A2. Sure you an see it at 200%, and measure it, but it's largely irrelevant now in use, unlike 10 years ago.
Gerry
In low-light situations, It's about a full stop if you're assuming all the variables are the same. An f2 lens on a crop sensor produces about the same amount of noise as a f2.8 full frame sensor lens.
Is that stop "significant"? I suppose that depends on your criteria.. In a lot of low-light situations, one stop of noise is the difference between a useable photo and a non-useable photo.
RoamingScott wrote:
That's funny because I bake grain into my X100 jpegs...I like em grainy! If I want clean I'll shoot my Z8.
I do have a few Fuji recipes with grain baked in to emulate film stocks like Tri-X and Natura so I’m not necessarily grain intolerant, but I like clean shots at times as well. I have an A7RIV that does a good job, but I’d love to be able to get clean shots and have a classic style body. Kind of a best of both worlds situation.
oguruma wrote:
In low-light situations, It's about a full stop if you're assuming all the variables are the same. An f2 lens on a crop sensor produces about the same amount of noise as a f2.8 full frame sensor lens.
Is that stop "significant"? I suppose that depends on your criteria.. In a lot of low-light situations, one stop of noise is the difference between a useable photo and a non-useable photo.
lenses don't produce noise. They can affect exposure and DOF, though.
tobycat2 wrote:
lenses don't produce noise. They can affect exposure and DOF, though.
Yes, obviously the lens doesn't produce the noise.My point is that a photo taken at a given aperture on a crop sensor camera will have about as much noise as the same photo taken at a one stop smaller aperture with a full frame camera, ie my X-T4 shot at f2 will produce the same amount of noise as my D610 at f2.8 (all else being equal). It's not the lens causing the noise, it's the fact that even though the exposure may be technically the same, the amount of "signal" is less with the smaller sensor. And of course crop sensor has more DOF at a given focal length/same composition, versus full frame because the crop sensor will be farther from the subject, and thus focused closer to infinity.
Wrong wrong wrong. Aperture in terms of light gathering is the same across all fstops across all formats.
Smaller sensors are noisier at the same ISOs as larger sensors because the photosites are smaller and the sensors are smaller. It has zilch to do with the lens or the aperture.
RoamingScott wrote:
Wrong wrong wrong. Aperture in terms of light gathering is the same across all fstops across all formats.
Smaller sensors are noisier at the same ISOs as larger sensors because the photosites are smaller and the sensors are smaller. It has zilch to do with the lens or the aperture.
Nope, larger aperture gives brighter illumination of sensor negating the effect of smaller photosites. (And giving roughly the same DoF too. Edit, not correct without further explanation regarding scale and distance, see below)
RoamingScott wrote:
Wrong wrong wrong. Aperture in terms of light gathering is the same across all fstops across all formats.
Smaller sensors are noisier at the same ISOs as larger sensors because the photosites are smaller and the sensors are smaller. It has zilch to do with the lens or the aperture.
Oy Vey.... I never said that the amount of light gathered BY THE LENS is any different. Yes, if the hole is the same size, then obviously the amount of light that goes through that hole is going to be the same.
My point is that: as an example, you can expect an equivalent amount of noise at f2 on a crop sensor, as you would at f2.8 on a full frame sensor. I never said the aperture size, itself, is the reason for that.
gyoung143 wrote:
Nope, larger aperture gives brighter illumination of sensor negating the effect of smaller photosites. (And giving roughly the same DoF too)
Correct, assuming a larger aperture is even available. For example, with Fuji X-Mount, for many of the common focal lengths, the largest aperture you can get is f1.4, and at that aperture, would produce about as much noise as a full-frame sensor at f2.
If you want to get the same amount of noise from as a full-frame body with an f1.4 lens, you can't do it, because Fuji doesn't make lenses that fast in most focal lengths.
It is incorrect that you get the same DoF, if you're talking about having roughly the same composition. For instance, suppose you shoot a subject thats 5 feet away with a 50mm lens on a full-frame body. You shoot the same subject, with the subject occupying the same amount of the frame, also with a 50mm lens, but on a crop sensor body. With the apertures being the same, you'll have more DoF on the crop sensor. Why? Because in order to have the subject occupying the same amount of the frame, you'll be farther away when you're using the crop sensor camera, and thus, your focus distance will be closer to infinity. Now, you could use a 35mm lens on the crop sensor (which would be about the equivalent of a 50mm on a ff sensor) and get about the same DoF.
oguruma wrote:
Correct, assuming a larger aperture is even available. For example, with Fuji X-Mount, for many of the common focal lengths, the largest aperture you can get is f1.4, and at that aperture, would produce about as much noise as a full-frame sensor at f2.
If you want to get the same amount of noise from as a full-frame body with an f1.4 lens, you can't do it, because Fuji doesn't make lenses that fast in most focal lengths.
It is incorrect that you get the same DoF, if you're talking about having roughly the same composition. For instance, suppose you shoot a subject thats 5 feet away with a 50mm lens on a full-frame body. You shoot the same subject, with the subject occupying the same amount of the frame, also with a 50mm lens, but on a crop sensor body. With the apertures being the same, you'll have more DoF on the crop sensor. Why? Because in order to have the subject occupying the same amount of the frame, you'll be farther away when you're using the crop sensor camera, and thus, your focus distance will be closer to infinity. Now, you could use a 35mm lens on the crop sensor (which would be about the equivalent of a 50mm on a ff sensor) and get about the same DoF. ...Show more →
Yes, you do need to have the aperture available, and only really works at more 'normal' apertures than really large aperture. f/2 onwards perhaps every rendering is fairly undramatic. There are quite a few f/0.9 lenses available for aps-c, but they and even most 1.4s have 'issues' at max aperture which would mean the picture wouldn't look the same.
Yes, my comment about DoF was not precise enough, scale and distance as you say are the essential factors. Done in hate and not thought through Apologies! Apologies.
Smaller sensors are not noisier by default and it’s got little to do with the photosite sizes for like-technology.
The image produced by smaller sensors can appear noisier by virtue of it having a smaller total area so the signal potential is lesser. So it’s not really the sensor being noisier but it having less signal. The ratio of signal to noise is what makes the image look cleaner or noisier.
So when you expose the smaller sensor with the same per unit illumination (ie. the same f-number), you get less total signal because a smaller sensor has less unit area.
But you don’t get the same DoF. DoF is the equaliser so if you want the same DoF, you need to use a smaller aperture on the larger sensor and this whole concept is very adequately explained by equivalence theory which sets out the conditions to get an equivalent image.
For better low light performance on a larger sensor, it always comes at the sacrifice (or advantage depending on what you’re trying to achieve) of shallower DoF for a constant lighting condition.
On a practical basis you often run out of larger aperture lenses on the smaller format to achieve the same equivalent image as on the larger format, not to mention very large apertures involves extreme ray angles which causes all sorts of optical aberration issues. But also on a practical basis, we’re talking fairly low light conditions for the differences to be readily apparent. Again assuming like for like tech generations which may not always be the case in comparisons.
