Re: RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Jack Flesher wrote:
APSC. You'll again make wonderful postcard style travel images, and fare a bit better in lower light, but still not really great at really low light or shallow DoF looks or styles if that's what you're after. Size is nice compared to Canon and Nikon top tier FF, but this advantage is reduced significantly when Sony FF enters the discussion.
I’m going to disagree (collegially) with Jack on his description of the capabilities of APS-C.
First, though, I’ll agree that FF has capabilities in areas that are a bit more limited by APS-C. Objectively speaking, 40MP is not 66MP. You can get a bit more bokeh at a given aperture. Low light performance of larger sensors is a bit stronger.
So, with no argument from me, FF pushes the performance envelope a bit further than FF. (Just as miniMF pushes it a bit further than FF, etc.)
However…
“… You'll again make wonderful postcard style travel images…”
Well, yes. You can do that with any camera, from your smartphone on up to a Fujifilm GFX system. But I strongly disagree that APS-C is limited to just “postcard style” images.
I’ve sold prints of and licensed a number of APS-C images (in some cases with lesser cameras than the most recent from Fujifilm) and I’m dead serious that I am confident that my XT5 files will print with excellent quality at 20” x 30”. (Larger in some cases. I licensed a slightly cropped APS-C monochrome image of a San Francisco architectural feature to a commercial user at a 44” height — and that was with an earlier Fujifilm camera.)
I regularly do urban night street and travel photography with my Fujifilm system and the results are WAY beyond “postcard” quality.
Now I”m not saying that the APS-C format is ideal for all kinds of photography. I rely on high MP FF gear for almost all of my landscape photography, for example. And while I have done some wildlife photography with my Fujifilm system, it has been less reliable for that than my FF gear.
If I had only a single system, these days it would likely be Sony, and probably based on the A7r6 and the A7CR, with the latter making a reasonably smaller and lighter option if equipped with the right lenses. But with two systems — not for everyone, but works for me — I’m sticking with my Fujifilm APS-C system for travel and street photography given its somewhat smaller size, its manual controls, and Fujifilm’s system of native lenses.
Re: RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Jack Flesher wrote:
APSC. You'll again make wonderful postcard style travel images, and fare a bit better in lower light, but still not really great at really low light or shallow DoF looks or styles if that's what you're after. Size is nice compared to Canon and Nikon top tier FF, but this advantage is reduced significantly when Sony FF enters the discussion.
I’m going to disagree (collegially) with Jack on his description of the capabilities of APS-C.
First, though, I’ll agree that FF has capabilities in areas that are a bit more limited by APS-C. Objectively speaking, 40MP is not 66MP. You can get a bit more bokeh at a given aperture. Low light performance of larger sensors is a bit stronger.
So, with no argument from me, FF pushes the performance envelope a bit further than FF. (Just as miniMF pushes it a bit further than FF, etc.)
However…
“… You'll again make wonderful postcard style travel images…”
Well, yes. You can do that with any camera, from your smartphone on up to a Fujifilm GFX system. But I strongly disagree that APS-C is limited to just “postcard style” images.
I’ve sold prints of and licensed a number of APS-C images (in some cases with lesser cameras than the most recent from Fujifilm) and I’m dead serious that I am confident that my XT5 files will print with excellent quality at 20” x 30”. (Larger in some cases. I licensed a slightly cropped APS-C monochrome image of a San Francisco architectural feature to a commercial user at a 44” height — and that was with an earlier Fujifilm camera.)
I regularly do urban night street and travel photography with my Fujifilm system and the results are WAY beyond “postcard” quality.
Now I”m not saying that the APS-C format is ideal for all kinds of photography. I rely on high MP FF gear for almost all of my landscape photography, for example. And while I have done some wildlife photography with my Fujifilm system, it has been less reliable for that than my FF gear.
If I had only a single system, these days it would likely be Sony, and probably based on the A7r6 and the A7CR, with the latter making a reasonably smaller and lighter option if equipped with the right lenses. But with two systems — not for everyone, but works for me — I’m sticking with my Fujifilm APS-C system for travel and street photography given its somewhat smaller size, its manual controls, and Fujifilm’s system of native lenses.
Re: RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Jack Flesher wrote:
APSC. You'll again make wonderful postcard style travel images, and fare a bit better in lower light, but still not really great at really low light or shallow DoF looks or styles if that's what you're after. Size is nice compared to Canon and Nikon top tier FF, but this advantage is reduced significantly when Sony FF enters the discussion.
I’m going to disagree (collegially) with Jack on his description of the capabilities of APS-C.
First, though, I’ll agree that FF has capabilities in areas that are a bit more limited by APS-C. Objectively speaking, 40MP is not 66MP. You can get a bit more bokeh at a given aperture. Low light performance of larger sensors is a bit stronger.
So, with no argument from me, FF pushes the performance envelope a bit further than FF. (Just as miniMF pushes it a bit further than FF, etc.)
However…
“… You'll again make wonderful postcard style travel images…”
Well, yes. You can do that with any camera, from your smartphone on up to a Fujifilm GFX system. But I strongly disagree that APS-C is limited to just “postcard style” images.
I’ve sold prints of and licensed a number of APS-C images (in some cases with lesser cameras than the most recent from Fujifilm) and I’m dead serious that I am confident that my XT5 files will print with excellent quality at 20” x 30”. (Larger in some cases. I licensed a slightly cropped APS-C monochrome image of a San Francisco architectural feature to a commercial user at a 44” height — and that was with an earlier Fujifilm camera.)
I regularly do urban night street and travel photography with my Fujifilm system and the results are WAY beyond “postcard” quality.
Now I”m not saying that the APS-C format is ideal for all kinds of photography. I rely on high MP FF gear for almost all of my landscape photography, for example. And while I have done some wildlife photography with my Fujifilm system, it has been less reliable for that than my FF gear.
If I had only a single system, these days it would likely be Sony, and probably based on the A7r6 and the A7CR, with the latter making a reasonably smaller and lighter option if equipped with the right lenses. But with two systems — not for everyone, but works for me — I’m sticking with my Fujifilm APS-C system for travel and street photography given its somewhat smaller size, its manual controls, and Fujifilm’s system of native lenses.
Re: RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Jack Flesher wrote:
APSC. You'll again make wonderful postcard style travel images, and fare a bit better in lower light, but still not really great at really low light or shallow DoF looks or styles if that's what you're after. Size is nice compared to Canon and Nikon top tier FF, but this advantage is reduced significantly when Sony FF enters the discussion.
I’m going to disagree (collegially) with Jack on his description of the capabilities of APS-C.
First, though, I’ll agree that FF has capabilities in areas that are a bit more limited by APS-C. Objectively speaking, 40MP is not 66MP. You can get a bit more bokeh at a given aperture. Low light performance of larger sensors is a bit stronger.
So, with no argument from me, FF pushes the performance envelope a bit further than FF. (Just as miniMF pushes it a bit further than FF, etc.)
However…
“… You'll again make wonderful postcard style travel images…”
Well, yes. You can do that with any camera, from your smartphone on up to a Fujifilm GFX system. But I strongly disagree that APS-C is limited to just “postcard style” images.
I’ve sold prints of and licensed a number of APS-C images (in some cases with lesser cameras than the most recent from Fujifilm) and I’m dead serious that I am confident that my XT5 files will print with excellent quality at 20” x 30”. (Larger in some cases. I licensed a slightly cropped APS-C monochrome image of a San Francisco architectural feature to a commercial user at a 44” height — and that was with an earlier Fujifilm camera.)
I regularly do urban night street and travel photography with my Fujifilm system and the results are WAY beyond “postcard” quality.
Now I”m not saying that the APS-C format is ideal for all kinds of photography. I rely on high MP FF gear for almost all of my landscape photography, for example. And while I have done some wildlife photography with my Fujifilm system, it has been less reliable for that than my FF gear.
If I had only a single system, these days it would likely be Sony, and probably based on the A7r6 and the A7CR, with the latter making a reasonably smaller and lighter option if equipped with the right lenses. But with two systems — not for everyone, but works for me — I’m sticking with my Fujifilm APS-C system for travel and street photography given its somewhat smaller size, its manual controls, and Fujifilm’s system of native lenses.
YMMV.
(t sure why the following Flickr links aren’t showing the images, but if the problem remains I’ll return and try to troubleshoot. In the meantime, you can click the text between each broken link if you want to see the photographs.)
Re: RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Jack Flesher wrote:
APSC. You'll again make wonderful postcard style travel images, and fare a bit better in lower light, but still not really great at really low light or shallow DoF looks or styles if that's what you're after. Size is nice compared to Canon and Nikon top tier FF, but this advantage is reduced significantly when Sony FF enters the discussion.
I’m going to disagree (collegially) with Jack on his description of the capabilities of APS-C.
First, though, I’ll agree that FF has capabilities in areas that are a bit more limited by APS-C. Objectively speaking, 40MP is not 66MP. You can get a bit more bokeh at a given aperture. Low light performance of larger sensors is a bit stronger.
So, with no argument from me, FF pushes the performance envelope a bit further than FF. (Just as miniMF pushes it a bit further than FF, etc.)
However…
“… You'll again make wonderful postcard style travel images…”
Well, yes. You can do that with any camera, from your smartphone on up to a Fujifilm GFX system. But I strongly disagree that APS-C is limited to just “postcard style” images.
I’ve sold prints of and licensed a number of APS-C images (in some cases with lesser cameras than the most recent from Fujifilm) and I’m dead serious that I am confident that my XT5 files will print with excellent quality at 20” x 30”. (Larger in some cases. I licensed a slightly cropped APS-C monochrome image of a San Francisco architectural feature to a commercial user at a 44” height — and that was with an earlier Fujifilm camera.)
I regularly do urban night street and travel photography with my Fujifilm system and the results are WAY beyond “postcard” quality.
Now I”m not saying that the APS-C format is ideal for all kinds of photography. I rely on high MP FF gear for almost all of my landscape photography, for example. And while I have done some wildlife photography with my Fujifilm system, it has been less reliable for that than my FF gear.
If I had only a single system, these days it would likely be Sony, and probably based on the A7r6 and the A7CR, with the latter making a reasonably smaller and lighter option if equipped with the right lenses. But with two systems — not for everyone, but works for me — I’m sticking with my Fujifilm APS-C system for travel and street photography given its somewhat smaller size, its manual controls, and Fujifilm’s system of native lenses.
YMMV.
(t sure why the following Flickr links aren’t showing the images, but if the problem remains I’ll return and try to troubleshoot.)
