Zack Arias has always been an avid Fuji shooter (starting off with the fabulous X100) and was one of the biggest influences in my decision to finally take the plunge and co-purchase an X-Pro 1 this summer. In this video Zack knocks some sense into you about how silly the full frame / crop debate really is by reviewing the progression of different formats from eight by ten through 4:3. Take a look.
Having shot full frame 35mm digital for a while now it's been interesting how pleased I've been with this little crop sensor camera. When I was first considering the X-Pro someone pointed me to a chart detailing just how minimal the change in DOF really was from FX to DX or APS-C. In technical terms, you loose roughly a stop in terms of blur and OOF elements, so when shooting with a 35 f/1.4 on my Fuji you get roughly a 53mm f/2.0, or with the monster Fuji 56mm f/1.2 you'd get the same effective DOF as a full frame 85mm at f/1.8 — which is more than enough for my purposes. The quality was there for me, for most intents and purposes it'd be there for you too.
Of course, at the end of the day the equipment isn't really going to be limiting us. While there are perks that make a D4s appealing to sports photographers, Leicas to those shooting street, and MF to product and studio guys a pro can create with just about any tool they have available (See Digital Rev's Pro Tog, Cheap Camera Challenge).
Zack put it best:
Cameras can't see. This Fuji has no vision. This Phase doesn't know anything about light. This Nikon over here, knows nothing about moment. The eight by ten is a cold beast that knows nothing of emotion. The GH4 shooting this video right now, doesn't have any idea about composition. So what's it come down to? Full frame? No. APS-C? Eh, no. The moron behind the camera. That's you.
[Via Zack Arias @ DEDPXL]
That's not entirely true. Regarding the m4/3, Lumix has the 12-35 f/2.8 and 35-100 f/2.8, both are excellent and the equivalent focal lengths to the Canon on the m4/3 sensor. You may have a nicer bokeh with the mk3 rig, but at the end of the day, your body will be thanking you for lightening the load.
I've actually found another solution for lightening my DSLR load: using primes with sneaker zoom. After years of relying on zooms, I've come to enjoy shooting primes and not only are they generally smaller, lighter, and cheaper than zooms, they have larger apertures and they force me to be more thoughtful about my composition. I now only own 1 zoom (the fantastic Canon 24-105 f/4L) and 3 primes (28mm f/1.8, 40mm f/2.8 pancake, and 50mm f/1.4). If anyone has complaints about the size and weight of a DSLR with a prime on it, then I truly think they are just being picky.
Sounds intriguing, I also love primes, however in the documentary world they can cause a lot of headaches and missed shots. The sneaker zooms you mention sound interesting; which do you personally recommend?
Alexander, which documentary world are you referring to? Just curious, because street photographers seem to gravitate towards normal to wide primes and I consider street to be a type of documentary. And there are still photojournalists out there using rangefinders like Leicas, which almost exclusively use primes. The newer digital rangefinders with EVF's can use zooms, but I guess it's debatable whether they can be considered pure rangefinders.
I hope you're being sarcastic about the "sneaker" zooms.
I was referring to documentary video, where zooms have proven to be essential to me. The Lumix also has a built in tele-extender, though I've never used it.
re: the sneaker zooms, yes, I was being sarcastic :)
Agree, too. My wife uses now D810, D610 (primes + 70-200/2.8) and Fuji XT-1 with 56/1.2. We love shallow DOF and every 2.8 zoom on APS-C has DOF corresponding to f4.2 on FF (and not always you have a great location with beautiful surroundings and nice white curtains). The 56/1.2, however, is a great prime and Fuji's upcoming 90/2.8 could be very useful, too. I like using APS-C for macro work, though.
Shoot with what you have until it truly limits your abilities. Then buy a better camera. Period.
Truly......words of wisdom. Thanks.
but new gear... ;)
Having shot 35mm format for 34 years, I wanted to continue full frame when I bought a DSLR. I consider pros and cons of APS versus full frame: APS allows extra reach of telephoto lenses whereas with wide angle lenses, the photographer is cheated; a wide angle lens on a 35mm becomes a normal lens on an APS camera.
I thought an APS system was more in the household budget, but this past December's holiday bargains had a full frame package that was affordable.
I still use my film cameras along with my DLSR. I want to get into medium format; used 6x4.5 and 6x7 film bodies and lenses are affordable. But I need to start investing in Canon EF lenses.
I am sure that this debate will never end. As I see it, it boils down to what gear works for me. I would rather be skilled with a lowly piece of gear than to have the greatest gear with no idea of how to use it. A camera is just a tool. But what do I know, I am still learning.
Hope Zach Sutton (spelled it right!) watches this! Zach vs Zack. Both a little too know it all for me...
So freaking weird! The difference between M43 and APs is N-E-G-L-I-G-I-B-L-E !!!! The difference between FF and 44X33 is N-E-G-L-I-G-I-B-L-E !!!! What a waste of my time. Do they get paid that well by the camera companies to say so much BS?!
The difference is ne-gli-gi-ble.. hahaha... loved it.
Although I like the combination of image crop and sensor pixel density of APS-C, I've shot 35mm all my life, and for me the look of full frame comes naturally to me. Crop sensor, especially the viewfinder, can cramp your style, especially in low light (I'm referring to optical viewfinders of course). I have both formats and make the best of them, but full frame "35mm" will inherently always look more "natural" to me because I've worked with it for so many decades.
I am a full frame Nikon shooter, and I used to carry my FX cameras and big glass anywhere with me. The time has come and I bought my first Fuji X series camera recently and even though I love the files from Nikon FX full frame guys I carry Fuji instead of Nikon to all my personal projects. And with wide angle lenses I also started to use it at weddings. I do not find a smaller sensor such a huge disadvantage, and if the AF improves by years, I would not mind to switch the whole Nikon gear to this Fuji x series one. The quality is there, and if you can sell an image from a pinhole camera to your clients why could not you from a very good APS-C camera too? Btw, I made my living with medium 6x7 pentax II in film era so I know a little bit of difference in sensor sizes, yet for what I need a camera I could live with APS-C in mirror-less format such Fuji. IMO Zack has his funny point. Enjoy the shooting. Thanks for reading.
Overall a very good general explanation. I shoot both formats. Part of the sensor debate is lot like camera brand debates as which is better like the Classic one we all know Nikon vs Graflex. If you want to drive someone nuts, the the depth of field on a Cropped Sensor (APS-C) DSLR camera is the same as a Full Frame Sensor DSLR using the same same lens with cameras at the same distance from the subject. The DOF stays the same. Only the field of view changes. ;)
The real thing that photographers need to grasp is resolution. Resolution is the combination megapixels, noise, sensor size and lens quality.
Understanding this makes it easier to pick the right camera for the job.
I'm happy with what I have. I may have an old D700 but as long as it can meet my needs, I don't need to switch or get confused with which camera to use.
I shoot medium format film and full frame, also 1.6 crop. I just saw that the 5dmkiii can recover much more from the highlights than the 7D. The image quality of the Fuji camera looks great to me just a bit soft at high iso. For me its more about the handling of the camera and the auto focus speed. I would be scared to shoot a wedding without the auto focus of a 5D mkiii or similar other brands dslr. Thats the reason I don't switch to mirrorless cameras. I'm talking about the auto focus tracking....like a bride is moving into the church and so on... a kids party with a lot of movements or events like special Olympics and World Games. Even at a concert like Zack was mentioning, I have the feeling if the guys are moving a lot, I have more luck with my DSLR.
I might agree with him however I can't get past what seems to be huge chip on his shoulder. Not sure what it is but I'm sure it has nothing to do with me.
Between him being filled with attitude, the terrible and over used jump cuts and him violently beating everything within reach with his pointer, I could not get to his point.
Someone should do a parody video of this. Now THAT I would watch.
I agree with all of it. But it's essentially an Ad for Fuji - so of course he's going to promote APS-C as 'neg-legggg-able' difference to 35mm. But come on, 35mm is better than APS-C isn't it. ;-P No trollage here, I own an X-T1 and a 'full frame' 35mm digital rangefinder. I much prefer the overall look of the photos from the 35mm.
Craziest and funniest video for photographers on the internet EVER :D Thumbs up Zack
That video claims a lot, but it does nothing to go in to those claims. The differences are negligible? Explain why! The entire video was just him saying his view point with so little to back it up. Not to mention someone really needs to take away his pointer stick.
If only a camera company could find a way to put a full frame sensor into a body that was the size of the Fuji . . . . . .
I love my A7
This sounds like a commercial for Fuji than "debunking". Also debunking assumes that what you say is right and he is not and he is completely missing the point of having FF. FLEXIBILITY is the biggest plus of FF.
To start, saying the difference at high ISO is "negligible" is moronic. Shoot the same dim lit scene at 128k ISO with a D4/s and any ASPC camera you choose and see how "negligible" it is. Sure if you are shooting well lit scenes or in a studio where you have full control over the light ASPC will do a great job but when it comes to events or wedding where the conditions are unpredictable you will be much better served by a FF. Flexibility.
Room for error is important when shooting fast moving, unpredictable events such as Weddings or Sports. The much better high ISO performance gives you more room for error since you can comfortably pump up the iso, get higher shutter speeds. Flexibility.
It's much easier to go Wide and Super Wide with FF. Then guess what, I can crop my D800/810 sensor and have the Dx or crop it to 1.2 factor, you can't do that with ASPC. Flexibility.
The weigh/size argument should not apply for a pro. You are getting paid to do the best you can with the best tools at your disposal. You are not being paid to be good at packing your bags and weight management of you luggage. If a FF camera does not fit in whatever tiny bag you are carrying get a bigger bag.
I applaud the effort, but it really ends up defeating itself. It is because, not despite, the size difference between croppers and fulls is so small that full size sensors are more desirable. In addition, the light gathering ability of having 50% more surface area will always be there despite how much better either format gets.
The formats will develop together, and there will always be more detail in a larger sensor. Will there be adequate enough detail in the smaller sensors, surely! But dragging 8 x 10 into the issue is unneeded. Some pros shot with 6 X 7 and 645, but as time went on and digital editing came in, 35mm came to dominate most of photography directly before full digital imaging came onboard. Hardly anyone working today would want the limitations of large format placed on them. It's really nice to me to have 36 mega pixels and 18 mp in a crop sensor does a great job for many things, too.
Nothing will ever beat large format... all hail LG FORMAT cameras...
Also, I had a great laugh... love Zach Arias.
Fuji commercial???
Anyway...
To me, at the end of the day, it comes down to using glass on a format that is the foundation of it's design. Honestly, my canon 85mm L loses some poetry on ape-c (vignetting, lens imperfections etc...).
I think the key point is the advancement in technology. What a 35mm sensor could produce 10 years ago versus what an APS-C sensor is the key. Even what APS-C can do now versus 5 years ago when I got my 7D is a huge difference. I'm wavering between the new 7D whenever it's announced or the Fuji T1 as my next setup.
Second key is the discussion of who is holding the camera. Means much more than the camera itself.
Wes, just my 2 cents, when I was shooting weddings regularly I had a photography assistant who used the 7D at weddings and she got fantastic photos even in low light. I was jealous because, at the time, I shot with a 50D. Anyway, you probably have a lot of Canon glass and one thing to think about is the cost of having to buy new lenses with a new system. I thought about switching away from Canon a year ago, but I just couldn't justify the cost. Instead, I upgraded to a full frame body (Canon 6D) and kept my best glass. I haven't regretted that decision.
The new 70D seems to be about equal to the 7D. If the rumors are true and the 7D Mark II has the dual pixel technology (phase detection on the sensor), like the 70D but on steroids, it's going to be a fantastic camera. If I were you, I would wait.
Jonathan, I don't have a ton of glass. I do headshots & portraits primarily so I don't need a ton of lenses to get that done. So it wouldn't be AS big of deal for me to switch. My primary reason for thinking about it does come down to size. If I can buy something that's smaller but does the same job. Why not?
But I'm definitely not doing ANYTHING until I see what the new 7D has to offer. It is obviously my easiest upgrade path. And I'm not going FF as I purchased the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and that only works on crop sensor. It's a gorgeous lens and if I stick with Canon, it's sticking with me. :)
I totally understand the size thing, I used a T1i Rebel as my "small" camera for a while and reserved the 50D for the wedding gigs. Even the T1i got to be a little cumbersome, so I ended up getting a compact. I inherited my sister's old Canon G9, then traded it in for a Canon S95. The size of the S95 was perfect, but the image quality was not quite what I wanted. I finally traded the S95 for the Sony RX100 and I've been super happy with it. The quality of the photos from the RX100 rivals my old Canon Rebel XT, and it fits in my pocket!
With the Sony RX100 being my pocketable compact camera and the Canon 6D being my more "serious" system camera, I find I don't need a smaller system. By the time the 6D is ready to die, I'm sure mirrorless cameras will have matured and might even take over the market from DSLRs. I'm also hoping Canon actually puts effort into making a high quality mirrorless camera (the EOS M doesn't count), then I can keep my glass and just change to a smaller body. We can only hope!
Totally true. Great video.
I used a Fujifilm XE1. It was good for landscapes, however there's a significant jump in quality when I compared to my Canon 5D.
It's a great travel camera though, good all arounder.
The problem is that 99.9% of the time, whether it's an APS-C or Full-Frame sensor doesn't make any difference, but the .1% of the time, it makes a HUGE difference. You'll never be sorry you used a full-frame camera, but you *might* be sorry you didn't.
Unless you have an overriding reason to use a smaller camera, use the best sensor you have.
Totally wrong attitude to pass a message
Just talking about Canon here, since full frame is that "professional standard," regardless of sensor size, I want a Mark III because it is over all a much better camera than something like a T5i. If the Mark III had a crop sensor I would still love to have one. It just so happens that all of the professional cameras have bigger sensors. Maybe if this 7D MkII ever comes out..... haha
this guy is awesome ^^