Heart (Fujifilm) Vs. The Mind (Full-Frame) - Where do I go from here?

JayPhizzt wrote:

MLVDE wrote:

I have used Fujifilm for almost 6 years, first the X-E2, than the X-H1. I allways used the best lenses Fuji had to offer, the 23 1.4, 60, 90, and 16-55. Fujfilm is a pleasure to use and the colors are great.

During those six years, many debates about FF came along on this forum. In most cases, the conclusion was that FF will give better bokeh (with the rigth lenses) and less noise at higher ISO. But also, you don't really need it, Fujifilm is allready great.

And Fujifilm is great. But FF is more than bokeh or less noise at higher ISO. Six months ago, I bought a Nikon Z6. About the same size as the X-H1. Because I didn't want the big Nikon lenses, I bought different small lenses with Leica-M mount. That forced me to focus manually, but I like that. And with the focus peaking, it is easy.

Means FF only better bokeh and less noise at higher ISO? No, defenitely not! It is a different look, richer colors and more realistic. Noticeable in every picture? No, but in general is it easy to see the difference.

I am still a fan of fujifilm. My first love is related to the size of the system. But ending up with the 90 and 16-55, the size-advantage was gone. My actual setup with MF-lensen -M lenses is again tiny and a fun to use. And, I bought everything used in mint condition, so no need for huge investments.

My advise: follow your heart

The main benefits of FF(or a larger sensor in general) are lower noise at high ISO, more dynamic range and potentially a higher resolution. Aside from those things the lens is more important for image quality. I've seen several blind tests and often it's hard to see a difference even between m4/3 and MF. You'll of course easily see a difference if you pixel-peep, at least when a larger sensor has a higher resolution. Or of course when shooting at high ISO or in situations with strong light contrasts.

In this particular case we do of course also have X-trans to take in to account, which can give you less than favorable results unless the most optimal demosaicing is used.

And while it's easier to achieve a really shallow depth of field with FF, that doesn't automatically mean you get better bokeh. The bokeh can still look bad even if you have a shallow depth of field. The upside to FF is of course that you have more options available to achieve a very shallow depth of field, but there are ways of doing so even with APS-C.

The lower noise at higher ISO is a benefit of FF. But noise has never bothered me when using Fujifilm. And now using FF, less noise is not what makes me happy. I think 95% of my pictures is taken at 1600 ISO or lower,

My enthusiasm for FF is more related to the overall look of the pictures. Even when using the 7Artisans 28 1.4 - not the most perfect lens there is - the different look is there. I am not pixel peeping, but when doing, the richness of the colors is amazing.

If, for instance, the next X-T5 would produce the quality of the Nikon Z6, everone here would say Ohhh and Ahhh, what a step forward! But in general in the discussions, the quality of FF is reduced to less noise, probably more bokeh and dynamic range, a few technical parameters. But they are less important. It is the different look that matters.