FF body and lens vs APSC body and lens ISO performance

Hello all.

Im not terribly new to photography but I have a new perspective on the title and subsequently a question I was hoping you all might be able to answer.

I have shot Nikon for years, both FF and cropped but always on FF glass. A year ago I picked up a Fuji XT4 for something a little easier to travel with and honestly just like the tactility of the Fuji's.

Now I share my cameras with family members so I pretty much never see my Nikon stuff anymore and thought I would see what this xt4 could do for wildlife. I like to shoot birds in flight and landscape. So I picked up the 100-400 f2.8 and the x1.4 TC. I feel like I'm struggling so hard to get the ISO down. I have to shoot in what feels like much much brighter conditions... Like get out to shoot a couple hours earlier/later than I used to.

So basically the question is, if I had identical setups but one ApsC lens/camera, one FF lens/camera and a FF lens/APSC body, how would thier ISOs compare at the same given settings? Significant difference?

I'm just trying to decide if I stick to all Fuji (because the reach for the price is pretty good though AF leaves something to want and I'm guessing it's just not meant for wildlife) or do I stick to Nikon or even consider a switch to Sony?

Probably overcomplicating it but thanks for any info.

doc

DocShaka said:

Hello all.

Im not terribly new to photography but I have a new perspective on the title and subsequently a question I was hoping you all might be able to answer.

I have shot Nikon for years, both FF and cropped but always on FF glass. A year ago I picked up a Fuji XT4 for something a little easier to travel with and honestly just like the tactility of the Fuji's.

Now I share my cameras with family members so I pretty much never see my Nikon stuff anymore and thought I would see what this xt4 could do for wildlife. I like to shoot birds in flight and landscape. So I picked up the 100-400 f2.8 and the x1.4 TC. I feel like I'm struggling so hard to get the ISO down. I have to shoot in what feels like much much brighter conditions... Like get out to shoot a couple hours earlier/later than I used to.

So basically the question is, if I had identical setups but one ApsC lens/camera, one FF lens/camera and a FF lens/APSC body, how would thier ISOs compare at the same given settings? Significant difference?

Click to expand...

Let's imagine you're with two other photographers in a photo blind and all three of you are shooting with 100-400mm f/5.6 lenses. The photographer to your left is using a full-frame (FF) Canon body and the Canon 100-400mm, f/4.5-5.6 zoom lens. You've got your X-T4 and Fuji APS-C 100-400mm, f/4.5-5.6 zoom. The photographer to your right is also shooting with an X-T4 but is using an adapter to work with the Sony FF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens.

Regardless of whether or not a lens is designed for FF, APS-C, or another format, it's focal length and maximum f-stop are as described on the lens. You're all using lenses having a focal length range of 100mm to 400mm. All three lenses have maximum focal ratios from f/4.5 at the 100mm end to f/5.6 at the long end.

Suppose you're all framing the same elk bull at 400mm, f/5.6. You're all using a 1/200-second shutter speed. The available light, f-stop, and shutter spend determine exposure so, you're all delivering the same scene brightness per unit area of your respective sensors.

If you choose an ISO of 400, the others can also choose the same ISO. All three of you will make photos having roughly the same lightness. Any difference in lightness will be attributable to differences in how those cameras implement ISO. The format of the sensor has no impact on that quality.

There will, of course be differences. The photographer shooting full-frame will capture a FF equivalent 400mm angle of view. Because of the crop factor, you and the other X-T4 shooter will capture 600mm equivalent angles of view. In short, the elk will fill more of the X-T4's frame.

Because the FF camera sensor has a larger surface area, it will capture more total light during a shutter actuation made at the same f-stop and shutter speed as the two APS-C cameras. However, if that photographer decides to crop their photo to produce a final image having the same angle of view captured by you and the other X-T4 shooter, the final image from the FF camera will be made with the same total light. In that scenario, all three images would also present the same depth of field and noise.

DocShaka said:

I'm just trying to decide if I stick to all Fuji (because the reach for the price is pretty good though AF leaves something to want and I'm guessing it's just not meant for wildlife) or do I stick to Nikon or even consider a switch to Sony?

Probably overcomplicating it but thanks for any info.

Click to expand...

If you're not satisfied with the X-T4 autofocus performance but otherwise enjoy the experience o shooting with the Fuji, you might consider upgrading to the recently-announced Fujifilm X-H2S. It's quite possible to build a very good wildlife kit around full-frame, APS-C, or even micro four-thirds systems. If you have a strong preference for the size & weight, user interface, or technical performance of one brand, you should be able to build a solid kit around the camera of your choice.

I'll suggest you post in the Fuji, Nikon and Sony forums to seek recommendations on which bodies and lenses to pair from those brands for wildlife work. Share a rough budget range to help guide the advice folks offer.

Good luck.

Thank you for the detailed example! I might be tired but it's still not quite clear to me. Am I correct in saying that on the XT4 @400mm f5.6 is exactly the same as shooting the canon FF at 600mm f5.6? In this case, with same shutter speed (1/200th) and 5.6 aperture, the ISO should also be the same?

I guess the crux is in the fstop equivalency? The APS-C sensor and APS-C len have no crop factor when it comes to fstop equivalency to FF?

Please bear with me if that went right over my head!

DocShaka said:

Hello all.

Im not terribly new to photography but I have a new perspective on the title and subsequently a question I was hoping you all might be able to answer.

I have shot Nikon for years, both FF and cropped but always on FF glass. A year ago I picked up a Fuji XT4 for something a little easier to travel with and honestly just like the tactility of the Fuji's.

Now I share my cameras with family members so I pretty much never see my Nikon stuff anymore and thought I would see what this xt4 could do for wildlife. I like to shoot birds in flight and landscape. So I picked up the 100-400 f2.8 and the x1.4 TC. I feel like I'm struggling so hard to get the ISO down. I have to shoot in what feels like much much brighter conditions... Like get out to shoot a couple hours earlier/later than I used to.

So basically the question is, if I had identical setups but one ApsC lens/camera, one FF lens/camera and a FF lens/APSC body, how would thier ISOs compare at the same given settings? Significant difference?

I'm just trying to decide if I stick to all Fuji (because the reach for the price is pretty good though AF leaves something to want and I'm guessing it's just not meant for wildlife) or do I stick to Nikon or even consider a switch to Sony?

Probably overcomplicating it but thanks for any info.

doc

Click to expand...

At the same angle of view, same aperture diameter, same shutter speed and same subject, you will get just about the same results independent of sensor size.

By "just about the same results", I mean same depth of field, same overall image noise, same motion blur, same perspective, etc. In other words the results will look the same.

.

The aperture diameter is the focal length divided by the f/stop. A 100mm lens at f/4 has an aperture diameter of 25mm. A 50mm lens at f/2 also has an aperture diameter of 25mm.

.

When shooting in low light situations, the biggest factor in image noise is usually the shot noise. This is the noise inherent in the quantum nature of light. Shot noise is dependent on total light captured, not exposure (which is light captured per unit area).

A full frame body with an ISO 400 exposure, captures the same total amount of light as a 2X crop body with an ISO 100 exposure.

.

A full frame body with a 100mm lens, f/4, and 1/60 will produce just about the same results as a 2X crop body with a 50mm lens, f/2 and 1/60.

.

In terms of teleconverters. A full frame with a 1.4X teleconverter will produce just about the same results as a 1.4X crop body without the teleconverter.

DocShaka said:

Thank you for the detailed example! I might be tired but it's still not quite clear to me. Am I correct in saying that on the XT4 @400mm f5.6 is exactly the same as shooting the canon FF at 600mm f5.6? In this case, with same shutter speed (1/200th) and 5.6 aperture, the ISO should also be the same?

Click to expand...

If you use the same shutter speed, same f-stop, and same ISO, you'll get the same framing and the same lightness from in-camera JPEGs.

However, due to its larger sensor, the full-frame camera will record roughly 2.25x as much total light as the APS-C camera does. If the sensors are equivalent in terms of technology, the full-frame image will have the advantage in terms of noise, especially if you're pushing the camera hard and expecting to use high ISO (lightness) to make up for low exposure.

If I am not mistaken, the FF camera photo will also have lower depth-of-field.

DocShaka said:

I guess the crux is in the fstop equivalency? The APS-C sensor and APS-C len have no crop factor when it comes to fstop equivalency to FF?

Click to expand...

If you look beyond abstract notation, what a f-stop like f/4 means is that "the width of the light-admitting hole is equal to the lens focal length, divided by the f-stop number".

f/4 is 150mm for a 600mm lens (like the one you would use on a FF camera), and 100mm for a 400mm lens (like the one you would use on an APS-C camera). So if you choose the focal lengths to maintain the same framing, and the f-stops to maintain the same level of intensity (per unit of sensor area), the size of the light-admitting hole becomes bigger by just the amount needed to provide the right amount of extra light for the larger sensor.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the FF picture would have less depth of field, due to the bigger hole imposing fewer restrictions on the angles at which light could come in. If you wanted to equalize depths of field, you would need to equalize the absolute apertures. I.e., by stopping down the FF lens, which in turn would reduce exposure (and low-light performance), and require you to use a slower shutter speed or higher ISO to keep the JPEG image lightness the same.

DocShaka said:

Please bear with me if that went right over my head!

Click to expand...

DocShaka said:

Hello all.

Im not terribly new to photography but I have a new perspective on the title and subsequently a question I was hoping you all might be able to answer.

I have shot Nikon for years, both FF and cropped but always on FF glass. A year ago I picked up a Fuji XT4 for something a little easier to travel with and honestly just like the tactility of the Fuji's.

Now I share my cameras with family members so I pretty much never see my Nikon stuff anymore and thought I would see what this xt4 could do for wildlife. I like to shoot birds in flight and landscape. So I picked up the 100-400 f2.8 and the x1.4 TC. I feel like I'm struggling so hard to get the ISO down. I have to shoot in what feels like much much brighter conditions... Like get out to shoot a couple hours earlier/later than I used to.

So basically the question is, if I had identical setups but one ApsC lens/camera, one FF lens/camera and a FF lens/APSC body, how would thier ISOs compare at the same given settings? Significant difference?

I'm just trying to decide if I stick to all Fuji (because the reach for the price is pretty good though AF leaves something to want and I'm guessing it's just not meant for wildlife) or do I stick to Nikon or even consider a switch to Sony?

Probably overcomplicating it but thanks for any info.

doc

Click to expand...

1. glass doesn't effect iso performance, all it can do is let you shoot at lower isos.

2. many ff sensors perform better than apsc, even superb apsc such as the fuji you mentioned, in high isos, if this is a major one to you, stick to ff.

3. currently the future is unfortunately not with Nikon, unless you've got the 5.5k$ to deal out for a z9, and even then, the glass, although sharper than anything else, is quite slow focusing, if you are to go ff, go Sony or Canon.

Tom_N said:

However, due to its larger sensor, the full-frame camera will record roughly 2.25x as much total light as the APS-C camera does. If the sensors are equivalent in terms of technology, the full-frame image will have the advantage in terms of noise, especially if you're pushing the camera hard and expecting to use high ISO (lightness) to make up for low exposure.

Click to expand...

Ok this is what I was getting at. The other explainations (I'm probably reading them wrong) made it sound like the ISO performance would be the same give all other things equal. If that were the case why would anyone spend the extra money for FF sensors and glass? There must be a significant performance advantage.

And I suppose with more light means better AF performance as well.

yerach said:

DocShaka said:

Hello all.

Im not terribly new to photography but I have a new perspective on the title and subsequently a question I was hoping you all might be able to answer.

I have shot Nikon for years, both FF and cropped but always on FF glass. A year ago I picked up a Fuji XT4 for something a little easier to travel with and honestly just like the tactility of the Fuji's.

Now I share my cameras with family members so I pretty much never see my Nikon stuff anymore and thought I would see what this xt4 could do for wildlife. I like to shoot birds in flight and landscape. So I picked up the 100-400 f2.8 and the x1.4 TC. I feel like I'm struggling so hard to get the ISO down. I have to shoot in what feels like much much brighter conditions... Like get out to shoot a couple hours earlier/later than I used to.

So basically the question is, if I had identical setups but one ApsC lens/camera, one FF lens/camera and a FF lens/APSC body, how would thier ISOs compare at the same given settings? Significant difference?

I'm just trying to decide if I stick to all Fuji (because the reach for the price is pretty good though AF leaves something to want and I'm guessing it's just not meant for wildlife) or do I stick to Nikon or even consider a switch to Sony?

Probably overcomplicating it but thanks for any info.

doc

Click to expand...

1. glass doesn't effect iso performance, all it can do is let you shoot at lower isos.

2. many ff sensors perform better than apsc, even superb apsc such as the fuji you mentioned, in high isos, if this is a major one to you, stick to ff.

3. currently the future is unfortunately not with Nikon, unless you've got the 5.5k$ to deal out for a z9, and even then, the glass, although sharper than anything else, is quite slow focusing, if you are to go ff, go Sony or Canon.

Click to expand...

Or Panasonic.

yerach said:

DocShaka said:

Hello all.

Im not terribly new to photography but I have a new perspective on the title and subsequently a question I was hoping you all might be able to answer.

I have shot Nikon for years, both FF and cropped but always on FF glass. A year ago I picked up a Fuji XT4 for something a little easier to travel with and honestly just like the tactility of the Fuji's.

Now I share my cameras with family members so I pretty much never see my Nikon stuff anymore and thought I would see what this xt4 could do for wildlife. I like to shoot birds in flight and landscape. So I picked up the 100-400 f2.8 and the x1.4 TC. I feel like I'm struggling so hard to get the ISO down. I have to shoot in what feels like much much brighter conditions... Like get out to shoot a couple hours earlier/later than I used to.

So basically the question is, if I had identical setups but one ApsC lens/camera, one FF lens/camera and a FF lens/APSC body, how would thier ISOs compare at the same given settings? Significant difference?

I'm just trying to decide if I stick to all Fuji (because the reach for the price is pretty good though AF leaves something to want and I'm guessing it's just not meant for wildlife) or do I stick to Nikon or even consider a switch to Sony?

Probably overcomplicating it but thanks for any info.

doc

Click to expand...

1. glass doesn't effect iso performance, all it can do is let you shoot at lower isos.

2. many ff sensors perform better than apsc, even superb apsc such as the fuji you mentioned, in high isos, if this is a major one to you, stick to ff.

3. currently the future is unfortunately not with Nikon, unless you've got the 5.5k$ to deal out for a z9, and even then, the glass, although sharper than anything else, is quite slow focusing, if you are to go ff, go Sony or Canon.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.

1. Yes this is what I'm referring to. If I'm shooting with auto iso, overall shooting FF will keep that auto iso lower than the ApsC body & lens combo in same situations.

2. I picked up the Z7ii before going all Fuji and was quite disturbed by the noise. I might be used to Fuji's easier-to-look-at noise but I wasn't having it for a $3k camera. I guess that's just the price of high pixel density?

3. <\3 So I've been hearing. I'll never shoot Canon so Sony might be a real consideration.

No. The exposure system is designed for consistency from 8x10 to M4/3. Aperture, shutter speed, and ISO all set at the same levels will deliver the same exposure. I have shot 4x5, 6x6, FF, and APS-C, all together at the same time with the same subject. A lot of people here like to get into the science of how many photons are hitting the sensor. Ignore all that for the simple relationship of ISO, shutter speed, and aperture. Now depending on focal length discrepancies between the formats one may wish to tweak exposure a bit depending on what portion of the same subject is in the image. Resolution will depend on the lens and the sensor. Noise will depend solely on the sensor.

I have spent half of my digital years shooting APS-C and FF side by side. The smaller formats have a huge advantage of getting more pixels onto the subject. It sounds to me like you are discovering what fast glass can achieve at f2.8 to f4, that f5.6 glass just can't do. You also have to realize how big, heavy, and expensive those supertelephoto lenses are.

John Crowe said:

No. The exposure system is designed for consistency from 8x10 to M4/3. Aperture, shutter speed, and ISO all set at the same levels will deliver the same exposure. I have shot 4x5, 6x6, FF, and APS-C, all together at the same time with the same subject. A lot of people here like to get into the science of how many photons are hitting the sensor. Ignore all that for the simple relationship of ISO, shutter speed, and aperture. Now depending on focal length discrepancies between the formats one may wish to tweak exposure a bit depending on what portion of the same subject is in the image. Resolution will depend on the lens and the sensor. Noise will depend solely on the sensor.

I have spent half of my digital years shooting APS-C and FF side by side. The smaller formats have a huge advantage of getting more pixels onto the subject. It sounds to me like you are discovering what fast glass can achieve at f2.8 to f4, that f5.6 glass just can't do. You also have to realize how big, heavy, and expensive those supertelephoto lenses are.

Click to expand...

The Sony 61 Megapixel FF sensor should give you enough pixels on the subject for most purposes.

For the most part. I have the 50MP 5DSR and I am considering a 32MP APS-C, that can also challenge the Sony. When my 800mm lens fills the FF frame results are stunning, but there are those occasions where I would prefer using the 300/2.8 with teleconverters for handheld use. I am hedging between the affordable APS-C vs. not so affordable 500mm on the 5DSR.

Smaller formats still have their advantages.

DocShaka said:

Tom_N said:

However, due to its larger sensor, the full-frame camera will record roughly 2.25x as much total light as the APS-C camera does. If the sensors are equivalent in terms of technology, the full-frame image will have the advantage in terms of noise, especially if you're pushing the camera hard and expecting to use high ISO (lightness) to make up for low exposure.

Click to expand...

Ok this is what I was getting at. The other explainations (I'm probably reading them wrong) made it sound like the ISO performance would be the same give all other things equal. If that were the case why would anyone spend the extra money for FF sensors and glass? There must be a significant performance advantage.

And I suppose with more light means better AF performance as well.

Click to expand...

There are a few reasons to spend the extra money for full frame cameras.

First of all, some manufacturers only put their high end features in their full frame. If you want a camera with a large feature set, better weather sealing, and a rugged build, then you may have an easier time finding it in a full frame.

If you want a very high megapixel count, you will have an easier time finding it in a full frame body.

Full frames generally offer the option of shallower depth of field. If you want shallow depth of field (and the associated low light performance), then a full frame is probably a better choice than a crop body.

.

If you don't use high end features, and don't need shallow depth of field, you can get the same results from a crop body and a full frame.

DocShaka said:

yerach said:

DocShaka said:

Hello all.

Im not terribly new to photography but I have a new perspective on the title and subsequently a question I was hoping you all might be able to answer.

I have shot Nikon for years, both FF and cropped but always on FF glass. A year ago I picked up a Fuji XT4 for something a little easier to travel with and honestly just like the tactility of the Fuji's.

Now I share my cameras with family members so I pretty much never see my Nikon stuff anymore and thought I would see what this xt4 could do for wildlife. I like to shoot birds in flight and landscape. So I picked up the 100-400 f2.8 and the x1.4 TC. I feel like I'm struggling so hard to get the ISO down. I have to shoot in what feels like much much brighter conditions... Like get out to shoot a couple hours earlier/later than I used to.

So basically the question is, if I had identical setups but one ApsC lens/camera, one FF lens/camera and a FF lens/APSC body, how would thier ISOs compare at the same given settings? Significant difference?

I'm just trying to decide if I stick to all Fuji (because the reach for the price is pretty good though AF leaves something to want and I'm guessing it's just not meant for wildlife) or do I stick to Nikon or even consider a switch to Sony?

Probably overcomplicating it but thanks for any info.

doc

Click to expand...

1. glass doesn't effect iso performance, all it can do is let you shoot at lower isos.

2. many ff sensors perform better than apsc, even superb apsc such as the fuji you mentioned, in high isos, if this is a major one to you, stick to ff.

3. currently the future is unfortunately not with Nikon, unless you've got the 5.5k$ to deal out for a z9, and even then, the glass, although sharper than anything else, is quite slow focusing, if you are to go ff, go Sony or Canon.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.

1. Yes this is what I'm referring to. If I'm shooting with auto iso, overall shooting FF will keep that auto iso lower than the ApsC body & lens combo in same situations.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "same situation"?

If you mean same subject, same motion blur, and same depth of field, Auto ISO will select a higher ISO on the full frame, but the images from the full frame and the crop body will have the same noise levels.

Remember, at the same exposure (light per unit area), the full frame has less noise, and either more motion blur, or shallower depth of field.

If you match the motion blur and depth of field, Auto-ISO will pick a higher ISO for the full frame, but the results are the same.

DocShaka said:

2. I picked up the Z7ii before going all Fuji and was quite disturbed by the noise. I might be used to Fuji's easier-to-look-at noise but I wasn't having it for a $3k camera. I guess that's just the price of high pixel density?

Click to expand...

High pixel density result in more pixel noise, but each pixel contributes less to the final image. The result is that the final print doesn't look noisier.

DocShaka said:

3. <\3 So I've been hearing. I'll never shoot Canon so Sony might be a real consideration.

Click to expand...

OK let me back up. I must be over thinking this. I need a specific example, I think.

Let's just say I have an XT4 and the Fuji 100-400 @400 f5.6 shooting a sitting bird. I have a Sony A7R4 on the 200-600 @600 f5.6 (lets say it does 5.6 at that length for consistency) right next to the fuji.

We should have roughly the same image on the back of the camera. The framing should be the same but you're saying the Sony will have more bokeh. We are in Shutter priority and back it down as low as possible and have the same shutter speed on both, regardless of speed. We also leave auto ISO on to finish off the exposure triangle.

Will the Sony not have a lower ISO and cleaner image than the Fuji?

If we take off auto ISO and match ISO on both cameras, I should be able to get a faster shutter speed on the Sony?

I swear I'm almost finished with my BSAE and this should NOT be this hard to comprehend!

The decision I'm trying to make -

I LOVE that I can carry my xt4, 100-400mm f2.8, x1.4TC, 16-55mm f2.8, 35mm f1.4, 27mm f2.8 all in a single small core unit of my Shimoda explorer V2 30L and still have room left over for other stuff. This means in a single, carry on bag I can cover landscape, wildlife, street/compact travel all in one bag. I also love BIF and living in FL I have a lot of opportunity to shoot birds and want that separation, AF performance, sharpness of FF, and low noise (so I thought) performance. It's been a while since I've shot BIF, so maybe I'm just forgetting how much I had to deal with noise before on my DSLRs. It would be a considerable investment and more difficult to carry around. I guess it's best to just stick with the Fuji setup if the only real difference I'm going to see is AF performance.

DocShaka said:

Thank you for the detailed example! I might be tired but it's still not quite clear to me. Am I correct in saying that on the XT4 @400mm f5.6 is exactly the same as shooting the canon FF at 600mm f5.6?

Click to expand...

A 600mm lens at f/5.6 has a larger entrance pupil diameter (600/5.6=107) than a 400mm lens at f/5.6 (400/5.6=71) and would capture a shallower depth of field.

A full-frame sensor will capture more total light to make an image with less prominent noise than a smaller sensor body, if both are at the same f-stop and shutter speed.

DocShaka said:

In this case, with same shutter speed (1/200th) and 5.6 aperture, the ISO should also be the same?

Click to expand...

ISO is used to manage image lightness. It doesn't affect depth of field and, under most circumstances, only minimally affects noise.

DocShaka said:

Now I share my cameras with family members so I pretty much never see my Nikon stuff anymore and thought I would see what this xt4 could do for wildlife. I like to shoot birds in flight and landscape. So I picked up the 100-400 f2.8 and the x1.4 TC. I feel like I'm struggling so hard to get the ISO down. I have to shoot in what feels like much much brighter conditions... Like get out to shoot a couple hours earlier/later than I used to.

Click to expand...

In a previous post, you mention having a D500, D750, and 200-500mm f/5.6

I can't find a Fujinon 100-400mm f/2.8 but I can find a Fujinon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6.

As soon as you stick a 1.4x TC on this lens, it acts like a 140-560mm f/6.4-8 lens. This is a slower lens than you're used to.

So yeah, the 1.4x TC takes away 1 stop of light, and you'd have to find some way to make it up (higher ISO or slower shutter speed). The AF speed might be slower or less confident with the TC, it's hard to say.

Could this be related to your troubles?

--
Lance H

DocShaka said:

yerach said:

DocShaka said:

Hello all.

Im not terribly new to photography but I have a new perspective on the title and subsequently a question I was hoping you all might be able to answer.

I have shot Nikon for years, both FF and cropped but always on FF glass. A year ago I picked up a Fuji XT4 for something a little easier to travel with and honestly just like the tactility of the Fuji's.

Now I share my cameras with family members so I pretty much never see my Nikon stuff anymore and thought I would see what this xt4 could do for wildlife. I like to shoot birds in flight and landscape. So I picked up the 100-400 f2.8 and the x1.4 TC. I feel like I'm struggling so hard to get the ISO down. I have to shoot in what feels like much much brighter conditions... Like get out to shoot a couple hours earlier/later than I used to.

So basically the question is, if I had identical setups but one ApsC lens/camera, one FF lens/camera and a FF lens/APSC body, how would thier ISOs compare at the same given settings? Significant difference?

I'm just trying to decide if I stick to all Fuji (because the reach for the price is pretty good though AF leaves something to want and I'm guessing it's just not meant for wildlife) or do I stick to Nikon or even consider a switch to Sony?

Probably overcomplicating it but thanks for any info.

doc

Click to expand...

1. glass doesn't effect iso performance, all it can do is let you shoot at lower isos.

2. many ff sensors perform better than apsc, even superb apsc such as the fuji you mentioned, in high isos, if this is a major one to you, stick to ff.

3. currently the future is unfortunately not with Nikon, unless you've got the 5.5k$ to deal out for a z9, and even then, the glass, although sharper than anything else, is quite slow focusing, if you are to go ff, go Sony or Canon.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.

1. Yes this is what I'm referring to. If I'm shooting with auto iso, overall shooting FF will keep that auto iso lower than the ApsC body & lens combo in same situations.

Click to expand...

If you use the same f-number and shutter speed on the FF and APS-C cameras, under the same lighting, the Auto-ISO systems should use the same ISO setting on both cameras. The result will be a noisier image on the APS-C camera.

If you use the same shutter speed on both camera, under the same light, but adjust the f-numbers differently to get the same Depth of Field (DOF) on both cameras, then the the two cameras will use different ISO settings and different f-numbers. To match DOF, ISO on the APS-C camera will need to be be about 4/9ths what it was on the FF camera, and the f-number on the APS-C camera will need to be about 2/3 of what it was on the FF camera. The images from the two cameras will then have about the same noisiness.

Note that it is is often the case that APS-C cameras cannot set an ISO setting that is only 4/9ths of some of the ISO settings available on most FF cameras, and APS-C lenses often cannot use an f-number as small as 2/3 of the f-numbers available on some FF lenses.

DocShaka said:

2. I picked up the Z7ii before going all Fuji and was quite disturbed by the noise. I might be used to Fuji's easier-to-look-at noise but I wasn't having it for a $3k camera. I guess that's just the price of high pixel density?

Click to expand...

Not quite. It is the result of the higher pixel count of the Z7II letting you look closer at the ZII image, and you choosing to do so. Looking closer at an image, such that you are no longer looking at the whole image, makes the part you are looking at seem nosier than the whole image is. Any subpart of an image is nosier than the whole image. To properly compare the noisiness of images having different pixel counts, you need to compare the same fraction of each image, not the same % zoom.

The ZII actually produces less noisy images at the same settings, but the closer you look at an image, the nosier it will seem. If you compare the whole Z7II image with the whole Fujifilm image, or if you compare the same fraction of the Z7II image and the APS-C image, the Z7II image will appear less noisy.

And that is at the same settings. If there is sufficient light, the Z7II can shoot at ISO 64, while the best Fuji APS-C will only shoot at ISO 160. In this case the APS-C image will have as much noise as if the Z7II had shot at ISO 240, which is then 11/6th stops worse, instead of the 7/6ths stops disadvantage it would have at identical ISOs.

DocShaka said:

...

Click to expand...

lehill said:

DocShaka said:

Now I share my cameras with family members so I pretty much never see my Nikon stuff anymore and thought I would see what this xt4 could do for wildlife. I like to shoot birds in flight and landscape. So I picked up the 100-400 f2.8 and the x1.4 TC. I feel like I'm struggling so hard to get the ISO down. I have to shoot in what feels like much much brighter conditions... Like get out to shoot a couple hours earlier/later than I used to.

Click to expand...

In a previous post, you mention having a D500, D750, and 200-500mm f/5.6

I can't find a Fujinon 100-400mm f/2.8 but I can find a Fujinon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6.

As soon as you stick a 1.4x TC on this lens, it acts like a 140-560mm f/6.4-8 lens. This is a slower lens than you're used to.

So yeah, the 1.4x TC takes away 1 stop of light, and you'd have to find some way to make it up (higher ISO or slower shutter speed). The AF speed might be slower or less confident with the TC, it's hard to say.

Could this be related to your troubles?

Click to expand...

Oh this is certainly an issue but that's why I'm sticking this scenario without the TC. That's a whole other question as I was going to compare it with the new 150-600 fuji just released.

FingerPainter said:

DocShaka said:

yerach said:

DocShaka said:

Hello all.

Im not terribly new to photography but I have a new perspective on the title and subsequently a question I was hoping you all might be able to answer.

I have shot Nikon for years, both FF and cropped but always on FF glass. A year ago I picked up a Fuji XT4 for something a little easier to travel with and honestly just like the tactility of the Fuji's.

Now I share my cameras with family members so I pretty much never see my Nikon stuff anymore and thought I would see what this xt4 could do for wildlife. I like to shoot birds in flight and landscape. So I picked up the 100-400 f2.8 and the x1.4 TC. I feel like I'm struggling so hard to get the ISO down. I have to shoot in what feels like much much brighter conditions... Like get out to shoot a couple hours earlier/later than I used to.

So basically the question is, if I had identical setups but one ApsC lens/camera, one FF lens/camera and a FF lens/APSC body, how would thier ISOs compare at the same given settings? Significant difference?

I'm just trying to decide if I stick to all Fuji (because the reach for the price is pretty good though AF leaves something to want and I'm guessing it's just not meant for wildlife) or do I stick to Nikon or even consider a switch to Sony?

Probably overcomplicating it but thanks for any info.

doc

Click to expand...

1. glass doesn't effect iso performance, all it can do is let you shoot at lower isos.

2. many ff sensors perform better than apsc, even superb apsc such as the fuji you mentioned, in high isos, if this is a major one to you, stick to ff.

3. currently the future is unfortunately not with Nikon, unless you've got the 5.5k$ to deal out for a z9, and even then, the glass, although sharper than anything else, is quite slow focusing, if you are to go ff, go Sony or Canon.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.

1. Yes this is what I'm referring to. If I'm shooting with auto iso, overall shooting FF will keep that auto iso lower than the ApsC body & lens combo in same situations.

Click to expand...

If you use the same f-number and shutter speed on the FF and APS-C cameras, under the same lighting, the Auto-ISO systems should use the same ISO setting on both cameras. The result will be a noisier image on the APS-C camera.

Click to expand...

OK so this is what I was looking for.

To summarize I'm understanding correctly - If we have FF camera on FF glass right next to APS-C camera on APS-C glass, same f-stop, same focal length (400 f5.6 on APSC and 600 f5.6 on FF - focal length would differ but f-stop would not, right?), same shutter speed, then both cameras would automatically use the same ISO gain, but inherently the FF sensor produces less noise at same ISO and therefore would be a cleaner image. Also the DOF would differ but not super worried about that in this comparison.

So I'm not seeing my ISO creep any higher with my setup than I would on a FF setup, but generally, the images will be a bit noisier. My camera isn't more starved for light with this setup. Did I get that?