Fujifilm X-T3 vs Canon 5D Mark IV, bokeh @ 50mm, f/1.4 (equiv.)

DominikT wrote:

Raymond L wrote:

DominikT wrote:

WeirdSheep wrote:

DominikT wrote:

WeirdSheep wrote:

DominikT wrote:

These are good examples. But unless Fuji Bring out a 35mm f0.95 Auto focus lens, we won’t have an exact equivalent, to be able to say “ FF doesn’t matte”. Because we see in your test, it does matter, when you want shallow depth of field and auto focus. You just won’t get it with a crop censor.

Well that's not exactly true, you forgot the clarifying comment of 'at 35mm with autofocus'. You can get shallow dof very easily on APS-C, with AF, with plenty of lenses, so it's not exactly an issue for most people, especially as manual focus isn't exactly difficult these days.

I’m not sure you get my point. Yes you could use for example the Fuji 56 f1.2 to get the same depth of field as a 50mm 1.4 on full frame. But you’ll need to move way back. You can’t stand the same distance as with the 50mm on FF. I like to shoot with a 35 50 and 85mm on full frame. So I’m always looking at the equivalent on the Fuji crop sensor. And unfortunately there just aren’t any. Or they’re so big, there is no point in having the APSC system then, as you get the same thing with a smaller FF lens.

No l do get your point, firstly there are manual focus lenses that do what you want, but you want AF, but then the lenses are too big for you, so just use FF and be done with it, problem solved. I could pick any format and come up with a similar scenario, they're all compromises one way or another, that's life l'm afraid.

I’m not trying to start anything here. I love my X-Pro2 and have sold off my canon gear because the Fuji system is more fun to use, with its manual dials and rings. It brings me closer to the film experience.

However, what gets me is when people say that FF has no advantage over APSC. To me it does. Because you can get a 50mm 1.2 AF lens now for all the FF systems, but you can’t get a 35 f0.95 lens with AF for Fuji. Nor a 23mm one. And zoom lenses are even worse, nothing below f2.8 for Fuji. Which is an f4 on FF.

Yes there are MF third party lenses, the Voigtlander lenses look amazing, and I don’t mind using manual focus, (I have two vintage lenses I use very often on my Fuji) however, a lot of these lenses are just very soft wide open, almost to the point that you need to stop down to at least f2.8 to get a decent image.

Here are my requirements

-Love fujifilm dials and the design language

-Love fujifilm 1.4 primes, the aperture ring

-Love fujifilm film simulation (even though i shoot raw)

-I want thin DOF

-I want thin DOF zoom lenses (FF 2.8) that aren’t too heavy (e.g Tamron 20-40 2.8)

-I am also on a budget and need 3rd party options (Samyang/tamron/sigma) etc

-I want “reliable” AF-C when shooting at thin DOF

-I use NR for all my raw files (DxO PL + LR Cc)

My Solution:

-Why not have both (Fujifilm + FF)? if there are two different worlds that have their own set of strengths keep then separate.

Yes my requirements are very similar to yours. I’ve been using a Canon FF system since the original EOS 5D. All the way up to the EOS R, (and still use the R5C for work) but about 6 years ago I picked up a used X-E2, and more recently an X-Pro2. And the Canon cameras and L series lenses ended up sitting in my cupboard, and more recently packed away in storage. I just stopped using them. I was hoping that Fuji would eventually release a FF rangefinder style camera. But that’s probably won’t happen. So my options are to get a Sony A7 series with some nice primes with aperture rings and to pretend it’s like using a Fuji. Or get the GFX 50R and hope for some fast primes from Fuji. Or use my X-Pro2 and see what happens in the long term.

You were using Canon for many years, then Fuji. Both systems are well known for their excellent color science, especially skin tones. You rally wonna sacrifice it and spent like 3x times more on editing, when trying to fix crappy Sony colors?