Another take on APS-C versus Full frame equivalence (50-140)

Started Dec 7, 2014 | Discussions
justin_time Contributing Member • Posts: 873
Another take on APS-C versus Full frame equivalence (50-140)
6

Thought I would start another thread on equivalence of Fuji 50-140 f2.8 to full frame with 70-200.

Fuji compared to Nikon 70-200 lenses
- Fuji 50-140 f2.8 weight: 990g; length 176mm; price £1249 (weight/price with tripod collar)
   *Fuji will also reflect the "news lens premium"
- Nikon 70-200 f4.0 weight 850g; length 179mm; price £864 (weight/price WITHOUT tripod collar)
- Nikon 70-200 f2.8 weight 1540g; length 209mm; price £1579 (weight/price with tripod collar)

Field of view:
50-140 FOV is equal to 76-213 so compared to a 70-200 Fuji loses a little at the wide end but gains at the long end.

Depth of Field (ability to blur the background)
On APS-C 140mm at f2.8 gives same amount of background blur as 200mm at f4.0. 
http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-1.5x-140mm-f2.8-and-1x-200mm-f2.8-and-1x-200mm-f4-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject
So for Blur the equivalent of the Fuji on FF is the 70-200 f4.0 - i.e. approximately same size / weight.   Sure you can use the 70-200 f2.8 on FF and get more blur, but with extra size/weight/cost.
Aperture / Exposure.
For the SAME ISO setting then to achieve same shutter speed then the equivalent lens on FF would be 70-200 f2.8.  But that has twice the sensor area, so given same sensor quality then on FF you could use the 70-200 f4.0 at double the ISO to give the equivalent of the Fuji 50-140 f2.8.

Conclusion (mine at least):
Fuji 50-140 f2.8 full frame equivalent is 70-200 f4.0.  size / weight of lenses are about the same. Fuji is more expensive, but includes tripod collar and reflects "new lens premium"
Of course the 70-200 f2.8 on full frame would give more background blur and be better in low light, but at the expense of weight, size & cost. Nothing is for free!!

 justin_time's gear list:justin_time's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Nikon D7100 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +7 more
Giovanni_1968
Giovanni_1968 Senior Member • Posts: 2,669
Re: Another take on APS-C versus Full frame equivalence (50-140)
3

I think debates like APS-C vs FF have no much reason to exist, those who claim cropped sensor can rival the full one are just trying to justify the need not to invest more in camera/lenses for the full frame sensor; I think each one has its own reason to exist, personally I'd like a cropped one for landscaping and at the same moment a full one for portraiture, then which lens will work better is like wanting two different formulas to compete on the same field, like road bike with street ones, sometimes and on some tracks they can be very close but I don't buy an offroad to go on asphalt (well, I did it and would do it again, who cares... but at least I never complained with my friends being faster than me on asphalt because their bikes were better, it was mine the one in the wrong place at the wrong time).

Found an article which is very explanatory about DepthOfField of APS-C vs FF

-- hide signature --

Giovanni
http://www.flickr.com/photos/giovanniaprea/
Nikon D800 - Fuji X-Pro1 - Fuji S5Pro - Panasonic L1 shooter

 Giovanni_1968's gear list:Giovanni_1968's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D2Xs +20 more
Clayton1985 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,223
Re: Another take on APS-C versus Full frame equivalence (50-140)

Giovanni_1968 wrote:

I think debates like APS-C vs FF have no much reason to exist, those who claim cropped sensor can rival the full one are just trying to justify the need not to invest more in camera/lenses for the full frame sensor; I think each one has its own reason to exist, personally I'd like a cropped one for landscaping and at the same moment a full one for portraiture, then which lens will work better is like wanting two different formulas to compete on the same field, like road bike with street ones, sometimes and on some tracks they can be very close but I don't buy an offroad to go on asphalt (well, I did it and would do it again, who cares... but at least I never complained with my friends being faster than me on asphalt because their bikes were better, it was mine the one in the wrong place at the wrong time).

I think the reason the debate exists is that many people either aren't willing or able to just buy the very best tool that they need for each and every type of photography that they might do (and if they are willing to buy it they still might not be willing to haul it around).   The comparisons/debates help people better understand the compromises in order to determine which format will better serve the majority of their needs.  Knowing that full frame is better for portraiture is not enough - you need to know how much better to make an informed decision.  And sure in a perfect world we might all buy one of each of everything.  That way I'd have the very best portrait rig for the one or two times a year that I need it.

Just a Photographer Senior Member • Posts: 1,368
Re: YAWN!!! - Getting bored of these topics.
7

Nothing to add,
Other then go get yourself a Full Frame camera if you think that is the holy grail of photography.
If you think photography is all about the gear then:

Forget about composition

Forget about timing the correct moment

Forget about the fact that the photographer makes the picture and the camera is just a tool.

I have seen too many photographers that have the best gear but are bad photographers.
They probably all think alike. That their gear is making them the picture perfect photographer while they actually suck in taking pictures.

 Just a Photographer's gear list:Just a Photographer's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon D4 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +9 more
The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 21,860
Re: YAWN!!! - Getting bored of these topics.
10

Just a Photographer wrote:

Nothing to add,
Other then go get yourself a Full Frame camera if you think that is the holy grail of photography.
If you think photography is all about the gear then:

Forget about composition

Forget about timing the correct moment

Forget about the fact that the photographer makes the picture and the camera is just a tool.

I have seen too many photographers that have the best gear but are bad photographers.
They probably all think alike. That their gear is making them the picture perfect photographer while they actually suck in taking pictures.

F2.8 is f2.8.... The Fuji is less weight and price than the Nikon f2.8.... So end of story there.  It appears some people think every shot for portraiture or something needs ultra shallow DOF....must be a crutch for some to overcome mediocre composition and technique.

You compare the f2.8 lens to an f2.8 lens...not by DOF equivalence.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon EOS D30 Nikon D2X Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EOS 10D +17 more
Clayton1985 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,223
Re: YAWN!!! - Getting bored of these topics.
1

The Davinator wrote:

You compare the f2.8 lens to an f2.8 lens...not by DOF equivalence.

You might but I don't.

57LowRider Veteran Member • Posts: 4,057
Re: Another take on APS-C versus Full frame equivalence (50-140)
1

justin_time wrote:

Conclusion (mine at least):
Fuji 50-140 f2.8 full frame equivalent is 70-200 f4.0. size / weight of lenses are about the same. Fuji is more expensive, but includes tripod collar and reflects "new lens premium"
Of course the 70-200 f2.8 on full frame would give more background blur and be better in low light, but at the expense of weight, size & cost. Nothing is for free!!

And this is where it all unravels. My GW690 has a f3.5 lens and, it's said, in FF terms that's like f1.8. Well whoop-de-doo. For the purposes of photography, it's a f3.5 lens. All other arguments are redundant.

(copy / paste was never so useful)

 57LowRider's gear list:57LowRider's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +11 more
Speedex Folder Contributing Member • Posts: 628
Re: Another take on APS-C versus Full frame equivalence (50-140)
3

There are lots of these 'equivalence' threads all over the DPR Forums, but why does this matter?
Am I really going to think of the few mm's difference or somehow quantify bokeh blur before I consider this camera or that lens?  No.

In the old days, we'd consider the 'conversion' in our minds from 35mm to roll film (say that 80mm was considered a 'equivalent' 'normal' lens coming from a 35 with a 50mm lens), but I must say I never remember anybody doing the math endlessly about these comparisons.

I'm not asking to 'start something', but for the life of me, why does this matter?  I understand that the new Fuji 2.8 zoom is a similar lens to a 70-200 2.8 for full frame, but why would I worry about 1 stop or a few mm's on either end of the focal length?

For me the only real considerations would be 'do I like it enough to buy it', 'can I afford it', and 'must I have full frame or can I use a smaller format for the things I do / need?'.  After those questions were all answered 'yes', than I can work with the lenses as they are.

Of course, I'd be the first to admit it's entirely possible I 'don't know what I don't know', but what am I missing here?  Why does this matter in the real world?

OP justin_time Contributing Member • Posts: 873
Re: YAWN!!! - Getting bored of these topics.

Just a Photographer wrote:

Nothing to add,
Other then go get yourself a Full Frame camera if you think that is the holy grail of photography.
If you think photography is all about the gear then:

Forget about composition

Forget about timing the correct moment

Forget about the fact that the photographer makes the picture and the camera is just a tool.

I have seen too many photographers that have the best gear but are bad photographers.
They probably all think alike. That their gear is making them the picture perfect photographer while they actually suck in taking pictures.

I wasn't suggesting Full frame is the holy grail.  For me APS-C is good compromise.  IQ is good enough for me and the size / weight means I take my camera out more often than FF and so get more practice at composition & timing

 justin_time's gear list:justin_time's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Nikon D7100 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +7 more
OP justin_time Contributing Member • Posts: 873
Re: Another take on APS-C versus Full frame equivalence (50-140)

Speedex Folder wrote:

I'm not asking to 'start something', but for the life of me, why does this matter? I understand that the new Fuji 2.8 zoom is a similar lens to a 70-200 2.8 for full frame, but why would I worry about 1 stop or a few mm's on either end of the focal length?

My point is that the Fuji 50-140 f2.8 on APS-C is equivalent to 70-200 f4.0 on Full frame, which is roughly the same size/weight.  But that is based on the ability of the full frame to use ~1 stop higher ISO for the same IQ.

 justin_time's gear list:justin_time's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Nikon D7100 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +7 more
The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 21,860
Re: YAWN!!! - Getting bored of these topics.
7

Clayton1985 wrote:

The Davinator wrote:

You compare the f2.8 lens to an f2.8 lens...not by DOF equivalence.

You might but I don't.

Then you simply don't understand the optics behind a comparison. Comparing weights, price, size etc on differing lenses makes no sense when comparing different f ratios.  It is a basic mistake that people make when they don't understand how optics work.

Might be best if you don't brag about not understanding what you are comparing.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon EOS D30 Nikon D2X Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EOS 10D +17 more
Clayton1985 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,223
Re: Another take on APS-C versus Full frame equivalence (50-140)
3

justin_time wrote:

Speedex Folder wrote:

I'm not asking to 'start something', but for the life of me, why does this matter? I understand that the new Fuji 2.8 zoom is a similar lens to a 70-200 2.8 for full frame, but why would I worry about 1 stop or a few mm's on either end of the focal length?

My point is that the Fuji 50-140 f2.8 on APS-C is equivalent to 70-200 f4.0 on Full frame, which is roughly the same size/weight. But that is based on the ability of the full frame to use ~1 stop higher ISO for the same IQ.

And it is an important point despite some of the other responses.    If you follow much of the advice here and you don't consider the differences in formats and you for example buy the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 and think you are getting the same thing as a full frame 24-70 f2.8 only in a smaller package then you are either going to be really surprised when you use a full frame 24-70 f2.8 or blissfully ignorant if you don't.  The camera makers have really started to take advantage of the confusion over this....   they have people talking about how much smaller and lighter the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 is vs a full frame f2.8 lens.....    in what world would that be a valid or relevant comparison?    Yet it happens all of the time these days.   Understanding the differences is the only way to make an educated decision about what format or lens you need.  It doesn't mean that everyone needs full frame but the only valid way to know that is to understand and consider the differences.

And if you don't know and don't care because you are getting everything you need from your chosen format then great....  I only ask that you not run around talking about how much smaller and lighter your m4/3 40-150 f2.8 lens is compared to a full frame f2.8 lens.

Clayton1985 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,223
Re: YAWN!!! - Getting bored of these topics.
12

The Davinator wrote:

Clayton1985 wrote:

The Davinator wrote:

You compare the f2.8 lens to an f2.8 lens...not by DOF equivalence.

You might but I don't.

Then you simply don't understand the optics behind a comparison. Comparing weights, price, size etc on differing lenses makes no sense when comparing different f ratios. It is a basic mistake that people make when they don't understand how optics work.

Might be best if you don't brag about not understanding what you are comparing.

You're doing your best to ignore the camera that the lens is attached to but for taking pictures that is hard to do.

OP justin_time Contributing Member • Posts: 873
Re: YAWN!!! - Getting bored of these topics.

Clayton1985 wrote:

The Davinator wrote:

Clayton1985 wrote:

The Davinator wrote:

You compare the f2.8 lens to an f2.8 lens...not by DOF equivalence.

You might but I don't.

Then you simply don't understand the optics behind a comparison. Comparing weights, price, size etc on differing lenses makes no sense when comparing different f ratios. It is a basic mistake that people make when they don't understand how optics work.

Might be best if you don't brag about not understanding what you are comparing.

You're doing your best to ignore the camera that the lens is attached to but for taking pictures that is hard to do.

Agree with Clayton1985 - its the overall combination of sensor & lens that matters, not just the lens alone.

 justin_time's gear list:justin_time's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Nikon D7100 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +7 more
georgehudetz Veteran Member • Posts: 4,158
Re: Another take on APS-C versus Full frame equivalence (50-140)

justin_time wrote:

Aperture / Exposure.
For the SAME ISO setting then to achieve same shutter speed then the equivalent lens on FF would be 70-200 f2.8. But that has twice the sensor area, so given same sensor quality then on FF you could use the 70-200 f4.0 at double the ISO to give the equivalent of the Fuji 50-140 f2.8.

Conclusion (mine at least):
Fuji 50-140 f2.8 full frame equivalent is 70-200 f4.0. size / weight of lenses are about the same. Fuji is more expensive, but includes tripod collar and reflects "new lens premium"
Of course the 70-200 f2.8 on full frame would give more background blur and be better in low light, but at the expense of weight, size & cost. Nothing is for free!!

This is how I understand it too. I'm not sure why so many people have a hard time accepting it - if you choose a FF body, a 70-200 F4 lens will give similar performance to a 50-140 F2.8 lens on APS-C. Yes, on the FF you'll be shooting one stop higher ISO in low-light situations where shutter speed is critical (like indoor events), but the noise level in the sensor should be roughly the same, given similar tech. And when SS isn't critical, you'll get the advantage of the FF sensor (dynamic range, tonality, resolution).

I know if I were looking at buying such a system now I'd be looking carefully at Sony. One of their a7 bodies plus the 70-200 F4 would be a very powerful combination. They also sell a 24-70 F4 that is much lighter than the Fuji 16-55 F2.8, and has OIS to boot. To me this is where the equivalence concept is important to understand, since with most FF bodies you pick up so much weight, but with the Sony bodies & F4 lenses, you have a system that is very similar in weight to the Fuji, although clearly much different from a handling & cost perspective.

 georgehudetz's gear list:georgehudetz's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +8 more
robert1955 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,222
Re: Another take on APS-C versus Full frame equivalence (50-140)

georgehudetz wrote:

justin_time wrote:

Aperture / Exposure.
For the SAME ISO setting then to achieve same shutter speed then the equivalent lens on FF would be 70-200 f2.8. But that has twice the sensor area, so given same sensor quality then on FF you could use the 70-200 f4.0 at double the ISO to give the equivalent of the Fuji 50-140 f2.8.

Conclusion (mine at least):
Fuji 50-140 f2.8 full frame equivalent is 70-200 f4.0. size / weight of lenses are about the same. Fuji is more expensive, but includes tripod collar and reflects "new lens premium"
Of course the 70-200 f2.8 on full frame would give more background blur and be better in low light, but at the expense of weight, size & cost. Nothing is for free!!

This is how I understand it too. I'm not sure why so many people have a hard time accepting it - if you choose a FF body, a 70-200 F4 lens will give similar performance to a 50-140 F2.8 lens on APS-C. Yes, on the FF you'll be shooting one stop higher ISO in low-light situations where shutter speed is critical (like indoor events), but the noise level in the sensor should be roughly the same, given similar tech. And when SS isn't critical, you'll get the advantage of the FF sensor (dynamic range, tonality, resolution).

I know if I were looking at buying such a system now I'd be looking carefully at Sony. One of their a7 bodies plus the 70-200 F4 would be a very powerful combination. They also sell a 24-70 F4 that is much lighter than the Fuji 16-55 F2.8, and has OIS to boot. To me this is where the equivalence concept is important to understand, since with most FF bodies you pick up so much weight, but with the Sony bodies & F4 lenses, you have a system that is very similar in weight to the Fuji, although clearly much different from a handling & cost perspective.

Indeed, it is better to look at camera plus lens than at only the lens for weight. Comparing Fuji to Nikon adds the complexity of comparing mirrored to unmirrored.

 robert1955's gear list:robert1955's gear list
Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm 50mm F2 R WR Samyang 12mm F2 NCS CS XF 90mm
robert1955 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,222
Re: YAWN!!! - Bored by that strawman
3

Just a Photographer wrote:

Nothing to add,

No, you have not

Other then go get yourself a Full Frame camera if you think that is the holy grail of photography.

That is not what he is saying. Now here comes the straw man

If you think photography is all about the gear then

Forget about composition

Forget about timing the correct moment

Forget about the fact that the photographer makes the picture and the camera is just a tool.

I have seen too many photographers that have the best gear but are bad photographers.
They probably all think alike. That their gear is making them the picture perfect photographer while they actually suck in taking pictures.

Contrary to your romantic vision, discussing the tools and selecting the appropriate tool for the job in hand is very much core business for artists and craftsmen.

 robert1955's gear list:robert1955's gear list
Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm 50mm F2 R WR Samyang 12mm F2 NCS CS XF 90mm
Just a Photographer Senior Member • Posts: 1,368
Re: Don't forget...
2

robert1955 wrote:

Contrary to your romantic vision, discussing the tools and selecting the appropriate tool for the job in hand is very much core business for artists and craftsmen.

You are forgetting:

- The Pixel Peeper
- The Wannabee professional
- The Amateur photographer that is influenced by marketing

They all think alike like you.
That only the best will get them their picture.

Why aren't those photographers using Medium Format or even large format?
Those tools are even better in all the things you say for those artists and craftsmen.

Why are so many pro photographer actually taking a step down and switching to mirrorless and even to Fuji's APS-C system?

You know why? Because those tools suit them as well as their FF camera.
In the end the camera does matter much less then the photographer that is behind the camera.
Too many people here on DPReview are obsessed by equipment rather then their love for photography.

 Just a Photographer's gear list:Just a Photographer's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon D4 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +9 more
Jeff Charles Veteran Member • Posts: 7,514
Re: YAWN!!! - Getting bored of these topics.
3

The Davinator wrote:

Just a Photographer wrote:

Nothing to add,
Other then go get yourself a Full Frame camera if you think that is the holy grail of photography.
If you think photography is all about the gear then:

Forget about composition

Forget about timing the correct moment

Forget about the fact that the photographer makes the picture and the camera is just a tool.

I have seen too many photographers that have the best gear but are bad photographers.
They probably all think alike. That their gear is making them the picture perfect photographer while they actually suck in taking pictures.

F2.8 is f2.8.... The Fuji is less weight and price than the Nikon f2.8.... So end of story there.

Not quite.

It appears some people think every shot for portraiture or something needs ultra shallow DOF....must be a crutch for some to overcome mediocre composition and technique.

This thread is about lens equivalence, not technique.

You compare the f2.8 lens to an f2.8 lens...not by DOF equivalence.

I guess you can do that if you don't care if the comparison is meaningful.

-- hide signature --

Jeff
Leave it in the ground!

 Jeff Charles's gear list:Jeff Charles's gear list
Sony RX100 III Fujifilm X100T Fujifilm X-E2 Olympus E-M1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +5 more
robert1955 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,222
Straw in the wind
1

Just a Photographer wrote:

robert1955 wrote:

Contrary to your romantic vision, discussing the tools and selecting the appropriate tool for the job in hand is very much core business for artists and craftsmen.

You are forgetting:

- The Pixel Peeper
- The Wannabee professional
- The Amateur photographer that is influenced by marketing

They all think alike like you.
That only the best will get them their picture.

What a remarkable conclusion as I do not say or suggest any of those things. I did not even talk about what tools to choose, I talk about the fact that thinking about the tool you are going to use is part of the job. You seem to deny that.

Why aren't those photographers using Medium Format or even large format?
Those tools are even better in all the things you say for those artists and craftsmen.

You are attributing words and thoughts to me that come out of your imagination.

Once more: the topic of my post was that discussing the tools is fine. If you are not interested, that's also fine, but do not hinder others in a discussion.

Why are so many pro photographer actually taking a step down and switching to mirrorless and even to Fuji's APS-C system?

Very traditional, hierarchical thinking. Mirrorless and even Fuji. There even are photographers using M4/3, or (BLASPHEMY WARNING) iPhones with the Instagram app

You know why? Because those tools suit them as well as their FF camera.

No, they understand how to choose the tool for the job

In the end the camera does matter much less then the photographer that is behind the camera.

Bla-di-bla

Too many people here on DPReview are obsessed by equipment rather then their love for photography.

Probably, but OTOH I don't care much for a photography love fest

 robert1955's gear list:robert1955's gear list
Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm 50mm F2 R WR Samyang 12mm F2 NCS CS XF 90mm
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads