XT2 IQ vs full frame

[myfujilife]

This is an honest question from an old film shooter who is trying to understand the ins and outs of digital photography. After reading hundreds of pages on the subject it appears to me that the theoretical advantage of a larger sensor with the same number of pixels lies in the greater light-gathering capability of the larger individual pixels. So the only real gain would be a decrease in noise levels for equivalent light conditions. In simple terms, the trade-off should be in noise vs size and expense, am I right or not?

It's about 1 stop of noise, about 1 stop of DR.

you lose DOF which is only really and issue if you need to go with a shallower DOF than f1.8

 

[myfujilife]

I find your second photo (on the water) just mesmerizing. Where was that taken?

It's a place called Princes Pier about 10 minutes walk from my house

 

[Dmderb]

Thanks for your input. I was never really satisfied with the results from the D600, although I didn't have the highest quality glass either. A D810 with quality glass should produce the results I am after. But I am intrigued by the Fuji system and all that wonderful glass!

Why do you want to go Fuji if you already have the em1ii with the 12-100? What am I missing?

 

[Dmderb]

I find my Xpro2 images sharper than my D600 ones. Same resolution, no AA filter, better WA lenses.

Weird, I've found my D750 gives me sharper images, better noise, better shadow recovery. I tested my D750+Sigma 35 compared with my Xpro+23mm f2 both at f8, jpegs, tripod mounted, indoor test charts and outdoor landscapes.

Well at F8, you will get more diffraction on APSC.

No it doesn't.

And the 23 F2 is not the 23 F1.4.

Should be the same at F8

Processing has a lot to do with is as well.

And comparing JPEGs is hardly a valid test.

LOL. If I shoot raw, then I'm comparing raw converters and processing technique. You have no ideas what you're talking about.

Fuji makes great cameras (although a bit overpriced IMO) and I love my x-pro2 but I'm not blinded by being a fanboy and I know there are better performing cameras out there for the same price. FX is 50% bigger than APS-C, there's no amount of software, hardware, cpu processing, algorithms to make up that difference.

OP specifically asked for IQ comparison, and FX is better from my experience with both cameras.

You compared the D750 with one of the best FX lenses, Sigma 35mm, against a Fuji with the 23mm f/2? This is like comparing a (good and reliable, no doubt) Toyota Corolla with a Mercedes AMG.

I once compared my D750/ Nikon 24-120 with the Oly em10ii (affordable 16mp m43 camera) with the Panasonic Leica 15mm lens. Guess what? The Oly's output with the PL lens (from a consumer 16mp camera) was easily better, especially in the corners.

I am pretty sure that with top notch Fuji glass the differences with FF will be invisible under most circumstances. Fuji has some weaknesses but pure IQ is not one of them.

 

[gftphoto]

Thanks very much, that is exactly my understanding. So all the discussion/argument about superiority of larger sensors is really meaningless if there is 1) enough light/sensor performance to keep noise levels acceptable, and 2) shallow enough depth of field for the desired effect.

 

[myfujilife]

Thanks very much, that is exactly my understanding. So all the discussion/argument about superiority of larger sensors is really meaningless if there is 1) enough light/sensor performance to keep noise levels acceptable, and 2) shallow enough depth of field for the desired effect.

And 3) you actually know how to use a very shallower DOF than f1.8 properly which I don't think the majority of non-pro's do.

 

[d750guy]

You compared the D750 with one of the best FX lenses, Sigma 35mm, against a Fuji with the 23mm f/2? This is like comparing a (good and reliable, no doubt) Toyota Corolla with a Mercedes AMG.

I once compared my D750/ Nikon 24-120 with the Oly em10ii (affordable 16mp m43 camera) with the Panasonic Leica 15mm lens. Guess what? The Oly's output with the PL lens (from a consumer 16mp camera) was easily better, especially in the corners.

I am pretty sure that with top notch Fuji glass the differences with FF will be invisible under most circumstances. Fuji has some weaknesses but pure IQ is not one of them.

IQ is more than just sharpness. (Although the d750+35 art was sharper) It's noise, it's dynamic range, it's shadow and highlight recovery. I still stand by my original statement, the d750 has better image quality.

I'm not saying the fuji is a bad camera, it's portable, light, fun, great IQ but to answer OP's question Xt-2 IQ vs FF. Full frame offers better IQ. Some of you are so far up Fuji's behind, there's no point in arguing.

 

[shakenmartini]

Thanks for your input. I was never really satisfied with the results from the D600, although I didn't have the highest quality glass either. A D810 with quality glass should produce the results I am after. But I am intrigued by the Fuji system and all that wonderful glass!

If you aren't willing to buy the best possible glass for a DSLR, then honestly the Nikon D5xxx series is way overkill with its current version. You could buy a refurb D5300 and get really good results, or even a D90 or D7000. The D7000 marked the first time that DX lenses were no longer good enough for the bodies and things have gotten worse since. Nearly all of Nikon's DX 18-xx f/3.5 lenses do not take advantage of the sensors post-D7000. We are at the point that in the Nikon world, nearly all Nikon first party DX lenses are not good enough for the sensors in their entry level cameras (D3xxx and D5xxx). FX lenses lose resolving power on DX, so these are a waste of money. At the moment, Nikon has neglected DX so badly that there really are not many good first party options that make DX a viable system that takes advantage of all the resolving power of their sensors. For better than your iPhone pictures, they are still better, but technically these cameras are better than the lenses most people put on them.

Likewise, in the FX world, it isn't quite as bad, but most of the current Nikon FX bodies require that you buy their top end FX lenses. The D700 is right on the border, but the D610, D750 etc. all need Nikon's very best, and very expensive lenses to take advantage of their sensors. Obviously the D800x and D810 series need these lenses too. The D810 is a fabulous camera, especially paired with Sigma's ART primes. However, it is a very heavy system to carry around every day.

Of you aren't willing to invest in the best glass for Nikon, you are wasting weight and money and not getting anything in return if you are buying anything other than an entry-level DX body.

The nice thing about Fuji, is that their glass is top notch and affordable. While you are looking at ~$2000 lenses in the Nikon FX world (unless you opt for the DX Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 f/1.8 lenses on DX), in the Fuji world, all of their lenses are at least very good, if not superb. Most start at less that $1000, many in the $500-800 range. Less if you buy used.

With the X-T2 and X-T20, Fuji's bodies have finally caught up with AF quality, and EVF quality that it is more than a viable replacement for a DSLR and you can save a lot of weight. I personally also am very pleased with Adobe RAW conversions, and do not experience the artifacts that others report.

 

[Dmderb]

I'm not saying the fuji is a bad camera, it's portable, light, fun, great IQ but to answer OP's question Xt-2 IQ vs FF. Full frame offers better IQ. Some of you are so far up Fuji's behind, there's no point in arguing.

I have never owned a Fuji and I am definitely not going to argue with you

I was just pointing out that you compared apples with oranges.

 

[myfujilife]

1. d750guy wrote:

You compared the D750 with one of the best FX lenses, Sigma 35mm, against a Fuji with the 23mm f/2? This is like comparing a (good and reliable, no doubt) Toyota Corolla with a Mercedes AMG.

I once compared my D750/ Nikon 24-120 with the Oly em10ii (affordable 16mp m43 camera) with the Panasonic Leica 15mm lens. Guess what? The Oly's output with the PL lens (from a consumer 16mp camera) was easily better, especially in the corners.

I am pretty sure that with top notch Fuji glass the differences with FF will be invisible under most circumstances. Fuji has some weaknesses but pure IQ is not one of them.

IQ is more than just sharpness. (Although the d750+35 art was sharper) It's noise, it's dynamic range, it's shadow and highlight recovery. I still stand by my original statement, the d750 has better image quality.

I'm not saying the fuji is a bad camera, it's portable, light, fun, great IQ but to answer OP's question Xt-2 IQ vs FF. Full frame offers better IQ. Some of you are so far up Fuji's behind, there's no point in arguing.

Noise is 1 stop. Dynamic range is 1 stop. Hardly a big difference

 

[biff56]

That was stolen too - hence my dilemma!

 

[Father Bouvier]

Thanks very much, that is exactly my understanding. So all the discussion/argument about superiority of larger sensors is really meaningless if there is 1) enough light/sensor performance to keep noise levels acceptable, and 2) shallow enough depth of field for the desired effect.

No, the opposite is true, The FF sensor has an advantage at base ISO, because it has (theoretically a stop) higher dynamic range. At higher ISO's you just need to use equivalent lenses to get the same results (noise, DOF, FOV) from both systems.

Dynamic range might not be important to everybody or in every situation, but having a white dog, I prefer taking FF camera when shooting in bright sunny days. On the other hand I often take Fuji shooting indoors, it holds the noise and colors well, except for very law light conditions, because Fuji hasn't released any f/0.9 lenses, so my 50/1.4 FF lens becomes a necessity.

Another (theoretical) advantage is the lens designs. The larger the image circle the easier to design the equivalent lenses to the same standards. Or alternatively, the larger the image circle the better equivalent lens quality can be achieved at the same price point.

 

[Father Bouvier]

Had my Nikon D600 and lenses stolen recently. Debating whether to get another full frame or try out Fuji. I do like to print 20x30 with regularity(landscape mainly). Any thoughts on quality of larger prints? I here jpeg quality out of camera is quite usable.

If you are routinely printing 20x30 landscapes then I would suggest you stay with FF Nikon. Vegetation is not something Fuji is kind to. If you go with Fuji, I guarantee you will be back here writing about worms and receiving a warm reception from the regulars On the other hand, if you like printing large portraits then don't hesitate buying Fuji, you will be pleased.

 

[Dmderb]

That was stolen too - hence my dilemma!

The em1ii has very little difference in noise and DR with the XT-2, I think less than one stop and pretty much not field relevant. But it has IBIS, better touch screen implementation and better grip (although I wouldn't say the ergonomics in general - as some people prefer Fuji's controls and I can understand that). There are excellent lenses in both systems - but m43 has more lightweight and cheap options and some of the best zooms across all systems. Fuji has the excellent (but not built to pro standards, which is also reflcted in its great kit price) 18-55 and very high quality primes overall. Finally, the difference between 4:3 and 3:2. Many people who try the 4:3 frame end up realizing it is a better ratio for many types of photography. The obvious advantage of the Xt-2 is that without the grip it is cheaper than the Oly.

 

[solamnus]

Had my Nikon D600 and lenses stolen recently. Debating whether to get another full frame or try out Fuji. I do like to print 20x30 with regularity(landscape mainly). Any thoughts on quality of larger prints? I here jpeg quality out of camera is quite usable.

I can give you my experiences on the subject as i have used both systems for a long while now.

I had the D700 and loved the camera. Was my first digital where i felt like i had my old better film cameras.

After that i bought the Df and the D4 and the D810. All great cameras. The D810 was unmatched for the detail in the Landscapes i got with it, and the D4 and the Df are such great portrait cameras when paired with good lenses.

In the meantime i got the XT1 as a travel camera and as a second body if things got bad with the Nikons.

The XT1 gave me the comfort of using a smaller camera on my travels but still get great pictures, something i could not have done with any other smaller compact or such in the past. I had most Fuji lenses and kept building on the system.

What i lacked was tapping into my Flash system i use for my Nikons cause i shoot a lot with portable flash on location.

Still i felt i used my Fuji system more and more, and only got my Nikons out for more demanding work like when i needed speed or the flashes.

Then i got my X-T2 and some more lenses like the 16-55 and the 90 2,0 etc and the battery grip for the X-T2 which makes ir really fast.

So now i find myself with only the Fuji system and my Nikon DF with some great lenses i kept for special portrait work( like the 105 1,4 and the Noct etc) and then i use my X-T2 for all the rest. Its a great middleground and works perfect for me. Sometimes i DO wish i had my D4 cause it was such a tank, but i still have my D700 around so might use that when i need something build in a similar fashion

Im not a pixel peeper and i think a strong point is how you "feel" about lenses and a system. If i cannot get the "feeling" i want from a camera and lenses i would not buy it even if it had the best IQ out there. I love the feeling i get form the Fuji lenses and cameras but i also love my Df and the lenses i kept for that. It has a creative feeling and side to it that far outweigh the technical specifications for me.

Hope that rant help you in some way

/Martin.

 

[myfujilife]

Thanks very much, that is exactly my understanding. So all the discussion/argument about superiority of larger sensors is really meaningless if there is 1) enough light/sensor performance to keep noise levels acceptable, and 2) shallow enough depth of field for the desired effect.

No, the opposite is true, The FF sensor has an advantage at base ISO, because it has (theoretically a stop) higher dynamic range. At higher ISO's you just need to use equivalent lenses to get the same results (noise, DOF, FOV) from both systems.

Dynamic range might not be important to everybody or in every situation, but having a white dog, I prefer taking FF camera when shooting in bright sunny days. On the other hand I often take Fuji shooting indoors, it holds the noise and colors well, except for very law light conditions, because Fuji hasn't released any f/0.9 lenses, so my 50/1.4 FF lens becomes a necessity.

Another (theoretical) advantage is the lens designs. The larger the image circle the easier to design the equivalent lenses to the same standards. Or alternatively, the larger the image circle the better equivalent lens quality can be achieved at the same price point.

I'm confused. White dog, bright sunny days, D750 is limited to 1/4000 shutter speed whilst X-T2 goes to 1/32000 which would put the advantage in the X-T2's court or force you to use a smaller aperture. If you were shooting wide open with a 85 f/1.4 you'd probably have to use an ND filter. The 56 f/1.2 would have no such issues. Dynamic range is hardly a concern in bright sunlight, or it's never been for me. I haven't seen many, if not any images that were saved with dynamic range. The advantage with EVF is you are less likley to blow out the highlights because you can see the exposure. Then again, bright sunlight? Dog? Why would you even shoot bright sunlight? It's terrible lighting, shadows are harsh, which is why most decent photographers don't shoot bright sunlight, they would pick shade.

Again, indoors, the f/1.4 is f/1.4, so you'd lose DOF, not light, but more often than not, f/1.4 would be too shallow and you'd find yourself needing more DOF from stopping down, so again, very little advantage. So personally, f/1.4 isn't "a necessity". It's optional and generally speaking, crap wide open because it's soft unless you pay a fortune for the Canon 50 f/1.2 or Sigma Art 50 which is as big as a 24-70 f/2.8.

The last theoretical component can easily be offset by the fact that a larger lens circle also amounts to a larger cost for manufacture so you end up paying $2000 for a lens that would cost $1500 on APSC.

 

[myfujilife]

Had my Nikon D600 and lenses stolen recently. Debating whether to get another full frame or try out Fuji. I do like to print 20x30 with regularity(landscape mainly). Any thoughts on quality of larger prints? I here jpeg quality out of camera is quite usable.

If you are routinely printing 20x30 landscapes then I would suggest you stay with FF Nikon. Vegetation is not something Fuji is kind to. If you go with Fuji, I guarantee you will be back here writing about worms and receiving a warm reception from the regulars On the other hand, if you like printing large portraits then don't hesitate buying Fuji, you will be pleased.

Ah, yeah, those dreaded worms that people tell me about but I never see.

 

[stevo23]

Thanks very much, that is exactly my understanding. So all the discussion/argument about superiority of larger sensors is really meaningless if there is 1) enough light/sensor performance to keep noise levels acceptable, and 2) shallow enough depth of field for the desired effect.

Another (theoretical) advantage is the lens designs. The larger the image circle the easier to design the equivalent lenses to the same standards. Or alternatively, the larger the image circle the better equivalent lens quality can be achieved at the same price point.

And yet, the larger the format, the more expensive the lens but the lower the MTFs for said lens.

 

[Negative287]

Had my Nikon D600 and lenses stolen recently. Debating whether to get another full frame or try out Fuji. I do like to print 20x30 with regularity(landscape mainly). Any thoughts on quality of larger prints? I here jpeg quality out of camera is quite usable.

I printed 20x30 with the Fuji X-E1 images, they were about the best I had ever printed at that size. There was no moire, no aliasing, just great color, tone, and sharpness.

By the way, I sold my D600 and jumped to the Fuji... As much as I liked the full frame sensor, there was so many more benefits to going with the Fuji.

here are some of the benefits.

1. Film Emulation Color is great

2. The Primes are just as good, often better, and almost always cheaper.

3. Focusing at the sensor means no more lens focusing issues.

4. Lighter weight gear.

5. Instant feedback of exposure and color (Color feedback tends to favor higher end bodies).

6. No mirror slap affecting slower shutter speeds.

7. Split prism focusing without having to changer focusing screen (If you can even find one).

What did I lose by making this jump?

1. High Speed Sync.

2. Full Frame Depth of Field (longer lenses don't have this issue).

3. Slightly better DR at Higher ISO Settings.

4. Optical Viewfinder (I didn't notice it as much in the X-T1, as I do in the X-T20).

Anyway, I hope this helps in your decision making process.

 

[grazuncle]

Had my Nikon D600 and lenses stolen recently. Debating whether to get another full frame or try out Fuji. I do like to print 20x30 with regularity(landscape mainly). Any thoughts on quality of larger prints? I here jpeg quality out of camera is quite usable.

I printed 20x30 with the Fuji X-E1 images, they were about the best I had ever printed at that size. There was no moire, no aliasing, just great color, tone, and sharpness.

By the way, I sold my D600 and jumped to the Fuji... As much as I liked the full frame sensor, there was so many more benefits to going with the Fuji.

here are some of the benefits.

1. Film Emulation Color is great

2. The Primes are just as good, often better, and almost always cheaper.

3. Focusing at the sensor means no more lens focusing issues.

4. Lighter weight gear.

5. Instant feedback of exposure and color (Color feedback tends to favor higher end bodies).

6. No mirror slap affecting slower shutter speeds.

7. Split prism focusing without having to changer focusing screen (If you can even find one).

What did I lose by making this jump?

1. High Speed Sync.

2. Full Frame Depth of Field (longer lenses don't have this issue).

3. Slightly better DR at Higher ISO Settings.

4. Optical Viewfinder (I didn't notice it as much in the X-T1, as I do in the X-T20).

Anyway, I hope this helps in your decision making process.

I had that and then the 610.

I du like compact cameras. .I have the XT10.

I did like the strength of the NEFS (DR) but not so much the output colour ir the sporadic AF acuracy. A full frame Nikon mirrorless should fix that but not the colour I get easily from Fuji