APS-C is now entry level

[ishwanu]

The signals are there, apsc is now a hobby level format, M43 is a niche and 1 inch compacts are dead.

Agree or disagree?

If you're talking about sales of new cameras in the world at large, that's probably about right - but it's nothing that hasn't been observed before today.

 

[mmartel]

It would seem that with the possible exception of Sony and Fujifilm, the other manufactures are currently concentrating their efforts on developing full frame bodies and lenses on a market that continues to shrink.

This makes sense. The large companies can afford getting diminishing returns on their investment, but not all of them are that large.

There's still a market for apsc cameras, but in the case of Canon and Nikon at least, the lens offer seems to be limited.

Also, price wise, if an apsc kit can be had for $700 and a full frame equivalent starts at around $1200(or less, if you get an older A7) , does it make sense to invest in apsc in 2024?

My answer is no.

Nonsense. You make it sound like if there were no cost difference then everyone would chose a FF camera. There's more to it than just cost.

Photography became my sole source of income beginning in the late 1970s. It remained my only source of income then until I retired. Back in the film days I shot everything from 8x10 sheet down to 35mm. When I was using a 35mm camera I didn't wish I had a 4x5 with me instead.

When I retired in the digital age I was using Canon 5d FF gear. I didn't stop taking photos, quite the contrary I started taking photos just for me. And the Canon FF gear started to get neglected as I preferred to use a small compact I carried with me everywhere. Eventually the FF gear took up a nearly permanent place in the closet. After about three years of neglect I decided the FF gear had to go and I wondered if I would be more likely to use a smaller, lighter camera. So I upgraded the Canon FF gear for a Fuji X-E2 and some choice lenses.

I was right and I did use the APS-C camera quite a bit more, but I still used my compact. In fact I upgraded the compact to a 1" sensor Canon G7 which I still take with me everywhere I go. It's on the desk next to me right now beside my wallet and when I leave the house it leaves with me.

I've also upgraded the Fuji and now have two bodies, an X-T2 and X-T4. Those I wanted. But I also have FF cameras again which I didn't want or purchase -- gifts. I have a Nikon Z7 and a Leica SL, so five cameras in total. My G7 compact get's twice as much use as the other four combined -- simple it's always there when I see something I want to photograph. I go out now deliberately to take photos and when I do I'll take either one of the Fujis or one of the FF cameras. I did that three times this week and each time took the X-T4.

I choose to use the Fujis 80% of the time over the FF cameras because of size and weight and the fact that the FF cameras do not offer better IQ over the Fujis that counters the downside of their increased size and weight. In other words what exactly are you getting when you get more than more than enough? The Fujis are already more than enough.

But all said my main camera has to be the 1" sensor Canon G7xmkii. Below is a photo I like that I took with the G7 while walking with my wife in the National Cemetery here in St. Louis. I wouldn't have that photo taken with my Fujis or Nikon or Leica because those cameras would never have been with me. The scene is backlit and high DR and not a problem for the G7 -- it's a great little camera.

Ok, so cost is one factor, but hardly the only factor and not a factor for me when I chose to use smaller than FF cameras as I do most of the time.

The signals are there, apsc is now a hobby level format, M43 is a niche and 1 inch compacts are dead.

There's nothing wrong about getting a Z30 or a M10, as long as you are happy using them with the compact kit lenses or a prime. Even if more lenses are coming for these systems, the buyers will always wonder if they should have gone with FF instead, because the price gap isn't really that great anymore and most of the fun and attention goes to full frame for a number of years now.

Agree or disagree?

It's the same size as a Z5 or A7iii. It's heavier and bigger than an A7c or Canon R8.

I think the reasons for choosing Fuji are the film sims and/or controls and/or lenses. The size/weight advantages relative to FF options have been eroded, much like the size/weight advantages of all APS-C systems relative to FF.

A lot of people still seem to be living with a mental model where smaller, lighter, cheaper FF choices don't exist when they certainly do. One may still prefer an APS-C option like Fuji for specific reasons (e.g. handling, lens options, JPEGs/film sims, etc) but unless we're talking about tele reach I don't think claiming smaller/lighter is anything like what it used to be back in the DSLR days.

 

[PGH423]

It would seem that with the possible exception of Sony and Fujifilm, the other manufactures are currently concentrating their efforts on developing full frame bodies and lenses on a market that continues to shrink.

This makes sense. The large companies can afford getting diminishing returns on their investment, but not all of them are that large.

There's still a market for apsc cameras, but in the case of Canon and Nikon at least, the lens offer seems to be limited.

Also, price wise, if an apsc kit can be had for $700 and a full frame equivalent starts at around $1200(or less, if you get an older A7) , does it make sense to invest in apsc in 2024?

My answer is no. The signals are there, apsc is now a hobby level format, M43 is a niche and 1 inch compacts are dead.

There's nothing wrong about getting a Z30 or a M10, as long as you are happy using them with the compact kit lenses or a prime. Even if more lenses are coming for these systems, the buyers will always wonder if they should have gone with FF instead, because the price gap isn't really that great anymore and most of the fun and attention goes to full frame for a number of years now.

Agree or disagree?

I think APS-C has always been entry level.

What I'm observing is Canon, Nikon, and Sony APS-C seem increasingly pointless outside of use for tele work. The price and size/weight gap to full frame has dropped tremendously, especially for used gear. I can't see why I'd buy a Z50 when I can get an excellent condition used Z5 or Z6 for about the same price. Likewise, an A7iii or A7Rii or A7c if you like seem more appealing to me than an A6400. The price and size gaps here are not huge.

Ok, if you're mainly into tele and you want to maximize reach, different story. But we're into the realm of niche and not mainstream general photography.

I wouldn’t call telephoto niche. Maybe something narrow like “birds in flight” is, but you’re talking about an entire focal range. Telephoto comprises almost all wildlife photography and overlaps with many other areas.

 

[mmartel]

It would seem that with the possible exception of Sony and Fujifilm, the other manufactures are currently concentrating their efforts on developing full frame bodies and lenses on a market that continues to shrink.

This makes sense. The large companies can afford getting diminishing returns on their investment, but not all of them are that large.

There's still a market for apsc cameras, but in the case of Canon and Nikon at least, the lens offer seems to be limited.

Also, price wise, if an apsc kit can be had for $700 and a full frame equivalent starts at around $1200(or less, if you get an older A7) , does it make sense to invest in apsc in 2024?

My answer is no. The signals are there, apsc is now a hobby level format, M43 is a niche and 1 inch compacts are dead.

There's nothing wrong about getting a Z30 or a M10, as long as you are happy using them with the compact kit lenses or a prime. Even if more lenses are coming for these systems, the buyers will always wonder if they should have gone with FF instead, because the price gap isn't really that great anymore and most of the fun and attention goes to full frame for a number of years now.

Agree or disagree?

I think APS-C has always been entry level.

What I'm observing is Canon, Nikon, and Sony APS-C seem increasingly pointless outside of use for tele work. The price and size/weight gap to full frame has dropped tremendously, especially for used gear. I can't see why I'd buy a Z50 when I can get an excellent condition used Z5 or Z6 for about the same price. Likewise, an A7iii or A7Rii or A7c if you like seem more appealing to me than an A6400. The price and size gaps here are not huge.

Ok, if you're mainly into tele and you want to maximize reach, different story. But we're into the realm of niche and not mainstream general photography.

I wouldn’t call telephoto niche. Maybe something narrow like “birds in flight” is, but you’re talking about an entire focal range. Telephoto comprises almost all wildlife photography and overlaps with many other areas.

Ok but telephoto is more niche than "general photography".

And my point is that if you're into tele, then the case for APS-C (or m43 or even 1") seems more sensible.

But if you're not into tele, the case for anything smaller than FF has, in my opinion, never been weaker.

 

[Ysarex]

It would seem that with the possible exception of Sony and Fujifilm, the other manufactures are currently concentrating their efforts on developing full frame bodies and lenses on a market that continues to shrink.

This makes sense. The large companies can afford getting diminishing returns on their investment, but not all of them are that large.

There's still a market for apsc cameras, but in the case of Canon and Nikon at least, the lens offer seems to be limited.

Also, price wise, if an apsc kit can be had for $700 and a full frame equivalent starts at around $1200(or less, if you get an older A7) , does it make sense to invest in apsc in 2024?

My answer is no.

Nonsense. You make it sound like if there were no cost difference then everyone would chose a FF camera. There's more to it than just cost.

Photography became my sole source of income beginning in the late 1970s. It remained my only source of income then until I retired. Back in the film days I shot everything from 8x10 sheet down to 35mm. When I was using a 35mm camera I didn't wish I had a 4x5 with me instead.

When I retired in the digital age I was using Canon 5d FF gear. I didn't stop taking photos, quite the contrary I started taking photos just for me. And the Canon FF gear started to get neglected as I preferred to use a small compact I carried with me everywhere. Eventually the FF gear took up a nearly permanent place in the closet. After about three years of neglect I decided the FF gear had to go and I wondered if I would be more likely to use a smaller, lighter camera. So I upgraded the Canon FF gear for a Fuji X-E2 and some choice lenses.

I was right and I did use the APS-C camera quite a bit more, but I still used my compact. In fact I upgraded the compact to a 1" sensor Canon G7 which I still take with me everywhere I go. It's on the desk next to me right now beside my wallet and when I leave the house it leaves with me.

I've also upgraded the Fuji and now have two bodies, an X-T2 and X-T4. Those I wanted. But I also have FF cameras again which I didn't want or purchase -- gifts. I have a Nikon Z7 and a Leica SL, so five cameras in total. My G7 compact get's twice as much use as the other four combined -- simple it's always there when I see something I want to photograph. I go out now deliberately to take photos and when I do I'll take either one of the Fujis or one of the FF cameras. I did that three times this week and each time took the X-T4.

I choose to use the Fujis 80% of the time over the FF cameras because of size and weight and the fact that the FF cameras do not offer better IQ over the Fujis that counters the downside of their increased size and weight. In other words what exactly are you getting when you get more than more than enough? The Fujis are already more than enough.

But all said my main camera has to be the 1" sensor Canon G7xmkii. Below is a photo I like that I took with the G7 while walking with my wife in the National Cemetery here in St. Louis. I wouldn't have that photo taken with my Fujis or Nikon or Leica because those cameras would never have been with me. The scene is backlit and high DR and not a problem for the G7 -- it's a great little camera.

Ok, so cost is one factor, but hardly the only factor and not a factor for me when I chose to use smaller than FF cameras as I do most of the time.

The signals are there, apsc is now a hobby level format, M43 is a niche and 1 inch compacts are dead.

There's nothing wrong about getting a Z30 or a M10, as long as you are happy using them with the compact kit lenses or a prime. Even if more lenses are coming for these systems, the buyers will always wonder if they should have gone with FF instead, because the price gap isn't really that great anymore and most of the fun and attention goes to full frame for a number of years now.

Agree or disagree?

It's the same size as a Z5 or A7iii. It's heavier and bigger than an A7c or Canon R8.

I think the reasons for choosing Fuji are the film sims and/or controls and/or lenses. The size/weight advantages relative to FF options have been eroded, much like the size/weight advantages of all APS-C systems relative to FF.

A lot of people still seem to be living with a mental model where smaller, lighter, cheaper FF choices don't exist when they certainly do. One may still prefer an APS-C option like Fuji for specific reasons (e.g. handling, lens options, JPEGs/film sims, etc) but unless we're talking about tele reach I don't think claiming smaller/lighter is anything like what it used to be back in the DSLR days.

Smaller & lighter is still a reality for APS-C when you add in the lenses, not as much as previously but still real.

 

[mmartel]

It's the same size as a Z5 or A7iii. It's heavier and bigger than an A7c or Canon R8.

I think the reasons for choosing Fuji are the film sims and/or controls and/or lenses. The size/weight advantages relative to FF options have been eroded, much like the size/weight advantages of all APS-C systems relative to FF.

A lot of people still seem to be living with a mental model where smaller, lighter, cheaper FF choices don't exist when they certainly do. One may still prefer an APS-C option like Fuji for specific reasons (e.g. handling, lens options, JPEGs/film sims, etc) but unless we're talking about tele reach I don't think claiming smaller/lighter is anything like what it used to be back in the DSLR days.

Smaller & lighter is still a reality for APS-C when you add in the lenses, not as much as previously but still real.

Point granted, but what used to be large differences are now super small.

A. Following demand and the physics of shorter-flange distance lenses and the higher ISO capabilities of modern sensors, FF mirrorless makers now feature many lighter lenses than they did back in the DSLR days. Many of these are slower (and therefore lighter weight) than would ever previously have been considered viable for such "serious work" and "serious users" as FF was considered reserved for back in the DSLR days.

This has seriously narrowed the gap between what lenses are available at certain focal lengths and light-gathering equivalent apertures across FF and APS-C systems.

B. With the ability to use APS-C lenses, should you so choose, on FF (provided you're not using a Fuji system), you also have access to those same lighter lenses on occasions you should wish to use them, provided you're willing to sacrifice some detail/megapixels (though sensor size is still APS-C so no difference in DR or noise). Now, while you have the option to use FF lenses on compatible Nikon/Sony/Canon APS-C systems, IMO, this is far less useful than the option to use their FF lenses on FF bodies and get FF results. I'm sure the BIF crowd will disagree, but I'm speaking about the general photographer here.

The world has changed. APS-C (at least for Nikon/Canon/Sony) is vestigial and the justification for buying it as a general system choice has never been weaker (except for tele applications).

That's not to say APS-C can't still deliver fantastic, satisfying results. Just that it's previous "advantages" relative to FF have largely eroded IMO.

 

[Teila Day]

I think APS-C has always been entry level.

Do you remember when most professional and semi-pro cameras used "cropped" sensors (e.g. APS-C, APS-H, etc..)

I don't think pros spending $3-5k USD on a APS-C/H camera + $7-10k on super telephoto lenses, lugging around a bag with multiple f/2.8 lenses costing $1,500 or more, were "entry level" folks using entry level gear.

--
Teila K. Day
http://teiladay.com

 

[DirkPeh]

I don’t get this debate owning 3 APS-C and 1 full frame camera. The difference is smaller than many think. A recent APS-C camera is in many regards better than a 8-10 years old FF.

I can’t imagine a FF Ricoh GR. Vogue covers are shot with Fuji APS-C cameras (O.K., there’s one I know off).

The most talked about camera of the last two years, that has rekindled interest in photography and the experience of using a camera in younger generations, but older people too, is an APS-C Camera.

Never forget: full frame is mostly a marketing term. 35 mm film was the APS-C of the times, when it was invented. Professional photographers looked down upon it, It was called „Kleinbildformat“, German for small picture format.

Many of the best photographers back then didn’t care and used their 35 mm rangefinders everywhere.

Just think about it: 35 mm is called „Full Frame“, a sensor that is twice as big is called „Middle Format“.

Both APS-C and FF can be and are used by professionals. I could even imagine that in future times, APS-C or even 1“ sensors become that good, are faster to read, cheaper to build and allow cheaper, smaller lenses on cheaper, smaller bodies that Full Frame becomes niche as middle format is today. I love my Fullframe camera, but there is a lot of business interest involved by the old camera manufacturers in pushing Full Frame.

 

[mmartel]

I think APS-C has always been entry level.

Do you remember when most professional and semi-pro cameras used "cropped" sensors (e.g. APS-C, APS-H, etc..)

I don't think pros spending $3-5k USD on a APS-C/H camera + $7-10k on super telephoto lenses, lugging around a bag with multiple f/2.8 lenses costing $1,500 or more, were "entry level" folks using entry level gear.

You mean 20 years ago? Sure. But that has no relevance to today's market.

When I said "APS-C has always been entry level" what I really meant was: "Full frame was never entry level."

Well, today, the barriers to full frame (size, weight, cost) have never been smaller, especially if we consider secondary market mirrorless choices.

Do you intend to quibble using the way the world was 20 years ago? Or do you want to debate the substance of my thesis, given the way the world is now?

 

[Ysarex]

It's the same size as a Z5 or A7iii. It's heavier and bigger than an A7c or Canon R8.

I think the reasons for choosing Fuji are the film sims and/or controls and/or lenses. The size/weight advantages relative to FF options have been eroded, much like the size/weight advantages of all APS-C systems relative to FF.

A lot of people still seem to be living with a mental model where smaller, lighter, cheaper FF choices don't exist when they certainly do. One may still prefer an APS-C option like Fuji for specific reasons (e.g. handling, lens options, JPEGs/film sims, etc) but unless we're talking about tele reach I don't think claiming smaller/lighter is anything like what it used to be back in the DSLR days.

Smaller & lighter is still a reality for APS-C when you add in the lenses, not as much as previously but still real.

Point granted, but what used to be large differences are now super small.

A. Following demand and the physics of shorter-flange distance lenses and the higher ISO capabilities of modern sensors, FF mirrorless makers now feature many lighter lenses than they did back in the DSLR days. Many of these are slower (and therefore lighter weight)

Yep they're slower. The ones that aren't slower are bigger and heavier than the APS-C equivalents.

than would ever previously have been considered viable for such "serious work" and "serious users" as FF was considered reserved for back in the DSLR days.

This has seriously narrowed the gap between what lenses are available at certain focal lengths and light-gathering equivalent apertures across FF and APS-C systems.

Light-gathering equivalent apertures?

B. With the ability to use APS-C lenses, should you so choose, on FF (provided you're not using a Fuji system), you also have access to those same lighter lenses on occasions you should wish to use them, provided you're willing to sacrifice some detail/megapixels (though sensor size is still APS-C so no difference in DR or noise). Now, while you have the option to use FF lenses on compatible Nikon/Sony/Canon APS-C systems, IMO, this is far less useful than the option to use their FF lenses on FF bodies and get FF results. I'm sure the BIF crowd will disagree, but I'm speaking about the general photographer here.

The world has changed. APS-C (at least for Nikon/Canon/Sony) is vestigial and the justification for buying it as a general system choice has never been weaker (except for tele applications).

That's not to say APS-C can't still deliver fantastic, satisfying results. Just that it's previous "advantages" relative to FF have largely eroded IMO.

 

[mmartel]

I don’t get this debate owning 3 APS-C and 1 full frame camera. The difference is smaller than many think.

A recent APS-C camera is in many regards better than a 8-10 years old FF.

I can’t imagine a FF Ricoh GR. Vogue covers are shot with Fuji APS-C cameras (O.K., there’s one I know off).

The most talked about camera of the last two years, that has rekindled interest in photography and the experience of using a camera in younger generations, but older people too, is an APS-C Camera.

I'm not debating the capabilities of the APS-C size sensor format.

I'm questioning the real "advantage" of buying an APS-C body in the Z, R, and E mounts - the price/size/cost gap relative to getting a FF body in those same mounts has never been narrower.

Never forget: full frame is mostly a marketing term. 35 mm film was the APS-C of the times, when it was invented. Professional photographers looked down upon it, It was called „Kleinbildformat“, German for small picture format.

Sure.

None of this changes the facts at hand and the arguments I'm making.

So many of you think this is a point I'm trying to make about whether APS-C is "good" or "good enough."

It's fantastic.

None of that changes that the envelope for light gathering and potential shallower depth of field (especially at wider focal lengths) is greater with the kleinbild/135/35/full-frame format compared to APS-C.

And if one can have access to those capabilities while sacrificing relatively little in size/weight/cost, then why not?

I mean, wouldn't many people prefer to have a MF format system if it were smaller/lighter and cheaper?

 

[mmartel]

It's the same size as a Z5 or A7iii. It's heavier and bigger than an A7c or Canon R8.

I think the reasons for choosing Fuji are the film sims and/or controls and/or lenses. The size/weight advantages relative to FF options have been eroded, much like the size/weight advantages of all APS-C systems relative to FF.

A lot of people still seem to be living with a mental model where smaller, lighter, cheaper FF choices don't exist when they certainly do. One may still prefer an APS-C option like Fuji for specific reasons (e.g. handling, lens options, JPEGs/film sims, etc) but unless we're talking about tele reach I don't think claiming smaller/lighter is anything like what it used to be back in the DSLR days.

Smaller & lighter is still a reality for APS-C when you add in the lenses, not as much as previously but still real.

Point granted, but what used to be large differences are now super small.

A. Following demand and the physics of shorter-flange distance lenses and the higher ISO capabilities of modern sensors, FF mirrorless makers now feature many lighter lenses than they did back in the DSLR days. Many of these are slower (and therefore lighter weight)

Yep they're slower. The ones that aren't slower are bigger and heavier than the APS-C equivalents.

than would ever previously have been considered viable for such "serious work" and "serious users" as FF was considered reserved for back in the DSLR days.

This has seriously narrowed the gap between what lenses are available at certain focal lengths and light-gathering equivalent apertures across FF and APS-C systems.

Light-gathering equivalent apertures?

Similar light gathering and depth of field capability (i.e., would produce equivalent images, i.e., they have the same physical aperture diagonal in millimeters, not f-stops).

[If this doesn't mean anything to you, search for equivalence articles on DPReview or go deep down the rabbit hole here: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#quick]

 

[lomoapontaechuta]

It would seem that with the possible exception of Sony and Fujifilm, the other manufactures are currently concentrating their efforts on developing full frame bodies and lenses on a market that continues to shrink.

This makes sense. The large companies can afford getting diminishing returns on their investment, but not all of them are that large.

There's still a market for apsc cameras, but in the case of Canon and Nikon at least, the lens offer seems to be limited.

Also, price wise, if an apsc kit can be had for $700 and a full frame equivalent starts at around $1200(or less, if you get an older A7) , does it make sense to invest in apsc in 2024?

My answer is no. The signals are there, apsc is now a hobby level format, M43 is a niche and 1 inch compacts are dead.

There's nothing wrong about getting a Z30 or a M10, as long as you are happy using them with the compact kit lenses or a prime. Even if more lenses are coming for these systems, the buyers will always wonder if they should have gone with FF instead, because the price gap isn't really that great anymore and most of the fun and attention goes to full frame for a number of years now.

Agree or disagree?

I disagree.

FF is an disadvantage in Wildlife or plane spotting e.g., an APS-C isn't. An APS-C sensor with a FF lens is so much better.

e.g. My 100-400mm lens it's just a 400mm lens with my FF body , with my APS-C body it's a 650mm, Much lighter and cheaper and smaller than a 600mm lens.

APS-C...they aren't as good as FF Lens.

I don't have any use for 4 k but i often fall in temptation for a cam with 4k with a heavy crop = free more reach.

Do you see this?

It could be sharper, this cam can be sharper to be enough, i don't know why i shot in A mode instead of S mode for this shot in the shadows , but the main problem i was greedy, instead of leaving some room for the subject and crop tight later in post i had to max out the zoom, and cut the seagull's head.

My car was at the carwash, i had just come outside for a smoke that took too long...long enough for the supermarket run ...I just have no patience for that. So i tried to dodge

Would i bring my FF or APS-C? No. I had to bring with me my phone only to fulfil , my roll of burden mule and pay the bill

But i took my compact or maybe even a m43 if i had one.

All i'm trying to say is you don't need a FF or cropped sensor for everything, yes compacts and M43 turned to be niche only because circumstances, they are still very handful.

I saw one R8, at first it seemed like a M50 but one just can't get around the physics ( lens).

The same way a FF or APS-C can slap a compact...well...a compact can slap a FF too.

We are all different, we all use different gear for whatever end.

On that day the only dead was FF and APS.-C ( at my end).

And the price gap it's still big.

Ok, you have access to FF starting at 500 euros R100 e.g. but you don't have a mechanic shutter and you have a slow reading sensor, so you don't have one of the most basic things.

 

[Ysarex]

It's the same size as a Z5 or A7iii. It's heavier and bigger than an A7c or Canon R8.

I think the reasons for choosing Fuji are the film sims and/or controls and/or lenses. The size/weight advantages relative to FF options have been eroded, much like the size/weight advantages of all APS-C systems relative to FF.

A lot of people still seem to be living with a mental model where smaller, lighter, cheaper FF choices don't exist when they certainly do. One may still prefer an APS-C option like Fuji for specific reasons (e.g. handling, lens options, JPEGs/film sims, etc) but unless we're talking about tele reach I don't think claiming smaller/lighter is anything like what it used to be back in the DSLR days.

Smaller & lighter is still a reality for APS-C when you add in the lenses, not as much as previously but still real.

Point granted, but what used to be large differences are now super small.

A. Following demand and the physics of shorter-flange distance lenses and the higher ISO capabilities of modern sensors, FF mirrorless makers now feature many lighter lenses than they did back in the DSLR days. Many of these are slower (and therefore lighter weight)

Yep they're slower. The ones that aren't slower are bigger and heavier than the APS-C equivalents.

than would ever previously have been considered viable for such "serious work" and "serious users" as FF was considered reserved for back in the DSLR days.

This has seriously narrowed the gap between what lenses are available at certain focal lengths and light-gathering equivalent apertures across FF and APS-C systems.

Light-gathering equivalent apertures?

Similar light gathering and depth of field capability (i.e., would produce equivalent images, i.e., they have the same physical aperture diagonal in millimeters, not f-stops).

DOF is different between FF and APS. To get equivalent DOF images (same angle of view and perspective) the FF camera lens needs to be stopped down more than the APS camera lens. A 50mm lens on FF will produce the same angle of view and perspective (same camera position) as a 35mm lens on APS and both set to the same physical aperture size the 50mm lens will be at f/8 while the 35mm lens will be at f/5.6. That's a stop difference in exposure which has very practical implications for use in the field. A stop difference in exposure is not equivalent light-gathering.

[If this doesn't mean anything to you, search for equivalence articles on DPReview or go deep down the rabbit hole here: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#quick]

 

[mmartel]

It's the same size as a Z5 or A7iii. It's heavier and bigger than an A7c or Canon R8.

I think the reasons for choosing Fuji are the film sims and/or controls and/or lenses. The size/weight advantages relative to FF options have been eroded, much like the size/weight advantages of all APS-C systems relative to FF.

A lot of people still seem to be living with a mental model where smaller, lighter, cheaper FF choices don't exist when they certainly do. One may still prefer an APS-C option like Fuji for specific reasons (e.g. handling, lens options, JPEGs/film sims, etc) but unless we're talking about tele reach I don't think claiming smaller/lighter is anything like what it used to be back in the DSLR days.

Smaller & lighter is still a reality for APS-C when you add in the lenses, not as much as previously but still real.

Point granted, but what used to be large differences are now super small.

A. Following demand and the physics of shorter-flange distance lenses and the higher ISO capabilities of modern sensors, FF mirrorless makers now feature many lighter lenses than they did back in the DSLR days. Many of these are slower (and therefore lighter weight)

Yep they're slower. The ones that aren't slower are bigger and heavier than the APS-C equivalents.

than would ever previously have been considered viable for such "serious work" and "serious users" as FF was considered reserved for back in the DSLR days.

This has seriously narrowed the gap between what lenses are available at certain focal lengths and light-gathering equivalent apertures across FF and APS-C systems.

Light-gathering equivalent apertures?

Similar light gathering and depth of field capability (i.e., would produce equivalent images, i.e., they have the same physical aperture diagonal in millimeters, not f-stops).

DOF is different between FF and APS. To get equivalent DOF images (same angle of view and perspective) the FF camera lens needs to be stopped down more than the APS camera lens. A 50mm lens on FF will produce the same angle of view and perspective (same camera position) as a 35mm lens on APS and both set to the same physical aperture size the 50mm lens will be at f/8 while the 35mm lens will be at f/5.6. That's a stop difference in exposure which has very practical implications for use in the field. A stop difference in exposure is not equivalent light-gathering.

I really don't want to get into trying to fully explain equivalence...

But if you take equivalent light gathering to mean total light (not light per unit area, which is what you're referring to and what is commonly referred to when discussing exposure) then you'll understand that at f8 the 50mm full frame mounted lens is letting in twice as much total light as the f5.6 35mm lens mounted on the APS-C camera.

That greater total light is being spread over an area that is a bit over twice as large, of course, which is why ISO (which lightens the image) would need to be higher to get final JPEG images of equivalent lightness.

So when I talk about lenses of equivalent light gathering I'm talking (roughly) about a 50mm f2 lens on full frame being roughly equivalent in light gathering to a 35mm f1.4 APS-C lens assuming both are shot wide open. Technically the difference between FF and APS-C is closer to 1 1/3 stops but that's neither here nor there...

[If this doesn't mean anything to you, search for equivalence articles on DPReview or go deep down the rabbit hole here: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#quick]

 

[ishwanu]

I really don't want to get into trying to fully explain equivalence...

But if you take equivalent light gathering to mean total light (not light per unit area, which is what you're referring to and what is commonly referred to when discussing exposure) then you'll understand that at f8 the 50mm full frame mounted lens is letting in twice as much total light as the f5.6 35mm lens mounted on the APS-C camera.

No, you just described two ways of capturing (approximately) the same total light. That's why they'd produce (approximately) equivalent images. The fact that the total light is spread across a different area in each case is not important.

You can picture this yourself by imagining light coming through the same 6.25mm hole in each case. The image formed on the smaller sensor will be brighter because it's not spread out as far, so a lower ISO will be used. The image formed on the larger sensor will be dimmer because it's spread out farther, so a higher ISO will be used. The result will be the same either way, though, if the final images are viewed at the same size and distance.

If you set those two lenses to the same f-number, then the full frame camera would capture twice as much total light.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/2

'The equivalent aperture not only tells you how much depth-of-field you get, on a different system, it also tells you how much total light you'll get.'

 

[Ysarex]

It's the same size as a Z5 or A7iii. It's heavier and bigger than an A7c or Canon R8.

I think the reasons for choosing Fuji are the film sims and/or controls and/or lenses. The size/weight advantages relative to FF options have been eroded, much like the size/weight advantages of all APS-C systems relative to FF.

A lot of people still seem to be living with a mental model where smaller, lighter, cheaper FF choices don't exist when they certainly do. One may still prefer an APS-C option like Fuji for specific reasons (e.g. handling, lens options, JPEGs/film sims, etc) but unless we're talking about tele reach I don't think claiming smaller/lighter is anything like what it used to be back in the DSLR days.

Smaller & lighter is still a reality for APS-C when you add in the lenses, not as much as previously but still real.

Point granted, but what used to be large differences are now super small.

A. Following demand and the physics of shorter-flange distance lenses and the higher ISO capabilities of modern sensors, FF mirrorless makers now feature many lighter lenses than they did back in the DSLR days. Many of these are slower (and therefore lighter weight)

Yep they're slower. The ones that aren't slower are bigger and heavier than the APS-C equivalents.

than would ever previously have been considered viable for such "serious work" and "serious users" as FF was considered reserved for back in the DSLR days.

This has seriously narrowed the gap between what lenses are available at certain focal lengths and light-gathering equivalent apertures across FF and APS-C systems.

Light-gathering equivalent apertures?

Similar light gathering and depth of field capability (i.e., would produce equivalent images, i.e., they have the same physical aperture diagonal in millimeters, not f-stops).

DOF is different between FF and APS. To get equivalent DOF images (same angle of view and perspective) the FF camera lens needs to be stopped down more than the APS camera lens. A 50mm lens on FF will produce the same angle of view and perspective (same camera position) as a 35mm lens on APS and both set to the same physical aperture size the 50mm lens will be at f/8 while the 35mm lens will be at f/5.6. That's a stop difference in exposure which has very practical implications for use in the field. A stop difference in exposure is not equivalent light-gathering.

I really don't want to get into trying to fully explain equivalence...

But if you take equivalent light gathering to mean total light (not light per unit area, which is what you're referring to and what is commonly referred to when discussing exposure) then you'll understand that at f8 the 50mm full frame mounted lens is letting in twice as much total light as the f5.6 35mm lens mounted on the APS-C camera.

I understand total light and equivalence. In the case of total light it's not the aperture that is gathering more or less light it's the sensor area. In practical use f/5.6 on an APS camera is not equivalent to f/8 on a FF camera. You're going to get different exposures when you have those two lenses (50mm and 35mm) set to the same physical aperture. It's not the aperture that's gathering equivalent light; that same physical aperture in use on those two different cameras to take the same photo is very much not equivalent.

That greater total light is being spread over an area that is a bit over twice as large, of course, which is why ISO (which lightens the image) would need to be higher to get final JPEG images of equivalent lightness.

So when I talk about lenses of equivalent light gathering I'm talking (roughly) about a 50mm f2 lens on full frame being roughly equivalent in light gathering to a 35mm f1.4 APS-C lens assuming both are shot wide open. Technically the difference between FF and APS-C is closer to 1 1/3 stops but that's neither here nor there...

[If this doesn't mean anything to you, search for equivalence articles on DPReview or go deep down the rabbit hole here: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#quick]

 

[mmartel]

I really don't want to get into trying to fully explain equivalence...

But if you take equivalent light gathering to mean total light (not light per unit area, which is what you're referring to and what is commonly referred to when discussing exposure) then you'll understand that at f8 the 50mm full frame mounted lens is letting in twice as much total light as the f5.6 35mm lens mounted on the APS-C camera.

No, you just described two ways of capturing (approximately) the same total light. That's why they'd produce (approximately) equivalent images. The fact that the total light is spread across a different area in each case is not important.

You can picture this yourself by imagining light coming through the same 6.25mm hole in each case. The image formed on the smaller sensor will be brighter because it's not spread out as far, so a lower ISO will be used. The image formed on the larger sensor will be dimmer because it's spread out farther, so a higher ISO will be used. The result will be the same either way, though, if the final images are viewed at the same size and distance.

If you set those two lenses to the same f-number, then the full frame camera would capture twice as much total light.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/2

'The equivalent aperture not only tells you how much depth-of-field you get, on a different system, it also tells you how much total light you'll get.'

Sorry, you're right, I'm a m43 user and used to 1 f-stop difference between m43 and FF being twice the total light... Needed to shift gears but didn't.

 

[Lightright]

Is it? I think APS-C format is a great compromise for hobbyists and those who are budget conscious. Technological miniaturization may have diminished the body size advantages of full frame, apsc and m43 formats but your back would appreciate the overall lighter set up of your gear because the lenses are still physically smaller, lighter and more compact. The prices of lenses are also much lower than their identical equivalent with full frame.

 

[ishwanu]

... In practical use f/5.6 on an APS camera is not equivalent to f/8 on a FF camera.

In practical use, yes, it is.

You're going to get different exposures when you have those two lenses (50mm and 35mm) set to the same physical aperture.

No, you can use exactly the same exposures, but with different ISOs.

It's not the aperture that's gathering equivalent light; that same physical aperture in use on those two different cameras to take the same photo is very much not equivalent.

Maybe you can explain why you think it's not equivalent. The entire concept of equivalence (meaning that the end results will have the same lightness, same DOF, same angle of view, same noise, etc. when viewed at the same size and distance) says that it is, and so do practical examples.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/2