Would I benefit from FF if I only shoot jpeg?

[Richard Spangler]

You can go into the picture settings and change the look to fit your liking. I like a lilt more saturation etc to bring out the blue skies. You won't have the profiles like fuji though if thats what you prefer.

"I have no problem sticking with Fuji, but if I would see an improvement in IQ I would consider the move. Thoughts?"

Needs to define what kind of improvement in IQ you are looking at. Less noise at high ISO? better dynamic range? More resolution? Shallower DOF?

How do you like the Sony color palette? If you shoot JPG, every camera has a different palette (sort of like different color films in the old days).

There are too many unknowns to answer your question. Suggest to rent one if possible.

 

[dkeller]

Both those options would result in large file sizes and I don't really see PNG as a real solution as it is processed the same as RAW anyway.

 

[Tristimulus]

My opinion is you should rent a FF camera and lens and try it. You can get a lot of great advice but in the end it really comes down to you. I personally like the jpgs that come off my A7R iv. I would like it if Sony would switch to PNG or TIF as JPG is an outdated format but that's just my opinion.

JPG is the de facto standard for sharing digital images all over the world. Outdated?

TIFF do not offer anything the RAW format offers, and RAW have advantages over TIFF.

The extra fine JPGs from Sony cameras are impressively robust and can be tweaked quite a bit before beginning to break down. Just get the white balance and exposure right when shooting JPGs and all is fine.

Personally JPGs are my standard, use RAW in a few select cases. Was professionally into color for quite a few years and have learned to base my workflow on the expected output.

 

[photofan1986]

I wouldn't do that. Fuji has some of the nicest looking jpegs out there. Sony...well not really known for that. Even though I am one of those who quite likes Sony's output because it is quite neutral (well, except white balance in some cases), I have recently used an older Fuji and I was very impressed with the lovely output. Also, the film simulations have no competition in Sony's world. I prefer Sony for many reasons, but if I was a jpeg shooter only, I would probably switch to Fuji.

 

[4Photos]

...by processing a poor lossy format instead of the raw file.

What are you talking about? The Sony RAWs are not poor at all. You can choose lossless if you want, but frankly there is zero difference between Sony lossy and Sony lossless in 99.9% of situations.

 

[Vilmantas]

Some people suggest Fuji.

I wanted to get Fuji since it is such a nice system. Fuji has simulations with great colours. Fuji also has hundreds of recipes for other film simulations. Thought this is the system that will solve raw editing problems. Did an investigation and found that the detail in jpeg is very poor. You can find treads in DPR also. People invest around 2k and get average results.

My advice is to do an investigation before buying. Some people are very happy regarding Fuji jpeg quality, but others have the opposite experience.

 

[vundere]

...by processing a poor lossy format instead of the raw file.

What are you talking about? The Sony RAWs are not poor at all. You can choose lossless if you want, but frankly there is zero difference between Sony lossy and Sony lossless in 99.9% of situations.

The lossy format I'm talking about is JPEG, not raw files.


I shoot in compressed raw myself, since I've yet to encounter a situation where that's caused me problems.

 

[4Photos]

Thought this is the system that will solve raw editing problems.

RAW isn't much of an "editing problem" anymore. The camera produces JPGs using its own internal recipes. You can as easily run all your RAWS through an editor like CAPTURE ONE without any user input.

ADVANTAGE 1: Auto-Apply your own favorite recipe (you don't need to create them, hundreds and hundreds of styles are available).

ADVANTAGE 2: If ever you want to make individual adjustment to a specific photo, you already have everything at your finger tips.

My advice is to do an investigation before buying. Some people are very happy regarding Fuji jpeg quality, but others have the opposite experience.

100% AGREE !!!

 

[Dr Al 2010]

My opinion is you should rent a FF camera and lens and try it. You can get a lot of great advice but in the end it really comes down to you. I personally like the jpgs that come off my A7R iv. I would like it if Sony would switch to PNG or TIF as JPG is an outdated format but that's just my opinion.

JPG is the de facto standard for sharing digital images all over the world. Outdated?

TIFF do not offer anything the RAW format offers, and RAW have advantages over TIFF.

The extra fine JPGs from Sony cameras are impressively robust and can be tweaked quite a bit before beginning to break down. Just get the white balance and exposure right when shooting JPGs and all is fine.

Personally JPGs are my standard, use RAW in a few select cases. Was professionally into color for quite a few years and have learned to base my workflow on the expected output.

There's nothing wrong with JPG. But it's 30 year old technology. It was designed for a time when GIFs were showing that formats limitation. At the same time storage and internet speeds (back when JPG came out people were still using dial up connections) were severely limited. However while JPG is fine for posting on the internet I would rather a lossless compressed image to go along with raw files (I shoot in uncompressed raw).

Most here paid thousands for a body, having to shell out an extra $100 to get a slightly larger memory card to get a lossless compressed images shouldn't be an issue. I can understand the opposite view but since I don't shoot thousands of images at a time I can take the time to convert my images and decide just how much compression (data loss) when converting them into JPG.

For me I bought a real camera because I didn't want to be limited, otherwise why not use a cell phone. We're not limited to one lens so why be limited to just JPG as the second option? Most of the time Sony's processing works just fine for me when they create the JPG. I then resize the picture and resave it. I would rather do that in a lossless format. I get that this is a touchy subject and I know other people will feel differently. I just would like the option to choose between JPG or TIFF as the second option like I can choose between uncompressed RAW vs lossy compressed RAW.

 

[4Photos]

My opinion is you should rent a FF camera and lens and try it. You can get a lot of great advice but in the end it really comes down to you. I personally like the jpgs that come off my A7R iv. I would like it if Sony would switch to PNG or TIF as JPG is an outdated format but that's just my opinion.

JPG is the de facto standard for sharing digital images all over the world. Outdated?

TIFF do not offer anything the RAW format offers, and RAW have advantages over TIFF.

The extra fine JPGs from Sony cameras are impressively robust and can be tweaked quite a bit before beginning to break down. Just get the white balance and exposure right when shooting JPGs and all is fine.

Personally JPGs are my standard, use RAW in a few select cases. Was professionally into color for quite a few years and have learned to base my workflow on the expected output.

There's nothing wrong with JPG. But it's 30 year old technology. It was designed for a time when GIFs were showing that formats limitation. At the same time storage and internet speeds (back when JPG came out people were still using dial up connections) were severely limited. However while JPG is fine for posting on the internet I would rather a lossless compressed image to go along with raw files (I shoot in uncompressed raw).

Most here paid thousands for a body, having to shell out an extra $100 to get a slightly larger memory card to get a lossless compressed images shouldn't be an issue. I can understand the opposite view but since I don't shoot thousands of images at a time I can take the time to convert my images and decide just how much compression (data loss) when converting them into JPG.

For me I bought a real camera because I didn't want to be limited, otherwise why not use a cell phone. We're not limited to one lens so why be limited to just JPG as the second option? Most of the time Sony's processing works just fine for me when they create the JPG. I then resize the picture and resave it. I would rather do that in a lossless format. I get that this is a touchy subject and I know other people will feel differently. I just would like the option to choose between JPG or TIFF as the second option like I can choose between uncompressed RAW vs lossy compressed RAW.

There is of course a huge (a super huge) difference between cell phone and FF top of the line camera, versus the mostly negligible almost invisible non-difference between Sonly lossy and Sonly lossless RAWs.(unless the most extrem contrast edges and massive shadow lifting).

But if you are perfectionist, then it's the way to go. Memory has become so inexpensive indeed, why not.

I do not see the benefit of TIFF though. Both JPGs and TIFFs can easily be created from the RAW files, without any user input.

 

[4Photos]

...by processing a poor lossy format instead of the raw file.

What are you talking about? The Sony RAWs are not poor at all. You can choose lossless if you want, but frankly there is zero difference between Sony lossy and Sony lossless in 99.9% of situations.

The lossy format I'm talking about is JPEG, not raw files.

I shoot in compressed raw myself, since I've yet to encounter a situation where that's caused me problems.

Sorry, my misunderstanding, should have read more carefully...

 

[ne beginner]

I've shot FF for a most of my digital life, and RAW. A few years ago I decided to downsize, and simplify to JPEG. That led me to Fuji. I moved back to FF, this time mirrorless and Sony, last fall. A little lighter and smaller vs Nikon DSLR's. Not much though. And back to RAW.

I use Fuji profiles when processing RAW with Sony. Had those profiles and used even with Nikon a lot too. When I shot film, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I always shot Fuji: Reala, Provia, etc. Fuji JPEGS out-of-the- (Fuji) camera are as good as it gets, IMHO.

But there is something about FF images. Not sure of out of the camera FF JPEGS have that same pop; have not used that.

I think if I were to only shoot JPEG, I would have stayed with Fuji.

 

[Dr Al 2010]

The difference between Sony raw files and TIFF files is I can edit a TIFF file with almost any paint program (since I'm most likely just resizing it). If out and about and I want to tease a coworker I may send him a picture that I just shot. I can easily resize it and then convert it to JPG to send (or even leave it in TIFF format on my cell phone. Yet when I get home I still have the original TIFF. If it looks great I may not even bother with the RAW file. For the RAW files there's a lot more work flow involved and I only have the software on my main laptop. As I said, it's just personal preference. There's no wrong answer.

 

[dkeller]

Sure, try sending that TIFF file to a friend over the internet. I shoot JPEG + RAW and use the JPEG files to preview and cull my files. Then I process the RAW files with Light Room and convert the ones I really want to JPEG for future printing and my own use. I also convert many into a 1 mb or smaller file for internet use. I print to 16X24 with excellent results. While JPEG may be old, it still works exceptionally well and is the universally accepted format for most applications, so I see no problem with it.

 

[4Photos]

When I shot film, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I always shot Fuji: Reala, Provia, etc. Fuji JPEGS out-of-the- (Fuji) camera are as good as it gets, IMHO.

I think if I were to only shoot JPEG, I would have stayed with Fuji.

Speaking of dinosaurs. Fuji 690 GW and GWS medium format cameras where something special. If I were to only shoot analog, that would be my camera of choice.

 

[Tristimulus]

When I shot film, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I always shot Fuji: Reala, Provia, etc. Fuji JPEGS out-of-the- (Fuji) camera are as good as it gets, IMHO.

I think if I were to only shoot JPEG, I would have stayed with Fuji.

Larger formats have benefits also when shooting JPGs.

Speaking of dinosaurs. Fuji 690 GW and GWS medium format cameras where something special. If I were to only shoot analog, that would be my camera of choice.

You could always get a Fuji GFX (middle format) and still shoot JPGs. ;-)

 

[goodbokeh]

When I shot film, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I always shot Fuji: Reala, Provia, etc. Fuji JPEGS out-of-the- (Fuji) camera are as good as it gets, IMHO.

I think if I were to only shoot JPEG, I would have stayed with Fuji.

Larger formats have benefits also when shooting JPGs.

Speaking of dinosaurs. Fuji 690 GW and GWS medium format cameras where something special. If I were to only shoot analog, that would be my camera of choice.

You could always get a Fuji GFX (middle format) and still shoot JPGs. ;-)

Yes, the Fuji GFX SOOC Jpegs are impressive. With my 100S I shoot Raw/Jpeg and select Provia Jpegs as the reference standard when processing my ACR files. The Jpegs are often of a quality that the Raws don't improve upon them much. The OP likely isn't interested in going as far as digital medium format though. If he was, the GFX 50SII with 35-70 kit lens or (my favorite) GF50/3.5 pancake would drop his jaw.

Here's an example of the GF50/3.5 handling the sun and maintaining nice subject detail and contrast with no veiling haze. Handheld.

View attachment 2299fe21466142a59b496ec9428adfcc.jpg

 

[DaSonyGuy]

Of course.

Given the same lens and same aperture, a full frame camera will give you a shallower DOF than with a crop camera...This makes full frame camera much better suited for flattering professional portrait work, where it is highly desirable to have a smooth OOF background with lovely bokeh.

If both the FF and the crop camera have the same amount of pixels, lets say 24mp, then obviously the photosites / photodiodes on the full frame sensor will be much bigger, and therefore less noisy and they will have a higher dynamic range than those on the crop sensor camera.

However, at this point I should mention BSI (Back Side Illuminated) sensor technology...BSI sensors are even more sensitive and have even lower noise than the older more conventional FSI (Front Side Illuminated) sensors.

Even if a FF and crop sensor camera have the same size photosites, if the FF has a BSI sensor (as it usually will with a Sony Mirrorless camera) it will still have much less noise than the FSI crop sensor.

Sony mirrorless cameras use some of the lowest noise BSI sensors on the market and one of the lowest noise cameras in Sony's range is the Sony 24mp FF A7C, making it fantastic for use in low light conditions.

Given that you probably would like to continue using a lightweight body, then the A7C would be the ideal for you as it's the lightest FF camera on the market (it only weighs 509g).

The Fuji X-T10 has a conventional 16mp FSI sensor and 4.82 micron photosites vs the A7C which has a BSI sensor and 5.93 micron photosites...That equates to much better image quality from the A7C that than X-T10, in all lighting conditions.

Also the X-T10 has an average of 350 shots per battery whereas the A7C has an average of 750 shots per battery, so as one A7C battery would last you all day you would save some weight by only having to carry one battery for the A7C vs several for the X-T10.

And if you get the A7C then I would also recommend getting the Samyang AF 24mm f1.8 FE rather than Sigma 24mm f2, as it's a lot lighter.

P.S. I have the A7C, the Samyang 24/1.8 and I only shoot in camera jpegs.

 

[LenRivers]

Based on the must only shoot jpeg and I think processing RAW is super easy with something like Iridient developer

I’d say if it ain’t broke no need to fix it. Stay with Fuji and what you know and like as your final product

 

[jonas ar]

I presently shoot with Fuji and have been considering an upgrade. I am considering a Sony with the Sigma 24 f2 and 35 f2 to maintain manual aperture control which I like. The thing is, I only shoot jpeg. I no longer have the time or patience to post process in raw. Knowing this, in your opinion would I even benefit from going FF or is it just a waste of money in my case? I have no problem sticking with Fuji, but if I would see an improvement in IQ I would consider the move. Thoughts?

if you can shoot at base ISO you will gain about a stop improvement.

If the light is insufficient for base ISO it really depends. F/1.4 lenses on APS-C will provide the same aperture as f/2 does on FF (at the same AoV) and hence will give equivalent images at the same shutter speed (same noise, same DoF, same diffraction).

If you compare f/2 on both formats, the larger format will show improvements in noise, but it comes at the expense of less DoF.
The advantage of larger formats is mostly down to the ability to trade DoF for noise. Plus the option for adding strobes to shoot at base ISO at a given DoF and thereby get better noise performance. Larger formats require more light for the same DoF.