Yes, it's funny even as an X-Trans user. Every time galleries are posted for those plastic budget X-A cameras, the differences are imperceptible or even working in their favor. Fujifilm's main reason for the X-Trans was lower noise levels but then they've been found to cheat a bit with ISO by underexposing somewhat and ending up gaining like half a stop of lower noise just from that alone. I have a feeling their base ISO 200 rather than maybe a more correct ISO 150 was more behind that X-Trans secret. (it has now finally been lowered a bit in the X-T3)

So I'm still far from convinced. I once saw a tiny bump in X-Trans details when pixel peeping their JPEG's but that advantage would often be eradicated when comparing RAW's and working with still more mature Bayer sensor engines.

It's not that I dislike X-Trans output unless if we're paying more for it because then I don't think it's worth it. How many Canon/Nikon/Sony users honestly wish they had an X-Trans inside their cameras?

Yes, those GFX cameras produce beautiful results. They should have been FF though :). Fuji's hate for FF is crazy and ridiculous. They have spent so much money on FF bashing propaganda and lies ... Holy F-stop! People are easy to fool, but the GFX system simply costs too much for most photography enthusiasts like myself. Just like FF did a decade ago. But now when all sorts of affordable FF systems are available, it is really hard to justify buying anything else. Fuji reminds me of Apple quite a lot - 'Not better, but rather different'.
"only limitations are the users behind the viewfinders" - Not really. I mean, that's a fallacy. There can be the same person behind different cameras and different cameras would still have different limitations.
I'm not asking for the X-A to offer top level features. It just makes no logical sense to me that the lower series have better sensors than their top tier.
I really hope Fuji will cut the "crop" and start playing this game honestly for a change.

I don't feel crippled by the knobs and dials and X-Trans sensor in my top end Fuji.

I don't know what ecka84 means by saying Fuji is in any way dishonest with their cameras or marketing. They're all in on APS-C. They have been, since the original X100 came out, and it's reassuring that they're not going to switch to full frame and make me buy a whole new bevy of lenses just so they could keep up with the Sonys and the Canikons. Their X-Trans sensors work great, and their ergos and quality are top notch. They're continuing to double down on the APS sensor size like they said they would.

What is in any way dishonest about that?

And as has been stated many times before, Fuji looked at the crowded FF market and went, 'Hmm.. well we can throw our hat into the full frame ring too (and get drowned by Sony and their low prices) or we can again differentiate ourselves by making something specifically unique that provides a clear value not present in FF offerings.'

There's not a big pressing reason for me to switch from APS to full frame. But I can really see the difference between FF and medium format. There's a lot of room to play in that space versus the already crowded FF market space.

Fuji chose correctly.

"I don't feel crippled" - Good for you :)
"saying Fuji is in any way dishonest" - Don't you remember all the "APS-C is barely any smaller than FF" trolling from Fuji reps? And that "GFX is much larger than FF"? Or was it "xTrans APS-C is the new FF"? :)
Actually, I have no problem with APS-C. It's the overall cost of the crop systems. I can put a $100-200 50F1.8 of a FF camera and get a very nice picture (for around $1000 in total). But, to get the same picture on Fuji X, I would need a $1000+ 35F1.2 lens. So, it's not the sensor size. It's what we get for the price, plus all the dishonest F-stop and ISO marketing, plus lies about smaller size and weight.
I would love to have the option of FF equivalent optics on Fuji X for at least the same price. Which is only fair to ask for.
"not going to switch to full frame" - Yeah, after all these lies about FF ... I doubt that they ever will :).

OK - so what you are basically saying is that, "you don't own any camera within the Fuji system," and thus find it easy to criticize the system as a whole?"

That's quite easy to do and I doubt Fuji will suffer in the process. They are currently the APS-C leaders and there will always be a niche for that sensor size, and in the end, quality-wise, you get what you pay for.

By all means, we all have choices - yours seems to be FF (good for you), but for many of us who have been with Fuji since the beginning, we find their offerings to be superb and a joy to use.

@Mr Bolton -- it's like saying, we are afraid to compete in the highly lucrative and expanding FF market, so we decided to get whatever little money we can in the dying APS-C niche and a tiny MF niche. That's a loser talk. There is a reason why FF market is so competitive, because it will drive both smaller and larger sensors off the market.

@ecka84 I'm not a Fuji user and never used their cameras before. But I have to agree that FF is really an overestimated system especially for a hobbyist photographer. When you compare the image quality of cameras with modern APS-C sensors and excellent optics and FF cameras with same price optics, the difference is really small actually.
When I tried FF camera and its optics my photos didn't become better overall. So I don't understand when people here constantly write in the comments section, that a system (Fuji or EF-M) doesn't have a path to upgrade to FF. It's not a big problem in my opinion.

"When you compare the image quality of cameras with modern APS-C sensors and excellent optics and FF cameras with same price optics, the difference is really small actually"
- Which only makes me doubt your judgement. You must be viewing them too small.
"When I tried FF camera and its optics my photos didn't become better overall"
- Cameras don't make you a better photographer. If you can't get better pictures out of a better camera, then perhaps you are the problem. Respectfully.
The problem is that (for example) a huge $1600 XF50-140F2.8 lens that weights 995g, is called a "smaller and cheaper version of a FF 70-200mm lens. But they forget to tell you that it is equivalent to and will take pictures exactly like a FF 70-200F4.3 and not F2.8 and that there are plenty of cheaper, smaller and faster FF 70-200F4 lenses, like the newest and greatest EF70-200F4L IS II ($1300, 780g) or the Tamron 70-210F4VC($800, 850g). or Nikon 70-200F4VR($1400, 850g), or Sony FE70-200F4G($1500, 840g).

F2.8 is F2.8 not F4. F stop has to do with the light allowed to go in. Nothing else. You don’t magically have to increase your ISO our shitter sped becaufsd you change sensor size.

What you mean to say is that the depth of field would be equivalent to that of F4.

At least get your facts right.

However anybody who says APS is as good as FF or that FF is as good as MF is full of bs.

I have cameras and lenses from all major brands. I find myself always picking up my Fuji’s however when I go out shooting. I think it’s a combination of the small size and weight and their beautiful SOOC renderings.

I don't care what F-stop it is when it produces images EXACTLY like a FF F4.3 would. I REALLY don't give a damn about fancy numbers on overpriced gear. It is a cropped 50-140F2.8, not 70-200F2.8.
"F stop has to do with the light allowed to go in"
- No. It's not that. The F-stop has to do with the aperture size for a given focal length. So, when you want to compare it to a different format lens, you have to account for both the FL and the F-stop. Because it is the ratio of the system's focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil, literally.
"What you mean to say is that the depth of field would be equivalent to that of F4"
- No. Equivalence isn't about the DoF. There is no DoF in the equation. You have been fooled to believe nonsense by the anti-FF propaganda. Equivalent means the same field of view, same perspective, same noise levels, same visual properties, etc.

You sound angry..

You sound ignorant..

Why all the obsession with FF? Show me a photo than FF can take and a smaller system cant.

Why are you people always assuming FF users to be obsessed?
Why can't you realize that images shot with a $1000 XF56F1.2 lens can be easily reproduced with a $600 FF Sony FE85F1.8 or the newest and greatest $800 FF Nikon 85F1.8. What is wrong with you? The whole equivalence thing is about getting the same results out of different format systems. Not for trolling ignorant people.

What's wrong with you? You seem to have issues. You and your equivalence, no one cares about equivalence except you…
So what if some APSC lenses are pricier. You are poor, I get it. Get a job that pays money and stop complaining.

"no one cares about equivalence except you" - Not true :). You seem to care. You seem obsessed with arguing against FF, equivalence, education, common sense, logic, value of things and freedom of speech in general.
So, get a job (a second one) and give all your money to Fuji and praise the almighty crop. Stop talking to people with "issues". You can't preach ignorance into my head no matter how hard you'd try.

When a reasonable person learns the truth, he cannot go back and believe nonsense. There is no Santa Claus, no matter what you think.

The only way to get me to FF is a comprehensive lens lineup with great IQ and slow aperture primes. I don't need more than f/2.8 or f/4 for landscapes and I would appreciate the weight that I could save with such lenses.

But so far noone offers such a lens lineup and it is very likely that noone ever will, so APS-C strikes the best balance for me because I don't want heavy gear in my backpack while hiking.

What sensor size is best for you depends on what you shoot and your shooting style. There is no "one size fits all", so I find it quite childish to claim sensor size x would be better than sensor size y.

@ecka84 - I assure you I dont care. I Buy a smaller system. Period.
Lessons to be learned? To who wants to know - FF of same generation has almost 0 performance increase over crop at low ISO and about 0,5-0,75 at high ISO. And after some playing with denoising it is even lower than that. Human eyes cant perceive 0,5 difference. And thats a hard fact.

@merkator
I mean the size of the final image can be too small to see the difference. People are using Retina displays for pixel-peeping these days without realizing that the whole point of a Retina display is that you can't see half of the image, because those pixels are just too small. Others print 300dpi or more with the same suppression effect and call it the only proper way judging image quality. While it isn't.

@quintana
Yes, I'd like some more of the small and reasonably priced quality primes for FF. I mean, they do exist. And I own a few. But there are no such things for crop systems. I would be using crop cameras, if they would offer more than FF for the same price. Unfortunately, they don't. It's about the system, not just sensor size.

There are plenty of small and light lenses for APS-C

@Hellraiser - "almost 0 performance increase" - Really? You must be trolling.
The hard fact is that the same number of tinier pixels on a smaller sensor requires higher quality optics to produce similar quality images. Nobody is stopping you from "playing with denoising" on FF images.

Don't you get that equivalent FF lenses are just as small or even smaller?

@ecka84: I am quite happy with the lens lineup of the Fuji system. The slow(ish) f/2 and f/2.8 primes weigh considerably less than comparable focal lengths of any FF system and most of them offer very good image quality, too.

But this suits my subjects (like I said mostly landscapes). If you shoot sports and fast Action and/or need great telephoto lenses you probably won't be happy with Fuji.

For landscape I can easily save 0,5 - 1 kilograms with Fujis cameras compared to any FF system on the market and I like saving every bit during long hikes.

Whenever I can I shoot at base ISO anyway so worse low light performance compared to FF is a non-existent issue for me. And in 99,9% of my photos I can live with the dynamic range disadvantages also.

This comment thread is why all the proper photographers hate gearheads.

Fan boy's troll detected

@quintana
When you go to poor countries, local people there seem to be quite happy with their misery, because they don't know any better. So, that's quite subjective.
"The slow(ish) f/2 and f/2.8 primes weigh considerably less than comparable focal lengths of any FF system"
- That's a fallacy. Why don't you look at Samyang's small AF prime lineup for the FE mount:
18F2.8 = $400, 145g (equivalent to XF12F1.8)
24F2.8 = $300, 120g (equivalent to XF16F1.8)
35F2.8 = $300, 86g (equivalent to XF23F1.8)
45F1.8 = $400, 162g (equivalent to XF30F1.2)
There are Sony's own small lenses as well:
FE28F2 = $450, 200g (equivalent to XF18F1.3)
FE50F2.8Macro = $450, 236g (equivalent to XF35F1.8Macro)
FE50F1.8 = $200, 186g (equivalent to XF35F1.2)
FE35F1.8 = $750, 280g (equivalent to XF23F1.2)
FE85F1.8 = $600, 271g (equivalent to XF56F1.2)
You call those big and heavy? Or perhaps too expensive?
Your X-H1 is 673g. The A7III is 650g.
ALL FF ISOs are equivalently lower than APS-C ISOs. Not just high.

"This comment thread is why all the proper photographers hate gearheads"
- Yeah, these Fuji gearheads are the worst. They attack in packs. And the only gear name they know starts with FU. Really nasty ... :) I think they are getting paid for that :).

@Hellraiser
Well, yes. There's no reason for the regular snapshooters to buy expensive photography gear or big(ish) cameras in general. Maybe you haven't noticed, but I use word equivalent quite often in this discussion and it means THE SAME OUTPUT, not increase in performance. So, please stop addressing and accusing me of other people's ideas. Or maybe you are just talking to yourself, I don't know. If you are, then please ignore this message.

@ecka84... ive read the whole thread and still have no idea what point you are trying to make?? remind me again what exactly you are trying to say.

Also why are you calling the x-trans sensor a gimmick?

All ive got from this is you dont really understand how lenses work, you hate Fuji, you call having external dials 'crippling', you havent actually used one of their cameras yet have many opinions on them, and you keep trying to work out these 'equivalences' for physical properties of a lens that dont change regardless of what system you are using them on. Again whats the reason for all this? what are you trying to prove?

Id quit before you embarrass yourself any more.

"x-trans sensor a gimmick?" - Yes. The xTrans CFA is useless. It has no advantages for high resolution chips and it creates problems.
"you call having external dials 'crippling'" - No. I call retro/hipster knobs 'crippling'. They are uncomfortably placed and they serve only one purpose - the nostalgic/hipster looks.
"you dont really understand how lenses work" - You are wrong. I know exactly how they work. And UUsing a specific camera doesn't make you know better.

"you keep trying to work out these 'equivalences' for physical properties of a lens that dont change regardless of what system you are using them on"
- See, it doesn't matter at all. Equivalent optics produce identical images, period. I don't care what kind of "magical" F-stop you prefer to use, while a more humble lens on FF allows me to produce exactly the same kind of images for less money. Stop embarrassing yourself and learn equivalence, before you post nonsense i public places.

Ecka84 looks to have a big issue with people not making the same (photo equipment) decision as he..

@NicoPPC
No. It's the other way around. I'm the one being criticized here for having a different opinion.

@ecka84 you still haven't told me what the whole point of your comments are? Say for example i decide to take your comments on board, what are you hoping i do with this information? sell my camera and buy a new one?

Also equivalence only matters to people who need to compare between different sensor sizes, if i use one camera system and one sensor size what does it matter to me? Fuji arent faking focal lengths, or aperture as you seem to claim above, an f2.8 lens is an f2.8 lens full stop, 50mm is 50mm full stop.

As you have kindly linked your flickr profile in your bio i took a look at it, im struggling to see what this huge advantage is you are talking about from the pictures you have posted?

you call the x-trans sensor 'useless'... it was so useless somebody decided to use an X-T2 to take the stills for the new Joker movie, so it seems this useless sensor and lens system is good enough for a Hollywood film studio but not good enough for some random DPreview troll?

im also struggling (i seem to be struggling a lot) to understand your comments about only hipsters using the external dials, this is just incorrect. having those dials displaying the exposure values to me without having to reference a screen is much more intuitive.

you arent having an opinion, you are ranting and doing the usual internet trick of vastly over using words like 'useless' 'crippling' 'fallacy'....my tip of the day for you is to have a reasoned, well thought out argument otherwise you just look like a bitter troll.

"what are you hoping i do with this information?" - Compare it with the information that's already in your head, keep the right one and reject the nonsensical mantras and lies about photography tools. Your choice will characterize you as either a reasonable person or a silly one. Choose wisely.

"im struggling to see what this huge advantage is" - Oh, jeez .. another "straw man" attacker. I'm not even suggesting (this time) that your puny crop sensor is inferior to FF. I'm saying that you need to spend more money to get the same thing out of a crop.

"good enough for a Hollywood film studio" - Give me a break!

"im also struggling (i seem to be struggling a lot) to understand" - Yeah, that's your main problem. You are incapable of learning stuff. You don't care what's true. You just choose what you like to believe. And that's bad. Really bad.

Stop quoting people’s posts and just answer the questions directly.

Did you come here just to troll people? You are literally just talking s—t now and it’s getting quite sad.

What are you accusing me of not learning? I mean if we want to talk about learning I’d be polite and say perhaps you should go away and learn how to use that Canon 6D a little better.

I also don’t get the comment about the Hollywood film studio, are you calling me a liar?

Just learn how photography works. The physics of it. Not some ancient, obsolete mantras of "getting the right exposure" by setting the numbers that your instruction table tells you. Which was meant for simple minded folks who don't know anything to be able to use a camera, not to understand the differences between formats.

"about the Hollywood film studio, are you calling me a liar?" - Look, some Hollywood studios are still using film cameras ... So freaking what?! I don't care to embrace any sort of human ignorance. Get over it.

Why are you avoiding the fact your photos don’t back up your mouth on here? I mean I quite like them, the insect ones are decent but you need to be fronting up with way more than that if you are going to come on here like billy big time telling everyone how to take photos.

Also at what point have you decided I don’t know how to take a shot? It’s just yet more verbal diarrhoea.

“ Which was meant for simple minded folks who don't know anything to be able to use a camera, not to understand the differences between formats.” This just doesn’t make sense, what does it mean?

Well if equivalent optics produce and equivalent image then my $329 Fuji 35mm f2 must make the same images as anybody else's 35mm f2 at any price.

And just to make your head explode: All those cheaper Samyang lenses you mention are available for M43 as well.. Although I'd suggest that comparing Samyang to red badge Fuji XF isn't really a fair comparison either. Just like with Sony's G Master series, red badge XF is expensive for a reason.

@Mr Bolton I wouldn’t bother mate, this one is a lost cause.

Geez, he really doesn't like Fuji and he's quite hyped on full frame. What was really hilarious is how someone above pointed out that his argument involved DoF equivalence because exposure value for a given scene is constant for whatever the format-f2.8 is always f2.8-and then he argued that DoF wasn't what he meant!

With my 35mm f2, I have to be careful because I have pictures of two people where the one standing next to the other is out of focus because their face is a couple of inches back from the other. At 1.4 this would be even more notable, so I don't know how shallow of a DoF slice most people really need. At this point, that's the only real argument for FF. Well, that and if you happen to like the camera in question which is almost the more important factor anyway. If you don't like it, you won't shoot it.

Yeah true, there is a low light advantage too but modern cameras are just good in low light generally anyway so that’s not to say smaller sensors are bad.

Honestly I’d consider the Nikon Z system all day long but i really don’t need to change from Fuji as I’m getting exact results I need and enjoy using it, pointless getting caught up in rubbish about equivalence etc.

@ecka - you are too stuck in this equivalence fallacy. people who really invest in crop (not for financial reasons) know that they will get a lighter system and they dont care about equivalency or how much of a F stop of advantage would bigger systems give. Its lenses like these that show the strengths of a crop system:
https://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/lenses/fujifilm_xf_16_2p8_r_wr
https://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/lenses/fujifilm_xf_50_2_r_wr
https://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/lenses/fujifilm_xf_27mm
https://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/lenses/fujifilm_xf_18mm
https://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/lenses/fujifilm_xf_35mm
https://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/lenses/fujifilm_xc_15-45_3p5-5p6_ois_pz
Yes there are some equivalent lenses. Its nice that a system has options for those who really want them.

@They Caged Non
So, the Earth is flat, because I'm no astronaut? Your logic is foolish.
"This just doesn’t make sense, what does it mean?"
- It means that you shouldn't argue if you don't know what you are talking about.

"I wouldn’t bother" - You already did.

@Mr Bolton
"if equivalent optics produce and equivalent image then my $329 Fuji 35mm f2 must make the same images as anybody else's 35mm f2 at any price"
- You still have no clue what the equivalence is. You just keep posting more of the same nonsense.

"red badge XF is expensive for a reason" - Yeah, the reason is that there are millions of ignoranuses who will give their money to Fuji for the red badge.

"he argued that DoF wasn't what he meant" - Because it isn't.

"two people where the one standing next to the other is out of focus" - You should use your phone then if you don't know how to use a camera.

@Hellraiser
"you are too stuck in this equivalence fallacy" - No. I'm stuck with capriciously ignorant Fujivangelists.

No, you are just a troll thats all... Your FF system cant be made as light as a crop and you are super jealous. I get it.

Everybody knows what equivalence is, it’s just that nobody cares.. it has no bearing on photography, real world taking photos.. how does knowing the focal length if I was using full frame and the effect of depth of field help me get a shot with my camera? It’s an absolutely pointless piece of information that means nothing outside of Internet forums.

Equivalence works regardless if you believe it or not.
Any actual information has its value. But the stupid nonsense that you guys are preaching is completely useless.

I don’t know if you just want the last word or are genuinely deluded but how does it impact my photography on my camera, wait i know the answer to that... it doesn’t.

We don’t ‘not believe’ in it, we just don’t care because knowing what the ‘35mm equivalence’ doesn’t help any of us take a photograph. Aperture, focal length, shutter speed, ISO are all set based on what will give us the best result with our camera. I’m not stood there thinking I wonder what this would be on a D850, I stand there thinking what’s the best way to get this shot.

Tbh I just read through your comment history, you have some serious issues.. like wth has got you riled up so much that you are getting so angry on this website about technical jargon.

Why do you keep insisting that cameras smaller than full frame will only occasionally get you a half decent shot that’s not a ‘snapshot’ if the photographer is lucky? This is some real world rubbish you are spouting here.

I'm just allergic to BS. You've brought BS to the discussion and I'm defending myself :).
Your camera doesn't make you a better photographer. But if you can't get better pictures using a better tool, then you are the problem.
35mm equivalence? Are you really old or something? Perhaps you tried to learn photography from some ancient sources with archaic terminology? That would explain a lot. Equivalence is not about 35mm and it's not about FF either. It is about understanding the physics of photography and how to handle the light while using different format tools. I'm not telling you to operate your crop camera with FF equivalent in mind. But it helps when comparing different systems.
"wth has got you riled up so much that you are getting so angry on this website about technical jargon" - I'm not angry. All the anger is in your head. When you read my posts you decide what tone you apply to it. But often it is very disappointing to see so many brainwashed brand fanatics making no sense.

I really enjoy high definition photography. Snaps are simply boring. I like large high quality images. It can be done with APSC or M43, specially in a studio. But that's not what I do with my camera. I shoot with available light, mostly. But even FF isn't always good enough for high-def. And crops tend to fall apart a few stops earlier, or they require much more expensive optics to do the same job. Plus FF offers higher resolutions for the same price. That's all.

Should I mention the medium format GFX 100 and its full frame humbling 100 megapixels of real resolution, NTM a bevy of lenses specifically designed and real world tested to deliver that much optical capability.. or would I just be a Fujivangelist?

If ecka's argument of 'equivalence' isn't about f stop for f stop; and it's not about DoF equivalence either, then it must be.. resolution and ability to crop in? Low light performance? In both of those areas, the Fuji GFX 100 is superior.

Nevermind, I'm gonna go fire up my Olympus E10 and take some snapshots..

@Mr Bolton
I'm sorry, did I forget to mention that FF is cheaper than crops? And you are suggesting the GFX instead? :)))

The equivalence is about the amount of light. If you want to get the same image on different cameras, you need to capture the same amount of light. And you don't get the same amount of light by setting the same F-stop number. Because that would only give you the same light intensity. While the amount of light = light intensity * sensor area * exposure time. Which is why we need equivalence to make things equal. For fair comparison we can just throw the exposure time out of the equation, because we'll use the same shutter speeds. And to see how sensor area affects the difference in the amount of light we need to calculate a square root of the ratio between the FF and crop area (or any other format areas that we want to compare), which is the crop factor too. √(864/367) = √2.35 = 1.532... So, we can just multiply the F-stop by the crop factor to make things equal.

@Hellraiser
"You must have learned some really awkward physics" - And you must have learned none of it, clearly :).

This thread is getting so long, it needs its own forum

@quintana
You may like and use whatever gear you want. I don't care. I care what's true and what's not. But, please, don't preach BS nonsense about thing you don't understand.
I also don't care what exposure numbers I need to set on different cameras to get the same exact picture, I just know how to do it. But I only care about the picture. While you Fuji fetishists are all about the fancy pretentious stuff. You are just missing the whole point and what the photography is about. It's about the light. Same light - same picture. And you can't capture the same light by setting the same numbers on different format cameras. It's just not possible. You need equivalence for that.
Well, you do care how much money you get for the job you do. You want a certain amount, don't you? But you also need to know what kind of currency it is before you can estimate anything. That's what the equivalence is about. You can't just ask for a certain amount of any money, regardless of their value.

TL;DR: I really hate you Fujivangelist fanboys.

@ecka84 - i see some smartphone users getting a lot better photos than you, so it seems you dont know much about photography or light. because you need your big and heavy gear for mostly mediocre photos.

@Bolton - hes just mad because the gear doesnt carry his photos.

@ecka84 here is my 500px profile, knock yourself out looking at my amateur snapshots on my camera that falls apart with dynamic range, and needs expensive lenses to get the results. Just to note there is the odd Nikon D5300 shot in there with the 35mm f1.8 attached, that hugely expensive £150 lens.

https://500px.com/stuartcarver

@They Caged Non
Thanks. Those are cute little snaps. None of them are high-def images. Honestly, that could have been done with a phone camera. No offense. I mean, even for the D5300 with a kit lens that's barely scratching the potential of such combo. And the processing is a bit too much for my taste (subjectively, of course).
I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. You are not fully utilizing your gear and you shouldn't criticize people for using better cameras. Just a friendly advice.

@Hellraiser
"i see some smartphone users getting a lot better photos than you"
- Nothing is impossible :). I can produce high-def images with a smartphone too. I just prefer to use proper cameras instead.

@ecka - yeah, I bet your smartphone photos would sub par also. Your usage of "proper camera" doesnt yield any special results.
Besides, you are criticizing TheyCagedNon even if his photos are far better than yours. What do you have to offer in your portfolio? Some leafs and cats? Pathetic.

Folks, it’s all nice and fun to fight about gear but let’s not start bashing eachothers photos.

My tiny little LCD is a well calibrated 4K 27" screen so i can see alot on it.
His photos are better for a lot of reasons. Major ones are the choice of subject, composition and use of color. Your photos just lack that. They are bland snapshots and no amount of post processing would make them far better for that reason. But do live your delusion thinking that you are a good photographer because you use FF...

Non, your photos are very nice!

@Hellraiser - "My tiny little LCD is a well calibrated 4K 27" screen"
- Exactly! It's so tiny (for 20+mp images), so that 4K resolution is way too much for its size and it simply hides half of the fine detail from your eyes. You literally can't see it. That is what "Retina" displays do.

@ecka84, you do know that modern programs have this cutting-edge capability of zooming in, right?

@photohp
"you do know that modern programs have this cutting-edge capability of zooming in, right?"
- Sure. But it doesn't work properly on "Retinas". You would still be forced to oversharpen your images to make them acceptably sharp on such panels. It's a well known problem. You do know that, right? :)

@photohp I’ll take it as ‘constructive criticism’ ;) and ill make sure I upgrade to the GFX asap so my teeny sensor isn’t ruining any more of my images.

@They Caged Non
"ill make sure I upgrade to the GFX asap"
- See, you are getting it all backwards. As usual :). First you need to make use of what you have now. And then later, when (or if) you'll have larger "appetite" for image quality than your camera can provide, you will easily justify getting a proper camera.
All your rhetoric is like - "Who needs houses ... ! ecka84, you don't need no stupid house. A trailer is more than you'll ever need. It's smaller and good enough for everything. So, shut up and get rid of the house, because I know better". :))

Non, our tiny little 24" displays (and even 24" at 1080p in my case) are hiding the details in our images so we need.. full frame sensors for more details because Retina displays hide the details from our smaller sensor cameras?

Sony Mavica FD92 backed up by Amiga 2000 running ImageFX, here I come back to you!!

(The Amiga with ImageFX was my setup during the '90s but I didn't have the bucks for the Mavica so I just scanned film pictures in. It did work quite nicely at the time!)

@ecka84 your comment about learning how to take a proper photo before upgrading is a massive case of the kettle calling the pot black.

And i was joking btw, i have no intention of switching to GFX. Im happy with my low resolution, lacking in detail, poorly processed images thanks.

@Hellraiser
"So what do you do? Print gallery size prints of your cat snapshots to admire them in full glory?"
And you need the expensive high resolution camera and lenses for your phone screen?
"Human eye isnt suited to go after fine detail"
- No, that's BS. I don't know who you are, but I'm human and I have no problem with seeing fine detail.
"colors, contrast and shapes that get the attention of human eye (and mind)"
- And what are fine detail made of? - Oh, yeah, the colors, contrast and shapes. Surprise! :)
There's something special about the human mind, it's the curiosity, a desire to know or learn things. But, you would know, right?

You are not understanding it enough. Yes human can see fine detail but that is not that attracts one mind to the scene. Yes i know you wouldnt know that because it is because of various evolutional reasons.
Like I said. Educate yourself before spilling nonsense. Your focusing on details is utter nonsense.

"human can see fine detail but that is not that attracts one mind" - But it definitely attracts my intellect. You would know if you'd have one. So, maybe you do. You should try.

Well, Im done, I cant argue with stupid. Bye.

I literally have zero idea what you are talking about now... perhaps you need to improve your google translate skills because this makes no sense at all in the English Language.

The fact remains you take what are basically snapshots of fields with no composition technique and slightly washed out/over exposed colours, but in you're head you are fantastic and you are automatically more intelligent and better placed in the world of photography because you bought a Canon full frame camera.

You can keep arguing all you want but essentially you are just coming across as a complete fruitcake who has lost the plot. And now your ramblings are not even making sense.

@They Caged Non
So, you have no idea how much the viewing experience depends on the display you are using. Which explains why your images appear to be overdone in post-processing - over-saturated, too contrasty, underexposed and quite soft on my screen. Perhaps I should blame the 500px.com for the softness, for blowing up tiny little snaps to fit my screen. But if you'd upload larger pictures, then there would be no such problem, like there are none with other people's high resolution images. I bet you think that their images are crap too, just like mine. Get a proper LCD.
I will continue my "quest" here, while you (my angry, blind, ignorant friends) should stop preaching BS and anti-FF propaganda. Your images only confirm my logic and you can't even view my images the way they are meant to be viewed (on a proper 40"+ UHD display).
Good light! Get well! :)

Nobody is spewing anti full frame propaganda, full frame cameras are excellent.

And my images are not under exposed, i chose to have them exposed that way because following the histogram is not creative photography, its reading a book and deciding every single shot needs to be exposed a certain way according to the software.

if you are calling those shots soft then you are just a fool and nothing else, you are literally fighting a battle on your own against everyone else who disagrees with you, have you ever thought that might be a little clue you are wrong.

Again telling me my shots are over saturated and too contrasty because i dont have the correct monitor is nothing more than foolish.

The fact you are also referring to them as 'tiny little snaps' tells me you are just a complete troll.

This will be my last comment on this thread because im not reading any more of your utter bulls--t. Ive never seen anybody so deluded in my whole time on these forums.

"Nobody is spewing anti full frame propaganda"
- Yeah, a bunch of "nobodies" attack me every time I say something that breaks their fantasy bubble.

"i chose to have them exposed that way"
- Or maybe you have monitor brightness cranked up 500%.

"if you are calling those shots soft then you are just a fool"
- They really are very soft, because they are uselessly small and 500px automatically blows them up to 300% to fit my UHD screen.

"you are literally fighting a battle on your own against everyone else"
- Yes. There's always this arrogantly ignorant majority of fools, that we, thinking people need to fight. Because if we didn't, there would be no cameras, no computer chips, no internet, no modern medicine, etc. And you would still be living in the middle ages.

"my shots are over saturated and too contrasty because i dont have the correct monitor"
- Yes. Because other people's (who actually care to learn things before they post nonsense in public places) images look much better. Bye

People can choose whatever camera they want. They may need to rationalize it to themselves, that's human nature, but they surely don't need to justify that to anybody else.

That aside, the equivalence is a matter of simple physics, as well as some other parameters like DR, resolution, contrast, etc. that affected by crop factor. So from a purely pragmatic standpoint, FF is the best bang for the buck right now and provides the some of the best characteristics not achievable with the smaller sensors.
You may argue, that you don't need any of that, you don't care, etc. but that's just you, nobody else is interested in knowing you personal preferences.

@photohp -- wrong on both accounts. I'm not interested in opinions, because they are mostly illiterate. And I didn't offer opinions, I offered facts. There is a big difference.

OK, just to get all the things into perspective - lets compare 2 of the cameras from the same manufacturers that have about the same feature set. One is FF one is APS-C. Sony A7III and Sony A6400. FF has about a stop of ISO advantage. APS-C is about 25% less expensive and 40% lighter.
And that lighter is the major thing APS-C proponents care about. It is not about absolute performance because if you present your APS-C photos to clients i assure you not a single one will tell you that they dont like them because they havent been made by FF. They dont know the difference when looking at photos. And frankly, if the photos are compositionally good and convey a story buyer wants - they dont care if you use a phone to take them or some medium format camera.

@Hellraiser
So, in your opinion, people who don't care about anything should decide what cameras are better? How does that make any sense to you? Are you a communist?

You shouldn't compare weight in %. Seriously. SD cards are 400% lighter than CF. OMG!!! Right? :)
There is 250g difference between the A7III and the a6400. The a6600 uses the new more powerful NP-FZ100 battery, just like the current generation A7 bodies and the a6600 is 100g heavier than the a6400. But, in the end, you would need more extra batteries for the a6400. And they are like 50g each.

Lastly, if you stop denying that equivalent lenses have very similar size and weight, you can even save a few grams on using FF optics on FF instead of crop optics on crop. Sony doesn't have much to offer for their crop cameras. But if you look at some equivalent Fuji options, you would see that they are actually heavier than FF. So, there is no crop system size and weight advantage. It's a myth created by anti-FF propaganda.

Well, at least you didn't put something like the Nikon D4 against the a6400. Like the Fuji reps usually do.

Honestly, the a6400 is not just smaller. It is uncomfortably smaller. And it requires some sort of grip extension accessory, if you want to make it more comfortable to use. Many people use those. Which adds more weight to it.

BWAHAHAHAHA anti-full frame propaganda!! LOL that's really rich.

Yes ecka, the Commies are coming for your FF camera because people who don't care about anything shoot crop sensor. Our lame Retina displays hide the details so we don't know any better.

But you are making just snaps without any grasp of photography concepts. These in the link above are real photos. Resolution doesnt make a good photo. How cant you understand THAT?

God you are stupid. Can you just stop repeating 40"+ UHD screen? You know squat about photography. Dunno why I got lured into this conversation again (I was talking to forpetessake anyway).

I'm tempted to burn a 13x19" page to print a picture from my Olympus E-10. Because resolution. Four megapixels of resolution. Also 2/3" CCD sensor.

Ive had a quick read online and the resolution of Ultra HD is 3840x2160 which equates to just over 8.2mp... a true 4K screen is 4096 x 2160 which is just over 8.8mp, can someone explain how 0.6mp difference in resolution is having that much more of an impact.. the size of the display is irrelevant too as a smaller display just allows the viewer to sit closer to the screen before it becomes pixelated (for example you would be viewing a laptop screen closer than a 40" TV screen)

From what i can see any high resolution image has to be compressed to be viewed on these displays, so its irrelevant whether its 16mp or 116mp, they are all having to be rendered with some form of merging to see them on the screen.

Also 'Retina' is just a phrase coined by Apple for their own displays and has no relevance to any other manufacturers products.

There is no hiding of detail. 4K is same whether is viewed on a 5" or 50" screen. The only limiting factor is our eyes if the screen is too small. But any image of 4K resolution can be viewed on a 10" screen if a person doesnt have some major eye problems. ecka just doesnt know what his talking about or just plain fabricates things.

@Hellraiser, this is the problem with not having a basic intelligence test before people are allowed on the Internet.

If ive got this right, sitting closer to a larger screen to try and see 'detail' is completely the wrong thing to do because you are just more likely to see the screens individual pixels and it wont be pleasing to the eye.

Exactly. Thats why billboard sized prints of cameras like Nikon D2 (12MP) looked just fine. You dont look at billboards at foot away. You cant even see it whole that way. But some special cases just like to stick their nose in and look at individual pixels.

I mean ive learnt one valuable lesson from this comment thread... it doesnt matter if my image is meaningless as long as its super high resolution and sharp, that way i can see it on a 'couldn't quite afford full 4K' screen in detail.

We have some woodland next to our house, as soon as the rain stops im heading in to stitch 4 images together so i can match the mighty Canon 6D resolution, im not going to bother looking for a subject or any sort of compositon/leading lines because i really dont need to.. then ill head to our supermarket and pick up one of those UHD 40+ inch TV's (they are so cheap now it would be rude not to) so i can view my 96mp stitched image of some trees.

As a non-Canon user im not aware of the specs for their cameras.. i just checked the 6D, interesting.

Troll is obvious, obvious is Troll.

And cats, dont forget cats. You cant view cats on anything less than 40"+ UHD.

Oh yeah, we dont like cats but our neighbour has one.. if i can peel it away from killing stuff in the woodland long enough ill grab a few snaps on my point and shoot, ill be sure to leave it on Auto too so my shots arent under exposed.

Oh, jeez ... those two blind trolls again.
The size of the screen dictates the size of the pixels on it. You can't see any pixelation on a "Retina" screen. When small, It just reduces the tiniest fine detail into oblivion.
4K is UHD. 5K is UHD. 6K is UHD. 8K is UHD. I'm using UHD instead of listing all of those K's. Kapish?
Yes, 4K is only 8.3mp (or 9.8mp if it's 3:2, 3840x2560). 5K is only 14.7mp and 8K is only 33.2mp. All UHD. Remember?
But we need to downsample images to purify the data in them. Imaging sensors cannot produce full resolution stated. Technically, in most cases we can get clean 10p-mp out of 20mp FF in real world scenarios (more in a studio), which is half. With APS-C we can get like a third, which is often not enough for 4K and too little for 5K+.
2K, which is FHD or 1080p or 1920x1080, is enough for 20"-24". Then goes 2.5K and 3K for larger LCDs. And then around 37" the 4K starts to make sense. 5K at 49"+. It's all about the PPI, no need for more than 120. Kapish?

Again you are just wrong.. stop lying to yourself and other people.

Provide me with some genuine links from trusted sources to back up your claim that only 1/3 of an image sensor is working... not just you spouting.

Also this doesn't detract away from the fact photography is so much more than waving your camera at any old subject (a field in your case) taking the shot then zooming in to see what a twig looks like. This isnt me making it up, this is fact from every single creative person who ever picked up a camera... From Ansel Adams to Joe Cornish.

The fact that you cant see this in your tiny little pea brain is what is the genuine issue here.

The great thing about people like you, you will never ever get better at photography because you are so deluded as to your ability that you will never look to improve, learn, grow, become more creative, you have reached your limit, in your head.

Calm down little troll, control your fury, before your anger and envy makes you explode.
If you'd care to learn anything, you would have found all the right links and sources long time ago. But you are just a brainwashed, delusional fool in a fantasy bubble. Here's a link for you https://www.google.com

@Hellraiser
I wasn't talking to you, dummy. And I'm using my own words. If you'll see someone else talking like me, please let me know. Throw me a link or something. Because I'm bored here with all you clueless fools.
Why are you even trying to talk to adults? Don't you have other stuff to do? Go, do your homework or something. DPR really needs to implement mental age restrictions to prevent this kind of infantile morons lurking around.

Well, this has been entertaining but I'm just about out of popcorn...

Come on folks. You are better than name calling.

Send some useful links for us to read up on the information you are presenting?

If you don’t send links I’ll just assume you are talking rubbish, it’s as simple as that.

@photohp I attempted to refrain from that for as long as possible, but there are only so many times you can be called an idiot by an idiot before you have to call that idiot out.

If you read the whole thread you will this ecka character has pretty much called us all the names and words that pretty much describe his own posts.

I can say just one thing: people with small sensors for some reason feel very insecure :) :) :)
It must be psychological, because they seem to not be able to understand simple physics. Freud could probably explain the phenomenon.

@forpetessake I wish you would actually read the thread before making pathetic comments.

I have no insecurities at all, I like full frame cameras, they are good. My shooting buddy uses one.

What I don’t like is pathetic trolls calling people snapshot photographers then making up lies about camera equipment and tv screens.

If you think any true photographer who uses an APS-C system even cares about what other cameras can and can’t do then you are just as bad as the OP.

@ecka84 Probably you haven't looked at their profiles, but a lot of the people you are arguing with have both Fuji and FF cameras too. Did it cross your mind the they prefer Fuji even if they have tried FF. Money is not a problem for me, so I am lucky enough to have lots of great FF cameras and lenses from Canon, Nikon and Sony, with 7RVI being one of them. I still enjoy Fuji more.

I understand you were under heavy fire, but please refrain from name calling, or pointing people to google. It just doesn't add any value at all.

I'm sure there's a link somewhere in the Googles that'll explain to us why more detail capable monitors will hide the details from us because FF resolution and Fuji's lies.. somewhere..

@ecka84 That's the problem with you and that's why people have trouble making conversation with you.

Above you and forpetesshake made an argument that people are supporting Fuji because the can't own Full Frame. Specifically "people with small sensors for some reason feel very insecure"

I proved that this argument doesn't stand. Now since you don't have any counter argument you are diverting the conversation in different directions and talk about eye-opening and ignorance..

@forpetessake - nah it is the people with big sensors that feel insecure. They lack masculimity so they need big cameras and big lenses to remind them of something they dont have ;)
And simple physics? What is that half to 0,75 of iso advantage for increased size and weight? Yeh id gladly trade that iso advantage for less weight...

Links? Resources? Still nothing?

Well, probably, because they want you to compare this base ISO200 to the non-base ISO200 from other cameras. Who knows what's the actual sensitivity this Fuji ISO200 represents. Could be anything, possibly even lower than ISO100.

In one respect, its a way to get away with gaining one higher ISO by giving up a lower one. More of a game imo.

Slightly over-simplified: Fujifilm -- like Olympus, Panasonic, and Ricoh/Pentax -- uses the "18% gray" standard for exposure that dates back almost a century. Using that standard, the sensor's base ISO comes out around 200.

The big three brands -- Canon, Nikon, and Sony -- use the "whatever we think looks good" standard for exposure. Most people find that color photography looks too dark at the 18% standard, and prefer images that are about a stop brighter than 18% gray. So those brands derate their sensor ISO by about one stop, causing the metering and auto-exposure systems to go one stop brighter, which in turn gives the desired brighter pictures.

There are two reasons. Measuring ISO isn't really standardized, too much leeway can result in different numbers from different brands. Secondly, ISO only makes sense when a tone curve is already applied (i.e. jpeg). DXOmark invented RAW ISO, which isn't really interesting unless you are RAW processor developer. So you can take the same sensor and get vastly different base ISOs for different tone curves.

To be clear, measuring ISO is absolutely standardized when using the 18% gray standard that Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic, and Ricoh/Pentax use. If you spot-meter something at a given ISO and expose accordingly, that spot should come out at 18% gray (plus or minus 1/6 stop) in the in-camera sRGB JPEG.

Canon, Nikon, and Sony (and really, everyone else besides the four mentioned above) use the "looks good" approach, which obviously isn't standardized but still tends to fall somewhere around 35% gray. Confusing note: multi-zone metering always aims for "looks good" on all cameras, so will tend to expose about a stop brighter than spot/average metering will on Fuji/Oly/Panny/Pentax will. But the ISO numbering is standardized using spot/average metering.

There are no standards of any kind for Raw data. The ISO numbering and exposure are based on the in-camera JPEG, and Raw just comes along for the ride.

I'm quite impressed by such IQ at this price point, particularly the SooC JPG.

And... the 15-45kit is embarrassingly* better than any of my best Sony kits. I do have 5 Sony E-mount zoom kits, 16-50* (sold today with a6x00 bodies well north of 1K$) and 18-55; all usable, yet none competing with Fuji's kit. I'm so envious, but i'm too deep into Sony to switch (i fight GAS).