Full Frame vs APS-C: I was WRONG!

[@ChrisFreitag]

Some quick qualifying things that I accidentally cut out: I was adjusting my settings for the crop factor across the board. So not only focal distance (35mm on Full Frame is 23mm on APS-C) but also in Aperture (F4 on Full Frame is F2.8 on APS-C). I should have done it all the way though, I think my shutter speeds should have been adjusted accordingly as well.

[@richardclarke2670]

The f-stop (e.g., f/4 or f/2.8) represents the lens’s aperture size relative to its focal length and is independent of the camera’s sensor size. An f/4 aperture on a full-frame lens will transmit the same amount of light as an f/4 aperture on an APS-C lens. However, field of view and depth of field are affected by sensor size. On an APS-C camera, a lens’s field of view becomes narrower (due to the crop factor), and the effective depth of field becomes deeper compared to a full-frame camera at the same f-stop. This difference may lead to comparisons like this, but they refer to specific effects, not aperture equivalence.

[@comeraczy2483]

@@richardclarke2670 I believe that the objective of the video is to get images a similar to each other as possible. For this purpose, it is preferable to apply the crop factor to both focal length and aperture, use the same shutter speed, and leave the ISO on auto. Doing so gives same angle of view, same depth of field, same motion blur, and same quantity of light. Of course, this will result in different intensity of light - therefore different ISO - but I don't think it is terribly important in the context.

[@liciniooliveira-becas3618]

@@comeraczy2483If you want similar images you just put the crop sensor camera further away. F4 is F4 in both sensors in terms of light / shutter speed. If I am not wrong, when you put the crop sensor at 2.8 you get the equivalent out of focus background as the F4 full frame. But you have a faster shutter speed at the APS-C..

[@richardclarke2670]

@@comeraczy2483 applying the crop factor to both focal length and aperture doesn't truly replicate the same depth of field or light-gathering capabilities. The aperture's physical size, not just its f-number, determines the depth of field and exposure. While matching the angle of view is straightforward with focal length adjustments, the perceived depth of field on crop sensors will still differ due to the smaller sensor size. Additionally, leaving ISO on auto introduces variability in image quality, as different ISO values can affect noise and dynamic range. This inconsistency may undermine the goal of achieving images that are as similar as possible. A more controlled approach would involve manually setting ISO and adjusting lighting or exposure settings to maintain uniformity.

[@richardclarke2670]

@@liciniooliveira-becas3618 A solid argument against this comment is that simply moving the crop sensor camera farther away does not truly replicate the characteristics of the image, especially in terms of depth of field (DOF), compression, and perspective. Here's why: Depth of Field: While it's true that f/4 on a full-frame and f/2.8 on APS-C can provide similar depth of field in equivalent framing, the actual bokeh quality (the rendering of out-of-focus areas) can differ due to variations in lens design and sensor characteristics. Furthermore, the crop sensor's smaller aperture (physically, at equivalent settings) gathers less light, which can impact image quality in lower-light situations. Perspective and Compression: Moving the crop sensor camera farther back to match framing changes the perspective and compression of the scene, especially with portraits or telephoto shots. This can make images feel less natural or differ noticeably from a full-frame equivalent. Shutter Speed: While it's correct that f/2.8 on APS-C allows for faster shutter speeds, this doesn't inherently improve image quality. The faster shutter speed may reduce motion blur, but the increased ISO required to compensate for light gathering may introduce noise and reduce dynamic range. Equivalence Isn't Perfect: True equivalence involves more than just adjusting aperture and framing; sensor size impacts color depth, noise performance, and dynamic range. Full-frame sensors generally outperform APS-C in these areas, and equivalence adjustments can't negate these differences. In short, while moving the crop sensor camera farther back and using wider apertures can approximate some characteristics of a full-frame setup, it doesn't truly replicate the overall look or quality of the image due to the combined effects of sensor size, perspective, and light-gathering differences.

[@Rumplestiltskin7]

Good thing in photography no one judges how good a photo is by zooming in 100% to see how much detail there is in a branch.

[@ChrisFreitag]

Good thing no one uses hyperbole either

[@JakeChambersOy]

The focus point differs on almost every shot. What you describe as being less detailed is actually out of focus. Also that's not how you compare details with two different resolution images. You need to view them at the exact same size, not at pixel level with one showing a larger crop due to its higher resolution. The actual lenses used play the biggest role in all of this. I'm not trying to defend Fujifilm here, their firmware is still a mess in certain situations.

[@ChrisFreitag]

Unfortunately I left too much on the cutting room floor. I mention the focal point differences, I shouldn’t have used auto-focus. And I recognized that the shutter speed should have been adjusted per image on each camera. But there are parts of the image, like the branch, that are definitely the focal point with most of the settings correct and all I am saying is that I can see a difference.

[@richardclarke2670]

When pixel peeping, Aperture really matters I see you were comparing F2 with one lens and F4 on the other. Really to be fair the only way to do this test is to use the same lens on both cameras with a consistent aperture around f8

[@ChrisFreitag]

I did think of that! I found out that there is indeed a crop factor for aperture setting. So F2.8 on a crop sensor is the same as F4 on a full-frame sensor. In that particular scene, I had accidentally bumped the Fujifilm down to F2 because my copy of the XF56mmF1.2 R is used and that ring moves easily. However, one thing I think I did do wrong is not do the crop factor for EVERYTHING. Meaning Shutter Speed and ISO too. I think the Fujifilm is a little blown out because I should have adjusted the shutter for the wider aperture.

[@gmh3839]

I think I'm right in saying that aperture is aperture, regardless of sensor size. The impact of aperture on depth of field is what differs across sensor sizes. This should actually favour the crop sensor in most examples, though, as it will naturally give greater depth. I think you need to correct the exposure on each camera for it to be really fair. While aperture should mean the same thing, lens construction can still impact light transmission. On which note, actually, you should probably also use the optimised-for-40MP lenses. The 56mm was given a whole new formula. Might still give the same result, but just for the sake of a level playing field!

[@metphmet]

@@gmh383923mm f2.8 on APS-C and 35mm f4 on FF give the depth of field .

[@karimlahlou132]

​@@ChrisFreitag Mate it is not the same...if you compare the sharpness it is not 😊

[@miggyloz806]

As someone who is a pixel peeper. I was chasing that high LOL! I had a Canon M6 MII with the 32 megepixel sensor but never found myself happy until i got a full frame. Even at 24 megapixels my A7c was tons sharper than my M6MII. not to mention better low light as well.

[@ChrisFreitag]

I’ve been doing a lot of testing since and it has been fun.

[@CatAvGuy]

Not to say your observations are wrong, but since perception can be tricky: In your side by sides, you're relatively zooming in more on the 40mp Fuji than the 24mp Panasonic as zoom levels are generally handled on a display pixel parity basis, e.g. 100% zoom is you're zooming such that each pixel on your monitor is a pixel from the image, and having more pixels per area of the image means a greater enlargement of the photo in this scenario. This can skew perception, and is unusually unfair to higher res sensor outputs as generally in practice you'd be viewing both images at the same size (at least for digital distribution--in print you may be buying the high mp body specifically to print larger of course), which means the higher mp shot would usually get the benefit of being effectively downscaled to improve perceptual detail and noise performance when you ensure the image viewer zoom level is actually equal based on the size of objects in frame.

[@ChrisFreitag]

It’s true, it’s hard to compare images that have different pixel counts.

[@Sotangy247]

I think this matters more if you're shooting landscapes, flowers etc. I really don't want too much detail when shooting portraits, just enough, so the XT series suits me fine. When you think a lot of portrait photographers will tend to soften the image anyway ...

[@ChrisFreitag]

Totally agree. All I was pointing out was that I can see a difference, not that the difference is good or bad. It’s the photo that matters to the person who made it n

[@Wildridefilms]

The problem is Fuji's lenses. They were already struggling to resolve their older 26MP sensors. The 40 MP sensor offers almost no improvement in perceived detail over the 26 MP bodies as the lenses simply aren't good enough.

[@ChrisFreitag]

That could definitely be the case with the 56 I was using, but the 23 is one of their newer lenses that resolves for the 40mp sensor, so that shouldn’t have been a factor.

[@berzoidberg3272]

@@ChrisFreitag As someone who also owns the 23mm, as well as the updated 56 WR, neither lens is very good. Fuji glass generally sucks, especially on X-mount. GF is better, but not a ton.

[@richardclarke2670]

Fuji's lenses are designed with a balance of resolution, character, and practical usability. While some older lenses may not fully resolve the detail of a 40 MP sensor at a pixel level, many of Fuji's newer and premium lenses, such as those in the XF lineup, are optically excellent and capable of leveraging the higher resolution. Furthermore, perceived detail is influenced by factors beyond lens resolution, such as sensor design, image processing, and post-production techniques. It's also worth noting that higher resolution sensors offer benefits beyond detail, such as improved cropping flexibility and the ability to downscale images for better noise performance and sharpness. Even if the full resolving power isn't utilized in every scenario, the system as a whole still provides significant advantages for photographers.

[@richardclarke2670]

@@berzoidberg3272 I would like to highlight that many independent lens reviews and tests, including those with DXOMARK (DOX) graphs, show that Fujifilm's XF lenses, particularly the newer WR (weather-resistant) lenses, deliver competitive sharpness, contrast, and optical performance for APS-C sensors. For example: Resolution Performance: DXOMARK scores for lenses like the XF 56mm f/1.2 WR or the XF 23mm f/1.4 R LM WR typically demonstrate high sharpness across the frame, especially at moderate apertures, which contradicts the claim that these lenses "suck." Color Rendition and Character: Fuji lenses are often praised for their unique rendering and film-like quality, which are designed to complement Fujifilm's renowned film simulations. This subjective character might not be captured in pure sharpness numbers but is valuable to many photographers. Context of Sensor Size: The X-mount system is built around APS-C sensors, and while it's true that medium format (GF lenses) can outperform in detail, this is an unfair comparison. Within the APS-C ecosystem, Fuji lenses rank among the best in terms of optical quality, compactness, and build. Practical Performance: DXOMARK sharpness and transmission graphs for lenses like the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 or XF 90mm f/2 show excellent performance, matching or exceeding many APS-C competitors. In conclusion, while no system is perfect, the claim that "Fuji glass sucks" doesn't align with both empirical testing (like DXOMARK data) and user satisfaction among professionals and enthusiasts using X-mount lenses.

[@berzoidberg3272]

@@richardclarke2670 modern lenses can’t even fully resolve 40 megapixel on full frame, let alone APS-C. You would need a lens that can maintain >50% contrast at 115 lp/mm for that. 175 lp/mm for 40MP on APS-C. As for Fuji lenses being optimized for a balance, I wholeheartedly disagree. They’re hardly optimized for much of anything beyond “can we convince someone to pay for this.” Sigma, Tamron, and Viltrox glass all tend to be sharper, focus better, render better, be lighter, etc. Fuji glass is just awful :)

[@TimLavreniuk]

Hey Chris! I have noticed that Fujifilm x-trans raws are sharper when I open them in Capture One. Maybe even not sharper but kind of more detailed. The lack of detail here might be a Lightroom problem.

[@ChrisFreitag]

Well there are a few more too, I didn’t set it all up right. But in the end, I don’t really look at photos this way so it was just a curiosity, can I see a difference? I can, but it’s not like all my Fujifilm photos are nullified by this.

[@maxie6990]

wow i really love the color science of Fuji

[@ChrisFreitag]

Fuji colors are the best

[@petepictures]

The Lumix images have a greater DOF focus , that's why. My guess

[@ChrisFreitag]

Yep

[@souljahserjueMtl]

thanks for the honesty

[@ChrisFreitag]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@YeohosuaSenpai]

Great comparisons, and a conclusion to think on. To me it's checks and balances. You can get the detail from Fuji, but only if you use their premiere line of lenses and Capture One, but is all that extra work worth it? Would it just be better to get a full frame camera and cut all the workaround BS?

[@ChrisFreitag]

In the end, it’s the totality of the photograph. I have great images I’ve made with Fujifilm cameras across sensor sizes, and I’m sure if I zoomed in on those photos I might see some missing details. But the photos are great, so does it matter?

[@johnfreitag4048]

Thanks for the video. I too struggle comparing my X-T5 results with full frame from my friends who shoot mainly Sony. I find it a little confusing because I have some pictures on my wall taken with previous cameras ( Canon 12 MP Rebel, Konica-Minolta 8MP, all the way back to my original Canon G-2 which had, as I remember 4MP. I have 13X19 prints on my wall that appear very sharp from each of these cameras. I chose APS-C because it was far easier to carry as a tourist and when bicycling, and that is still a major issue. for me

[@ChrisFreitag]

I don’t want it to sound like I’m besmirching APS-C! I have been shooting with Fujifilm for the last 4 years and I have large 16x24 prints that I’m very happy with. I’m still using Fujifilm for my everyday carry, it’s a fantastic system. But yeah, I see a difference and it was noticeable enough to share my real experience.

[@EddieInzauto]

Haha. I love your honest bewilderment. I’m a big Fuji fanboy and found the exact same. Both Sony and Nikon gave me better results with direct comparisons like this. (X-T2/Xf56 vs A73/85mmf1.8 & X-T50/XF33 vs Zf/50mm1.8). I feel like you’ll tend to see more detail in the extreme tonal values like the highlights and shadows, which I imagine is because FF sensors pretty much always capture wider dynamic range. Maybe? 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@ChrisFreitag]

I thought 40MP crop sensor vs 24MP FF would just kind of even things out. I think what’s lost here though is that I don’t normally pixel peep, I usually just appreciate my photos as they are. So peeping like this did show me a difference, but I’m not sure I really care.

[@el0blaino]

That’s what I thought - it was a dynamic range difference because of bright snow.

[@gordoa172]

I am in the same situation, my Fujis that I love (xt5/xe3/xt200) struggle against my new jump into full frame with Nikon z6 ii. But I do think some of the older Fuji lenses work better for my lower megapixel cameras than on the xt5 like others mentioned. Thanks for your great video. It’s definitely a struggle!

[@ChrisFreitag]

This almost makes me want to go back to an X-Pro, and strive for perfection at the full frame level, and pure joy and feel at the crop sensor level.

[@GregoryLopez1]

I love the fact that you put the effort into this comparison! But I'm not sure this comparison is quite right? If you wanted to correct for the effects of TOTAL light gathering (i.e., the fact that, for the same image, a full frame sensor will get more light than a crop sensor), you should have kept the shutter speed the same for both, the Fuji one stop wider in aperture and the ISO one stop lower. You can do this for Fuji versus Panasonic because both use the SOS method to calculate ISO. ISOs would NOT be comparable if comparing either of these to Canon or Sony, which use the REI method. (For more on this, check out Doug Pardee's post on DPReview entitled "ISO facts for the Fujifilm user". You'd also have to use spot metering for both since Multi mode does things differently. Note: I'm a newbie who's just interested in this nerdy stuff, so I may be wrong!

[@ChrisFreitag]

I’m quite certain I made several mistakes 😁. However, I still think based on tests I’ve done since doing this that the full frame is giving me more details, even in mountain peaks at great distance. But yeah, this is not scientific.

[@comeraczy2483]

@GregoryLopez1 at the risk of being pedantic, ISO has no effect on TOTAL light gathering. ISO only affects the output - specifically the lightness of the image. It's not particularly important or interesting, but since you are bringing up some advanced details on the topic, you might want to get the basics right.

[@GregoryLopez1]

@@comeraczy2483 - not pedantic at all! If I indeed believed that ISO affected either total light gathered or light hitting a unit area of the sensor, I'd be simply incorrect. But that's not what I believe, nor did I mean to imply it. Sorry if I was unclear. I'm well aware that the only two parts of the exposure triangle that affect actual light are SS and aperture size. I'm also aware that -- for an image at the same exposure -- a full frame camera gathers about twice the light total as an APS-C camera to create a given image. That's why I suggested opening the aperture one stop for the Fuji: so that the TOTAL amount of light gathered would be equivalent between the two. But then, of course, the image would also be one stop overexposed on the Fuji. Thus, the ISO on the Fuji would have to go down one stop. Then both images would be at similar exposures with a similar amount of light creating the images on each sensor. Given that light makes the image, if one doesn't account for total light falling on the sensor as well as exposure, it's not surprising that the full frame looks more detailed: because, depending on the specifics, details would either be lost in the highlights being blown out OR they'd be lost in the increased shot noise of the crop sensor due to the lower signal, due to the lower total light. Comparing images coming from the exact same camera could also exhibit lost details for the exact same reasons if the highlights are blown or you cut the light coming into the sensor by increasing SS or closing down the aperture. Thus, I think I do have the basics right. But I'm happy to be corrected if I'm still making an error.

[@StevanNetto-qg7gx]

Really difficult to tell using two different lenses. Probably a more technical comparison could be done using the same lens on Sony's platform that uses the same mount for APS-C and FF. If I had to guess I'd say that the differences seen are more due to different lenses used or focal points rather than aps-c vs FF...

[@ChrisFreitag]

But the problem here is that these are cameras and lenses that I have. And the question isn’t whether one is better than the other, it’s whether I can see the difference. This is a real world test of things I own, but also in the real world, I don’t zoom in on photos and look at pixels.

[@henrysantiago5997]

Go out in the late evening and take the same test comparison....You will see a huge difference

[@ChrisFreitag]

Yeah, that’s something I haven’t done yet but expect will be different

[@karimlahlou132]

Interesting but f number is different. For me you should have try at 5.6 for both and especially for landscape

[@ChrisFreitag]

Noted

[@colinhoward2200]

Really interesting :) It would have been interesting then to do a side by side comparison of APS-C 26MP vs Panasonic 24MP. I actually just replaced my X-T5 with an X-S20, and I am finding I am preferring the photos from my X-S20 (and I am not just saying that because I have it). The 40MP sensor just seems a bit overkill and the photos look a bit more "messy" to me than the APS-C 26MP. This is subjective of course. The difference is even more pronounced when taking video as there is a lot of pixel binning going on with the X-T5 whereas the X-S20 downsamples from its sensor. Kind of shows maybe that more pixels may not always be better.

[@ChrisFreitag]

I agree, I think the 40MP might be causing more grief. Something I cut out of the video is I grabbed my 16x24 print of the gas station off my wall (you can see it’s missing later in the video) I held it up to show that I printed this large print and it was stunning and that was with my 26MP X-Pro3 and 27mmF2.8 pancake lens. I wanted to say that none of this pixel peeping matters, it’s the whole photo that matters.

[@colinhoward2200]

@@ChrisFreitag Totally agree - it is the overall effect that matters to me more. And my photos and videos for some reason just seem more pleasing now on the 26MP sensor.

[@Tech_Stuff_and_Other_Stuff]

dude, the focus point in way off, which says a lot more about fuji if the focus point was set the same for both cameras, but still...

[@ChrisFreitag]

I keep thinking I must have set it wrong but I specifically remember setting the focal point at the center of the frame.

[@eagleeyephoto8715]

Looking to the images they should be normalized for exposure and especially for crop .Opening both images straight from the file results in a higher magnification images on a Fujifilm.Other than that it is obvious that FF has better dynamic range which appear in some images with shadows as better contrast. This is what bare eye perceve as better sharpness.You also proof that in front of such demanding 40mpix sensor one has to put nothing but the best glass out there.Same apply when comparing FF high mpix sensor camera results to a Medium format.

[@ChrisFreitag]

K

[@wyrdedwurd]

You should probably re-title this video I AM Wrong!

[@ChrisFreitag]

Sick 🔥

[@sshapiro63]

I think you should have set your exposure based on histograms, not just by adjusting the aperture/shutter. The cameras will meter differently, so I think it makes sense to look at the best focus and exposure for each camera before you can evaluate the outcome. Also, you should check to confirm if each camera uses the same ISO sensitivity scale (SOS vs. REI) to understand the implications of what your ISO value is set to on each camera. Some of the snow scenes in the Fujifilm shots seemed a bit overexposed, which might lead you to think there is an obvious difference in sharpness. That is one reason the histogram would have been useful.

[@ChrisFreitag]

I cut out a lot of parts to keep this shorter but one of them is that I recognized the Fujifilm was overexposed in the snow scenes. It mattered, but not enough for me to retract what I’ve said, I do feel I’ve seen enough to say there is a difference.

[@ddesai1080]

details has nothing to do with Camera...it is feature of lens...how sharp lens is and what aperture used.

[@ChrisFreitag]

It’s true but I still see a difference!

[@nickvideolife]

F2 for Fuji explains why you looking at the soft image And I’m not a photographer

[@ChrisFreitag]

Wow

[@japamax]

The Fuji Lightroom demosaic process is not the best, it's not a fair comparaison. You need to use Capture One or DXO or Darktable to have a better comparaison

[@ChrisFreitag]

Or use what I have and just try to be entertaining.

[@japamax]

​@@ChrisFreitag Of course, but you can try Dxo Photolab for example for 30 days and see, maybe, maybe not, differences with Lightroom

[@pascalhibon7928]

In order to effectively perform a test such as this you should be able to take away the differences in your test equipment. You are using two different camera systems, and more importantly, different lenses. There is a very good chance that you are seeing the resolving limitations of the lenses in this test. Moreover, in real life no one will be pixel peaking at 100%. Real life for most people is viewing images on social media. But even printed no one will be able to tell the difference. I once did a test between my D850 and Z50: with a printed image up until A3+ size (the biggest I can print at home) I cannot tell the difference between the two images.

[@ChrisFreitag]

I wish I hadn’t cut out the part where I say the same thing. I don’t really care about the pixels, it’s the photo that matters and I’ve made some wonderful photos with Fujifilm. But I can see a difference between full frame and ASP-C.

[@wyrdedwurd]

If you're seeing "more detail" in a 24mp image than you are in a 40mp image, well, pretty sure you ain't doing it right.

[@ChrisFreitag]

Good

[@ryszardzokowski812]

It because you need very highquality (in terms of resolution) lenses to get most of this 40mpx sensor

[@wyrdedwurd]

@@ryszardzokowski812 There's more bad practice here than just lens selection. Your lens would have to be resolving way less than 24mp to end up looking like this guy's images. He doesn't actually say which 23mm Fuji that is, but if it's the LM it's more than capable, and even the old 23mm F1.4 was resolving on 26mp cameras just fine.

[@Joh146]

Sorry, but this does´t seem to be a honest comparision. You can see at the second and at the third picture, that you have made mistakes. The pictures lack in dof, but they should have more dof in crop mode. We all know the comparisons beetween medium format, full frame and aps-c (Nigel Danson, Fototripper). For sure the full frame is sharper if you are pixel peeping, but there ae never such big diffrences as you are showing here.

[@ChrisFreitag]

Everything I did in here is the truth of how I shot it. I am completely willing to admit I made mistakes, but to infer I’m purposefully being misleading is quite a jump to make. What would be my motive for such a thing? I love my Fujifilm cameras.