From the folks with all the scoops:
https://goo.gl/wAVnCD
- A
https://goo.gl/wAVnCD
- A
Wireless component size is 9.5 mm × 15 mm × 2 mm
The reason cropped sensor can not match the FF image is availability of the fast prime lenses - everybody need to decide if accepts the price difference, but IQ difference is obvious - for example at https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/3 - Depth-of-field equivalenceHillsilly said:I shoot Fuji and I'm happy with their implementation of an APS-C sensor. The images are on par with my FF Canon. And the lenses are well designed and reasonably priced for the sensor size. And the system is reasonably compact - it is great for travelling.
I'm yet to be convinced that FF mirrorless systems are noticeably smaller than DSLR systems. And size, after all, is the only true benefit of mirrorless systems. Maybe the new Canon FF mirrorless cameras will prove the exception?
Hillsilly said:Fast prime lenses work just as well on crop cameras as they do on FF cameras. And Fuji have a great range of F/1.2 and F/1.4 lenses. And I'd say that the Fuji lenses work great wide open, whereas some comparable Canon lenses have some sharpness issues wide open, which negates some of the depth of field argument. After all, if you need to stop your lens down to F/2 or F2.8 to get an acceptable image on a FF camera, is that better than using a lens at F/1.4 on a crop camera?
Hillsilly said:I've heard that story about Fuji metering being out. I don't know if there is much basis to it, as I've never really noticed a problem, and have only ever seen it mentioned on DSLR forums. FWIW I've got 3 Fuji cameras - X100, X-E1 and X-T1. The metering works perfectly on all of them.
I shoot mostly portraits too, but the difference is worth the money for me. (I'm now using Sony 85/1.4, Canon 200/2, Sony 70-200/2.8 almost all the time wide open, because AF on a Eye is spot on and if I can not control position / distance of my subject, I appreciate every bit of blurring background I can get.)Hillsilly said:Thanks. I think I understand your point. But the difference in background blur that we're talking about is pretty minor. It isn't sufficient enough to be a deciding factor in the camera format I use. I shoot mostly portraits, and I'm usually seeking a pleasing background, not necessarily maximum background blur. And if I do venture into other fields, I'm rarely shooting wide open, anyway. Your needs might vary.
DOF is dependent on the same variables as background blur, thus many forum users use the term interchangeable. But it is different quality and the main difference in DOF is caused by aperture and maximum background blur difference is caused by using different FL. So the ideal result is the whole subject in focus and big background blur, but it usually can not be achieved thus I prefer bigger BG blur and smaller DOF.Hillsilly said:FWIW, when I purchased my first FF camera, it was after years of reading posts from people proclaiming the depth of field benefits. I was a little underwhelmed. (Although, very happy with the improvements in noise.)
I've seen comparison table for equivalent ISOs for X-T2. And the direction of deviation is defined by flash / light meters (Minolta/Gossen/Sekonic) calibration which is spot on on Canon/Nikon/Sony cameras.Hillsilly said:With ISO, how do you know that Canon/Nikon/Sony aren't 2 EV too light? Anyways, does it even matter? Under the current standard, ISO is just a number that the manufacturers can choose themselves given other shooting parameters. It is the number that works for that camera to get the correct exposure. There's no intention for cameras to be similar. As long as a camera's meter is working correctly and you get the desired exposure for the settings that you've dialled in, isn't that all you want?