Nikon Zf

Is Full Frame Actually Better than APS-C?

Posted on by Ritchie Roesch

Gold Coast Blooms – Laguna Beach, CA – Fujifilm X100V – upcoming Film Simulation Recipe

The announcement of the Nikon Zf seems to have rekindled an old adage: full frame is better than APS-C. Some are saying that full frame cameras have the minimum sensor size necessary for serious photography, and APS-C and smaller are for amateurs. But is this actually true? Is full frame superior to APS-C? Can APS-C cameras be just as good or perhaps even better than full frame? Does the size of the sensor actually matter all that much? Why even buy a Fujifilm APS-C camera now that Nikon has the full frame Zf?

At the core is the physical size of the sensor. Full-frame is 50% larger than (most) APS-C. The size of a full frame sensor is the same as a 35mm film frame, while the size of an APS-C sensor is the same as an Advanced Photo System Classic film frame. In the film days, no respectable pro or enthusiast photographer used Advanced Photo System cameras. Why should they in the digital age?

Misty Saguaro – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5 – Pacific Blues Recipe

Back in the early days of digital, when dynamic range and noise control were much more critical than nowadays, full frame had a clear advantage, as one needed to squeeze the absolute most out of their files and full frame allowed that. APS-C was more affordable and smaller, so it was popular with amateurs and enthusiasts on a budget. This is where the stigma originated that APS-C is not for those who are serious, and to an extent it unfortunately remains to this day, despite so many incredibly talented and successful photographers utilizing APS-C models.

Since APS-C sensors are smaller than full frame, there is less physical room for light sensitive sensor elements (pixels). There are two options: smaller pixels or fewer pixels. Smaller pixels will allow for increased resolution, but at the expense of low-light capabilities and dynamic range. Fewer pixels allows for better low-light capabilities and dynamic range, but at the expense of resolution. Resolution is resolution, and 24mp on full frame is the same as 24mp on APS-C, yet the pixels on the APS-C will be smaller than those on the full frame sensor. 61mp on full frame is more resolution than 40mp on APS-C, yet their pixels are similarly sized. It’s easy to see the advantage of full frame! Except that most photographers don’t actually need 40mp of resolution, let alone 61mp. It looks good on paper, and it’s great for pixel-peeping and bragging rights, but in practical use, the majority of photographers don’t actually need more than 20mp, and everything above that is overkill. Yes, there are some who do need more, because they crop deeply or print huge, but most people who say they need that much resolution don’t actually need it. Megapixels sell cameras, though, so camera makers keep pushing higher and higher. My argument is simply that there is plenty of real estate on an APS-C sensor; while the increased room on full-frame sensors does offer advantages, those advantages find themselves on a diminishing returns segment of an inverted U curve.

Shot on a Canon EOS 5DS R

Improved dynamic range and high-ISO are often overstated on full frame. The dynamic range of, say, the APS-C Fujifilm X-T5 and the full frame Canon EOS 5DS R are quite similar, and not much different at all in real world use. There are some APS-C cameras with more dynamic range and some with less dynamic range than the X-T5; likewise, there are some full frame cameras with more dynamic range and some with less dynamic range than the 5DS R. But even if we’re talking about an APS-C camera with less and a full frame with more, in practical use, that difference is fairly insignificant (outside of some extreme circumstances). Same with digital noise. Full frame might be cleaner with less noise—particularly as the ISO climbs—but a camera like the X-T5 has a film-grain-like rendering to the digital noise that is much more tolerable than the noise from the 5DS R. In other words, the more noisy X-T5 might be preferable to the less noisy 5DS R at the same ISO. For the most part, full frame does have the advantage with both dynamic range and high-ISO, but it isn’t nearly as big nowadays as many might think.

Now let’s talk crop factor, which is often given as a reason to choose full frame. Because full frame sensors are 50% larger than APS-C, there is a 1.5x crop factor for APS-C focal lengths. For example, a 50mm lens on an APS-C camera will have the same focal length as a 75mm lens on a full frame camera. If you are trying to reach far, it’s a little easier on APS-C than full frame, and if you are trying to go wide, it’s a little easier on full frame than APS-C; however, there are plenty of long telephoto and ultra-wide lens options for both sensor sizes. Crop factor also affects depth-of-field, as f/2 on APS-C has a larger depth-of-field than an f/2 on full frame. If you want a shallow depth-of-field, it’s a little easier to achieve on full frame than APS-C, but if you want a large depth-of-field, it’s a little easier to achieve on APS-C than full-frame; however, it’s still very much possible to get a small depth-of-field on APS-C and a large depth-of-field on full frame. One often-overlooked advantage of APS-C is that, to achieve that shallow depth-of-field, you’re likely to use a larger aperture, allowing more light to reach the sensor, which means shooting at a lower ISO.

Shot on a Canon EOS 5DS R

Perhaps the biggest advantages that APS-C has over full frame—and likely the main reasons why most choose APS-C instead of full frame—are size and price. APS-C cameras are often smaller and weigh less than full frame. Smaller gear can be preferable, especially when traveling, and it can potentially provide a better user experience. Because the sensor is smaller, the price is often lower, sometimes much lower. Your money often goes further with an APS-C system than full frame.

While APS-C cameras can have some advantages over full frame, and some of the strengths of full frame can be overstated, bigger sensors obviously do allow for more and/or bigger light sensitive sensor elements, which generally speaking is better. My point is not to diminish full frame, because they serve important purposes, and can be preferable; instead, my point is only that the stigma that APS-C is “less than” and isn’t for serious photographers is outdated and inaccurate. Full frame has advantages, and APS-C has advantages, and you might find one more preferable than the other, but they are both very capable sensor sizes. My personal preference is Fujifilm X-Trans APS-C, as it works quite well for my photography. You have to decide for yourself what works best for you. I just hope that the stigma can finally be put to rest, as it’s simply not true.

This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.

Fujifilm X-T5 in black:  Amazon  B&H  Moment
Fujifilm X-T5 in silver:  Amazon  B&H  Moment

Where Nikon Went Wrong with the Zf

Posted on by Ritchie Roesch

I have to admit that the announcement of the Nikon Zf has given me G.A.S. (Gear Acquisition Syndrome). The camera looks stunning! And it seems to be nicely equipped, spec-wise.

There are some who will say that the 24mp sensor is unimpressive—and, yes, it’s not—but it’s all that most will ever need. Some cars have a powerful turbocharged V8, but do you really need it? It might be a whole lot of fun on occasion, but not likely a necessity, unless you’re towing something heavy or maybe on a raceway. That fuel-efficient V4 is a lot more practical, and probably plenty for your purposes. Similarly, the 24mp sensor in the Zf is more than enough resolution, unless you plan to crop deeply or print posters. On Fujifilm, I actually prefer the 26mp X-Trans IV sensor to the 40mp high-resolution X-Trans V sensor, just because more resolution is more cumbersome and can create storage issues, and I simply don’t need that much resolution. I think, for most people and purposes, the 20mp to 30mp range is ideal, and 24mp to 26mp seems like a sweet spot. More than that is overkill for the majority of photographers.

The problem, though, with the Zf is fundamental: there’s no aperture ring on Nikkor Z lenses. Because the lenses don’t have an aperture ring, Nikon was forced to include PASM. Just like the Zfc, the Zf has a shooting mode (a.k.a. PASM) switch, which enables and disables the knobs on top of the camera. For example, if the switch is set to A, the shutter knob doesn’t do anything, and is there only for looks. Of course it makes sense that it does this, but if designed correctly, the step of moving the switch to the correct position in order to activate the knob so that the shutter speed can be adjusted is unnecessary. Also, it’s unintuitive. No aperture control on the lens means that it can’t be set when the camera is powered off. Oftentimes, when I am photographing a scene, as soon as I see what it is that I’m going to capture, I have an idea what I want the aperture to be, and I’ll set it even before I power on the camera. Can’t do that on the Zf or Zfc. Just like the Zfc, the Zf makes the most sense when used in Manual mode, and especially when paired with a third-party lens with an aperture ring.

If you want the full Fujifilm experience, you’d better get a Fujifilm, as the Zf won’t deliver that. The Zfc couldn’t match it, and the Zf won’t be able to, either. That doesn’t mean the Zf isn’t an excellent camera, because I’m certain that it is very good, maybe one of Nikon’s best ever (I’m saying this having never used it personally). I would certainly love one myself, just because I’m a sucker for beautifully designed digital cameras that look and handle retro-like. I think the Fujifilm X-T5 and Nikon Zf will be compared very closely by reviewers and YouTubers, and, in my opinion, the X-T5 wins for several reasons, including size, weight, price, JPEG output/Film Simulation Recipes, and user experience (no PASM); however, the Zf will have strengths that beat Fujifilm, so it depends on what’s most important to the user as to which one wins, as I think they’re very comparable. If you’re in the Fujifilm system, you’re not likely to jump ship for the Zf, but if you’re in the Nikon system, the Zf will be quite tempting, and maybe it will convince you to stay with Nikon instead of switching over to Fujifilm, if you were considering that.

I want the Nikon Zf, but $2,000 could fund a nice weekend getaway somewhere. I think experiences matter much more than gear, and oftentimes it’s better to invest in using what you have in an epic way than to buy something new and miss out on the adventure. G.A.S. is an unfortunate problem, especially when combined with F.O.M.O. (fear of missing out); however, the best way to overcome it is to accept that what you have is plenty good enough—simply use it to the best of your ability whenever the opportunities come, and see what happens.

This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.

Fujifilm X-T5 in black:  Amazon  B&H  Moment
Fujifilm X-T5 in silver:  Amazon  B&H  Moment
Nikon Zf:  Amazon   B&H
Nikon Zfc:  Amazon   B&H

Why the Upcoming Nikon Zf won’t be a “Fujifilm Killer”

Posted on by Ritchie Roesch

Apparently, Nikon is about to announce a new retro-style full-frame camera called the Zf. The phrase “Fujifilm killer” has been floated around as if this camera will strike at the heart of Fujifilm’s market share. Let me give you a few reasons why this won’t be the case.

Before I begin, I want to applaud Nikon for creating a new retro-style camera. I believe the Zfc—their APS-C retro-looking model—has been a commercial success. I own one, although I almost never use it (the last time was on a trip to Sedona in May). Nikon hopes to build on the success of the Zfc with the upcoming Zf. Most camera companies don’t have the guts to create a beautifully designed body, so it’s great to see Nikon do it. I probably won’t buy a Zf personally (Nikon, if you want to send me one, I won’t say no!), but I’m sure it will be a very tempting camera for many.

Supposedly, the Zf will be a 24mp full-frame model with two memory card slots (one SD, one Micro-SD). It will be less plasticky than the Zfc, but it is unknown if it will be weather-sealed. Apparently, it will have IBIS and even pixel-shift. While I’m sure the Zf will generate plenty of excitement, it won’t be a “Fujifilm killer” for a few reasons.

First—and this is Nikon’s mistake—is there aren’t any Nikkor Z-mount lenses with aperture rings. I do believe that some of their lenses can be customized to make the manual-focus ring an (unmarked) aperture ring, but then you don’t have a manual focus ring. That’s not an ideal setup. Because the lenses don’t have aperture rings, Nikon will likely include a PASM dial or switch (like on the Zfc) to toggle on-and-off the knobs on the top plate, which is awkward and seemingly unnecessary. The best solution is to use a third-party lens that has an aperture ring and shoot in manual mode. Nikon should released a series of prime lenses with aperture rings along with the Zf (or, even better, back when they announced the Zfc), but I don’t think that will happen. This oversight means that you’ll have a really hard time replicating the Fujifilm shooting experience; if you want that, you’d better buy a Fujifilm camera instead.

Nikon Zfc + TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 + Vintage Color Recipe – Sedona, AZ

Another important piece of the puzzle that Nikon lacks are JPEG Recipes. A lot of people buy Fujifilm cameras for Film Simulation Recipes, which can save you a lot of time and frustration while providing a more enjoyable experience. There are some Recipes for Nikon Z cameras (here, here, and here), but nothing like what’s available for Fujifilm. A community has even sprung up out of these Recipes, with photographers that are often extremely kind and welcoming. I don’t think there’s a better community in all of photography!

A number of people have said, “If only Fujifilm made a full-frame camera!” With Fuji, there’s either APS-C or medium-format, but not full-frame. At one time APS-C was for amateurs or hobbyists, while full-frame was for professionals and advanced enthusiasts, but that time has come and gone (yet the stigma doesn’t easily disappear, despite being outdated). Nowadays, there are tons of amazingly talented photographers who shoot with APS-C cameras.

The advantages that a 24mp full-frame sensor provides over Fujifilm’s 26mp or 40mp APS-C sensors are improved high-ISO performance and increased dynamic range, but it should be noted that Fujifilm’s cameras are quite excellent at high-ISO and dynamic range, so it only matters in extreme circumstances—and even then, only a little. People will mention depth-of-field (due to the crop factor), but that’s a bit overstated, as it depends on the lens focal-length and aperture—it’s possible to get a narrow depth-of-field on APS-C similar to full-frame, but not with identical focal-lengths and apertures.

Fujifilm X-T5 + TTArtisan 35mm f/0.95 + 1970’s Summer Recipe – Sedona, AZ

This isn’t to say that APS-C is just as good or better than full-frame. There are some advantages and disadvantages to both sensor sizes, but overall those advantages and disadvantages aren’t huge. In my opinion, the advantages of APS-C (which are size, weight, and cost) outweigh the advantages of full-frame, but each has to determine what makes the most sense to their unique desires and needs. My only point is that full-frame isn’t massively better (if better at all) than APS-C, so just because Nikon offers a similarly-styled model with a full-frame sensor doesn’t mean that Fujifilm should be quaking in their boots.

A fun side-by-side experiment would be the Fujifilm X-T5 with the Fujinon 33mm f/1.4 and the Nikon Zf with the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. The Fujinon lens is 2/3-stops brighter, while the Nikkor has about 1/3-stop less depth-of-field (f/1.4 on APS-C has a depth-of-filed more similar to f/2 on full-frame, everything else being equivalently equal). Both offer the same field-of-view. While the Zf is full-frame, on paper the X-T5 has several spec-sheet advantages. The X-T5 is smaller, lighter, and cheaper; however, since the Fujinon lens is more expensive, the cost of these two kits will be similar. The “winner” of this experiment would likely depend on the photographer (one might lean Fujifilm while another might lean Nikon), but I bet it would be a very close call.

The yet-to-be-announced Nikon Zf will certainly be an excellent camera, and I think it’s smart for Nikon to make it. I don’t believe it will have any significant impact on Fujifilm sales. In fact, if it does well enough, it could even boost Fujifilm’s sales (similarly to how the X100V’s success has caused a spike in Ricoh GR III sales). Most of those who buy the Zf will likely be those already in the Z system. There might be some disgruntled Sony or Canon shooters who are considering switching brands who could be attracted to Nikon by the Zf. There might even be some Fujifilm X-T3 owners who are peeved that Fujifilm left their camera on an island who take a long look at the Zf. Overall, though, I don’t think the Zf will be a “Fujifilm killer” because—while it might have some lovely retro styling similar to what Fujifilm has become known for—it doesn’t offer the same shooting experience, due to the lack of an aperture ring, the inclusion of a PASM switch or dial, and the small number of JPEG Recipes available for it (plus the community built around that). The Nikon Zf will certainly be a popular model, but so is the Fujifilm X-T5—they both can exist simultaneously, and not step on each other’s toes.

This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.

Fujifilm X-T5 in black:  Amazon  B&H  Moment
Fujifilm X-T5 in silver:  Amazon  B&H  Moment
Nikon Zfc:  Amazon   B&H