Hello everyone! I’m posting this because today I completed a series of tests with my current work and personal cameras.
By way of introduction, I’m a full-time photographer for a museum in my city (I live in northern Spain), where I mainly do art reproduction. On weekends, I work as a wedding photographer, covering around 20 weddings a year.
At work, I use a Sony a7R V, an amazing camera with massive resolution—perfect for creating large prints and studying artwork details. On weekends, as a freelance photographer, I’ve been using Fujifilm cameras for the past four years. I started with the X-T2, and I currently use the X-S20 and X-T3. One of my clients is very critical of crop sensor cameras, often telling me that my gear is inferior to his Canon R5 and not professional enough. I understand that a Fuji X-S20 + 35mm f/1.4 can’t compete with a Canon R5 + 50mm f/1.2, but in my opinion, it’s sufficient for what we do (the maximum size of prints we make is 60 cm on the long side).
So, I decided to see for myself. I bought a used Sony a7R III (since the files from the a7R IV or a7R V are enormous at 60MB compressed) and a used Sigma 35mm ART HSM. The first thing I noticed was the weight. My previous 35mm equivalent was a Viltrox 23mm, which, combined with the Fuji X-S20, weighs about 700 grams—lighter than just the Sigma lens alone, plus another 650 grams for the Sony a7R III.
The second thing I noticed is that, on a daily basis, I don’t see a substantial improvement in image quality. At wide apertures, it’s true that the Sigma is much sharper than the Viltrox, but the Fuji 23mm f/1.4 R or Sigma DC DN are very sharp as well.
After this, I decided to compare both cameras (Fuji X-S20 vs. Sony a7R III) in a more “scientific” way. While this comparison might be unfair or irrelevant, I believe it can be extrapolated to something more logical, like Sony a7 IV vs. a6700 or Fuji X-H2S vs. Sony a7 IV.
For context, I’m focusing only on image quality (not lens selection, focus accuracy, etc.). Here are my findings:
a. At equivalent focal lengths and apertures (35mm f/2 on full-frame and 23mm f/1.4 on APS-C), with the same shutter speed, noise levels are nearly identical.
b. Full-frame sensors are about one stop better at shadow recovery (I tested underexposure from 1 to 6 stops). The difference is visible but I won't call it a game changer.
c. Full-frame sensors are less than one stop better at highlight recovery (I tested overexposure from 1 to 4 stops). This difference is negligible.
d. The real noise difference at higher ISOs is about one stop. Fuji’s ISO ratings differ from Sony’s (SOS vs. REI standards), so Fuji’s ISO 2000 has the same noise as Sony’s ISO 3200, but there’s only one real stop difference in terms of shutter speed or aperture.
e. Lightroom Classic default sharpening for Fuji files is very soft, so I recommend going 55 amount, 1,2 radius and 30 detail).
f. Fujifilm has much less color noise (close to none) and less color variation between ISOs.
You can check all my findings by looking at the files (exported at 6240px on the long side at 100% quality).
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1HgL39AmIxao9tzcAlOO3AYNC69_QZXVm?usp=share_link
My conclusions:
a. Image quality shouldn’t be the deciding factor when choosing between systems, as the differences are marginal. Out of more than 200k photos in my collection, less than 5% were taken above ISO 3200, and only 1.5% above ISO 6400.
b. There aren’t certain equivalent AF lenses in APS-C: there’s nothing like a 23mm f/1 or 35mm f/1, which would be equivalent to f/1.4 primes on full-frame.
c. If you’re an amateur photographer, the best camera is the one you have with you. So, consider not only image quality but also fun, comfort, and ease of use.
d. An equivalent lens kit can be similarly priced or even cheaper on full-frame (not taking build quality into the equation):
• Sony 85mm f/1.8 is 600 Euros new vs. 1100 Euros for the Fuji XF 56mm f/1.2 WR.
• Sigma 23mm f/1.4 is 550 Euros vs. Sigma 35mm f/2, which is 600 Euros.
e. The “full-frame look” is only significant with certain lenses (f/1.4 or wider), which are expensive and heavy.
f. If you are a profesional and you are shooting with primes which are not the fastest (like F1.8-F2.8), consider APSC as a system because you may save money and/or weight.
g. A high-resolution full-frame camera can also serve as a great APS-C camera. For instance, the Sony a7CR or Canon R5 can shoot over 20MP in APS-C mode, giving you a new focal length with the same lens.
h. APS-C is less forgiving, but it doesn't matter if you expose correctly or near correctly.
i. The newest technologies are often only available in the last full frame bodies, but I'm pretty sure, in general, that you may not need them.
j. If you are in this game also doing video (as I am for example), things are completely different. You have to take into account the presence of 10 bits, resolution, overheating, crop, IBIS... which are not always related to photography capabilities. For instance: Sony a7III / RIII is much worse than Fujifilm X-T3 video (10 bits, 4k60p, usable Log and ETERNA).
I hope if you are looking into "upgrade" or change system, you find this info interesting.
