Using Fuji X Lenses vs Canon Full Frame Lenses

A lot of people (as in photographers that I know) have been talking about replacing or augmenting their current DSLR systems with mirrorless systems. The benefits are hard to ignore (See: Comparing the Fuji X-E2 and the Canon 5D Mark III) as mirrorless systems are less expensive and lighter and smaller. There are always trade offs of course and the mirrorless systems are often more awkward to use quickly and difficult for those with larger hands. For me personally, the portability side of mirrorless systems more than makes up for the downsides. But what about lenses? How do focal lengths differ between the systems?  This isn’t so much a mirrorless vs DSLR debate as much as a cropped vs full frame sensor. While there is one full frame mirrorless system (The Sony A7 and A7R), it currently lacks options for native lenses and costs more than double than the more popular cropped mirrorless models (Olympus OM-D E-M1, and Fuji X-E2 and just announced Fuji X-T1).

UPDATE:
I have had a few comments about the Sony A7 and A7R cameras. You can indeed get the Sony A7 for as low as $1700 these days, and the A7R for $2300 (the X-E2 is $900). So one is almost twice the price and the other is more than twice the price. There are a handful of native lenses available but nothing that I’m personally interested in because of the size and cost (example: the FE 28-70mm FF3.5-5.6 is $2000). It has been pointed out that you can basically use any lens on the Sony cameras and if you have another system, you don’t have to buy any new lenses. For me this makes no sense at all since one of the biggest reasons for a small camera, is so that everything is smaller. My Fuji lenses range from 1/2 to 1/3 the size of my Canon lenses. Also, when using adapters for non-native lenses you have to focus manually or you get very slow auto-focus. Again, this is something I’m not personally interested in.  Just because you can, doesn’t mean you want to.

For the type of work that I do and they way that I shoot, the Sony system just isn’t ready for ME. Great if you have found a way to make them work for you.

Full frame sensors vs cropped sensors + lenses

Without even touching the merits of different sized sensors or even the size, weight and cost of the respective lenses, this mini-comparison is designed to simply compare how using different equivalent focal lengths on different systems affects the images themselves (because that’s what really matters!). Since I don’t have many camera systems available to me, this comparison will compare my Canon lenses on full frame with my Fuji X-E2 with its APS-C (1.5x) cropped sensor.

Lenses in this comparison

Fuji 23mm F1.4  Equivalent of 34.5mm F2.1 on full frame compared with Sigma 35mm F1.4 on Canon 5D Mark III
Fuji 35mm F1.4  Equivalent of 52.5mm F2.1on full frame compared with Canon 50mm F1.4 on Canon 5D Mark III
Fuji 18-55mm F2.8-4.0  Equivalent of 27-82.5mm F4.2 – 6.0

Lighting in these comparisons comes from both natural and Cheetah CL-360 lights.

There are a lot of arguments about focal length equivalents on cropped sensor cameras.  The crop affects the DOF but not the light gathering ability of the sensor. This means that the smaller the sensor, the broader the depth of field at a given aperture. Simply put, the bigger the sensor, the more blurred the back ground gets at the same aperture, and the easier it is to mis-focus. This is good and bad and depends on your requirements. If you base your entire style on blurry back-ground photos, full frame sensors are probably your best choice. If you need a broad depth of field and things more in focus, cropped sensors are a big benefit.

Fuji 23mm F1.4  Equivalent of 34.5mm F2.1 on full frame compared with Sigma 35mm F1.4 on Canon 5D Mark III

I wouldn’t often use a 35mm equivalent focal length for a studio portrait but it’s a great lens to include more context in an image (as you can see by the various clutter). This illustrates the difference in back-ground blur between cropped and full frame. As you can see, the blur is noticeably greater with a full frame sensor while the aperture and shooting/lighting settings remain the same.

Interestingly, the 35mm F1.4 below at F2.0 still has more blur in the background than the Fuji 23mm F23 at F1.4

Fuji 35mm F1.4  Equivalent of 52.5mm F2.1on full frame compared with Canon 50mm F1.4 on Canon 5D Mark III

As the focal length increases we see an obvious increase in compression and background blur. The difference between cropped and full frame results become oven more obvious. The nice part is that you actually get some great blurring with the cropped sensor so the apparent advantage of the full frame sensor is decreased.

The image below taken with studio lights and a blown out back drop. The broader depth of field is now an advantage since less light power is required to use small apertures.

Want more background blur? Get closer to your subject or use longer focal lengths…

Final Thoughts

When I started this exercise, I intended to compare a lot more images and lenses. This is a lot more difficult to organize than expected and not surprisingly, not all that interesting.  For me personally, when I do a comparison, I’m not interested in numbers and metrics but I do want to get a feel for how the camera works, and how good the files look in camera and after processing. Once I have been through a whole cycle, I can gauge my comfort level. Since I am WAY more used to using DSLRs in a studio environment, I find them easier to use and more intuitive. Using an electronic view finder or the LCD in studio almost feels silly but that’s merely a reflection of what I’m used to. As usual, having the exposure level showing in real time is amazing (and easy to turn off when in manual). Switching between the 2 systems while trying to shoot similar scenes is very confusing so not something that I plan to do in the future.  That said, I know that a mirrorless camera is every bit as capable in the studio with minor limitations.

Strangely, the Fuji files don’t look as good as RAW images as they do as JPGs. They do however, print great and look fantastic when not at 100%. After much reading, I’m under the impression that Adobe does not handle the X-Trans Raw files very well yet. There have been recent announcements that this will change in the near future.

From a purely aesthetic point of view I would have no problem only using the Fuji X-E2 in the studio either with natural or studio lights. The results are virtually indistinguishable from a full frame camera and 16Mp is plenty for 95% of all real world applications. The digital files have similar latitude for processing and once processed, they look equally great. The differences in look will only decrease as the Fuji 56mm F1.2 and Panasonic F42.5mm F1.2 are available.

Thank you to my wonderful photography assistant Jessica for not getting too bored while I fiddled with lights and lenses.

For more reading on this topic, please see:   Comparing the Fuji X-E2 and the Canon 5D Mark III