Fujifilm lenses, both for the X and G series, are stunning and often the best possible option for their cameras. However, with the imperfections they bring, third-party lenses can create some interesting effects. So, for those of you who like to experiment with Lensbaby lenses, heritage lenses, etc., some of the following lenses may provide some options for creativity. This is just a sampling of lenses. The X-series options focused on higher f-stop versions; of particular interest was the TTArtisan 35mm f.095. The selection of G mounts sampled the telephoto range, which had a smaller form than those manufactured by Fujifilm.

X-Mount Lenses

G-Mount Lenses

The GoPro sensors fluctuated between 1/2.3 and 1/1.9, essentially cellphone sensors. One-inch and 4/3 sensors are typically found in smaller cameras and not cell phones; given that a one-inch sensor is four or more times larger than a cell phone sensor, it will provide better colour, dynamic range, and resolution. Remember that 20 megapixels of resolution from a cellphone sensor differ in quality from 20 megapixels from a larger camera sensor.

The Pocket 3 has the advantage of a gimbal rather than stabilization. This is better for capturing video than a stabilization system when the camera is handheld. On the other hand, the GoPro requires a higher speed to use the stabilization, compromising the image quality and increasing noise in the images. The Pocket 3’s gimble also allows for “subject-tracking,” whether on a tripod or handheld. So, if you are holding the camera and filming yourself, you do not need to check that you are in the image as you navigate uneven terrain; the camera does this automatically. If the camera is stationary, you can be moving about the scene, and the camera will keep you in the centre of the scene. The image display can be rotated to facilitate a quick change from landscape to portrait mode. So switching back and forth is very quick, whether using the video for YouTube’s landscape world or doing a quick TikTok in portrait mode.

I will leave the detailed technical information and the configuration of the two kits to the references found below, particularly the DPReview, which is very comprehensive, as is the video produced by Gordon Laing.

The final point is a one-inch sensor does take good stills, and the camera can be used in this mode, as you may have gathered. So, it is also a compact camera; the only limitation here might be the lens, which is equivalent to a 20mm lens on a full-frame camera. In other words, it is a wide-angle lens. If you use the iPhone 15, the 1x lens is equivalent to 24mm. So, the Pocket 3 is wider in its field of view than your standard cell phone camera. You can find a discussion on other one-inch cameras in my article A Niche Market for 1″ Sensor Cameras.

Two Kits

The Pocket 3 is sold for $719.99 Cdn, and there is also the option to buy the device in a Creator Kit for $929.99. The kit includes several additional accessories, including a wireless microphone, which I believe makes the kit a better buy.

References

• The Camera that Made Me a Better Photographer, Orbit
• DJI Pocket 3 Overview, DPReview (Digital Photography Review)
• DJI Pocket 3 REVIEW: best vlogging camera!, Gordon Laing
• Introduction to DJI Osmo Pocket 3, DJI promotional video
• DJI Osmo Pocket 3 review: Maybe the only vlogging camera you need
• Solo Filmmaking with the DJI Osmo Pocket 3, Brandon Li
• DJI OSMO Pocket 3, 20 settings you should change immediately
• Pros and Cons – DJI Pocket 3 versus GoPro Hero, FlytPath
• DJI Osmo Pocket 3 beginners guide. Jeven Dovey
• DJI Pocket 3 vs Pocket 2 – Side by Side Comparison, Roo’s Reviews

100mp Medium Format Sensor Cameras

It has been a few years since Fujifilm and Hasselblad produced their first mirrorless style medium format cameras, the GFX and the X2D. Since then, they have been refined and moved from an older 50 mp sensor to a new back BSI CMOS 100 mp sensor. In January 2024, Hasselblad released their 907x 100c camera, unlike the GFX or X2D cameras, as it is compatible with their older film cameras and is created in that style. It is a unique and beautiful camera and is highly modular. It does include one feature that is almost unique in the camera market: 1TB of onboard storage.

I thought the best way to compare pricing should someone want to get into a medium format camera was to compare the pricing of a number of these cameras with just the 63mm lens. The prices are Canadian pricing found at B&H. The following chart gives you pricing as of January 2024. Remember that most people considering medium format will not allow their choice to be driven by price, although some who want to dip their toe in the water might. In the latter’s case, I have included a used option at the bottom. In this way, you can see the whole range of entry points.

In my opinion, most looking at these cameras will make the choice based on other issues. Perhaps the appeal of the modular nature of the 907x, or the compact nature of the X2D. The larger GFX may appeal to those who want to adapt the camera to many brands of heritage lenses or its rugged, weather-sealed body. These are more likely to drive the decision.

	Body	63mm (50 equiv.)	Tax	Price
Hasselblad 907X 100c	CA$11080.95	CA$3717.63	CA$1775.83	CA$16574.41
Hasselblad X2D 100c	CA$11080.95	CA$3717.63	CA$1775.83	CA$16574.41
GFX 100ii	CA$10134.90	CA$2025.90	CA$1459.30	CA$13620.10
GFX 100s	CA$5845.25	CA$2025.90	CA$944.54	CA$8815.69
	Cheapest Acquisition of 100 mp camera kit
Used GFX  100s KEH	CA$3835.09	CA$2025.90	CA$703.32	CA$6564.31

Ted Forbes Review of the 907X

He does a very good overview of the camera’s features and operations. In addition, he discusses how it can be configured using accessories and older Hasselblad cameras and parts.

Three Blind Men and an Elephant Review of the 907X

Hugh talks about the history and fame of the camera and then suggests it has one of the best software interfaces in the industry, dual UH2 card slots which support slower SD cards, can be charged by USB-C, and 1TB of onboard storage. He then isolates some of the downsides of the camera has no audio meters, no 24fps, no remove video stop/start in the Phocus app, no digital EVF yet, no ATMI port, lack of weather sealing and, in his opinion, the lack of IBIS is problematic. He then raises several minor issues that would improve the camera’s ergonomics, including how prone the sensor is to dust.

He also goes through how to operationalize the camera for different types of photography. He then talks about how different lenses will perform on this camera and which ones fit the camera’s flange.

He concludes by comparing this camera to other medium format, full-frame cameras, and discussion lenses.

References

• Hasselblad 907X SPECIAL EDITION & 500C/M: Back to the Future, Hugh Brownstone
• DPreview of the 907X, Richard Butler
• DPreview of the GFX 100ii
• DPreview of the GFX 100s, Gold Award

This Fall I was impressed with both Sony and Fujifilm’s announcements of the A7R-V and Fujifilm’s announcement of the X-H2 as well as the new X-T5. The Sony A7R-V could be considered on the cutting edge of all the new high-resolution 35mm cameras. The X-T5 and the X-H2 have now broken the 26megapixel ceiling for APSC mirrorless cameras, by developing compact cameras capable of 40 megapixels. This will likely mean there is a new sensor technology that will be introduced into the 35mm, and medium format cameras.

If you are not a Sony or Fujifilm fan keep in mind that almost all cameras that came out in 2022 from other manufacturers are excellent cameras, these are just my thoughts on cameras that seem to be inching ahead of the others technically, at least for the moment. So if you are more comfortable with the features or performance of a Panasonic, Nikon or Canon, there may be an upgrade coming soon.

The APSC versus Full Frame

There are many good reasons to own either an APSC or Full Frame camera the biggest difference of course is the size of the sensor as you can see from the diagram below. The salmon colour box represents the size of the Full Frame sensor in relation to the smaller yellow box representing the APSC sensor. The APSC sensor is a little less than half the size of a full-frame sensor.

People often jump to the conclusion that if Full Frame is bigger it must be better, and in some ways this is true. You do get higher resolution, often less noise and sometimes better dynamic range, but these factors vary depending on megapixels and the age of the camera. The key differences in my mind are as follows. First, you get a shallower depth of field with Full Frame cameras, something a lot of photographers favour. However, APSC’s broader depth of field can be an asset as well, and there are a number of photographers who prefer this to a more shallow depth of field. The Fujifilm X series is unique as it is designed only for an APSC sensor unlike Canon, Nikon and Sony APSC cameras so this makes their lenses more compact. This means you carry a much smaller and lighter kit. Smaller lenses also mean it is cheaper to create better lenses. Finally, when you compare the cost of a standard Fujifilm kit against a full frame kit with the same quality of camera and lenses, it is half the cost.

So when considering either sensor size you need to think about, your budget, how you want to capture images and ergonomics.

Review of the X-T5 from Camera Labs

Review of the X-H2 from DPReview

Kai W’s review of the A7RV

A Practical Hands-on Overview

It is my option that these three cameras represent the top high-resolution APSC and Full Frame cameras on the market this fall.

Specifications of the Three Cameras

• The X-T5 Review and Specifications
• The X-H2 Review and Specifications
• The A7R V Review and Specifications

Buying a Camera When to Buy and How to Research

Buying new equipment is always something that goes through your mind when new equipment comes out. It can be an important purchase to move your photography practice forward or something we call GAS (gear acquisition syndrome). So how do you know whether or not your urge is GAS or not? If it is not GAS how do you go about making the right choices?

In a previous post on this blog, I covered this topic; just click this sentence.

Every Camera May be Good Enough

With all these yearly announcements of new upgrades to your cameras, computers and smartphones it is easy to get caught up in frenzy and lose track of the primary goal, which is to create great images and then share them on social, media or through other public venues. What often gets in the way is how cut off the camera is from the rest of the electronic world. You have to download everything to a computer and then mediate it through your processing software before it can be shared. I think Hugh Brownstone said it very well when after talking about the advances both Sony and Fujifilm have made technically, he points out where they should be really concentrating.

“While all the camera companies have dithered over investing and developing user interface software competencies, Apple continues to wipe the floor with them. That whole ecosystem does and has set the agenda for the young generation. I just do not see this working out for traditional companies very much longer.”

I know Zeiss a few years developed a camera with an internal camera and Lightroom built in, with an instant connection to the internet, but it never really got off the ground until the camera had aged so much that it was left technically in the dust by other companies. Hugh does go on to say that perhaps stripping down the camera to its basics might also be a way to go, he goes as far as to say get rid of the video component as this will allow the camera to shrink to a much smaller size. A size with just the basics things you need to make nice images. In that regard, it was interesting to hear the musings of my friend, Rob Will, who has been riding the best camera technology for years and has been upgrading, as a result, every second iteration. Here is what he is thinking.

“While going through the flurry of new camera announcements this week, it occurred to me how very few of the new features and improvements are of any real interest to me.  Video seems to be where the big uptick is and I shoot maybe 5 minutes of video per year (almost always on my iPhone), so little appeal there. I see features that I feel would be “nice to have”, but nothing really compelling. All of the cameras that we shoot today are 100 times more capable than cameras of 10 years ago, and we all were doing good work then.” 

“So what’s the point? More resolution? 36 MPx is probably enough for almost anything we do, and many would say that even 24 MPx is enough. Articulating screens? Very nice but not really limiting anything. Better autofocus? I love the AF on my camera, but a little care and attention would work equally well as I don’t shoot a lot of sports or wildlife. Better battery life? Sure, but how often do we really shoot more than a few hundred shots with no opportunity to charge? IBIS? This is a good feature, but somehow I took good photos in low light for years without it. So…assuming your current camera is 24-36 MPx, has autofocus of some kind, and IBIS as a stretch goal, what is the compulsion to ever upgrade? “

“In the old days, we would keep a camera for 10 years or more. My own cameras typically were stolen or broken before I replaced them. Now we feel compelled to upgrade every two years or so chasing unnecessary features. I also see a trend towards buying expensive “must have” lenses that sit on the shelf.  Feels to me that we are pawns in this upgrade game rather than knights. Maybe we should stop upgrading and just take more photos.” 

https://www.amazon.com/shop/fujirumors/list/1PWVKF77SOQ19?linkCode=spc&tag=oneworldfuji-20&domainId=influencer&asc_contentid=amzn1.ideas.1PWVKF77SOQ19

One of the things that occasionally become an issue for me is having a camera bag that I can use both for under-seat air travel and extended day outings where I need to carry more equipment and clothing that does not fit in my sling bag. So not so big and cumbersome as an be an overnight hiking bag. A recent article has brought the new Gura Gear Kiboko City Backpack. This particular model is in the Kickstarter phase so it can not be evaluated other than through the specifications. However, for correspondence with the company I am told it will fit the GFX100s easily without difficulty and a few lenses. Guru does have available the 16 and 22-litre butterfly back bags. It is designed for quick access to equipment on safaris according to the manufacturer, and it is also very lightweight. According to Gura their standard 16 and 22-litre bags are designed to fit under airline seats and the 30-litre are designed for overhead bins. The implication is the city backpack should also fit under an airline seat.

In terms of fitting your gear, there should be no problem with full-frame mirrorless lenses and cameras, as it is designed specifically for mirrorless equipment. If you are using medium format mirrorless such as the Fujifilm 100s they suggested to me that this should not be problematic either. The quick access opening on the side of this bag is 4 inches by 6 inches and eleven 11 inches deep, which may be problematic for the GFX100s, (5.90×4.09).

Gura Gear Kiboko City Backpack

This is a new product and has a lot of key features, the three pounds ultralight weight, the swing round side access, rear camera access, expandable roll top and yes the water bottle pocket. Bag weight is very important as camera equipment can be very heavy. Also being able to carry all those other things you need with you is key as well. Rather than going into detail, all the details are available on the Kickstarter website. The included video is quite comprehensive.

Peak Design Everyday Back Pack

Usually, when you talk about the best-designed camera bags Peak Design is at the top of the list, like the Gura bags they are designed by photographers. The commuter bag that they make is the Everyday Backpack, which comes in 20 and 30-litre sizes.

Wandrd PRVKE LITE

When you ask GFX 100s users which bags they have been using for this purpose one of the bags that gets good reviews is the Wandrd PRVKE LITE 11-litre bag that rolls to 16 litres. This bag is your most compact option but according to the Wandrd site the 21-litre, of similar construction, would be more appropriate for more than two lenses.

Shimoda ACTION X30 BACKPACKS

The other bag that is favoured is the Shimoda Action X30 backpack. This bag comes highly recommended by many GFX100s users, is well built and perfect for carrying more equipment and personal gear. This 30-litre bag can be expanded by another 7-litres. However, it is quite a bit larger than the bags that have already been mentioned. However, they do make a smaller Explore V2 25 Starter Kit.

Tenba DNA Backpack

Tenba’s bag opens on the front which could present a security issue. The advantage of the camera section is it can be converted quickly to a packsack and the camera section with its protection can be removed. Like all Tenba products, it has a computer/iPad area, expanding water bottle pouch, a tripod system, and an accessory area. The expandable area at the top makes it ideal for clothing in unpredictable weather.

Sling Bags for the Street

In closing, if you have not invested in a sling bag for lightweight minimal kit outings, I have come across three companies that have excellent options in this style of bag Ona, Peak Design and Tenba.

References:

• Wandrd Bags.
• Peak Design
• Ona
• Tenba
• Peta Pixel has a fairly good review of what they believe are the best camera bags of 2022 and highlights the top bags from the city, the woods or the airlines.

In This Week in Photography the discussion around the iPhone 13 very quickly moved to mobile tools for photographers. The most interesting part of that discussion was around the new ACASIS swappable High-Speed Storage and 10-in-1 hub. A device that appears to be perfect for docking a laptop or providing an iPad with a portable office. It seems the host had edited the video below using this device connected to his iPad.

The device itself appears to be as wide as a credit card and just slightly taller but has an SD storage ceiling of 8TB. I think for those who are travelling with an iPad pro and editing in the field this might be something to seriously consider. If you using a laptop and a large screen at home to edit your work, this USB C hub might be very the perfect device.

References:

• ACASIS Kickstarter Site
• Photowalks: http://www.photowalkstv.com
• Website: http://www.jeffersongraham.net
• Twitter: https://twitter.com/jeffersongraham
• Instagram: https://instagram.com/jeffersongraham
• YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/PhotowalksTV

Most camera manufacturers are now focusing on their mirrorless cameras in both the APSC and Full-frame sensor sizes. Mirrorless cameras provide several advantages over DSLRs, and one of them is size. However, many of the lenses produced for these new cameras were still large. Lately, Sony, Fujifilm and Nikon have been producing smaller lenses. This has resulted in a more compact kit. Although Sensor Sizes vary considerably from small ones in point-and-shoot cameras and smartphones to large Medium format sensors, this article refers to cameras with either APSC or Full Frame sensors. The diagram below shows the relative size relationship between sensors, but it is not to scale.

Camera Flange and Lens Size

Both Nikon and Sony have a flange that accommodates both APSC and Full Frame lenses. Fujifilm designs its flange specifically for the APSC sensor. This means the circle into which you place a lens, the flange, is smaller on the Fujifilm camera than on the Nikon or Sony. Fujifilm’s smaller flange and smaller sensors mean they can make high-quality lenses that are smaller and less expensive. The more professional lenses made for Sony and Nikon are larger and more expensive. The advantage of an APSC/Full-Frame flange is (provided you purchase full-frame lenses) you can start with a cheaper APSC camera and move up to a full-frame camera without buying new lenses.

Getting the Lenses Smaller

All three companies have initially concentrated primarily on very fast lenses (lenses with a very low f-stop). This has meant, in most cases, larger, more expensive lenses. To make them smaller, they have made the new lenses slower; for example, rather than making an f-1.4 lens, they are making an f2.8 lens. When you look at the camera bodies in profile, the size of these smaller lenses makes full-frame cameras and APSC more similar in size. Keep in mind that a slower lens can have the same image quality as a faster lens.

Granted, the full-frame camera bodies are slightly larger and perhaps heavier, but the sizes difference is less significant. This means your choice of cameras may be more driven by ergonomics, ease of use, lens availability, cost, and the various advantages of different sensor sizes rather than size.

APSC versus Full Frame

One key difference between APSC and full-frame sensors is resolution; the other is the depth of field. APSC cameras have a deeper depth of field but are limited to 26 megapixels; full-frame cameras have a shallower depth of field but have up to 60 megapixels of resolution. So if higher resolution is important full-frame cameras will be your choice. A deeper depth of field might appeal to landscape photographers seeking to get everything in focus. Still, a portrait photographer might prefer a shallower depth of field, which would more easily produce background bokeh. So this is either a disadvantage or an advantage depending on your preference. Some photographers will own both kinds of cameras and use one or the other depending on what they are doing.

Sony’s New Smaller Lenses

There are two Sony A7C 24mp cameras in the image below, 24mp, the first with the 24mm f2.8 lens, the second with the 40mm f2.5 lens. The third camera is the 60mp A7R IV camera with a 50mm f2.5 lens. These are all prime lenses and provide most photographers with a good variety of options for most photographic needs. The fourth camera is the 26mp Fujifilm X-T4 with a 35mm equivalent lens to contrast it against the A7R IV as both of these are considered top cameras by each manufacture. What is surprising is both cameras are somewhat similar in size with these lens choices.

The image below shows two A7C cameras with two of the new lenses, compared to two Fujifilm X-E4 cameras; here again, they have a similar size. The Fujifilm, smaller and lighter, still has a similar profile when shown with the lens attached. The Fujifilm camera is shown with a 35mm and 75mm equivalent lens.

The image below has two Nikon Zfc 20mp APSC cameras on the left with the 50mm f2.8 lens and the second with the 28mm f2.8 lens. The third camera is the Nikon Z7II 40mp full-frame camera with a 28mm lens. Again the final camera is the X-T4 for comparison purposes.

Choosing a Camera

The table below shows the current pricing for these cameras and selected lenses. Given that the size of these cameras is very similar, choosing between them is still not straightforward:

• If the maximum resolution is most desirable the A7R IV would be the obvious choice.
• A photographer with a limited budget who might consider upgrading at a later date to a higher resolution might be interested in the Nikon Zfc
• A potential future upgrader who is concerned about maximum lens option might choose the A7C over the Nikon, as Sony has the most lens options at the moment.
• If one is never going to upgrade to full frame then the X-T4 or X-E4 might be the best choice, if you are going to buy more lenses as they will be more reasonable, lighter and smaller.

Considering a camera means thinking about the output or what your are going to do with the photographs you are taking, this will determine the size of the camera and sensor. I like to think of camera size in the following categories iPhone cameras, point and shoot, one-inch sensor, 4/3 sensor, APSC, Full Frame and Medium Format. You will notice that these categories follow sensor size primarily, as sensor size is critical to determining image quality. The other key items that determine image quality are lenses and the processing engine in the camera. The illustration below shows the size relationship between sensors.

You can see that the three smallest sizes are those found in phone cameras and point-and-shoot cameras. So in so unless you need a telephoto lens, the image quality in point and shoot cameras is similar to your phone’s camera.

Phone Cameras

The iPhone with the three cameras is an excellent choice for most purposes, especially if you only post images on the internet. You can get great prints from an iPhone as well, but as the size of the print increases, the weakness of the image quality will become more and more apparent. This is true of other phone cameras as well, no matter what they advertise. If you love taking photographs of birds or wildlife at a distance, phone cameras are problematic as they do not have telephoto lenses. If you like this kind of photograph or are interested in high-quality prints, then you may need to consider a camera.

Point and Shoots

The advantage of point-and-shoot cameras over your phone’s camera is the telephoto lens that allows you to zoom in on a distant object. Most people do not use their cameras most of the time for this purpose. If you love taking pictures of birds or other images at a distance, there are two cameras you might want to consider. The Nikon Coolpix P950 was designed in January of 2020. It is a 16-megapixel camera with a 1/2.3 size sensor. It has a stunning 24 -2000mm zoom lens. The other camera of interest designed in September of 2017 is the Sony Cyber-Shot DSC RX10 IV. It is a 20-megapixel camera with a one-inch BSI Sensor. It has an extensive zoom range of 24-600mm. You can see a side-by-side comparison of these two cameras on the DPReview site.
Side by Side Comparison.

The downside of these cameras is their limitations to producing larger prints, and they are very bulky cameras bigger than cameras with full-size sensors. Definitely not a camera you can put in your pocket or even a handbag.

One Inch Sensor Cameras

These cameras are great for the internet and have much better resolution than the smaller sensors in point-and-shoot cameras or phones. Most are pocketable and easy to carry around. The disadvantage is that at 16 to 20mp, you are pushing the sensor, and therefore if you are printing larger than eight by ten, it may look slightly cartoon-like in the details. The camera to consider in this size sensor is the Sony RX100 VII which has a 24-200mm (f2.8-f4.8 zoom lens at $1599 Cdn, or the Sony RX100 V, which has a 24-70 f1.8 -f2.8 zoom lens $1049 Cdn. It does have a viewfinder, but it is a popup that is a little awkward. The downside, perhaps, is it is tiny and might feel awkward to operate. Remember, all cameras are a compromise, and often photographers own different size cameras for different purposes.

4/3 cameras

These cameras are also relatively small and, unlike the previous camera, allow you (in most cases) to remove the lens if you want to use a few different types of lenses. This means you can use lenses that are better in low light and are sharper. They also have IBIS, which is in-body stabilization vital if you want to capture things in low light and don’t what to use a tripod. (Keep in mind IBIS does not work if things are moving a lot in the scene). The two main manufactures of 4/3 cameras are Panasonic and Olympus. These are all mirrorless cameras with lots of advanced features. Although they are typically tiny as the Olympus Pen E-PL9 $750 Cdn, they can also be larger than some cameras with larger sensors like the Olympus OM-D E M1X $2900 Cdn.

Panasonic makes a fixed lens camera in this sensor size called the LX100 II with a 24-75mm lens at $999. Its advantage is it is small enough for a small bag and almost pocketable, and discrete.

APSC mirrorless cameras 

APSC cameras have a sensor more than twice the size of the 4/3 camera. This is the most popular camera, with amateur photographers and professionals often using it (broader depth of field and the telephoto advantage). The top camera manufacturer in this space is Fujifilm, a very high-end lens manufacturing company. The professionals prefer this brand. Unlike other brands, it has the best lens quality, with the smallest size lenses and camera bodies. All other manufacturers produce APSC cameras, but the lens flange is designed for full-frame lenses. The advantage here is you can purchase full-frame lenses for these cameras. The disadvantage is the lenses are larger as because of the flange size, and often the APSC lenses designed for these cameras suffer in quality. If you purchase full frame better quality lenses for these cameras, they are larger, heavier and in most cases more expensive, sometimes twice as much.

Fujifilm produces cameras for all budgets in this sensor size and at all prices, but the higher quality cameras are the X series. Here are the two newest cameras you might want to consider as they both have IBIS in-camera stabilization: the X-s10 $1274 Cdn and the X-T4 $2299 Cdn. Both have the same sensor in them and the same processing engine. So the image quality is the same.

Print wise, you should get perfect images at 13 by 19 and perhaps at 22 by 17. 

They have dials to operate the camera, so they are easy to learn, so you rarely use the menu system. They are also very quickly set to automatic and have the best JPG’s on the market if you don’t want to post-process images.

Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

Full Frame cameras can have the highest resolution, so if you want to print wall-size images, this is the sensor size you will want. The other advantage, of course, is a crop of 50% is still slightly sharper than an APSC camera. The top cameras in this area are the Sony A7R IV at 60 megapixels at $4499 Cdn and the Sony A1 at 50 megapixels at $8499. These are the most advanced cameras in this sensor size. Sony manufactures most camera sensors and often does not release the new sensors to other manufacturers immediately. These cameras also have IBIS in-body-stabilization.

Medium Format

Medium format cameras are the next sensor size up. Still, now you are over 5000 dollars just for the camera, so I will not get into this size except to point out that the most versatile and most reasonable camera in this space is the Fujifilm’s X100s 100-megapixel camera with IBIS at $7800 Cdn.

Things to keep in mind.

• More light gets into the camera as the sensor size increases, and the colours and resolution improve.
• As the sensor size increases, the depth of field decreases, so in low light situations, you often have to choose what is in focus (unless you have a tripod). This is less of an issue with the APSC cameras and those with smaller sensors.
• As the sensor size decreases, the camera does more guessing, especially with 4/3 sensors or smaller, so there is an increased likelihood of artifacts.
• As the sensor size increases, the size and expense of the lens increases. A typical APSC kit with a few lenses is usually half the size and cost of a Full Frame camera.
• Size does make a difference, if the camera is too big, you many not use it as much, and when you get to full-frame, often people ask you to stop taking pictures.

My Personal Preference

I love the APSC Fujifilm cameras and feel it is a sweet spot. You get excellent image quality, but the camera is not too big. The best buy, in my opinion, is the X-S10 because of the grip, IBIS, image quality, price and compact size.

They also make smaller cameras with the same image quality but without IBIS. My two favourite smaller cameras are the X-E4 at $1199 Cdn and the X100V at $1774 Cdn. I can carry both of these cameras in a small bag. The X100V is a fixed 35 mm lens camera, and the X-E4 is an interchangeable lens camera. If I put a 75mm equivalent lens on the X-E4, I have both a wide and telephoto lens in my bag, and no lens changes are required.

In the morning heat, I am walking towards the car; the tiny lizards scuttle out of my way. Overhead a heron is returning from its morning breakfast, and I am heading for Swan Lake. I think I can experiment a little with an APSC camera with a 35mm equivalent lens on an APSC sensor with a resolution of 24mp and a 50mm equivalent lens on a medium format camera with a resolution of 50mp. A very uneven comparison, but I am interested to see from the same spot what might come from both cameras, both with different fields of view and a different resolution. As I begin my walk, I set both cameras just above their base ISOs, and the shutter speeds were slightly different, but I leave my aperture to float. I attempt to set the focus point on the same element in the frame as best I can. When rendering the RAW images, I process one of the images and then copy these settings to the other. I know one camera has a Bayer filter and the other an X-Tran filter, so trying to equalize the process may be uneven as well.

A few minutes in, I came across this scene and made my first photograph.

The closeup below demonstrates the difference in resolution; on the left, I set the image to 100% in Lightroom and to match the two images, I set the right-hand image to 190%. Right away, I notice two things the colour from the Bayer filter appears thinner and less intense, but this could they need slightly different processing. The second more obvious difference is the APSC image at this magnification is already showing artifacts, unlike the Medium Format Image.

Rounding the East side of the lake path emerges from under the canopy, and I see an opportunity for a photograph in a much higher dynamic range. The image below is the unprocessed RAW images. The exposure is quite a bit different because of the field of view.

Here are the two images again after they have been processed. I am noticing a difference in the exposure between the two images in this high dynamic range image. The APSC camera has completely lost the blues in the sky; however, the Medium Format Camera has retained most of the sky. There also appears to be a better range of shadows in the Medium Format image.

Here are the two images again at 100 percent comparing the highlights to the shadows. Neither camera is doing a great job of the sky, but both seem much better with the shadows. This, of course, is expected as no attempt was made here to protect the highlights in either image.

The next image is at 200%; here, I can clearly see the difference in how the two cameras have recorded the shadows. The APSC camera has lost the richness in the shadows, and the artifacts are also visible.

Although many more images were taken, the image below is a spring I came across near the end of my walk; two kilometres walk around Swan Lake. Here the light is more balanced so that both cameras will produce better image quality. In the two images below, I started by processing the APSC file first and then applying the same processing to the medium format image. In this light, the performance of both cameras is very similar in terms of the highlights and shadows.

The following are the two images at 300%; here, you can see both images are struggling with resolution.

The same comparisons with the APSC image enlarged to 570%, so the grass is the same size, gives a much better example of the difference between the two images. You can see the APSC image is struggling with the fine detail to a greater degree.

Keeping in mind this is a very loose comparison between the two cameras; clearly, the resolution is different, which would impact how large you might want to print and image. The other difference is the performance of the two cameras in a high dynamic range situation; here, there is a distinct advantage to the medium format camera. However, if the APSC camera was to increase its pixel depth by combining three exposers (one-stop under, one stopover and one with the correct exposure), this should handle the dynamic range in the same manner as the medium format camera.

Another factor that gives the medium format camera a better advantage is its pixel pitch compared to the APSC camera. The APSC camera’s pixel pitch is 3.93 microns, whereas the medium format camera’s pixel pitch is 5.31 microns. This means the pixels that measure the light are larger, and therefore the measurement should be more accurate.

Regarding 35mm versus 50mm, the walk had some areas with very confined areas and expansive others, so it was a good test of what lens I might personally prefer if restricted to one lens. The following are all the pairs of photographs.

Conclusions

Keeping in minded the comparison is very uneven and therefore not very specific, I can draw a few conclusions from the walk around the lake. I think I can come to some conclusions around lenses, resolution, dynamic range and ergonomics.

Lenses

Comparing lenses on cameras with different sensors is not the best way to compare the field of view even though the field of view is constant. Light gathering capacity is different, as is the resolution, so these are very distracting variables. The other problem is the difference in compression and distortion. For example, the medium format lens on the camera was a 63mm lens. This means it has the compression of a 63 mm lens, even though the field of view is equivalent to a 50mm lens. Furthermore, the APSC camera had a 23mm lens on it that is equivalent to a 35mm field of view, but it will have an 18mm lens distortion. All this makes it very difficult to concentrate on the field of view differences. So my conclusion here is more about my experience with comparing lenses on cameras with the same size sensors than this comparison.

Having said all that, it felt like the 35mm was more useful than the 50mm in getting a framing I liked. Looking at the images after they have been processed, I think this still holds. If I had to carry only one lens or consider a fixed lens camera, I think a 35mm lens would be the easiest to live with, which explains why most fixed lens cameras are either 35mm or 28mm. It has always been a versatile field of view to work with, especially in cramped spaces and on the street. I have also found it the best lens for doing large panoramas with a wide field of view.

I think the 50mm lens does provide a different look, and one could use a panoramic technique to overcome situations where the lens is not wide enough. Three or four handheld vertical photographs with a one-third overlap can be easily merged to create a 35mm field of view, provided there is not much movement in the image. I have found trying to recreate a 24mm field of view with this lens is far more complicated than using the 35mm lens, but it too can be done, but it is more complicated than merging three images.

Resolution

When I look at how quickly the resolution breaks down in the images that come from the APSC, a difference to be expected, but I am surprised at the degree of difference. Although this difference would only be an issue if you are printing large, by that, I mean larger than 11″ by 17,” but even then, you might not be able to see a difference. If the camera is only used for internet purposes or 8 by 10 prints, even an iPhone photograph will look great. After all, it is really a 1080p world we are in with our electronic devices, from phones to TV.

Dynamic Range

This is perhaps one of the key differences between the two cameras the ability to recover detail when there is a high dynamic range within the photograph you are framing. The medium format camera I would suggest can recover well over one stop of underexposure without degrading image quality. In contrast, the APSC camera struggles before you get to a one-stop difference. To deal with a high dynamic range situation on the APSC camera, you would quickly have to resort to exposure bracketing to get the same dynamic range as the medium format camera. Of course, this difference is extremely obvious as the light gathering capacity of a medium format camera is significantly greater.

Erogonomics

Here the advantage obviously goes to the APSC camera. It’s a small compact body compared to the medium format, so it is much easier to get out of the bag and much lighter. Lenses are much smaller as well, which adds to making them easier to field. The medium format camera is larger and often difficult to get out of the bag but should you want greater depth of field. You will wind up having to use a tripod when there is less light. Although this is an obvious point, this issue is often not considered when looking at what camera to buy. If you find the camera difficult to field, it will impact your photographic practice.

Depth of Field

These images may not be large enough to illustrate this difference. Again this difference is obvious to most photographers, and if it is not, it will become quickly apparent—the larger the sensor, the shallower the depth of field. So the upside of the medium format camera is the ability to highlight a subject by using a shallow depth of field. The downside is if you want everything in focus, you will need to get out your tripod more frequently.