Zack Arias on Full-Frame vs APS-C Debate

A well-known editorial photographer Zack Arias recently touched a very sensitive subject, one that always spawns heated debates. In his entertaining video, he expressed his opinion on the full-frame vs APS-C sensor debate and we must say he made a lot of good points. Zack openly states on his website that he is not paid or sponsored by Fuji to advertise their cameras, and yet you might get the impression that this particular video is in fact an advertisement. Ignore that feeling, whether Zack is working for Fujifilm or not does not matter in this case. He talks about Fuji because it’s his system of choice (the X-T1 in particular), but the simple truth is every mirrorless camera with an APS-C sensor – any camera with APS-C sensor, in fact – is good enough for great many projects.

In the video, Zack points out the relatively minor difference between APS-C and 35mm sensor sizes, especially when compared to some other popular film formats, such as 6×7. It is also important to note that there’s a right tool for every job and, yes, full-frame might be noticeably better in certain situations, but for the most of us, APS-C is at the very least good enough and getting better each year. It really depends on your style and the type of photography you do.

The most important point Zack made in my opinion is that cameras don’t see. Whichever tool you choose, it is ultimately up to you to make it work.


  1. July 31, 2014 at 9:45 am

    Some of his points are well taken, but it’s hard to take his comments at face value with such a clear bias.

    • July 31, 2014 at 9:49 am

      It would be extremely unprofessional of me to take sides here in the article, but personally, I only see a man who loves the equipment he’s using. That’s all. Again, whether or not it’s true does not matter one bit here – his points on differences between APS-C and FF sensors are accurate and hold true for most of us.

      • 1.1.1) Peter
        August 1, 2014 at 1:19 pm

        I have a FF Nikon D700 and a APS-C Fujifilm X-M1. After using the Fuji for over 12 months I cannot see any difference in quality between the two. The only big difference I’ve experienced is that the Fuji is a hell of a lot more fun to use.

      • 1.1.2) Gav
        August 2, 2014 at 2:19 am

        Romanas, Comments like that are why I have so much respect for this site.

      • 1.1.3) AP
        August 4, 2014 at 9:55 am

        Romanas, if you read the comments on Petapixel, you will realise that Zack has very little credibility.

        • August 4, 2014 at 10:13 am

          I am not one to judge people based on someone’s comments, AP. :) And besides, I’d rather write an article, it’s both more fun and more useful. Wouldn’t you rather I wrote articles? ;)

        • RIck Deckard
          August 4, 2014 at 3:24 pm

          So, you’re suggesting that Romanas should read comments from anonymous people from another website to form an opinion of another photographer?

          Did you come up with that idea all by yourself?

          • Profile photo of Romanas Naryškin Romanas Naryškin
            August 4, 2014 at 3:43 pm

            Rick, you are very kind, but there really is no need for this. I’ve already mentioned what my opinion about Zack is based on, those who were curious enough to read my comment know.

            I am working on some articles that’ll spawn much more productive discussions, hopefully. As for now, I hope you have a good day. :)

          • AP
            August 5, 2014 at 3:08 am

            Stop imagining what I said, Rick. Seems like you are one to build arguments based on a delusional conjecture and go around headbutting walls.

            • Rick Deckard
              August 5, 2014 at 10:45 am

              Sorry, then. I read your 1-sentence comment as: “Zack Arias has very little credibility, based on the comments on PetaPixel.” What did you mean to say? Did you mean to say something else? That’s an honest question.

            • AP
              August 6, 2014 at 8:02 am

              Rick, my statement – as I wrote it – means just that. Perhaps I should have added a sentence to make things clearer. But good point about the comments.

              I viewed the video before I read the comments, and I already had a pretty good idea. I don’t need to read the comments to know this guy is – for want of a better word I cannot think of right now – NUTS.

              Of course the difference is the photographer. This is true but this line is so overused, people just hide behind this message. Reminds of my Leica shooting friends who always argue that sharpness is over-rated. Real reason is that they couldn’t focus to save their lives and fix their aperture to f8.

              Zack’s only gist was that ‘hey, the cutouts of the crop and full frame look similar, so negligible difference’. Area-wise, a APS-C sensor is closer to m4/3 to a full frame one. Following his logic, I could make the same point between APS-C and m4/3.

              So perhaps I can consider his point. Then show me. But the video didn’t. Repeating NEGLIGIBLE ad-nauseum, while acting like a brat with ‘pffftt’ and baby noises doesn’t make it true and prove his point.

              He then goes to say full frame used to be better at high ISOs. Then, subsequent generations of APS-C sensors improved because of technology. Well, full frame sensors also benefited from the same technology. But he didn’t say the last point of course. Very convenient.

              That’s when the comments come in useful.

              That’s when I read about how he had allegedly said, in a paid course, he wouldn’t go back to crop sensors after using a full frame. That’s how I read he admitted being paid by Fuji. Not for this particular video admittedly, but for other projects.

              Now, that throws light – to me – as to why he is so enthusiastic about APS-C, despite the m4/3 and full frame size differentials. Because Fuji only has APS-C?? That also explains that 2.5 minute porn flick on the Fuji camera at the end of the video.

              Do I need to read the comments before I think his credibility in this video is suspect? No. But it confirms my suspicions.

              • Profile photo of Romanas Naryškin Romanas Naryškin
                August 6, 2014 at 9:56 am

                Sorry, AP, but I still think you are jumping to conclusions by misinterpreting his actions and motivation. For example, in order to support your claim that he is being paid by Fujifilm, you need to look up a phrase from several years ago. You also refuse to consider he couldn’t have possibly known what he’d be doing today. Not to mention that you took his words for an oath of some sort. Thinking that what he said back then is proof to your suspicion, in my view, is deliberate search for proof where there is none. And you know as well as I do – people see what they want to see and find what they’re looking for.

                Perhaps I should have included the link to his article, too, which clears up a few points. For example, in his article he did mention FF got better, too, and explained his words.


                Other than that, I really think this discussion has reached its limits, there is not much point left to argue. You think he is being paid by Fujifilm to say what he said, fine. Some other readers do, too. Some don’t. I don’t. And, frankly, I don’t care, because to me his points are valid. Even if he was being paid to say this, I have my own head on my shoulders to think with.

                Having said all that, it does not mean I will exclude FF from my work. Both choices are compromises, both give something useful and take something useful, and I need to figure out which way is better for me, personally, as each of us must.

    • 1.2) T C Knight
      July 31, 2014 at 10:13 am

      I think that anyone who comments on anything, has a bias for or against. It is human nature. However, to have a bias is not the same thing as being un-objective. Zack’s vast experience is valuable and he gives a good insight into the good points of the Fuji system. Every photographer has a bias toward one company or another. I am a hunter and I will swear by Browning (gun manufacturer) and Leupold (USA optics manufacturer). However, I also realize there are other gun and optic manufacturers who are just as good or maybe even better. However, these have worked for me for years and I am satisfied. I think Zack feels the same about Fuji.

      • 1.2.1) doctorsid
        July 31, 2014 at 11:55 am

        EXACTLY…. your comment is your bias opinion Thank U T C for that statement. And people are always referring to Ansel Adams as some kind of Photogo god and all… yet he used a Brownie to get famous

        • Steve Solomon
          August 5, 2014 at 7:50 pm

          My own “biased” opinion on Mr. Ansel Adams is that though he used small and medium format systems for portrait and editorial work early in his career, it was large format gear much more than a “Brownie”, and his masterful work in and out of his darkroom, that “got him famous”.

  2. Profile photo of shawn 2) shawn
    July 31, 2014 at 9:46 am

    If Fuji wanted to give me free gear, I’d tell people that Japan won the war.

    • July 31, 2014 at 9:51 am

      Shawn, I seriously don’t know what his relationship with Fujifilm is and, truth be told, I do not care one bit. His work speaks for itself and he’s a smart guy, and it’s up to each of us individually to filter out what we are not comfortable with. Wouldn’t you agree?

      • Profile photo of shawn 2.1.1) shawn
        July 31, 2014 at 10:10 am

        Actually, no. We can only “filter out what we’re uncomfortable with” if we’re actually told about the business arrangement.

        This was played out on another website a few days ago where a man claiming to be Arias (nobody disputed that it was him) finally said that he got free gear and a trip to India with day rate pay in return for making the video.

        In evaluating whatever claims Arias makes, this needs to be front and centre. Especially when he’s taking on the most prevalent criticism of Fuji–sensor size. If you disagree, if you don’t care about his business relationship with Fuji, then what you’re really saying is “that business relationship doesn’t matter”. I think it’s huge.

        • Gerry C
          July 31, 2014 at 11:39 am

          Actually, even though Arias obviously likes and uses Fuji gear, he’s mainly talking about APS-C sensor size vs. full frame sensor size (it’s kind of in the title). He’s not talking only about Fuji-sensor size because plenty of other manufacturers make cameras the same APS-C sized sensor, like: Sony, Nikon, Canon, etc.

          So even if you threw out Fuji of the mix– just pretend they don’t even exist; even throw out his “business relationship” and the fact remains the same: there’s a pretty small relative difference between APS-C and full frame. Just go to 2:05; look at the relative sizes and see for yourself. Both APS-C and “full frame” are tiny compared to medium format sensor sizes.

          • Patrick O'Connor
            July 31, 2014 at 11:58 am

            Excellent point. The difference between APS-C and full frame, however, does show up in certain circumstances due to their relative light-gathering capabilities and effective DOF.

          • Jay Cassario
            August 4, 2014 at 7:26 am

            I agree Gerry, this is about sensor size, not manufacturers

            • Gerry C
              August 4, 2014 at 3:51 pm

              Hi Jay, yes — this is about sensor size and how there isn’t a HUGE difference the two (APS-C and FF)… Yet there are still people nit-picking here about the two. As I mentioned somewhere else in this collection of comments, they have NO idea that they sound like the whiners that Arias mimics at 10:03 (the ones still fighting about sensor size).

              Like the guy commenting somewhere else here, digging into linear and surface relationships between the two sensor sizes. Wow, I bet he’s a blast at parties!


    • 2.2) Jon McGuffin
      July 31, 2014 at 10:26 am

      So Shawn since you would accept gear from Fuji and then tell whatever lie about it, that makes you a very deceiving and dishonest person and one who’s words can’t be trusted. I’m not sure I can take or value your opinions here. It probably is also a reason why you don’t own a blog as successful and popular as Zach’s and probably don’t have clients that pay you the kind of money they pay him to take pictures.

      Zach addresses these “claims” of him somehow being bought out by camera makers right on his website already. If anybody watches the video carefully, he clearly isn’t signaling out any particular brand over another. If you think he’s somehow pushing the “Fuji agenda” then you are simply just not paying attention to the message in his video which he pointed out over…and over…and over… again.. And yet you still don’t get it…. I’m not sure why he even bothers anymore…

      Believe what you want, it’s your right and I respect that right, but that doesn’t make your opinions accurate or truthful. Telling us that you’d lie if you got free gear I wouldn’t think help your credibility either.

      • Profile photo of shawn 2.2.1) shawn
        July 31, 2014 at 10:52 am

        John MacGuffin: “So Shawn since you would accept gear from Fuji and then tell whatever lie about it, that makes you a very deceiving and dishonest person and one who’s words can’t be trusted. I’m not sure I can take or value your opinions here. It probably is also a reason why you don’t own a blog as successful and popular as Zach’s and probably don’t have clients that pay you the kind of money they pay him to take pictures.”

        Oh dear. You’ve tried to move things away from the issue (photographers getting gear, trips, and cash in return for infomercials) and move things toward me personally. I’ll end that bit by advising you I couldn’t care less what you think of me or my opinions. You’ve clearly confide me with somebody who cares.

        The broader issue is an important one. In the recording industry, this practice is called payola and it’s actually illegal. People have gone to prison. In may other industries, it’s called a bribe and may or may not be legal depending on the circumstances.

        Fuji has a problem. Rightly or wrongly (and many people feel wrongly) Fuji is criticized because Fuji does not have a FF option. Giving gear, trips, and cash to a photographer to produce a video hitting back at this criticism is fine, but the resulting infomercial should be plainly advertised as such. This little piece of bought-and-paid-for “honest commentary” turns me off. Arias may have many valid points, but there’s a serious problem with the process.

        • Profile photo of shawn shawn
          July 31, 2014 at 10:55 am

          You’ve clearly confused* me with somebody who cares.

          • Profile photo of Romanas Naryškin Romanas Naryškin
            July 31, 2014 at 12:19 pm

            Why so aggressive, Shawn? :)

            I guess the main issue with your comment is that you are actually *stating* that he is being paid by Fujifilm as if you were there to see it happen, and that, true or not, it’s also completely off topic. He’s not actually promoting Fujifilm cameras, not saying – sell your gear and buy an X-T1, he’s talking about his own experience. That’s all. I did the same when I wrote about how much I like fast 50mm lenses and generally (keyword here) prefer primes over zooms, *for my style of shooting*.

            • Boulderghost
              July 31, 2014 at 7:04 pm

              I don’t think Shawn is being “aggressive”. I think he is spot on by pointing out the lack of transparency in the Arias post. Objectivity, transparency and factual analysis of gear is the primary reason I read this blog. If that ever changed, I would disengage. To suggest that Arias is not promoting Fuji with his obvious product placement and endorsement is disingenuous and at best, naive.

              I understand that the points Arias makes could be considered valid by those that agree with him, but I know that many disagree with Zach. Either way, credibility is the issue here and when blogs start to become “pro endorsement” websites for Mirrorless systems or even a particular manufacturer, I no longer trust that the information provided is complete or without a agenda attached.

              What’s worse is when thousands of less informed photographers are convinced to invest in specific system simply because they trust a well know internet personality. Payola is illegal because it works for better or worse. Product endorsement isn’t illegal but it does our profession a disservice when we don’t identify it for what it is, marketing.

              • Profile photo of Romanas Naryškin Romanas Naryškin
                July 31, 2014 at 11:41 pm


                I promise, if I ever write an article that mirrorless works for my type of shooting at weddings (if they do indeed work), I will back it up with images as proof I am not being paid to say those things. Will that be good enough? ;)

            • Patrick O'Connor
              July 31, 2014 at 7:23 pm


              My first few comments on this issue were made before watching the video since, from others comments, I assumed what it would contain. Having watched it, I don’t see how you can view it as being pro-Fuji. If I were cynical (which I am), I would say it’s either a result of his insecurity from having people (perhaps potential clients) question his choice or the understandable need to stay in the spotlight. No matter his motivation, ‘that there was funny, I don’t care who you are!’ :-)

              While he over-generalized his analysis, it wasn’t essentially wrong in any objective way.

          • Profile photo of Michael Michael
            August 2, 2014 at 1:13 pm

            If you didn’t care you wouldn’t be so aggressive. You argue, rather vociferously, that Arias can’t be trusted because he takes money, gifts from Fuji. Bullshit. I see nothing in the video that says he is trying to sell Fuji cameras. Nothing. He is making valid comparisons of two sensor sizes and coming to conclusions that you may or may not agree with. Who cares who he endorses and how much money he makes for using a certain brand. Is what he is saying valid or not? That is all.

            • AP
              August 4, 2014 at 10:10 am

              I call bullshit on you, Michael. That 2.5 minute Fuji porn-fest at the end is no coincidence.

  3. 3) T C Knight
    July 31, 2014 at 10:07 am

    Zack was a Nikon shooter. However, at great expense, he abandoned the company after their exceedingly poor customer service became apparent. He purchased large format gear and started using it in his rock band photography business in Atlanta. As he explained it then, he needed a smaller camera for his street shooting and tried the new Fuji X-1. From his posts at the time, it was love at first sight. If you have followed Zack for as long as I have, you will find that he is a “stand up” guy and does have a passion for everything he likes. So I believe his claim of a lack of affiliation and his personal passion for this camera system.

    I have been wondering the same thing recently though. Why am I lugging around a D3 which is just as heavy as a 6×5? I see the wisdom of the Fuji for most work and the medium format for larger print size needs. However I’m too heavily invested in the Nikon system, so alas, I will never be free. :)

    • 3.1) rauck
      August 1, 2014 at 1:04 am

      I have also followed Arias for a long time. I agree that in the early days he gravitated to Fuji on his own choice. The issue becomes, has Fuji used Aria’s love of the system, and leveraged it by having Arias endorse their cameras without declaring the association. In all opinion, and all politics it is vital to declare your interests. Nothing can be trusted from someone who doesn’t declare their interests.
      Arias has also done a social media video using the XT1 in Marrakesh. Did Fuji pay for that? Yes it matters, because he’s trying to influence people in his videos. He’s a photography instructor with big power in the market.

      • 3.1.1) Neil
        August 1, 2014 at 8:38 am

        I don’t read ZA all that often but when I’ve read his blog posts, like the one referring to this video, he’s very upfront about his business associations. I think a lot of people on this page have made a lot of assumptions about his business dealings without doing any research on their own to see if they are even remotely correct.

        • August 1, 2014 at 9:02 am

          Neil, good point. However, what I wonder most about is why would anyone even care to count someone else’s money? In my country, that’s seen as being nosy.

          • rauck
            August 1, 2014 at 9:27 am

            I’m sorry, but what does “counting money” have to do with professional ethics? It’s really pretty simple. Arias does not declare if he has an association with Fuji or not in that video. Contrast this with Phillip Bloom who always states his affiliations with any opinion piece he does.

            • Profile photo of Romanas Naryškin Romanas Naryškin
              August 1, 2014 at 9:30 am


              everything. Absolutely everything. Because, first and foremost, Zack is not talking about Fujifilm. He is expressing his opinion on sensor sizes. Fujifilm just happens to be his system of choice, that’s all.

              Secondly, I don’t read him that often, either, but I’ve seen him state several times Fujifilm is not paying him to promote the system (though he did a few projects with them in the past since, well, it is his line of work).

  4. 4) Richard
    July 31, 2014 at 10:11 am

    I use both Full Frame (Nikon) and APS-C (Nikon and Fuji X) and this is a difficult call. I had already seen the video “Crop or Crap” earlier today and think it was a bit of one man’s rant which frankly told me little I didn’t already know.

    So, what do I know. Well I have had a Nikon D800, now a D610, have a D7100 and Fuji X-T1 and E2. I have the Fuji 10-24mm f4 and the Nikon 16-35mm f4, so the 10-24mm is being used on the Fuji X and the 16-35mm on a Nikon FX. I have to say that I saw no discernible difference between the D800 and D610 with the Nikon 16-35mm, but interestingly I would put my Fuji APS-C 10-24mm in a test together with the Nikon’s and it would be a draw in all respects of dynamic range, fringing, aberrations and all the other gobbledegook and for thyat matter “crap” that lens testers talk about.

    In my view and after my experience of the two makes and platforms I would plump now for APS-C due to my experiences with my Fuji X. I would go further and make comparisons of other lenses too. The Fuji X 60mm macro is a real fight contender against the Nikon 105mm micro VR (VR being the only separator). So that’s my experience.

    Finally, let’s not forget the humble D7100, or as I call it the D800E lite. The image quality produced by this camera equally satisfied my thirst for quality images and equalled in most cases my D800.

    I do now have a fair bit of experience of both formats and two makes. Overall, I think taking into account everything I’ve stated and don’t forget weight, my monies on the APS-C sensor cameras.


  5. 5) Thomas Stirr
    July 31, 2014 at 10:12 am

    Hi Romanas,

    An interesting trip down memory lane…I was looking at my old Nikkormat earlier this week wondering what the heck I should do with it. :-)

    It all comes down to the type of shooting we do…and choosing the right tool for the job. I did all of my client work with an APS-C sensor camera and clients were more than happy with the quality of the work they received.

    Things change and the majority of my client work is now video-related. This led me to reassess my equipment needs and I now shoot with a combination of FX and CX sensor cameras (in Nikon lingo full frame and 1″ sensors) as they give me the flexibility that I need, and I no longer own an APS-C sensor camera.

    Calling one type of camera or sensor size ‘pro’ over another is a pointless thing to do. It all comes down to the quality of the work we produce and satisfying our clients’ needs.


    • Profile photo of Mike Banks 5.1) Mike Banks
      August 5, 2014 at 7:49 am

      Thomas Stirr,

      I think this is the most important point. 80% of everything I shoot professionally is on APS-C Sensor from the D7100. As Richard points out this is an excellent performing tool which has made me a lot of money. When needed I will use my D800e’s if the situation calls for it. I have not ventured into the mirrorless world yet but as I get older the smaller tools look more attractive.

      I think many are missing the point and making assessments as to whether or not Zack makes money from Fuji. It really doesn’t matter. What he is promoting is the smaller frame cameras and he just happed to lock onto Fuji. From his blog and from his work, I’m still under the impression that he does a lot of shooting with the Phase One which he also states he loves. Does anyone think Phase is paying him to say that. They really don’t need to and neither does Fuji. If they do who cares…this article is regarding the size of the sensor not the make of the camera other than to demonstrate he uses one brand over another. Don’t we all. I’ve been a dedicated Nikon shooter since 1966. For awhile I used a Mamiya RB 67 and would love to get back into medium format digital but I’m not going to give up my wife for a $30-50,000 camera system. I am looking forward to the new Pentax when it comes as that system would appear to be more affordable. More than likely the medium format Pentax will be used for my personal photography and not my business. The APS-C files are much easier to process.

  6. 6) FrancoisR
    July 31, 2014 at 10:26 am

    This video is crap ah ah ah, comparing apples to oranges, analog to digital, vacuum tubes to transistors. Fuji is making only APSC based cameras and that’s what it says to me!
    My friend who has a Fuji came to visit yesterday and he’s selling his body to buy a full frame Sony A7. He was praising his Fuji not a year ago but now he’s switching. I know Fuji’s sensor was a breakthrough but imagine one full frame, what it would be. He also said he painfully miss his 5D2 focus speed compared to the mirror less and he doesn’t even shoot action. These days I shoot R/C helicopters and they mean action, real action. I use a 200 f2 VR with D800 and get astonishing results because of the 36mp full frame sensor /fast focus DSLR lens combination and that’s real life. The D800 beats my 5D3 hands on because I can crop my 36mp FF. All the others present with older cams or APSC DSLR were just flabbergasted by my pictures. We don’t even speak of mirror less, they were in the pasture. BTW shooting video which is only 1920 by 1080 does not require a big sensor. Having this capability is a nice feature but I have a D800 for pictures and it does it very well. I’m trading my 800 for an 810 and will never look back.
    Thanks for the entertainment Romanas lol.

    • 6.1) Gerry C
      July 31, 2014 at 10:55 am

      I fly R/C helicopters for fun (mainly Henseleit & Minicopter). Please post a link to your pictures because I’d like to be “flabbergasted” by your pictures. ;-)

      • 6.1.1) FrancoisR
        July 31, 2014 at 11:05 am

        Sure, give me a moment ah ah ha!

        • FrancoisR
          July 31, 2014 at 12:35 pm

          Just a few pics, I included a few portraits because apparently the 200 is not bad in this respect. For the RC guys, there’s one celebrity in there. Also one of them what shot with a 5D3 and 300 f4 IS. But it needs sunshine for that.

          I read a few comments and photograpy is not about manhood for me. It’s about results and even if I spend one day carrying the monster, it’s worth it ah ah ah!

          • sceptical1
            July 31, 2014 at 8:10 pm

            They are good, but I am not flabbergasted. For that reason, D800 and D810 are now official trash :)
            Man do we all need to get a life!

            • FrancoisR
              August 1, 2014 at 5:14 am

              Too bad many were…

            • FrancoisR
              August 1, 2014 at 6:49 am

              Sorry english is only my second language and might have used the wrong word. My point is tracking them the way they move (they call it 3D) with good results with bodies like the D800 or 5D3 shows how good DSLR AF currently is. Mirrorless still have a long way to go in that respect. No need to agree but your last comments sceptical1 I find quite lame and disrespectful.

              Love my life and trash for what I do with them.

              So enough said since I have tremendous repect for the people running this site and thank them for sharing their knowledge.

          • Gerry C
            August 1, 2014 at 11:08 am

            @FrancoisR – The link you posted is dead…

            • FrancoisR
              August 1, 2014 at 12:09 pm

              Yes I killed it but since I created it at your request….


          • Profile photo of Luc Luc
            August 2, 2014 at 8:09 am

            Salut François
            Les photos sont excellentes. Dis-moi peut’ on suivre en vol ces avions miniatures avec un D800 sans trépied et descendre la vitesse d’obturation pour pouvoir mettre le rotor en mouvement (blurred) plutôt que figé, car on semble lire souvent que le shutter fait une certaine vibration au déclenchement provoquant des photos qui peuvent sembler flous.

            • FrancoisR
              August 2, 2014 at 9:18 am

              Bonjour Luc.
              Je crois que oui, de quelle vitesse parles-tu? J’utilise la combinaison D800/200mm exclusivement avec un monopod en tant que poignée pour suivre la cible et soutenir fermement ses 5 kilos. J’ai réussi des photos à 1/640s (je vais essayer d’en trouver un exemple) mais j’avoue adorer l’ojectif avec son “sweet spot” à f2. À mon avis la vibration viendrait peut-être de l’épuisement conséquemment à suivre un objet de 2 mètres, éloigné d’environ 30-50 mètres, évoluant dans tous les sens à une vitesse variant de 0 à 100km/h? Mes photos sont toujours meilleures au début du vol ah ah ah. Le D800 me surprend toujours. Il est plus lent (fps) que que le 5D3 mais lorsque je réussis une prise, elle est tellement supérieure. J’espère avoir bien répondu à ta question. Un gros merci en passant pour ton commentaire, je sais de qui ça vient… J’aimerais faire plus ample connaissance ;).

  7. 7) Thomas Stirr
    July 31, 2014 at 10:36 am

    I’ve heard and read many good things about Fuji cameras….but at this point I would not consider owning one since DxOMark OpticsPro is my preferred RAW processing tool.

    The X-Trans sensors used in the latest Fuji cameras are not currently supported by DxOMark OpticsPro, and it appears that DxOMark has no interest in going to the expense of supporting them.

    • 7.1) Neil
      July 31, 2014 at 10:42 am

      So far that is very true (that they have no interest). Which is really odd considering how many companies have “conquered” the x-trans demosaic issue. They may change their mind someday, though. You never know.

  8. 8) Neil
    July 31, 2014 at 10:41 am

    What this video pointedly shows is something I’ve become increasingly sensitive to over the last 2 years. The superiority complex that so many photographers have. Comparing their manhood (or womanhood) by the size of their gear rather than the content of their photography. If it makes people feel better to far outspend their actual needs and to get 20-30% better IQ (theoretically) for pictures that are still boring or lifeless then maybe we should let them indulge their fantasy?

    Imagine web fora where the photographers are more interested in the photos people take rather than in the gear it was taken with. But it would be pointless. We all know that only 35mm digital format cameras are capable of taking a good picture. Larger format people are envious of the size of 35mm and everyone below has inferiority complexes. But those 35mm people? They’re obviously top of the pyramid right now.

  9. 9) Alfred A
    July 31, 2014 at 10:50 am

    I have the Nikon D7100 since it first came out and I love the quality of the pictures that I shot but I just broke the camera which is not repairable and was thinking about going to a full frame as the Nikon D810 but after reading this I’m at lost as to where I should go, full frame or back to the ASP-C sensor.

    • 9.1) Neil
      July 31, 2014 at 11:22 am

      The answer is really simple. If you can, rent the D810 and try it. If you can get demonstratively better results and it fits within your budget then you should upgrade. You may also find out that for what you do there’s only marginal benefit. Also consider how your pictures are being used. Are they on screen mostly? Sitting on a computer? Printed large/small?

    • 9.2) Geoff
      July 31, 2014 at 1:06 pm

      I do not recommend the latest and greatest, also the D800 series is a heavier camera than your used to. I recommend renting a D610 and seeing how you like it. Bigger sensor and you get the same weight and control layout as the D7100. If you shoot sports the AF in the D7100 is superior, but other than that it is a significant upgrade.

      • 9.2.1) Alfred A
        July 31, 2014 at 4:51 pm

        Thank you for your suggestion, I’ll give it a try and also I do mostly street and portrait photography and now trying my hand at wedding which I did a few weeks ago and love it. Thanks again

  10. 10) Gerry C
    July 31, 2014 at 10:53 am

    It’s extremely difficult to argue against what Romanas summarized in the last 2 paragraphs above:

    – the relatively minor difference between APS-C and 35mm sensor sizes
    – all cameras don’t “see”

    Those who are bringing up other issues (brand affiliation, brand preference, focus speed of FF bodies, etc.) are *completely* missing those 2 points above — posting here to rant about “my full frame camera is better” or whatever nonsense they can spew. I’m sure there will be more posts like that.

    They are completely unaware that they sound just like the person that Arias is mocking at 10:00 in the video. (“I’m on the internet… I’ve got DXO scores…”).

    • Profile photo of Mike Banks 10.1) Mike Banks
      July 31, 2014 at 12:31 pm

      Gerry C,

      It is indeed amazing that Zack Arias’s video and for the most part with a whole slew of photographers out there brings this kind of response. Perhaps Zack does get paid by Fuji, so what. He also showed a Phase One and Nikon and the 8×10 behind him is an old Deardorf. Think he got paid from them too. It’s true, Zack was and still is a Nikon shooter when he needs that tool. You think Joe McNally didn’t get some compensation from Nikon for hanging off the side of a platform taking a picture of a worker high up on top of a building. So what. The message is clear…no matter what format one chooses to use in photography it will always be the photographer not the equipment. They are tools and when I go on assignment I take the tools I need for that job. Just like everyone else.

      I read Zacks books, blog and whatever else I can find for its simplicity and forthright teaching offered. Zack Arias reminds me of my first photography teacher at New York University. Our first assignment…we were given a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye camera and one roll of 120 film each. My teacher told us class dismissed go make pictures. He certainly wasn’t interested in IQ, DOF, exposure….what we saw and came back with.

  11. 11) Patrick O'Connor
    July 31, 2014 at 11:16 am

    I know who Zack Arias is and have seen some of his videos and work. I also know who Joe McNally is (Nikon), Rick Sammon (Canon), and Ansel Adams. After considering what they use(d) and why, I use what works for me. It would be easy to decide what’s important to you, having heard what’s important to someone else but that’s a fool’s errand.

    Slow day, Romanas?

    • July 31, 2014 at 11:32 am

      A very tough day, Patrick, and a very good video. ;) Always nice to see you.

      I think a lot of people are really missing the point here, but then that’s often the case with discussions on the Internet. Some are absolutely certain that Zack is being paid by Fujifilm as if they were at the table and saw it happen, others claim Fuji is merely trying to find some love for APS-C because they don’t have a full-frame camera yet. Not that long ago, no manufacturer had a full-frame mirrorless (save for Leica, technically). So? Both conspiracy theories are neither here nor there – if you can see past them, you’ll notice he’s making some valid points and merely stating that for *his* work, mirrorless cameras have an edge over ff’s, because there’s not much difference in outright image quality, but an enormous difference in portability. He’s not talking about everyone, he’s talking about himself.

      That’s fine by me. I imagine that after this discussion if I start using Fujifilm as my main system, I might see some conspiracy theories on this website, too. I certainly hope that won’t be the case, having written so many articles about gear vs the-other-important-aspect-of-photography, but things happen.

      • 11.1.1) Patrick O'Connor
        July 31, 2014 at 11:52 am

        I don’t see a conspiracy theory. I don’t doubt he’s being sincere and that Fuji isn’t paying him to say anything. I just don’t care what he has to say about his camera of choice. If he wants to talk about photography (as a process), that’s fine.
        Posting this article and then saying it would be “unprofessional” to take sides is such BS. Some time ago, Scott Kelby put out a video explaining why he switched to Canon. You didn’t post it. Others have switched from one manufacturer to another without any fanfare but you could figure out why with very little research. You don’t mention them either. And that kind of information would provide counter points to Zach’s point of view. You clearly have an axe to grind. I wonder when it’ll be sharp enough.

        BTW, now that you’ve graduated, have you found a job in whatever field it was you studied, yet? Just curious. We ARE friends, after all! :-)

        • July 31, 2014 at 12:05 pm


          you misunderstood me, twice. When I said it would be unprofessional for me to take sides, I meant take sides in either accusing or defending Zack in regards to him being paid by Fujifilm to advertise their cameras with an actual article. I don’t know if it’s true, I don’t much care if it’s true, and I am not going to defend or accuse him in the article.

          The next bit where you misunderstood me is the point of this post. I did not publish it because Zack switched systems, that would be silly. What would I call it – “Breaking News: Zack Arias Switched Systems” ? I am very surprised and slightly amused that you would even think that. :) He did it a while ago and I really don’t care what he’s using, or anyone else for that matter, I let his work speak for him. I published this article because he made some valid points about sensor sizes, most of which I agree with myself. And since most of the recent articles we published were quite technical, I thought – what the heck, might as well, especially since it’s quite entertaining (I love the twig waving).

          In this line of work, I got used to people questioning my sincerity and seeing alternate reasons for everything. ;) Everything’s much simpler in reality.

          As for work, well, I’d rather not answer more specifically at this time, but yes, I found what I want to do for a living. ;)

          • Patrick O'Connor
            July 31, 2014 at 12:21 pm

            Maybe I misunderstood because I’ve heard everything he says innumerable times. If someone told me the sky was blue, I’d wonder what their REAL point is! :-)

          • Patrick O'Connor
            July 31, 2014 at 12:45 pm

            I just finished watching the video since someone else said it was funny. It IS funny. I do, however, think his point isn’t completely accurate though, depending on the type of photography you do. All things being equal, APS-C has a definite advantage for wildlife photography. Full frame has a measurable advantage in low-light and portrait photography. If there were no difference (or the difference was ne-gli-gi-ble), I can’t imagine anyone would have both and a lot of people do.
            I still have to wonder why he put this out there. No conspiracy theories, just curiosity.

            • Neil
              July 31, 2014 at 2:40 pm

              Yes, FF has an advantage in lower light and that is photographically useful for some people. But it is not true that it has an advantage in portraiture. More like and advantage for certain types of portraiture in certain scenarios. In many studio setups with lighting it would make little difference since it’s shot at f8 or higher. And in many situations the portrait is not meaningfully impacted unless someone is wanting only a sliver in focus.

              APS has disadvantages, too. It does gather less light overall and that can be meaningful to some people who have to work in darker environments. It also is a built in crop which may not serve every situation.

              However, for a great majority of what most people actually shoot and share there really isn’t a big difference between APS and FF. It’s more in people’s minds than in the photo. I can’t guess why ZA put this video out there. But if I was doing it, it would be because so many people are being led to believe that FF solves all their image problems when the reality is that the camera is the least useful way to get better images. Best ways: improve your skills, improve your lenses, improve your post processing, then improve your camera.

            • Patrick O'Connor
              July 31, 2014 at 2:51 pm

              There are exceptions to all rules and, of course, this also applies to my comment (not that it’s a rule) regarding portraiture. Generally, though, shallow DOF is preferred for formal portraiture (which I didn’t specify was my intent).
              Your point about it not being a bid difference between the sensor sizes for what most people shoot is obviously true. So true, in fact, that I don’t understand why people keep restating it!? People keep saying that some mythical “everyone” says that FF is the Alpha and Omega of sensor sizes but I’ve not seen that. At least not from the people who count. I’m a very impatient person so I don’t suffer mindless repetition gladly. I’m a very impatient person so I don’t suffer mindless repetition gladly. I’m a very impatient person so I don’t suffer mindless repetition gladly….

            • Patrick O'Connor
              July 31, 2014 at 2:54 pm

              Dagnabit! My “ROTFL” didn’t make it! I guess because I put it in angle brackets.

            • Betty
              July 31, 2014 at 4:11 pm

              @Patrick O’Connor

              Damn Patrick, I wish you had told us sooner.
              I shoot almost exclusively wildlife and I switched from Nikon APS-C to full frame D800E some two years ago.
              I must go and buy my D300 back.

            • Patrick O'Connor
              July 31, 2014 at 5:37 pm


              First of all, I guess I’m using “@Betty” correctly!? I don’t do Facebook, Twitter, or any of that stuff.

              Secondly, since you’re obviously being sarcastic, I should remind you that I was stating the obvious advantages of one sensor size over the other. You neglect to state your real point (which seems to be par for the course with people like you) so I can’t really address it. I guess it’s easier to speak down to people than engage them in thoughtful debate. I can’t blame you, though, since I thoroughly trounced you in our “photographing captive wildlife” debate. :-)

      • 11.1.2) Gerry C
        July 31, 2014 at 12:04 pm

        Hi Romanas, unfortunately some people will never get “the point.”

        Please keep up the posts as I look forward to reading them every time I fire up my RSS reader (which is every day).

        • July 31, 2014 at 12:22 pm

          Thanks, Gerry, it’s a nice thing to know ;) However, I hope to come up with less technical articles and more pieces on actual photography. That last interview I did really was so much fun. :)

        • Patrick O'Connor
          July 31, 2014 at 12:25 pm

          Usually, when someone says that, it’s because there is no “point” (not that that’s the case here, of course) and they seek to silence you through condescension.

  12. Profile photo of Mark Pitsilos 12) Mark Pitsilos
    July 31, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    Funny video… With regard to history and proportions he surely has a point, then again in the market segment most of us are in, it’s only natural to nitpick between Hondas and Toyotas when none of us can afford a Bugatti.

    That being said, I was more content with my D7100 pics than my D700 pics, except for very high ISOs, but I just can’t help myself when it comes to thin DOF, low noise at high ISOs and actually getting the focal length advertised.

    Warm fuzzy feeling does count for something in my book, but I admit that it’s not a factor for most people.

    • July 31, 2014 at 12:07 pm

      The warm fuzzy feeling is ever-important, Mark, and one of the most important factors for me personally ;) I just don’t tell anyone, they’ll think I’m weird!

  13. Profile photo of Luc 13) Luc
    July 31, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    Hi all
    Zack says similar comments that DXo optics said on the Nikon D7100. Here is one of their comment “It gives full-frame competitors a run for their money, delivering similar quality results….” Please go to their site to read the full report. Like Zack mentionned carrying lighter gear is a big plus and specially while travelling and that is one of the reason with Dxo remarks (test) and Nasim review that I bought the D7100, and don’t regret it at all. Using an APS-C does not give you much place for cropping as larger format, but coming in my younger year from 35 mm i learned quickly to do my cropping in the viewfinder. Landscape photographer Moose Peterson says all the time that he does not crop his pics in post, and that its cropping is done in the viewfinder.

    If noise becomes a problem I use the “Prime” denoiser from DXo optic 9, and most of the time I use the Nikk plugin and when noise is low I use LR5 denoiser. “Prime” is a very slow process taking a few minutes for every pic. I understand people choosing FX over DX to have a faster (les noise) post-processing all the time.

    • Profile photo of Mike Banks 13.1) Mike Banks
      July 31, 2014 at 12:51 pm

      Luc Poirier,

      With all due respect sir, you could have stopped your comment at the first paragraph. I think many of us here are in total agreement with you. We all do some kind of post processing; we all have our favorite software; and we all do some kind of cropping from time to time. I’ll bet even Moose Peterson does as well.

      The point of the original article was that the equipment really doesn’t matter. I’ve made and sold 40×60 prints made with my D7100 many times. I have a number of them hanging in my house as well. The equipment are tools that sometimes make the job easier and Zack’s point was the APS-C sensor in that brand of camera as a tool suited his needs.

      • 13.1.1) Luc
        July 31, 2014 at 3:40 pm

        My last paragraph was written for all of the newcomer to this great trade or hobby who have very limited knowledge of post-processing and sometimes none. For all the beginners who think the purchase of expensive FX cameras is the only way to automatically bring their work at a professionnal level.

        • Profile photo of Mike Banks Mike Banks
          July 31, 2014 at 4:18 pm

          Luc, then I agree with everything you wrote.

    • 13.2) Francesco_P
      August 1, 2014 at 7:48 pm

      The images taken with a D7100 at ISO 100-160, exploiting the sweet-spot of a good FX lens, appear better than those taken with a D600-610. In fact, the absence of the OLPF allows to have a higher microcontrast at equal resolution. Obviously going up with the ISO there is no game: FX wins.

      The DX format can give a lot of satisfaction, but we must be careful in the choice of lenses and at the size of the prints. The relationship between DX and FX is 1,525 linear equal to 2,326 times as a surface. It is a lot more than Zack Arias wants to show in his video. To obtain a print of the same size, you will have to enlarge proportionally the image captured by the sensor, amplifying all optical shortfalls.

      However, you can shot great quality photos with DX, but you have to spend on lenses the same of FX.

      If the Zack Arias’s video did not teach me anything new about photography, at least it was instructive for another reason: I understood how feels an ox pulling a heavy tumbrel, when his master shakes the birch before his eyes.

      • 13.2.1) Patrick O'Connor
        August 1, 2014 at 7:56 pm

        I’m not sure what your last paragraph meant, but it sure sounded funny! :-)

  14. 14) Patrick O'Connor
    July 31, 2014 at 1:10 pm

    A couple years ago, I went to a seminar Moose gave where he said he doesn’t post process anything! I almost fell out of my chair. Several of his videos talk about his PP process and he mentions it in various articles. Aside from his memory lapses, it really was an interesting talk.
    This, of course, has nothing to do with this article; I just thought it was funny.

    I think Zack understated the point about it suiting HIS needs, though.

    • Profile photo of Luc 14.1) Luc
      July 31, 2014 at 7:30 pm

      I practically cried (laughing) reading “Several of his videos talk about his PP process and he mentions it in various articles. Aside from his memory lapses, it really was an interesting talk.”
      I think everybody love the guy. I strongly feel his work is outstanding and he’s so open to help. Most of the gear he uses is out of reach for 95% of us, but many of its tips apply also to the low end gear. I followed a few training courses on kelbytraining with him, and was always very impressed by his work and expertise.

      Sir you made my day
      Thank you

  15. 15) plevyadophy
    July 31, 2014 at 1:27 pm

    Well, I love the Fuji XT-1, it’s designed exactly as I would design a camera. However, I won’t buy one because of the sensor, which for now, I don’t think is ready for show time (the demosaicing isn’t up to snuff in my view, no matter what raw processor you use), and also it would mean having to dump one of my current systems (I have four).

    However, I think most people commenting here are getting on their soap box about brands when the video has ZERO to do with brands and EVERYTHING to do with imager size.

    Zak’s commentary on imager size is spot on and presented in a rather humourous fashion.

    And for those bashing Zak because they believe he is a Fuji stooge, it should be pointed out that in the video, on more than one occasion, he mentions the fact that the video you are watching was filmed on Panasonic microFour Thirds. So it could also be argued that he is a Panasonic fanboy, or a mirrorless fanboy. Really, he is none of those things; at least not in this video. Rather, he is just putting things into perspective (and does so grandly when he points to the various film formats he has lined up on his display board).

    Regards all,

  16. 16) John Richardson
    July 31, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    Some days I miss my 8×10. Well, maybe once every couple years. To be honest aside from the pain of lugging it around it was surely the coolest.

    Today, I hardly print anything and 99.9% is just up on a computer screen, so then: APS-C or FF and the fact we do our own digital post processing it all don’t make no nevermind anyways.

  17. 17) Art
    July 31, 2014 at 1:47 pm

    Thanks for sharing this video. Although there is really nothing new in this video that has not been said before; I feel the most important point that Zack makes is that the component which really matters in photography is, as Zach puts it, “the moron behind the camera”. I think Ansel Adams said something similar except he was more polite and referred to the photographer as to what is 2 inches behind the camera vs. a moron. Yes good equipment gives the photographer an advantage and makes life easier in some cases, and there are pros and cons for both FX and DX, but in the final analysis it is the photographer that creates the photograph not the equipment.
    I remember a Digital Rev video in the Pro/cheap camera series where Kai gave Zack a cheap no name point and shoot camera with a cheap flash and they set out on the streets of Hong Kong. The resulting pictures were great.

  18. 18) Neil Buchan-Grant
    July 31, 2014 at 1:54 pm

    I love Zack Arias! and I liked this new video when I saw it a few days ago. I can also completely get that he would still want to share his excitement and theories on Fuji gear even if he is not being paid to do so. I also agree, as someone mentioned, that is is important to lay your cards on the table regarding any business tie ups with a manufacturer, then people know exactly where you stand.

    I would take exception however to the general concept that there’s a negligible difference between APS and full frame. When I used APS, there was a sufficient difference in the depth of field ‘for me’ to warrant having 2 systems. So I’m in the camp that says use the right tool for the right job. In terms of IQ for printing up to 36 inches, I see little difference.

    Although it’s not mentioned here, Fuji used to put out an advert way back which showed different sensor sizes which were clearly inaccurate and distorted. At the time they were battling not only full frame but also micro four thirds. They showed the APS sensor being almost as big as full frame and the MFT sensor to be tiny compared to the others. The reality is that APS is much closer to MFT in size than it is to full frame. So much so that I could barely tell the difference when I tested APS against MFT with fast glass looking only at subject isolation and bokeh. I did see a big jump when both were compared to 35mm full frame, so I have always kept a full frame option, even if I hardly ever use it!

    I have a non-contracted, friendly business relationship with Olympus who make micro four thirds cameras. The exact specific details of that relationship is my business and nobody elses. That said, I was blogging and raving on about MFT long before that started, because like Zack, I wanted to share my findings with everyone. Even though I have this relationship, I have never been asked to say anything I did not believe in, and I never have.

    I think the XT1 is a great camera and the lenses are superb! I also have a Sony A7, shortly to be replaced by an A7s. I agree with Zack also that the camera choice or sensor choice has much less impact than the vision of the photographer, but that won’t stop me or most people using the best gear that’s appropriate for the type of images we want to make!

  19. 19) Keith R. Starkey
    July 31, 2014 at 2:00 pm

    I don’t know that any APS-C, as of yet, can compete with a full frame in the wide-angle arena.

    • 19.1) Neil
      July 31, 2014 at 2:55 pm

      Interesting. Do you mean in field of view or in some other category? And at what focal length? I’m intrigued because I’ve had the 14-24 on my old D800 and I’ve had ultra wide on my APS cameras (past Nikon and current Fuji). Not sure what I’m missing.

      • 19.1.1) Keith R. Starkey
        July 31, 2014 at 4:08 pm

        if you use the widest FX lens you have (apart from, say, a fisheye) on both your cameras, do you find the (field of view) coverage is wider? It should be, I would think. Even when you use your ultra wide on your APS, I don’t know that that will be as wide-angle in coverage as an ultra wide FX on a full frame. Be interesting to hear what your results are.

        • Profile photo of Mike Banks Mike Banks
          July 31, 2014 at 4:29 pm

          Mr Starkey, you’re not comparing apples to apples in your argument. Certainly if you use FX lenses on both FF and APS-C cameras the FX lens will give a narrower field of view. A lens of 14mm designed for FX and a 14mm lens designed for DX should result in similar FOV respectively.

          • Keith R. Starkey
            July 31, 2014 at 7:31 pm

            Mike said:
            “Mr Starkey, you’re not comparing apples to apples in your argument. Certainly if you use FX lenses on both FF and APS-C cameras the FX lens will give a narrower field of view.”

            I think, Mike, either I wasn’t clear or you misunderstood me. I wasn’t suggesting using an FX lens on both full and non-full frame cameras; I was suggesting using FX on an FX body and a DX on an DX body (to use Nikon nomenclature).

            Mike said:
            “A lens of 14mm designed for FX and a 14mm lens designed for DX should result in similar FOV respectively.”

            Hmm. I haven’t heard that to be the case, but I can’t say that I know from personally having tried. I’ve only heard that the FX will out-do the DX when it comes to wide angle. If, however, that simply isn’t the case any longer, that’s perhaps one more melding of the two!

            Thanks much.

            • Profile photo of Mike Banks Mike Banks
              August 1, 2014 at 8:15 am

              Keith, (hope you don’t mind me calling you by your first name).

              In my arsenal of lenses the greater percentage are FX used on both my D7100 and D800e. Of course one of the reasons I use FX lenses on the D7100 is for the purpose of reducing the FOV in order to utilize the center of the glass which I believe increases IQ since there is less distortion at the edges of the frame. of course when adding a wide angle FX lens to the D7100 I need to consider the smaller field of view. Example: 28mm FX lens offers a FOV equal to about 45mm on a DX camera. Realizing that I had to go wider as I was getting more real estate work. Interiors were hard to make with a 28 or 24 FX lens on the 71K. I bought the Tokina 11-16 but didn’t pay attention to the listing and got the FX version first. Still disappointed I was going to return the Tokina when another photographer I work with came by the studio one day and picked up the lens and put it on his D800. I mentioned that he would get vignetteing with that lens of a FF camera and that’s when he told me I bought the FX version of this lens. So I bought the DX Tokina 11-16 and there was a great difference between the two when used on the correct camera. I did a side by side test of the two lenses one on my D7100 and the FX lens on my D800e and found the FOV to be very similar respectively when used correctly. I have been able to match the same results with my Older 18-200 DX lens and any other 200mm FX lens when mounted correctly on camera. The focal length remember does not change only the FOV is narrower except at infinity.

            • Patrick O'Connor
              August 1, 2014 at 9:11 am

              Mike, (I don’t really care if you mind me calling you by your first name;-)).

              When you say “FX version” of the Tokina 11-16, do you mean the 16-28? As far as I know, Tokina doesn’t make a FF 11-16.
              By the way, I had the 11-16 for my APS-C camera and have the 16-28 for my FF camera. Both great lenses. I recently purchased the 18-35, though, for the ability to use filters. I’m not sure yet, but I’ll probably keep the 16-28 as well for low light situations and (I think) lower distortion for my industrial photography. Of course, if I were a big shot medical photographer, I’d replace them both with the 14-24 and Wonderpana filter system. ;-)

            • Keith R. Starkey
              August 1, 2014 at 6:11 pm

              So, Mike, sir,

              Per Patrick’s statement, “When you say “FX version” of the Tokina 11-16, do you mean the 16-28? As far as I know, Tokina doesn’t make a FF 11-16. . . . ”

              Is this the case with your 11-16mm; that it’s a DX? If so (comparing apples with apples—an 11-16mm FX on the FX body, and an 11-16mm DX on a DX body), I’ve always heard, and for good reason, that the FOV is going to be wider on the FX body than the DX.

              But since we’re dealing here with super wide angle, that might go out the door I mean, fisheye is fisheye, as far as my eye can tell!) But in the, say, 16mm on up, I can’t see this being true.

              What say ye?

            • Patrick O'Connor
              August 1, 2014 at 7:53 pm

              Regardless of the type of lens, and assuming it provides full sensor coverage on both, a 16mm lens, on an APS-C sensor, will have a similar FOV as a 24mm lens on a FF sensor*. A 16mm lens, on a FF sensor, will have a similar FOV as 11mm on an APS-C sensor. 16mm on one looks very different from 16mm on the other. While the basic relationship is still true with a fisheye lens, it’s less obvious since the FOV is stretched in much the same way that a globe is projected to be displayed on a flat piece of paper.
              This all assumes, of course, your question for Mike was serious rather than provocative.

              * the actual conversion depends on WHOSE APS-C sensor we’re talking about.

        • Neil
          July 31, 2014 at 4:53 pm

          Overall, yes, I can get similar field of view. If I use a 10mm lens I get roughly the same field of view as the 14 on FF. But there’s extreme distortion with both. So in some cases I just do a panorama. In that case ultra wide is even less important. Right now though I use a 12mm with my APS so roughly 18mm for same field of view. But even that’s usually too wide for general use for me.

          • Keith R. Starkey
            July 31, 2014 at 7:33 pm

            Yeah, going real wide has a time and place, but overall, I think just getting closer with, say just a 35mm or 50mm can create a distortion-on-demand that’s more controllable, perhaps.

  20. 20) Donna
    July 31, 2014 at 2:32 pm

    Lots of people missing the point which is that it is the photographer that matters, not the camera!

  21. July 31, 2014 at 4:20 pm

    Jeez…. reading these comments, how am I not to think Zack Arias (and Romanas by proxy) have simultaneously and unequivocally concluded that APS-C is better than Full Frame; that Apple is better than Windows; that Canon is better than Nikon; that Fuji is better than Canon; that primes are better than zooms; that f/1.2 is better than f/5.6; that silver gelatin is better than giclée; that socialism is better than capitalism; that the moon landing was staged; and that videography is better appreciated in monochrome than in colour.

    I’m with Donna (comment #48) and a few others; I think people are missing the point of the video entirely (and by proxy, Romanas’ featuring it).

    Zach, if you’re reading this thread, although it would appear that your message came through with less “signal” and more “noise” than you desired, it’s probably best to remember that not everyone bothers to tune in to the correct frequency.

    Romanas, thanks for posting this. I found the video quite funny. And quite true: the moon landing was in fact staged. I’m glad Zach finally came out and admitted it.


    • July 31, 2014 at 11:45 pm

      Brian, I can’t stop laughing! Thank you. :)))

    • Profile photo of Mike Banks 21.2) Mike Banks
      August 1, 2014 at 8:20 am

      Brian, glad I wasn’t drinking milk when I read your comment. LOL How ever could we trust Romanas again after make a salient point using Zack’s offensive video? LOL Was there a Fuji camera in that video. I hadn’t noticed, I was paying too much attention to Zack’s point that it really doesn’t matter what one uses as long as it is used correctly. No wonder folks look at me funny when I’m hand holding my old Deardorf 5×7 doing street photography. I’ll have to make a change and get a Phase One. LOL

    • August 1, 2014 at 11:54 am

      Romanas, Mike, leave it to the good ‘ol Infobaun to generate a heated debate no doubt sparked from repressed internal photographic angst. How else can I interpret the bevvy of comments on this thread, from contributors that admit they didn’t even watch the video (or that watched it after they commented)?

      I’ve read so many posts on here with a common theme beyond the moon landing being faked and beyond APS-C being inferior to FF, namely, that there is a lack of transparency going on with Zach’s video, as if there was some hidden agenda. The agenda is in the title, folks. And as for readers of Photography Life (or any other website forum) that think there isn’t some agenda in every post (and every article and every video) ever published, hmmmm… everyone is promoting something, even if their own views. Bias is ubiquitous and should not be seen as a negative, per se: bias is the outward expression of our individuality — an “endorsement” for our beliefs, where the product is our values.

      Is it necessarily bad that seemingly hordes of people jump on a bandwagon for X, Y or Z because they were “convinced” to do so by A, B or C? I don’t think so. I think that’s the way it’s always been, even in cases where all that was spoken was the power of a compelling image. People will seek to emulate what they appreciate and aspire to. That is a good thing.


      • 21.3.1) Patrick O'Connor
        August 1, 2014 at 12:14 pm

        At least I admitted not having watched the video at first. I’m nothing if not honest. :-)

        As for your last paragraph, regardless of how it’s been, people should make up their own minds. It isn’t Zack’s fault if someone mindlessly follows his advice but it is definitely NOT GOOD for people to do so. Some of the worst movements in history occurred as a result of just that kind of behavior. I’m currently reading “The Book Thief,” and one of the things that come through is that basically decent (relatively speaking) people became members of the Nazi party from that exact behavior. Even today, look at all the otherwise good people who voted for Obama! :-) That was a joke. Notice the little sideways smiley face after it? ;-)

      • Profile photo of Mike Banks 21.3.2) Mike Banks
        August 1, 2014 at 1:05 pm

        Brian, take a deep breath. Relax. You’re position is clear and I side with you. I have a feeling Romanas does as well. I read so many threads on several boards reporting the greatest photo technique by people who spend most of the day on the computer. Most of my professional work is studio bound so I have the time to stop what I’m doing, make a cup of coffee and respond to some posts. Today is Friday and a slow day for me except for an autopsy I have to do later in the evening. I don’t profess to know half of what some of you know about theory, or what causes diffraction or fringing or lens distortion. I fix it and if I can’t I use several pro labs who can. I’m only interested in one thing regarding my photography and quite frankly that is the clients check clearing.

        Your points are well taken and I certainly accept your position. We all have a bias and unless that bias hurts other people in some what…who cares.

  22. 22) Jay
    July 31, 2014 at 5:51 pm

    The whole point of this debate has been the progress of crop sensor cameras over the last two years or so. They haven’t stopped improving in Fuji, Pentax, and Sony cameras. So this isn’t biased for Fuji. It is more against Nikon and Canon for putting most of their resources into full frame rather than the potential for smaller, high quality aps-c cameras.

    • 22.1) Patrick O'Connor
      July 31, 2014 at 6:02 pm

      Two things:
      1. Full frame sensors have also been developed further and
      2. Those people who are bashing Nikon and Canon for not coming out with APS-C or FF mirrorless cameras can always buy Fuji, Pentax, and Sony. That sounds like “screw you” but it’s not. If there’s a market for a product, someone will develop it and you should patronize them, not bash their competition who has passed on it. If I wanted an APS-C sized sensor in a mirrorless body, I would buy a Fuji with no hesitation. Owning a bunch of Nikon lenses wouldn’t dissuade me because most of my lenses are big and heavy so if Nikon came out with a comparable body, I’d STILL have to buy new lenses to go with it.

    • Profile photo of Mike Banks 22.2) Mike Banks
      August 1, 2014 at 8:25 am


      Gee wizzzzzz, I have to agree with Patrick here. One would not expect the heavy equipment company Caterpillar to come out with a golf cart, now would they? Nikon and Canon have dedicated themselves to both consumer and professional equipment for a long time. Now new technology has offered up new equipment that will perform in a similar fashion to the big guns. If they don’t try to catch up, so be it. We all have alternatives. I got to play with a small advanced prosumer Sony at my grandsons 2nd birthday party. I was shooting with a gripped D800e. Felt like I was holding a bar bell next to a cupcake. BTW, I was impressed with the resulting photographs the other photographer was producing.

  23. 23) sceptical1
    July 31, 2014 at 7:46 pm

    I made the switch from FF to APC for one specific reason – weight. I also thought the Nikon D7000 / D7100 were just good enough to make the switch…especially the D7100 with its excellent AF system. I have not regretted it a bit. I was able to sell off my FF cameras (D3, D700) and lenses (24-70 2.8, 180mm prime) for good prices so the switch was not at all expensive. My back has felt better ever since :)
    Do I miss some of the low-light performance…yes, but that is about it. Otherwise, I am a happy camper quality wise.
    BTW – I could also make a great argument for the micro-four thirds system.

  24. 24) James
    July 31, 2014 at 9:34 pm

    I’m primarily a Nikon FF shooter…almost done building my system on that format. I bought a lighter RX100 (1-inch sensor) for general walking around because I didn’t trust myself with another camera that had interchangeable lenses. Lack of self control can lead to bankruptcy in some cases. I think I’ve made some decent pictures with both cameras these last few years.

    I like playing with new toys and figuring things out. So, once the Nikon system is complete, I might just get tempted into building another camera system to play with. As long as there’s a good selection of good lenses and a learning curve for me to conquer, I’ll be happy to give it a try.

    Now…who else is wondering how much a digital camera with an 8×10 piece of silicon in it would cost?

    • 24.1) Jay
      July 31, 2014 at 9:53 pm


      Yes some people have more money than they know what to do with- but what fun! One thing that isn’t addressed much is the excitement you mentioned of trying out new technologies. I like to see how things play out though with you early adaptors. We are seeing now a backlash for FF and I’m glad I never left the aps-c format!

      • 24.1.1) James
        August 1, 2014 at 5:59 am

        I’m not sure where you got that I am an early adopter; I am typically anything but. If I were an early adopter, I would probably be building a mirrorless system instead of a full-frame one.

        I don’t know if I’ve seen a “backlash for FF” as you say. I didn’t really find the video to be in favor of one format over the other, only that a lot of photographers out there put too much importance on the format. Despite the common saying that “the camera doesn’t matter, the photographer does”, I think we all fall into the trap of being format snobs from time to time.

        I think Mr. Arias is saying “shut up and shoot” more than he is touting APS-C over FF.

        And, while my logic in switching FF from APS-C was probably a little flawed (2 years ago; I’ve learned a lot), I don’t regret my decision to switch.

        Sounds like we both are enjoying our decisions. That’s the main thing, I suppose.

    • Profile photo of Mike Banks 24.2) Mike Banks
      August 1, 2014 at 8:34 am


      I just ran to the bank to see how much of a credit line I could pull on my house. LOL Now I have to research how much a 200LB tripod will cost to hold such a beast.

      James, great comment. Loved it. LOL

      • 24.2.1) James
        August 1, 2014 at 9:04 am

        Good luck with the financing.

        Be ready for your peers to criticize the cameras resolution (“only” 500MP), lack of accessories, and slow burst rate (8 seconds per frame; 6 seconds per frame with optional battery grip) in the event you obtain such equipment.

        • Profile photo of Mike Banks Mike Banks
          August 1, 2014 at 9:42 am


          Goodness, I hadn’t even considered the battery grip. I also just called Dell to ask them to design a computer for a 500MP camera and they referred me to Cray Computer Technologies.

          I still use my 4×5 and 5×7…not as much as I used to since film went up so much in cost and truthfully speaking digital is so much easier to work with. But I miss it. The slower, more contemplative pace of working always brings me back to the 60’s and 70’s. At least I think I remember the 60’s and 70’s….I know I was there then. I think!!!! LOL

  25. 25) Steve B.
    July 31, 2014 at 10:49 pm

    Not that anyone cares, here are my two cents:

    His point about people’s hissy fit over sensor size: bang on. Use the sensor that best suits your need. Some people drive a tiny Smart car, others drive a Ferrari. I drive a Jeep because Smart cars and Ferraris can’t do what my Jeep can. And not everyone wants a stretched Hummer or Cadillac, either.

    His whole message (and I think it’s a good one) could have been told in under a minute, why take 13 1/2 ? Because the first minute was a trailer for the Fuji ad that took up the last 2 1/2 minutes. And like most things these days, the rest was just fluff.

  26. Profile photo of Stephen 26) Stephen
    July 31, 2014 at 11:50 pm

    What an annoying chap. And, meh….. who cares. Still gonna use my Mamiya 645 Pro, my D800, and my Phase One. The guy in the video can use what he likes

    • Profile photo of Stephen 26.1) Stephen
      July 31, 2014 at 11:58 pm

      Also, he seems to be justifying the fact that he simply prefers using a crop sensor mirrorless camera. Good for him, but then to go on about how everything is relative doesn’t actually make any point. All it does is make him sound defensive.

  27. 27) Diego
    August 1, 2014 at 2:13 am

    Romanas said: “any camera with APS-C sensor, in fact – is good enough for great many projects”.
    I think he got it right. Good enough. Maybe not the best tool for some project but good enough.
    Now, it is up to us to choose the best tool or a tool which is good enough, right?

  28. 28) Jack
    August 1, 2014 at 4:53 am

    I don’t consider the difference in DOF between FF and APS-C to be minor. For most people (who don’t print large or shoot in the dark), I agree that the resolution and high ISO advantage isn’t going to be very apparent in the final output. But the difference in DOF between a fast prime in FF and APS-C is very apparent to me, especially in 2 situations: 1) full-body portraits, and 2) wide-angle lenses (esp. full-body portraits with wide-angle lenses :)). I think the difference is more apparent viewing images on a small (phone or tablet) screen, although I’m not sure why that is.

    Anyway, I think the FF vs. crop debates used to be more divided along the lines of pros vs. non-pros, but now the debate is more academic. I’ve been using a Micro 4/3 camera for the past 6 months and it’s been sufficient for most of my needs, but at times I wish for something with more DOF or cleaner pixels, so I added a FF camera. The high end APS-C and MIcro 4/3 cameras (and lenses) are the same price as the lower end FF cameras, so that gap is shrinking. The debates now seem to be mostly among the marketing people and fanboys.

  29. Profile photo of Valerie Doane 29) Valerie Doane
    August 1, 2014 at 6:52 am

    He doesn’t pimp Fuji and so what if he uses Fuji or gets paid by Fuji or whatever arrangement exists. It doesn’t change a thing because what he’s saying about film sizes, sensor sizes, format etc., well is it not accurate? His presentation clarified a lot of questions I have regarding the full format/APS-C debate and I don’t understand the beef that some peeps have with it.

    • 29.1) Rack
      August 1, 2014 at 10:07 am

      Because the whole video is just a fujifilm ad. His opinion is for sale. So, therefore, the contents are formulated to advance the sales of fujifilm, not to further any so called debate about photo methods. His whole proposition is that you can use any format you want, yet his conclusion is a long session of backlit fujifilm camera porn.

      Btw, joe McNally has made a whole career from 35mm photography, so sorry that bit about the FF format being inconsequential in terms of a career is not factually correct.

      • August 1, 2014 at 10:15 am

        Sorry, but I fail to see reason why you’d say that. I’ve already expressed my thoughts on this not being a Fuji ad, so I’ll just skip this bit. But what you said about Joe McNally makes no sense. Are you proposing that he made a career because he used 35mm cameras? I’d have thought it was because he is a good photographer. I’d bet anything he’d make that career with an APS-C camera just as well.

        • rauck
          August 1, 2014 at 9:55 pm

          Did you miss the part in the video where Zack was talking about careers in photography relating to 35mm film size sensors? You must pay more attention to the stuff you post. Have another watch. He was trying to assert that 35mm size sensors were not as important as large format because that ‘FF’ size senior hasn’t been around long enough for anyone to make a career out of, whereas large format is very important because famous photographers have made a career out of large format.

          He is using all his whiles to convince you that FF is not as important as you think it might be, and then assert that APS-C is a viable alternative – which of course it is – I have no argument with his conclusions – just that he’s making this as an ad for Fuji –quite brazenly – yet you don’t care about his intentions.

          • plevyadophy
            August 1, 2014 at 10:57 pm

            I think you’ll find his contention was that very few photographers today are old enough to have built an entire career on 35mm, and he then goes on to mock Joe McNally as perhaps being one of the few exceptions (he and Joe are pals and often engage in mocking banter; I have witnessed it first hand).

          • Profile photo of Romanas Naryškin Romanas Naryškin
            August 3, 2014 at 11:37 pm

            I did not miss that part, certainly. But I am extremely surprised to see you understand it the way you did. Zack was merely talking about how long 35mm digital cameras have been with us, he did not say a single word about Joe building a successful career *because* he used a full-frame. He was actually making a completely opposite point.

            And it’s not that I do not care about his intentions, I just see different intentions than you do. You are so certain this is a Fujifilm ad and I don’t think it is, I did not see it. As I said, what I saw was a man mentioning the system he’s using himself as an example of how a crop-sensor camera can be used for professional work with no reservations.

            If you like, you can call me blind, because in your eyes, the ad is very brazenly obvious, as you mentioned. But then we all see what we want to see and, if I am being honest, I think it’s prejudice that makes you see it that way.

            • rauck
              August 4, 2014 at 12:54 am

              Wow, that was a delayed response. I had to go back and watch Arias’ video again. Look, it’s a minor point but since you brought it up again –

              First, the only time Arias mentions Joe McNally is at 1’ 20” into the video. It’s a joke about Joe being an old timer – haha. He doesn’t mention Joe again. I did however mention Joe in relation to another point Arias raised later on.

              Secondly, and back to the issue in question – ‘Life Long Careers in Photography’. Here’s what Arias says word for word and actions (4’ 44”):

              “There is no one alive on the planet today who has had a full lifelong career shooting DSLR (picks up Nikon pro body), because it hasn’t been around long enough for anyone to have a life long career shooting DSLR.

              There are photographers alive today who have had a full entire career built upon these larger formats (and he points to 6x7cm and 4×5” negs on lightbox), and there are photographers today who are shooting 8×10” still.”

              So, what’s my problem with this statement? Well it’s misleading, and upon analysis it’s not correct. Sure, there is no one who has built a career on Digital SLRs. But Arias is referring to larger formats that are based on silver halide photography, so the comparison must be to 35mm silver halide photography as well. Now according to Wikipedia 135 format film was introduced in 1934 – now that’s a full lifelong career! Joe McNally has had a full lifelong career shooting SLR and DSLR.

              My impression of what Arias is trying to do is to belittle 135 format compared to APS-C, and I just don’t think he does a very good job of it. Now that’s just my opinion. YMMV. And, just to conclude, I also think the whole issue is a storm in a teacup. They are very similar in size; there is one stop between them in every respect – no amount of obfuscation will ever change that.

              • Profile photo of Romanas Naryškin Romanas Naryškin
                August 4, 2014 at 1:10 am

                Sorry for the delayed response, Rauck, but we have a lot of articles here, which in turn means we get a lot of comments. I answer them whenever I have the time for it, and that does not happen too often.

                As for our discussion, I guess there is not much more that can be said, we both expressed our opinions. ;)

      • Profile photo of Valerie Doane 29.1.2) Valerie Doane
        August 1, 2014 at 10:43 am

        Rack I couldn’t disagree with you more. If what you contend is accurate then I guess I’m savvy enough not be duped, mislead or manipulated by some Fuji marketing ploy. :)

        • rauck
          August 1, 2014 at 10:09 pm

          It’s all about honesty and transparency in opinion making. I’m sorry to harp on about it. This video by Zach is a barely disguised advertorial for Fuji. Now Zach may deny that it is. Lance Armstrong denied that he was doing any wrong for years. I guess the subject matter is rather trivial in a way – after all who cares what format the sensor is on Zach’s cameras. It’s just an honest thing for me. I always though he was a guy I could trust.

          Now what about Joe McNally I read someone ask? I don’t see any conflict of interest there at all. Joe is so obviously a Nikon ambassador that we all know he’s being paid by Nikon. He doesn’t shirk from that. I respect Joe’s opinion because he is clear about his commercial relationships. Phillip Bloom is the same. All Zach has to do is come out and say he’s receiving remuneration from Fuji. Not hard. And I know he is. Check out this fantastic video released shortly after the release of the XT1 – Mystical Marrakech It’s branded with the Fujifilm logo at the end.

          • plevyadophy
            August 1, 2014 at 10:49 pm


            Zak has indeed done the occasional gig for Fuji, which isn’t surprising given his love of their system ( and any marketing exec worth their salt would make an approach and offer an assignment ), but where that has happened it has been transparent e.g. the logo in the video you refer to ( hey, I have even attended a talk given by Zak that was openly supported by Fuji, and with a Fuji rep present ). However, he is NOT, as you potentially libellously suggest, on the Fuji payroll nor, as far as I am aware on an official Ambassador scheme like the Canon ( e.g. Denis Regie ) and Nikon ( e.g. Joe McNally ) ones or getting entirely kitted out to the tune of tens of thousands of Euros ( e.g. Yuri Arcurs and Profoto ).

  30. 30) john
    August 1, 2014 at 9:23 am

    could this be a hint tat Fuji might be going digital medium format soon? as usual, fuji is always going to untapped markets.

    • 30.1) Steve
      August 3, 2014 at 11:03 am

      Fuji has to go searching for untapped markets, as does Olympus, Pentax, etc., etc. ~ the disruptive effects of ‘camera phones & digital technology’ plus the dominance of Canikon in the ‘pro’ market has all but wiped out the need for so many players!

  31. Profile photo of Mike Banks 31) Mike Banks
    August 1, 2014 at 9:34 am

    Patrick, at one time Tokina made this focal length for FX as well. Hunt around you might be able to find one.

    You’re correct, I could afford the 14-24 Nikon but don’t shoot wide most of the time. That is why I bought the 24-70 Tamron instead of the Nikon. I’m not a fan boy. I will purchase anything I think will do the job for me. You know what my profession is and everything else I do either for myself or income is ancillary.

    BTW, I just got the 18-35 Sigma f1.8 with dock. I’m really enjoying using this one. Not a very long focal range but very sharp, with great contrast and color rendition.

    • August 1, 2014 at 9:38 am

      Mike, I’ve never heard of a full-frame designed 11-16mm lens from Tokina or, in fact, any other manufacturer (the widest non-fisheye lens for 35mm cameras is the Sigma 12-24mm).

      However, the mentioned Tokina does cover full-frame image circle from around 14-15mm focal length, perhaps that is what you meant.

      • Profile photo of Mike Banks 31.1.1) Mike Banks
        August 1, 2014 at 10:12 am

        Romanas, could be yes I just checked the other lens is the 16mm at wide.

    • 31.2) Patrick O'Connor
      August 1, 2014 at 10:46 am

      I don’t like the term “fan boy,” or any other derogatory terminology, but I’m not one either. I have the Tokina 16-28 and a Tamron 90 macro, along with my Nikkor lenses. When the line gets shorter, I’ll be getting the Tamron 150-600 as well. Eventually, I’ll get the Sigma 180 macro unless Nikon updates their 200 first. In that case, we’ll have to see.
      I’m jealous of that Sigma 18-35. I hope they develop an equivalent FF version. I don’t currently have any APS-C cameras since I’d rather not deal with two lines of lenses or have to think about FOV equivalencies. If they come out with a successor to the D300s (whatever they call it), I’ll get that for wildlife telephoto…not wide angle.

      • Profile photo of Mike Banks 31.2.1) Mike Banks
        August 1, 2014 at 11:24 am


        As Romanas, corrected me and you were correct the corresponding lens is the Tokina 16-28 which has about the same FOV as the 11-16. I just took my name off the B&H list for the Tamron 150-600. Just waiting too long. Plus there are plenty of other options I have now. I’ll wait a bit when the initial demand softens. I have the 80-400G the 500G f:4 and the 600 f:4 plus the Sigma 50-500 so I’m really covered in long lenses anyway. Acquisition of the Tamron is a want, not a need.

        As you know I’ve mentioned before I have a large variety of lenses. Most are FX and used on both my DX and FX cameras. I like the faster lenses as you can imagine and am willing to give up some of the wider focal lengths in DX due to the slowness of these lenses. Mostly I shoot long anyway. The Sigma is now the fastest wide lens I have for the DX cameras. I agree I wish they would come out with an equivalent for FX. However, I do most of my shooting with the D7100 and reserve the D800e’s for special situations.

        All my macro lenses are Nikon and in fact I have two of each focal length from 40mm to 200mm. The reason for this is because sometimes I get called into an emergency surgical situation where I don’t know the anesthesia before hand so I will set up both the D71K and the D800e in the event I am unable to use any kind of flash equipment. (In the event you didn’t know some types of anesthesia gas are highly explosive. Comforting huh!). When it comes to macro, derogatory or not, I’m a fan boy. I’ve tried a number of different macro lenses from different manufacturers but for me only Nikon will do. For street journalism, product photography or just shooting for myself I will use any lens that can give me what I want and save me money in order to spend the savings on more camera equipment I don’t actually need. (NAS-GAS). LOL

        • Profile photo of Mike Banks Mike Banks
          August 2, 2014 at 7:32 am


          I’m responding here to your comment above as this is where my fingers were working faster then my brain. As Romanas reminded me and you also, corrected the focal structure of the FX version of the Tokina I have. Yes the DX is an 11-16 and the FX is the 16-28. However, when doing the math the two lenses, within a few degrees of each other are basically the same FOV. I am aware that is I use the DX lens on an FF camera and dial it to the long side the lens will work just fine but with all the glass I have I don’t need to do that.

          Regarding IQ between FX and DX. I’m not one to agree that one is always better than the other. I think more consideration need to done when shooting APS-C as there are some limitations with this system. But overall I don’t see much difference between the two in a general basis. If we are going to discuss particular situations I think you will find me mostly in agreement with your positions.

  32. Profile photo of Muhammad Omer 32) Muhammad Omer
    August 1, 2014 at 11:42 am

    Romanas, this post couples very well with your last piece about used cameras. I was confused about buying a used d700 or sticking to my d5100. Do you think full frame cameras manual focus better? Do you think manual focus is easier when the camera has a low megapixel count?
    Do you think its a good idea to use a 500mm AI-P with my d5100?

  33. 33) Tom Manrique
    August 1, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    I found this blog and us, the people commenting here, the best blog of photography in the internet.
    Is really interesting to read the articles and then, the different points of views/debates.

    Since the first day that I decided to buy my first DSLR last year i’m following you guys.

    Thanks for this SPACE Romanas and Nasim!
    Cheers from Argentina.

  34. 34) Shangri-La
    August 1, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    He could have made his point clear in 3 minutes.

    • August 1, 2014 at 7:57 pm


      it’s not only what you say, but how you say it that matters, especially if you want to make at least a small difference and get through to someone. Small changes happen because of all the drastic attempts to make drastic changes happen.

      We can sum up most of our articles in three sentences. They’d be boring, extremely technical and require much less effort from us, so no one would read them. When I wrote about Ted, I could have put most of that information into a single paragraph, but decided to quote him and tell the stories in detail to make it interesting.

      • 34.1.1) Patrick O'Connor
        August 1, 2014 at 8:02 pm

        Excellent points, all, but I could have finished the article on Ted, had it been written that way, rather than stop out of boredom. But then, I AM an uncultured swine; I don’t even like B/W photography!! :-)

  35. Profile photo of Daniel Michael 35) Daniel Michael
    August 1, 2014 at 4:51 pm

    Funny video and kind of puts things into perspective. I think there is an underlying point to Zack’s video that is being missed, and it pertains to the Fuji-using community. Yes there is the whole low-light / high ISO /bokeh argument and so this is talking to the photog community in general, but Zack also is also talking to the Fuji community in that for a long a time now, many Fuji shooters have been going on about how they want the next X-Pro 2 or the X200 to be “full-frame”

    This has been the target of online surveys etc. Fuji has said many times it doesn’t want to go down the full-frame route especially in such a young system, and many Fuji shooters have been a little upset by this. Fuji’s reasoning is that they’d have to come up with a totally new lens line up and since it is a new system anyway, it would mean many people would be out of pocket. It defeats the object of what Fuji is trying to achieve.

    The second reason is that the whole idea of going mirrorless, is compactness and lightness. Full frame lenses especially the wide angle IOS types would just be too big and heavy. That advantage of this type of system would be lost. As it is, most mirror less sensors (apart from the obvious Sony) are smaller than APS-C anyway, so image quality is still great.

    Talking UWA lenses now, there are so many great options that fit APS-C for a relatively cheap price compared to the full-frame equivalent (looking at you, Tokina). In the end, Zack is right and it’s all to do with what you are shooting and who it’s for. The systems aren’t mutually exclusive. I’ve seen some great documentary wedding photogs taking awesome shots with mirrorless APS-C, because of their discreet nature, while using the full frame for the formal shots. Lens choice is still far more important to image quality compared to sensor size!

  36. 36) Damian
    August 3, 2014 at 12:29 am

    So where are the pictures to back up what he is saying?

    After watching his video about the DSLR is dead, showing meh pictures with the X100S (I own one) and showing such a fanaticism/bias about Fuji, I don’t really care what he says.

    He is clearly promoting the Fuji and that needs to be taken into account. For me I was an APS-C user for 3 years using a Sony Nex-5. I tried the Canon 6D in a trip to NYC and I was impressed.

    You also need to take into account the ecosystem. Maybe the T1 have good lenses, but what about flashes? What about price to performance ratio?

    A photographer friend got the T1 for traveling purposes not to use her 5D. For me the 6D + 24-100 is great for travelling. I guess I can be more comfortable. Go a try to shoot in low light with the T1.

    And if we are talking about technology advancement, then go and check the A7. With that reasoning then mirror less FF will crash APS-C. We need to see and compare future FF lenses how they compare to crop ones.

    Again, entertaining video but not more than that. Go again and take a look as his video in Istanbul using the X100S.

  37. 37) Steve
    August 3, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    If there’s one take away from all this… it’s that tools matter! Particularly, the one between your ears! Otherwise, personal bias and working style can always be passed off as an endorsement for one thing or another.

    I suppose if I was shooting with a PhaseOne today, I might also use a APS-C/mirrorless for ‘fun & informal’ projects ~ but that isn’t most working photographers these days.

    I can clearly remember back in the ‘film days’ how nearly every working pro would have different film format cameras to use as the need dictated. My thoughts today are that regardless of sensor technology improvements, a larger sensor will alway provide ‘more’, be it resolution, colour depth, tonal range etc.. Today, that means full frame, though I expect medium format will in time reach more affordable levels.

    Cameras, like lighting ( for pro’s at least ) are typically purchased based on the ‘system’ not any one individual item and we all know who supplies & supports the most comprehensive systems. I hear so many whine of a systems weight, I have to laugh & wonder at what moment did we photographer’s become weaklings, unable to burden ourselves to fulfil our creative vision.

    In short, I’ve built up a fine, full frame DSLR system over the years and see no reason whatsoever to ‘downgrade’ or ‘downsize’ for the sake of ‘good enough’!

    • 37.1) Patrick O'Connor
      August 3, 2014 at 1:23 pm

      I’m not sure I would have put it so bluntly but I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said. Especially the part about being “unable to burden ourselves to fulfil (sic) our creative vision.”

      Something else occurred to me in the course of this debate; not just this post on PL but the entire small mirrorless vs. dSLR debate over the last couple years. In the past, photographers would use medium format cameras for their “compactness” while acknowledging the better quality one could get from large format. Those who used each successively smaller format did so for the same reasons with the same acknowledgement. For some reason, a lot of photographers who use mirrorless can’t bring themselves to admit that a current, full frame dSLR gives better quality, in a broader range of situations, than their smaller format cameras. Why is that so difficult? Some of you accuse dSLR photographers of being emotionally attached to their gear (and I’m sure some are) but a lot of you guys are similarly predisposed.
      If you like your camera, regardless of mechanism or sensor size, fine. Use it and STFU.

      Note: One of my peers replied to one of my emails with that four letter response. Imagine my surprise when I figured out what it meant! ;-)

  38. 38) plevyadophy
    August 4, 2014 at 10:59 am

    The truth about Zack, Hobby and Fuji

    Hopefully, that’ll put an end to all the cynical speculation.

  39. 39) plevyadophy
    August 6, 2014 at 6:53 am

    The full explanation of what was meant and how it came to be said

  40. Profile photo of Petr S. 40) Petr S.
    August 6, 2014 at 7:20 am

    Well, the video is funny, indeed!

    Thank you for sharing Romanas. Certainly interesting way to look at FF format.

    …and BTW, as far as this video goes, I don’t see how anyone can accuse Zack of anything else but being extremely amusing.

  41. 41) Steve S Johnson
    August 9, 2014 at 5:18 pm

    Yeah ZA is funny but this argument is only back because Fuji is paying Pro`s to rationalize the cropped sensors. Nothing has changed in FX advantages except that the Fuji is lighter and easier to travel with. If that`s a good enough reason to go Fuji then help yourself. I travel a bunch but I want the superior sensor for now thanks, especially for Landscapes. D810/D800 have the best sensors for now! So that`s what I choose.

  42. Profile photo of John De Wit 42) John De Wit
    August 30, 2014 at 10:31 am

    Have a Nikon D7000, great camera, made a lot of pictures with it the last years, my wifi own a Coolpix 6000, recently i use more my wife’s camera then my own. Because i ben 66 years ant i take’s a lot of force to go with a D7000 hiking? So in septemeber i go to Photokina look at the new Coolpix P8000 and maby i buy me one! i’ts a lot easy to travel with ! That’s reason enough !!! Sory for my englisch

    • Profile photo of Luc 42.1) Luc
      September 2, 2014 at 4:24 pm

      I am 67 years old and I understand your point. I just bought a ” blackrapid RS7″ camera strap at less than 92$cdn and went all day long at the zoo with the D7100 + Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS and the Nikon 70-300 VRII without any problems.

      • 42.1.1) John De Wit
        September 3, 2014 at 12:34 am

        Hello Luc
        i understand but when Hiking on a ruogh terrain and your camera is arround your neck and start shaking it’s not so excellent! Still use my D7000 ! he is to good to chance for a D7100 with is better , but the differnec is not so BIG and i hate the big file’s the produce !
        if you have the time see
        Greetings from Belgium
        Done also some shoots in the zoo in Antwerpen indeed no problems.

        • christopher zydek
          December 10, 2014 at 12:57 pm

          Going to the Zoo and Hiking are 2 different things!!!!! I did hire Mt Washington this Summer and I am glad that I only took my fuji X-E1 :)

    • 42.2) Mogh Baba
      March 8, 2015 at 8:35 pm

      Dear John, Please do not get me rude to interfere your private life. But please, get less involved in the technical matters and come back to the ordinary life! You see, I understand, it’s a typo but ask you why? You have misspelled “wife” with nothing else than “wifi”!

  43. 43) Russ D
    May 9, 2015 at 12:01 pm

    repeats himself too much.
    But it is true, the stupidist argument is that ‘___’ is more professional.
    If you make stuff with it, and you got paid, it IS professional.

    I’ve used yard sale microphones to record bands. I’ve used gopros and a Canon T2i to a do HD broadcast quality segments.
    I see more difference between jpg and raw than I do between apsc and full frame.

Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *