OK, there is going to be a bit of a loaded question on a Fuji thread but here goes. As a self-confessed GAS head (I just can’t help myself), I’ve acquired and sold some very nice photographic equipment over the years.
My current set up is decent Micro Four thirds system (EM1 MK II and G9), and a really nice developing Fuji system (X-T3 and X-H1) with some nice Fuji glass (including the 10-24, 16-55, 50-140 and 100-400). Despite having all this nice equipment, my “disease” doesn’t stop me looking at other systems. The one that caught my eye recently is the Nikon Z series, with a Z6, FTZ adaptor and the 24-70 F4 lens to be had for just over £2k on the like of Panamoz. It was whilst pondering this system I got to actually thinking about how much of a step up (if any) in quality, a FF camera would give me over my Fuji system.
Now, here’s where it gets a little difficult. Just a few years ago, the obvious reason to move away from FF was the size and weight of such cameras and their lenses. Now whilst most of the FF lenses are still large and heavy, the body sizes have now come down to the same size and weight as Fuji (or Miro Four Thirds for that matter), and (certainly for the Nikon Z), the new 24-70 lenses are very much smaller and lighter than traditional FF lenses, so it’s now starting to erode the argument that a lot of people used against FF in the past.
So, then onto the question of image quality. Now, I should clarify, I’m not referring to DOF here, as most of the time, it’s not super important to me to have razor thin DOF, and in any case, chances are that there’s a lens in Fuji’s line up (like the 56mm F1.2) that will get you very close to what FF can offer (not exact, but not massively different). So what then about DR and High ISO noise. I keep hearing that FF has much better noise handling that say a Fuji X-T2/3 and better DR, but how much better is better? Is it a Stop, is it less than that, as depending on what website you end up on, the figure changes from “a massive difference”, to “imperceptible and a 1/3 of a stop at most”. When I check images on line, unless it's shot on a low light monster (such as a Nikon D5), I myself, certainly don't see a huge difference (certainly up to around ISO 6,400-12,800 which is about as high as I will ever go), from my Fuji cameras (maybe rose tinted spectacles ?).
So to put my GAS to bed once and for all, those that have had Fuji and moved up to FF, or those going the other way round, what exactly have you gained / lost ?