Switching to Fuji...Missing the full frame look?

Don't need to lug mine anymore :)
I think where mirrorless have gone wrong is they are no less expensive and still don't perform as well as dslrs in a some areas, hence everyone was talking about them replacing dslr but it isn't going to happen, not yet anyway. I'm not so sure they ever will.
 
Last edited:
petert said:
Don't need to lug mine anymore :)
I think where mirrorless have gone wrong is they are no less expensive and still don't perform as well as dslrs in a some areas, hence everyone was talking about them replacing dslr but it isn't going to happen, not yet anyway.
Click to expand...

The only thing I can think of that the very best and fastest DSLR's do better than the best and fastest CSC's is focus tracking. Is there anything else? Even that advantage probably wont last as every new generation of CSC's seems to be getting better.

Other than that CSC's often focus at lightening speed in good light, faster than a DSLR (the fastest body and lens package is usually a CSC) and will focus slowly in almost total darkness beyond the level at which DSLR's have given up, the lenses are often sharp wide open, there's no front and back focus silliness, no micro adjust to worry about, if you're into video the chances are that a CSC will serve you better, the manual focus aids are fantastic, you get WYSIWYG and they're smaller and lighter than a DSLR too :D They have a metric ton of advantages... they're the future :D
 
Last edited:
That's why any sports, wildlife, news and anything else you can think of pros are still using dslrs I don't see any with mirrorless so they've hardly taken over, I wonder why?:p the things you mention aren't even issues, not found one that focuses any quicker than my d700/d7100 so it's blown up nonsense and they're quick enough for any situation so what's the point of Faster? For moving subjects evfs are still crap, and who takes pictures in the dark? Really?
 
Last edited:
The future may be different of course but its not yet
 
petert said:
The future may be different of course but its not yet
Click to expand...

Ah, but it's coming :D Fast :D

I have three CSC's, a Sony A7 and a couple of Panasonic MFT cameras, G1 and GX7. The FF Sony gives outstanding image quality and actually so do the Panasonic MFT cameras too and for my use the A7 and GX7 are better than any DSLR I've ever owned :D

petert said:
That's why any sports, wildlife, news and anything else you can think of pros are still using dslrs I don't see any with mirrorless so they've hardly taken over, I wonder why?:p half the things you mention aren't even issues
Click to expand...

Not issues? Of course they're issues, if not for you then for me and others but the beauty of the market now is that there's choice. If you see advantages in a DSLR system you can have one :D and ditto CSC's :D Choice :D but I don't think it's wise to write off CSC's so quickly as you seem to as for many people DSLR's have very few if any advantages over CSC's whereas the advantages of CSC over DSLR's may well be numerous.

I think I'm right in saying that although DSLR's outsell CSC's sales of DSLR's are falling and sales of CSC's are rising so lets sit back and let the future unfold and we'll all see what happens.
 
It's a choice and depends what you do.most people want something small and have no idea how to use it but the market knows that;-) I've no doubt at some point they may take over but until they actually do something a dslr can't and prove they are better people that know how to use cameras will stick with dslrs, when cscs become better than dslrs I'll then maybe if they actually do something my current aquipment can't I'll then change system
 
Last edited:
Needs, knowing your needs,logic and knowledge are better than any system
 
Last edited:
petert said:
Needs, knowing your needs,logic and knowledge are better than any system
Click to expand...

The force is strong with you Yoda.

petert said:
It's a choice and depends what you do.most people want something small and have no idea how to use it I've no doubt at some point they may take over but until they actually do something a dslr can't and prove they are better most that know how to use cameras will stick with dslrs, when cscs become better than dslrs I'll then change system
Click to expand...

I think that many people buying into CSC's do know what they're doing, for example I've been taking photographs for over 40 years and I think I know the basics of pointing a camera at something and dialling in settings that aren't exactly ridiculous.

Anyway, many CSC users may not know what they're doing but that's equally the case for DSLR users as I'd imagine that many people who have no idea about aperture, shutter speed and ISO and just want "a better camera" buy a DSLR because that's what "pro's" use and the bloke in Jessops said they're the best :D

I see advantages in CSC for me and I can see the advantages of DSLR's for others and as long as we all approach these choices with our brains in gear we can make the right choice for ourselves but reading your posts here it seems to me that your mind is closed so I've provided an opposing view for balance and that's me out now :D
 
As I said its a choice, each to their own and yes theres many dslrs users with not a clue:) it's gear envy Yoda out:)
 
minnnt said:
Bloody hell, again? It's like Canon vs Nikon again.

BTW, did we ever decide if Canon or Nikon were the best?

:D
Click to expand...
What is this Canon you're talking about?
 
I think eos m top of their range :-D
 
Last edited:
Don't think it's a versus thing, I'd probably go for the lighter gear if they had the same value v performance of dslr, you can get a 50, 35 1.8 and a tamron 70-300 vc for around £400 all superb lenses and under priced for their performance, correct me if I'm wrong but mirrorless can't match anything like that. A pure and simple fact.Then there's some fantastic older cheap lenses that don't exist with mirrorless.
 
Last edited:
More or less any lens can exist with mirrorless via an adapter so technically there are loads of lenses available.

Any system can be used for any purpose if you embrace it fully. It just takes a different approach to the way you work with it. Can i shoot motorsport and cricket with my X-T1? Yup. Quite easily actually. Would i be able to do it with a DSLR? Yup. Probably much easier aswell if I'm honest. Doesn't mean it can't be done though. The Fuji is a lot of fun at the same time and seeing as i don't shoot sports professionally or for money i can live with my Fooj. For what i do get paid for, portraiture, the Fooj is pretty damn fine.

As the system progresses with it's new fandangled AF system that's coming in a few weeks time along with a TC and new long lens then i think the system will become alot more versatile for a wider range of people.
 
When you start putting nikon lenses on mirrorless doesn't that defeat the weight object? a heavy 2.8 is going to heavy whatever you put it on and personally I can't be doing with adapters. When they become more versatile I may well look again
 
petert said:
Don't think it's a versus thing, I'd probably go for the lighter gear if they had the same value v performance of dslr, you can get a 50, 35 1.8 and a tamron 70-300 vc for around £400 all superb lenses and under priced for their performance, correct me if I'm wrong but mirrorless can't match anything like that. A pure and simple fact.Then there's some fantastic older cheap lenses that don't exist with mirrorless.
Click to expand...
Just not true at all, heck the 45mm f1.8 alone focusses quicker than any of my Nikon systems does and without the need for calibration and alignment.

Likewise, the 70-300 Oly is just as good as my Nikon 70-300VR ever was. Which is a bit better than that Tamron crap and without front and backfocussing issues. And five axis stabilisation is much better than the lens stabilsation of the Nikon and Tamron lenses.

And when you get into the territory of comparing my 35-100 f2.8, the size along is just that of my Nikon 70-200VR. The focus speed is indistinguishable.

Where my Nikon wins outright is continuous focus tracking. Absolutely there is no comparison. Elsewhere, nope the one that is with me is the mirror less camera, or a film camera.


And no I have no need to put old fantastic lenses on my mirrorless. Although I can if I like. For example i do like my Nikon 105 f2.5. Great lens, works great with my FM/FE cameras. And also metered well on the D7100. Guess what it also meters well on mirrorless and not just that, it adds live focus peaking. Happy days. Then again there are value for money current equivalents so why bother. I only did because I could.
 
Last edited:
Sorry that's nonsense, the tamron is far from crap just a stupid comment, this focusing speed rubbish is what it is, rubbish. Are we talking mili seconds that you wouldn't even notice? Mine focus instantly what more can anyone need? Trying to rubbish a proven system is stupidity.
 
Last edited:
When pros all swop their current dslrs for mirrorless things might different but at the moment there's a reason they're not doing that, pure fact and as I asked before, Why do think that's is? Answer pretty obvious.
 
Well in my experience I took the long road and journey with Nikon.

Yup I had the tamron 70-300 and then I upgrade to the Nikon VR version.

Then I made the mistake again, and got a tamron 17-50 f2.8 and upgrade to the Nikon 24-70f2.8.

Then I made the mistake again and got a sigma 70-200 f2.8 and ended up with a Nikon 70-200 f2.8.

The difference was notable and not,just that, the concern regarding front and back focussing improved considerably as well.

There is a market for Tamron and the likes most definitely. I've learned my and I'm not in that market.
 
petert said:
When pros all swop their current dslrs for mirrorless things might different but at the moment there's a reason they're not doing that, pure fact and as I asked before, Why do think that's is? Answer pretty obvious.
Click to expand...
Nobody is saying that it is the only system and be all to all. Its you who seem,to suggest otherwise and that it cant possibly be that for other people.

However I've got direct comparison experience of both. But lets face it as good as the D7100 is, and lets assume the Tamron lens is as well, it really isn't on some different level let alone pro level compared to mirrorless.

If you prefer the size and weight and handling and look then great, who are we to argue against that. But lets keep it real, it is still a consumer level toy ;) now who brought that into the conversation?
 
FFS. :D

Have the confidence in your system and the results will come. Embrace it and you've already won the battle. Having the same system as what all these 'pros' use doesn't make you a pro or make you take better pics...

Now, where's that D7200 owners thread...



And just as a side note, from my experience the Tamron VC model is an absolute peach of a lens. The VC is better than any Nikon VR i have used including the 70-200 vrII. Infact Nikons VR is probably the worst system i have used... VC/OS/OIS (fuji) and 3 axis IBIS have all been better.

So... Back to the OP's question...
 
dejongj said:
Nobody is saying that it is the only system and be all to all. Its you who seem,to suggest otherwise and that it cant possibly be that for other people.

However I've got direct comparison experience of both. But lets face it as good as the D7100 is, and lets assume the Tamron lens is as well, it really isn't on some different level let alone pro level compared to mirrorless.

If you prefer the size and weight and handling and look then great, who are we to argue against that. But lets keep it real, it is still a consumer level toy ;) now who brought that into the conversation?
Click to expand...

Not suggesting anything as ive said each to their own,certainly didn't suggest anything is on a different level, I didn't rubbish mirrorless ( ive also said iq wise there's nothing in it, rather than make the rash statements you have)) as you did with Nikon which is ridiculous, as for the toy I said it felt like a toy ( I believe it was a g5) compared to a d700. These back focussing issues you seem to be plaqued with I've never had so its not an issue.
 
Last edited:
I must admit, the VR on Nikon lenses isn't very easy to live with. No doubt it works, and works well, if you get the technique right. I find it very "jumpy"
Never had a VC version of a Tamron, so can't comment, but the OS on my Sigma is streets ahead of Nikon.
Likewise, Fuji and Olympus image stabilisation works exceptionally well.
 
If fuji could track moving subjects the same as a dslr and had a couple of wildlife lenses I probably would consider changing if the price was right
 
No I can't say I have, would this be the xt1?
 
I may have to eat my words :-o still expensive though and not so sure it does anything my D700 or d7100 cant
 
Last edited:
Not ready yet but later maybe we'll see, I must admit something smaller would be useful but I doubt I'd give up the dslr still don't think you can beat the feel and ergonomics and I love the tank feel of the d700
 
Last edited:
I sold the xe1 because of the awful focusing is the 2 any better?
 
I used a D90 and D600 full frame (actually still prefer the D90 over the D600) but when travelling with the D600 and lenses for hours on end I just got tired of the weight issue. I'd looked into CSC before but didn't want to compromise IQ. I switched to Fuji after reading many reviews and seeing pics at 100%, which showed that it was capable of very good IQ.

Fuji is still improving - the cameras are by no means the finished article and Fuji recognises this by releasing firmware upgrades every 6-12 months. The firmware upgrade 4.0 for the X-T1 later this month should improve the AF tracking drastically, since this was a clear disadvantage compared with DSLRs. It will also let the X-T1 focus in lower light, include eye detection (already has face detection), etc. Of course, it will still not track moving subjects as fast as the best DSLRs, or focus in the dark at -3ev like the D750, but it is getting better.

One of the main advantages with Fuji are the lenses - all are very good and some are just wonderful. The 14mm f2.8 is razor sharp from corner to corner from f4. It is way better optically than the Nikkor 18-35G I used with the D600. The new WR Pro lenses (16-55, 50-140, 16 f1.4) are also fantastic. Yes, Fuji is making larger lenses, which on one hand sort of defeats the object of a smaller camera set up, although if you are coming from a DSLR you will appreciate the robustness and build quality (metal lenses, not plastic). They are also bringing out a small 35mm f2 which will be WR.

As for bokeh and thin depth of field, you can achieve this with the 35 f1.4, 56 f1.2 etc but for me, it's not one of the things I seek all the time. The X-T1 is a smaller, lighter camera, weather resistant with a magnesium body, with tactile analogue controls. The XF lenses are optically brilliant. At the very least it's worth checking the system out.
 
Last edited:
Maybe when the prices drop a bit the d7100 and 3 excellent lenses at the same price as an xt1 body? No contest really
 
Are you saying it's no contest because the D7100 plus 3 lenses represent better value for money than an X-T1 or because they are better than an X-T1? Which 3 lenses were you thinking of?

I used (and still have) the excellent 16-85VRII, 50 f1.8, 70-300VRII for my D90, and have used other FF lenses when I had the D600. I can say (because I used both systems) that the Fuji lenses are far better optically than any of the APS-C Nikkor lenses and are more than a match for the FF ones. In fact, the best Fuji lenses are better than the current Fuji bodies.


petert said:
Maybe when the prices drop a bit the d7100 and 3 excellent lenses at the same price as an xt1 body? No contest really
Click to expand...
 
minnnt said:
X-T1 and X-T10

Knock yourself out...

View: https://youtu.be/ZaoIZXA5RMM
Click to expand...

These kinds of manufacturers' AF demos are very unconvincing. Look at the train in that video - the depth of field is so generous that both the background and foreground are sharp throughout. The focus isn't moving much, if at all.

Try a cyclist riding towards the camera at close distance, or a jogger, or a car. Different test altogether - and one that DSLRs perform well at, and CSCs don't. Maybe not that important for most users, but that's why you'll not see any professional sports photographers using a CSC for, say, football tracking individual players. That's tough test.

There's quite a good AF demo in this video-review with a Sony A6000 and surfers, but even here the subject is not too challenging and in good light
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwXGO9Km4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top