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

Weight is something thats critical for me as I'm severely disabled but iQ is also something thats critical to me as well as low light performance, the only camera's that fitted the bill for me when switching to CSC from DSLR where those from the Fuji range, in particular at the time the X-Pro1 and more recently the XT-1.
Where they won over Sony for me was the range and quality of the lenses as well as the quality and functionality of the bodies.
The lenses in general are light, especially in comparison with the equivalent from canon or nikon, take the heaviest of the range so far, the 50-140 f2.8, this weighs in at approx 995 grams compared to approx 1.4-1.5 + kgs for the full frame equivalent (70-200 f2.8) from the major manufacturers, both old and new lenses there coming out are comparably very light, yet robust in build and of top level optical quality, who else has a 56mm f1.2 (85mm f1.2 equivalent) that weighs just 440 grams? or a 90mm f2 (135mm f2) thats just 530 grams? without compromising on iQ? And thats without getting into the world of adapted lenses using the excellent M adaptor that brings top notch glass from Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander into the game with a lot of them weighing between 200 - 500 grams.

heres a quick shot of my niece taken in very low light using the X-Pro1 and 35mm f1.4, ISO 3200 @ f2 if i remember correctly

Vikkilight1_zpsc0d45d8e.jpg
 
southernjessie said:
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.
Click to expand...
Saying d7100 better value difference in IQ would be so little if anything at all, to say far better is exaggerated . They are all capable of producing fantastic results so IQ arguments are pointless.The 50 35 1.8 + the tamron 70-300 vc for the price.a an XT1 body is far better value. The d7100 is a superb camera in its own right, and don't forget 3 or 4 fuji lenses and the bank balance soon goes down:crying:
 
Last edited:
magicaxeman said:
The lenses in general are light, especially in comparison with the equivalent from canon or nikon, take the heaviest of the range so far, the 50-140 f2.8, this weighs in at approx 995 grams compared to approx 1.4-1.5 + kgs for the full frame equivalent (70-200 f2.8) from the major manufacturers, both old and new lenses there coming out are comparably very light, yet robust in build and of top level optical quality, who else has a 56mm f1.2 (85mm f1.2 equivalent) that weighs just 440 grams? or a 90mm f2 (135mm f2) thats just 530 grams? without compromising on iQ? And thats without getting into the world of adapted lenses using the excellent M adaptor that brings top notch glass from Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander into the game with a lot of them weighing between 200 - 500 grams.
Click to expand...

The thing is though...... you get the same aperture as a 70-200 2.8 but in terms of DOF you get F4. So if thats a priority you should compare it to the F4 FF lens. Also, the f2.8 advantage on the Fuji over the F4 FF isnt really an advantage, the FF camera will easily give you 1-2+ stop back in terms of sensor performance to achieve the same shutter speed, especially with Fujis over inflated ISO. The 70-200 F4 VR weighs 850g vs 50-140 995g. Same applies for the 56 1.2, thats a 85mm f2 on FF and the Nikon 85 1.8G is 350g vs 440g of the 56 1.2.
 
Last edited:
magicaxeman said:
Weight is something thats critical for me as I'm severely disabled but iQ is also something thats critical to me as well as low light performance, the only camera's that fitted the bill for me when switching to CSC from DSLR where those from the Fuji range, in particular at the time the X-Pro1 and more recently the XT-1.
Where they won over Sony for me was the range and quality of the lenses as well as the quality and functionality of the bodies.
The lenses in general are light, especially in comparison with the equivalent from canon or nikon, take the heaviest of the range so far, the 50-140 f2.8, this weighs in at approx 995 grams compared to approx 1.4-1.5 + kgs for the full frame equivalent (70-200 f2.8) from the major manufacturers, both old and new lenses there coming out are comparably very light, yet robust in build and of top level optical quality, who else has a 56mm f1.2 (85mm f1.2 equivalent) that weighs just 440 grams? or a 90mm f2 (135mm f2) thats just 530 grams? without compromising on iQ? And thats without getting into the world of adapted lenses using the excellent M adaptor that brings top notch glass from Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander into the game with a lot of them weighing between 200 - 500 grams.
Click to expand...

To be fair @magicaxeman if you are comparing full frame, then you can usually get that stop of difference for low light back through higher ISO, so you shouldn't compare an APS-C f2.8 lens to a FF f2.8 lens

Fuji:
56mm f1.2 - 440g
50-140mm f2.8 - 995g

Nikon
85mm f1.8 - 351g
70-200mm f/4 - 846g

For me, Fuji have gone a bit OTT with their lenses and forgotten to prioritize size and weight as much as they should have done.

edit: basically what @twist said lol

edit2: second time lucky? :p
 
Last edited:
minnnt said:
No pleasing some people...

Cyclist...
Head on...
View: https://youtu.be/8RJtRP42v3k
Click to expand...

Not with that demo either. Again, generous depth-of-field means the focus isn't doing much at all, huge margin for error. And no sequence images.

I'm not knocking CSCs deliberately, just pointing out that they're not yet as good as DSLRs at focusing tricky moving targets, and many of them can't shoot a sequence at all as the focus position locks with the first shot. They will surely get there :)
 
HoppyUK said:
Not with that demo either. Again, generous depth-of-field means the focus isn't doing much at all, huge margin for error. And no sequence images.

I'm not knocking CSCs deliberately, just pointing out that they're not yet as good as DSLRs at focusing tricky moving targets, and many of them can't shoot a sequence at all as the focus position locks with the first shot. They will surely get there :)
Click to expand...
Agree they are not there yet, I'm sure they will.but that's why I won't change I need that and mirrorless won't give me that just yet.
 
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...


You mean when fuji reduce their prices to match a superseded body?. The d7200 (body only) and the XT1 are about £30 price differential.
 
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...

I'm curious. Looking at prices on WEX, the D7100 is £749 and the X-T1 is £879. Where are these 3 excellent lenses for £130?
 
;-)
fabs said:
I'm curious. Looking at prices on WEX, the D7100 is £749 and the X-T1 is £879. Where are these 3 excellent lenses for £130?
Click to expand...
Mine was £463 (grey) I paid £100 each on the primes £250 the tamron
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
You mean when fuji reduce their prices to match a superseded body?. The d7200 (body only) and the XT1 are about £30 price differential.
Click to expand...
Don't want the d7200 it's performance is worse at lower iso how many fuji lenses are cheap?
 
Last edited:
What's the difference? There's little difference in one generation, didn't say you have buy a uk model, just saying what you can get for the same price
 
Last edited:
petert said:
What's the difference? There's little difference in one generation
Click to expand...

But the price will decrease considerably once a model is superseded. The X-T1 hasn't been superseded yet so the price will still be at a premium.
 
petert said:
What's the difference? There's little difference in one generation, didn't say you have buy a uk model, just saying what you can get for the same price
Click to expand...


so comparing like with like then?.........I had a little word with myself about pros not using mirrorless as well. ;)
 
Who Cares? As above just saying what you can get for same price. The XT1 isn't better than the d7100
 
Last edited:
petert said:
Who Cares? As above just saying what can get for same price. The XT1 isn't better than the d7100
Click to expand...

No-one said it was, just that the price comparison wasn't like for like.
 
Oh dear I wasn't comparing like for like, I'm sure I wrote in English
 
Last edited:
petert said:
Oh dear I wasn't comparing like for like, I'm sure I wrote in English
Click to expand...

But if you're going to compare things then you need to compare like for like else it isn't a fair comparison. This is what we've been trying to tell you and I'm damned sure we wrote it in English!
 
What a lot of drivil :p I wasn't comparing are you a bit slow? I WAS SAYING WHAT YOU CAN GET FOR THE SAME PRICE, THAT IS NOT COMPARING
 
Last edited:
You obviously have a problem, might as well talk to a pumpkin
 
Last edited:
petert said:
What a lot of drivil :p I wasn't comparing are you a bit slow? I WAS SAYING WHAT YOU CAN GET FOR THE SAME PRICE, THAT IS NOT COMPARING
Click to expand...


Posts like that could be taken half seriously if the spelling and logic wasn't so laughable
 
A warning has been issued for this post
*Mod edit* That's not really a valid argument nor is it really acceptable as a response to ANY member
 
petert said:
;-)
Mine was £463 (grey) I paid £100 each on the primes £250 the tamron
Click to expand...

fabs said:
I thought I was having a conversation with a grown up. Never mind. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'll try and help Peter and explain this in a way all you simpletons can understand.

What he bought: camera - £463 Lens 1 - £100 Lens 2 - £100 Lens 3 - £250

so 463+100+100+250 = £913 which is the same as the grey price for the X-T1



Oh that doesn't add up, what he obviously means is that £913 is the same as the UK price of the X-T1

No wait I'll get it ! It's the same I tell you!
 
People still.buy the d700 today, because it's a fantastic camera it's age is irrelevant
 
Last edited:
Barrysprout said:
I'll try and help Peter and explain this in a way all you simpletons can understand.

What he bought: camera - £463 Lens 1 - £100 Lens 2 - £100 Lens 3 - £250

so 463+100+100+250 = £913 which is the same as the grey price for the X-T1 the bodies not much good without them



Oh that doesn't add up, what he obviously means is that £913 is the same as the UK price of the X-T1

No wait I'll get it ! It's the same I tell you!
Click to expand...
Then add 3 fuji lenses and how much are we talking then?
 
I can honestly say I never paid £100 for a good quality Nikon prime. I guess maybe you'd get a 50 for that? Or are we talking about cheap several generations old nikons that aren't being compared to new Fuji?
 
The 1.8g please don't try and say it's a crap lens,admittedly I got it cheaper than most
 
Last edited:
The X-T1 can be bought used for around the £600 mark (i.e. on this forum). You can also pick up some lenses (e.g. 18mm, 35mm, 55-200) for around £200-£300 used. The problem I feel is that the Fuji lenses are so good that they out resolve the 16MP sensor on the cameras. Not that 16MP isn't enough, but I just think that when they bring out a 24MP camera (possibly the X-Pro2) this will do the lenses justice.

I agree that Fuji cannot match Nikon/Canon for tracking fast moving subjects - I doubt whether even after the 4.0 update it will come close, but eventually, it probably will. I think there is room for a DSLR and CSC to be used together. No one camera can do everything or be perfect (IQ/features/size/weight, etc).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top