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

jojo90 said:
MF cameras are crazy cheap nowadays, film isn't too bad, and if you process at home it's very reasonable. 12 (ish) frames per roll makes you think a hell of a lot more about the shot. The experience of shooting with something like a Rolleiflex blows away anything FF+Digital. The thing is, unless you need instant results, I'd wager £3k spent on MF Film Vs £3k on FF digital would yield more keepers, those keepers would have a much higher resolution, be more organic looking, be sharper, and have spot on colours & amazing tones.
Click to expand...

Mf film cameras are cheap. Then there ongoing costs, time involved and a good scanner.

I don't think it would yield more keepers, I need good af, to easily see my results and more than just 12 shots. If film mf was so great everyone would use it. Facts are not many people need mf and there are major downsides to it like all formats. How does your camera perform at iso 20k?
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised there has been no mention of Lens Turbo, Metabones Speedbooster etc.

I use a LensTurbo II on my Fuji X-E1 with a Pentax 50mm f1.4 and love it. The disadvantage of course being the lack of auto focus.
 
twist said:
Mf film cameras are cheap. Then there ongoing costs, time involved and a good scanner.

I don't think it would yield more keepers, I need good af, to easily see my results and more than just 12 shots. If film mf was so great everyone would use it. Facts are not many people need mf and there are major downsides to it like all formats. How does your camera perform at iso 20k?
Click to expand...

Randomly I'm reading a Magnum book right now - 'Magnum Contact Sheets' (the extra large version :)), found it for half price in Waterstones! It's cool because it shows the contact sheets behind some of the greatest images of the 20th century, kind of like a window into the photographers mind.

There are some epic photographs in there and I doubt any were shot with AF or at ISO 20k. It's a shame really that today those seminal images would be lost in a sea of bokeh and pictures of dogs, or worse - bookeh pictures of dogs!

Either way my point still holds - no point sweating over APSC Vs FF, the differences are marginal at best, and format only becomes important from an image 'feel' perspective when you hit MF and above. For those odd times when the FF bug comes in then just buy an OM10 + 50mm 1.8 for £30, shoot with it, get it developed for 2 quid at ASDA, marvel at the colours & grain, then go back to APSC :).
 
Last edited:
I'm in the business of selling my fast heavy lenses. The Bokeh is just intrusive really for my needs. The speed is only useful for me if it's late at night, whilst everyone is standing in a nice line along the plane, and not moving much. Subject isolation can be useful when i'm feeling lazy. My camera goes to I think 200K ISO, but there are very few times for my needs that i'd ever go much into the thousands as I don't shoot sports.

I'd love to get a film MF camera at some point as i'd enjoy slowing things down. I just don''t have the space for all the bits at the moment!

One negative about APSC though is that it's more difficult to find UW lenses the smaller down the formats you head.
 
pridash said:
As in the title, anyone made the switch and regretted it purely for this reason? I tend to be a DOF junkie, although for portraiture I'm normally at around f2 to have more keepers. I'm thinking the XT1 at 1.2/1.4 would give a similar look.

I'm contemplating the switch as my needs have changed a lot. In particular I'm attracted to the weight of the XT1 compared to my usual 5D3+35L combo, without a major sacrifice in image quality...particularly when travelling. Talking of which, at times I've left the DSLR behind and purely relied on my phone (LG G3 - which has a fantastic camera btw) when I'm away. Having a smaller and lighter package would mean that I would carry it around more often...me thinks.

I'm sure many would advise having both systems, but I can't really justify that, especially since I'm not shooting much professionally and don't intend to for the foreseeable future - funny how circumstances change so quickly!
Click to expand...

My advice would be to not rely on bokeh for portraiture, I get it, subject isolation and all that, DoF is one of the key creative parameters but perhaps try a few portraiture sessions without it. Try and capture your subject with something wider to take in the environment. You would probably end up with something far more interesting than the usual 'focus on the eyes and blur the background' images (that I'm guilty of myself on occation :)).
 
rich_ said:
I'm in the business of selling my fast heavy lenses. The Bokeh is just intrusive really for my needs. The speed is only useful for me if it's late at night, whilst everyone is standing in a nice line along the plane, and not moving much. Subject isolation can be useful when i'm feeling lazy. My camera goes to I think 200K ISO, but there are very few times for my needs that i'd ever go much into the thousands as I don't shoot sports.

I'd love to get a film MF camera at some point as i'd enjoy slowing things down. I just don''t have the space for all the bits at the moment!

One negative about APSC though is that it's more difficult to find UW lenses the smaller down the formats you head.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you can collect quite a lot of stuff, especially if you process colour at home! I'm not sure where things are with APSC (it's been a while since I've had an interchangeable APSC SLR) but on m4/3 there is the excellent 7-14 (14-28 FF) that's served me very well over the years. I do on occasion wish it was wider than 7mm tho!
 
pridash said:
With regard to weight I used to feel the same, but not so much anymore - particularly because I travel a lot. Lugging a DSLR and lenses around all day isn't as comfortable for me now. Not interested in shooting sports at all (actually don't think I've ever shot sports) so speed isn't a worry...but dof is, hence my concern about losing the look of FF if I switched to Fuji.
Click to expand...

If you travel then going smaller is a no-brainer. I carried all of this in a small shoulder bag that would typically take say a D7000 + 2 small primes :


-X100S
-Ricoh GR
-GoPro
-OMD E-M5 +
--45mm f1.8
--14mm f2.5
--25mm f0.95
--25mm f1.4
--75mm f1.8
--7-14mm f4
--Panasonic fisheye (can't remember the focal length - sold it)

After 18 months backpacking in Asia it was the smartest decision I even made. It might seem like a lot but it hardly weighed anything and fitted in a tiny bag if packed properly!

I'd even recommend going as small as the Pentax Q... or go for something random like an Instax Wide :D

If I had my time again I'd probably go for something like the X-Pro1 + 2 or 3 lenses (for the amazing sensor and form factor) or an X100T + wide & tele adapters. This wasn't an option at the time..
 
Last edited:
I have the 12-40mm for an Oly EM-1, So I might look into the 7-14 if its anywhere near as good, although I've never really needed to zoom with an UW, I use a Voigtlander 15mm typically when i want a wide angle as its 150gms! but when popping it on a friends Sony cropped camera it became a very boring 21mm.!.. Will have to see when my gf returns my OMD back from her travels.
 
jojo90 said:
There are some epic photographs in there and I doubt any were shot with AF or at ISO 20k. It's a shame really that today those seminal images would be lost in a sea of bokeh and pictures of dogs, or worse - bookeh pictures of dogs!

Either way my point still holds - no point sweating over APSC Vs FF, the differences are marginal at best, and format only becomes important from an image 'feel' perspective when you hit MF and above. For those odd times when the FF bug comes in then just buy an OM10 + 50mm 1.8 for £30, shoot with it, get it developed for 2 quid at ASDA, marvel at the colours & grain, then go back to APSC :).
Click to expand...

There are also epic photos shot more recently with ff af setups. I think it's fantastic that photography has really taken off with digital, there's a lot of crap but that crap is important to whoever took it and there's also a hell of a lot of good work out there.

Ive noticed a fairly large difference when moving up a sensor size and I've owned most of them.

When a digital mf camera can do what my ff can and cost a similar amount then I'll buy one. Until then, it's not a flexible enough format for me.
 
rich_ said:
I have the 12-40mm for an Oly EM-1, So I might look into the 7-14 if its anywhere near as good, although I've never really needed to zoom with an UW, I use a Voigtlander 15mm typically when i want a wide angle as its 150gms! but when popping it on a friends Sony cropped camera it became a very boring 21mm.!.. Will have to see when my gf returns my OMD back from her travels.
Click to expand...

To be honest I use the 7-14mm as a prime, 90% of the shots are at 7mm. The 7-14mm is great with a couple of caveats:
-Purple flare on my OM-D M5
-Images can look overly digital - this can work with or against you, depending on the subject.

Generally this translates to: everything looks great, but sometimes people shots can look 'off', and watch your light source.
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit late coming on this thread, but my tuppence worth. I bought the X-pro 1 18 months ago and fell in love with the Fuji X system, I was using primes, 18mm and 35mm. I moved these on and bought the 18-55mm and 55-200 and more recently the 18-135. All fantastic lenses.
I then bought an X100S and was blown away with it. I upgraded to the X100T a couple of months after. More recently I've bought the XT1 and it's an amazing camera. I love the output from the Fuji X cameras. TBH I've missed focus on a few shots, especially of my grandson with all my X cameras, but I'm hoping the firmware upgrade for the XT1 will significantly improve this.
The only downside is my Canon 5D3 is rarely used this year. I bought a 24-70mm F4 L a couple of months back and had a brief spell using the 5D3 with this lens, but I'd forgotten how big and heavy the Canon gear is. I can't bear to sell it on though, it's light years ahead of the Fuji for video, and for sports (rugby) photography.
 
jimgallaher said:
I'm a bit late coming on this thread, but my tuppence worth. I bought the X-pro 1 18 months ago and fell in love with the Fuji X system, I was using primes, 18mm and 35mm. I moved these on and bought the 18-55mm and 55-200 and more recently the 18-135. All fantastic lenses.
I then bought an X100S and was blown away with it. I upgraded to the X100T a couple of months after. More recently I've bought the XT1 and it's an amazing camera. I love the output from the Fuji X cameras. TBH I've missed focus on a few shots, especially of my grandson with all my X cameras, but I'm hoping the firmware upgrade for the XT1 will significantly improve this.
The only downside is my Canon 5D3 is rarely used this year. I bought a 24-70mm F4 L a couple of months back and had a brief spell using the 5D3 with this lens, but I'd forgotten how big and heavy the Canon gear is. I can't bear to sell it on though, it's light years ahead of the Fuji for video, and for sports (rugby) photography.
Click to expand...

Wildlife to I would like to go smaller but mirrorless don't have the focusing or lenses yet
 
Johnshears1 said:
I'm surprised there has been no mention of Lens Turbo, Metabones Speedbooster etc.

I use a LensTurbo II on my Fuji X-E1 with a Pentax 50mm f1.4 and love it. The disadvantage of course being the lack of auto focus.
Click to expand...

Probably because they are very expensive. Perhaps if I had some truly exceptional MF glass I'd invest, but my pentax 50mm f1.4 is staying with my Pentax ME and Ektar 100 - a stunning combination.
 
manualfocus-g said:
LOL! I'm assuming Peter hasn't used a Fuji :)
Click to expand...
Not for wildlife so.what's a good combo? would certainly try and see how It compares, what wildlife lenses do fuji have? I'm going by previous experience with the Fuji I had.
 
Last edited:
minnnt said:
TBH it's poor. The new focusing system within the X-T's has helped no end and once they get their act together with the new 100-400 it will make it a decent choice for some people.
Click to expand...
That's my point though im not slamming mirrorless but obviously they still have some work to do in some areas. There will always be a market for dslr and they will improve to, Nikon and Canon wont rest on their laurels, well I wouldn't think so.
 
petert said:
That's my point though im not slamming mirrorless but obviously they still have some work to do in some areas. There will always be a market for dslr and they will improve to, Nikon and Canon wont rest on their laurels, well I wouldn't think so.
Click to expand...

But maybe only for a tiny number of people and that tiny number may have to wait a few more years but I'd guess that there's an equally tiny number of people with their own special needs and their own minority requirements who are better served by CSC's today and then there's the majority of the great unwashed masses who'd probably never notice the difference and would be equally well served by either a DSLR or a CSC and for those the bulk and weight saving CSC's offer could well be enough to sway the deal.
 
It's not a case imo that one is better than the other though I still feel dslr is better in some areas, though in most either will do you well, it depends what you prefer to hold but obviously mirrorless has the weight and size advantage. Though I can't understand those that use adapters and their nikon/canon lenses on a mirrorless body, I really see little point or advantage in that.
 
Last edited:
petert said:
It's not a case imo that one is better than the other though I still feel dslr is better in some areas, though in most either will do you well, it depends what you prefer to hold but obviously mirrorless has the weight and size advantage. Though I can't understand those that use adapters and their nikon/canon lenses on a mirrorless body, I really see little point or advantage in that.
Click to expand...

1... And CSC's are better in others.
2... Better image quality. Canon are behind the SATA at the mo.
 
Last edited:
Well you could go on and on about this is that,.that is this etc etc :-S end of the day they all take pictures and only pixel peeping can you tell differences with iq which is pointless for most people most of the time
If you took a dozen pictures with a dozen different cameras no one would get 12 out of 12 as to which took which.
 
Last edited:
Mirrorless will get to the point where it does everything, including autofocus, adequately well such that SLRs become a niche option. Why carry an extra mirror and AF unit around unless you absolutely have to?

Look at this:

image002.png

It's happening, just a matter of time.
 
JYC said:
Mirrorless will get to the point where it does everything, including autofocus, adequately well such that SLRs become a niche option. Why carry an extra mirror and AF unit around unless you absolutely have to?

Look at this:

image002.png

It's happening, just a matter of time.
Click to expand...
I've no doubt, I was walking around London at the weekend in the tourist areas and I did notice the vast majority had dslrs, of course that will probably change, will be interesting to see. I was expecting the opposite tbh but it's not happening yet.
 
@petert still a lot more DSLRs sold than Mirrorless tbh. Will be many years before I would expect that to switch over.
 
I was surprised but tbh I don't think they will take over, they may become the majority but I think there will be always be a lot of dslr users but that will depend on what nikanon produce, only time will tell.
 
Last edited:
I also noticed a lot of bridge cameras and with rx10ii coming out, they're also a good option for many.That may hamper mirrorless and dslr sales
 
Thanks for the input. Sorry if I was unclear higher up in the posts. I already own a 15mm Voigtlander 4.5 which i use for UW. I was initially commenting that their aren't as many UW's available the smaller down the formats you progress. Good to hear there are fisheye UW prime options for M43.

twist said:
defish
Click to expand...
 
petert said:
Well you could go on and on about this is that,.that is this etc etc :-S end of the day they all take pictures and only pixel peeping can you tell differences with iq which is pointless for most people most of the time
If you took a dozen pictures with a dozen different cameras no one would get 12 out of 12 as to which took which.
Click to expand...

This is a gear forum and we're all anal geeks so of course IQ matters :D
 
woof woof said:
This is a gear forum and we're all anal geeks so of course IQ matters :D
Click to expand...
Didn't say iq doesn't matter just said about differences are minimal or not worth noticing in the real world, forget the anal geek :-D
 
Last edited:
What about Olympus om 5mk 2 ! I've played with one and came close to selling my nikon fx and everything! It's a beauty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top