Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Fuji vs Nikon  (Read 19248 times)

Hulyss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 697
    • H.Bowman
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #40 on: January 03, 2015, 12:30:23 PM »

I would be surprised.  I believe 2015 will be the year of Sony and Fuji and Olympus will face increased price pressure from Sony.

Given that the full frame Sony a7II "only" costs $1,700 and the APS-C sensor based Fuji X-T1 $1,300 the margin for price increase for Fuji is relatively small.


I do not really care about the body. Body's, by today standards, should be swapped every 6 months if you follow blindly the brands. Fuji used to use the D200 nikon's body back in the days. Solid camera, awesome sensor and... the lenses.

So my prediction is that Fuji will not jump into 24x36 world. Churning out more than one grand for an APS-C lens is not my cup of tea. I would prefer, of course, buying Full Frame lenses and using it on an APS-C body.

The day that Fuji will start to sell FF lenses, then, I will reconsider my choice.

Fuji lenses are starting to be VERY expensive for an APS-C system (not in the shape of a D300 or D7100).
Logged
Kind Regards -  Hulyss Bowman | hulyssbowman.com |

JV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 996
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #41 on: January 03, 2015, 01:35:33 PM »

So my prediction is that Fuji will not jump into 24x36 world.

My guess would be that they will hold off as long as possible, i.e., as long as their APS-C niche market remains profitable.

Eventually because of competition by Sony I believe they will need to make the jump if they want to keep on charging the prices that they are charging right now.

Churning out more than one grand for an APS-C lens is not my cup of tea.
...
Fuji lenses are starting to be VERY expensive for an APS-C system (not in the shape of a D300 or D7100).

I don't disagree.  It is too much.  That being said, as far as I know there are only two lenses that are more than $1K: the 56mm APD and the 50-140mm zoom.

Certainly the 56mm APD is more of a specialty lens and you can get by perfectly without either of them.  All the primes are below $1K or at the $1K price point.

I have no issues whatsoever with highly priced specialty lenses as long as there are alternatives and I believe there are.

If Fuji however were to price the upcoming 16mm and 90mm primes at let's say $1,300 then I would start agreeing more and more with you.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2015, 02:27:03 PM by JV »
Logged

JV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 996
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #42 on: January 03, 2015, 01:41:57 PM »

A more notable problem is lens prices they need looking at, Sony's E mount prices are also quite awful it's a disincentive for anyone considering moving to the system unless they bring many of their DSLR lenses with adapters.

Agreed.  See also reply above.

Regarding Sony, I have been wanting to pull the trigger on the Sony FE 16-35mm, but a price tag of $1,350 is too high IMO.

Also, from what I can see and read it is a good but not really an exceptional lens.
Logged

Hulyss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 697
    • H.Bowman
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #43 on: January 03, 2015, 02:57:47 PM »

My guess would be that they will hold off as long as possible, i.e., as long as their APS-C niche market remains profitable.

Eventually because of competition by Sony I believe they will need to make the jump if they want to keep on charging the prices that they are charging right now.

I don't disagree.  It is too much.  That being said, as far as I know there are only two lenses that are more than $1K: the 56mm APD and the 50-140mm zoom.

Certainly the 56mm APD is more of a specialty lens and you can get by perfectly without either of them.  All the primes are below $1K or at the $1K price point.

I have no issues whatsoever with highly priced specialty lenses as long as there are alternatives and I believe there are.

If Fuji however were to price the upcoming 16mm and 90mm primes at let's say $1,300 then I would start agreeing more and more with you.


Expensive prime lens can be seen every where. The zooms,in the other hand, are too expensive. I tested the new 50-140 and it is the same dust magnet as other fuji lens. Meanwhile, Sigma did a wonderful innovative lens who open at f1.8 and cost less (and is better build).

The Japan cartel have only one motto : "Never ever totally satisfy a client, never!". 
Logged
Kind Regards -  Hulyss Bowman | hulyssbowman.com |

JV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 996
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #44 on: January 03, 2015, 03:02:41 PM »

Expensive prime lens can be seen every where. The zooms,in the other hand, are too expensive. I tested the new 50-140 and it is the same dust magnet as other fuji lens. Meanwhile, Sigma did a wonderful innovative lens who open at f1.8 and cost less (and is better build).

The Japan cartel have only one motto : "Never ever totally satisfy a client, never!". 

I haven't tested the 50-140 yet so I can't comment on it.

I quite frankly have no idea though what you mean with Fuji lenses being a dust magnet.  I have shot them for over a week in the desert and I have not had any problems...
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2132
    • Photos
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #45 on: January 03, 2015, 03:20:25 PM »

I haven't tested the 50-140 yet so I can't comment on it.

I quite frankly have no idea though what you mean with Fuji lenses being a dust magnet.  I have shot them for over a week in the desert and I have not had any problems...

Probably the fact that on that brought shiny black the specs of dust are more visible and they tend to stick easier than on the matte black of some Nikons. If you have OCD and need to have your gear clean it is a problem.  I could care less even as I do notice it from time to time I got used to it.  So far no problems although most don't have the weather sealing designation of some Nikons.


I also used to think they are expensive but after I got the full frame Nikon I changed my mind; if you don't think about the equivalence thing for comparable field of view, aperture and quality the Fuji are less expensive.
You mention the 50-140 2.8 is expensive; how much is the Nikon 70-200 2.8?

JV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 996
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #46 on: January 03, 2015, 03:41:22 PM »

I also used to think they are expensive but after I got the full frame Nikon I changed my mind; if you don't think about the equivalence thing for comparable field of view, aperture and quality the Fuji are less expensive.
You mention the 50-140 2.8 is expensive; how much is the Nikon 70-200 2.8?

I find it expensive at $1,600 and I especially find it way to heavy, even a lot of medium format lenses weight less than 1KG...

That being said, I am not into zooms, so I don't care too much, I would probably never buy it.

If this lens is as good or better than the Nikon lens then it probably serves its purpose at a lower price (the Nikon is $2,400), the Sony FE 70-200 is only $1,500 though, so the Fuji better be really good.

Logged

Hulyss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 697
    • H.Bowman
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #47 on: January 03, 2015, 06:10:58 PM »

Probably the fact that on that brought shiny black the specs of dust are more visible and they tend to stick easier than on the matte black of some Nikons. If you have OCD and need to have your gear clean it is a problem.  I could care less even as I do notice it from time to time I got used to it.  So far no problems although most don't have the weather sealing designation of some Nikons.

Yea that's it, its the glossy metal finish who pop dust out. The thing is that I own Zeiss lenses for Nikon and they do not act the same with dusts and particles.
Logged
Kind Regards -  Hulyss Bowman | hulyssbowman.com |

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2132
    • Photos
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #48 on: January 03, 2015, 06:37:31 PM »

As I found out at the telephoto range the mirrorless lose most of their advantage size/weight wise.

Quote
If this lens is as good or better than the Nikon lens then it probably serves its purpose at a lower price (the Nikon is $2,400), the Sony FE 70-200 is only $1,500 though, so the Fuji better be really good.
F4 on the Sony, F2.8 on the Fuji. Yes, I know it provides the same DOF but they are not really the same.

JV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 996
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #49 on: January 04, 2015, 07:44:07 PM »

As I found out at the telephoto range the mirrorless lose most of their advantage size/weight wise.
F4 on the Sony, F2.8 on the Fuji. Yes, I know it provides the same DOF but they are not really the same.

In the meanwhile Kevin/Michael have made their observations available:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lenses/working_with_the_fuji_50_140mm_zoom_lens.shtml
It does indeed sound like it is an exceptional lens.
Logged

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #50 on: January 04, 2015, 08:12:47 PM »

In the meanwhile Kevin/Michael have made their observations available:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lenses/working_with_the_fuji_50_140mm_zoom_lens.shtml
It does indeed sound like it is an exceptional lens.

It looks sharp but I'm not overly impressed with the rendering even at the max telephoto
Not that it's bad but a bit edgy and not really as good as I'd like subjective I know but there is more to any lens than pure sharpness rendering is very important too



Logged

Hulyss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 697
    • H.Bowman
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #51 on: January 05, 2015, 02:00:22 AM »

Yes I tested it and it is a sharp lens. But it is a freaking heavy lens. For out of focus rendering I was not sold at all. This lens, even for the price, should be compared to the Nikon 70-200 f4, not the 2.8 (at all).

If an APS-C lens should be big in fuji line, they should have made it f1.2 all the way like the 56.
Logged
Kind Regards -  Hulyss Bowman | hulyssbowman.com |

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #52 on: January 05, 2015, 04:33:04 AM »

Well I've never had a problem with a 70-200mm because it's useful enough on APS-C and full frame I suppose they wanted to keep the size down at least a bit
What hurts Fuji is the lack of third party support IMO

Prices are relative to the lenses and what they are and speed that said the 56mm F1.2 isn't unreasonable for such a fast lens (the first version not the newer one)
35mm F1.4 also a decent price for the lens speed

27mm F2.8 is overpriced for a "kit type pancake prime" the 16-50mm worth getting in a kit deal it's not a great buy outside that (for a kit lens)
Not really sure where the 18mm prime fits in it's just not a focal length I would be interested in, likewise the 18-55mm whilst a bit faster can't really justify it's price either

Bit of a mixed bag really
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2132
    • Photos
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #53 on: January 05, 2015, 09:35:28 AM »

This lens, even for the price, should be compared to the Nikon 70-200 f4, not the 2.8 (at all).

Why is that?
Again F2.8 is still F2.8 regardless of the system. It took me a while to find the truth in this  ;)

I have the Nikon 70-200 F4 and I don't plan to get the Fuji because it is too heavy, similar as the Nikon 70-200 F2.8. If I change my shooting maybe but for now the 55-200 F3.5-4.8 is good enough.

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2132
    • Photos
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #54 on: January 05, 2015, 09:39:46 AM »

Well I've never had a problem with a 70-200mm because it's useful enough on APS-C and full frame I suppose they wanted to keep the size down at least a bit
What hurts Fuji is the lack of third party support IMO

Prices are relative to the lenses and what they are and speed that said the 56mm F1.2 isn't unreasonable for such a fast lens (the first version not the newer one)
35mm F1.4 also a decent price for the lens speed

27mm F2.8 is overpriced for a "kit type pancake prime" the 16-50mm worth getting in a kit deal it's not a great buy outside that (for a kit lens)
Not really sure where the 18mm prime fits in it's just not a focal length I would be interested in, likewise the 18-55mm whilst a bit faster can't really justify it's price either

Bit of a mixed bag really

Fuji has frequent sales. I got the 27 for 200.
The 18-55 is much cheaper if you buy in a kit and I suspect most people will.

Hulyss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 697
    • H.Bowman
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #55 on: January 05, 2015, 03:05:39 PM »

Why is that?
Again F2.8 is still F2.8 regardless of the system. It took me a while to find the truth in this  ;)

I have the Nikon 70-200 F4 and I don't plan to get the Fuji because it is too heavy, similar as the Nikon 70-200 F2.8. If I change my shooting maybe but for now the 55-200 F3.5-4.8 is good enough.

Of course an f2.8 lens is an f2.8 lens. This is the last marketing fashion trick launched by this super pro forum called DP sumthing or some another internet valorous bible  :-*. The 50-140 on a fuji is far from a 70-200 f2.8 on a Nikon just because those lens are strictly different.

We buy telezooms or long lenses generally for two things : Reach and bokeh.

On a 24x36 sensor you have both, especially at 2.8. On an APS-C you will only have the reach. The rest will be close to what you can get with a 70-200 f4 and even, because of the aps-c sensor, modelling is out by a large margin.

So, having an APS-C for landscape, aviation, bif, sport: it is superb. If you want to go serious : increase the size of the sensor.

If you want to be close to the lens drawing and bokeh of a full frame 70-200 f2.8, I repeat, you'll need a 50-140 constant f1.2. >> this is just mater of facts, not forum bickering mixed with dance-floor sorcery.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2015, 03:09:49 PM by Hulyss »
Logged
Kind Regards -  Hulyss Bowman | hulyssbowman.com |

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2132
    • Photos
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #56 on: January 05, 2015, 03:33:36 PM »

So do you think a F2.8 APSC-C is as expensive to make as a F4 or F2.8 on full frame? Never mind it's the only alternative for Fuji.

What I said doesn't come from dpreview (sorry to burst your bubble) but from direct experience after I got the D750 and multiple other sources prior to that.

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2491
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #57 on: January 05, 2015, 05:22:03 PM »

When decent 70–200/2.8 zooms first came on the market, I and the folks I hung out & photographed with looked down our collective nose—and through our 85/1.4, 100/2, 105/1.8 & 135/2 lenses—at them. f/2.8 a fast aperture? A bokeh (a term not then in common use) aperture? Hah! Then of course those zooms sold by the shipping container load, and many peoples' notions of what both a fast lens and a desirable amount of OOF was changed acccordingly. Other people realized you could step back, use a longer focal length and still get your desired OOF at f/2.8. In other words, to a large extent technological advancement drove both taste and technique.

Same thing applies now IMO. The field-of-view range of a 70–200mm lens is fine & dandy for the 35mm format. But with smaller formats I see no compelling reason to duplicate that range. If the new Fuji were an ~f/3.4 lens with ~180mm available at the long end it'd be more to my liking. With m43 I skipped Panasonic's 35–100/2.8 in favor of the new Olympus 40–150/2.8. With or without the matching 1.4x teleconverter I've got a lens that can easily blur out unwanted fore/back-ground info when that's what I want or need. Of course I can't use it for that purpose in the same way as a 70–200 on a 35mm camera…but there's nothing sacred about the latter combo anyway.

-Dave-
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2132
    • Photos
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #58 on: January 05, 2015, 06:27:07 PM »

That 40-150 F2.8 is really nice, almost a good enough reason to buy into the m43 (along with the 12-40 F2.8) as they do have a size advantage and they are weathersealed, a very appealing travel/backpacking package.

Going back to the equivalence part, it matters at some extent only between F2.8 to F4 (35 mm equivalent) IF you really need that DOF and cannot compensate with changing the distances. The exposure time remains the same. This is an advantage of the format by itself.
I believed into this stuff, that for the same DOF the full frame lenses are cheaper on the Nikon vs Fuji until I actually bought the D750. For the same DOF you don't have the same shutter speed (unless you go up on the iso by 1 stop or so) and with shutter shock/mirror slap on the Nikon you are actually behind. To really be ahead you need the nicer lenses for the full frame Nikon at which point the cost advantage goes away.

So far from the full frame lenses that I have I do like a lot the 70-200 F4, it is a very good match for the higher resolution.
I also think the 85 F1.8G is nice (although no great, only above average), but I like the Fuji 56 F1.2 more (despite being DOF equivalent).
The 50 mm version are not that great, the Fuji 35 F1.4 is definitely nicer (I do like the 50 F1.8D on the DX D90). You need the Sigma Art here to be ahead with a significant weight penalty.
The 24-120 is meh, workable but nothing to write home about.

All in all each system has its advantages so I will use them in parallel. If I didn't taste the Fuji poison a more rational approach would be the have 2 systems, m43 and full frame. If CX will improve it might be the light choice. We can go back and forth about claimed superiority but most already made up our minds and will shoot with whatever we feel comfortable with. I'm only an amateur so my needs are totally different (although I like the idea of having 5-6 systems if I can).

Martin Ranger

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 188
    • My Website.
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #59 on: January 05, 2015, 07:20:21 PM »

Of course an f2.8 lens is an f2.8 lens. This is the last marketing fashion trick launched by this super pro forum called DP sumthing or some another internet valorous bible  :-*. The 50-140 on a fuji is far from a 70-200 f2.8 on a Nikon just because those lens are strictly different.

We buy telezooms or long lenses generally for two things : Reach and bokeh.

On a 24x36 sensor you have both, especially at 2.8. On an APS-C you will only have the reach. The rest will be close to what you can get with a 70-200 f4 and even, because of the aps-c sensor, modelling is out by a large margin.

So, having an APS-C for landscape, aviation, bif, sport: it is superb. If you want to go serious : increase the size of the sensor.

If you want to be close to the lens drawing and bokeh of a full frame 70-200 f2.8, I repeat, you'll need a 50-140 constant f1.2. >> this is just mater of facts, not forum bickering mixed with dance-floor sorcery.

[rant]
Well, f2.8 is f2.8, whether you like it or not. Of course, a FF lens has a narrower DOF than an APS-C lens at equivalent focal lengths and the same aperture, but the light transmission of the lens is still roughly the same. Now, if you are into narrow DOF, the 70-200 f2.8 will give you that over the 50-140 2.8. But at the same time, the 50-140 gives you one extra stop of light for the same DOF (give or take) than the 70-200. You prefer the narrow DOF. Fine. Others prefer the extra stop at given DOF. Neither is objectively better. Now whether the Fuji is too expensive, is a completely different matter, and mainly determined by production cost and demand (says the economist in me).

Also, to be honest, I don't understand this obsession with FF, other than a "my sensor is bigger than yours" attitude  ;). Different sensor sizes have different advantages. Neither is more serious. We should be looking at the images we produce with given system, rather than some arbitrary sensor size. After all, if larger was automatically better we would all be shooting 8x10 film.
[/rant]

Disclaimer: I love my Fuji (for anything but sports), use Nikons mostly for work, and would be shooting MF film all the time if I could :)
« Last Edit: January 05, 2015, 07:26:41 PM by Martin Ranger »
Logged
Martin Ranger
Seattle, WA

www.martinrangerimages.com
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up