Fuji X-T1 review - Part II

[barryfitzgerald]

There is one very obvious difference with micro 4/3 and APS-C and it's simply this.
APS-C shooter probably has some FF lenses in their collection, you can easily offload crop lenses if you make a move to full frame entirely.

The DSLR battle is far from over, there is one obvious push area left. Canikon moving their crop shooters to full frame, I would expect a "genuinely affordable" full frame to appear from both makers soon, and by that I mean sub £1000 for a body.

The ILC makers have to compete against the huge system that Canon has, a lot of people have bought into their lenses on various mounts and they will need more reasons to move than just size. I think it's pretty clear that Canon are not going to give up their mount, and they can't because it would be suicide to do so. I can't see a situation where any of the ILC makers will be in a position to dominate the market even years down the road. People complain Canon are complacent and slow..and ignoring mirrorless. But they still seem to be the brand of choice for many.

I can't honestly think of any obvious advantage bar size I would gain by offloading my inventory and buying into one of the ILC systems. I would absolutely be worse off and out of pocket doing so. Even starting from scratch, whilst the Fuji system is interesting..it's not mature enough for my needs. Maybe in 3-5 years we can revisit this and see where things are going

[jjj]

OVF's with 35mm dslrs throw you.  They all look two stops down from wide open and I've tested this a lot doing background plates.

Max aperture re DoF with Canon focusing screens is effectively f2.8, so manually focusing any lens faster than f2.8 is a crapshoot.
Not any issue with lenses f2.8 or slower.

[John Camp]

There is one very obvious difference with micro 4/3 and APS-C and it's simply this.
APS-C shooter probably has some FF lenses in their collection, you can easily offload crop lenses if you make a move to full frame entirely.

<snip>

I can't honestly think of any obvious advantage bar size I would gain by offloading my inventory and buying into one of the ILC systems. I would absolutely be worse off and out of pocket doing so. Even starting from scratch, whilst the Fuji system is interesting..it's not mature enough for my needs. Maybe in 3-5 years we can revisit this and see where things are going

I've argued many times that the size advantage is the ONLY reason to buy m4/3 cameras for serious photography. I don't know of anybody who wouldn't prefer the quality and flexibility of a full-frame sensor -- or even a MF camera -- to a m4/3, EXCEPT for size (and in the case of MF, the cost) of the camera bodies and lenses. I don't doubt that the full-frame makers will push FF down below $1,000, but all that will do is strand a lot of APS-C shooters. You can't offload those lenses so easily if nobody wants them, because FF has gotten really cheap.

But there are a lot of people like me (and bcooter, apparently) who have reasons to prefer m4/3 purely because of the size of the cameras, and the size of the lenses. I have a full Nikon kit, a D800 and perhaps eight lenses, but hardly ever use it anymore, because it's too big for what I'm doing now. Sometimes when I'm looking at shots on taken on Main Street in Santa Monica or MacArthur Park in downtown LA I'll wish I'd had a larger sensor so that I could blow up the image more, for a little better look at what I'm shooting, but I'd rather have the slightly too-small image than having to remove my large camera from my ass, where somebody stuck it after noticing what I was doing. I doubt FF and APS-C camera will get much smaller than they are now (say, the size of a D800/600) because then you start running into ergonomic problems involving the balance of those large lenses.

[jjj]

I doubt FF and APS-C camera will get much smaller than they are now (say, the size of a D800/600) because then you start running into ergonomic problems involving the balance of those large lenses.

1. You don't have to use big lenses.  I use my 5Ds with primes and a smaller camera body would actually improve balance.
2. The Sony A7 cameras are pretty darn tiny, so it's already started.
3. 35mm film cameras were mostly minute compared to today's equivalent sized sensor bodies. They coped.

[jjj]

I've argued many times that the size advantage is the ONLY reason to buy m4/3 cameras for serious photography. I don't know of anybody who wouldn't prefer the quality and flexibility of a full-frame sensor -- or even a MF camera -- to a m4/3, EXCEPT for size (and in the case of MF, the cost) of the camera bodies and lenses.

Er... BCooter has often mention how much he likes the shots from his OMDs and can be better to work with than his 1Dx

[Telecaster]

I've argued many times that the size advantage is the ONLY reason to buy m4/3 cameras for serious photography. I don't know of anybody who wouldn't prefer the quality and flexibility of a full-frame sensor -- or even a MF camera -- to a m4/3, EXCEPT for size (and in the case of MF, the cost) of the camera bodies and lenses.

I also like using f/1.4 in low light and getting useful DOF at that aperture. With the fast Voigtländers f/1.4 takes you into sweet spot territory...decreased corner falloff, improved contrast, resolution and saturation. As someone who has loved available darkness photography since film days with Delta 3200 these things are big pluses.

-Dave-

[Manoli]

The ILC makers have to compete against the huge system that Canon has, a lot of people have bought into their lenses on various mounts and they will need more reasons to move than just size.

Not necessarily - one of the main advantages of the CSC's is exactly that - INTEROPERABILITY. Just look at some of the threads in this forum to understand how many Canon shooters (and pros to boot) have added the A7 to their arsenal. All it takes is an adapter. None of them ditched their other systems. And not just Canon.

...  all that will do is strand a lot of APS-C shooters. You can't offload those lenses so easily if nobody wants them, because FF has gotten really cheap.

Very true and a very good reason to keep 'valued' glass.

But there are a lot of people like me (and bcooter, apparently) who have reasons to prefer m4/3 purely because of the size of the cameras, and the size of the lenses. I have a full Nikon kit, a D800 and perhaps eight lenses, but hardly ever use it anymore ..

I did too. Sold the D800 and kept the lenses, all primes. As to why ? - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=85282.msg693686#msg693686 - do I regret it ? For the moment, not one bit.

1. You don't have to use big lenses.   I use my 5Ds with primes and a smaller camera body would actually improve balance.
2. The Sony A7 cameras are pretty darn tiny, so it's already started.
3. 35mm film cameras were mostly minute compared to today's equivalent sized sensor bodies. They coped.

Jeremy,
Another one of your nail-on-the-head posts!

I suspect that you'd probably enjoy using a CSC , no HSS sync (but you'll still have your main system) - why don't you borrow or rent a camera, add an adapter and try it ? Bottom line: if you decide that you like it, an x-trans can be bought for about $900 new plus an adapter.

In the end, I did sell the Nikon(s) and now I use the x-trans and an A7r - i've got the sony 55 and two fujinons but I use the 'other' primes most of the time. I ain't going back, but if there is a new body I may buy it again. Should I really need it for some reason, I can always rent one. Just don't sell your Leica, Zeiss or Canikon FF lenses.

M

[jjj]

Manoli - I really, really fancy a smaller camera to complement my lumpy/weighty kit. Been after something to replace my pocket 35mm film camera for 10+ years and now the market finally seems to be getting there.
The issue now is that I want an X-T1+ lenses and an OMD-1 + lenses and a SonyA7r + a couple of lenses as they are all really good cameras. 
I can't really justify them all for business reasons and girlfriend would have a fit if I bought even more kit whilst our house is being completely renovated. Plus a new computer would be of more use at the moment and am waiting for Apple to refresh the MBP range to decide where to spend my money.

[jjj]

I also like using f/1.4 in low light and getting useful DOF at that aperture. With the fast Voigtländers f/1.4 takes you into sweet spot territory...decreased corner falloff, improved contrast, resolution and saturation. As someone who has loved available darkness photography since film days with Delta 3200 these things are big pluses.

A very useful advantage. f1.4 on FF is actually too shallow for most people, most of the time anyway. F2.8 can be surprisingly little all DoF at times!

[John Camp]

Er... BCooter has often mention how much he likes the shots from his OMDs and can be better to work with than his 1Dx

You've drawn an implicit parallel that's false. Would he like the OMDs even better if they had ALL the other qualities of the Olympus (the size advantages, the color rendering, the autofocus speed and accuracy, etc.) AND had the real estate of a FF sensor? I think he would. Maybe he'll tell us. But I doubt that he likes the Oly simply because the sensor is small.

[John Camp]

1. You don't have to use big lenses.  I use my 5Ds with primes and a smaller camera body would actually improve balance.
2. The Sony A7 cameras are pretty darn tiny, so it's already started.
3. 35mm film cameras were mostly minute compared to today's equivalent sized sensor bodies. They coped.

1. You're absolutely right. Good for you. The large majority of people, however, use zooms, and they ain't small.
2. The Sony NEX cameras -- now discontinued -- were even smaller. But their lenses weren't.
3. I had every top-end Nikon camera between the F3 and F5, and they weren't small. I still have an F5, and I can't think it was much smaller than a D800. [Did a quick Google check: it appears that the D800 is about 7 ounces lighter than an F5.]

[Manoli]

You've drawn an implicit parallel that's false. Would he like the OMDs even better if they had ALL the other qualities of the Olympus (the size advantages, the color rendering, the autofocus speed and accuracy, etc.) AND had the real estate of a FF sensor? I think he would. Maybe he'll tell us. But I doubt that he likes the Oly simply because the sensor is small.

I think he already has - see, amongst many others, post #18 above. It's not 'BECAUSE the sensor is small' , it's 'IN SPITE of the sensor being small'.

[Manoli]

... I'd rather have the slightly too-small image than having to remove my large camera from my ass, where somebody stuck it after noticing what I was doing.

What WERE you doing ?

[jjj]

1. You're absolutely right. Good for you. The large majority of people, however, use zooms, and they ain't small.

But those who want small cameras may also want small lenses and those who do not can buy bigger bodies. The bit you seem to be missing is that people want options and that a lot of people are fed up with carrying heavy cameras with big lenses. Even pros.

2. The Sony NEX cameras -- now discontinued -- were even smaller. But their lenses weren't.

Except you were claiming that FF + APC cameras would not get that small, so that only adds more evidence to the fact your assertion was incorrect.
 

3. I had every top-end Nikon camera between the F3 and F5, and they weren't small. I still have an F5, and I can't think it was much smaller than a D800. [Did a quick Google check: it appears that the D800 is about 7 ounces lighter than an F5.]

Newsflash!! Cameras other than Nikon ones were available and could be pretty darn compact and even Nikon branded cameras could be a lot smaller than their 'top-end' models. Also of note, it's not like the 'top-end' cameras took better pictures or anything as they all used the same film with the same lenses.
Here's an F6 [apparently D700 size] next to an FM2.


Another point for you to consider. This may be a tricky one and you may need to sit down to take it in, as it could be a bit of a shock to you. Other people have different needs from you.

[jjj]

You've drawn an implicit parallel that's false. Would he like the OMDs even better if they had ALL the other qualities of the Olympus (the size advantages, the color rendering, the autofocus speed and accuracy, etc.) AND had the real estate of a FF sensor? I think he would.

Actually, BCooter has stated shallow DoF, the main reason people like FF cameras is overrated. And a small sensor's optical 'drawbacks' can be positives for some types of work.
Not even sure what your argument is. Some people are choosing these smaller cameras because they are different from tools that already possess.

Maybe he'll tell us. But I doubt that he likes the Oly simply because the sensor is small.

Uh, has anyone even argued that point?

[barryfitzgerald]

I know a few people who have micro 4/3 stuff and they think that an OMD Full frame (ie 35mm FF) is a good idea
One has quite a collection of OM FF lenses too which I'm sure they could use on such a body.

[jjj]

I know a few people who have micro 4/3 stuff and they think that an OMD Full frame (ie 35mm FF) is a good idea
One has quite a collection of OM FF lenses too which I'm sure they could use on such a body.

Yup and me too.
Preferably the same size as the OM cameras and with the same huge viewfinder.

[thebatman]

You see it all the time now, in commerce and art, a persons face and the background is a blur of blown out white blobs and that's not interesting, it's just stuff.

Thanks BC for the detailed and thoughtful reply.  I also realized I was not being precise in my language.  What I'm really after I think is not so much shallow DOF, but rather the wide-angle-shallow-DOF look (call it the "humans of new york" look, for lack of a better word, although I think he uses a 50mm).

If I'm correct that is the one area where m43 can't really keep up with bigger sensor formats.  Obviously FF (or bigger) would be best from this, but to my eye APS-C can at least partially get there.  Any thoughts on that specifically? 

(P.S. Getting an XT1, 56mm and 23mm on rental so I'll be able to compare to my EM-5)

[jjj]

Thanks BC for the detailed and thoughtful reply.  I also realized I was not being precise in my language.  What I'm really after I think is not so much shallow DOF, but rather the wide-angle-shallow-DOF look (call it the "humans of new york" look, for lack of a better word, although I think he uses a 50mm).

Rarely wide angle at all. He just uses a wide aperture at times to reduce DoF and uses a 5D I believe.

If I'm correct that is the one area where m43 can't really keep up with bigger sensor formats.  Obviously FF (or bigger) would be best from this, but to my eye APS-C can at least partially get there.  Any thoughts on that specifically? 

The DoF difference between FF and APSc is quite marked[with same lens/settings]. I had a crop sensor, never really liked it myself.
f4, which is not seen as wide on a FF still has noticeable fall off of DoF even with a 16mm - subject being relatively close that is. This DoF trait suits some people/jobs, but not others.

Even if you do not go to the ultra shallow DoF, FF looks different from smaller sensors unless you use quite small apertures.
This shot was taken with 16mm at f5. Subject is a little over a metre away, so not exactly close and she is clearly separated from backdrop by DoF or lack of. Bottom of shot is cropped off BTW to make it square.

.

[barryfitzgerald]

Depends.
I've read reviews saying even FF users should forget about a 70-200mm f4 as it's not shallow enough DOF.
Yet I've not had any problems with my 70-210mm f4 Minolta getting decent OOF areas on a crop sensor (and I use it on FF 35mm too)

It's subjective APS-C is probably sufficient for shallow DOF control (subject to lenses used etc)
FF is obviously better by just over a stop

One reason Fuji have a new 56mm f1.2 (and it looks good from what I've seen) is to tip the balance for DOF control ie faster aperture. Same reason micro 4/3 users move to faster lenses to help with DOF control. Depends on what you do or want, but whilst I agree the APS-C to FF DOF difference is clear, I don't agree that its a massive as some suggest.