Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Fuji vs Nikon  (Read 32913 times)

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #60 on: January 05, 2015, 08:18:38 pm »

I don't object to the focal range (ie the APS-C equivalent) it makes some sense but as I've said there isn't a lot gained here a bit of size and weight about it (maybe more important for smaller ILC cameras)

Personally I think Fuji are boxing themselves in longer term by making all their lenses APS-C if they ever go to FF they will have a lot of work to do (just thinking ahead 3-4 years or so) I'm quite happy with APS-C myself though I dabble with FF mostly 35mm film

Regarding bokeh and lens speed etc I can assure you I get stellar bokeh from my Minolta 70-210mm F4 on APS-C even, let alone full frame no problems at all getting a very nice defocused background. The quality of blur isn't defined purely on lens speed it's possible to get good effects even with ho hum bokeh lenses if you have enough separation from the subject/background it's mostly about smoothness and longer focal lengths ensure that this is why I would prefer the normal 200mm (or in my case 210mm) rather than a shorter focal length. The Fuji looks mixed for bokeh outlining seems to be a problem on some shots (it's ok for others where the background is smashed to bits) just about any lens can smash the background apart and look fine though.

It's not bad but it's not amazing either probably partly down to the shorter focal range, most faster tele zooms do better at the top end than the shorter end for blur just about every lens I've used has shown this. There is more to any lens than pure sharpness rendering is important and some (not all) of Fuji's offerings disappoint me on this part they don't have the magic touch the Minolta optical designers had sharp is great but smooth is very important too.
Logged

Martin Ranger

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
    • My Website.
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #61 on: January 05, 2015, 08:55:19 pm »

Personally I think Fuji are boxing themselves in longer term by making all their lenses APS-C if they ever go to FF they will have a lot of work to do (just thinking ahead 3-4 years or so) I'm quite happy with APS-C myself though I dabble with FF mostly 35mm film

Barry, I am not sure it makes sense commercially to offer both APS-C and FF systems as I don't see many people purchase both. (Wishful) thinking ahead 3-4 years it might be a better idea for a company like Fuji that doesn't have a legacy of FF lenses to supplement their APS-C with something larger than FF. All IMO of course.

Martin
Logged
Martin Ranger
Seattle, WA

www.martinrangerimages.com

Hulyss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 734
    • H.Bowman
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #62 on: January 06, 2015, 04:29:29 am »

[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 :)

Arbitrary sensor size ... I started photo with a Minox and... I'm below 40 Yo. APS-C is an error, a forced format. Back in the days I remember when those strange films was introduced and it was just a nightmare. By today costs of production (see Sony), every body should profit of 24x36, it is a minimum. I do not really care about maths, I only trust my eyes, experience and what I learnt in many traineeships (Louis lumière). I do not say that the fuji system is bad (it is a dumb proof camera) but I say it is kinda a waste of money. Some ppl see only fun in camera and some see only tools (and some both). I see the tools... as the real photo schools see it. If you want progression in overall IQ you have no choice than jumping into larger formats (this is a fact, not my own delirium).

When you go out of a long photo traineeship in well known photo schools (not local clubs), they almost lead you into MF, directly. Those schools and your status of student give you large advantages on refurbished MF gear (hassy, in France). A lot of those students establish themselves pro asap and already have : skills, adequate material, address book >> more than many of us can build in 10 years. They can almost teach photo.

APS-C and below are just niche markets. Fuji, Sigma, Pentax are just niche markets. APS-C from the big brands like Canon or Nikon are for ppl who enter photography and sometime they do not even know what is APS-C and FF (true story). So at the end APS-C was for ppl with no big money to invest seriously at first. Pro APS-C body's was for wildlife photo, more light lenses and reach (this time is now over).   

The larger the sensor the better the transitions. Smooth yet sharp.

A D700 churn out more pleasing pictures than the fuji, overall. A D800 >> you take a blast. A 645D or equivalent in Hassy or Phase >> you take a big blast. Larger sensor >> you take even more a huge blast. Linoff technica >> you scream and cry just looking at the reversibles. Above ?? >> it start to be epic.

My wish is that most of you can own and use sensors even more large than 24x36 and this will maybe be true. What I see is that APS-C is slowly dying and 24x36 slowly resurrecting. In big brands you have almost the same choice of gear between APS-C and 24x36 [(and it is just a start)+(it is a good thing)].

The second hand market of used 24x36 dslr or Milc is starting to explode. For a newcomer in photography what is the best deal, IQ wise ? investing in a niche APS-C system or in a slightly used D610 or A7 ?? you know the answer.

It is why I think that before 5 to 7 years, brands such as mamyia/leaf, fuji (yes fuji), sony and maybe some other big boys will produce compact fixed lens MF cameras for under 4k. So the equilibrium will be restored : MF and FF. All the rest will be done with smartphones.

If tomorrow Leica say : "Ok, after long studies, we decided to resurrect the R system, using the M9 sensor". HA !! So many ppl will fancy this new (if correctly priced).

So I do not rant, I just wish that most of us can enjoy real IQ (modeling, transitions) for less money and my little finger tell me this is what's going on actually.
Logged
Kind Regards -  Hulyss Bowman | hulyssbowman.com |

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #63 on: January 06, 2015, 05:33:20 am »

Couple of points regarding Fuji's choice of APS-C only so far it depends a lot on what they plan. Smaller formats like micro 4/3 will also be under pressure longer term
Not that there isn't a market for crop sensors there is but "at a certain price" it's going to get harder to justify the cost longer term both bodies and lenses.

I am not unhappy with APS-C myself it does however mean my wide angle FF lenses are not very useful (my primes and tele zooms are still of some use)
Fuji will have a hard job trying to get the asking price for the X-T1 and some top end lenses when FF bodies are coming down in price. However uninteresting I find Sony's E mount the A7 is now £799 that is cheaper than the APS-C Fuji X-T1 a simple adaptor allows me to use my FF lenses. I cannot see why (despite being a Fuji and Sony user) I have any real incentive to dump my gear and move to Fuji X entirely.

I don't agree that FF is a minimum requirement for everyone but many of us have FF lenses on various mounts Fuji are going to have to offer some better value in order to nab a certain segment of the market, FF is only going one place and that is cheaper over time. Situation is probably even more pressing for Micro 4/3 eventually it will become the budget offering of crop sensors. I'm just saying that as I find the investment cost of Fuji X to be off putting and this includes the newer lens releases like the fast tele zoom why pay over the odds when I can buy a very capable Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 SP Di USD for quite a bit less

Fuji might not have to deal with a legacy 35mm lens mount, but they do have to deal with a lot of users who have legacy lenses and that's the stumbling block
In layman's terms it's simple crop bodies/lenses = cheaper if that isn't the case I lose interest rapidly
Logged

dchew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1020
    • Dave Chew Photography
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #64 on: January 06, 2015, 06:16:06 am »

Barry, I am not sure it makes sense commercially to offer both APS-C and FF systems as I don't see many people purchase both. (Wishful) thinking ahead 3-4 years it might be a better idea for a company like Fuji that doesn't have a legacy of FF lenses to supplement their APS-C with something larger than FF. All IMO of course.

Martin

I'm in this camp too. Fuji has arguably created the best aps-c system on the market. If Fuji eventually finds pressure to develop a larger format system, would they target what will probably be an already crowded 24x36 market, or introduce the best 33x44 system (or whatever)?  Then they could fit legacy MF lenses.

Dave

Logged

Hulyss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 734
    • H.Bowman
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #65 on: January 06, 2015, 07:11:46 am »

Fuji might not have to deal with a legacy 35mm lens mount, but they do have to deal with a lot of users who have legacy lenses and that's the stumbling block
In layman's terms it's simple crop bodies/lenses = cheaper if that isn't the case I lose interest rapidly

Yea but speaking of a bargain, just a quick google investigation : http://www.ebay.com/itm/USA-Nikon-D610-Never-used-with-Nikkor-28-80G-lens-and-original-receipt-8-2014-/191472783252?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item2c94aacf94

It is light, ergonomic a far ahead in every IQ sectors.

I followed forums and went in the bandwagon because I've seen a lot of pros trashing their FF stuff to go full XT-1. I've been tricked big times by forum and propaganda.

An XT-1 + the 10-24 or a couple of primes will cost you more and give you less serious files (without speaking about the XT-1 workflow ...). It can give you more pleasure,yea, if your a city shooter or have tiny hands (then you need to invest 250$ more into the grip). I can understand ppl seeking compactness, really, but the prices are too high, really.

And yea, it is Nikon VS Fuji so don't mind if I defend Nikon ;)

I see the point too when ppl want to plug legacy lenses on it. BUT, most of those legacy lenses are made to shine on FF, not APS-C. So yea I really compassionate with those folks who have leica lenses but not the body to go with because it is tad expensive.

I'm in this camp too. Fuji has arguably created the best aps-c system on the market. If Fuji eventually finds pressure to develop a larger format system, would they target what will probably be an already crowded 24x36 market, or introduce the best 33x44 system (or whatever)?  Then they could fit legacy MF lenses.

Dave

If they restart MF, then, they will have my respect; big times.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2015, 07:24:43 am by Hulyss »
Logged
Kind Regards -  Hulyss Bowman | hulyssbowman.com |

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5540
    • Photos
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #66 on: January 06, 2015, 10:20:41 am »

The D610 or D750 sensor it's not years ahead, it's ahead by what one would expect taking the sensor size difference - in ISO and DR. In resolution even less than you would expect from a 24 vs 16 MP.

If you really want to get to the cost, although that was less for debate here, how about you look at the X-E1 with the 18-55, new for about 700$. Not lightning fast autofocus but usable for most situations with quality practically as good as the X-T1.

From what you say we should just cut the chase and move to MF otherwise the quality we get is not enough.

Meanwhile for us mortals in real life the difference between a great full frame Nikon and a great APS-C Fujifilm is a mix of advantages and disadvantages. Fast autofocus and particularly tracking is where Fuji is losing but I hope in a couple of generation the gap will be small enough not to matter.


I'm following the Sony and see where they go with their full frame. They can be an interesting option if they get high quality lenses but smaller than their DSLRs equivalents.

Hulyss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 734
    • H.Bowman
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #67 on: January 06, 2015, 10:56:10 am »

Yes I'm very curious about the A9. Some say it will be A mount, some say a new mount ... will see.
Logged
Kind Regards -  Hulyss Bowman | hulyssbowman.com |

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5540
    • Photos
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #68 on: January 06, 2015, 10:57:20 am »

Btw I don't consider myself a Fuji fanboy as they have plenty of flaws that I would like to see improved besides the autofocus.

I'm not a fan of XTrans (it's more of a headache than it's worth it), the back buttons are too small, the lenses should have the apertures marked (for the constant ones) and be stiffer, I would like the grip to be bigger, maybe a touchscreen for quick autofocus (one that you activate only when you want to), more weather resistant lenses, maybe more megapixels although I would prefer more DR and better high ISO (I hate their cheating above 1600) and so on.

It is however a nice system if you stay within its limits and paradoxically I came to appreciate it more after I bought the D750. I'm still getting the Nikon out now when I have time to dedicate for photography only and I carry a tripod with me.
I'll be going for a trip in a month or so and I'm not sure which system I'll take with me.

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5540
    • Photos
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #69 on: January 06, 2015, 11:01:08 am »

Yes I'm very curious about the A9. Some say it will be A mount, some say a new mount ... will see.

I'm looking at it as a backup (or main body) for the Nikon system. With an adapter I can use it for landscape or slow moving objects and I can have it with native lenses for going lighter.
So far though only 2 lenses are nice there: the 16-35 F4 and the 55 F1.8

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1882
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #70 on: January 06, 2015, 11:35:23 am »

Quote
. . .  regarding Fuji's choice of APS-C only so far it depends a lot on what they plan. Smaller formats like micro 4/3 will also be under pressure longer term . . .

In one way, certainly.   But I distinctly remember Michael stating that the 4/3 sensor was "A dead end" in his initial evaluation of the format, some years ago.  Fast forward to the end of this past year and the EM-1 he lauds as one of the best for the year.  I think as technology continues to improve the boundary of "good enough" and "really good" will keep shifting.   Surely a larger sensor can always be "better" but there is a practical limit in human vision that may well be exceeded in the not too distant future. The result will be that "an increment better" technologically won't result in a gain, visually.  Smaller sensors may bump up against this limit and be considered "really good" for any purpose.  

Rand
« Last Edit: January 06, 2015, 05:02:15 pm by Rand47 »
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2296
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #71 on: January 06, 2015, 12:09:46 pm »

Fast forward to the end of this past year and the EM-1 he [Michael] lauds as one of the best for the year. 

... as well as nominating it Cam-of-the-year 2013 and less than six months later he's dumped it in favour of the Pentax 645z and a Sony A7r. He's now, apparently, added an X-T1 to the stable ...

Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5540
    • Photos
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #72 on: January 06, 2015, 12:10:50 pm »

... as well as nominating it Cam-of-the-year 2013 and less than six months later he's dumped it in favour of the Pentax 645z and a Sony A7r. He's now, apparently, added an X-T1 to the stable ...



Some are having fun

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2296
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #73 on: January 06, 2015, 12:17:28 pm »

Some are having fun

... and producing good output at the same time, on a variety of sensor sizes !
« Last Edit: January 06, 2015, 12:56:58 pm by Manoli »
Logged

Eric Brody

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 487
    • http://www.ericbrodyphoto.com
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #74 on: January 06, 2015, 12:53:41 pm »

There's no substitute for film or sensor real estate, but... and it's big, but sensor technology seems to be moving faster than just about anything else in photography. I fully expect smaller sensor as in APSC, technology to improve significantly over the short and long term.

All formats are arbitrary. There is nothing "holy" about "full frame" or any other format, be it 4x5, 8x10. Full frame was just a convenient way to use movie stock in the 1930's. I see APSC as a "sweet spot" between lens size, body size, and image quality. No one will argue that a D810, Pentax 645Z will make technically "better" files. Today printing is almost becoming a niche. What will the future bring with bigger and better viewing capability?

I have spent a fair amount on a Fuji system but still have a huge investment in Nikon high end cameras and lenses. I use the Fuji much more often. As an amateur, who spends way more than he makes on photography, the enjoyment quotient is what really matters to me.

I started with 35mm film, eventually spent a lot of time and energy with a 4x5 and film medium format, but now have more plain fun with my Fuji and Mac Pro, than I ever did with any of the others.
Logged

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #75 on: January 06, 2015, 01:54:30 pm »

Regarding the Olympus rave reviews or not the price isn't logical and I suspect it's not selling as well as is needed
If APS-C can't command silly prices there is no reason to expect Micro 4/3 the Canon 7d Mk II being the exception grossly overpriced but Canon are exploiting a pre-established user base it's quite unlikely we'll see another product like that again.

I do not see MF as mainstream either now or in the future. Both Olympus and Fuji will have to learn the hard way there is a price point for crop sensors if you try to go high end too far it simply won't work. APS-C and Micro 4/3 is great I don't mock the quality very capable but you start pricing crop bodies at FF levels you're asking for a thumping that's just common sense
Logged

JV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1013
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #76 on: January 06, 2015, 06:44:10 pm »

I followed forums and went in the bandwagon because I've seen a lot of pros trashing their FF stuff to go full XT-1. I've been tricked big times by forum and propaganda.

Quite honestly if you sell your old equipment before properly trying out the new equipment you probably only have yourself to blame...

That being said, it is unfortunate that the X-T1 did not work out for you, that doesn't change though that for a lot of people it does work out.
Logged

JV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1013
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #77 on: January 06, 2015, 06:54:46 pm »

Both Olympus and Fuji will have to learn the hard way there is a price point for crop sensors if you try to go high end too far it simply won't work.

I agree.  And if Sony can get the hype wagon rolling for their upcoming camera and the 4 new lenses (plus converters) then Fuji and Olympus but also Leica could be in for a rough awakening...
Logged

Hulyss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 734
    • H.Bowman
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #78 on: January 06, 2015, 07:06:35 pm »

Quite honestly if you sell your old equipment before properly trying out the new equipment you probably only have yourself to blame...

That being said, it is unfortunate that the X-T1 did not work out for you, that doesn't change though that for a lot of people it does work out.


Well... you are right. To be honest, I was seduced by the fuji lenses and thought I will work my way with their cameras. The thing is, between the ergonomic and the awkward workflow, that I just hate those fuji cameras. They should provide a dslr like alternative or something less hipe, more functional,pure... whatever, with a proper bayer sensor.
Logged
Kind Regards -  Hulyss Bowman | hulyssbowman.com |

JV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1013
Re: Fuji vs Nikon
« Reply #79 on: January 06, 2015, 07:28:59 pm »

Well... you are right. To be honest, I was seduced by the fuji lenses and thought I will work my way with their cameras. The thing is, between the ergonomic and the awkward workflow, that I just hate those fuji cameras. They should provide a dslr like alternative or something less hipe, more functional,pure... whatever, with a proper bayer sensor.

The quality of the lenses is IMO the main selling point for Fuji.  They truly are excellent.

I liked the ergonomics of the X-Pro1.  I don't like the ergonomics of the X-T1 and I really hate the control pad buttons.  Unforgivable that this was not caught by Fuji.

I also slightly preferred the files from the X-Trans I sensor (of the X-Pro1).  Not by much though.

I am OK with the X-Trans sensor as such but I do understand that a lot of people only want to use LR (I use Iridient) and the fact that LR after 3 years is still not supporting Fuji X optimally is and remains an issue for Fuji, whatever way you look at it.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up