X-E2/X100s vs Nikon Df/D4

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
Absolutic
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,719Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E2/X100s vs Nikon Df/D4
In reply to Mr Gadget, 11 months ago

Mr Gadget wrote:

Absolutic wrote:

I did use X100s to snap few photos at a show in Vegas, and it did do fine dealing with constantly changing stage light.

more pix http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3568001

but I was seating very close to the stage, in a front row.

Very nice! another great example of what I am looking for.

I am guessing that a larger FX DSLR with an equivalent zoom would have been fairly intrusive for this venue?

the sign at the venue said NO ZOOM LENS CAMERAS.   I proudly walked in with my non-zoom X100s!

Also, nothing beats having a great seat!

My lovely wife got us great seats for my birthday.

 Absolutic's gear list:Absolutic's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sal Baker
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,747Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E2/X100s vs Nikon Df/D4
In reply to Absolutic, 11 months ago

Absolutic wrote:

Canadianguy wrote:

A camera is more than a sensor.

I don't have an X-E2 but have a D4 and X-E1. If you feel the IQ is equal between the 2 sensors at low light - that's great, I am not here to argue with you.

But I would like to point out that unless you are a master of MFing - you will need to rely on the AF system. The AF system on the D4 is designed for speed and low light. The AF system for the X-E1 is not designed for that. The X-E1 EVF has major lag on the long lenses and when it gets dark. Very hard to get focus in low light situations. The D4 - no problems.

The X-E2 is supposed to have improved on the lag and speed but I haven't tried it so cannot comment.

If your needs are a low light camera for street and event work. I would think the X-E2 could do street, set it for F8, high ISO and be there. Not sure it can do the low light event work.

Ditto. It is interesting that OP is comparing the $6000 pro weathersealed body with a $1000 Fuji XE2. If one cares purely only about sensor and IQ, why not pick the new Sony A7r? Just finished reading the Cameralab review on A7r and Gordon Lang says the image quality is equal or better than Nikon D800e. AF sucks and there are other issues, but on pure image quality, other than medium format, A7r for $2299 is a killer. Much cheaper than $6000 D4.

D4 is not about the sensor, it is about how that sensor works with a pipeline that allows it to shoot quickly in any conditions with superior AF and to get the consistant results. The AF can be relied on in any conditions, and people that get paid for their work and rely on their gear cannot afford to play around.

I clearly understand the difference, and I have shot with both D4 and XE1/XA1/X100/X100s (not XE2 though, but isn't XE2 for all intents and purposes equal to X100s in terms of AF/Pic quality/software?). I am very happy with the image quality of my Fuji X, but I would not have relied on it for a paid job. For paid job I'd still bring something more reliable. Please don't throw Zack Arias at me. There are some famous photogs that like to shoot with old point-and-shoot olympus cameras, so what.

I've been considering the A7/A7r.  BiG difference in price to get into a smaller form camera.  The A7r only has one (1) lens right now native to the new lens mount, and it's a 35mm f2.8 prime for almost a thousand bucks.  Sony doesn't sell the (f3.5) kit zoom seperatly.  To get started it would cost me $3,200 with the only lens option right now, a lens I don't want.  I would then be hoping that Sony actually delivers more lens options down the line.  I don't trust Sony to stick with anything for very long.

The Fuji X-E2 with the fast/sharp/stabilized 2.8 zoom would cost me $1,399 and there are primes available that I'm already drooling for.  I could buy 2 more additional quality primes with the savings.

The X-E2 is much more like I expected the Df to be as a retro approach.  Small/light, fewer dials on top, aperture rings on the lenses, smaller lighter lenses due to the crop format, superb image quality, AF at least as good as the A7r, several manual focus aids in the VF, and gorgeous looks--more unified I think than the half retro look of the Df.

I already have a FF 21mp DSLR with big honkin' lenses for tripod and other work.

Sal

 Sal Baker's gear list:Sal Baker's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 350D Fujifilm X-E2 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
57LowRider
Senior MemberPosts: 2,498Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E2/X100s vs Nikon Df/D4
In reply to Mr Gadget, 11 months ago

Mr Gadget wrote:

I am guessing that a larger FX DSLR with an equivalent zoom would have been fairly intrusive for this venue? Also, nothing beats having a great seat!

Good point. At that gig I was at, security laughed at my Fuji when asked about photo policy in the venue. "No pro cameras", they said and then looked at the Fuji "oh that's alright".

Meanwhile, the guy there with the Nikon DSLR had to come up with a pretty good reason (like Press or such) before he was allowed to use his camera, he got a very hard time from the boys with big boots.

 57LowRider's gear list:57LowRider's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Absolutic
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,719Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E2/X100s vs Nikon Df/D4
In reply to Sal Baker, 11 months ago

Sal Baker wrote:

I don't trust Sony to stick with anything for very long

True so far, they seem to abandon every idea in couple years.  But it is their thing, if you read the recent interview with their chief camera designer, he said, "I want to have a new idea every six months."   The idea is for the Sony to keep inventing new exciting things and to push boundaries  they want to be the first (like with walkman).  That's Sony.   Producing lenses for a camera already invented - boring.   Making new things like camera lens that operates when attached to a cell phone - exciting.

The X-E2 is much more like I expected the Df to be as a retro approach. Small/light, fewer dials on top, aperture rings on the lenses, smaller lighter lenses due to the crop format, superb image quality, AF at least as good as the A7r, several manual focus aids in the VF, and gorgeous looks--more unified I think than the half retro look of the Df.

I already have a FF 21mp DSLR with big honkin' lenses for tripod and other work.

Sal

If you read the review of A7r on cameralabs site today, Gordon Lange seems to suggest that AF is so dreadful that it is only good for stationary objects in good light.   And Sony is not Fuji, don't expect them to keep issuing firmwares to increase AF speed 2 years after camera launch like with X100.

 Absolutic's gear list:Absolutic's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Caerolle
Senior MemberPosts: 1,487Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E2/X100s vs Nikon Df/D4
In reply to Absolutic, 11 months ago

Those Df spots remind me of a Viagra commercial: old, confident guy out in nature, taking care of business, no problem.

It doesn't help that they tag line is 'it's back in my hands again', lol...

 Caerolle's gear list:Caerolle's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Joel Benford
Regular MemberPosts: 129
Like?
Re: X-E2/X100s vs Nikon Df/D4
In reply to Mr Gadget, 11 months ago

I've been wondering about this comparison myself, for slightly different reasons. This isn’t a direct answer, but I thought you might find it interesting/useful.

I like low light photography, especially indoor available light, and I have a thing for photographing in museums (flash not allowed). I often shoot in about EV 2-6 (e.g. ISO 3200 1/60s at f/1.8). I’ve been doing this for years, I used to use pushed film but now I have a Nex-6 with 35/1.8.

I find that the Nex noise performance is “mostly adequate” for me, but the X-E2/D4/Df would be better. But I've come to think the real issue is not so much image quality as getting the shot in the first place.

You have to get the thing in focus on your intended subject, before the subject goes away. It seems to me you need a few things for this:

- Fast/accurate AF, the obvious bit.

- Focus that works on moving subjects. At f/1.4, somebody breathing is a borderline “moving subject”, talking and laughing are definitely moving.

- Focus that works away from the centre, if you shoot like that. [Focus and recompose doesn’t work very well with thin DOF.]

- Controls to choose the focus point quickly. The Nex controls are hopeless, I must rely on face detect and hope it picks the right face. The D4 with twin joypads looks good to me.

Also, I’m getting much less use out of image stabilisation than I expected before I got it. It only works for camera motion, not subject motion. If I photograph someone who’s talking or laughing at 1/15 second, I get a blurry face and sharp objects off to one side.

So I think it’s about getting a good all round mix of high ISO, wide apertures, AF to use the wide apertures effectively, and controls to make the AF do what you want before you miss the shot.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mr Gadget
Senior MemberPosts: 1,820
Like?
Re: X-E2/X100s vs Nikon Df/D4
In reply to Absolutic, 11 months ago

Absolutic wrote:

Sal Baker wrote:

I don't trust Sony to stick with anything for very long

True so far, they seem to abandon every idea in couple years. But it is their thing, if you read the recent interview with their chief camera designer, he said, "I want to have a new idea every six months." The idea is for the Sony to keep inventing new exciting things and to push boundaries they want to be the first (like with walkman). That's Sony. Producing lenses for a camera already invented - boring. Making new things like camera lens that operates when attached to a cell phone - exciting.

The X-E2 is much more like I expected the Df to be as a retro approach. Small/light, fewer dials on top, aperture rings on the lenses, smaller lighter lenses due to the crop format, superb image quality, AF at least as good as the A7r, several manual focus aids in the VF, and gorgeous looks--more unified I think than the half retro look of the Df.

I already have a FF 21mp DSLR with big honkin' lenses for tripod and other work.

Sal

If you read the review of A7r on cameralabs site today, Gordon Lange seems to suggest that AF is so dreadful that it is only good for stationary objects in good light. And Sony is not Fuji, don't expect them to keep issuing firmwares to increase AF speed 2 years after camera launch like with X100.

This is very well said. It summarizes my impressions of Sony very well. I am continually impressed with Fujifilms comittment to their customers and Kaizen philosphy, it makes you a believer.

-- hide signature --

Conrad
---------------------------------------------------
Show Low, Arizona

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dmaclau
Senior MemberPosts: 1,443Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E2/X100s vs Nikon Df/D4
In reply to Mr Gadget, 11 months ago

as exciting as "revolutionary" is to write and read about, "evolutionary" is so very much better for our lives.  The first new exciting engine, transmission, computer...fun to read about, so sorry for you if you bought one.  3 years or so later when they figure out how to make these ideas work properly...that's when it gets interesting.

The X100S instead of an X200, the 2.0 firmware upgrade for the discontinued X100, the X-E2, perhaps soon an X-Pro2.  Thank you Fuji.

 dmaclau's gear list:dmaclau's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP3 Merrill Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 Nikon 1 V1 Fujifilm X-M1 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mr Gadget
Senior MemberPosts: 1,820
Like?
Re: X-E2/X100s vs Nikon Df/D4
In reply to Joel Benford, 11 months ago

Joel Benford wrote:

I've been wondering about this comparison myself, for slightly different reasons. This isn’t a direct answer, but I thought you might find it interesting/useful.

I like low light photography, especially indoor available light, and I have a thing for photographing in museums (flash not allowed). I often shoot in about EV 2-6 (e.g. ISO 3200 1/60s at f/1.8). I’ve been doing this for years, I used to use pushed film but now I have a Nex-6 with 35/1.8.

I find that the Nex noise performance is “mostly adequate” for me, but the X-E2/D4/Df would be better. But I've come to think the real issue is not so much image quality as getting the shot in the first place.

You have to get the thing in focus on your intended subject, before the subject goes away. It seems to me you need a few things for this:

  • Fast/accurate AF, the obvious bit.
  • Focus that works on moving subjects. At f/1.4, somebody breathing is a borderline “moving subject”, talking and laughing are definitely moving.
  • Focus that works away from the centre, if you shoot like that. [Focus and recompose doesn’t work very well with thin DOF.]
  • Controls to choose the focus point quickly. The Nex controls are hopeless, I must rely on face detect and hope it picks the right face. The D4 with twin joypads looks good to me.

Also, I’m getting much less use out of image stabilisation than I expected before I got it. It only works for camera motion, not subject motion. If I photograph someone who’s talking or laughing at 1/15 second, I get a blurry face and sharp objects off to one side.

So I think it’s about getting a good all round mix of high ISO, wide So apertures, AF to use the wide apertures effectively, and controls to make the AF do what you want before you miss the shot.

Great observations and very helpful to me. I guess that I am down to two choices now that I have pretty much convinced myself that the Fujifilm APSC 16 mpx sensor is capable of producing an image of mostly equal quality to the Df's 16mpx FX sensor it now comes down to evaluating how well the X-E2 focuses under low light at f1.4 to f4. I am thinking that it will be a foregone conclusion that the Df will have superb AF capability.

When it comes to size and bang for the buck, I am thinking the X system will win hands down.
I am looking forward to getting an X-E2 and the 35mm prime to evaluate low light AF!
--
Conrad
---------------------------------------------------
Show Low, Arizona

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Caerolle
Senior MemberPosts: 1,487Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E2/X100s vs Nikon Df/D4
In reply to Mr Gadget, 11 months ago

"When it comes to size and bang for the buck, I am thinking the X system will win hands down.

I am looking forward to getting an X-E2 and the 35mm prime to evaluate low light AF!"

I have some recent experience that isn't *exactly* relevant, but is close...

I am renting a 6D right now, with a 50/1.4 and an 85/1.8, and comparing it with my X-E1. A couple of points:

First, with the 35 and the AF-assist light, my Fuji nails focuses down where I can't even see anything in the viewfinder of the 6D (and bizarrely, one of the things I hate the most about it, the 6D has *no* focus-assist light!). It is even pretty fast, and of though the image in the viewfinder is grainy, at least you can see something! Of course, the exposure time was such that the pics had motion blur, that wasn't the point. If I had wanted good pics, I could have used a wall for support. I did get the typical 'zhuh-zhuh' of the lenses focusing back and forth, and the hard stop when it gets focus, but the actual results were very good.

In sane lighting, the 6D is instantaneous, and the X-E1 is also pretty fast (though slower), just with the 'zhuh-zhuh-clunk'. I think even on my X-E1, the focus speed would be acceptable for most people shooting things that are very still. And, the X-E2 is supposed to be even faster.

My problem is shooting things that randomly move a bit, with wide apertures. I need to refocus every time they move, and the lag is a problem. Close to acceptable with the 35, *not* acceptable with the 60, it is fine for things that stay still (people who are posing very still in the same position), but not when I need to refocus and shoot before my subject moves AGAIN (uhg).

The other things is image quality, and effort required to get from RAW to what I want. To me personally, the 6D images are just better, even when not zoomed. At 100%, of course it is obvious. And I find the 6D RAWs easier to adjust, they are closer to what I want when I open them in Lightroom. I often find it hard to get the colors the way I want from the X-Trans RAWS. It often has to do with white balance, and may be more related to my lack of ability than anything else, or maybe just that Canon RAW has been around soooo much longer, I don't know. I just know it is easier.

That said, the 'bang-for-the-buck' is a huge factor unless you have unlimited funds. I don't know that for my needs I can justify the $2500 to buy the 6D system (and that is buying refurbished). The Fuji images are really good, just not quite as good. And the other thing, I really love my X-E1, and love to shoot with it, better than the 6D (if nothing else, I really prefer the EVF by far). So, it can be hard to decide!

Hope this helps in some way!  

 Caerolle's gear list:Caerolle's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sal Baker
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,747Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E2/X100s vs Nikon Df/D4
In reply to Mr Gadget, 11 months ago

Mr Gadget wrote:

Joel Benford wrote:

I've been wondering about this comparison myself, for slightly different reasons. This isn’t a direct answer, but I thought you might find it interesting/useful.

I like low light photography, especially indoor available light, and I have a thing for photographing in museums (flash not allowed). I often shoot in about EV 2-6 (e.g. ISO 3200 1/60s at f/1.8). I’ve been doing this for years, I used to use pushed film but now I have a Nex-6 with 35/1.8.

I find that the Nex noise performance is “mostly adequate” for me, but the X-E2/D4/Df would be better. But I've come to think the real issue is not so much image quality as getting the shot in the first place.

You have to get the thing in focus on your intended subject, before the subject goes away. It seems to me you need a few things for this:

  • Fast/accurate AF, the obvious bit.
  • Focus that works on moving subjects. At f/1.4, somebody breathing is a borderline “moving subject”, talking and laughing are definitely moving.
  • Focus that works away from the centre, if you shoot like that. [Focus and recompose doesn’t work very well with thin DOF.]
  • Controls to choose the focus point quickly. The Nex controls are hopeless, I must rely on face detect and hope it picks the right face. The D4 with twin joypads looks good to me.

Also, I’m getting much less use out of image stabilisation than I expected before I got it. It only works for camera motion, not subject motion. If I photograph someone who’s talking or laughing at 1/15 second, I get a blurry face and sharp objects off to one side.

So I think it’s about getting a good all round mix of high ISO, wide So apertures, AF to use the wide apertures effectively, and controls to make the AF do what you want before you miss the shot.

Great observations and very helpful to me. I guess that I am down to two choices now that I have pretty much convinced myself that the Fujifilm APSC 16 mpx sensor is capable of producing an image of mostly equal quality to the Df's 16mpx FX sensor it now comes down to evaluating how well the X-E2 focuses under low light at f1.4 to f4. I am thinking that it will be a foregone conclusion that the Df will have superb AF capability.

When it comes to size and bang for the buck, I am thinking the X system will win hands down.
I am looking forward to getting an X-E2 and the 35mm prime to evaluate low light AF!
-

Last night I went to IR and downloaded their famous table top desk test shot.  Try downloading raws for the D4 and X-E1 (or pro1) at ISO 1600.  I converted in Aperture.  Check the images side by side, any doubts about the 16mp X cameras will be gone.  Simiarity of sharpness and noise level is amazing at pixel level.  Leave the computer for a few minutes, come back and randomly click between the 2 images, you won't be able to tell them apart.  Then go to:

http://www.lenstip.com/1969-news-Fujifilm_FinePix_X-Pro1_-_sample_images.html

These files rival the FF 21mp images from my 5DII.  They up-rez beautifully and they're cleaner.

I may break my own rule and order the X-E2 before I actually hold one in my hand and try it out.

Sal

 Sal Baker's gear list:Sal Baker's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 350D Fujifilm X-E2 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads