My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
sgoldswo
Senior MemberPosts: 3,860Gear list
Like?
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
In reply to shigzeo, 6 months ago

shigzeo ? wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

shigzeo ? wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

shigzeo ? wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

shigzeo ? wrote:

Lens-wise that is as close as it gets, though the Nikon 50/1,8 effectively is faster than the 35/1,4 on native sensors.

But that Nikon Df is massive isn't it? I really wish they would work on making a good, classic-sized dSLR.

Massive!? No. I own a FM3A. Aside from a small difference in thickness (which you can put down to the screen) it's actually not that different in size from the Df. I think the FM3A is about 100g lighter. It weights the same as my Leica M.

The Df is a very small and light DSLR. I think it's a bit odd when it is suggested it isn't. Here it is next to my D800E, you can really see how much smaller the Df is in this picture:

I have used both cameras back to back a CP+2014. The Df is at least twice the volume of the FE, which is roughly the same size as the FM3A. I don't have images of the two next to each other, but Three Guys does.

The Df is somewhat small next to the D800, but the D800 is nearly 3x the volume of the FM3A.

Sorry, I just don't agree. The comparison posted doesn't ring true to me at all in its textual description of the difference. The Df is marginally larger (1/4 to 1/3 in volume, less in overall dimensions), that's all. I've shot both side by side for months. The Df is a small camera. I carry it in the same bags I used for my now sold X-Pro1

1/3 to 1/4 on every edge adds up to over 2x the volume. The Df is large compared to traditional SLR cameras. It is a 'small' full frame digital dSLR, but only because the only players in the game make cameras that are large compared to film SLRs.

The Df is a fine camera, I agree with that. But it isn't 'small' unless compared to today's dSLR cameras.

No, it's larger compared to the smallest SLRs one could get back in the day such as the FE/FM/OM Models. Since those were dense for their size and were still thick at the mirrorbox, there's actually little practical difference in size and weight. If I compare the Df to my F6 the F6 is slightly thinner, but otherwise bigger. The F5 was bigger again than the F6.

I'm just left scratching my head at the idea that the Df is a big camera. It is a big camera vs a sony RX100. It's not that different to either an xt1 or an A7. It certainly isn't that different in size to an xpro1.

Starting with the F4, Nikon made its SLRs huge. The Df isn't a sports camera, nor is it a military camera. Even the F2 and F3 were much smaller than the F6 and F4 and F5. The Df, by mimicking an older Nikon SLR at first glance, is at an unfair advantage because none of them were as large as it.
Modern Nikon SLRs from the F4 on were massive, but they were the professional, all-automatic, made to be massive professional cameras in par with today's D3/4. The consumer models, which the Df mimics, are all much smaller. Some of them were the size of small rangefinder cameras. Unless you are out to compare the Df with professional sports cameras of their day, the Df - which isn't a professional sports cameras - is large.

It has a few mm extra height wise vs your small SLRs to accommodate a 100% VF, equally it has a few mm extra thickness to accommodate the LCD screen and sensor, so no, it isn't large.

I think we have to put this one down to subjective differences in perception I'm afraid. Aside from the VF hump, the Df is the same size as a Leica M240.

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Olympus E-M1 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon D750
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
shigzeo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,367Gear list
Like?
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
In reply to sgoldswo, 6 months ago

sgoldswo wrote:

shigzeo ? wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

shigzeo ? wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

shigzeo ? wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

shigzeo ? wrote:

Lens-wise that is as close as it gets, though the Nikon 50/1,8 effectively is faster than the 35/1,4 on native sensors.

But that Nikon Df is massive isn't it? I really wish they would work on making a good, classic-sized dSLR.

Massive!? No. I own a FM3A. Aside from a small difference in thickness (which you can put down to the screen) it's actually not that different in size from the Df. I think the FM3A is about 100g lighter. It weights the same as my Leica M.

The Df is a very small and light DSLR. I think it's a bit odd when it is suggested it isn't. Here it is next to my D800E, you can really see how much smaller the Df is in this picture:

I have used both cameras back to back a CP+2014. The Df is at least twice the volume of the FE, which is roughly the same size as the FM3A. I don't have images of the two next to each other, but Three Guys does.

The Df is somewhat small next to the D800, but the D800 is nearly 3x the volume of the FM3A.

Sorry, I just don't agree. The comparison posted doesn't ring true to me at all in its textual description of the difference. The Df is marginally larger (1/4 to 1/3 in volume, less in overall dimensions), that's all. I've shot both side by side for months. The Df is a small camera. I carry it in the same bags I used for my now sold X-Pro1

1/3 to 1/4 on every edge adds up to over 2x the volume. The Df is large compared to traditional SLR cameras. It is a 'small' full frame digital dSLR, but only because the only players in the game make cameras that are large compared to film SLRs.

The Df is a fine camera, I agree with that. But it isn't 'small' unless compared to today's dSLR cameras.

No, it's larger compared to the smallest SLRs one could get back in the day such as the FE/FM/OM Models. Since those were dense for their size and were still thick at the mirrorbox, there's actually little practical difference in size and weight. If I compare the Df to my F6 the F6 is slightly thinner, but otherwise bigger. The F5 was bigger again than the F6.

I'm just left scratching my head at the idea that the Df is a big camera. It is a big camera vs a sony RX100. It's not that different to either an xt1 or an A7. It certainly isn't that different in size to an xpro1.

Starting with the F4, Nikon made its SLRs huge. The Df isn't a sports camera, nor is it a military camera. Even the F2 and F3 were much smaller than the F6 and F4 and F5. The Df, by mimicking an older Nikon SLR at first glance, is at an unfair advantage because none of them were as large as it.
Modern Nikon SLRs from the F4 on were massive, but they were the professional, all-automatic, made to be massive professional cameras in par with today's D3/4. The consumer models, which the Df mimics, are all much smaller. Some of them were the size of small rangefinder cameras. Unless you are out to compare the Df with professional sports cameras of their day, the Df - which isn't a professional sports cameras - is large.

It has a few mm extra height wise vs your small SLRs to accommodate a 100% VF, equally it has a few mm extra thickness to accommodate the LCD screen and sensor, so no, it isn't large.

I think we have to put this one down to subjective differences in perception I'm afraid. Aside from the VF hump, the Df is the same size as a Leica M240.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not hating the Df. But I've done the measurements, compared side by side, and there are dozens of millimetres between the two. The top plate is the same size as the old FM3A or Leica, but the camera extends at least 4mm in every direction from that (except to the side). The shoulder height of the FM series is lower than the Leica and the Leica is around 3cm shorter than the Df's hump. The Df's shoulder height is the closest thing to the M series, but even so, it is much taller.

Some of this is illustrated at snapsport. Obviously, snapsport isn't a great resource, but it is 'good enough' in this instance.

The modern Leica M is overall larger than a typical high-end non-sports SLR camera. Only the humps on those cameras rise above the Leica's top. Volumetrically, the M240 and an FE/FM would be roughly equivalent. The Df is roughly twice the volume of either camera. It may not seem that way to you, but everything measured (and Nikon took pains to hide it), the Df is a large camera. It is, however, the smallest full frame Nikon digital camera, a step in the right direction. I hope they can go all the way.

 shigzeo's gear list:shigzeo's gear list
Nikon D200 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha 7R Fujifilm X-T1 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Sachs
Senior MemberPosts: 9,430Gear list
Like?
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
In reply to sgoldswo, 6 months ago

sgoldswo wrote:

The Df is a very small and light DSLR. I think it's a bit odd when it is suggested it isn't.

Simon,

I like the Df a lot and didn't find it unduly large when I shot with one. My size/weight issue came up with the lenses, where the smaller lighter ones didn't offer much advantage over the faster and often better Fuji lenses at a similar size and the really good lenses tended to carry a more significant size/weight penalty.

But I don't think the Df is particularly small or light as DSLR's go. Here's a comparison from camerasize.com that shows the Df against the D610, 6D, and D800. The Df, D610, and 6D are all very close in every dimension except depth, where the small grip on the Df makes a notable difference. But in terms of height and width, they're extremely close and the weight difference is negligible. The D610 is just slightly larger and slightly heavier, but the Df and the 6D are nearly identical except for the depth of the grip. The D800 is notably larger but mostly just in terms of height, which adds a bit of weight as well. The D610 and D800 appear larger when viewed from the top because they extend the penta-prism hump formward over the lens to nearly match the grip, but that doesn't add any real functional size to the camera - it's just an aesthetic choice...

You can check out the comparison from any angle you'd like, here - you can mouse over the cameras to see the various dimensions and weights and you can change the orientation in the upper part of the screen by clicking on the different orientation icons...

I don't think the Df is a particularly large DSLR, but it's clearly not much smaller than it's competition either until you get into the pro bodies with the built in portrait grips which do get pretty huge. But compared to other "lower end" full frame (there's no such thing really - these are all amazing cameras) and particularly compared to APS DSLRs, it's not really small either. It seems extremely comparable to me. And notably larger than the XT1 (or EM5/EM10), which does feel to me more like the classic SLR bodies I shot with in the '70s...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
slimandy
Forum ProPosts: 14,659Gear list
Like?
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
In reply to Jay A, 6 months ago

Jay A wrote:

Aren't we getting tired of these "It's easier to carry around so it must be better, plus I am not sophisticated enough to see a difference in image quality due to sensor size" threads?

Fact is, each system has its own advantages and disadvantages and these threads seem to indicate that it has to be a choice of one over the other. It doesn't have to be that way at all.

The OP said 'for me'. He is not saying this is the best choice for everyone.

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-E1 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Giovanni_1968
Senior MemberPosts: 1,345Gear list
Like?
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
In reply to slimandy, 6 months ago

I own a D800 and am happy with it, don't mind the size when I want the shallow depth of field or the super MP count, if weight/size is a problem then it's not a matter of comparing but matter of choosing a compromise and the XT-1 seems to do well in that dept even though it's an APS-C sensor and as such I don-t see a fair comparison to put it on the side with the DF.

This said I'm lusting after an X-Series camera but am afraid I will be disappointed by the results if I look forward to replicate the D800 (or DF if you prefer) image quality for what it matters portraiture whilst I could be happy with landscaping even though at half or less the res of the Nikon, portrait wise I should get the 56/1.2 to replicate my cheap 85/1.8, landscaping wise the 10-24 could be a very decent lens to suit the needs, I don't need f2.8 for landscaping and a compact and lightweight setup would make me carry the camera more often whilst the APS-C sensor would give me a more extended DOF but, again, with the same money of the 10-24 I could get, say, the 18-35 for Nikon or the even more expensive 16-35VR which matches the field of view and aperture, again, matter of usage and expectations, in my case I would still use the D-SLR with fast primes for portraiture and the mirror less for everyday usage not expecting the same quality and, same important, with less weight to carry but also by investing more money to obtain similar results due to lens cost whereas the DSL-R's 1.8s are nowadays quite cheap vs the MirrorLess ones being still very expensive...

-- hide signature --

Giovanni
http://www.flickr.com/photos/giovanniaprea/
FujiS5 Nikon D800 Panasonic L1 shooter

 Giovanni_1968's gear list:Giovanni_1968's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Midwest
Forum ProPosts: 14,151
Like?
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
In reply to sgoldswo, 6 months ago

sgoldswo wrote:

stuartgolden wrote:

Full frame this, SLR that. For me what it comes down to is what would you want to lug around all day around your neck.

For me - the left wins!

You still won't convince the OP, who likely gets winded from shuffling cards.

This is a bit more meaningful comparison (IMO):

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
shigzeo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,367Gear list
Like?
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
In reply to Giovanni_1968, 6 months ago

Giovanni_1968 wrote:

I own a D800 and am happy with it, don't mind the size when I want the shallow depth of field or the super MP count, if weight/size is a problem then it's not a matter of comparing but matter of choosing a compromise and the XT-1 seems to do well in that dept even though it's an APS-C sensor and as such I don-t see a fair comparison to put it on the side with the DF.

This said I'm lusting after an X-Series camera but am afraid I will be disappointed by the results if I look forward to replicate the D800 (or DF if you prefer) image quality for what it matters portraiture whilst I could be happy with landscaping even though at half or less the res of the Nikon, portrait wise I should get the 56/1.2 to replicate my cheap 85/1.8, landscaping wise the 10-24 could be a very decent lens to suit the needs, I don't need f2.8 for landscaping and a compact and lightweight setup would make me carry the camera more often whilst the APS-C sensor would give me a more extended DOF but, again, with the same money of the 10-24 I could get, say, the 18-35 for Nikon or the even more expensive 16-35VR which matches the field of view and aperture, again, matter of usage and expectations, in my case I would still use the D-SLR with fast primes for portraiture and the mirror less for everyday usage not expecting the same quality and, same important, with less weight to carry but also by investing more money to obtain similar results due to lens cost whereas the DSL-R's 1.8s are nowadays quite cheap vs the MirrorLess ones being still very expensive...

-- hide signature --

Giovanni
http://www.flickr.com/photos/giovanniaprea/
FujiS5 Nikon D800 Panasonic L1 shooter

I think this is the clincher: equivalent lenses are more expensive on mirrorless cameras. If you are out to obtain similar results, you have to spend a LOT more on lenses. The bodies are still somewhat cheaper, though a D600 isn't much more expensive than an X-T1. The D800 is built to higher standards and isn't really a fair comparison.

But even so, the D600 and D800 are quite awkward. The older D200/300 series had much nicer grips and were more comfortable to hold for long periods of time. If/when Nikon figure out how to make a good F-Mount mirrorless camera in the body the size of an X-T1, X-Pro 1, or FE/FM, no matter its cost, in the long run, it will be less expensive and size advantages that currently are in favour of mirrorless will mostly be gone.

I somehow doubt those days will come. Nikon are off in the rough. Ditto Canon.

 shigzeo's gear list:shigzeo's gear list
Nikon D200 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha 7R Fujifilm X-T1 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stuartgolden
Forum MemberPosts: 50Gear list
Like?
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
In reply to Midwest, 6 months ago

Midwest wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

stuartgolden wrote:

Full frame this, SLR that. For me what it comes down to is what would you want to lug around all day around your neck.

For me - the left wins!

You still won't convince the OP, who likely gets winded from shuffling cards.

No need to get nasty.

Just saying I have carried think glass and now that there is a very decent quality system that is substantially lighter and has a VERY decent set of glass that is orders of magnitude lighter - I'm happy to thoughtlessly grab the fuji on any occasion.

The best camera quite frequently is only the one you have with you when the moment happens.

Frankly I do not think I am alone when you own Full Frame gear with great heavy glass optically wonderful lenses - that the bulk of talking a single big glass zoom often has people mentally saying "naw" and either leaving them at home, or grabbling a pocket camera in lieu of living with heavy gear.

I'm sure we can pixel peep and spend days arguing the virtues of full frame, big glass, etc - and we all know that the heavy kit will win MOST arguments MOST of the time.

Except the more subliminal - would you grab it every time you ran out the door.

Those of us who walk and are inspired daily - and live with our gear and glass around or necks - there comes a time when you begin to break down and decide to make those decisions about what to carry and how to limit the bulk.  Some of us do indeed get older - develop bad backs, arthritis - etc.  Even some whom become winded.

It's nice for those, to have substantially lighter options that also produce wonderful results.  In fact - I suspect if this sort of gear was available and in my hands when I was 18 - I would have carried the gear a lot more and would have captured many more of those fleeting moments when the subject, light, and lens all happen to be in the right spot.

 stuartgolden's gear list:stuartgolden's gear list
Sony RX100 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm 50-230mm +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sgoldswo
Senior MemberPosts: 3,860Gear list
Like?
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
In reply to stuartgolden, 6 months ago

stuartgolden wrote:

Midwest wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

stuartgolden wrote:

Full frame this, SLR that. For me what it comes down to is what would you want to lug around all day around your neck.

For me - the left wins!

You still won't convince the OP, who likely gets winded from shuffling cards.

No need to get nasty.

Just saying I have carried think glass and now that there is a very decent quality system that is substantially lighter and has a VERY decent set of glass that is orders of magnitude lighter - I'm happy to thoughtlessly grab the fuji on any occasion.

The best camera quite frequently is only the one you have with you when the moment happens.

Frankly I do not think I am alone when you own Full Frame gear with great heavy glass optically wonderful lenses - that the bulk of talking a single big glass zoom often has people mentally saying "naw" and either leaving them at home, or grabbling a pocket camera in lieu of living with heavy gear.

I'm sure we can pixel peep and spend days arguing the virtues of full frame, big glass, etc - and we all know that the heavy kit will win MOST arguments MOST of the time.

Except the more subliminal - would you grab it every time you ran out the door.

Those of us who walk and are inspired daily - and live with our gear and glass around or necks - there comes a time when you begin to break down and decide to make those decisions about what to carry and how to limit the bulk. Some of us do indeed get older - develop bad backs, arthritis - etc. Even some whom become winded.

It's nice for those, to have substantially lighter options that also produce wonderful results. In fact - I suspect if this sort of gear was available and in my hands when I was 18 - I would have carried the gear a lot more and would have captured many more of those fleeting moments when the subject, light, and lens all happen to be in the right spot.

OK - but if that's what you are trying to say, put equivalent lenses on the relevant cameras.

To your point, I am marginally more likely to carry a mirrorless camera in the week (for much of this week I have had an E-M1 in my bag). But today I have my Df with me, plus 24, 35, 58 and 85 mm primes. That collection isn't that heavy at all. It all fits into a Billingham Hadley Pro with room for some ties, pens and assorted work related gubbins. In fact the only one of those lenses which is heavy is the 24mm.

So why is that different from when I used to carry in the same bag, an X-Pro1 and assorted lenses?

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Olympus E-M1 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon D750
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
shigzeo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,367Gear list
Like?
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
In reply to sgoldswo, 6 months ago

sgoldswo wrote:

stuartgolden wrote:

Midwest wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

stuartgolden wrote:

Full frame this, SLR that. For me what it comes down to is what would you want to lug around all day around your neck.

For me - the left wins!

You still won't convince the OP, who likely gets winded from shuffling cards.

No need to get nasty.

Just saying I have carried think glass and now that there is a very decent quality system that is substantially lighter and has a VERY decent set of glass that is orders of magnitude lighter - I'm happy to thoughtlessly grab the fuji on any occasion.

The best camera quite frequently is only the one you have with you when the moment happens.

Frankly I do not think I am alone when you own Full Frame gear with great heavy glass optically wonderful lenses - that the bulk of talking a single big glass zoom often has people mentally saying "naw" and either leaving them at home, or grabbling a pocket camera in lieu of living with heavy gear.

I'm sure we can pixel peep and spend days arguing the virtues of full frame, big glass, etc - and we all know that the heavy kit will win MOST arguments MOST of the time.

Except the more subliminal - would you grab it every time you ran out the door.

Those of us who walk and are inspired daily - and live with our gear and glass around or necks - there comes a time when you begin to break down and decide to make those decisions about what to carry and how to limit the bulk. Some of us do indeed get older - develop bad backs, arthritis - etc. Even some whom become winded.

It's nice for those, to have substantially lighter options that also produce wonderful results. In fact - I suspect if this sort of gear was available and in my hands when I was 18 - I would have carried the gear a lot more and would have captured many more of those fleeting moments when the subject, light, and lens all happen to be in the right spot.

OK - but if that's what you are trying to say, put equivalent lenses on the relevant cameras.

To your point, I am marginally more likely to carry a mirrorless camera in the week (for much of this week I have had an E-M1 in my bag). But today I have my Df with me, plus 24, 35, 58 and 85 mm primes. That collection isn't that heavy at all. It all fits into a Billingham Hadley Pro with room for some ties, pens and assorted work related gubbins. In fact the only one of those lenses which is heavy is the 24mm.

So why is that different from when I used to carry in the same bag, an X-Pro1 and assorted lenses?

I don't know which F stop primes you have on the Nikon. If they are the 1,4 lenses, there is currently no equivalent in the mirrorless world. And they are quite large. The 1,8 primes are excellent lenses, and have some equivalents in the mirrorless world, but only from Fujifilm: the 56/1,2, and are roughly the same size. Nikon lenses tend to be large for some reason. The new 35/1,8 is bigger than necessary, but a very nice lens.

My Ai/S lenses are all smaller to much smaller than their equivalents in Fujifilm's mount, but they lack AF.

 shigzeo's gear list:shigzeo's gear list
Nikon D200 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha 7R Fujifilm X-T1 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Sachs
Senior MemberPosts: 9,430Gear list
Like?
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
In reply to shigzeo, 6 months ago

shigzeo ? wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

OK - but if that's what you are trying to say, put equivalent lenses on the relevant cameras.

To your point, I am marginally more likely to carry a mirrorless camera in the week (for much of this week I have had an E-M1 in my bag). But today I have my Df with me, plus 24, 35, 58 and 85 mm primes. That collection isn't that heavy at all. It all fits into a Billingham Hadley Pro with room for some ties, pens and assorted work related gubbins. In fact the only one of those lenses which is heavy is the 24mm.

So why is that different from when I used to carry in the same bag, an X-Pro1 and assorted lenses.

I don't know which F stop primes you have on the Nikon. If they are the 1,4 lenses, there is currently no equivalent in the mirrorless world. And they are quite large. The 1,8 primes are excellent lenses, and have some equivalents in the mirrorless world, but only from Fujifilm: the 56/1,2, and are roughly the same size. Nikon lenses tend to be large for some reason. The new 35/1,8 is bigger than necessary, but a very nice lens.

My Ai/S lenses are all smaller to much smaller than their equivalents in Fujifilm's mount, but they lack AF.

The "D" lenses from Nikon are essentially the same glass as the Ai/S lenses but with AF. They're not as nicely built or as pretty and the AF isn't as fast as the higher end lenses, but they offer a pretty nice group of small primes if that's what you want. They all have aperture rings too, which I particularly like. The thing about a system like Nikon, which is so vast and has been around so long, is that you have options from high to low, large to small, excellent to sort of mediocre, in pretty much any focal length.

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Sachs
Senior MemberPosts: 9,430Gear list
Like?
A comparison for prime shooters...
In reply to stuartgolden, 6 months ago

For those of us who generally shoot primes, the differences are not as great. Here an XT1 with the 35mm f1.4 next to an Olympus EM1 with the Pany 25mm f1.4, and a Nikon Df with a Nikon 50mm f1.8.

In fairness, the Panasonic 25mm is the largest m43 prime available on the site (the new 42mm f1.2 is considerably larger) - most m43 primes are a good deal smaller. The Nikon prime is relatively small, but there's a whole line of Nikon primes of about the same size, in addition to much larger premium versions. And the Fuji 35mm is a good bit smaller than the primes Fuji has developed since, so for premium lenses at different focal lengths, assume larger lenses (other than the 18 or 27, which are somewhat less premium).

The Df body is notably, but not overwhelmingly, heavier than the m43 and Fuji bodies - between about 200-300 grams more. But the lenses are right in the same range. My basic point is that if you're a prime shooter and you don't demand the best and fastest DSLR glass available (the 24mm f1.4 is a LOT larger), a full frame DSLR setup can still be a pretty comfortable carry. I had a loaner of the Df for about a month earlier this year and as long as I stuck to the smaller prime lenses (which are still quite good if not the best or fastest), I was very comfortable carrying it around. It was only when I played with a couple of pretty beefy lenses that the size and weight advantages of smaller format mirrorless became an issue.

But the files out of the Df (or the similar size D610, which shares the sensor of the RX1) are simply amazing. There are always tradeoffs, but the tradeoffs for prime shooters aren't nearly as great as for zoom and telephoto shooters...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
shigzeo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,367Gear list
Like?
Re: A comparison for prime shooters...
In reply to Ray Sachs, 6 months ago

Ray Sachs wrote:

For those of us who generally shoot primes, the differences are not as great. Here an XT1 with the 35mm f1.4 next to an Olympus EM1 with the Pany 25mm f1.4, and a Nikon Df with a Nikon 50mm f1.8.

In fairness, the Panasonic 25mm is the largest m43 prime available on the site (the new 42mm f1.2 is considerably larger) - most m43 primes are a good deal smaller. The Nikon prime is relatively small, but there's a whole line of Nikon primes of about the same size, in addition to much larger premium versions. And the Fuji 35mm is a good bit smaller than the primes Fuji has developed since, so for premium lenses at different focal lengths, assume larger lenses (other than the 18 or 27, which are somewhat less premium).

The Df body is notably, but not overwhelmingly, heavier than the m43 and Fuji bodies - between about 200-300 grams more. But the lenses are right in the same range. My basic point is that if you're a prime shooter and you don't demand the best and fastest DSLR glass available (the 24mm f1.4 is a LOT larger), a full frame DSLR setup can still be a pretty comfortable carry. I had a loaner of the Df for about a month earlier this year and as long as I stuck to the smaller prime lenses (which are still quite good if not the best or fastest), I was very comfortable carrying it around. It was only when I played with a couple of pretty beefy lenses that the size and weight advantages of smaller format mirrorless became an issue.

But the files out of the Df (or the similar size D610, which shares the sensor of the RX1) are simply amazing. There are always tradeoffs, but the tradeoffs for prime shooters aren't nearly as great as for zoom and telephoto shooters...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

That is a huge lens for m43. At an equivalent of f/2,8 on FF, it's absolutely massive. Imagine an f2,8 50mm on FF. It would be tiny and inexpensive.

If Nikon would take a look at the current market, build a mirrorless F-mount camera, keep the body traditionally sized and built, plus make lenses that match up to mirrorless users' expectations: slower, smaller, they would have an unstoppable system.

Current 1,4 AFS F lenses for speed and when you don't mind bulk, 1,8 - 2,8 lenses for when you want to shoot sort of like we shoot in APS-C land, and slower if you want the ultimate in portability and are used to what they get in m43 land.

You'd have everything from hiking to portraiture covered in one system and the advantages of mirrorless over dSLR and FF would be nearly completely void.

 shigzeo's gear list:shigzeo's gear list
Nikon D200 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha 7R Fujifilm X-T1 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Sachs
Senior MemberPosts: 9,430Gear list
Like?
Re: A comparison for prime shooters...
In reply to shigzeo, 6 months ago

shigzeo ? wrote:

Ray Sachs wrote:

For those of us who generally shoot primes, the differences are not as great. Here an XT1 with the 35mm f1.4 next to an Olympus EM1 with the Pany 25mm f1.4, and a Nikon Df with a Nikon 50mm f1.8.

In fairness, the Panasonic 25mm is the largest m43 prime available on the site (the new 42mm f1.2 is considerably larger) - most m43 primes are a good deal smaller. The Nikon prime is relatively small, but there's a whole line of Nikon primes of about the same size, in addition to much larger premium versions. And the Fuji 35mm is a good bit smaller than the primes Fuji has developed since, so for premium lenses at different focal lengths, assume larger lenses (other than the 18 or 27, which are somewhat less premium).

The Df body is notably, but not overwhelmingly, heavier than the m43 and Fuji bodies - between about 200-300 grams more. But the lenses are right in the same range. My basic point is that if you're a prime shooter and you don't demand the best and fastest DSLR glass available (the 24mm f1.4 is a LOT larger), a full frame DSLR setup can still be a pretty comfortable carry. I had a loaner of the Df for about a month earlier this year and as long as I stuck to the smaller prime lenses (which are still quite good if not the best or fastest), I was very comfortable carrying it around. It was only when I played with a couple of pretty beefy lenses that the size and weight advantages of smaller format mirrorless became an issue.

But the files out of the Df (or the similar size D610, which shares the sensor of the RX1) are simply amazing. There are always tradeoffs, but the tradeoffs for prime shooters aren't nearly as great as for zoom and telephoto shooters...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

That is a huge lens for m43. At an equivalent of f/2,8 on FF, it's absolutely massive. Imagine an f2,8 50mm on FF. It would be tiny and inexpensive.

It's not a small lens, to be sure. But the Pany 45 is as larger or larger, the Pany 42 is much larger (about the size of the Fuji 56), and the Olympus 75mm, the lens that has kept me in m43 any time I've thought about bailing on it, is also a good deal larger. And, yeah, as small as full frame 50's tend to be at f1.8, they could probably pull off a pancake at f2.8.

If Nikon would take a look at the current market, build a mirrorless F-mount camera, keep the body traditionally sized and built, plus make lenses that match up to mirrorless users' expectations: slower, smaller, they would have an unstoppable system.

Current 1,4 AFS F lenses for speed and when you don't mind bulk, 1,8 - 2,8 lenses for when you want to shoot sort of like we shoot in APS-C land, and slower if you want the ultimate in portability and are used to what they get in m43 land.

You'd have everything from hiking to portraiture covered in one system and the advantages of mirrorless over dSLR and FF would be nearly completely void.

They've still got some gaps to close in terms of AF and a lot of people still just prefer the OVF - I rather like 'em myself. I think mirrorless and DSLRs will co-exist for quite a while. But full frame still has a notably advantage over APS. As good as today's best APS (and m43) sensors are, full frame are that much better. You can look at all the numbers in the world, but I know when I pull a file off of my RX1 or when I did off of the Df of D610 (I haven't and won't mess with a D800 - 24mp is more than plenty for me and I was really happy with the 16 on the Df), there was just so much more to work with there than with any of the crop sensors I've worked with. Whethe pulling details out of shadows, recovering highlights, whether coming up with stunningly accurate results OR processing files to within an inch of their lives with various Nik filters, those files can handle anything I can throw at 'em in ways that nothing else can.

I'm completely spoiled, I have to admit. Today's compact cameras are better cameras than the film SLRs I used to shoot with in almost every way other than narrow DOF, m43 and APS are worlds better yet, with even narrow DOF more than adequately covered (I'm not really a narrow DOF junkie at all). But, regardless, I always seem to feel myself pulled toward full frame. Getting an RX1 and playing extensively with a Df and briefly with a D610 wrecked me for the lesser sensors.

Whether Sony developes the lens lineup for the A7 series, or whether Fuji eventually develops a full frame system, or whether Canikon eventually get around to realizing they can make money on both their DSLR line and a mirrorless alternative, within the next few years there are gonna be amazing full frame options in mirrorless and there will continue to be in DSLRs. Pretty exciting times...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sgoldswo
Senior MemberPosts: 3,860Gear list
Like?
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
In reply to shigzeo, 6 months ago

shigzeo ? wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

stuartgolden wrote:

Midwest wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

stuartgolden wrote:

Full frame this, SLR that. For me what it comes down to is what would you want to lug around all day around your neck.

For me - the left wins!

You still won't convince the OP, who likely gets winded from shuffling cards.

No need to get nasty.

Just saying I have carried think glass and now that there is a very decent quality system that is substantially lighter and has a VERY decent set of glass that is orders of magnitude lighter - I'm happy to thoughtlessly grab the fuji on any occasion.

The best camera quite frequently is only the one you have with you when the moment happens.

Frankly I do not think I am alone when you own Full Frame gear with great heavy glass optically wonderful lenses - that the bulk of talking a single big glass zoom often has people mentally saying "naw" and either leaving them at home, or grabbling a pocket camera in lieu of living with heavy gear.

I'm sure we can pixel peep and spend days arguing the virtues of full frame, big glass, etc - and we all know that the heavy kit will win MOST arguments MOST of the time.

Except the more subliminal - would you grab it every time you ran out the door.

Those of us who walk and are inspired daily - and live with our gear and glass around or necks - there comes a time when you begin to break down and decide to make those decisions about what to carry and how to limit the bulk. Some of us do indeed get older - develop bad backs, arthritis - etc. Even some whom become winded.

It's nice for those, to have substantially lighter options that also produce wonderful results. In fact - I suspect if this sort of gear was available and in my hands when I was 18 - I would have carried the gear a lot more and would have captured many more of those fleeting moments when the subject, light, and lens all happen to be in the right spot.

OK - but if that's what you are trying to say, put equivalent lenses on the relevant cameras.

To your point, I am marginally more likely to carry a mirrorless camera in the week (for much of this week I have had an E-M1 in my bag). But today I have my Df with me, plus 24, 35, 58 and 85 mm primes. That collection isn't that heavy at all. It all fits into a Billingham Hadley Pro with room for some ties, pens and assorted work related gubbins. In fact the only one of those lenses which is heavy is the 24mm.

So why is that different from when I used to carry in the same bag, an X-Pro1 and assorted lenses?

I don't know which F stop primes you have on the Nikon. If they are the 1,4 lenses, there is currently no equivalent in the mirrorless world. And they are quite large. The 1,8 primes are excellent lenses, and have some equivalents in the mirrorless world, but only from Fujifilm: the 56/1,2, and are roughly the same size. Nikon lenses tend to be large for some reason. The new 35/1,8 is bigger than necessary, but a very nice lens.

My Ai/S lenses are all smaller to much smaller than their equivalents in Fujifilm's mount, but they lack AF.

I had the 24 F1.4, 35 F1.8, 58 F1.4 and 85 F1.8 with me. The only one of these that's large or heavy is the 24, which clearly has a fairly robust contraction. Sometimes with my Df I carry my 50 F1.2 AI-S, 28 F2 and 105 F2.5 instead. The AI-S lenses are pretty dense though, lens for lens they are often heavier or the same as the modern equivalents. The really light/small lenses Nikon still make are the AF-D lenses.

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Olympus E-M1 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon D750
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
akin_t
Senior MemberPosts: 2,758
Like?
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
In reply to sgoldswo, 6 months ago

Lol, you guys are talking as if the only difference between the X-T1 and Nikon Df is size.

Nikon Df is overpriced nonsense. If I want a full frame camera I'd just go for the D610 or the Canon 5D Mk III.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Sachs
Senior MemberPosts: 9,430Gear list
Like?
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
In reply to akin_t, 6 months ago

akin_t wrote:

Lol, you guys are talking as if the only difference between the X-T1 and Nikon Df is size.

Nikon Df is overpriced nonsense. If I want a full frame camera I'd just go for the D610 or the Canon 5D Mk III.

Except that it's got the same best in class high ISO sensor (until the A7s at least) that the D4 and the D4s have. Seen in that context, it's the bargain of the decade. I shot with a loaner Df for a month a really liked it a lot. I think the D610 would be a better set of tradeoffs for me too - same sensor as the RX1, which I have and love (I'm sure you'd consider that overpriced nonsense as well.... ) and a couple of differences in controls that work better for me. But calling the Df overpriced nonsense is just one man's opinion - ie, underpriced nonsense. At least to those who don't agree. It's reasonable for anyone to prefer the D610 to the Df. The reverse is equally reasonable...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sgoldswo
Senior MemberPosts: 3,860Gear list
Like?
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
In reply to akin_t, 6 months ago

akin_t wrote:

Lol, you guys are talking as if the only difference between the X-T1 and Nikon Df is size.

Nikon Df is overpriced nonsense. If I want a full frame camera I'd just go for the D610 or the Canon 5D Mk III.

Yeah, the sensor is terrible too, its in so many other cheaper cameras... Oh, hang onĀ 

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Olympus E-M1 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon D750
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
shigzeo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,367Gear list
Like?
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
In reply to akin_t, 6 months ago

akin_t wrote:

Lol, you guys are talking as if the only difference between the X-T1 and Nikon Df is size.

Nikon Df is overpriced nonsense. If I want a full frame camera I'd just go for the D610 or the Canon 5D Mk III.

I don't like the price of the DF, but this thread isn't really about price, it's been about size until now. That is where Nikon have blown it time and time again, making massive cameras, that, every generation have been getting bigger.

They need to fix that.

If we start on price, though, there are areas where the X-T1 is built poorly next to dSLR cameras in the same price range. The Df is expensive. It is Nikon's attempt to make a brand icon. They no longer have the brand to do that. Fujifilm need to be careful to not ruin their brand. Making something that your customers think of 'expensive' means that you have a brand that isn't able to support 'expensive' models.

Nikon have made cheap cameras and lenses for so long that their image has become cheap. The Df didn't float. I hope Fujifilm don't give in too much and gain that image.

The X-Pro 1 and X-T1 have pretty decent metal skeletons, but the small things: card flaps, usb doors, the half-metal, half-plastic seam along the camera plate (X-Pro 1), batteries that can be inserted the wrong way in, drive/metering dials that change with a push of the ISO/exposure dials, etc., show that Fujifilm aren't worried about the details. Those things add up. If they can fix those and make a brand that supports the long run rather than playing to catch up with the market, they will have a brand that can support true premium products and even 'expensive' products that their customers will lust after.

That's key.

Japanese companies are struggling primarily because the love affair with cheap/fast is now dying. It exists in the low end and always will and that the market to which Japanese camera companies have catered to for decades. But it no longer sustains a company.

 shigzeo's gear list:shigzeo's gear list
Nikon D200 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha 7R Fujifilm X-T1 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads