-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
I think people forgot why they bought into mirrorless
- Thread starter JJJRRR768
- Start date
IslandTractor
Leading Member
- Messages
- 642
- Reaction score
- 245
I have recently bought into the Fuji world precisely because of the ability to use high quality manual lenses and as a versatile travel camera. It is interesting how the use of manual focus lenses can save weight.
I have a number of Contax/Zeiss G lenses and an 39mm mount Voitlander 15mm/4.5. The Voitlander with adapter and caps weighs only 170g and is physically the same size as the Fuji 27 pancake. The Contax/Zeiss 45/2 weighs 200g. The 35/2 weighs 170g. The 21/2.8 weighs 210g. The 90/2.8 is 290g. No weight savings based on plastic content either as these Zeiss lens are all metal. If I take all those lenses together with the X-E1, I have a pretty wide 22-150mm FF equivalent range of excellent primes that all together weigh in at 870g without the 450g X-E1. All together that system weighs only 1320g or about 3lbs For another few ounces I can throw in the Fuji 27 pancake to add AF flexibility for street shooting. And everything, along with extra batteries charger etc fit in a Domke F6 with a Gorilla Pod hanging on the strap. Total weight a bit over 4lbs.
As I tend to shoot mostly landscapes, the lack of AF is hardly crippling. However, if I want the simplicity of AF then 370g for the 18-55 and the 90g for the 27 pancake combined with the X-E1 is a total of 900g which is less than my Canon 28-70L alone. Add another 800g for a Canon crop sensor body or 750g for the 6D. That combo is double the weight of the equivalent Fuji set up. And, I can carry the Fuji and two lenses in a belt pack (Mirrorless Mover 10).
Of course I do lust after the Fuji 23 and 56 just as most folks who appreciate nice glass do but there certainly are ways to use primes and keep the weight down with the X system if you are willing to revert to life as a pre 1980's manual focus photographer.
DarnGoodPhotos
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,416
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,947
And the NEX is monstrous compared to the mirror-less GM1. Holy cow, that thing is tiny.
Last edited:
I've always used Canon SLR/DSLR cameras and, because of a fairly large investment in lenses, never considered any other brand or type of camera. I don't have any complaints about Canon other than some issues with their TTL flash (Nikon is better).
The only reason I bought into mirrorless was out of curiosity and, because of Olympus, decided mirrorless might be something worthwhile.
The first mirrorless camera I bought was the Olympus E-P2. I loved the overall image quality and Olympus JPEG colors but didn't like their menu or that noisy Panasonic sensor at anything over ISO 800. I sold the E-P2 and a couple of lenses at a loss.
Next came the Sony NEX 5n. Great sensor even at high ISO settings but I hated the camera because it was too small, the menu was almost as bad as the Olympus, and the Sony colors didn't even come close to the Olympus. Sold that camera and a couple of lenses at an even bigger loss. :-(
I almost gave up on mirrorless but, a little over a year ago, I got a great deal on a used (two week old) X-E1 with both the 18-55mm lens and the 35mm lens. The camera was not a tiny, toy like, camera had a decent menu, good physical controls, a viewfinder (thank goodness) and, like I said, the price was right.
I've never regretted buying the Fuji. The image quality is excellent (as good as any camera with an APS size sensor) and the Fuji JPEG engine/colors are every bit as good or better than Olympus.
My only valid complaint about the camera is the autofocus tracking speed and, for me, that's a minor complaint.
I didn't buy "into" mirrorless for the small size. I hate tiny cameras.
I bought mirrorless out of curiosity and because they're a little different. I suppose curiosity did kill the cat but so far all it's cost me is a big loss of money, trying to find a camera I liked.
To be honest, even if I hated the Fuji I don't think I'd sell it and try something else. I've heard that divorce is much more expensive than selling cameras at a loss.
The only reason I bought into mirrorless was out of curiosity and, because of Olympus, decided mirrorless might be something worthwhile.
The first mirrorless camera I bought was the Olympus E-P2. I loved the overall image quality and Olympus JPEG colors but didn't like their menu or that noisy Panasonic sensor at anything over ISO 800. I sold the E-P2 and a couple of lenses at a loss.
Next came the Sony NEX 5n. Great sensor even at high ISO settings but I hated the camera because it was too small, the menu was almost as bad as the Olympus, and the Sony colors didn't even come close to the Olympus. Sold that camera and a couple of lenses at an even bigger loss. :-(
I almost gave up on mirrorless but, a little over a year ago, I got a great deal on a used (two week old) X-E1 with both the 18-55mm lens and the 35mm lens. The camera was not a tiny, toy like, camera had a decent menu, good physical controls, a viewfinder (thank goodness) and, like I said, the price was right.
I've never regretted buying the Fuji. The image quality is excellent (as good as any camera with an APS size sensor) and the Fuji JPEG engine/colors are every bit as good or better than Olympus.
My only valid complaint about the camera is the autofocus tracking speed and, for me, that's a minor complaint.
I didn't buy "into" mirrorless for the small size. I hate tiny cameras.
I bought mirrorless out of curiosity and because they're a little different. I suppose curiosity did kill the cat but so far all it's cost me is a big loss of money, trying to find a camera I liked.To be honest, even if I hated the Fuji I don't think I'd sell it and try something else. I've heard that divorce is much more expensive than selling cameras at a loss.
John Gellings
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,472
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 9,345
John Motts
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,857
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,604
It depends where you're coming from. I have a Nikon 35mm f/1.4 and a Fuji 23mm f/1.4 and they are hugely different in size and weight.
If ever you feel that these lenses are too heavy, try spending a day with a Nikon or Canon 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8. You'll never complain about the size and weight of the Fuji again!
Hi,
Yes, it is all relative. I used to use a 4X5 field camera for landscape and 6X9 and 6X7 cameras and they certainly make a FF DSLR look a bit smaller (if not all that much lighter). As I said in my earlier post, I do understand the appeal of the faster and larger lenses. OTOH, none of that means that the aspirations of those who would like a 23/2 couldn't be met - we know Fuji has the lens design and the concept appears to be popular.
Cheers, Rod
Yes, it is all relative. I used to use a 4X5 field camera for landscape and 6X9 and 6X7 cameras and they certainly make a FF DSLR look a bit smaller (if not all that much lighter). As I said in my earlier post, I do understand the appeal of the faster and larger lenses. OTOH, none of that means that the aspirations of those who would like a 23/2 couldn't be met - we know Fuji has the lens design and the concept appears to be popular.
Cheers, Rod
Last edited:
JJJRRR768
Forum Pro
Thank you Conrad.
JJJRRR768
Forum Pro
I have thought of picking up a small 21 or 23mm if I can find one in a Voightlander M mount, but I have never done MF on a modern Digital Camera. From what I hear MF can be a bit tricky on a digital camera using old film lenses.
JJJRRR768
Forum Pro
JJJRRR768
Forum Pro
Patrick T. Kelly
Senior Member
I haven't forgotten why I bought my Fuji. I also realize that you might have perfectly valid reasons for having bought a Fuji that were quite different from mine.
John Carson
Senior Member
Fuji has been trying to build credibility with enthusiasts and professionals. That requires fast lenses, but these come at a price in terms of size and weight.
I expect that in time Fuji will fill out its range with some slower, smaller lenses.
This is a bit disingenuous. The 5DII isn't a current model. If you compare the 6D to the XT1, you're looking at a closer price gap, and Fuji does not "match or exceed the IQ" of the FF Canon, at least compared to the 6D. I've shot both.
Every system is a compromise one way or another. For some Fuji is the perfect compromise between size, cost, and quality. And they have a great set of lenses. No need for hyperbole and stating that the 16mp APS-C sensor gives better IQ than a FF. I spent part of today comparing XT1 files to RX1r and A7r files. For sheer IQ, FF wins. There are plenty of other issues that one can consider and sensor size isn't the be-all, end-all factor. But physics is physics...
C
Chris Dodkin
Guest
You miss the point - I'm comparing things that I actually own and use
Rather than trying to talk about stuff I don't own and don't use
I know it's unusual, but I try to stick to that as a rule of thumb.
Well, I was talking about things I own and/or have used (the files I was comparing were shot by my, not pulled from random internets) and imho are more comparable but whatever floats your boat. If you've found the gear that makes you happy, that's really all that counts.
Last edited:
Graham Hill
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,355
- Reaction score
- 1,253
Absolutely true. Canon IQ is absolutely at the top of the heap, along with Nikon. What pitiful little differences between Canon, Nikon, and Fuji are utterly insignificant.
We had a poll here recently on whether or not the X Trans sensor was as good as FF and it was a resounding defeat for X Trans. Fujifilm's marketing slogan was fully repudiated even by owners of the X trans.
C
Chris Dodkin
Guest
Agreed - as there is no absolute definition of IQ, we can both be right
Towards the original question - I added mirrorless for size and weight reasons. I still have a dSLR for certain uses. I also still have a u4/3 (GH3), but primarily for video. I shot plenty of stills with u4/3 as well as "serious" point and shoots. But to channel the auto industry, "there is no replacement for displacement." Each format has its own pluses and minuses. But if you want ultimate IQ, bigger is generally better. While technology has improved IQ within a particular class of sensor, technology doesn't stand still for the other ones. Pretty much everyone in this forum would say that their APS-C X-trans sensor gives better IQ than any u4/3. But people who shoot FF would say they beat APS-C, And people who shoot MF would say they beat FF. But sensor size is only part of the equation.
Everything is a compromise. No need to make claims that the laws of physics have been altered by company X and they now perform better than company Y despite company Y using a bigger sensor. Instead it comes down to what you want/need, and which system is the best fit. Plenty of reasons to choose Fuji over Sony or Oly or Panny. And plenty of reasons to choose Sony over Fuji, etc. Just depends on what you like. And certainly some companies are more creative and come up with solutions that "punch above their weight". But that will inevitably have some tradeoffs as well. Might be worth it to some, not to others. ymmv.
Everything is a compromise. No need to make claims that the laws of physics have been altered by company X and they now perform better than company Y despite company Y using a bigger sensor. Instead it comes down to what you want/need, and which system is the best fit. Plenty of reasons to choose Fuji over Sony or Oly or Panny. And plenty of reasons to choose Sony over Fuji, etc. Just depends on what you like. And certainly some companies are more creative and come up with solutions that "punch above their weight". But that will inevitably have some tradeoffs as well. Might be worth it to some, not to others. ymmv.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum