stuartgolden
Active member
- Messages
- 57
- Reaction score
- 26
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
- Thread starter stuartgolden
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fujifilm x-t1 nikon df
I believe the Nikon Df has pretty all AF lenses and maybe some MF lenses that will will on the camera. Nikon is a more complete system as is Canon vs anything mirrorless.
Sensor size does matter a lot and I'd say the same if you were comparing Micro Four Thirds and after shooting Nikon then Panasonic GH-3 with their fast glass and now Fuji each has their place.
I have handled the Nikon Df and regardless of all the guts etc, I did not care for the hand grip, minor but a functional concern.
As far as Fuji goes I need to use an accessory hand grip because I find the Fuji cameras too shallow when it comes to the camera as is, grip.
The obvious is larger DSLR lenses, they cost more etc..
If Fuji does not do more with the X200 or Xpro-2 rumored getting a DSLR or even micro four thirds again to use in tandem with Fuji may happen. I just won't invest as heavily in Fuji glass, like 4 -5 lenses.
My issue is with lack of accessories for Fuji, if Metz did a flash that would be more than OK. I understand the XT-1 is an improvement but it is not a DSLR killer yet, hope it will be.
Sensor size does matter a lot and I'd say the same if you were comparing Micro Four Thirds and after shooting Nikon then Panasonic GH-3 with their fast glass and now Fuji each has their place.
I have handled the Nikon Df and regardless of all the guts etc, I did not care for the hand grip, minor but a functional concern.
As far as Fuji goes I need to use an accessory hand grip because I find the Fuji cameras too shallow when it comes to the camera as is, grip.
The obvious is larger DSLR lenses, they cost more etc..
If Fuji does not do more with the X200 or Xpro-2 rumored getting a DSLR or even micro four thirds again to use in tandem with Fuji may happen. I just won't invest as heavily in Fuji glass, like 4 -5 lenses.
My issue is with lack of accessories for Fuji, if Metz did a flash that would be more than OK. I understand the XT-1 is an improvement but it is not a DSLR killer yet, hope it will be.
sgoldswo
Veteran Member
Odd choice in lenses don't you think? Try putting the 10-23 on the front of the X-T1 or the 16-85 on the front of the Df. Or even better the 35 on the X-T1 and the 50 F1.8G on the Df.stuartgolden said:
For me the Df ended up being the replacement for my X-Pro1. It's all about the sensor (not just high ISO, but the way it renders colours).
--
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
It's a very odd choice and an odd choice of bodies as well. The 14-24mm Nikkor deserves to be used with either the 24mp D3x or the 36mp D800 full frame bodies, shooting high resolution landscapes, not a Df that's better suited for fast sports action photos either the near-kit lens 28-85mm Nikkor or with a faster, larger lens like the 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor.
And why would the inexpensive 16-50mm kit lens that's included with the X-A1 be used for the comparison when the X-T1's kit lens is Fuji's 18-55mm? Maybe just to make a more lopsided comparison, putting a thumb on the comparison scale so to speak? Most X-T1 owners would be using Fuji's larger 18-55mm lens, not the 16-50mm kit lens
Both of Fuji's small kit lenses are fine walkabout lenses, while the special purpose extra-wide 14-24mm FX (Nikon's largest, most expensive wide angle zoom lens) isn't. If a point is going to be made about size and weight comparing Fuji vs Nikon, a more appropriate comparison would have been to choose a Nikon DX DSLR which uses a similar size APS-C sensor, and then the comparison might have been the D7100 DSLR (or any of many much smaller DSLRs) with either a large but more flexible kit lens (18-140mm) or to do what the OP did, pick the smallest kit lens that's supplied with some other DSLR, in this case Nikon's 18-55mm kit lens, which happens to be about the same size as Fuji's 16-50mm lens. But that wouldn't tell the same story, "Ooh, the DSLR is so much larger and heavier than my Fuji".
Bah, humbug!
km25
Leading Member
Advantage to Nikon FF vs APS-C @ 16mp. The lens for the Fujion on an average are better then Nikon. The Nikon has an 85mm F/1.4 or even the F/1.8, great lens. But then the Fuji has the 56mm F1.2. The Fuji has the 23mm F1.4, better get the Sigma. Lens are a very good, but the edge would have to go to Fuji. No vertical grip for the Nikon, MF, no interchangable focusing screens, I owned Nikons, there should bring back the P screen. Trouble with low light AF. And biggest, to me fault with the Nikon, it has a AA filter. Bottom line the Df makes good pictures, it's operation can stand improvement. Correct all the above, then I may think about it.
Beat Traveller
Leading Member
- Messages
- 745
- Reaction score
- 415
I'm slowly growing to despise Compact Camera Meter. It's gradually achieving DXO levels of screen-grabbing to make pointless judgements void of context about the superiority of one camera over another.
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
There are so many other ways to make pointless, incorrect and sometimes silly judgements, many of them making up a large portion of some of DPR's forum threads. The Compact Camera Meter can be useful if it's used appropriately and not used to support personal preferences with misleading comparisons.
It's biggest problem is that it doesn't show 'equivalence'. You get a smaller camera or a larger camera, but the effect of the lenses you put on the sensors inside those don't show up at all. Yes, you can get great compact interchangeable lens cameras now. But you cannot get the same look you can get with the larger formats and even modest speed lenses.
Nikon do have a problem though: their dSLRs are too big. Their lenses are what they are. By and large, equivalents in m43 and APS-C do not exist when mated to native sensors; if they do, they prove to be just as large as the FF lenses to which they are most closely compared.
Dorkington
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 355
- Reaction score
- 140
The Nikon Df is a better camera, I think that much can be agreed on. It has better image quality, and faster focusing even with the compromised AF sensor.
That being said, for me, is it better enough to sacrifice size? Nope. That's why I moved on from my Canon DSLR set many years ago.
I wanted to find something that was a good compromise in quality and size, and I came away with the Fuji system.
There are smaller systems out there, definitely (MFT, and some Sony setups). There are better quality systems (Canikon, Sony FE). But I'm comfortable with a little bit of both.
It's a great time for photographers, loads of high quality choices.
That being said, for me, is it better enough to sacrifice size? Nope. That's why I moved on from my Canon DSLR set many years ago.
I wanted to find something that was a good compromise in quality and size, and I came away with the Fuji system.
There are smaller systems out there, definitely (MFT, and some Sony setups). There are better quality systems (Canikon, Sony FE). But I'm comfortable with a little bit of both.
It's a great time for photographers, loads of high quality choices.
Dorkington
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 355
- Reaction score
- 140
For those complaining about selections, here's a few more... not every situation does the Fuji win outright, but like I said, it's all about compromise.
Again, not saying Fuji is the "winner" here. It's all about what you value most. Want the highest of high quality? There's better options than Fuji, for sure. Want the smallest of the small? Again, there's better options. (though not seen here)
Please note, for the zooms, there isn't really a direct comparison for each camera, so I tried to choose what was the closest and available on Camerasize.com's website. Don't shoot the messenger.
Following images from: http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.408,487.395,495.353,ga,t
~50mm equiv
~35mm equiv (edit, just noticed that the Nikon lens is a DX lens, whoops)
[ATTACH alt="Base zoom. Chose the "consumer" grade Sony, and the smallest of the available full frame options on Camerasize, for the Nikon. The Nikon options were much larger than the Tamron option."]709990[/ATTACH]
Base zoom. Chose the "consumer" grade Sony, and the smallest of the available full frame options on Camerasize, for the Nikon. The Nikon options were much larger than the Tamron option.
"Vacation lenses". Fuji's new 18-135. Sony's crop mount 18-200 PZ (no full sensor "vacation lens"), Nikon 28-300.
Again, not saying Fuji is the "winner" here. It's all about what you value most. Want the highest of high quality? There's better options than Fuji, for sure. Want the smallest of the small? Again, there's better options. (though not seen here)
Please note, for the zooms, there isn't really a direct comparison for each camera, so I tried to choose what was the closest and available on Camerasize.com's website. Don't shoot the messenger.
Following images from: http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.408,487.395,495.353,ga,t
~50mm equiv
~35mm equiv (edit, just noticed that the Nikon lens is a DX lens, whoops)
[ATTACH alt="Base zoom. Chose the "consumer" grade Sony, and the smallest of the available full frame options on Camerasize, for the Nikon. The Nikon options were much larger than the Tamron option."]709990[/ATTACH]
Base zoom. Chose the "consumer" grade Sony, and the smallest of the available full frame options on Camerasize, for the Nikon. The Nikon options were much larger than the Tamron option.
"Vacation lenses". Fuji's new 18-135. Sony's crop mount 18-200 PZ (no full sensor "vacation lens"), Nikon 28-300.
Attachments
Last edited:
The FF options are hard to decide upon, but there does exist an older Nikon 28-200 lens, which roughly coincides to the Fujifilm one, though in equivalent terms, is faster. It is smaller and much less expensive but AFD, rather than AFS.For those complaining about selections, here's a few more... not every situation does the Fuji win outright, but like I said, it's all about compromise.
Again, not saying Fuji is the "winner" here. It's all about what you value most. Want the highest of high quality? There's better options than Fuji, for sure. Want the smallest of the small? Again, there's better options. (though not seen here)
Please note, for the zooms, there isn't really a direct comparison for each camera, so I tried to choose what was the closest and available on Camerasize.com's website. Don't shoot the messenger.
Following images from: http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.408,487.395,495.353,ga,t
~50mm equiv
~35mm equiv (edit, just noticed that the Nikon lens is a DX lens, whoops)
[ATTACH alt="Base zoom. Chose the "consumer" grade Sony, and the smallest of the available full frame options on Camerasize, for the Nikon. The Nikon options were much larger than the Tamron option."]709990[/ATTACH]
Base zoom. Chose the "consumer" grade Sony, and the smallest of the available full frame options on Camerasize, for the Nikon. The Nikon options were much larger than the Tamron option.
"Vacation lenses". Fuji's new 18-135. Sony's crop mount 18-200 PZ (no full sensor "vacation lens"), Nikon 28-300.
To coincide with the 18-55 Fujifilm, Nikon offer the 24-85, which is both wider, and in equivalent terms, offers a different image. It is not much larger than the Fujifilm lens.
Essentially, when put in as equivalent terms as possible, FF will generally be the same size, and often, much less expensive.
--
Hiking with the Fujifilm X-T1
ohm image - audio photography
photo perzon
Senior Member
i have a keen eye
Although if you don't care about razer thin DoF then all of this is largely just hot air and I definitely don't see what use there is displaying it along with camera size.
The reason is that fast FF lenses get compared unfairly to lenses that deliver images that produce completely different images. It isn't all about DOF, but if the idea is that a crop sensor lens is smaller, then it should be compared to an equivalent lens that gives an equivalent look.
Thus, an 18-55/2,8 APS-C lens should be compared to a 28-70/4 or 28-85/4 not an f/2,8 lens, which gives a totally different result. All things equal, lenses giving equivalent focal lengths AND DOF will be roughly the same size. Sometimes, they will be much larger in APS-C or m43 simply because in order to achieve the same look, you have to have much much faster glass/more expensive glass.
I prefer slower lenses. On FF, I own f/1,8/85mm at fastest. It is roughly the same size as the Fujifilm 56/1,2 and gives pretty much the same look. If Fujifilm made a 56/2, then its equivalent FF lens would be an 85/2,8.
Lenses that give more DOF at widest aperture usually are smaller and cheaper. With mirrorless, since lenses are made to mimic FF standards, they have to use much more expensive designs in order to keep up with rather meagre lenses.
The real coup would be if Nikon designed an FE/FM style mirrorless F mount camera. Apart from a longer flange distance, the camera and system would be the same size as the X-T1, but would feature cheaper lenses, many of which are at least as good as the Fujifilm lenses. What doesn't match up is the zooms. You get printable, great results from any zoom on the market today, but Fujifilm's 18-55/2,8-4 is overall a better lens than the 24-85/3,5-4,5 which is its closest competitor. Of course, DOF/FOV is off between those two. If Nikon made a 28-85/4-5,6 lens, it would be the same size as the Fujifilm.
Why should it? Because you care about it? I'm sorry but to me it just doesn't make any logical sense. I would have said it's fair to compare a f2.8 lens to an f2.8 lens, no matter what format they're made for. I'd rather not have a nice simple layout like camerasize cluttered but irrelevant info.
If you care then your welcome to go find a DoF calculator.
As far as I'm concerned size of camera and cleanliness of image are paramount. Should they also include a range of test shots below each camera at all ISO to make a wonderfully complete but horrible to use interface?
Last edited:
slimandy
Forum Pro
They do? Try picking them up.
slimandy
Forum Pro
I would have thought the most logical comparison was the Fuji 18~55 vs the Nikon 24~70, and he'd still have made his point. Small primes even it out to an extent, but are you only going to use small primes? Are you going to carry just one lens all the time?
If the bigger sensor is what matters most to you then you made the right choice. Personally I was shooting a Nikon D700 FF camera and have switched to Fuji X-T1. In fact I still have both but I rarely use the Nikon. I did try the X-T1 and a Nikon Df at the Photghraphy Show at the NEC before making my choice.
--
www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
I'll somewhat disagree here. The 16-50mm is Fuji's most inexpensive kit lens. I agree that the 18-55mm would be the better mate for the X-T1, but the 24-70mm is a large, expensive, unstabilized f/2.8 lens often used by pros, not really comparable to the two standard Fuji kit lenses. Nikon's 28-85mm VR lens is a relatively inexpensive, smaller full frame kit lens that's stabilized and like the Fuji lenses is quite good optically even for a D800 but even better when it's used with the 16mp Df.
S
Sonyshine
Guest
Fuji got manual controls just right with the XT1.
Nikon messed up big time with the layout and controls of their DF - which is a shame as they could have been onto a winner if they got it right - as the sensor is a cracker.
Nikon messed up big time with the layout and controls of their DF - which is a shame as they could have been onto a winner if they got it right - as the sensor is a cracker.
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum