My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

Started Jun 16, 2014 | Discussions thread
shigzeo Senior Member • Posts: 1,783
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

Dheorl wrote:

shigzeo ? wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

shigzeo ? wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

Beat Traveller wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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?

Why would you compare a straight f/2,8 lens that covers a larger sensor to a variable lens that covers a much smaller sensor? Even if the 18-55 was straight f/2,8, the images it would produce would be similar to a FF lens on an FF sensor with an aperture of around F4. That lens would be rather compact in comparison to the 24-70/2,8.

The only way to make the comparison of unequal lenses make sense is on the same camera. Then, a 35/1,4 AiS would seem like a monster next to the Fujifilm 35mm lens. Of course, put on a FF sensor, it produces an image that no Fujifilm lens currently can. And the 35/1,4 XF lens produces an image that is comparable to an SLR 50/2 lens, but is more expensive, and somewhat larger.

Bodies are the only place where savings is size are realised, and even so, only because current dSLR makers make monster cameras. In the film days, the average SLR was roughly the same size as the X-T1.

 shigzeo's gear list:shigzeo's gear list
Leica SL (Typ 601) Fujifilm GFX 50S Leica M10 Leica APO-Summicron-M 90mm f/2 ASPH +6 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow