My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

Started Jun 16, 2014 | Discussions thread
Dheorl Veteran Member • Posts: 3,498
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

shigzeo ? wrote:

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?

I wouldn't and have never claimed I would.

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 images it produces would be similar if a) you were actually shooting at the maximum aperture, b) the sharpness at the maximum aperture of the FF lens managed to be as good as for the smaller sensor and c) the larger sensor was as efficient as the smaller sensor.

C is very unlikely, B isn't exactly a normal scenario and A might not be at all relevant for a lot of photographers. I have my f2.8 lenses because they are incredibly sharp as much as anything. Why clutter a perfectly good tool that's meant to do one job and does it very well with pointless extras.

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.

Why are you looking so much into this. The camerasize website is great for comparing camera A + lens X to camera B + lens Y. It's all it's meant to be for and it does it well. If other stuff about lenses concerns you than that's fine, but don't go assuming everyone else should be taking it into consideration as well because some of us just don't give a damn.

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.

Bodies are the only place where savings are made? Really? So a 400mm f2.8 on a APS-C camera is no smaller at all than a 600mm f4 on a FF camera? Yes this is an extreme example, but fortunately it only takes one example to disprove a blanket statement.

Not to mention the short flange distance of mirrorless enabling different lens designs to SLRs, although this isn't exactly related to sensor size so is sort of beside the point.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow