Mostly, I agree. The drive and metering dials, however, are too easy to inadvertently switch when changing the ISO and exposure dials above them. If they could lock the bottom functions, which aren't changed as often, the experience would be nearly perfected.
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.
I wouldn't and have never claimed I would.
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.
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 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.
If you mean the old 28~85 it isn't a great lens by modern standards and is not stabalised. If you mean the 24~85 VR it is 460g and 72mm filter vs the Fuji 18~55 at 309g and 58mm filter.
Sorry about the typo, "28-85mm VR" should have been "24-85mm VR" but it should have been clear from the context. The 24-85mm VR lens is stabilized (as indicated by the "VR"), it's a much better lens than the old 28-85mm, good enough that it has been used as the kit lens for the D600/D610. This is from Thom Hogan's review :
http://www.bythom.com/2485lens.htm
Was limited to what that site gave me, like I said.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
There's nothing wrong with pointing out that mirrorless cameras and their lenses are often smaller than their DSLR counterparts. It's not as acceptable to go farther than that by stacking the deck against the DSLR by giving it a very large, fixed aperture f/2.8 pro lens that's not at all comparable, one that's twice the size of a good, existing kit lens that would be used the same way by most DSLR owners as a decent walkabout lens.
Good point or not, there's further proof that the OP was trying to be deceptive. You're right, he should have used the 18-55mm kit lens but not only did he use a much larger lens for the DSLR than was necessary, he also didn't use the 18-55mm kit lens that's shipped with the X-T1, X-E1 and X-E2. He tried to make the difference appear even greater than it should be by using the much smaller and lighter 16-50mm plastic kit lens that ships with the X-A1, not with the X-T1.
I've agreed to use your suggestion and said the point is still clear. What's the problem?
His point is still valid and clear, as I've said. You seem to be taking it personally!
Oh, I don't know about that. The OP was trying to make a point about the advantage of switching from a large DSLR to a smaller mirrorless camera. You replaced a pretty small DSLR (Df) with a much larger and heavier DSLR (the D4), and also replaced the larger X-T1 with the (slightly?) smaller X-Pro 1. I'm not as critical about the body choices because you're using probably using what you have for the photos. But still, there's a mismatch. A photographer using Nikon's 14-24mm lens is much less likely to use it with a 16mp D4 or D4 than (as I earlier said) with a higher resolution D3x or D800.
This is a more appropriate comparison (at least as far as the lens is concerned). 10-24mm f/4 vs 14-24mm f/2.8 on the X-Pro1 and Nikon D4
I haven't taken the X-T1 plunge yet.
That's odd, I thought the same about you, but you're the one going farther, saying that you think that I have a problem, which shows that it's you that seems to be taking it personally enough to make personal accusations. So as far as I'm concerned it doesn't deserve to go any further between us unless you decide to make a last reply.
Should have said 10-24mm and 24-85mm VR up above. Apologies for typing in haste while making my dinner...
I have to say, owning both a Df and a X-T1, that they have very similar controls and my marginal preference is for the Df controls. Quite a lot of Df owners actually remark on how much they like the controls and that they are a reason to own and use the camera... The only thing I dont really like is having to lift the PASM dial.
