My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

Started Jun 16, 2014 | Discussions thread
shigzeo Senior Member • Posts: 1,818
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

photoreddi wrote:

Joseph Harrell wrote:

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.

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.

And even those bodies and lenses aren't really the most appropriate for comparisons because when the OP writes "what would you want to lug around all day around your neck" that probably indicates a general purpose, walkaround lens like the small, plastic 16-50mm kit he used for the comparison, not a heavy, expensive "pro" lens that has a focal length range much wider than almost anyone would consider for a walkaround lens. 14-24mm on a D4/Df is like a 9.2-15.8mm lens on a Fuji X-mount body, and that's an extreme wide angle special purpose lens. Yes, it's not what the OP would want to lug around all day, but it's also not a lens that he or most people would ever consider lugging around all day unless they're really dedicate landscape or architectural photographers, and if that's the case they'd never, ever consider replacing it with a 16-50mm kit lens on any Fuji body even if it was shrunk to the size and weight of a compact P&S camera.

Not to mention the fact that the 14-24, being a 2,8 lens, isn't only a stop faster, on its native sensor, it gives an image the equivalent to an APS-C lens at f2. An APS-C constant f2 lens would be massive, possibly larger than the 14-24.

Nikon don't make an ultrawide that compares. The 16-35 is constant f/4, but on its native sensor, it gives an image, again, like an f/2,8 would. Nikon would have to make an ultrawide f/5,6 to make it directly comparable. But they never will.

So, the Fujifilm has the advantage, but only because Nikon wouldn't make such a slow lens for FF.

Also, the X-T1 is slightly smaller than the X-Pro 1 is. Is is less long in the X axis and not quite as tall at the shoulders. Only the hump sticks above the X-pro 1.

 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