Comparing Full Frame to Fuji physical weight/coverage

Started Aug 13, 2014 | Discussions thread
Flat view
ryan2007 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,001
Comparing Full Frame to Fuji physical weight/coverage

Yes, I know the f stops are not exact. However, my thought is being a Full Frame camera vs APS-C makes up for a stop or two.

I was curious to see what the numbers were on one page. I say that what you spend to buy a Fuji X camera and lenses will be very close in weight when all placed in the same camera bag.

Randomly picked.

Nikon D610


85 mm 1.8 prime

Fuji XT-1

23,56 and 18-135 zoom

Both weight 4 pounds and the Nikon set up costs $400 less. Yes I know the F stop is slower and coverage not exact but from the 120 mm (nikon) to 200 mm (fuji equivalent) its pretty close and with Nikon.

**Next randomness

Nikon D610 with 24-120 only

Fuji XT-1 with the 18-55,55-200 and 56 mm prime

Nikon weight is 3.25 pounds and Fuji X is 4 pounds

Coverage is greater with Fuji but again how much do you use telephoto past 120 mm and the f stops are about the same except the 56 mm.

Cost for Nikon is $3,193

Cost for Fuji is $3,297

Nikon costs $100 less

I converted grams to ounces then ounces to pounds. Forget filters and assume the camera bag is the same whatever that is.

this has nothing to do with the experience just weight and cost and seeing you can easily go Full Frame, pay less than mirrorless (sometimes) and IMO let the larger sensor do the work/matter more.

Sure, if you are a F 2.8 or F 1.4 DSLR shooter that is a whole different ballpark and maybe at that point Fuji X or Micro Four thirds cost wise and physical weight makes sense.

HOWEVER, if and when rebates happen that could be the time to really decide.

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