No finder on the Fuji...Interesting comparo just in terms of size/weight
Will the rumored GFX50R make the GFX line even more enticing as a street/landscape camera?
blog.kasson.com
We aren't seriously comparing these cameras are we? I'm new to this camera thing but can't see many people cross shopping these two models.No finder on the Fuji...Interesting comparo just in terms of size/weight
Will the rumored GFX50R make the GFX line even more enticing as a street/landscape camera?
Worst? Where does it fall behind the others? I’ve only used it so wondering what I’m missing out on.
There is nothing wrong with the 63. It's just not as spectacular as the 110/2, the 120/4, the 23/4, and the 32-64. The way the lens moves during focusing is annoying to some.
Well, lots of folks came to MF from FF. But, I do not see that many folks flowing the other way.We aren't seriously comparing these cameras are we? I'm new to this camera thing but can't see many people cross shopping these two models.No finder on the Fuji...Interesting comparo just in terms of size/weight
Will the rumored GFX50R make the GFX line even more enticing as a street/landscape camera?
Nikon claims near zero aberrations wide open. "Near zero aberrations wide open" is Otus territory. The mount is 44x33 in diameter which Nikon claims provides more light. Might be some good reasons for it.
It's like comparing a 51 carat diamond to a 50. The fifty is worse right? ;-)
Sure. What does near zero mean in this context? Nothing, as far as I can tell.
Is the 63 not optically superior to the zoom? If not I’ve been misinformed. It’s faster glass too, as well as slightly sharper throughout the aperture range? The motor noise doesn’t bother me. I get that it’s motor isn’t as advanced as the others. Not seeing how this is the worst lens. I wouldn’t even consider the 35mm equivalent I find that a boring FL (get that many feel that way for 50mm). By what measure is the 63 the worst. I’m not convinced there’s a consensus about this let alone any tests to support this I’ve not seen it anywhere. Seems a very strong statement to be making even if the margin of difference is small.
Take a look at the Otus focus shift here:
Actually, I was referring to the Z 50mm and the Otus 55mm.
From the short time I had the Otus 55mm (rental) and tested it in landscape situations, I didn't have a problem getting sharply focuses images when I was able to use LV. Who knows what my strategy is other than looking at the image until it was in focus. I would describe its performance wide open as near flawless @ f1.4 with an almost invisible falloff into the corners.
By the way, I was merely spit balling reasons for why the lenses for the Nikon Z system are so large. Do you have a theory?
Yes I think so too. When these lenses first came out, Fuji's MTFs for each seemed to suggest that the 32-64 @64mm and the 63mm were equals. I would have bought the 32-64 first anyway even if the MTFs showed greater separation in those results. The 32-64 was just way more versatile for framing. Carrying one lens rather than several is important too as I am an old man whose long hiking days in the hills and mountains are waning. The thing about the 32-64 Is that it is sharper across the whole range and frame than the normal FF zoom I had previously thought was so special. When I am not hiking, and I can set up my tripod, I will use the primes in this range instead.
My comment was ironic. I think if you read it again you'll get the joke.
That’s a valid subjective comparison, just not one that is relevant to my work. I take it then that image to image at this focal length the prime is the better lens. They’re all great from what I’ve heard.
That makes sense (hiking). Get what you’re saying now.
