Who actually got into fuji for saving weight?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
thxbb12 Senior Member • Posts: 2,031
Re: Who actually got into fuji for saving weight?
1

Greg7579 wrote:

thxbb12 wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

thxbb12 wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

This is a good thread and there have been many exactly like it over the years on this Fuji Board. The "I switched to Fuji X because of ergo/size/weight and now they are making bigger lenses and bodies," is a common topic on the Fuji Board.

I left Canon FF DSLRs and great L glass many years ago for Fuji X. It started with the XT-1, but it took all the way till the XH-1 for me to finally part with the closet full of Canon DSLR gear. So glad I did.

I was initially attracted to the size/weight and retro look of Fuji X but then after shooting it a while it became more about the ergo and glass.

What really sets Fuji apart is not only the "sweet spot" APSC-size sensor, which allows more compact bodies to be built around it, but the great quality of the lenses. Yes, some of it creeps up to close to FF size/weight, but not really. Lens size is still an advantage with Fuji XF and the quality is better than the FF brands in my opinion. Look at the F2 lenses and the size and weight of the world class 16-55 and 50-140 when compared to their FF counterparts, which are the fast 24-70 and 70-200 most popular zooms in the world.

So, Fuji has the sweet spot - APSC. If you start craving more pure res, go to the high end - GFX.

I do find it ironic that I abandoned Canon DSLRs and went to Fuji X initially for size/weight, only to gravitate back towards the bigger sensors and GFX. So now I'm carrying a camera that is the size of a Nikon D850 with grip. But I still have the sweet spot (Fuji X0, and for a reason.

I mostly agree, but if you consider equivalent DOF ability, Fuji is not at an advantage anymore.

You can't really compare a f2.8 FF lens with a f2.8 APS-C lens. The final picture will look different.

Either you compare a f2.8 FF lens with a f2 APS-C lens, or a f4 FF zoom with a f2.8 APS-C lens. In your example, Fuji's 16-55 f2.8 and 50-140 f2.8 zooms must be compared to f4 FF equivalents. Then, you will see that APS-C has no substantial advantage...

Florent, don't get me started. I have been obsessed with this subject for the past 18 months and I see it every day when I shoot MF vs FF and APSC (I shoot all three).

I won't get into aperture equivalency here because if I do the thread will get locked.

Just trust me when I tell you that if you want more DOF vs less (like I almost always want), APSC has some big advantages. Now, some portrait photographers don't want that so for them maybe Fuji X lenses are a disadvantage at F2.8 compared to FF or MF.

I'll leave it at that. Believe me, I have a full understanding now of aperture equivalency. It is not an easy subject. It took me three years but I finally got there. 😎

But yes, you are right. At equivalent apertures all is the same (even diffraction) but getting to those equivalent apertures is the trick. Also, like you hinted at, when comparing APSC vs MF vs MF lenses one must equalize FOV or distance (and they can't do both), and they're going to have to decide on the f-stop difference to get equivalency. Leads to lots of problems on DPR when people start posting comparison shots between sensor sizes.

Just believe me when I tell you that at the apertures I like to shoot in similar comparative situations, Medium Format gives me far less DOF than FF and immensely less DOF than APSC. I could give you the exact scientific numbers but my eyes say it is actually more than that. DOF is a big issue with me. I want more of it and believe me, you get tons of it with APSC.

I don't want to start a equivalency debate either, but users need to understand that f2.8 on MF, FF, APS-C, MFT and on an iphone are not comparable. The crop factor one applies to focal length must also be applied to the aperture.

That's why an APS-C 16-55 f2.8 lens is exactly equivalent to a 24-82.5 f4.2 lens.

What's nice about APS-C (or even further, with MFT) is that if you don't need shallow DOF, then you can have much more compact systems

You understand more than most but you still said it not exactly correctly. Don't use the ward "exactly" and don't equate crop factor to aperture equivalence because the two are different in many ways.

But the point is that APSC provides a lot more DOF (especially when compared to GFX) and that is a big plus for me.

Also remember when we talk about aperture equivalence it is in mostly terms of DOF not purely light gathering. F2.8 is still F2.8 in many ways, like in low-light shooting capability.

I was talking about the look one gets with different systems which is what matters in the end.

For instance, Olympus PR is good at this: they often compare their Oly 300mm f4 lens to a 600mm f4 FF Canon lens, stating "look how much smaller MFT is". What people may not realize is that only the focal length is comparable. That's what I don't want people to believe. It's much more than just the focal length that's at play. A photo taken with an Oly 300m f4 at f4 won't look the same as the same photo taken with a Canon FF 600mm f4 lens at f4. The DOF of the latter will be much more shallow (and the photo less noisy). That was my point.

It's true that I didn't talk about ISO and total light gathering (directly related to ISO), to keep things simple.

If we want to be complete, we also need to mention that ISO 200 on APS-C will produce to same amount of noise (given total light gathering) to ISO 600 on FF given similar sensor technologies.

-- hide signature --
 thxbb12's gear list:thxbb12's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Fujifilm X-T20 Panasonic Lumix DC-GX9 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 R +9 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
GKN
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow