Changing brand rather than wait for M5.2 Locked

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 7,112
Re: Changing brand rather than wait for M5.2

DjangoChained wrote:

prospects wrote:

dwfrommonterey wrote:

Recently I went into an investigation as to whether going to a Nikon would address my M5 problems, which are shared by others on this forum. Another thread suggested that the solution is a Fuji. Commenters recommended a Sony.

Here's what I end up believing makes giving up the M so hard.

From competitors, one can buy exactly what we would hope for in an M5.2 body, for at or under $1000. If anyone is in doubt, that body includes an integral EVF.

So then you get to, well, what are you going to use for lenses. Sparse as the M lenses are, there are far more of them than Nikon offers for their Z. Now Nikon might claim that their FF lenses are available to their APS-C body, and they are, but they're mostly $1000 each lenses.

What are available to all of Nikon, Fuji, and Sony APS-C bodies are adapted APS-C DSLR lenses. They're affordable, and high quality. Beyond the straight adaptations, most Canon EF lenses can be used on all the bodies with a $250-$300 adapter, fully functional.

But the native APS-C lens offerings are both meager and far more expensive than M lenses.

That's what ties us to the M. We can complain about the lack of M lenses, but there are far more native M lenses than there are native APS-C lenses for Nikon, and for Sony and Fuji, the lenses are very expensive (I didn't research count). For example, replacing the 11-22 on a Fuji would cost $1000, as compared to a full price 11-22 at $400 (I think I paid about $320).

So realistically, I can go to the competition, and end up using adapted DSLR lenses. That might make sense, but it's clearly an interim solution.

Or I can wait for an M5.2.

11-22mm is a great lens (even though my lens died randomly). However the XF 10-24mm confers extra benefits over the 11-22mm that may or not be worth its price, depending on one’s needs.

FF equivalents of 15-36mm f6 constant aperture vs 18-35mm f6.4-9. A 3mm difference on the wide end is quite significant. Constant aperture helps in exposure settings, especially in video. It’s also WR.

To be clear, only the Mark 2 version of that lens is WR, and it has only been released last week.

And the new lens is launching at the same price as the older non-WR version.

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