My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

Started Jun 16, 2014 | Discussions
Sonyshine
Sonyshine Senior Member • Posts: 8,736
Fuji know how to do manual controls better than anyone else.

Fuji got manual controls just right with the XT1.

Nikon messed up big time with the layout and controls of their DF - which is a shame as they could have been onto a winner if they got it right - as the sensor is a cracker.

 Sonyshine's gear list:Sonyshine's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 Apple Aperture Apple iPhone SE
shigzeo
shigzeo Senior Member • Posts: 1,784
Re: Fuji know how to do manual controls better than anyone else.

Sonyshine wrote:

Fuji got manual controls just right with the XT1.

Nikon messed up big time with the layout and controls of their DF - which is a shame as they could have been onto a winner if they got it right - as the sensor is a cracker.

Mostly, I agree. The drive and metering dials, however, are too easy to inadvertently switch when changing the ISO and exposure dials above them. If they could lock the bottom functions, which aren't changed as often, the experience would be nearly perfected.

The other difficulty is that every single back button has the same feel. It if very difficult to blindly tell the difference between buttons. But overall, it is a pretty easy camera to operate.

 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
shigzeo
shigzeo Senior Member • Posts: 1,784
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
1

Dheorl wrote:

shigzeo ? wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

shigzeo ? wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

Beat Traveller wrote:

I'm slowly growing to despise Compact Camera Meter. It's gradually achieving DXO levels of screen-grabbing to make pointless judgements void of context about the superiority of one camera over another.

There are so many other ways to make pointless, incorrect and sometimes silly judgements, many of them making up a large portion of some of DPR's forum threads. The Compact Camera Meter can be useful if it's used appropriately and not used to support personal preferences with misleading comparisons.

It's biggest problem is that it doesn't show 'equivalence'. You get a smaller camera or a larger camera, but the effect of the lenses you put on the sensors inside those don't show up at all. Yes, you can get great compact interchangeable lens cameras now. But you cannot get the same look you can get with the larger formats and even modest speed lenses.

Nikon do have a problem though: their dSLRs are too big. Their lenses are what they are. By and large, equivalents in m43 and APS-C do not exist when mated to native sensors; if they do, they prove to be just as large as the FF lenses to which they are most closely compared.

Although if you don't care about razer thin DoF then all of this is largely just hot air and I definitely don't see what use there is displaying it along with camera size.

The reason is that fast FF lenses get compared unfairly to lenses that deliver images that produce completely different images. It isn't all about DOF, but if the idea is that a crop sensor lens is smaller, then it should be compared to an equivalent lens that gives an equivalent look.

Why should it? Because you care about it? I'm sorry but to me it just doesn't make any logical sense. I would have said it's fair to compare a f2.8 lens to an f2.8 lens, no matter what format they're made for. I'd rather not have a nice simple layout like camerasize cluttered but irrelevant info.

If you care then your welcome to go find a DoF calculator.

As far as I'm concerned size of camera and cleanliness of image are paramount. Should they also include a range of test shots below each camera at all ISO to make a wonderfully complete but horrible to use interface?

Why would you compare a straight f/2,8 lens that covers a larger sensor to a variable lens that covers a much smaller sensor? Even if the 18-55 was straight f/2,8, the images it would produce would be similar to a FF lens on an FF sensor with an aperture of around F4. That lens would be rather compact in comparison to the 24-70/2,8.

The only way to make the comparison of unequal lenses make sense is on the same camera. Then, a 35/1,4 AiS would seem like a monster next to the Fujifilm 35mm lens. Of course, put on a FF sensor, it produces an image that no Fujifilm lens currently can. And the 35/1,4 XF lens produces an image that is comparable to an SLR 50/2 lens, but is more expensive, and somewhat larger.

Bodies are the only place where savings is size are realised, and even so, only because current dSLR makers make monster cameras. In the film days, the average SLR was roughly the same size as the X-T1.

 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
Dheorl Veteran Member • Posts: 3,467
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

shigzeo ? wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

shigzeo ? wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

shigzeo ? wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

Beat Traveller wrote:

I'm slowly growing to despise Compact Camera Meter. It's gradually achieving DXO levels of screen-grabbing to make pointless judgements void of context about the superiority of one camera over another.

There are so many other ways to make pointless, incorrect and sometimes silly judgements, many of them making up a large portion of some of DPR's forum threads. The Compact Camera Meter can be useful if it's used appropriately and not used to support personal preferences with misleading comparisons.

It's biggest problem is that it doesn't show 'equivalence'. You get a smaller camera or a larger camera, but the effect of the lenses you put on the sensors inside those don't show up at all. Yes, you can get great compact interchangeable lens cameras now. But you cannot get the same look you can get with the larger formats and even modest speed lenses.

Nikon do have a problem though: their dSLRs are too big. Their lenses are what they are. By and large, equivalents in m43 and APS-C do not exist when mated to native sensors; if they do, they prove to be just as large as the FF lenses to which they are most closely compared.

Although if you don't care about razer thin DoF then all of this is largely just hot air and I definitely don't see what use there is displaying it along with camera size.

The reason is that fast FF lenses get compared unfairly to lenses that deliver images that produce completely different images. It isn't all about DOF, but if the idea is that a crop sensor lens is smaller, then it should be compared to an equivalent lens that gives an equivalent look.

Why should it? Because you care about it? I'm sorry but to me it just doesn't make any logical sense. I would have said it's fair to compare a f2.8 lens to an f2.8 lens, no matter what format they're made for. I'd rather not have a nice simple layout like camerasize cluttered but irrelevant info.

If you care then your welcome to go find a DoF calculator.

As far as I'm concerned size of camera and cleanliness of image are paramount. Should they also include a range of test shots below each camera at all ISO to make a wonderfully complete but horrible to use interface?

Why would you compare a straight f/2,8 lens that covers a larger sensor to a variable lens that covers a much smaller sensor?

I wouldn't and have never claimed I would.

Even if the 18-55 was straight f/2,8, the images it would produce would be similar to a FF lens on an FF sensor with an aperture of around F4. That lens would be rather compact in comparison to the 24-70/2,8.

The images it produces would be similar if a) you were actually shooting at the maximum aperture, b) the sharpness at the maximum aperture of the FF lens managed to be as good as for the smaller sensor and c) the larger sensor was as efficient as the smaller sensor.

C is very unlikely, B isn't exactly a normal scenario and A might not be at all relevant for a lot of photographers. I have my f2.8 lenses because they are incredibly sharp as much as anything. Why clutter a perfectly good tool that's meant to do one job and does it very well with pointless extras.

The only way to make the comparison of unequal lenses make sense is on the same camera. Then, a 35/1,4 AiS would seem like a monster next to the Fujifilm 35mm lens. Of course, put on a FF sensor, it produces an image that no Fujifilm lens currently can. And the 35/1,4 XF lens produces an image that is comparable to an SLR 50/2 lens, but is more expensive, and somewhat larger.

Why are you looking so much into this. The camerasize website is great for comparing camera A + lens X to camera B + lens Y. It's all it's meant to be for and it does it well. If other stuff about lenses concerns you than that's fine, but don't go assuming everyone else should be taking it into consideration as well because some of us just don't give a damn.

Bodies are the only place where savings is size are realised, and even so, only because current dSLR makers make monster cameras. In the film days, the average SLR was roughly the same size as the X-T1.

Bodies are the only place where savings are made? Really? So a 400mm f2.8 on a APS-C camera is no smaller at all than a 600mm f4 on a FF camera? Yes this is an extreme example, but fortunately it only takes one example to disprove a blanket statement.

Not to mention the short flange distance of mirrorless enabling different lens designs to SLRs, although this isn't exactly related to sensor size so is sort of beside the point.

slimandy Forum Pro • Posts: 17,071
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

photoreddi wrote:

slimandy wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

stuartgolden wrote:

Full frame this, SLR that. For me what it comes down to is what would you want to lug around all day around your neck.

For me - the left wins!

Odd choice in lenses don't you think? Try putting the 10-23 on the front of the X-T1 or the 16-85 on the front of the Df. Or even better the 35 on the X-T1 and the 50 F1.8G on the Df.

I would have thought the most logical comparison was the Fuji 18~55 vs the Nikon 24~70, and he'd still have made his point. Small primes even it out to an extent, but are you only going to use small primes? Are you going to carry just one lens all the time?

I'll somewhat disagree here. The 16-50mm is Fuji's most inexpensive kit lens. I agree that the 18-55mm would be the better mate for the X-T1, but the 24-70mm is a large, expensive, unstabilized f/2.8 lens often used by pros, not really comparable to the two standard Fuji kit lenses. Nikon's 28-85mm VR lens is a relatively inexpensive, smaller full frame kit lens that's stabilized and like the Fuji lenses is quite good optically even for a D800 but even better when it's used with the 16mp Df.

If you mean the old 28~85 it isn't a great lens by modern standards and is not stabalised. If you mean the 24~85 VR it is 460g and 72mm filter vs the Fuji 18~55 at 309g and 58mm filter.

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1
photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,729
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

slimandy wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

slimandy wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

stuartgolden wrote:

Full frame this, SLR that. For me what it comes down to is what would you want to lug around all day around your neck.

For me - the left wins!

Odd choice in lenses don't you think? Try putting the 10-23 on the front of the X-T1 or the 16-85 on the front of the Df. Or even better the 35 on the X-T1 and the 50 F1.8G on the Df.

I would have thought the most logical comparison was the Fuji 18~55 vs the Nikon 24~70, and he'd still have made his point. Small primes even it out to an extent, but are you only going to use small primes? Are you going to carry just one lens all the time?

I'll somewhat disagree here. The 16-50mm is Fuji's most inexpensive kit lens. I agree that the 18-55mm would be the better mate for the X-T1, but the 24-70mm is a large, expensive, unstabilized f/2.8 lens often used by pros, not really comparable to the two standard Fuji kit lenses. Nikon's 28-85mm VR lens is a relatively inexpensive, smaller full frame kit lens that's stabilized and like the Fuji lenses is quite good optically even for a D800 but even better when it's used with the 16mp Df.

If you mean the old 28~85 it isn't a great lens by modern standards and is not stabalised. If you mean the 24~85 VR it is 460g and 72mm filter vs the Fuji 18~55 at 309g and 58mm filter.

Sorry about the typo, "28-85mm VR" should have been "24-85mm VR" but it should have been clear from the context. The 24-85mm VR lens is stabilized (as indicated by the "VR"), it's a much better lens than the old 28-85mm, good enough that it has been used as the kit lens for the D600/D610. This is from Thom Hogan's review :

I was prepared to be disappointed with this lens. Instead, I've decided to keep in my bag and use it regularly. Remember, I don't say that about the 28-70mm or 35-70mm AF-S lenses. (Why? Because both are large lenses with very small focal length ranges--you don't get a lot of flexibility with them, so I don't find using them much more convenient than having a 35mm, 60mm, and 85mm lens in my bag. And, as good as the modern zooms are, they're no match for the fixed lenses.)

Focusing is eerily silent and AF-S fast. Because of the slower, variable aperture, I was expecting to see some compromise here, but if the camera body can calculate the focus point, this lens will reach it nearly instantaneously, with no hunting. Even on the CAM900 sensor of the N65, N75, N80, D100, Kodak Pro 14n, and Fuji S2 Pro, this lens focuses fast and reliably. Whatever compromises Nikon made to keep the lens in the affordable range, focus speed wasn't one of them.

On a digital body from 24 to 85mm, from corner to corner, this lens turns in some impressive results, especially considering its price. I see little obvious to complain about other than a small amount of linear distortion at both extremes. Compared to the older 24-85mm f/2.8-4, the newer AF-S lens simply is in another (higher) class. On a full-frame body, you can see light falloff and loss of sharpness in the corners, but not nearly as much as I would have expected, considering the price.

http://www.bythom.com/2485lens.htm

.

That should be more than enough to qualify it as fit to be compared with Fuji's 18-55mm lens. Most importantly it's the lens that would have been the much more appropriate mate for the Df for the reasons I gave. Yes, it's larger than Fuji's 18-55mm but what they have in common is that they're both high quality kit lenses and the 24-85mm is also (like the 18-55mm) not a fixed aperture lens. So the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens used in the comparison is clearly not the lens that should have been used in the OP's comparison except to try to make a full frame DSLR version of Fuji's X-T1 look much larger than necessary to try to "prove" his point. He could have carried it to a more ridiculous extreme by using Nikon's 200-400mm VR lens instead.

BTW, underscoring that the 24-70mm was the wrong choice, at 900g it's nearly twice the weight of the 24-85mm VR and instead of it having a 72mm filter size as you mentioned was used by the 24-85mm, it uses 77mm filters.

Dorkington Regular Member • Posts: 355
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

shigzeo ? wrote:

Dorkington wrote:

For those complaining about selections, here's a few more... not every situation does the Fuji win outright, but like I said, it's all about compromise.

Again, not saying Fuji is the "winner" here. It's all about what you value most. Want the highest of high quality? There's better options than Fuji, for sure. Want the smallest of the small? Again, there's better options. (though not seen here)

Please note, for the zooms, there isn't really a direct comparison for each camera, so I tried to choose what was the closest and available on Camerasize.com's website. Don't shoot the messenger.

Following images from: http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.408,487.395,495.353,ga,t

~50mm equiv

~35mm equiv (edit, just noticed that the Nikon lens is a DX lens, whoops)

Base zoom. Chose the "consumer" grade Sony, and the smallest of the available full frame options on Camerasize, for the Nikon. The Nikon options were much larger than the Tamron option.

"Vacation lenses". Fuji's new 18-135. Sony's crop mount 18-200 PZ (no full sensor "vacation lens"), Nikon 28-300.

The FF options are hard to decide upon, but there does exist an older Nikon 28-200 lens, which roughly coincides to the Fujifilm one, though in equivalent terms, is faster. It is smaller and much less expensive but AFD, rather than AFS.

To coincide with the 18-55 Fujifilm, Nikon offer the 24-85, which is both wider, and in equivalent terms, offers a different image. It is not much larger than the Fujifilm lens.

Essentially, when put in as equivalent terms as possible, FF will generally be the same size, and often, much less expensive.

Was limited to what that site gave me, like I said.

I will note, that while there are full frame options that line up better and might be cheaper (Fuji glass is expensive), the one thing the Fujis tend to have going for them is optical quality across the frame. A lot of consumer grade full frame glass falls short on digital sensors, for obvious reasons.

It'll be interesting to see what comes of Sony's curved sensor technologies. Could help mitigate some of that.

 Dorkington's gear list:Dorkington's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +2 more
slimandy Forum Pro • Posts: 17,071
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

My point is it is noticeably bigger than the Fuji so if it was used in the comparison photo it would still prove the OP's point that the Df with the appropraite lens will be significantly bigger and heavier than the X-T1 with nearest equivalent lens (and it will be more expensive). If you must have FF the Df is a good choice, but if the bulk is putting you off and you don't need FF the X-T1 is a better choice.

I believe the OP made a good point, regardless of the fact that the lenses he chose to illustrate it were not really like for like. Using the Fuji 18~55 and Nikon 24~85 VR would still have made this point very well.

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1
photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,729
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

slimandy wrote:

My point is it is noticeably bigger than the Fuji so if it was used in the comparison photo it would still prove the OP's point that the Df with the appropraite lens will be significantly bigger and heavier than the X-T1 with nearest equivalent lens (and it will be more expensive). If you must have FF the Df is a good choice, but if the bulk is putting you off and you don't need FF the X-T1 is a better choice.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that mirrorless cameras and their lenses are often smaller than their DSLR counterparts. It's not as acceptable to go farther than that by stacking the deck against the DSLR by giving it a very large, fixed aperture f/2.8 pro lens that's not at all comparable, one that's twice the size of a good, existing kit lens that would be used the same way by most DSLR owners as a decent walkabout lens.

.

I believe the OP made a good point, regardless of the fact that the lenses he chose to illustrate it were not really like for like. Using the Fuji 18~55 and Nikon 24~85 VR would still have made this point very well.

Good point or not, there's further proof that the OP was trying to be deceptive. You're right, he should have used the 18-55mm kit lens but not only did he use a much larger lens for the DSLR than was necessary, he also didn't use the 18-55mm kit lens that's shipped with the X-T1, X-E1 and X-E2. He tried to make the difference appear even greater than it should be by using the much smaller and lighter 16-50mm plastic kit lens that ships with the X-A1, not with the X-T1.

Joseph Harrell Forum Member • Posts: 94
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

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.

 Joseph Harrell's gear list:Joseph Harrell's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR +26 more
slimandy Forum Pro • Posts: 17,071
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

photoreddi wrote:

slimandy wrote:

My point is it is noticeably bigger than the Fuji so if it was used in the comparison photo it would still prove the OP's point that the Df with the appropraite lens will be significantly bigger and heavier than the X-T1 with nearest equivalent lens (and it will be more expensive). If you must have FF the Df is a good choice, but if the bulk is putting you off and you don't need FF the X-T1 is a better choice.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that mirrorless cameras and their lenses are often smaller than their DSLR counterparts. It's not as acceptable to go farther than that by stacking the deck against the DSLR by giving it a very large, fixed aperture f/2.8 pro lens that's not at all comparable, one that's twice the size of a good, existing kit lens that would be used the same way by most DSLR owners as a decent walkabout lens.

I've agreed to use your suggestion and said the point is still clear. What's the problem?

.

I believe the OP made a good point, regardless of the fact that the lenses he chose to illustrate it were not really like for like. Using the Fuji 18~55 and Nikon 24~85 VR would still have made this point very well.

Good point or not, there's further proof that the OP was trying to be deceptive. You're right, he should have used the 18-55mm kit lens but not only did he use a much larger lens for the DSLR than was necessary, he also didn't use the 18-55mm kit lens that's shipped with the X-T1, X-E1 and X-E2. He tried to make the difference appear even greater than it should be by using the much smaller and lighter 16-50mm plastic kit lens that ships with the X-A1, not with the X-T1.

His point is still valid and clear, as I've said. You seem to be taking it personally!

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1
photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,729
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

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.

photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,729
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

slimandy wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

slimandy wrote:

My point is it is noticeably bigger than the Fuji so if it was used in the comparison photo it would still prove the OP's point that the Df with the appropraite lens will be significantly bigger and heavier than the X-T1 with nearest equivalent lens (and it will be more expensive). If you must have FF the Df is a good choice, but if the bulk is putting you off and you don't need FF the X-T1 is a better choice.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that mirrorless cameras and their lenses are often smaller than their DSLR counterparts. It's not as acceptable to go farther than that by stacking the deck against the DSLR by giving it a very large, fixed aperture f/2.8 pro lens that's not at all comparable, one that's twice the size of a good, existing kit lens that would be used the same way by most DSLR owners as a decent walkabout lens.

I've agreed to use your suggestion and said the point is still clear. What's the problem?

.

I believe the OP made a good point, regardless of the fact that the lenses he chose to illustrate it were not really like for like. Using the Fuji 18~55 and Nikon 24~85 VR would still have made this point very well.

Good point or not, there's further proof that the OP was trying to be deceptive. You're right, he should have used the 18-55mm kit lens but not only did he use a much larger lens for the DSLR than was necessary, he also didn't use the 18-55mm kit lens that's shipped with the X-T1, X-E1 and X-E2. He tried to make the difference appear even greater than it should be by using the much smaller and lighter 16-50mm plastic kit lens that ships with the X-A1, not with the X-T1.

His point is still valid and clear, as I've said. You seem to be taking it personally!

That's odd, I thought the same about you, but you're the one going farther, saying that you think that I have a problem, which shows that it's you that seems to be taking it personally enough to make personal accusations.  So as far as I'm concerned it doesn't deserve to go any further between us unless you decide to make a last reply.

The Name is Bond Regular Member • Posts: 230
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
1

The XT1 obviously wins this because it has more dials.

biza43 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,752
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
6

These comparisons are useless, for the last few decades, there have been camera systems of all sizes, to cater for the different requirements photographers may have. Several photographers even have more than one camera system (gasp!).

In the OP comparison, one could easily extend the size comparison up and down one notch, by including say a camera smaller than the Fuji, and a camera larger than the Nikon, e.g. G1X-RX100, and Pentax or Hasselblad MF.

Of course one should choose according to one's requirements, as dictated by experience and budget, without the need to make these so called "reviews"... for example, I may like my Fuji X100 very much, because it is small and delivers good enough quality, but I have no doubts that my Canon 6D with 35mm lens is a much more powerful tool...

-- hide signature --

www.paulobizarro.com

 biza43's gear list:biza43's gear list
Sony Alpha a7 Sony Alpha a7 II Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony FE 90mm F2.8 macro Zeiss Loxia 50 +1 more
sgoldswo
sgoldswo Veteran Member • Posts: 5,717
Errors

sgoldswo wrote:

stuartgolden wrote:

Full frame this, SLR that. For me what it comes down to is what would you want to lug around all day around your neck.

For me - the left wins!

Odd choice in lenses don't you think? Try putting the 10-23 on the front of the X-T1 or the 16-85 on the front of the Df. Or even better the 35 on the X-T1 and the 50 F1.8G on the Df.

For me the Df ended up being the replacement for my X-Pro1. It's all about the sensor (not just high ISO, but the way it renders colours).

Should have said 10-24mm and 24-85mm VR up above. Apologies for typing in haste while making my dinner...

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Leica Q Leica M Typ 240 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon D750 +1 more
sgoldswo
sgoldswo Veteran Member • Posts: 5,717
Re: Fuji know how to do manual controls better than anyone else.

Sonyshine wrote:

Fuji got manual controls just right with the XT1.

Nikon messed up big time with the layout and controls of their DF - which is a shame as they could have been onto a winner if they got it right - as the sensor is a cracker.

I have to say, owning both a Df and a X-T1, that they have very similar controls and my marginal preference is for the Df controls. Quite a lot of Df owners actually remark on how much they like the controls and that they are a reason to own and use the camera... The only thing I dont really like is having to lift the PASM dial.

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Leica Q Leica M Typ 240 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon D750 +1 more
sgoldswo
sgoldswo Veteran Member • Posts: 5,717
"Have you tried switching lenses?"

Without wanting to intervene in this argument, there was a running theme on the M43s forums of people explaining how they felt liberated by the shift from, say, a D700 and nikon's trinity of F2.8 zooms to an E-M5 with small primes mounted. It just isn't a fair comparison, hence why I suggested different lenses to make the comparison fairer. I think the 35mm vs 50mm comparison is a good one. Another alternative would be the Fujifilm 23 F1.4 against the new Nikon 35mm F1.8G.

The first thing I say to people when they say they want to switch bodies is "have you tried switching lenses?"

photoreddi wrote:

slimandy wrote:

My point is it is noticeably bigger than the Fuji so if it was used in the comparison photo it would still prove the OP's point that the Df with the appropraite lens will be significantly bigger and heavier than the X-T1 with nearest equivalent lens (and it will be more expensive). If you must have FF the Df is a good choice, but if the bulk is putting you off and you don't need FF the X-T1 is a better choice.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that mirrorless cameras and their lenses are often smaller than their DSLR counterparts. It's not as acceptable to go farther than that by stacking the deck against the DSLR by giving it a very large, fixed aperture f/2.8 pro lens that's not at all comparable, one that's twice the size of a good, existing kit lens that would be used the same way by most DSLR owners as a decent walkabout lens.

.

I believe the OP made a good point, regardless of the fact that the lenses he chose to illustrate it were not really like for like. Using the Fuji 18~55 and Nikon 24~85 VR would still have made this point very well.

Good point or not, there's further proof that the OP was trying to be deceptive. You're right, he should have used the 18-55mm kit lens but not only did he use a much larger lens for the DSLR than was necessary, he also didn't use the 18-55mm kit lens that's shipped with the X-T1, X-E1 and X-E2. He tried to make the difference appear even greater than it should be by using the much smaller and lighter 16-50mm plastic kit lens that ships with the X-A1, not with the X-T1.

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Leica Q Leica M Typ 240 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon D750 +1 more
Joseph Harrell Forum Member • Posts: 94
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

The lens on the X-Pro1 is a 10-24mm f/4 with similar field of view as the 14-24mm Nikkor and the camera bodies have the same resolution.  My purpose in posting the comparison is that the two kits will offer very similar results while the weight will be considerably less with the Fuji kit.  I know because I own them both and rarely use the D4/14mm kit unless I need real speed.  I also own the Df which I find much handier than the D4, but still much bigger sand heavier than the Fuji.  I agree with the OP while using different examples which offer very similar results

 Joseph Harrell's gear list:Joseph Harrell's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR +26 more
jrk
jrk Senior Member • Posts: 2,116
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
1

Not a fair comparison, the Df has a lens hood!

 jrk's gear list:jrk's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS 70D Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro +9 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads