My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

Started Jun 16, 2014 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
slimandy Forum Pro • Posts: 16,896
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

Jay A wrote:

Aren't we getting tired of these "It's easier to carry around so it must be better, plus I am not sophisticated enough to see a difference in image quality due to sensor size" threads?

Fact is, each system has its own advantages and disadvantages and these threads seem to indicate that it has to be a choice of one over the other. It doesn't have to be that way at all.

The OP said 'for me'. He is not saying this is the best choice for everyone.

-- 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
Giovanni_1968
Giovanni_1968 Senior Member • Posts: 1,958
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

I own a D800 and am happy with it, don't mind the size when I want the shallow depth of field or the super MP count, if weight/size is a problem then it's not a matter of comparing but matter of choosing a compromise and the XT-1 seems to do well in that dept even though it's an APS-C sensor and as such I don-t see a fair comparison to put it on the side with the DF.

This said I'm lusting after an X-Series camera but am afraid I will be disappointed by the results if I look forward to replicate the D800 (or DF if you prefer) image quality for what it matters portraiture whilst I could be happy with landscaping even though at half or less the res of the Nikon, portrait wise I should get the 56/1.2 to replicate my cheap 85/1.8, landscaping wise the 10-24 could be a very decent lens to suit the needs, I don't need f2.8 for landscaping and a compact and lightweight setup would make me carry the camera more often whilst the APS-C sensor would give me a more extended DOF but, again, with the same money of the 10-24 I could get, say, the 18-35 for Nikon or the even more expensive 16-35VR which matches the field of view and aperture, again, matter of usage and expectations, in my case I would still use the D-SLR with fast primes for portraiture and the mirror less for everyday usage not expecting the same quality and, same important, with less weight to carry but also by investing more money to obtain similar results due to lens cost whereas the DSL-R's 1.8s are nowadays quite cheap vs the MirrorLess ones being still very expensive...

-- hide signature --

Giovanni
http://www.flickr.com/photos/giovanniaprea/
FujiS5 Nikon D800 Panasonic L1 shooter

 Giovanni_1968's gear list:Giovanni_1968's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Nikon D2Xs Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 +14 more
Midwest Forum Pro • Posts: 16,368
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
3

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!

You still won't convince the OP, who likely gets winded from shuffling cards.

This is a bit more meaningful comparison (IMO):

shigzeo
shigzeo Senior Member • Posts: 1,744
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

Giovanni_1968 wrote:

I own a D800 and am happy with it, don't mind the size when I want the shallow depth of field or the super MP count, if weight/size is a problem then it's not a matter of comparing but matter of choosing a compromise and the XT-1 seems to do well in that dept even though it's an APS-C sensor and as such I don-t see a fair comparison to put it on the side with the DF.

This said I'm lusting after an X-Series camera but am afraid I will be disappointed by the results if I look forward to replicate the D800 (or DF if you prefer) image quality for what it matters portraiture whilst I could be happy with landscaping even though at half or less the res of the Nikon, portrait wise I should get the 56/1.2 to replicate my cheap 85/1.8, landscaping wise the 10-24 could be a very decent lens to suit the needs, I don't need f2.8 for landscaping and a compact and lightweight setup would make me carry the camera more often whilst the APS-C sensor would give me a more extended DOF but, again, with the same money of the 10-24 I could get, say, the 18-35 for Nikon or the even more expensive 16-35VR which matches the field of view and aperture, again, matter of usage and expectations, in my case I would still use the D-SLR with fast primes for portraiture and the mirror less for everyday usage not expecting the same quality and, same important, with less weight to carry but also by investing more money to obtain similar results due to lens cost whereas the DSL-R's 1.8s are nowadays quite cheap vs the MirrorLess ones being still very expensive...

-- hide signature --

Giovanni
http://www.flickr.com/photos/giovanniaprea/
FujiS5 Nikon D800 Panasonic L1 shooter

I think this is the clincher: equivalent lenses are more expensive on mirrorless cameras. If you are out to obtain similar results, you have to spend a LOT more on lenses. The bodies are still somewhat cheaper, though a D600 isn't much more expensive than an X-T1. The D800 is built to higher standards and isn't really a fair comparison.

But even so, the D600 and D800 are quite awkward. The older D200/300 series had much nicer grips and were more comfortable to hold for long periods of time. If/when Nikon figure out how to make a good F-Mount mirrorless camera in the body the size of an X-T1, X-Pro 1, or FE/FM, no matter its cost, in the long run, it will be less expensive and size advantages that currently are in favour of mirrorless will mostly be gone.

I somehow doubt those days will come. Nikon are off in the rough. Ditto Canon.

 shigzeo's gear list:shigzeo's gear list
Nikon D200 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Leica M Typ 240 Sony Alpha 7R +9 more
stuartgolden
stuartgolden OP Forum Member • Posts: 57
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

Midwest 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!

You still won't convince the OP, who likely gets winded from shuffling cards.

No need to get nasty.

Just saying I have carried think glass and now that there is a very decent quality system that is substantially lighter and has a VERY decent set of glass that is orders of magnitude lighter - I'm happy to thoughtlessly grab the fuji on any occasion.

The best camera quite frequently is only the one you have with you when the moment happens.

Frankly I do not think I am alone when you own Full Frame gear with great heavy glass optically wonderful lenses - that the bulk of talking a single big glass zoom often has people mentally saying "naw" and either leaving them at home, or grabbling a pocket camera in lieu of living with heavy gear.

I'm sure we can pixel peep and spend days arguing the virtues of full frame, big glass, etc - and we all know that the heavy kit will win MOST arguments MOST of the time.

Except the more subliminal - would you grab it every time you ran out the door.

Those of us who walk and are inspired daily - and live with our gear and glass around or necks - there comes a time when you begin to break down and decide to make those decisions about what to carry and how to limit the bulk.  Some of us do indeed get older - develop bad backs, arthritis - etc.  Even some whom become winded.

It's nice for those, to have substantially lighter options that also produce wonderful results.  In fact - I suspect if this sort of gear was available and in my hands when I was 18 - I would have carried the gear a lot more and would have captured many more of those fleeting moments when the subject, light, and lens all happen to be in the right spot.

 stuartgolden's gear list:stuartgolden's gear list
Sony RX1R Leica D-Lux (Typ 109)
sgoldswo
sgoldswo Senior Member • Posts: 5,686
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
2

stuartgolden wrote:

Midwest 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!

You still won't convince the OP, who likely gets winded from shuffling cards.

No need to get nasty.

Just saying I have carried think glass and now that there is a very decent quality system that is substantially lighter and has a VERY decent set of glass that is orders of magnitude lighter - I'm happy to thoughtlessly grab the fuji on any occasion.

The best camera quite frequently is only the one you have with you when the moment happens.

Frankly I do not think I am alone when you own Full Frame gear with great heavy glass optically wonderful lenses - that the bulk of talking a single big glass zoom often has people mentally saying "naw" and either leaving them at home, or grabbling a pocket camera in lieu of living with heavy gear.

I'm sure we can pixel peep and spend days arguing the virtues of full frame, big glass, etc - and we all know that the heavy kit will win MOST arguments MOST of the time.

Except the more subliminal - would you grab it every time you ran out the door.

Those of us who walk and are inspired daily - and live with our gear and glass around or necks - there comes a time when you begin to break down and decide to make those decisions about what to carry and how to limit the bulk. Some of us do indeed get older - develop bad backs, arthritis - etc. Even some whom become winded.

It's nice for those, to have substantially lighter options that also produce wonderful results. In fact - I suspect if this sort of gear was available and in my hands when I was 18 - I would have carried the gear a lot more and would have captured many more of those fleeting moments when the subject, light, and lens all happen to be in the right spot.

OK - but if that's what you are trying to say, put equivalent lenses on the relevant cameras.

To your point, I am marginally more likely to carry a mirrorless camera in the week (for much of this week I have had an E-M1 in my bag). But today I have my Df with me, plus 24, 35, 58 and 85 mm primes. That collection isn't that heavy at all. It all fits into a Billingham Hadley Pro with room for some ties, pens and assorted work related gubbins. In fact the only one of those lenses which is heavy is the 24mm.

So why is that different from when I used to carry in the same bag, an X-Pro1 and assorted lenses?

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Leica Q Leica M Typ 240 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon D750 +1 more
shigzeo
shigzeo Senior Member • Posts: 1,744
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

sgoldswo wrote:

stuartgolden wrote:

Midwest 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!

You still won't convince the OP, who likely gets winded from shuffling cards.

No need to get nasty.

Just saying I have carried think glass and now that there is a very decent quality system that is substantially lighter and has a VERY decent set of glass that is orders of magnitude lighter - I'm happy to thoughtlessly grab the fuji on any occasion.

The best camera quite frequently is only the one you have with you when the moment happens.

Frankly I do not think I am alone when you own Full Frame gear with great heavy glass optically wonderful lenses - that the bulk of talking a single big glass zoom often has people mentally saying "naw" and either leaving them at home, or grabbling a pocket camera in lieu of living with heavy gear.

I'm sure we can pixel peep and spend days arguing the virtues of full frame, big glass, etc - and we all know that the heavy kit will win MOST arguments MOST of the time.

Except the more subliminal - would you grab it every time you ran out the door.

Those of us who walk and are inspired daily - and live with our gear and glass around or necks - there comes a time when you begin to break down and decide to make those decisions about what to carry and how to limit the bulk. Some of us do indeed get older - develop bad backs, arthritis - etc. Even some whom become winded.

It's nice for those, to have substantially lighter options that also produce wonderful results. In fact - I suspect if this sort of gear was available and in my hands when I was 18 - I would have carried the gear a lot more and would have captured many more of those fleeting moments when the subject, light, and lens all happen to be in the right spot.

OK - but if that's what you are trying to say, put equivalent lenses on the relevant cameras.

To your point, I am marginally more likely to carry a mirrorless camera in the week (for much of this week I have had an E-M1 in my bag). But today I have my Df with me, plus 24, 35, 58 and 85 mm primes. That collection isn't that heavy at all. It all fits into a Billingham Hadley Pro with room for some ties, pens and assorted work related gubbins. In fact the only one of those lenses which is heavy is the 24mm.

So why is that different from when I used to carry in the same bag, an X-Pro1 and assorted lenses?

I don't know which F stop primes you have on the Nikon. If they are the 1,4 lenses, there is currently no equivalent in the mirrorless world. And they are quite large. The 1,8 primes are excellent lenses, and have some equivalents in the mirrorless world, but only from Fujifilm: the 56/1,2, and are roughly the same size. Nikon lenses tend to be large for some reason. The new 35/1,8 is bigger than necessary, but a very nice lens.

My Ai/S lenses are all smaller to much smaller than their equivalents in Fujifilm's mount, but they lack AF.

 shigzeo's gear list:shigzeo's gear list
Nikon D200 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Leica M Typ 240 Sony Alpha 7R +9 more
Ray Sachs
Ray Sachs Forum Pro • Posts: 10,483
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

shigzeo ? wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

OK - but if that's what you are trying to say, put equivalent lenses on the relevant cameras.

To your point, I am marginally more likely to carry a mirrorless camera in the week (for much of this week I have had an E-M1 in my bag). But today I have my Df with me, plus 24, 35, 58 and 85 mm primes. That collection isn't that heavy at all. It all fits into a Billingham Hadley Pro with room for some ties, pens and assorted work related gubbins. In fact the only one of those lenses which is heavy is the 24mm.

So why is that different from when I used to carry in the same bag, an X-Pro1 and assorted lenses.

I don't know which F stop primes you have on the Nikon. If they are the 1,4 lenses, there is currently no equivalent in the mirrorless world. And they are quite large. The 1,8 primes are excellent lenses, and have some equivalents in the mirrorless world, but only from Fujifilm: the 56/1,2, and are roughly the same size. Nikon lenses tend to be large for some reason. The new 35/1,8 is bigger than necessary, but a very nice lens.

My Ai/S lenses are all smaller to much smaller than their equivalents in Fujifilm's mount, but they lack AF.

The "D" lenses from Nikon are essentially the same glass as the Ai/S lenses but with AF. They're not as nicely built or as pretty and the AF isn't as fast as the higher end lenses, but they offer a pretty nice group of small primes if that's what you want. They all have aperture rings too, which I particularly like. The thing about a system like Nikon, which is so vast and has been around so long, is that you have options from high to low, large to small, excellent to sort of mediocre, in pretty much any focal length.

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

Ray Sachs
Ray Sachs Forum Pro • Posts: 10,483
A comparison for prime shooters...

For those of us who generally shoot primes, the differences are not as great. Here an XT1 with the 35mm f1.4 next to an Olympus EM1 with the Pany 25mm f1.4, and a Nikon Df with a Nikon 50mm f1.8.

In fairness, the Panasonic 25mm is the largest m43 prime available on the site (the new 42mm f1.2 is considerably larger) - most m43 primes are a good deal smaller. The Nikon prime is relatively small, but there's a whole line of Nikon primes of about the same size, in addition to much larger premium versions. And the Fuji 35mm is a good bit smaller than the primes Fuji has developed since, so for premium lenses at different focal lengths, assume larger lenses (other than the 18 or 27, which are somewhat less premium).

The Df body is notably, but not overwhelmingly, heavier than the m43 and Fuji bodies - between about 200-300 grams more. But the lenses are right in the same range. My basic point is that if you're a prime shooter and you don't demand the best and fastest DSLR glass available (the 24mm f1.4 is a LOT larger), a full frame DSLR setup can still be a pretty comfortable carry. I had a loaner of the Df for about a month earlier this year and as long as I stuck to the smaller prime lenses (which are still quite good if not the best or fastest), I was very comfortable carrying it around. It was only when I played with a couple of pretty beefy lenses that the size and weight advantages of smaller format mirrorless became an issue.

But the files out of the Df (or the similar size D610, which shares the sensor of the RX1) are simply amazing. There are always tradeoffs, but the tradeoffs for prime shooters aren't nearly as great as for zoom and telephoto shooters...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

shigzeo
shigzeo Senior Member • Posts: 1,744
Re: A comparison for prime shooters...

Ray Sachs wrote:

For those of us who generally shoot primes, the differences are not as great. Here an XT1 with the 35mm f1.4 next to an Olympus EM1 with the Pany 25mm f1.4, and a Nikon Df with a Nikon 50mm f1.8.

In fairness, the Panasonic 25mm is the largest m43 prime available on the site (the new 42mm f1.2 is considerably larger) - most m43 primes are a good deal smaller. The Nikon prime is relatively small, but there's a whole line of Nikon primes of about the same size, in addition to much larger premium versions. And the Fuji 35mm is a good bit smaller than the primes Fuji has developed since, so for premium lenses at different focal lengths, assume larger lenses (other than the 18 or 27, which are somewhat less premium).

The Df body is notably, but not overwhelmingly, heavier than the m43 and Fuji bodies - between about 200-300 grams more. But the lenses are right in the same range. My basic point is that if you're a prime shooter and you don't demand the best and fastest DSLR glass available (the 24mm f1.4 is a LOT larger), a full frame DSLR setup can still be a pretty comfortable carry. I had a loaner of the Df for about a month earlier this year and as long as I stuck to the smaller prime lenses (which are still quite good if not the best or fastest), I was very comfortable carrying it around. It was only when I played with a couple of pretty beefy lenses that the size and weight advantages of smaller format mirrorless became an issue.

But the files out of the Df (or the similar size D610, which shares the sensor of the RX1) are simply amazing. There are always tradeoffs, but the tradeoffs for prime shooters aren't nearly as great as for zoom and telephoto shooters...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

That is a huge lens for m43. At an equivalent of f/2,8 on FF, it's absolutely massive. Imagine an f2,8 50mm on FF. It would be tiny and inexpensive.

If Nikon would take a look at the current market, build a mirrorless F-mount camera, keep the body traditionally sized and built, plus make lenses that match up to mirrorless users' expectations: slower, smaller, they would have an unstoppable system.

Current 1,4 AFS F lenses for speed and when you don't mind bulk, 1,8 - 2,8 lenses for when you want to shoot sort of like we shoot in APS-C land, and slower if you want the ultimate in portability and are used to what they get in m43 land.

You'd have everything from hiking to portraiture covered in one system and the advantages of mirrorless over dSLR and FF would be nearly completely void.

 shigzeo's gear list:shigzeo's gear list
Nikon D200 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Leica M Typ 240 Sony Alpha 7R +9 more
Ray Sachs
Ray Sachs Forum Pro • Posts: 10,483
Re: A comparison for prime shooters...
2

shigzeo ? wrote:

Ray Sachs wrote:

For those of us who generally shoot primes, the differences are not as great. Here an XT1 with the 35mm f1.4 next to an Olympus EM1 with the Pany 25mm f1.4, and a Nikon Df with a Nikon 50mm f1.8.

In fairness, the Panasonic 25mm is the largest m43 prime available on the site (the new 42mm f1.2 is considerably larger) - most m43 primes are a good deal smaller. The Nikon prime is relatively small, but there's a whole line of Nikon primes of about the same size, in addition to much larger premium versions. And the Fuji 35mm is a good bit smaller than the primes Fuji has developed since, so for premium lenses at different focal lengths, assume larger lenses (other than the 18 or 27, which are somewhat less premium).

The Df body is notably, but not overwhelmingly, heavier than the m43 and Fuji bodies - between about 200-300 grams more. But the lenses are right in the same range. My basic point is that if you're a prime shooter and you don't demand the best and fastest DSLR glass available (the 24mm f1.4 is a LOT larger), a full frame DSLR setup can still be a pretty comfortable carry. I had a loaner of the Df for about a month earlier this year and as long as I stuck to the smaller prime lenses (which are still quite good if not the best or fastest), I was very comfortable carrying it around. It was only when I played with a couple of pretty beefy lenses that the size and weight advantages of smaller format mirrorless became an issue.

But the files out of the Df (or the similar size D610, which shares the sensor of the RX1) are simply amazing. There are always tradeoffs, but the tradeoffs for prime shooters aren't nearly as great as for zoom and telephoto shooters...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

That is a huge lens for m43. At an equivalent of f/2,8 on FF, it's absolutely massive. Imagine an f2,8 50mm on FF. It would be tiny and inexpensive.

It's not a small lens, to be sure. But the Pany 45 is as larger or larger, the Pany 42 is much larger (about the size of the Fuji 56), and the Olympus 75mm, the lens that has kept me in m43 any time I've thought about bailing on it, is also a good deal larger. And, yeah, as small as full frame 50's tend to be at f1.8, they could probably pull off a pancake at f2.8.

If Nikon would take a look at the current market, build a mirrorless F-mount camera, keep the body traditionally sized and built, plus make lenses that match up to mirrorless users' expectations: slower, smaller, they would have an unstoppable system.

Current 1,4 AFS F lenses for speed and when you don't mind bulk, 1,8 - 2,8 lenses for when you want to shoot sort of like we shoot in APS-C land, and slower if you want the ultimate in portability and are used to what they get in m43 land.

You'd have everything from hiking to portraiture covered in one system and the advantages of mirrorless over dSLR and FF would be nearly completely void.

They've still got some gaps to close in terms of AF and a lot of people still just prefer the OVF - I rather like 'em myself. I think mirrorless and DSLRs will co-exist for quite a while. But full frame still has a notably advantage over APS. As good as today's best APS (and m43) sensors are, full frame are that much better. You can look at all the numbers in the world, but I know when I pull a file off of my RX1 or when I did off of the Df of D610 (I haven't and won't mess with a D800 - 24mp is more than plenty for me and I was really happy with the 16 on the Df), there was just so much more to work with there than with any of the crop sensors I've worked with. Whethe pulling details out of shadows, recovering highlights, whether coming up with stunningly accurate results OR processing files to within an inch of their lives with various Nik filters, those files can handle anything I can throw at 'em in ways that nothing else can.

I'm completely spoiled, I have to admit. Today's compact cameras are better cameras than the film SLRs I used to shoot with in almost every way other than narrow DOF, m43 and APS are worlds better yet, with even narrow DOF more than adequately covered (I'm not really a narrow DOF junkie at all). But, regardless, I always seem to feel myself pulled toward full frame. Getting an RX1 and playing extensively with a Df and briefly with a D610 wrecked me for the lesser sensors.

Whether Sony developes the lens lineup for the A7 series, or whether Fuji eventually develops a full frame system, or whether Canikon eventually get around to realizing they can make money on both their DSLR line and a mirrorless alternative, within the next few years there are gonna be amazing full frame options in mirrorless and there will continue to be in DSLRs. Pretty exciting times...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

sgoldswo
sgoldswo Senior Member • Posts: 5,686
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

shigzeo ? wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

stuartgolden wrote:

Midwest 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!

You still won't convince the OP, who likely gets winded from shuffling cards.

No need to get nasty.

Just saying I have carried think glass and now that there is a very decent quality system that is substantially lighter and has a VERY decent set of glass that is orders of magnitude lighter - I'm happy to thoughtlessly grab the fuji on any occasion.

The best camera quite frequently is only the one you have with you when the moment happens.

Frankly I do not think I am alone when you own Full Frame gear with great heavy glass optically wonderful lenses - that the bulk of talking a single big glass zoom often has people mentally saying "naw" and either leaving them at home, or grabbling a pocket camera in lieu of living with heavy gear.

I'm sure we can pixel peep and spend days arguing the virtues of full frame, big glass, etc - and we all know that the heavy kit will win MOST arguments MOST of the time.

Except the more subliminal - would you grab it every time you ran out the door.

Those of us who walk and are inspired daily - and live with our gear and glass around or necks - there comes a time when you begin to break down and decide to make those decisions about what to carry and how to limit the bulk. Some of us do indeed get older - develop bad backs, arthritis - etc. Even some whom become winded.

It's nice for those, to have substantially lighter options that also produce wonderful results. In fact - I suspect if this sort of gear was available and in my hands when I was 18 - I would have carried the gear a lot more and would have captured many more of those fleeting moments when the subject, light, and lens all happen to be in the right spot.

OK - but if that's what you are trying to say, put equivalent lenses on the relevant cameras.

To your point, I am marginally more likely to carry a mirrorless camera in the week (for much of this week I have had an E-M1 in my bag). But today I have my Df with me, plus 24, 35, 58 and 85 mm primes. That collection isn't that heavy at all. It all fits into a Billingham Hadley Pro with room for some ties, pens and assorted work related gubbins. In fact the only one of those lenses which is heavy is the 24mm.

So why is that different from when I used to carry in the same bag, an X-Pro1 and assorted lenses?

I don't know which F stop primes you have on the Nikon. If they are the 1,4 lenses, there is currently no equivalent in the mirrorless world. And they are quite large. The 1,8 primes are excellent lenses, and have some equivalents in the mirrorless world, but only from Fujifilm: the 56/1,2, and are roughly the same size. Nikon lenses tend to be large for some reason. The new 35/1,8 is bigger than necessary, but a very nice lens.

My Ai/S lenses are all smaller to much smaller than their equivalents in Fujifilm's mount, but they lack AF.

I had the 24 F1.4, 35 F1.8, 58 F1.4 and 85 F1.8 with me. The only one of these that's large or heavy is the 24, which clearly has a fairly robust contraction. Sometimes with my Df I carry my 50 F1.2 AI-S, 28 F2 and 105 F2.5 instead. The AI-S lenses are pretty dense though, lens for lens they are often heavier or the same as the modern equivalents. The really light/small lenses Nikon still make are the AF-D lenses.

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Leica Q Leica M Typ 240 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon D750 +1 more
akin_t Senior Member • Posts: 2,915
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

Lol, you guys are talking as if the only difference between the X-T1 and Nikon Df is size.

Nikon Df is overpriced nonsense. If I want a full frame camera I'd just go for the D610 or the Canon 5D Mk III.

 akin_t's gear list:akin_t's gear list
Fujifilm X100T Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32 Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12
Ray Sachs
Ray Sachs Forum Pro • Posts: 10,483
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
4

akin_t wrote:

Lol, you guys are talking as if the only difference between the X-T1 and Nikon Df is size.

Nikon Df is overpriced nonsense. If I want a full frame camera I'd just go for the D610 or the Canon 5D Mk III.

Except that it's got the same best in class high ISO sensor (until the A7s at least) that the D4 and the D4s have. Seen in that context, it's the bargain of the decade. I shot with a loaner Df for a month a really liked it a lot. I think the D610 would be a better set of tradeoffs for me too - same sensor as the RX1, which I have and love (I'm sure you'd consider that overpriced nonsense as well.... ) and a couple of differences in controls that work better for me. But calling the Df overpriced nonsense is just one man's opinion - ie, underpriced nonsense. At least to those who don't agree. It's reasonable for anyone to prefer the D610 to the Df. The reverse is equally reasonable...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

sgoldswo
sgoldswo Senior Member • Posts: 5,686
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
1

akin_t wrote:

Lol, you guys are talking as if the only difference between the X-T1 and Nikon Df is size.

Nikon Df is overpriced nonsense. If I want a full frame camera I'd just go for the D610 or the Canon 5D Mk III.

Yeah, the sensor is terrible too, its in so many other cheaper cameras... Oh, hang onĀ 

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Leica Q Leica M Typ 240 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon D750 +1 more
shigzeo
shigzeo Senior Member • Posts: 1,744
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
1

akin_t wrote:

Lol, you guys are talking as if the only difference between the X-T1 and Nikon Df is size.

Nikon Df is overpriced nonsense. If I want a full frame camera I'd just go for the D610 or the Canon 5D Mk III.

I don't like the price of the DF, but this thread isn't really about price, it's been about size until now. That is where Nikon have blown it time and time again, making massive cameras, that, every generation have been getting bigger.

They need to fix that.

If we start on price, though, there are areas where the X-T1 is built poorly next to dSLR cameras in the same price range. The Df is expensive. It is Nikon's attempt to make a brand icon. They no longer have the brand to do that. Fujifilm need to be careful to not ruin their brand. Making something that your customers think of 'expensive' means that you have a brand that isn't able to support 'expensive' models.

Nikon have made cheap cameras and lenses for so long that their image has become cheap. The Df didn't float. I hope Fujifilm don't give in too much and gain that image.

The X-Pro 1 and X-T1 have pretty decent metal skeletons, but the small things: card flaps, usb doors, the half-metal, half-plastic seam along the camera plate (X-Pro 1), batteries that can be inserted the wrong way in, drive/metering dials that change with a push of the ISO/exposure dials, etc., show that Fujifilm aren't worried about the details. Those things add up. If they can fix those and make a brand that supports the long run rather than playing to catch up with the market, they will have a brand that can support true premium products and even 'expensive' products that their customers will lust after.

That's key.

Japanese companies are struggling primarily because the love affair with cheap/fast is now dying. It exists in the low end and always will and that the market to which Japanese camera companies have catered to for decades. But it no longer sustains a company.

 shigzeo's gear list:shigzeo's gear list
Nikon D200 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Leica M Typ 240 Sony Alpha 7R +9 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads