NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Mike G on January 20, 2016, 09:06:22
-
Hello all, for some time(over the last 18 months) I have been considering a move from The Nikon system mainly due to the bulk of the lenses and system constraints and so I'm investigating the Fujifilm system via an X-T1 and 18-55mm lens!
I did think maybe that the Df might be a way to go, but of course that still leaves me with big bulky lenses! It will be a wrench to leave Nikon after over twenty years, but the time has come to radically rethink what I want and my D810 although a fine fine camera, do I really need 36 MP, I think maybe not!
So the diminutive X-T1 is in the mixing pot for consideration. Initial thoughts are what a super little machine it is, first tries make me very pleased with the output. Another plus is that Fujifilm stuff does not attract the premium prices that Nikon gear does.
After a very short rummage around it is quite amazing how many Nikon bits and pieces I had accumulated over the years( I would hate to have to move house anytime soon!)
For those who have a read thank you, more to follow!
-
Before committing yourself to any final decision, do allow yourself the advantage of shooting both systems concurrently. You might see the situation clearer after a while. Only comprehensive shooting experience in practice will tell you how well the new (or old) system really handles.
Longer lenses, or those sporting a fast aperture, tend to be bulky and expensive no matter what format they are designed for.
Most uses of the acquired footage will not require massive MP numbers. Occasionally, having them is a blessing.
-
How about Oly faster af than Fuji, Mike, good luck on your voyage anyhow! :)
-
The size of the lenses is a choice you make, If you stick to 'slow' fixed focal length f/1.8 or zoom lenses f/3.5 f/4 etc. you can keep them small even Nikkors in F mount are small, but as soon as you want fast glass or Pro glass they start to become larger and larger,,, except for the Leica M lenses, they are tiny :)
-
Bjorn yes I am shooting with both systems in parallel, not sure what you mean by "acquired footage"? I have had a tinker with the Df, fine camera but same lenses! Of course longer faster lenses do mean big and bulky, but I have found that I leave stuff at home because I don't want to carry it about(non driver) High MP figures do give the ability to crop and recompose, I understand that and have taken advantage of that quite a lot, but the extra baggage for that exercise is just too much! and my shoulders are not getting any younger.
Fons, I'm afraid that Olympus and I are destined to be strangers, never liked their gear al the way back to the 1960s, so I'm afraid that ain't happening. But thanks for the comment.
Thanks for the support!
Thanks Erik, that is exactly my problem the big bits of glass that I've bought because I thought that's what I wanted. Hence the time for a reappraisal. I have a couple of fixed lenses 35, 50, and 105 micro, but I end up not using them because a zoom is just that bit more versatile!
-
I would suggest the old Pro duo kit 20-35mm f/2.8 AF-D and 35-70mm f/2.8 AF-D on a Df
-
I fully understand your line of arguments Mike.
Having jumped over from Nikon to the X-T1 and nice lenses twice (!) I am back with Nikon. Now, my primary reason was that I tried hard but found Nikon to be superior in helping me getting the shots I wanted of dimly lit stage dancers. Although I could squeeze out acceptable image quality from the RAFs I found the continuous AF to be a major shortcoming.
For anything but targets that move quickly and erratically I'd probably stayed with Fuji.
Ergonomically I found the X-T1 fine except for the rear command wheel which I think is too small and "hidden" just above the rubber thumb grip's upper ledge. BAD.
What I liked in particular - the lenses and although the EVF didn't really match and OVF in bright daylight it showed its muscles when light levels dropped.
Come to think about it...maybe I should get a Fuji again ;D ::)
Fujilenses to love: 10-24, 14, 23, 56, 90 and 50-140. The kit lens, although a good performer, never made it to my heart. The 16-55 is just too big. Never liked the 18 and 27.
-
Mike, running your Fuji and Nikon systems in parallel is a good idea, as Bjørn R suggests. That is what I have done with my Nikon gear and the Olympus E-M1 (and the NEX3 and Panasonic G3 before that).
One of the hard choices with any system is to know just what lenses or gear to leave at home when going out on an outing or a trip. One exercise is to deliberately go out with (say) just your camera and only one lens (or maybe two lenses) and only work with those for the day/trip. It forces one to visualise what it is that you are after and to get you into a travelling light discipline, especially for those times when you are on foot.
BTW, Good luck with your Fuji.
-
After thinking long and hard about switching I am still with my Nikongear plus the X100T for always with me.
you got a nice collection so why not supplement your bulky system with a Fuji X30? She has a Zoom. Great Video and
she pumps great shots from her one inch sensor.
A complete new system might just be overshooting your goal.
-
Good luck with your adventure. The X-T1 is a very nice camera and I had one but in the end I switched back to a Nikon D750 due to more or less the same reasons as Sten mentions.
-
Thanks everybody, I just knew that NG would be brim full of useful advice.
And certainly I have a lot to consider, and Hugh has hit the nail on the head i.e. what do I take today? On a day out with Anthony I took just one lens a 24-120mm, that plus the D810 big old lumps!
Frank you are quite right a new system is a big step, but what's the point of having nice glass if you end up not using it? and thats why I am not rushing into a change
Sten, I have small hands and don't find the rear dial a problem, also the focus system has been updated recently. I'm no expert as you probably understand. The 10-24 may well be the next one on the list!
I will hope to see a major advance when the D810 replacement comes out, but I'm not chasing MP any more. D500 I hear you say, well the DX lens line up is just not up to the mustard in my eyes!
One thing for sure is that no one system is perfect!
-
I got small hands as well but taste differs so I understand. For my use the D500 might be the ticket as DX and a 24-70 would be ideal.
-
I am running two systems for now, as neither completely fits my needs.
-
Anthony old chap you rich people are always the same. ;)
Sten what about the wide end?
-
Mike
After having gone half way around the world from Australia thinking a light small camera would suffice and disappointed with the end pictures, I have always compromised and carry a Nikon DSLR whenever I go. I have recently gone down the full frame Sony route but good lenses are always big and small lenses will mean using manual focus. I'm useless with post processing and the Nikon files always look good. I usually travel with one really good quality prime.
Recently, I got a Coolpix A on closeout from B+H. It's been so good that I would almost be happy to leave my DSLR behind. The lens is a winner, the rendering just sweet and Nikon native AND it fits in my pants pocket. Perhaps a really high quality P+S may be the traveling companion you are missing!
Good luck! JJ
All from Coolpix A -
-
Nice travel images but to be honest I think they are well below what Mike is aiming for... Focus seems to be hit and miss and all are a bit dark.
-
Anthony old chap you rich people are always the same. ;)
Sten what about the wide end?
24mm wide is ok for indoor theatre/stage shooting. But if so needed I'd easily press the Sigma 18-35 into service. The added speed of f/1.8 won't hurt either.
-
I have had Nikons and now I have a Fuji X-T1 with several lenses (Sammy 12/2, 14/2.8, 23/1.4, 35/1.4 18-55, 18-135).
Overall I like the system a lot.
My main reason for switching was weight (important in my use, I hike with the camera) and no proper DSLR replacements for the D700 (when I switched; now I see many interesting options).
The latest options for Nikon (D5 and D500) are very interesting and if money were absolutely no item for me I would get them, just for the pleasure and not because I would use them a lot.
The main weakness of Fuji for me is continuous AF. Coming from P&S or most MILC's (except the "bestest") AF may seem good or even very good, but to be honest tracking is not on par with what I was used to.
I do miss quite a lot of action shots; having said that this is not my main application and I can live with it.
For landscape photos I have no problems, and street should be ok too.
The other gap is long glass.
I don't know how important this is to you; I have never been overly excited about the 55-200 (80-300 equivalent) because it is said that AF is slow and reach is not anything to write home about.
For this kind of zoom the aperture is pretty wide though and optically people speak well of it.
Many people love the 50-140, it is fast, AF is quick and IQ top notch, but I have never been interested in fast 70-200 equivalents. Plus it is on the heavy side.
Then there is the new 100-400. Obviously the weight is considerable, although in comparison to its peers relatively light. At the long end it is only f/5.6.
-
For me long glass is not a priority although I have the Nikkor 300mm PF, it doesn't get a lot of use. For me the wide end is more important by far so the 10-24 Fuji will be a must I think! I have yet to see a long zoom at the cheap end of the market that is any good, always too many compromises!
-
For me long glass is not a priority although I have the Nikkor 300mm PF, it doesn't get a lot of use. For me the wide end is more important by far so the 10-24 Fuji will be a must I think! I have yet to see a long zoom at the cheap end of the market that is any good, always too many compromises!
When the Fierce man tried my 10-24 a while back I believe he liked it...as opposed to the 56. I happen to like both very much.
-
If 14mm is wide enough then there is the cute XF 14mm F/2.8. Very small, light, sharp over the whole frame, a very nice lens that blends very well with the X-T1.
-
I am moving from Canon gear to Nikon.
-
I am moving from Canon gear to Nikon.
Welcome! I did exactly that in 1989 ;) Never looked back...
-
Okay here's a word from a Fuji Fanboy ...
Mike, for me all the different manufactures no longer matter. Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony, Panasonic ... for what I shoot and how I shoot ... the camera body no longer matters. Again, for my tastes and in general, what I shoot and how I shoot, there isn't a significant difference in IQ between a modern FF, a modern APS-C and a modern MFT that will change the level of success of my images. (Of course there are always exceptions ... but I am speaking in generalities.)
I had this epiphany last week when I was walking around my camera store, thinking about all my images, my stuff and I realized that I pretty much captured the same level of photographic impact, the same level of success with my FF system, as with my MFT system, as with my APS-C system.
My experience is that at ISO 1600 and under, up to a 11x14 or 16x20, you won't see a significant difference between a 16mp sensor, a 24mp sensor or a 36mp sensor. If you need a computer to see a difference ... then that's no difference at all in my book. (For what I shoot and how I shoot a little more dynamic range, a little less noise, et cetera ... doesn't matter.) For me, after a certain baseline of IQ, the need for more/better IQ starts dropping like a lead balloon ... it is all about image impact. It is the composition, subject, perspective, lighting, exposure ... the matching of what I captured to my previsualized image, is what matters the most. (Now if I shot a lot of landscapes, architecture, commercial/studio, tripod stuff, I may have different thoughts.) But for the most part, I shoot people, people doing stuff, people in their natural environs, Street people, active people, people performing ... for me the whole world is a stage.
I've lugged around bags of Nikon film stuff, motor driven F's, FTn's, F2's and F3's around the world, through swamps, jungles, tundra, deserts, mountains, big cities, godforsaken rural areas ... (Hell, I've even slept with them), ... and I never complained once on size or weight. To me it is what it is ... if that is what I have to haul around to get the job done ... well, and again, it is what it is ... all part of the job. When I went digital, I went Canon and ended up with 1D's ... big ugly, heavy suckers. Again, I took them everywhere. My thoughts were, if there is a picturing worth taking, a moment worth capturing ... I don't want to compromise the capture with a substandard image/camera. dSLR's are still better for sports/extreme action. But the more I use mirrorless, the better I am harmonizing with the AF, the higher I am getting on the learning curve and the better I am getting at shooting action. With action, I am working harder and I am getting less keepers with mirrorless, but I am getting enough good stuff that I am not switching back to my 1D's. (And like Sten, I shoot a lot of theatre performances and I find my XT1's to be easily up to that task. But we all see differently, we all shoot differently and after viewing Sten's images, I suspect Sten has a higher bar and expectations for his images than I for mine.)
But, (the big but), time marches on and forward. These modern digital cameras All take one hell of a picture. Fuji is good... no ... Fuji is great, but so is Nikon and so is Canon and so is Olympus, et al.
For me, there are two things that matter, the system behind the camera: are there the quality lenses to do what I need to have done and IQ: I need the IQ to be sufficiently high to communicate without being overly distracting. Comfort, how the camera feels, where the button and dials are ... isn't important to me. Most/all modern cameras are designed to the average human hand and over time I can adapt. Fuji is still light on lenses, especially long and fast. But all the XF lenses are exceptional, and at a minimum, equal to my 'L' lenses. As for IQ, see above, in the early days of digital IQ was important and there were significant differences between cameras, but I really don't see that anymore.
But above all, what does matter is that you shoot. While weight and size is a secondary consideration for me, I certainly do appreciate the smaller size of mirrorless systems. The faster Fujinon APS-C lenses are large and heavy, but they are still significantly smaller than an equivalent FF dSLR system.
PS- I dunno if you can return the XT1, but if it were moi, I'd give serious consideration for waiting a weeks for the launch of Fuji's latest and greatest camera, the X-Pro2.
-
Erik I reckon I moved from Canon to Nikon about the same time.
-
Gary, thanks for that. I think I have to agree with you almost 100%. I too think the way forward is for mirrorless systems and from what i have seen the IQ is just as good after all the D5 is only 20 MP it works well enough for it!
The X-T1 is a stop gap probably until the X-T2 is released which going by the X-Pro2 is going to be 24 MP. If I decide to embrace the Fuji the X-T1will serve well as a second body or I can trade it in! In the meantime is a tool for learning!
Like you I don't decry the the Nikons and Canons of this world, but the expense and size of these behemoths is beginning to get to be too much, especially the glassware!
Thanks again for your post, I just hope I can live up to expectations???
-
I still have a complete FF system and a complete MFT system, but I have evolved completely to shooting Fuji. Remember that mirrorless is different than dSLR. Not necessarily different good or different bad, just different. I had a difficult time adjusting to mirrorless, especially the AF. It was soooo frustrating ... but I stuck with it and learned and adapted. The 18-55 is the best kit lens I've ever used. For many photogs, the ability to shoot with all types of glass via adaptors is a big plus. If you want to try out some different lenses, give me a PM, (to make sure I'm home) and drop on by.
Good Luck and Good Shooting.
-
For many photogs, the ability to shoot with all types of glass via adaptors is a big plus.
A BIG plus in my case :)
What ever happens in the tele department (probably a D500) I expect a mirrorless camera will always be in my bag for the short lenses I can cherrypick from each brand, what that mirrorless camera will be depends highly on what suits my needs best at the time.
-
I very much support JJ's point and do that explicitly because I
have seen your pictures over many years. The current one inch
cameras, like the X30 from Fuji or the ONE series from Nikon have
a lot to offer for your style of shooting.
Plus: you can buy one of these by just selling one of the the lenses you do not
use. Downgrade. Make it easier and lighter and concentrate on the
stuff you really use.
To go the Fuji way means a lot of learning. I needed one year to
half ways understand the post production of Xtrans Files.
In your case I would recommend to stay in the Bayer Camp.
If you love the current 24/120 Zoom you might get lighter by simply
using a D750 instead of a D810. I feel the 24MP chip to also be more
forgiving, nicer in tonality, better in low light.
So.
My guess is MikeG will be happiest with a reduced Nikon set plus
a high end One Inch Point and Shoot. Best of both worlds.
-
J-A you certainly seem to be the lens adapter king!
What you say about the tele department is true and I'm in a bit of a quandary as to wether to keep a Nikon body and long lens(D810, 300mm, f4 PF), but instinct tells me to mirrorless. I'm not a very good photographer but I really do like the process i.e. enjoyable fun, to me that is what a hobby is and in the process I get to talk to lovely people on NG and FZ!
-
I am moving from Canon gear to Nikon.
Clearly Nikon is more affordable in your nick of the woods :)
here every second guy wants to switch to Canon - long lenses easily 30% more expensive from Nikon
-
Frank thanks for your reply I'm afraid the D750 just does not cut it for me, one frustration I've had for years now is the ridiculous viewfinders the Nikon foist on us all, I mean an eye relief of 15/17mm is just plain stupid and insulting, I don't want to have to take my glasses off to look through the VF. Even the D810 and D4 are no good for spectacles which is surprising when you see an awful lot of Japanese men wearing them, I hold out very little hope that Nikon will address that very frustrating annoyance. Also a lens should be able to focus correctly without any faffing around it's not as if Nikon don't know the sensor to lens mount distance!!!!!!!
-
If you're looking at the lenses, then Fuji's "pro" glass is heavy too. Compare the weight of the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 and the Nikon 85mm f/1.4. The 50-140mm f/2.8 is around 1100 gram. Not exactly light weight, but it's nice glass for sure and it looks good.
Added: I have a D750 and wears glasses. I have no problems looking through the VF or recall the X-T1 to be any better?
-
The eyepoint distance is not decisive in itself as one has to consider the entire construction of the ocular. A great many people worked up a frenzy over the Df's eyepoint measure (17 mm) and declared the finder to be a disaster without having had the camera in their hand. In reality the Df has one of the best finders around and definitively works well with glasses. More than I can say about the X-T1.
However, if one has set the mind on the grass being greener on the other side of the fence, there is no other solution than going all in and hope for the best. You can always switch back later.
-
You can always switch back later.
I detest people who do that ;D ;D ;D
-
You have the experience or so I'm told .....
-
Mike, Shoot with the XT1 in all the same situations where you would previously have used the Nikon. Do it for few weeks, if not months, and you will gradually form conclusions about how well the Fuji works for you.
Good shooting!
-
Jorge, I used to have the Nikkor 85mm 1.4, what a big beast that was, I traded it in for the 105mm 2.8 micro!
Bjorn, I still maintain that Nikon viewfinders for me are not good, why can't we have an eye point of say 25mm after all this is the 21st century, I want to see all of the VF screen, to be honest I can't remember what the Df VF looked like as it was a year ago, I was impressed by its size but its still the same glass!
keith indeed. That's the point of the exercise!
-
You have to make your own decision, Mike. Nobody argues that basic fact.
On the other hand, its always sensible to think twice before potentially losing money on something one later might regret. That is the underlying reason for the advice to shoot with both systems concurrently for a while.
-
Mike. My annotation on the D750 was a side note.
The main dish is in the other words ;-)
-
People can have very different prescription glasses too, so a viewfinder that works for one spectacle wearer may not work that well for another spectacle wearer. This means that it's difficult to draw general conclusions. Everyone needs to try out the camera in question with his/her specific spectacles.
-
Bjorn, I still maintain that Nikon viewfinders for me are not good, why can't we have an eye point of say 25mm after all this is the 21st century, I want to see all of the VF screen, to be honest I can't remember what the Df VF looked like as it was a year ago, I was impressed by its size but its still the same glass!
Viewfinders are always a compromise if they are to cater for people with and people without glasses. I think the Nikon viewfinders are a compromise that works pretty well for many people, but obviously not for everyone. It's the same with the eyepieces of observation optics, like binoculars and telescopes. Eyepieces with a high eyepoint, say 20mm and more, have their own set of problems (large size, higher weight and higher price, more glare problems when viewing against the light), so most makers aim for something like 16-20mm.
Maybe it's an idea to try different glasses. With binoculars and scopes smallish, close-fitting frames usually work better than large frames. I know several people who always try to make sure they only get glasses that work with their binoculars/scope.
Maybe that works for viewfinders as well.
Hermann
-
I own both, have used Nikon's since 1978 and bought the Fuji X-T1 on launch in Canada sight unseen. Overall I was pretty happy and bought the XF14mm F2.8, XF23mm 1.4, XF56mm 1.2 and the XF55-200mm f3.5-4.8 mostly as a travel kit when I wanted to haul less gear.
The relationship with the X-T1 hasn't gone so well and I have since purged the primes, added the XF16-55mm F2.8 and kept the 55-200. Ergonomic niggles confound me with this camera, it eats batteries(I had to buy 6 to keep it running for extended periods), exposure bracketing is pathetic, the buttons on the back are not responsive enough and just too small, the drive and metering dial are way too loose and get moved when the camera strap is wrapped around my wrist. I could go on but why kick a horse when it is down? Anyway, I am keeping it BUT only as a compact lighter alternative, it certainly isn't a replacement for my Nikon's.
-
Since the launch of the Fuji mirrorless system I use it alongside my Nikon DSLR.
Currently these are:
- Fuji X-E2 with 14mm f/2.8, 16mm f/1.4, 23mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.2
- Nikon D750 with 20mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.8, 60mm f/2.8 Micro and 85mm f/1.4 and soon the new 24mm f/1.8
Both systems are pretty much overlapping in focal lengths.
I was thinking about pursuing only one system on the long run but after years of use I can see each system's strengths and weaknesses.
Good idea to keep both for quite a while as you may regret ditching one or the other.
If I only had e.g. DSLRs I would want two of them. Now I keep one DSLR and a mirrorless instead.
For coverage of events you can mix and match two cameras and required focal lengths.
The different operation of the cameras doesn't pose too big a problem as I've had both long enough to know them well.
-
I find the Nikon F3 (DE-2, non-HP) the most comfortable Nikon viewfinder despite wearing glasses. I believe the eyepoint is 17mm. The viewfinder magnification is .80 with a 50mm lens focused to infinity. The Nikon F2As has the same specs in this regard but edges of the finder are a bit vignetted for me. There's more to viewfinder ergonomics than eyepoint.
Now there is the image magnification v. eyepoint. The F3 has a finder magnification of .80x while the F3HP with a higher eyepoint has lower finder magnification of .75x. I wonder if this eyepoint relationship is always the case?
I hope the pop up flash is gone from professional Nikon DSLR(s). I'd like to see the real estate on top given to the finder prism.
Maybe I'm all wet here?
Dave Hartman
-
Daniel, I with hindsight I bought the D810 and pro glass as an ego trip if I'm honest, and again honestly I only get to use a 1/10 of its capability, yet another reason for the rethink! My all time favourite is the 24-120mm f4 super stuff!
David I'm sort of with you there but I would like a small & light profession class camera that has all the exposure bells and whistles and most definitely address Nikon's dreadful viewfinders, also they seem unable to cater for the wide end with other than expensive lenses. I think what I'm saying is that Nikon are way too conservative! And most definitely lose the pop up flash!!!!
Herman, I have a Nikon EDG scope and the eyepieces cause me no trouble! a £2000 fund camera and I can't see the whole viewfinder WHY(sorry for shouting) Why should viewfinders be a compromise????? Its all down to the crappy eye point of Nikon camera bodies, should be a minimum of 25mm! After all this last time I looked is the 21st century
Bjorn as I said the Fuji is an experiment and I shall retain the Nikon gear for the present! Last year I PXed a 17-35mm for the 16-35mm f4, hindsight tells me that was a mistake, my best buy was the 300mmf4 PF!
Frank bless you old son one of these days I will understand you, rock on.
-
Did you ever try a Nikon Df? If not, Please do so - You will be surprised!
-
Eric yes quite briefly at a Nikon school and yes I was attracted but for me the problem was sticking great lumps of glass on the front of it! I have to really think about my lenses and may well rationalise them.
I have 35 1.8 50 1.8 60 2.8 D. 105 macro 16-35 f4 24-120 300 4 PF!
-
What could it be that old father Mike does not understand?
Xtrans versus Bayer?
There are two different arrangements of color filters on the
Photo recording Chip.
Xtrans is Fuji
Bayer is everyone else but Sigma
They differ very much when editing photos later. Bayer recipies
do not cook Xtrans files very well. Contrast color and sharpening
behave quite differently.
cheers
Frank
PS. If you should sell your 35mm lens one day I might be interested
-
I wanted a 36x24mm, FX camera when people were saying Nikon would never make a "full frame" camera. A major reason for me is background blurring. When I bought my first dSLR, a Nikon D2H, I knew what to expect but I was still disappointed when I saw how little the background burring was with a 70/2.8 lens. I wanted the same blurring I could get with a 105/2.5 on 35mm. I suspected for a long time that background blurring wasn't quite DoF but couldn't back that up. I finally found Bob Atkins explanation. When the background is well outside the DoF zone the background blurring is controlled by the absolute physical size of the lens aperture not the aperture ratio. I also found about the same time a Russian guy with heavy math and the same explanation. That site I can no longer find.
Mike I'd go really slow about changing systems. I'd pare down the lenses that you take with you at any given time. If you own and are going to carry the Holy Trinity I'd do that with a small truck. :)
“Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn’t photogenic.” – Edward Weston
---
I'd be hard pressed to switch to a 1" format as my primary camera. I wouldn't have the ability to blur background for candid photos of people that I have with FX. I would like a very small camera to carry all the time. Right now I'd carrying a D800, an AF 35-105/3.5-4.5D IF, AF 50/1.8, 105/2.8 AIS and a 20/2.8 AIS. I've been doing this since a house across the street was burglarized. I don't want to be wiped out. This is a bit much to carry but I'm doing it.
I've probably said this before by I'd like a D800/E/10 sized camera with all the tech goodness of the D5 and D500, one with the 21MP sensor from the D5 and one with a 36MP sensor with better high ISO noise and a little more dynamic range. I can always add noise if I want and know how to compress or clip dynamic range if I have too much.
The truth is the thing I need most is time but that's another story.
Dave
-
I admit to be continuously puzzled about the viewfinder issues Mike reports on. Have you ever tried the F3 HP?
-
Bjorn no I haven't, I had heard of it and seen pictures but as it was MF I went from Canon to Nikon AF, my eyesight is not great for MF now why can't we have that HP VF for an autofocus body! All I would like is a VF where I can see ALL of the view, Nikon seem to be intent on not doing that, WHY I've never yet seen a nikon VF that is worth its salt, I can only speak from my own experience, I see the whole picture with the Fuji VF!
Dave I hear what you say and I'm in no hurry to sell the Nikon gear, I'm just trying out the Fuji system as a possible alternative! A big thing is that I'm a non driver so schlepping a bag full of gear around is a whole different experience for me
Frank Yep I do know the difference between the two sensor patterns! and Frank you will get first refusal should the occasion arise! Its not so much that I don't understand just sometimes your phraseology can be a bit odd to me.
-
now why can't we have that HP VF for an autofocus body! All I would like is a VF where I can see ALL of the view,
Get different glasses.
I can see all on the D700 and D750 and I am wearing multifocals.
Seriously grab your D810, got to your optometrist and explain your issue to him.
From your avatar I would say your glasses are too big.
cheers
afx
-
New glasses! That is a fantastic work around indeed, and much less expensive! ;)
-
Multifocal or progressive glasses are anything but inexpensive! :o
-
Andreas, I wear varifoculs and even taking my specs off I still can't see the whole VF closer but no banana! Where are Nikon when you want to have a rant at them? There is no excuse for bad design and that's all it is! If you are OK with the VF then good for you. Nikon are not the only or worst culprits by far. A stupidly short eye relief does nobody any good even this who do not need a high eye point. and the VF doesn't get me over the weight problem, I'm not saying that the D810 is a bad camera it is not but the VF is CRAP, also the hole you look through is just not wide enough.
Actually my glasses are the smallest I've ever had, when I first picked up the Fuji big glasses and all instantly I saw the whole VF easily. that said the VF is just one of my reasons to investigate another system.
THERE IS NO NEED THESE DAYS FOR TITCHY VFs. Sorry for shouting it should not be necessary to fiddle about with tiny VFs. Shame on you Nikon.
Bjornthun I do know that!
-
Viewfinders are a personal experience I grant you that, Mike, but allow me to say your description of how bad the specified Nikons are might not be widely recognized in the photographic community at large. Personally I'm very picky about viewfinders and cannot share your sentiments. My own observations are the exact opposite regarding the two brands. That any product can be improved is something else, though.
I have the feeling this thread has run its course and the discussions start to become of a circular nature. Thus, I urge to move on and instead, let us have a report on how you found the Fuji better (or worse) after a few months comparative shooting. Is that all right to you, Mike? If so, this thread can be closed in anticipation of that analysis posted to a separate thread.
-
A final thought from me anyway is facial structure plays a role in viewfinder comfort and usability. I was OK with the viewfinders of the FE2 and FM2n but an editor I worked for could not see the edges of the frame at all through his glasses. I did not roll my eye to see the corners but rather used peripheral vision to check the edge and deep corners. If memory serves me when I rolled my eye I had to reposition the camera which was unworkable for me.
Dave
-
Mike, Good luck in your experiences with Fuji
I often wonder why the heck do I want a 36MP camera ... but at the moment I'm quite happy with it
Cheers
-
Mike, I think the discussion has yielded two important insights for you...
1) there may be a reason you hate the viewfinder which isn't the viewfinder itself. take the camera to your optometrist along with your glasses. seriously - it will be a lot cheaper than a new camera and lenses!
2) if you don't like big lenses: change lenses, not camera. e.g. instead of taking the 16-35 on a hike, try just the 20 f/1.8. I use the whole f/1.8g series for this purpose, putting just two or three in a bag. the d810 with any one of those lenses mounted is not obtrusive all at for me even on very long walks. like you, i don't drive places to take photos often, so a giant bag filled with a million lenses is not an option. I have the big exotic lenses for certain occasions, but they're not walkaround gear except one at a time.
-
Thanks Schwett, those are only the two most burning issues. Also the D810 albeit a fine camera is still going to be a great big lump, I don't carry all the lenses in my Domke F2, but I still end up leaving at least one of the lenses behind at where ever I'm staying! The next question is as Armando said do I need 36 or maybe 42 MP and the answer is no I don't.
Also the viewfinder question to me is of major importance, I picked up the Fuji and lo I can see the whole of the VF, not 3/4 of it! in a £2300 camera just not good enough, this is a personal choice and is not a rushed decision but has been under consideration for about two years! I have considered three makes Fuji, Olympus and Sony and the Fuji won out for a number of reasonsNot least was when I saw the various pictures posted by others (have a look at the images posted by Sash) with the Nikon images I spent hours fettling them into some sort of shape to post, Way too long. The biggest thing to overcome was reluctance to abandon Nikon and now the decision is made I find it liberating!
Thanks Armando
-
It's up to everyone whether or not they should change tools and workflow. That aspect is not open for debate as such.
However, rational evaluation of the underlying reasons can save anybody a lot of money in the longer run. This applies to any product of any make. Sentiments alone can be be a precarious guidance in all walks of life.
Again, I hope you can show us, by future examples, that the switch was beneficial to your commitment to photography at large. We very much want our members to be happy :D
-
Thanks Bjorn, put ten photographers in a room and you will get ten different opinions!
I need to get well first as well as changing the system!
-
Mike, don't worry, you'll be fine. I've moved from D700 to X-T1 last June and am very happy with my decision. The camera is light well designed, produces lovely JPGs and will suit your style of photography perfectly, I am sure.
-
Thanks Olivier, now the decision is made I'm quite relaxed!
It will still be a wrench to see the Nikon stuff go though.
-
As professional golfer Lee Trevino used to say when people asked him about his clubs, it's not the arrow. It's the Indian.
Of course, with cameras, it's also the experience of using them. Many times, that is the defining characteristic.
I have the Fuji X100s (delightful!), the XE-1, XE-2, 14mm, 23mm, 35mm, 60mm macro, and 55-200 (all Fujis). Plus adaptors which allow me to use Nikon, Olympus, and Leica lenses on the Fuji bodies. Also have the Sony A7ii.
The Fuji glass seems to be quite good. The bodies have been a disappointment. VERY slow AF. I often go manual and use focus peaking. I thought I was going to sell all the Nikon gear, but after more than a year of shooting the Fujis, I'm back to Nikons, and just bought the D810 and four Zeiss lenses. (shrug) Probably will sell all the Fuji stuff other than the X100s.
My only suggestion is to not sell anything. Run two systems for a few months.
-
Mike, don't forget to take a peak at the newest Fuji, the X-Pro2, 24mp, but still the same footprint as the original XP1. The XP2 is scheduled to be release in February.
-
Mike, I think that Tom's advice is really very good advice indeed.
All systems have their pros and cons, and it is early days for you in respect of the Fuji X-T1. I would not sell your Nikons until you have notched up several thousand images on the Fuji and have gotten into what the Pros and Cons mean for yourself.
I have had an Olympus OMD E-M1 kit now for over 18 months, but my jury is still open about going solo with just the Oly. But that is just me.
One good thing in your financial favour is that the prices for new Nikon gear are climbing rapidly ( :()and this will spill over into the second hand market (which is ;D for you).
Just my 0.02c worth. Either way, good luck with your new tool kit.
.............................................................................
My only suggestion is to not sell anything. Run two systems for a few months.
-
Mike, I think that Tom's advice is really very good advice indeed.
All systems have their pros and cons, and it is early days for you in respect of the Fuji X-T1. I would not sell your Nikons until you have notched up several thousand images on the Fuji and have gotten into what the Pros and Cons mean for yourself.
I have had an Olympus OMD E-M1 kit now for over 18 months, but my jury is still open about going solo with just the Oly. But that is just me.
One good thing in your financial favour is that the prices for new Nikon gear are climbing rapidly ( :()and this will spill over into the second hand market (which is ;D for you).
Just my 0.02c worth. Either way, good luck with your new tool kit.
Couldn't agree more. I bought the X-T1 and some primes 12 months ago based on the reviews it had been getting, but I still find myself getting frustrated occasionally with the selector/button pad, as it is too small/not tactile for my fingers. This results in slowness (for me) in selecting/moving focus point/s and thus in missing shots. I like using it, but struggle with moving targets e.g. as in street photography. For me, it is an excellent camera system for light travelling/hiking (the 14/2.8 lens is great), but it is not without faults, so don't rush to sell your existing system yet. I find that I now use the Df for 55% of the time, the X-T1 25% and the D800e 20% (for its resolution). If I didn't have the Df it would probably be around 50/50 - I never intended go solo with the X-T1. Selecting a camera is such a personal thing.
-
Mike, from viewing your images for quite some time, I think the Fuji will probably be a good fit. There are many things I like about my Olympus and Sony gear but, for what I shoot and how I shoot, the EVF just doesn't work for me. I cannot pick up the sudden shift of action ( Soccer), or a BIf , that I spot out of my peripheral vision, fast enough with an EVF. I can swing my Nikons and follow the action and get Focus Lock immediately. That is not just me talking. I am in contact with some extremely good Action sports photographers and they all have the same problem. We can all get some decent images but the keeper rate and getting the critical moment, not dependable... so why bother :( .
Enjoy your new gear and the small, lighter weight gear. I only shoot my heavy lenses for specific things but I find that the walkabout with the Df and D750 with primes is fine. I , as with you, use my 24-120 f4 vr more than I ever expected ;) .
Interesting, I would love to try a Fuji but some Fuji used prices hold up very well. I was even watching some X-T10s, w18-55 2.8-4 on eBay UK the past few days. Cheaper than the X100T ;) . My wife is in UK for another 10 days so who knows :)
All the best,
Tom
-
Thank you all for the messages of support, I have enjoyed the big Nikon stuff immensely but for me it is time to move on!
I wish I was a good enough photog to take advantage of the Nikon gear, but hey I'm not destined for that honour. So onward and upward(I hope) I have to admit that the X-T1 is a trial machine until the X-T2 is released later in the year. It is my training aid so to speak and very enjoyable it is. When my health improves I will be able to get out a bit more and make more use of it! I also need to to learn the nuances of processing X Trans files in LightRoom.
I shall hang on to my D810 and a pair of small primes(50 + 35)for a fair while, but the big heavy stuff has to go!
Gary, I'll wait for the X Pro 2 to appear in the X-T2 form!
The support I'm getting from our members is phenomenal, thank you all soooooo much.
-
Just to add to my comments above, I was disappointed with the very slow focus speed the X-E2 had.
But . . . last night I installed the latest firmware update (4.0) as soon at it was released. Now I have a new camera. Stunning upgrade. AF speed is now very fast, and I checked it only in an office with light that wasn't very bright.
Anyone who has an X-E2 should do this firmware update immediately. While I was doing it, I updated the FW for five of the six Fuji lenses in my bag (one does not have a newer firmware).
Fuji is to be applauded for continuing to provide updates for older cameras. I did the updates for the X-E1 and X100s at the same time.
-
... it's not the arrow. It's the Indian.
Love this comment !
-
I have also updated my X-E2 to FW 4.0 and really like the improved AF and new user interface.
The X-E2 has served me well for two years and now I enjoy basically a new camera. This is clever marketing.
Even though people get more functionality for free and don't have to buy the latest camera I believe it will generate more sales mid to long term.
I'm very happy having bought into this system.
-
this is a very personal decision and just like what was mentioned previously, you should use both systems for a reasonable amount of time to judge which system suits you. I did exactly that and just stayed with Nikon.
i will admit that i was initially swayed by the hype of the "mirrorless revolution" fad but realize that it is all just marketing hype and remembered that nIkon said the very same thing about DX during the time when they never had the means to produce FX cameras. :o :o :o i stayed with nikon because of the familiar ergonomics, speed, responsiveness and the battery life to mention a few. i also realize that the weight problem exists in my lens selection, once i got smarter with what lenses to ring and just brought what I need instead of always bringing the 70-200VRII and 24-70 on unimportant shots, the weight issue became insignificant.
these are all just my opinions. i know many people who decided to switch and were happy they did, but on the other end of the spectrum I know many people who regret the decision and just got the D750 and got their photography lives back together.
good luck! only you can say if it works for you or not. do not believe the hype coming from mirrorless users and also do not listen to people who are afraid of change and stuck to slr's.
i never got serious in my early years of photography, in fact i learned nothing back then in the film days apart from composition. but back in the days, nobody cared if you shot pentax, rollei, nikon, canon, leica, yashica or whatever. people talked about brands but nobody labeled anybody anything just because he was not using the same brand as he did. have fun 8) 8) 8)
-
By the way, tried the xpro2 just now and the af has been improved cobsiderably but still not par with slr's. Just wait a few more months and the price should go down, it is currently inflated.
-
I ran two systems for a couple of years. D700/D300s and Pentax K5 with the small Limited Primes and their 60-250mm on the long end. The K5 and small primes are stunning optically and fun to use. Pentax still lags in AF speed and accuracy for me. Bottom line, I don't like having two systems and deciding which to take. I have used Nikon since the F in the early 70's. No more Pentax; Nikon I'm stuck with you until the end. 8)
-
I was shocked to see that the Fuji 90/2 lens has heptagonal bokeh when stopped down. :D
Otherwise, nice system I think.
-
I was shocked to see that the Fuji 90/2 lens has heptagonal bokeh when stopped down. :D
Otherwise, nice system I think.
that's so old school :o :o :o
i actually like my bokeh balls to be polygonal but yeah, i do expect a rounder aperture from more modern lenses.