Spyro
Well-known
I did have a craving for full frame when I bought into full frame (the 5d classic era), but I had good reasons: FF was the only way to get any sort of decent resolution and high iso, crop sensors were pretty average. Crop lenses were few and nothing special as well, so you were forced to buy FF lenses anyway. Canon was notoriously bad at wide angles, so I was buying and trying a whole bunch of legacy lenses that only really made sense on full sensors.
None of these things is applicable anymore. APSC sensors are hugely improved and easily beat my printing needs, there's an abundance of phenomenal lenses designed for them, my legacy lenses are mostly sold and I couldnt care less what Canon does. So I prefer APSC systems, and by "prefer" I mean I would actually pay more for it if prices were the other way round, simply because it's smaller. There's no bending physics, if the fuji system was full frame it would look and weigh very differently, especially for people like me who typically end up with 5-6 lenses per system.
None of these things is applicable anymore. APSC sensors are hugely improved and easily beat my printing needs, there's an abundance of phenomenal lenses designed for them, my legacy lenses are mostly sold and I couldnt care less what Canon does. So I prefer APSC systems, and by "prefer" I mean I would actually pay more for it if prices were the other way round, simply because it's smaller. There's no bending physics, if the fuji system was full frame it would look and weigh very differently, especially for people like me who typically end up with 5-6 lenses per system.
Harry S.
Well-known
Despite owning a number of them, I dont think Fuji lenses are so good.
The new Sigma 35mm f1.4 on a 5D Mark III or a D800 noticeably eclipses both the 23/2 X100 and 23mm XF. The Sigma 85mm is even better. These are cheap lenses on the grand scheme. Lets not even talk about the Nikkor 85mm G...
I love using my Fuji's, but the printed image quality pales in comparison to good quality DSLR's and Medium format. I've said that here before, and I choose to when the opportunity arises because I consider it an unbiased view from a user / owner of such systems. The only real reason for me to use a Fuji X-camera these days is if i'm too lazy to carry a larger camera...but as I only take a limited amount of photos and don't really do "walk arounds", that's never a problem.
I like what Fuji are doing but I doubt i'll buy more until they increase the sensor size.
Spyro
Well-known
yes maybe, I dont know this lens, but the sigma 35 is twice as heavy and twice as long if you include the mirrorbox. And surely it might look better on a 24 or 36 mp camera, but how big do you have to print before actually seeing a difference?
Harry S.
Well-known
I notice on 8x10. Its not about sharpness either, for me its about subtlety in graduations.
Spyro
Well-known
You're getting a bit metaphysical here. Twilight zone.
But if you see something that you like that's all that matters, I dont, not in my typical A3 prints anyway, so I feel if I opted for a D800+Sigma I'd probably be carrying around an expensive extra couple of kilos that would cost me photos.
Because I wouldnt carry them around.
Choice is a wonderful thing, Nikon for you, Fuji for me, everybody happy
But if you see something that you like that's all that matters, I dont, not in my typical A3 prints anyway, so I feel if I opted for a D800+Sigma I'd probably be carrying around an expensive extra couple of kilos that would cost me photos.
Because I wouldnt carry them around.
Choice is a wonderful thing, Nikon for you, Fuji for me, everybody happy
kshapero
South Florida Man
Respectfully disagree, like 100% disagree. Carry on.
daveleo
what?
I am with you 100% on this (radical) opinion !!
nongfuspring
Well-known
How do you feel the fuji files compare to your DSLR on screen?
robert blu
quiet photographer
I agree 100%
gavinlg
Veteran
Respectfully disagree (and agree on a few points).
I don't think they sigma 35mm f1.4 is better than the 23mm f1.4 fuji. But I do think the larger FF sensor allows for *something* extra in the tonal gradations and separations in an image. The sigma 35mm might be cheap, but is widely considered quite a bit better than the nikon/canon/zeiss equivalents btw. It might be one of the best 35mm lenses for FF digital that exist.
So the FF sensor does allow some plusses, BUT the 23mm f1.4 is about 1/4 of the size and half the weight of the sigma, is built nicer, has an aperture ring, and overall I much prefer the color from fuji x-trans than both canon and nikon DSLRs (completely subjective). So I feel like it makes up for the FF sensor size advantages.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Thats about where I am in the scheme of things.
I`m tempted by the fuji but don`t care to use small sensor cameras with legacy lenses.
I do with my 40d and the lenses don`t perform as the should.
Until they put out a FF I`ll not be looking.
steveclem
Well-known
willie_901
Veteran
"Subtlety in graduations" can be related to technical performance.
Dynamic range is dependent on signal to noise ratio. As dynamic range increases, the ADC can represent the analog information with less error. Of course this assumes the ADC receives close to the maximum possible analog signal and has enough bits to model the analog signal.
Increased sensor area could deliver superior tonality. The light transmitted by the lens is also a source of signal. The lens' maximum apertures and transmission factors are equally relevant factors for signal amplitude.
Sensor area is not the sole factor that affects tonality.
Of course, satisfaction with the final image is entirely subjective and there is no fundamental reason for anyone to question others' evaluations about tonality.
Dynamic range is dependent on signal to noise ratio. As dynamic range increases, the ADC can represent the analog information with less error. Of course this assumes the ADC receives close to the maximum possible analog signal and has enough bits to model the analog signal.
Increased sensor area could deliver superior tonality. The light transmitted by the lens is also a source of signal. The lens' maximum apertures and transmission factors are equally relevant factors for signal amplitude.
Sensor area is not the sole factor that affects tonality.
Of course, satisfaction with the final image is entirely subjective and there is no fundamental reason for anyone to question others' evaluations about tonality.
GaryLH
Veteran
Interesting someone else's blog, sort of on this topic
Interesting someone else's blog, sort of on this topic
An interesting writeup about one person view of the state of the mirrorless market in early 2014. It is in a way, sort of also saying that Fuji is on a roll, but from a different perspective.
http://2guysphoto.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/mirrorless-cameras-early-2014-state-of-the-state/
Whether u agree w/ him or not.. Just saying it is another perspective.
Gary
Interesting someone else's blog, sort of on this topic
An interesting writeup about one person view of the state of the mirrorless market in early 2014. It is in a way, sort of also saying that Fuji is on a roll, but from a different perspective.
http://2guysphoto.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/mirrorless-cameras-early-2014-state-of-the-state/
Whether u agree w/ him or not.. Just saying it is another perspective.
Gary
2WK
Rangefinder User
I agree. For it's size, my Xpro is a great camera. It's fun to shoot, easy to cary around all day. I sold my 5D stuff to make the switch to Fuji. For a lot of purposes, I am fairly happy. But, I think I'm going to have to get another dslr for work. Probably a d800e.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I openly wish that these X- cameras are full-frame.
It's not the lenses, Olympus lenses are not lacking in quality, especially their high-end range. But their lunch will be eaten by Fuji because of their stubbornness to stick with their 4/3rd sensor.
Like it or not, sensor size matters (just like film size) and eventually everything will be full-frame or bigger.
So here's to Fuji's future with a full-frame X200 to test the waters, then X2 Pro with a new line of good lenses.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Well, Olympus's high-end range lenses might not lack in quality, but they're engineered specifically to work with 4/3-sized sensors. For Oly to change format sizes means a new lens lineup, and a new camera format also - since the FF camera wouldn't adhere to the u-4/3 standard that they've shared with Panasonic - which implies a new marketing program to promote the new FF camera, which would then compete with their existing u-4/3 line.
I suppose they'd do this eventually, if the market dictated success. It will be interesting to see who jumps first into the compact FF market after Sony having already done so.
~Joe
I suppose they'd do this eventually, if the market dictated success. It will be interesting to see who jumps first into the compact FF market after Sony having already done so.
~Joe
Spyro
Well-known
actually the market is going the opposite way, sensors are getting smaller because the average photo today is taken with a smartphone. Even in the non-smarphone market, all the technology in the world cant change the simple fact that big sensors need big lenses, it's a rule of optics. In fact lenses are getting bigger all the time because in 2014 you simply cant release a serious lens with swirly bokeh and "character", nobody will think it's cute, they will haul it over the coals. Well corrected lenses means bigger lenses unfortunately, even in mirrorless. Look at the otus, thats a manual 50/1.4 and it looks like a shoe. Thats the future, and the arguments for smaller sensors are getting more and more valid.
Harry S.
Well-known
I'm all for technology evolving in whatever form it needs to be (physically) in order for it to improve. I would jump at the chance to own the Otus.
My main problem (annoyance) is that technology is so good nowadays that humanity is becoming lazier and lazier. A requirement for a camera to be compact and light-weight, which in pretty much all cases compromises either performance or ergonomics; simply because we are collectively becoming lazy.
Id rather become fitter or stronger as a person, and use cameras that have been optimized for overall image quality performance rather than portability at the expense of optical compromise. A hobby should require some effort, anything easy and straight-forward and without some type of challenge doesn't remain rewarding for long.
I imagine the Ansel Adams photographers of old would think of today's photographers as spoilt and overly-pampered.
My main problem (annoyance) is that technology is so good nowadays that humanity is becoming lazier and lazier. A requirement for a camera to be compact and light-weight, which in pretty much all cases compromises either performance or ergonomics; simply because we are collectively becoming lazy.
Id rather become fitter or stronger as a person, and use cameras that have been optimized for overall image quality performance rather than portability at the expense of optical compromise. A hobby should require some effort, anything easy and straight-forward and without some type of challenge doesn't remain rewarding for long.
I imagine the Ansel Adams photographers of old would think of today's photographers as spoilt and overly-pampered.
robert blu
quiet photographer
Someone is just becoming older and weaker. In spite of this still desiring to keep his own hobby or passion for a long time, if possible.
Traveling by plane you are oft limited to one cabin luggage and in this case again size matters.
And we should not forget please that in the film era many photographers choice was RF cameras instead of SLR
robert