whited3
Well-known
That beat up X-pro1 is a beauty! I'd be all over it if I were on the market for two cameras. I am secretly awaiting the x-Pro2... I might even sell off one of my leicas... for a used bottom price xp2 some time way in the future
whited3
Well-known
Back form youtube. Damn - focus peaking appears to be an excellent aide. convince me not to get the A7
This was a neat watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6HnMu7ANUE
focus peaking around 11 minutes.
This was a neat watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6HnMu7ANUE
focus peaking around 11 minutes.
YYV_146
Well-known
The Sony peaking implementation is indeed much better than the competitors. Some may dismiss it as being too "loose" even at the low setting, but I feel that the system is optimized for using lenses wide open, especially long and fast lenses like the 75mm Summilux and various Nocts. With smaller apertures I tend to simply zone focus, and do not look into the VF at all.
Additionally my experience with the A7's EVF is that under most circumstances I can actually focus on eyes without peaking. The contrast and resolution is *that good...same goes with the X-T1, although 0.77x isn't too easy on my heavily nearsighted eyes. All else being equal I'd actually opt for a smaller mag ratio, since it makes composition easier.
JohnL
Very confused
I am in a sort of limbo between these two extremes. My go-everywhere camera now is an XP-1 with the 18-55 only, plus the EF42 flash. I have not yet crossed the Rubicon of getting rid of all my Canon gear, and probably won't. I keep a 5D2 and some wides for architecture and interiors (which I occasionally do semi-professionally), and a 7D and 50D and some fairly longs for wildlife and birds. There are some mid-range lenses I could get rid of, and probably will eventually. All my pre-digital gear is sitting on the shelf now.
NicoM
Well-known
My suggestion would be to try the Fuji out first. I know a lot of people that get along with Fuji cameras, but I also know a bunch that can't stand them.
om.ch
Member
This, while I love my XP-1 now I am very glad that a friend of mine lent me his for a week to try it out.
Good advice!
nongfuspring
Well-known
+1
I'm really into my fuji cameras, but NicoM is right in that it's a really personal thing.
willie_901
Veteran
Sage advice (from someone who is selling all his Nikon gear and switching to Fujifilm)
Kent
Finally at home...
What is that always with "fullframe" and DoF?
Put an 1.2/50ish on an APS cam and you get all the shallow DoF you want.
Or do you really like it when one eye is ooF while the other one is sharp??
The only thing you can't really do is to shoot an equivalent of a 1.4/24 on APS.
But tell me, how often do you do/need that?
I've sold my fullframe sensor cam, my fullframe is film.
Put an 1.2/50ish on an APS cam and you get all the shallow DoF you want.
Or do you really like it when one eye is ooF while the other one is sharp??
The only thing you can't really do is to shoot an equivalent of a 1.4/24 on APS.
But tell me, how often do you do/need that?
I've sold my fullframe sensor cam, my fullframe is film.
willie_901
Veteran
What is that always with "fullframe" and DoF?
Put an 1.2/50ish on an APS cam and you get all the shallow DoF you want.
Or do you really like it when one eye is ooF while the other one is sharp??
The only thing you can't really do is to shoot an equivalent of a 1.4/24 on APS.
But tell me, how often do you do/need that?
I've sold my fullframe sensor cam, my fullframe is film.
Kent,
For some reason people think the advantages of increased sensor surface are independent of lens characteristics.
In the past there was a limited selection of wide aperture (1.4 or less) lenses designed specifically for APS-C cameras. At the same time, older fast lenses adapted for use with APS-C cameras meant the angle-of-view was narrower than the lens owners' were use to using. For years 24 X 36 mm sensors were the best option. When Nikon and Canon started to sell affordable cameras with 24 X 36 mm sensors, their motivation to produce excellent prime lenses for APS-C cameras disappeared. I believe they wanted people to adopt the more expensive 24 X 36 mm format instead.
Fujifilm faced an interesting dilemma. They could compete in the m4/3 market where Olympus and Panasonic were dominant, or in the 24 X 36 mm sensor market dominated my Canon and Nikon. Instead Fujifilm decided to develop a high-quality, diverse lens system for the APS-C sensor. So now fast, high-quality prime lenses for APS-C cameras are available.
But the concept that 24 X 36 mm sensors are the only convenient option for subject isolation persists. Similarly the idea persists that the only way to achieve high signal to noise ratios and dynamic range is depends only on sensor area and lenses play no role whatsoever
Some photographers need the thinnest possible DOF under all circumstances to express their creativity. These people are in the minority. But why don't these people switch to medium format systems and use lenses like the Hasselblad 110 f2, Contax 645 80mm f2 lenses, Mamiya fast lenses without shutters, or Rolleiflex 80/2 and 110/2, or 180/2.8 lenses? After all these systems provide the ultimate in subject isolation (and focusing skills).
For my needs the APS-C sensor is a useful compromise between size/weight and cost balanced against the one to a half stop more signal and decreed DOF available with 24 X 36 mm sensors. In a few months I won't even own a 24 X 36 mm format camera. There is no advantage for my work.
Fujifilm is my new full-frame sensor camera.
whited3
Well-known
Probably in the wrong sub forum now, but I had 20 minutes to kill before an appointment today - and what do you know, sony store next door. I handled an a7 long enough to test my biggest unknowns: focus peaking, EVF, and general ergonomics. Long story short, I'm still tracking towards a7. My brief thoughts on each are:
focus peaking is really useful. Not magical but in terms of manual focus it should get the job done nicely. I tested with the focus by wire kit lens, so I can only imagine a fully mechanical lens will be even better.
EVF did not even come close to fooling my brain that I was using an OVF (I had to say that because there is some hype about EVF in general out there). In terms of resolution that's too bad. But in terms of showing me color & contrast closer to what the sensor will record it's awesome.
Ergonomics are totally acceptable. Front and rear customizable dials = dedicated aperture and shutter. Size reminds me of my old Canon AE-1
I can't say much more after only 20 minutes of camera time, but my fantasy of light weight ff digital cheap legacy lens wonderland grows.
focus peaking is really useful. Not magical but in terms of manual focus it should get the job done nicely. I tested with the focus by wire kit lens, so I can only imagine a fully mechanical lens will be even better.
EVF did not even come close to fooling my brain that I was using an OVF (I had to say that because there is some hype about EVF in general out there). In terms of resolution that's too bad. But in terms of showing me color & contrast closer to what the sensor will record it's awesome.
Ergonomics are totally acceptable. Front and rear customizable dials = dedicated aperture and shutter. Size reminds me of my old Canon AE-1
I can't say much more after only 20 minutes of camera time, but my fantasy of light weight ff digital cheap legacy lens wonderland grows.
YYV_146
Well-known
What is that always with "fullframe" and DoF?
Put an 1.2/50ish on an APS cam and you get all the shallow DoF you want.
Or do you really like it when one eye is ooF while the other one is sharp??
The only thing you can't really do is to shoot an equivalent of a 1.4/24 on APS.
But tell me, how often do you do/need that?
I've sold my fullframe sensor cam, my fullframe is film.
DOF is only one part of the difference. For Fuji, at least, it is difficult to get FF equivalents of many fast WAs, and currently no superwides below 18mm FF equivalent are available.
Everything else equal, a same-generation FF sensor will always have better color depth, dynamic range and high iso performance compared to an APS-C sensor. X-trans is a brilliant idea, but I see it as a technology that solves problems while creating others, not one that enables Fuji to bend the laws of physics...
There is a pretty big jump in overall malleability from X-pro1 RAWs to A7 RAWs, and another big one from the A7 to the A7r and D800E. If you print at all, the IQ gap is IMO not insubstantial.
willie_901
Veteran
Color depth, SNR and dynamic range are not fundamental properties of send or surface area.
How does sensor area realty to co,if depth?
How does sensor area realty to co,if depth?
nongfuspring
Well-known
Speaking of DOF, the one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that the speed booster is available for the XF mount, giving a significant increase in speed and retention of original FOV on MF SLR lenses. Personally I think if OP doesn't mind manual focussing and shallow DOF is a priority then this is an excellent option for the xt1, especially since the focussing aids are supposed to be very good.
whited3
Well-known
Crap. This complicates my decision. Now I have to try and get my hands on a Fuji X-t1 for a trial. I always had the impression it's more thoughtfully executed than the a7...
a7 full frame vs x-t1 & Metabones booster. And the research continues.
YYV_146
Well-known
pixel pitch is positively related to SNR, color depth. DR is mostly a function of sensor architecture, but also benefits from bigger pixels.
At the same amount of pixels the FF sensor will always have an advantage in these aspects because the pixel size is ~2x larger
YYV_146
Well-known
Try the metabones before you buy one - for older lenses it's probably fine, but newer lenses will suffer a significant resolution drop from using a speed booster. CA is magnified respectively, falloff compounded.
From my experience the speed booster also creates rather complex distortion patterns. It is actually better for the booster to distort in the same direction as the lens, since pure pincushion or barrel distortion is better approximated in post procession. If the effect cancel out imperfectly, the result can be very complex double moustaches.
And of course, there is no speed booster available for adapting M lenses.
whited3
Well-known
What is that always with "fullframe" and DoF?
Put an 1.2/50ish on an APS cam and you get all the shallow DoF you want.
Or do you really like it when one eye is ooF while the other one is sharp??
The only thing you can't really do is to shoot an equivalent of a 1.4/24 on APS.
But tell me, how often do you do/need that?
I've sold my fullframe sensor cam, my fullframe is film.
It's just my personal preference. I'm not looking for razor thin focus at 3 feet. I'm looking for ability at more normal distances. There aren't a lot of blazingly fast aps-c lenses out there yet. While there is a myriad of legacy glass just begging to be revived on ff digital. These mirrorless system cameras are a golden opportunity to take advantage. And since I've the luxury of shooting for fun I'm aiming to wade shin deep in it.
Anyways, I can't knock one vs the other. They're different and I prefer ff.
Kent
Finally at home...
Of course there will always be some photographers who need a razor thin DoF. And I do really not want to stop anybody from buying a fullframe cam. I used to have an EOS 5D and I liked it a lot.
But I realized that I don't really need a "fullframe" sensor. (BTW, why "fullframe"? Of course, I know that it is because of the same size like a Format 135 film, but wouldn't then medium format be something like "hyper-fullframe")
OK, all joking aside.
I strongly believe that most hobbyists are kind of seduced by that fullframe hype and by marketing strategies as well as magazine reports and not at last internet boards.
Most hobby photographers I know could easily do with an APS camera.
Yes, fullframe has advantages. Sure.
- better isolation of subjects (if you need that)
- lower noise (if you need to shoot at ISO 51200)
- more dynamic range (if you need that)
...
But there are also some others "rules" that apply:
- APS sensors are basically only one generation behind fullframe sensors as far as noise is concerned. (My Fuji X-E1 produces lower noise at high ISO than my 5D did.)
- Not every fullframe sensor is euqally good at high ISOs. Compare Nikon D800 and Nikon D4 or Canon EOS 5D MkIII and Sony A7R.
- "Fullframe" also means bigger, heavier and more expensive lenses.
etc. etc.
All I want to say is that we, as hobbyists, should be aware of promises that we don't really need.
Fuji X offers with their 2/18, 1.4/23, 1.4/35 and 1.2/56 a great (though not really low-priced) selection of fast lenses. And for those who, like me, do not want to pay €1000,- for each lens they have, you can easily adapt older, manual lenses to your Fuji X.
Allow me to list my set of lenses for my Fuji X-E1, on order of FL:
Voigtländer 4.5/15 (MF, = 23)
Vivitar 3.8/19 (MF, = 28)
Nikkor-N.C 2.8/24 (MF, = 36)
Voigtländer Ultron 2/28 (MF, = 42)
Fuji XR 1.4/35 (AF, = 53)
Nikkor-S.C 1.2/55 (MF, = 83)
Voigtländer 2.5/75 (MF, = 113)
Nikkor-H 1.8/85 (MF, = 128)
Zuiko 3.5/100 (MF, = 150)
and zooms:
Sigma 4.5-5.6/12-24 (MF, = 18-36 or 13-26 with LensTurbo)
Fuji XR 2.8-4/18-55 (AF, = 27-83)
Fuji XC 4.5-6.7/50-230 (AF, = 75-345)
Now, tell me, is there anything left to be wanted?
But I realized that I don't really need a "fullframe" sensor. (BTW, why "fullframe"? Of course, I know that it is because of the same size like a Format 135 film, but wouldn't then medium format be something like "hyper-fullframe"
)OK, all joking aside.
I strongly believe that most hobbyists are kind of seduced by that fullframe hype and by marketing strategies as well as magazine reports and not at last internet boards.
Most hobby photographers I know could easily do with an APS camera.
Yes, fullframe has advantages. Sure.
- better isolation of subjects (if you need that)
- lower noise (if you need to shoot at ISO 51200)
- more dynamic range (if you need that)
...
But there are also some others "rules" that apply:
- APS sensors are basically only one generation behind fullframe sensors as far as noise is concerned. (My Fuji X-E1 produces lower noise at high ISO than my 5D did.)
- Not every fullframe sensor is euqally good at high ISOs. Compare Nikon D800 and Nikon D4 or Canon EOS 5D MkIII and Sony A7R.
- "Fullframe" also means bigger, heavier and more expensive lenses.
etc. etc.
All I want to say is that we, as hobbyists, should be aware of promises that we don't really need.
Fuji X offers with their 2/18, 1.4/23, 1.4/35 and 1.2/56 a great (though not really low-priced) selection of fast lenses. And for those who, like me, do not want to pay €1000,- for each lens they have, you can easily adapt older, manual lenses to your Fuji X.
Allow me to list my set of lenses for my Fuji X-E1, on order of FL:
Voigtländer 4.5/15 (MF, = 23)
Vivitar 3.8/19 (MF, = 28)
Nikkor-N.C 2.8/24 (MF, = 36)
Voigtländer Ultron 2/28 (MF, = 42)
Fuji XR 1.4/35 (AF, = 53)
Nikkor-S.C 1.2/55 (MF, = 83)
Voigtländer 2.5/75 (MF, = 113)
Nikkor-H 1.8/85 (MF, = 128)
Zuiko 3.5/100 (MF, = 150)
and zooms:
Sigma 4.5-5.6/12-24 (MF, = 18-36 or 13-26 with LensTurbo)
Fuji XR 2.8-4/18-55 (AF, = 27-83)
Fuji XC 4.5-6.7/50-230 (AF, = 75-345)
Now, tell me, is there anything left to be wanted?