• To directly access the forum, ensure your bookmark url includes /forum.

Fuji vs Nikon

fordy

Wammer
Wammer
Nov 29, 2006
2,388
298
128
Wirral, UK
AKA
Carl
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
The X-T1 is out next week in Japan, the XF56 1.2 a week later and the XF10-24mm maybe a month after that. I'd probably get a leather case and that battery grip looks quite a good idea too. As you can imagine, this little lot will cost a hefty sum but I am fundamentally a gear whore and remain properly tempted to upgrade the breadth and depth of my Fuji kit. As camera kit is soooo cheap while the yen is weak I sort of justify thats it's best to make hay while the sun shines, especially as it looks like I'm into my last year in Japan.

...but I've long been thinking I'd still like to try full frame and maybe, just maybe if I used the same amount of money as I would upgrading the Fuji kit (bearing in mind the above is broadening bases I already have covered) then I could buy into the Nikon D600 I've long lusted after and probably a few lenses to boot.

...just a few lenses is an understatement! I've done a web tour of a few used camera emporiums and worked out that if I bought used and stuck to older AF-D lenses I could put one hell of a kit together for the same money I'd spend buying Fuji stuff.

How does Nikon D600, 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2, 35-70/2.8 & 28-200/3.5-5.6 sound for a comprehensive Nikon set. I am amazed!

So instead of broadening slightly my Fuji bases I could buy in to another system instead and keep my existing Fuji's too.

Obviously I doubt I'd buy ALL of those AF-D lenses but it goes to show how much value can be had for the money.

What would you do? Keep pouring into new Fuji or diversify the kit into Nikon full frame and a bag of lenses?

 
S

s2000db

Guest
Hmmm tricky dilemma, my D300 is still a great action camera but is out iq'd for low light and resolution by my RX100..

However it still takes great pictures and I have a few lenses that I don't really need to chop in, so I suppose I'm still waiting for a decent D300 replacement, while I do a flirtation with the Fuji X-T1 when it arrives.

Tbh I'd steer clear of the D600 there's too many stories of the shutter mechanism spraying oil over the sensor, for my liking so is go for the 610 instead...

Finally is there any need to go full frame nowadays? Apart from the resolution you get off a D800 or similar Sony, it seems that the DoF thing can be done well by 4/3 cameras these days, and unless you're a massive pixel peeper or print very large shots, I think the case for FF is beginning to diminish rapidly especially with the sort of output that Fuji is beginning to achieve... Imo ymmv etc etc

 

Tony_J

Moderator
Staff member
Mar 4, 2013
19,956
1
14,118
198
Bunessan
AKA
Tony
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
Hmmm tricky dilemma, my D300 is still a great action camera but is out iq'd for low light and resolution by my RX100..However it still takes great pictures and I have a few lenses that I don't really need to chop in, so I suppose I'm still waiting for a decent D300 replacement, while I do a flirtation with the Fuji X-T1 when it arrives.

Tbh I'd steer clear of the D600 there's too many stories of the shutter mechanism spraying oil over the sensor, for my liking so is go for the 610 instead...

Finally is there any need to go full frame nowadays? Apart from the resolution you get off a D800 or similar Sony, it seems that the DoF thing can be done well by 4/3 cameras these days, and unless you're a massive pixel peeper or print very large shots, I think the case for FF is beginning to diminish rapidly especially with the sort of output that Fuji is beginning to achieve... Imo ymmv etc etc
The Fuji kit is very tempting, and I have an X20 that I think is just a fantastic go-anywhere camera, but I have too much nice Nikon (and Nikon-fit) glass to make it worthwhile to switch my SLR system - also, you get used to the feel of a system & somehow my D90 just feels "right" in my hands. The DX format is good for the stuff I enjoy working on - for wildlife it effectively gives you a longer telephoto by a factor of 1.5 without the extra expense. So my likely upgrade path is to a D7100 when I can afford it/be bothered enough, because actually the IQ I am getting with the D90 isn't too shabby anyway, and far in excess of my skill/technique level right now.

 
S

s2000db

Guest
The Fuji kit is very tempting, and I have an X20 that I think is just a fantastic go-anywhere camera, but I have too much nice Nikon (and Nikon-fit) glass to make it worthwhile to switch my SLR system - also, you get used to the feel of a system & somehow my D90 just feels "right" in my hands. The DX format is good for the stuff I enjoy working on - for wildlife it effectively gives you a longer telephoto by a factor of 1.5 without the extra expense. So my likely upgrade path is to a D7100 when I can afford it/be bothered enough, because actually the IQ I am getting with the D90 isn't too shabby anyway, and far in excess of my skill/technique level right now.
I agree it's perfect for wildlife and sport, the D7100 is a good choice, but I'm sure there's something a bit better waiting around the corner... ( as always ;-) )

 

MrSmith

Wammer
Wammer
Oct 26, 2006
252
17
33
London, , United Kin
looking at what you shoot i can't see the point in the nikon kit, the XT-1 looks the obvious choice imho. perhaps a d800 if you want to print big but i'm not a fan of the nikon files and know fashion photographers have to work the files hard to get good skin tones. you would have to cherry pic the lenses too as some are lacking in the corners.

(but i look at camera equipment in a different way, does it make me money? how long before it pays for itself? does it make my job easier?)

 

Tony_J

Moderator
Staff member
Mar 4, 2013
19,956
1
14,118
198
Bunessan
AKA
Tony
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
I agree it's perfect for wildlife and sport, the D7100 is a good choice, but I'm sure there's something a bit better waiting around the corner... ( as always ;-) )
That is indeed always the case - better and often way more expensive... A bit like HiFi in that regard ;-)

 

HectorHughMunro

Wammer
Wammer
Oct 29, 2006
5,628
1,642
158
London, , United Kin
Once you start working the files, Nikon is great. I prefer the OOC colour balance from Fuji. The thing about full frame isn't just low light (the low light advantage on it's own is not enough to move from Fuji), it's depth of field control. I find the control placement on Fuji very natural.

Why not wait for the next generation of sensor?

 

stickman

Wammer
Wammer
Sep 17, 2006
2,024
163
0
Manchester
AKA
Phil
Unless you specifically want to use the primes ... 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2 ... I'd replace them all with the 20-35mm f2.8 AF-D; it was the default lens for 3 years on my D300, and is the lens that I always carry on my D7100. Obviously, on full-frame its even wider.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/2035af.htm

I have the 50mm f1.4 AF-D, 85mm f1.8 AF-D, 35-70 f2.8 AF-D, 105 f2 DC AF so agree with all of those (135 AF DC makes more sense on a full frame).

I'm not planning on moving fully over to Fuji, because of the availability of AF-D lenses for my Nikon.

 

Gromit

Wammer
Wammer
Nov 17, 2006
7,435
6,076
158
Yellowbellyshire
AKA
Richard
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
I'd agree it's a tricky one Carl and I'm not 100% sure I'd know what to do. Since moving my X100 on to Gobind - who's now clearly been bitten hard by the Fuji bug and producing some photographic gems - I've really missed its handyness but by the same token I'm wondering if investing in a good used FF DSLR and just a couple of small primes (got the nifty fifty, would probably add a 100 or 135) might be a good accompaniment to the X-Pro1. It's that or look for a used X100S.

I think in your shoes - as the Wam's Fuji Jedi-Master - I'd probably go for broke with the Fuji system with a small entourage of DSLRism to keep it company. Chatting to the guys in LCE the other day when picking up my 55-200 we were salivating over the 56/1.2 and the 10-24. Not cheap, but it's less than L-glass - and from the last few days' snapping I'd put the 55-200 up against a 70-200 F4L any day of the week. :)

 

fordy

Wammer
Wammer
Nov 29, 2006
2,388
298
128
Wirral, UK
AKA
Carl
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
Unless you specifically want to use the primes ... 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2 ... I'd replace them all with the 20-35mm f2.8 AF-D; it was the default lens for 3 years on my D300, and is the lens that I always carry on my D7100. Obviously, on full-frame its even wider.
This is the kind of insight I need really with Nikon lenses. I have no idea what is good or bad.

 

fordy

Wammer
Wammer
Nov 29, 2006
2,388
298
128
Wirral, UK
AKA
Carl
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
I'm erring on the side of the X-T1 and 56mm still. Not too sure about the WA zoom yet. I think what it is about Nikon is the vast selection of lenses available for buttons. I handled a D800 and D610 today. AF is astonishing on these after my Fuji's but the D800 feels a bit unwieldy, especially with the mahoosive 28-300 zooms they tend to have on them in the camera stores. I liked the D610 the most though with a 50mm/1.8 on it so I think my idea of ideal Nikon would involve compact primes or smaller compact zooms but therein lies the rub, I already have all this on the Fuji! :doh:

Anyway I'm going to see what the X-T1/56 feels like. I imagine it's just going to be irresistible. :D

 

rockmeister

Wammer
Wammer
Jul 24, 2005
18,070
721
173
Scotland
AKA
John
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
The 'pro' Nikon FX based lens choices, ie those lenses with enough quality to satisfy a D800 owner who knows how to use a D800 to achieve that quality are:

from Nikon:

Primes.

24mm f1.4G ED

35mm f1.4G

50mm f1.4G

85mm f1.4 G

300mm f4 IF-ED

Zooms.

From Nikon:

AF-S 24-70 f2.8 G IF-ED

AFS 70-200 f2.8G VR11 IF-ED

(where 2 lenses off a similar focal length perform closely, I picked the less expensive)

From other makers.

Primes.

Zeiss Distagon 55mm T* OTUS 1.4 (this tested screamingly sharp on a D610 body...must have prime if you have the cash).

Zeiss APO Sonnar T* 135mm f2

Sigma 35mm f 1.4DG HSM

Zooms.

Sigma 18-35 f1.8 DC HSM.

There's lots more of course, but either IME or via testing, the above are the pinnacle of what's around at the moment for pure quality. None are cheap exactly, but some are reasonable used (though the Zeiss are too new to be around used yet I suspect).

I can see lots of advantages in running both a compact and a DSLR system, but no real logic behind equipping both systems with enough lenses and kit to do everything, and then not use that potential. My take on it is, as a photographer, I'd want the Fuji to do the compact walk around stuff, and the Nikon to do the specials...the photo's you know you want to take. Tripod jobs. On that basis I'd equip the Fuji with the sharpest of the standard zooms and ONE prime (35mm) for super compact work, and the Nikon with a quality mix, no expense spared, from 18-450.

(18-35/55/80/70-200/300+ 1.5 teleconverter).

On the other hand, if youre bank account is overflowing, run a pipeline to mine! :)

 

HectorHughMunro

Wammer
Wammer
Oct 29, 2006
5,628
1,642
158
London, , United Kin
I'm not sure that's completely true. The 50mm f/1.8g is a better one than the f/1.4g in that list. The 50 f/1.8d is also pretty good. Some of the older premium lenses on the second hand market give the modern ones a run. That also prioritises sharpness which is a third of the story besides noise and depth of field.

The list that Nikon put out was just an attempt to sell lenses.

 

gsrai

Wammer
Wammer
Aug 18, 2005
5,991
87
0
Black Country
AKA
Gobind
I'd agree it's a tricky one Carl and I'm not 100% sure I'd know what to do. Since moving my X100 on to Gobind - who's now clearly been bitten hard by the Fuji bug and producing some photographic gems
why thank you, I have a long way to get even close to your standard :D

Its hard are to answer your question OP as it doesn't sound like financial constraints are a consideration (forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick), I'm no camera aficionado but applying my logic to your predicament I would say get something different to what you currently have.

if you take my example, the X100 has completely changed my way of thinking and I now love photography in. A way that I haven't for c.20 years.

i keep hankering after an xpro1 but apart from the lens freedom I have this gnawing doubt as I want to know what a FF camera can do - I've never had one and don't understand why it gives better DOF control so I want to know.

i don't know what the XT-1 does over an xpro1 but if its not significantly different my logic says go with the Nikon FF. It's probably why I haven't quite got round to selling my 50D and I do find the autofocus slower on the x100 than the 50d but then I'm photographing people mainly so speed isn't of the essence.

having said all that it could be a load of old tosh so just my thoughts on an enviable choice :)

 

HectorHughMunro

Wammer
Wammer
Oct 29, 2006
5,628
1,642
158
London, , United Kin
Depth of field control basically means that you can more easily isolate your subject and blur the rest of the picture. For the same lens aperture, the smaller the sensor, the more will be in focus.

The downside to most full frame is the way people react to a big camera.

 
  • Upvote
Reactions: gsrai

gsrai

Wammer
Wammer
Aug 18, 2005
5,991
87
0
Black Country
AKA
Gobind
Depth of field control basically means that you can more easily isolate your subject and blur the rest of the picture. For the same lens aperture, the smaller the sensor, the more will be in focus.The downside to most full frame is the way people react to a big camera.
thanks for the explanation - repped!

i never realised a larger sensor means more blur is easier to achieve.

 

mikehit

Wammer
Wammer
Mar 29, 2006
3,483
63
0
Manchester
AKA
Mike
thanks for the explanation - repped!i never realised a larger sensor means more blur is easier to achieve.
As usual 'it depends'.

If you want to fill the frame with a specific composition, then using a larger sensor means you either (a) use a longer focal length lens or (b) stand closer. Both of those reduce depth of field - assuming you use the same aperture. If you are not using the widest aperture on your lens, then you can use a wider aperture on the smaller-sensor camera to compensate and no-one will be any the wiser.

If you are shooting something like wildlife where your options on position are limited, the chances are you will use the same focal length and stand in the same position and in that situation DOF is the same and you will crop both images to get the composition you want (though you will crop more out of the image from the 'full frame' camera).

 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
108,230
Messages
2,291,738
Members
69,199
Latest member
MargarRailsb