Nikon df v fuji x system

[Eden Den Den]

thanks all for the replies, i think i should sell ricoh gr so that i will not compare them anymore. The biggest drawback of xpro1 is its focusing, other than that the image quality is great..accurate wb and iso performance is better than some ff cameras like D700, canon MKII. i know DF is heavier and bigger, but at least it does not look like ordinary dslr, it's still quite small and discreet so people will not feel intimidated by it. That's why i do not consider d600/d700 even though they are better value for money. if i get DF i will get 50mm 1.8d first, then 35mm and 85mm. I like fuji too..very unique and enjoyable. actually i seldom shoot at very high iso, xpro1 at iso 6400 is still good..same as d700 even better if not.

 

[Spacemaster]

u got checkout a7?

 

[Getz10]

IMO,

IQ = Middle Format
Speed = DSLR
Size/Weight = Mirrorless

 

[daredevil123]

I don't need f/2.8 when I'm shooting landscapes with these lenses. I have never shot at f/2.8 anyway when I was bringing all 3 trinity lenses along when I went on holidays overseas in the past. The 16-35 is light and compact compared to the 14-24mm that it substitutes for and it is just as sharp when stopped down to f/5.6 to 8 when are the usual apertures that I like to shoot at for landscapes.

Glad it works out for you. But the world is wonderful that everyone is different. Some people need the F2.8.
16-35 is not that much lighter la. I use it all the time and I hope it was lighter, like the 18-35...

 

[tomcat]

Go and check out the works of photographers using the X systems in the Fuji web. If u can to better, do consider a FF. Because the apc sensor is restricting your creativity.

If u are shooting 90 % 10, 000 iso..something is wrong leh.

Gosh.. if the decision on what camera system to buy into is so simple, the makers of DSLRs, medium format and rangefinder cameras would all go out of business since great images could be taken with just a mobile phone camera.

And nobody said anything about shooting 90% of the time at ISO 10,000 anyway. We must look at high ISO capability in the right perspective. Even for owners of such cameras, they do not deliberately shoot at extremely high ISO when they do not need to... well at least those of us with any photographic sense won't. Better high ISO capability just afford the user greater assurance of getting useable images under extreme exposure conditions that could cause problems to less capable cameras. That's all.

 

[daredevil123]

And nobody said anything about shooting 90% of the time at ISO 10,000 anyway. We must look at high ISO capability in the right perspective. Even for owners of such cameras, they do not deliberately shoot at extremely high ISO when they do not need to... well at least those of us with any photographic sense won't. Better high ISO capability just afford the user greater assurance of getting useable images under extreme exposure conditions that could cause problems to less capable cameras. That's all.

+1. And a good ISO performing camera also give you very clean shots even in the 1000-5000 range as well. Which I personally use very often.

 

[JW73]

Gosh.. if the decision on what camera system to buy into is so simple, the makers of DSLRs, medium format and rangefinder cameras would all go out of business since great images could be taken with just a mobile phone camera.

And nobody said anything about shooting 90% of the time at ISO 10,000 anyway. We must look at high ISO capability in the right perspective. Even for owners of such cameras, they do not deliberately shoot at extremely high ISO when they do not need to... well at least those of us with any photographic sense won't. Better high ISO capability just afford the user greater assurance of getting useable images under extreme exposure conditions that could cause problems to less capable cameras. That's all.

BTW, nobody is saying camera decision is simple. The TS already have a X system..just wanna encourage him to stick with what he has to avoid unnecessary Buy and sell loss. BTW, he may already made the choice based on the value lens from DF & "lousy" AF from XP1. ISO is not a consideration between them. Just enjoy what u have

 

[slth123]

To each his own. FF do have its advantages, just that one will have to carry those extra weight 100% of the time just to shoot that occasional extreme conditions. Others would prefer a lighter gear that can capture 95-99% of general shooting conditions.

I prefer to let the sales numbers do the talking 6-12 months down the road.

 

[daredevil123]

To each his own. FF do have its advantages, just that one will have to carry those extra weight 100% of the time just to shoot that occasional extreme conditions. Others would prefer a lighter gear that can capture 95-99% of general shooting conditions.

I prefer to let the sales numbers do the talking 6-12 months down the road.

for some folks the 95-99% are a little more extreme. That 1-5% are good lighting. In the end, it all depends on the user, how and what they shoot...

So just get the tool that works best for yourself and don't need to bother yourself with what others are using.

In the end, only the image matters.

 

[slth123]

for some folks the 95-99% are a little more extreme. That 1-5% are good lighting. In the end, it all depends on the user, how and what they shoot...

So just get the tool that works best for yourself and don't need to bother yourself with what others are using.

In the end, only the image matters.

Yeah, as long as one enjoys the equipment and it meets his/her requirements, it does not matter what others are using.
In the end, the image matters (and, if I may add, how one feels when using the camera matters too )

 

[daredevil123]

...(and, if I may add, how one feels when using the camera matters too )

To me, only the image matters. Nothing else does.

If the camera handles fast, so I do not miss moments due to handling, it is a good camera. So only the image matters.

 

[dniwkh]

thanks all for the replies, i think i should sell ricoh gr so that i will not compare them anymore. The biggest drawback of xpro1 is its focusing, other than that the image quality is great..

I think you have nailed it. If you need the focusing... there isn't really a choice, is there?

If you don't I don't see why you will want to carry a FF system.

 

[keithwee]

My gut feelings tell me to make the summary into a sticky. This argument/discussion of sensor sizes in relation to 'possible' IQ seems to be repeated too often. Sometimes we do fall prey to the often misguided notion that the bigger the better (salesmen will tell u so la) , forgetting it's the whole system of handling , sensor design , processing engine that matters. And this is not even including the human factor.

 

[slth123]

Technology is always evolving. Recently Olympus filed a patent for selective exposure which I think is good news for landscape shooters. Camera manufacturers will always try to introduce new things to pry open our wallets. Ultimately all these improvements will provide more choices and benefit photographers one way or another.

So the moral of the story is: Enjoy your camera, enjoy the process. It's your hobby, it does not matter what others are using.

 

[catchlights]

I love the words 'cleaner bad' pictures a lot of cheem-ness in them.

Cleaner bad pictures still better than noisier bad pictures.

The fact is, still a bad picture.

That's OK. At least the shooter can discern his mistakes more clearly so that he can improve his technique faster.

True also

Remember, Life is short,

don't waste your life on bad pictures, that is where bad pictures should belong too.

 

[tomcat]

How many of us here has always taken good pictures only from Day 1 when we bought our first camera?
Everybody, even professionals, have to start from scratch and would have taken their fair share of bad pictures. It is not a shame to have taken bad pictures so long as we learn to recognise them for what they are and learn to improve our photographic techniques to minimise their occurrence.

 

[catchlights]

Yes, nobody is able to create good photos from day one.
My point is, the earlier we recognize and accept that is a bad picture, and do not waste any more time try to salvage it, or thinking of using a better set of gear can make much different, then we able to move on to create better photos.

 

[namska]

Think it all depends on ones need. I just sold my 6d off to go lightweight. Bought the xt1 and the af speed is good enough for me. Coupled with the 10-24 and 56mm, pretty much gave me all that I need. My iso range is usually 200 to 3200, which the xt1 does produce great image quality too.

Though I sold off my ff set and bought this new x system set for a dollar to dollar, I feel so much lighter now and I can really enjoy my shoots.

The only thing I needa get used to now is the controls and evf.