Selling gear and downsizing?

Zogger said:
The 18-55 kit lens is quite impressive - ok it's not fixed aperture but it's a very good lens and 1/3rd the weight of the Nikkor
Click to expand...

It's not in the same class though optically. It's more similar to Nikon's 16-80 VR F2.8-4 and Canon's 15-85.

I guess Fuji's 16-55 F2.8 would be the closest equivalent (although it's more similar to Canon and Nikon's 17-55 lenses), but it doesn't have IS and focuses by wire.
 
Zogger said:
FWIW I can take 4 lenses (2 zoom and 2 prime) with me now for the same weight as two zoom lenses on my old 60D and the IQ is just as good. I would never have taken 4 lenses out with me before, regardless of arguments about whether it's sensible to do so...
Click to expand...

What 4 lenses though? A lot of the time these comparisons are done with lenses that either aren't available or aren't directly comparable.
 
MichaelAwkward said:
m4/3, with the right body and lenses, can save more than half the weight compared to an APS-C/FF mirrorless or DSLR setup.

G7 + 12-35 F2.8 = 715g
5D III + 24-70 F4= 1550g (although this combo is the same length as the m4/3).

G7 + 35-100 F2.8 = 770g
5D III + 70-200 F4 IS = 1710g

It's APS-C/FF mirrorless that increasingly makes less sense from a size and weight perspective compared to APS-C/FF DSLR. Of course there are other reasons why someone might prefer APS-C/FF mirrorless such as video, EVFs, etc. Though I get the best of both worlds with my Sony SLT.
Click to expand...

X-E2s + 18-55 f2.8-4 is 659g
X-E2s + 55-200 f3.5-4.8 is 930g* (edit: oops not equivalent focal length)
X-E2s + 50-140 f2.8 is 1337g :D (a bit ridiculous I know)

alternatively
X-E2s + 18-135 f3.5-5.6 is 837g

There's something for everyone :)


*I might add, this lens is heavier than any lens I have for canon and yet the combo of body + lens is still lighter than any lens combo with my 60D (779g for just the body). Some people wouldn't like the balance though - doesn't bother me at all.


I'll also add that when I first seriously considered mirrorless APS-C I also thought the weight saving would be minimal. Then I ran the numbers once I realised how light the X-E2s is and went with it for multiple reasons. While the actual difference isn't massive the perceived difference is still inexplicably large.
 
Last edited:
Zogger said:
X-E2s + 18-55 f2.8-4 is 659g
X-E2s + 55-200 f3.5-4.8 is 930g (edit: oops not equivalent focal length)
X-E2s + 50-140 f2.8 is 1337g :D (a bit ridiculous I know)

alternatively
X-E2s + 18-135 f3.5-5.6 is 837g

There's something for everyone :)
Click to expand...

Like I said though, that's not comparing equivalent combinations.

X-E2s + 18-55 f2.8-4 is 659g
D5500 + 18-55 AF-P = 675g

Even with a more equivalent lens (because I agree, the Fuji 18-55 is a very nice lens and better than most other kit lenses), it's not much more weight and you get the benefit of a more ergonomic body and a lens with greater range:

D5500 + 16-80 VR F2.8-4 = 950g

It's only 290g more.

X-E2s + 55-200 f3.5-4.8 is 930g

Is a difficult one because Canon and Nikon don't make an equivalent 55-200 F3.5-4.8. I have a Minolta 70-210 F3.5-4.5 that I use with my Sony a77, which weighs 420g, which is lighter than the Fuji and slightly faster.

X-E2s + 50-140 f2.8 is 1337g

Again is difficult because they don't make an equivalent lens. You could compare with the 70-200 2.8 which would be 2kg with a D5500, but then you've got greater range or Sigma's 50-100 F1.8 with the D5500 would be 1960g, but then you've got a lens that's a whole stop faster.

X-E2s + 18-135 f3.5-5.6 is 837g
D5500 + 18-105 VR is 890g
Canon 750D + 18-135 USM IS is 1070g

Sony's 18-135 SAM is 398g vs 490g for the Fuji.

Point is, if Nikon/Canon/Sigma/whoever made equivalent lenses to Fuji (and they do for some of them and they're basically the same size and weight) the size difference isn't massive. Most of the reduction in size and weight is in the body, but then you end up with something that's less ergonomic generally (I myself moved away from Fuji back to Sony A mount in part for that reason - big hands).

Sensor size dictates lens size, and the differences between manufacturers comes down to individual design choices. DSLR manufacturers have on the whole decided to focus on FF lenses and their APS-C lens ranges haven't been fully fleshed out whereas Fuji only has that to focus on. Look at Sony's mirrorless lens lineup for the same concentration on FF. If Fuji ever produce a FF mirrorless, I suspect they'll end up doing exactly the same. Heck, some of Fuji's APS-C lenses are already larger and weigh more than FF equivalents whilst being slower to boot (XF 90mm F2).
 
Last edited:
Steve M said:
No, I really am not, and not sure why you're so defensive?

I said I really don't get the whole M4/3 thing. I don't, and especially in your (mirrorless) case.

The difference between the X-T2 and the D750 is 507g vs 840g. 333g lighter. If you're happy with that saving then bully for you. I'd much rather have the better performing camera, the D750, but you don't have to justify it to me and I don't want you to.

You have your thoughts and I have mine. I'm sure neither will be changed here.
Click to expand...

Then I will finish up by saying that I am indeed happy with that weight saving, as well as the savings with the lenses. It all adds up, and I am also more than happy (and in many cases happier) with the IQ in the situations I use a camera in. Plus there is less post-processing as the Fuji colours are so much more pleasing to my eye than the overly warm Nikon.

My only bugbear since I switched is the autofocus speed, and this is where I think the X-T2 will deliver to a good extent.

Only two days to go until release, two days to go...

Zogger said:
I'll also add that when I first seriously considered mirrorless APS-C I also thought the weight saving would be minimal. Then I ran the numbers once I realised how light the X-E2s is and went with it for multiple reasons. While the actual difference isn't massive the perceived difference is still inexplicably large.
Click to expand...

Yup this is true, the lenses are pretty much as small as they can be taking into account the performance and materials (and Fuji XS lenses are almost all built to extremely high standards, barring some dodgy plastic lens caps and hoods) because Fuji invest all of their R&D in APSC lenses (other than the upcoming medium format of course) and it is something only someone who has carried both sets of kit around for extended periods can understand.
 
Last edited:
Steve M said:
Cameras are often half the weight of the DSLR equivalents? Which ones? Half the weight of something that wasn't that heavy in the first place and ARE they really equivalents?

Also, what about lenses? Are they half the weight too and of equivalent quality? What's the Fuji equivalent to the the Nikkor 24/70? How much does that weigh and can it even touch the Nikkor's optics?
Click to expand...


Well, you can always find extremes;

GM1/5 + f2.8 12-35mm = 500g, with the slow kit lens its just 275g
 
MichaelAwkward said:
Point is, if Nikon/Canon/Sigma/whoever made equivalent lenses to Fuji (and they do for some of them and they're basically the same size and weight) the size difference isn't massive
Click to expand...

Point is: speculation about what could be aside, they mostly don't. Nikon and Canon treat APSC lens development like the ginger stepchild of the family and focus almost all of their development on their full frame lens options, with only a few unspectacular APSC lens options. Only Fuji dedicate their time to producing tailor-made APSC lenses for their system, and they are renowned for being among the best optical performers, not to mention some of the nicest built lenses, on the planet. CaNikon hold nary a candle to them in this regard. Instead, the best performing lenses for Canon and Nikon APSC cameras are largely full-frame lenses.

MichaelAwkward said:
Heck, some of Fuji's APS-C lenses are already larger and weigh more than FF equivalents whilst being slower to boot (XF 90mm F2).
Click to expand...

Just out of interest, which equivalent is the Fuji 90mm heavier than?
 
Last edited:
Personally I jacked in all my DSLR gear for film rangefinders a while back. I don't miss it. I've been shooting my Leica M6 TTL with 50mm 1.4 Summilux on Fuji Acros 100 for about 3 years now, love it.

I can pack the M6, 50mm, 12mm, the GF's Voigtlander Bessa R4a + 35mm, plus a load of film and an RX100 MkI comfortably in my Billingham Hadley Small.

Not for everyone, I get a lot of satisfaction from using it though, the M6 is just amazing to work with, that film advance action....mmm
 
Richdog said:
Only Fuji dedicate their time to producing tailor-made APSC lenses for their system, and they are renowned for being among the best optical performers, not to mention some of the nicest built lenses, on the planet. CaNikon hold nary a candle to them in this regard.
Click to expand...

Is that really true? I'm not trying to wind you up, I'm asking genuinely as have not used Fuji lenses.

You're saying Canon and Nikons best full frame lenses can't hold a candle to Fuji's APSC lenses?

Which are the best ones?
 
Steve M said:
Is that really true? I'm not trying to wind you up, I'm asking genuinely as have not used Fuji lenses.

You're saying Canon and Nikons best full frame lenses can't hold a candle to Fuji's APSC lenses?

Which are the best ones?
Click to expand...

No Steve I am not saying that, please read posts more carefully. I was saying that Canon and Nikon's APSC lenses can't (for the most part) hold a candle to Fuji's simply because they do not put the effort into producing them, instead concentrating mainly on the full-frame lenses. As Fuji only have APSC cameras to focus on in their X-system, clearly they have an advantage here and have invested in making a large set of dedicated APSC lenses of very high quality to satisfy most (but obviously not all) needs.

As for Fuji lens build and optical quality, yes, they have an extremely high reputation and are often compared favorably in reviews against the best equivalents that Canon and Nikon have to offer.

Fuji's weakness is in lens choice eg: fast telephoto primes, but then again this is to be expected given the relative newness of the system vs the decades that others have been developing their mounts for. Oh, that and the lacklustre flash setup (optical wireless trigger only for now).
 
Last edited:
Richdog said:
No Steve I am not saying that, please read posts more carefully. I was saying that Canon and Nikon's APSC lenses can't (for the most part) hold a candle to Fuji's
Click to expand...

Oh right. Well that's hardly news is it. I don't think you'd find any arguments there.

And is it possible you can contribute to group discussions is a less patronising way? You come across as a bit of an ass.
 
Last edited:
Has to be noted however that Fuji have three advantages.

1. Age of the system. It's unfair to compare lenses that have been around for a couple of decades now (EF-S and DX lenses) to Fuji's lenses which benefit from the latest optical designs, newer coatings, high speed motors, etc. Sure, it's no excuse for Canikon not to update their offerings but it's still pertinent.

2. Their use of X-trans sensors means that images out of the camera are generally sharper than those out of Bayer sensor cameras, even when shooting raw.

3. They make extensive use of software correction, as everyone does these days, but Fuji more so.

There are a number of Fuji lenses that not everyone was happy with including the 18mm prime, 18-135, 55-200, 16-55, and the two cheaper kit lenses. On balance, I suspect there's a bit of fanboy-ism in Richdog's constant unwavering support for Fuji.
 
Last edited:
Steve M said:
Oh right. Well that's hardly news is it. I don't think you'd find any arguments there.
Click to expand...

lol...

Steve M said:
And is it possible you can contribute to group discussions is a less patronising way? You come across as a bit of an ass.
Click to expand...

It was in response to your aggressive and dismissive tone. You come across as a bit of an arse too.

I'm happy to agree to disagree from this point on. ;)
 
dannyjo22 said:
Agreed. Besides its grown men carrying another kilo at most. I think it's something people that have spent a small fortune on camera gear and lose interest do to justify their initial spend wasn't a waste, downsize and try to recoup some of the spend. I doubt in reality many find themselves taking many more pictures.

People go on like a dslr and lens is like yomping across the Falklands. :D;) Buy a better bag.

I can understand it with travelling the world where weight and space is the issue.
Click to expand...
Ha ha. It is like a yomp across the Falklands when I'm out in the wilds as I quite often take everything I've got except chargers. I'm in the gym 3 times a week to cope with everything I place in the Flipside pro sport 20l I carry.
 
Well that's the body and 85mm sold, I do feel a bit gutted but then I looked at the amount (lack) of use. Bank account is looking good now.
 
dannyjo22 said:
its grown men carrying another kilo at most. I think it's something people that have spent a small fortune on camera gear and lose interest do to justify their initial spend wasn't a waste, downsize and try to recoup some of the spend.
People go on like a dslr and lens is like yomping across the Falklands. :D;) Buy a better bag.
Click to expand...

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom