Selling gear and downsizing?

MichaelAwkward said:
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.
Click to expand...


Agreed with this. Fiji do make great lenses but to say Nikon or Canon don't put the effort in for APS-C lenses is just a joke.


On balance, I suspect there's a bit of fanboy-ism in Richdog's constant unwavering support for Fuji.
Click to expand...

it is the usual case of people justifying their recent purchase. Richdog changed form a Nikon DSLR to Fuji set-up so now Fiji rules the roost and nikon blows. It is understandable , people believe they are rational and way they make decisions they believe they made a very highly rational choice and other people who don't agree with them made illogical choices. The reality is there is no free lunch. Fuji makes good cameras and lenses, as does all camera manufacturers now.
 
AIf people are really concerned about Size and weight then loosing the mirror is fairly minimal overall as proven time and again when actually doing real-world comparisons. if

the actual game changer is the rise of Diffraction optics and Phase-Fresnel designs. This had a s;low start with Canon's initial offers but the recent Canon and nikon DO lenses are stunning. Case in point is my 300mm f/4 PF that weighs half what the original did. It is truly incredibly how small and light is is, saving around 800 grams,, far more than the 150-200g or so that a mirror weighs.

I don't see Sony, Fuji or others making any DO or PF lenses in the short term but we will see more and more lens design from Canon and nikon incorporating them.

How about a 70-200mm f/4.0 DO lens that weighs 300grams? and covers the FF sensor? a 600mm f/5.6 KG Do lens under 1kg?
 
xaldub said:
That's just not true ...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even try to convince people of this, there seem to be two camps on this argument: those who speak from experience of having tried a full frame and a Fuji/M43 long-term, and those who haven't and speak from theory and specsheets without much or any practical experience of owning both systems.

We know who the specsheet guys that love the sound of their own heavily droning voices are... *cough* DP we are looking at you. :D

The irony is that I did love my Nikon, but I just love the Fuji more for the combination of the IQ and size/weight reductions. It's a win-win combination for me.
 
Last edited:
xaldub said:
That's just not true ...
Click to expand...

MichaelAwkward said:
We went through this in the other thread.

Fuji XF 90mm F2 = 540g
Canon 85mm F1.8 = 425g
Nikon 85mm F1.8 G = 350g
Nikon 85mm F1.8 D = 380g
Sony 85mm F2.8 = 175g! and only a stop slower.
Click to expand...

I can add the dimensions if you like?

Fuji XF 90mm F2 = 75 x 105mm
Canon 85mm F1.8 = 75 x 72mm
Nikon 85mm F1.8 G = 80 x 73mm
Nikon 85mm F1.8 D = 72 x 59mm
Sony 85mm F2.8 = 70 x 52mm

Heck, it's not far off some actual 135mm lenses...

Fuji XF 90mm F2 = 75 x 105mm, 540g
Pentax 135mm F2 = 68 x 86mm, 500g
Canon 135 F2 = 83 x 112mm, 750g
Nikon 135 F2 = 79 x 120mm, 815g
Sony 135mm F2.8 = 80 x 99mm, 730g

Other comparisons:

Canon 17-55 = 84 x 111mm, 645g
Fuji 16-55 = 83.3 x 106mm, 655g

Canon 100-400 = 92 x 189mm, 1380g
Fuji 100-400 = 94.8 x 210.5mm, 1375g

As I've already said, the 18-55 and some of the primes in particular are amazing for their size and weight but to claim that Fuji's lenses are all smaller and weigh less than their equivalents is demonstrably false. Fuji is limited by physics just as every other manufacturer is.

I haven't even said anything bad about Fuji. I owned and used Fuji (X-M1, X-E1) for two years. It was great and I can totally see the advantages of the system. The colours in particular (especially on the first generation chip) are awesome, but some of the people on this forum are totally blinded because they've become fanboys. Not that it's surprising, just look at the cesspool that is DPreview.
 
Last edited:
MichaelAwkward said:
As I've already said, the 18-55 and some of the primes in particular are amazing for their size and weight but to claim that Fuji's lenses are all smaller and weigh less than their equivalents is demonstrably false. Fuji is limited by physics just as every other manufacturer is.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the laws of physics also dictate that a camera with a smaller size sensor will generally have smaller lenses. Your point, exactly, is what ? That when it comes to Fuji, or other smaller crop mirrorless cameras, they somehow bend the laws of physics and end up with larger equipment than they need ?

As for the Fuji 90mm lens, you should really be comparing it to 135mm full frame lenses.
 
xaldub said:
Yes, and the laws of physics also dictate that a camera with a smaller size sensor will generally have smaller lenses. Your point, exactly, is what ?

As for the Fuji 90mm lens, you should really be comparing it the 135mm full frame lenses.
Click to expand...

My point is exactly that, the lenses should be smaller, but they're often not. Richdog claimed that all of Fuji's lenses were smaller and lighter than their Canikon equivalents.

I did compare it to 135mm lenses above, and it isn't far off. If Fuji made a 135mm lens, it would likely be exactly the same as those if they followed the same design process as they did with the 90.

A 90mm APS-C lens should be much smaller than those FF 85mm lenses, by your own logic, no? Yet Fuji's isn't. It's in fact much larger and heavier.
 
xaldub said:
Yes, and the laws of physics also dictate that a camera with a smaller size sensor will generally have smaller lenses. Your point, exactly, is what ? That when it comes to Fuji, or other smaller crop mirrorless cameras, they somehow bend the laws of physics and end up with larger equipment than they need ?
Click to expand...

Exactly this. It's amazing how desperate people seem to try and disprove this, and speaks volumes about their own insecurity with their own camera systems, as though mirrorless somehow somehow threatens their photographic manhood. They have to keep justifying themselves with the same spiel. Repeatedly. :D

xaldub said:
As for the Fuji 90mm lens, you should really be comparing it to 135mm full frame lenses.
Click to expand...

Yup, and it is amusing how people so stubbornly refuse to. By way of example, the Fuji 50-140mm 2.8 is the fastest telephoto zoom lens they have, and as such CAN be compared to a Nikon 70-200 2.8, regardless of whether the lens behaves like an F4 in some other respects. The fact is that is still has an aperture of f2.8, and it is significantly smaller and lighter. Optically and from a build quality perspective, it is also at the level of the Nikon/Canon top-tier lenses.
 
Last edited:
Richdog said:
Exactly this. It's amazing how desperate people seem to try and disprove this, and speaks volumes about their own insecurity with their own camera systems, as though mirrorless somehow somehow threatens their photographic manhood. They have to keep justifying themselves with the same spiel. Repeatedly. :D
Click to expand...

But you're doing exactly the same thing? :confused:

Yup, and it is amusing how people so stubbornly refuse to. By way of example, the Fuji 50-140mm 2.8 is the fastest telephoto zoom lens they have, and as such CAN be compared to a Nikon 70-200 2.8, regardless of whether the lens behaves like an F4 in some other respects. The fact is that is still has an aperture of f2.8, and it is significantly smaller and lighter. Optically and from a build quality perspective, it is also at the level of the Nikon/Canon top-tier lenses.
Click to expand...

You cannot compare F2.8 lenses with different focal lengths.

And even if you did, it's not significantly smaller at all. It's 500g lighter granted, but then it's 60mm shorter and doesn't cover FF. Would it be as light if it was 70-200? I doubt it.

Fuji 50-140 F2.8 = 83 x 176mm, 995g
Nikon 70-200 F2.8 = 87 x 205.5mm, 1540g
 
What teases me is that to get a longer lens that is worth it for my dslr I'd be looking at the DO lenses. But cost is waaaay beyond hobby!
Basically the weight puts them out of reach!

Damn you traditional physics!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom