Fuji Fuji XT-1 - new top dog Fuji X or over-festooned retro?

There's a LOT of size tolerance just under the surface of questions like "Df vs XT1" and there are absolutely no right or wrong answers. Modern full frame sensors are better than modern APS sensors. Hard to say exactly how much (depends on which ones you're comparing) it's roughly speaking about a stop or a bit more than a stop. Whether the larger size of the Df is worth that extra stop or so over the Fuji sensor is an individual call. I'm wrestling with that right now - I'm OK with the size of the Df body but I'm only OK with it if I limit myself to relatively small, cheap, and slower prime lenses. Faster full frame lenses, at least in the DSLR world, are much larger and much more expensive than Fuji's excellent lens lineup. And I'm not willing to either pay for or carry those lenses with the Df. Whether a full frame DSLR is even something I'd call a serious compact is a highly debatable point. It's an awesome camera and my tolerance for it is higher than I thought it would be, but it's the biggest camera I've ever shot with, so that's a real consideration.

I think lens size / performance / cost ultimately become where the tradeoffs live. Smaller full frame bodies are clearly possible as Sony is demonstrating with the A7. But the lenses then get a lot trickier. Sony's 35mm f2.8 is pretty small but it's only a pretty good lens (unlike the larger exceptional one on the RX1, much of which is buried inside the camera body). The 55 f1.8 seems to be exceptional and reasonable sized, but it's getting pretty long, and 55mm isn't exactly the most challenging focal length to pull off a fast lens. Whether Sony can come up with good, fast, smallish lenses when they start playing around the edges of longer and wider focal lengths is a big question. Fuji seems to be showing you can built QUALITY fast glass for relatively reasonable amounts for APS. They're not small lenses like m43, but they're not bad either, easily handleable. They seem willing to sacrifice some on size for quality, but APS lets you do a lot more with a given size than full frame. Look at the 56mm f1.2 that Fuji's bringing out - it's not a small lens, but it looks pretty well handled on the XT1. Imagine what a similar 85 f1.2 or 1.4 would look like on the Df. I've played with a Nikon 85 f1.8 and it's not too bad, but it's pretty much at the far end of my personal tolerance range for Df lenses. Similarly, Fuji's 23mm f1.4 is a great lens at a reasonable price. In the full frame DSLR world, you can do quite well with a 35mm f2.0, but the attempts to get to f1.4 then get very expensive and quite a bit larger. Similar at 28mm where I'm using a Nikon at f2.8 and the Fuji's comparable 18mm is similarly priced at f2.0 and is nearly a pancake. Neither are stellar lenses, but both are really nice working lenses for those who don't spend too much time pixel peeping the corners wide open. And to get to a notably faster and better 28mm for the Nikon, both the size and price go up quite a bit. Never mind the telephoto and ultra-wide lenses where full frame get huge, APS get's pretty big, and m43 starts looking better and better.

So, on balance, to stay within my size and price considerations, I'm buying lenses about a stop or more slower for the Df than I would be with Fuji. Depth of field is close enough for my purposes and so I get back the stop or so from the sensor with lens selection in the Fuji world. So where I'd be shooting at 12,800 on the Df, I'm shooting at 6400 on one of the Fujis with a one stop faster lens. And realistically, as nice as it is to have, I don't shoot at 12,800 much on the Df and I wouldn't shoot at 6400 very much with the fastest Fuji glass. I'd probably shoot a lot more at 6400 on the Nikon and 3200 on the Fuji, which are pretty close from a quality standpoint.

So, obviously I'm wrestling with this a lot at the moment because I've sold my RX1 and I'm shooting with a Df that I'm contemplating buying. But I'm also thinking about jumping back into Fuji instead because their lens lineup has really matured lately and I could envision a kit I'd be really happy with, keeping the EM1 around for focal lengths longer than 90mm and maybe the ultra-wide end. The XT1 is a notably smaller body than the Df. I'm fine with the Df's body size, but that doesn't mean I might not prefer something smaller. And the bottom line is that sensors are likely to continue to improve, probably a lot. But the laws of physics that govern lens design are only gonna be bent so far. So there's a chance I go back to APS and m43 instead of full frame and m43. I don't know yet, but it's a real question.

So, no, the Fuji sensor doesn't stack up to the Df, but the system as a whole may very well. There are a lot of tradeoffs involved. I'd say Fuji's sensor, even at the ripe old age of two years, is still pulling it's weight. I'm not one of those big time Fuji guys who think it's better than any other APS sensor, but I think it's roughly as good as any, and that's pretty damn good.

-Ray

Fuji needs complex, very fast and costly lenses in design and make to compensate for the smaller sensor. If one is only after comparable Dof control, the optically very good Nikon D line, 1.8/50, 1.8/85 ought to be compared to the fastest Fuji glas rather than equally fast Nikon lenses. They cost a fraction of the Fuji 1.4/35 and 1.2/56mm and as far as the Nikon 85 versus Fuji 56 mm are concerned weight less. Lastly, none of the Fuji primes is weathersealed, which to me, is a flawed produt strategy. And the wethersealed new zooms are bulky and heavy. If one does not mind MF, the compact Nikon 28 ais is excellent, beating Fujis 18mm`s optical performance.
Besides specs and measurable differences there is an intangible "otherness" between all the cameras I used, including the XPro1, A7 and others (and as you know there were/are too many) and the Df. The latter feels simply more "competent", sturdy, reliable and responsive than MILCs. Imho Fuji`s X-Trans sensor IQ is overhyped. At lower iso its detail rendering is lacking and the high iso performance, again, goes at the expense of details and color accuracy. In the last two years Fuji seems to have studied the tale of "The Emperor`s new Clothes" (for its 16MP sensor) and made it their product strategy rather than improving on its promising, yet not fully delivering sensor technology. The only Fuji product, I eventually did not regret buying in the last 3 years, were the X100 (what a great camera shaking up the industry) and the 1.4/35mm and 18-55mm lenses. What I really like about Fuji: They continue to develop and build AF lenses with aperture rings and some even with distance scales. And they work on FW upgrades for products now longer made. A little rant from my side.:redface:
 
Lastly, none of the Fuji primes is weathersealed, which to me, is a flawed produt strategy. And the wethersealed new zooms are bulky and heavy.

Fujifilm isn't unique in this strategy, however. They follow the same example of Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax who all have a good range of weather-sealed zooms but only the odd weather-sealed prime lens. Of course the problem with claims of weather-sealing is that what it means varies from one manufacturer to another.

When I think of what weather-sealing means I think of this...

9667151701_4f4cee075e_b.jpg

_5028005 copy by mingthein, on Flickr

from The 2013 Olympus OM-D E-M1 review, part one: the camera


or especially this :)

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/Eo61t5fH6Qw?hl=en_GB&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/Eo61t5fH6Qw?hl=en_GB&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
 
Besides specs and measurable differences there is an intangible "otherness" between all the cameras I used, including the XPro1, A7 and others (and as you know there were/are too many) and the Df. The latter feels simply more "competent", sturdy, reliable and responsive than MILCs.

I get all of those tradeoffs and agree with your conclusions on much, but this part is a matter of oresonal preference and I'm highly conflicted on it at the moment. Yeah, the Df feels like a DSLR but to me there are both positives and negatives to that. It definitely is faster and more responsive than any Fuji I've yet shot with, but the EM1 is on that same level and it seems the XT1 is finally to about the same place, or quite close. Sturdiness, much the same, with the EM1 being there and the XT1 there or close to it.

Reliable I have to quibble with though. The need to fine tune AF occasionally (an experience I've yet to have) and clean sensors on a regular basis (one I've gotten all too familiar with in the past weeks) are real DSLR downsides that I've yet to run into with any MILC. The amount of crud that gets into a DSLR body and then moves around in there (I assume because of the flapping mirror) has been a real eye-opener to me. I've checked my other cameras and there no sign of ANYthing on the sensors. With the Df, it's just an exercise of keeping it to manageable levels - I've had to clone a number of obvious dust spots out if my sky's so far. And the D lenses I'm using, while perfectly fine for my uses, don't impart a particular feeling of sturdiness, which the Fuji lenses generally have. Do you happen to know if they're weather-sealed BTW?

There's also the whole viewing experience. When I'm looking through a viewfinder, I do prefer an OVF to an EVF, but it's a VERY close call with the newer EVFs. But I really like having an always available live view and various ways of viewing it (EVF, flip up screen, etc) a LOT and I miss that on the DF. I love it's OVF but hate that it's the only really useable option.

So I get your points, but I'm not sure I'm in the same place and I also have liked MILCs more than it sounds like you have, particularly some of the newer ones. If the XT1 is up to, or even close to the standard set by the EM1, I'm sure I'd be very happy with it operationally. Hell, for how I shoot I was happy with the XP1 and XE1 operationally too. The big deal is the sensor in the Df. Whether is necessary or not, it's incredibly intoxicating and wonderful. I just have to decide if the tradeoffs of the entire package make it worth it to me. I've got a week if intensive shooting coming up with the Df in the San Francisco area in a week. By the end of that week I'll know whether I'll be buying the Df or retrenching to an all mirrorless setup again.

-Ray
 
i agree with much of what has been said here. obviously personal preference is always at play. in that regard however, i dont really agree with the fuji lens size vs dslr lens size analysis. ray i know you have your preferences and certainly i see no reason to take any issue whatsoever with them. but i agree with retow on the lens size issue as there are in fact many excellent comparably priced dslr lenses you personally will not consider that are very competitive size wise with the fujis. maybe not specifically with the 18/2, but absolutely certainly with the mainstay 23, 35, 56 and 60 at their equiv FLs, and also certainly with every fuji x zoom. that you personally wouldnt consider say the zf 35/1.4 doesnt mean its not comparable size and price wise to the fuji 23. plus there are a host of ai-s lenses as retow pointed out that are similarly sized, cheaper, and of historic reputation. im not saying anything about your decision not to try them, or making any comment about who should be happy shooting what, only that there exist many comparably priced (often cheaper), comparably sized, comparably fast lenses for the Df at most FLs and zoom ranges.

again, i totally respect personal preferences, especially from those like ray and nic who have much more talent than i. but i do think there is sometimes a conflation of personal preference with fact that unintentionally narrows and somwhat confuses the actuality of the situation. and to be sure, on the larger issue, my original post was not meant to vault the Df over the xt1, except in IQ, which btw is not just a simple matter of 'stops better', but also of resolution, clarity, microcontrast, color reproduction and probably some other criteria i dont know about. it was meant to temper the insane criticism of the Df, and the vaulting of a camera no one has held or shot over one that has outstanding attributes and has been producing outstanding results.
 
i but i agree with retow on the lens size issue as there are in fact many excellent comparably priced dslr lenses you personally will not consider that are very competitive size wise with the fujis. maybe not specifically with the 18/2, but absolutely certainly with the mainstay 23, 35, 56 and 60 at their equiv FLs, and also certainly with every fuji x zoom. that you personally wouldnt consider say the zf 35/1.4 doesnt mean its not comparable size and price wise to the fuji 23. plus there are a host of ai-s lenses as retow pointed out that are similarly sized, cheaper, and of historic reputation.

I agree with Retow on the relative merits of NIkon's AIS and D lenses (optically about identical but operationally different) vs the Fuji primes. I'm not even talking about zooms and telephotos which I'll leave to m43. But regarding the higher level DSLR lenses, a quick perusal of the B&H site shows:

Fuji 23mm f1.4 - 2.8" x 2.5", 301 grams, $749

Nikon 35mm f1.4 - 3.3" x 3.5", 600 grams, $1619

Zeiss ZF 35mm f1.4 - 3.1" x 4.7", 830 grams, $1843

You may find those comparable. I don't... I handled the Df with Nikon's smallest and cheapest 24-85, which is larger and heavier than the Fuji 23, but smaller and lighter than the Nikon 35 f1.4 and waaaay smaller and lighter than the Zeiss. While it was not THAT much larger than the 12-40 zoom I shoot with on my EM1, it was larger and heavier and, combined with the increased mass of the Df, is a combination I wouldn't want to shoot with all day, let alone be carrying a bag around with a few more lenses of that size in it. That's why I'm limiting my serious investigation into the Df to the D series of lenses (I'd consider AIS too, which are a bit better built, but I really don't want to go with MF only for most lenses). And I find them comparable to the Fuji primes in terms of DOF and, once you take sensor size into account, in terms of low light capability. Some of the Nikons (the 28 vs the Fuji 18 for sure) are as good optically, some (20mm vs the Fuji 14) aren't, but all more than satisfy me. The "D" lenses bought used (which are widely available) are notably less expensive than the Fujis new in most cases, particularly the very common 28-50mm focal lengths, less so but still less expensive in the 20 and 85 equivalent lengths. So, the Fuji body is cheaper and lighter and preferable in some way to me vs the Df. While the Fuji lenses are more expensive, somewhat larger than the Nikons I'm willing to shoot with. So, I can build a pretty good case for it being a wash in most respects that matter to me, even in low light when I limit myself to the Nikon lenses I'm willing to use.

The Df sensor is STILL incredibly special, though, just in terms of ease of processing, DR (or at least perceived DR), etc. If I get through of an intensive week of shooting with mostly the Df (with a small m43 kit along for ultra wide and longer lengths) and I'm OK with the lack of good live view and if I can keep the sensor clean enough without too much hassle, I'll probably buy the Df when I get back and the loan period ends. If not, the Fuji system (and maybe the Samsung system) looks like a good alternative. Or maybe I just sit it out for a while and see if the A7 system gets closer to something I think I'd be OK with - that's gonna take some more lenses and probably another iteration of the body. After this trip to the Bay Area, I don't have any really interesting shooting opportunities coming up anytime this year (getting a remodel done, so no major travel), so maybe I just hang with my m43 and see what the landscape looks like in another 9 months or a year or so??? I doubt I'm capable of that, but it might be the rational thing to do unless I'm head over heels about the Df after this week...

-Ray
 
Ray I'm surprised you sold the RX1, just moveing to a more serious system camera?

Probably. I really loved the RX1, but I like having more than one prime lens available and, if it's gonna be one, I really prefer something wider than that. I may well end up with the Df with a handful of small primes to play an expanded version of the role that the RX1 played. Or I may retrench and go back to Fuji or I may just hang out for a while and see what develops. If I pick the last alternative, I'll probably conclude that I shouldn't have sold the RX1, but that's water under the bridge at this point. And I doubt I'd buy another with the potential that the A7 system probably has going forward...

-Ray
 
i see your point, though i am not an expert on nikon lenses, so i'm not sure thats the only 35/1.4. however, if we were to really set about this, wouldnt the actual comparion take into account apsc lenses 1stop loss in DOF? thus the comparison really is the fuji 23/1.4 vs slr 35/2.0, or am i off? isnt that the more exact equivalent? fuji 56/1.2 vs slr 85/1.7 etc? whatever, dont want to start any hard feelings. weve both shot slr, weve both shot apsc, i guess we just come out differently on real time size advantage of the respective lenses. in my hands an xp1 with the 35, 60 and 55-200 zoom gave me pretty much the same feel i had with slr analogues, and ive not gotten over that experience. and i personally feel pretty sure that, given time for research, i could put together a FF digital kit that could roughly egual apsc for compactness at the normal FLs, except 28 where fuji has it hands down with the pancake
 
i see your point, though i am not an expert on nikon lenses, so i'm not sure thats the only 35/1.4. however, if we were to really set about this, wouldnt the actual comparion take into account apsc lenses 1stop loss in DOF? thus the comparison really is the fuji 23/1.4 vs slr 35/2.0, or am i off? isnt that the more exact equivalent? fuji 56/1.2 vs slr 85/1.7 etc? whatever, dont want to start any hard feelings. weve both shot slr, weve both shot apsc, i guess we just come out differently on real time size advantage of the respective lenses. in my hands an xp1 with the 35, 60 and 55-200 zoom gave me pretty much the same feel i had with slr analogues, and ive not gotten over that experience. and i personally feel pretty sure that, given time for research, i could put together a FF digital kit that could roughly egual apsc for compactness at the normal FLs, except 28 where fuji has it hands down with the pancake

First off, don't even begin to THINK about hard feelings - we're just talking about cameras! Plenty to disagree about but absolutely NOTHING to be angry about! :cool:

And, yeah, you ARE right that a Fuji 23 f1.4 is pretty much equivalent to a full frame 35 f2.0 in terms of DOF and, once you account for the roughly one stop advantage that the full frame sensor gives you in high ISO capability, comparing a Df with a 35 f2.0 against a Fuji 23 at f1.4 pretty much equalizes at both DOF and low light sensitivity. And that's what I've been willing to shoot with based on size and weight. The Nikon D 35mm f2.0 is a bit smaller and lighter than the Fuji 23mm. By the time I put one of those on the Df, the whole package is only slightly heavier than the EM1 with the 12-40 zoom on it. The best I can calculate the Df with the little 35 f2.0 is notably larger and about 220-230 grams heavier than the XT1 with the 23 f1.4. I'm more than happy shooting with the overall size and weight of the Df with these small lenses, and I'd be even slightly happier shooting with the XT1 combination. But let's call that a draw.

Which is my basic point - the Df with the lenses I'm willing to shoot with on it offer little if any actual advantage over the XT1 with the Fuji lenses, either in terms of shallow DOF or low light. That to get any real ADVANTAGE with the Df, I'd have to shoot with larger, heavier, costlier lenses than I'm willing to buy or carry. If I'm merely breaking even in terms of DOF, low light, etc, that makes it a different calculation and the DSLR becomes a tougher sell... I'm fine with the size and weight of both, although there's an advantage to the Fuji in that respect. So, at that point, it's ALL down to the intangibles. Whether you like the basic characteristics of one of the sensors relative to the others. I've frankly loved both the way the Df and the X-Trans images look - both have a sort of creamy smoothness, maybe at the expense of overwhelming detail, that I'm fine with - that I actually sort of prefer to the ultra high-res pop that cameras like the Sigma DP or RX1r or D800 tends to produce. To the handling differences between a DSLR with it's OVF and a mirrorless with it's EVF and constant live view. To the relative lack of maintenance associated with mirrorless vs the at least periodic need to clean DSLR sensors - some folks have suggested to me they clean their sensor at least weekly when they're shooting a lot and I've seen the need a couple of times already. I'd never cleaned a sensor before this Df...

DSLR's offer a number of advantages, but generally at the expense of size and weight, where we all have our own tolerances. I'm OK with the size and weight with the small primes - I'm not with the larger lenses that really open up the gap relative to smaller sensor cameras... So, rather than a slam, dunk, it's a bit of a dilemma! :cool:

-Ray
 
A lot of people, me included, values size and weight above theoretical image quality. The more so when you cannot see the difference in the prints he/she does (I usually do 20 x 30 cm, or 8 x 12 in). And the important point is: even if I do, I shall go for the smaller camera. Cartier-Bresson and Salgado did not pick the Leica M because its image quality was better than the one coming from medium format cameras. It was much smaller. The Nikon DF is huge, heavy, industrial; the Fuji X-T1 smaller, ergonomic, and elegant.

My attitude seems to be more common in Europe than in America, where BIG (not meant to offend) people, driving in wide roads, love huge and unnecessarily powerful gas-guzzlers. We tend to favour smaller cars in Europe, not so much because our roads are all narrow, but because these small cars often have the same interior space, are fun to drive, and come with a significantly lower mpg - which is definitely important when you pay $2 per liter - something like $7 per US gallon.
 
A lot of people, me included, values size and weight above theoretical image quality. The more so when you cannot see the difference in the prints he/she does (I usually do 20 x 30 cm, or 8 x 12 in). And the important point is: even if I do, I shall go for the smaller camera. Cartier-Bresson and Salgado did not pick the Leica M because its image quality was better than the one coming from medium format cameras. It was much smaller. The Nikon DF is huge, heavy, industrial; the Fuji X-T1 smaller, ergonomic, and elegant.

My attitude seems to be more common in Europe than in America, where BIG (not meant to offend) people, driving in wide roads, love huge and unnecessarily powerful gas-guzzlers. We tend to favour smaller cars in Europe, not so much because our roads are all narrow, but because these small cars often have the same interior space, are fun to drive, and come with a significantly lower mpg - which is definitely important when you pay $2 per liter - something like $7 per US gallon.

I think the point of this discussion is that the differences are not as great as either you, a dedicated mirrorless shooter, thinks, or that a dedicated DSLR shooter might think. The Df is larger than the XT1, but with the small lenses that pretty much equalize it's performance with the Fuji, not by much. To call one huge and industrial and the other small and elegant really overstates the differences pretty grossly. With the larger lenses that give it a real advantage, then, yeah the Df is quite a big larger and heavier. Terms like "industrial", "ergonomic", and "elegant" are just adjectives you like to push your point of view. I actually find the Df incredibly ergonomic - the Nikon DSLR interface has had many more years to evolve than Fuji's mirrorless interface. And while Fuji's is getting really good, Nikon's has BEEEN really good for a long time. And one person's industrial is another's elegant and one person's elegant might be another's too clever by half. Don't get me wrong, I like Fuji a lot, but I like Nikon a lot too and the differences are purely down to personal preference.

And for what it's worth, yeah, I'm American, but I live in a small town where I mostly get around on foot or on a bicycle and my car, for the very small amount I actually drive it, is a Honda Fit, the smallest and cheapest car Honda make in the US, and it's nowhere close to a new one either... And but for proximity to friends and family and baseball, I'm probably more of a European at heart... :cool:

-Ray
 
I've taken relatively the same approach with my 5DII that Ray is considering with the DF - pairing a larger FF body with smaller, fast-but-not-ultrafast primes (in my case a MF 28mm f2.8 and Canon 40mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8. The one exception is the 200mm f2.8 I keep for dedicated sports and portrait work). I've considered both an O-MD body or the X-T1 with the fastest 28mm, 50mm and 85mm equivalent lenses each system offers and have come to a similar conclusion as Ray - that the size and weight advantages are certainly there (considerably moreso with m43 obviously) and need to be considered but are not overwhelming provided you stick with small primes on the FF camera. The advantages I see the most benefit in would be the various live view options the mirrorless cameras offer, and that the lenses tend to be quite sharp widen open and the sensor sizes allow enough DOF to regularly be used wide open. With FF I find the high ISO + fast lens advantages to be tempered somewhat by the need to stop down a little.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I've considered both an O-MD body or the X-T1 with the fastest 28mm, 50mm and 85mm equivalent lenses each system offers and have come to a similar conclusion as Ray - that the size and weight advantages are certainly there (considerably moreso with m43 obviously) and need to be considered but are not overwhelming provided you stick with small primes on the FF camera.

Yup. The X-T1 looks interesting but not different enough from my Pentax K-3 plus primes (21, 31, 43, 70) to consider. Plus, I don't know how they did it, but the K-3 grip is sublime...
 
A lot of people, me included, values size and weight above theoretical image quality. The more so when you cannot see the difference in the prints he/she does (I usually do 20 x 30 cm, or 8 x 12 in). And the important point is: even if I do, I shall go for the smaller camera. Cartier-Bresson and Salgado did not pick the Leica M because its image quality was better than the one coming from medium format cameras. It was much smaller. The Nikon DF is huge, heavy, industrial; the Fuji X-T1 smaller, ergonomic, and elegant.

My attitude seems to be more common in Europe than in America, where BIG (not meant to offend) people, driving in wide roads, love huge and unnecessarily powerful gas-guzzlers. We tend to favour smaller cars in Europe, not so much because our roads are all narrow, but because these small cars often have the same interior space, are fun to drive, and come with a significantly lower mpg - which is definitely important when you pay $2 per liter - something like $7 per US gallon.

Sorry, but lol is my reaction to your post, just too much of stereotyping. And were would the Japanese fit into your picture of the worlds? They are the biggest buyers of DSLRs and MILCs and love large engine European cars of premium make.
 
Yup. The X-T1 looks interesting but not different enough from my Pentax K-3 plus primes (21, 31, 43, 70) to consider. Plus, I don't know how they did it, but the K-3 grip is sublime...

I haven't and wouldn't consider a DSLR unless it was the only good route to full frame (which is why I'm currently sort of thinking about it), but Pentax sort of amazes me. The K3 really isn't much larger than the XT1 (although it weighs a LOT more - jeez it's heavier than the Df...). But the main thing is those lenses. How do they make an effective 105mm portrait lens at f2.4 and it's barely a pancake sized lens? Those little primes are pretty incredible and give me hope for what might be possible for full frame in the future. They seem to defy the laws of physics...

-Ray
 
Yeah, the Pentax DA70mm F2.4 Limited is special

8197417284_0b388af90f_c.jpg

untitled, for now by john m flores, on Flickr

7953726068_c546037f4c_c.jpg

L'Uccello Arrabbiato in Vermont as the sun prepares to set by john m flores, on Flickr

All the Limiteds I've used have been exceptional -
21 F3.2
31 F1.8
35 F2.8 Macro
40 F2.8
43 F1.9
70 F2.4

The 40 F2.8 may be the most pedestrian but it's still quite good. And I sold the 35 F2.8 Macro and immediately regretted it.

Are there faster primes out there? Yes, but I rarely shoot wide open anyway.
Are there better primes out there? Maybe, but they're not likely to improve my photography.

If I was starting from scratch, I'd probably give the X-T1 a long, hard look. But I've got more than I need right now, and even what I have isn't getting used enough...
 
I was of course caricatural, but just to prove my point in a lighthearted way. I am fond of Nikon, and my FM2 is one of my best-loved cameras of all times (I only dislike the loudness of its shutter, and I would love its viewfinder to be slightly bigger). I also loved my D200, which I exchanged for a D7000 just to have video. I never managed to really love my Nikon D70, nor my Nikon D7000. As to ergonomics, I think Fuji did it slightly better this time than Nikon. The X-T1 works very much like a traditional SLR, even better than the FM2, not like a typical mirrorless. And, IMHO, Nikon partly limited the attraction of its system by suppressing the aperture rings on its lenses.
Let me also remind the readers of this site that Fuji is hardly a newcomer to cameras - its medium format rangefinders were much appreciated, and it was Fuji who did the X-Pan for Hasselblad (in a time when Hasselblad showed the way).
Again, horses for courses. But I want a camera that is easy and light to carry, and easy to conceal when I finish shooting and do not want to go back to my home or hotel to leave it before going to dinner. The Nikon Df does not fit the bill. I have used the well-known camera size comparison page, but I am waiting to see the X-T1 in person. It still did not arive to Portugal.
I understand and agree with John Flores point of view. I often do. If I did not have the number of Nikon lenses I have, I might consider Pentax and its primes.
Oh yes, I was forgetting: the Japanese will buy anything that is European AND expensive (Leica, Porsche, Louis Vuitton). And the wealthy Chinese are doing the same.
 
Yup. The X-T1 looks interesting but not different enough from my Pentax K-3 plus primes (21, 31, 43, 70) to consider. Plus, I don't know how they did it, but the K-3 grip is sublime...

I too find the FA Limiteds to be extra special. But Micro Four Thirds has great lenses to rival them. Certainly the 14/2.5, 20/1.7, 45/1.8, and 75/1.8 equal or exceed the DA Limiteds. As a bonus the system is much lighter and more compact.

Pentax have never made a digital body the equal of the FA Limiteds. In fact they have never made any more FA Limiteds, which shows they really have no clue as to what their strengths are. I imagine they are still clamouring for full frame over on Pentax Forums?

On the other side of the coin, Pentax seemed the perfect company to make a substantial mirrorless camera, but they seem fixated on toys. After using an EVF it's impossible to go back to the inflexible window of an SLR, where I have to pull my head away from the camera to see important information on a back or side panel, to change a setting, or what-have-you. My Pentax gear sits unused, waiting for the day when Ricoh wakes up and makes something compelling.

In the meantime I can use the FA Limiteds on my E-P5 just fine.

OK, back to the Fuji discussion...
 
To the relative lack of maintenance associated with mirrorless vs the at least periodic need to clean DSLR sensors - some folks have suggested to me they clean their sensor at least weekly when they're shooting a lot and I've seen the need a couple of times already. I'd never cleaned a sensor before this Df...
In my experience it's more the full-frame sensor (bigger, so more prone to gather dust) than the DSLR aspect that provoke the need for more frequent cleaning.

My K-01 and K-30 are pretty equivalent in terms of cleaning needs (an air blower shot every couple of months), whereas I needed to clean my sensor after almost every outings when I had a 5D mark I.

Would be interesting to know about the A7/A7r on this subject though.
 
I was of course caricatural...But I want a camera that is easy and light to carry, and easy to conceal when I finish shooting and do not want to go back to my home or hotel to leave it before going to dinner. The Nikon Df does not fit the bill...
Oh yes, I was forgetting: the Japanese will buy anything that is European AND expensive (Leica, Porsche, Louis Vuitton). And the wealthy Chinese are doing the same.

well to those points:

1-your comments didnt seem at all 'caricatural', rather they seemed a tad mean spirited and condescending to me.

2-good luck 'hiding' an xp1 or xt1 coupled with any lens other than the fuji 18! that is most assuredly not hideable hardware, though you personally may feel so.

3- there seems something overtly self defeating about a european criticizing non europeans for buying european products. and again it comes off vaguely mean spirited and condescending.

finally, i will 'lightheartedly' spare you my personal 'caricatural' musings on the smug european personality, partly in order to maintain the appearance of cordiality. let me suggest you do the same regarding the worlds other cultures. we're all better off here sticking to photography.
 
Back
Top