- Location
- Switzerland
- Name
- Matt
I get what you're saying - and I wasn't taking offense or anything. I know that if you want to go *really* compact and still get great IQ, you have to go mirrorless; I went with
for that purpose. Somewhat ironically, some of the limitations of the smaller system (which can turn into advantages in other use cases!) brought back my interest in DSLRs - I clearly prefer the experience they provide for action and sports (as well as actually *working* with human subjects). I'm not against mirrorless - on the contrary, I use them for EDC and travel. But DSLRs have their place in my personal opinion.A premium APS-C camera like the KP is intriguing because it resonantes with my own recent experience: APS-C for me came first - the Nikon D90 - and last - the D5500. The latter quickly took the spot of most used camera, mainly because it mates most advantages of the respective systems: It's small and fast (hardly any bigger than the E-M10 with mandatory ECG-1 grip), and the files are very, very nice. It offers the DSLR experience without most of the weight penalty. However, there's one big downside (and only one single solution for it ...): Nikon's APS-C lens line-up has only three dedicated APS-C primes - at 35mm, 40mm, 85mm (the latter two are macro lenses); only two of those are small, only one of them is fast. While there are enough lenses in Nikon's line-up to provide tele options, dedicated small wide-angles are completely missing: no 18mm f/1.8 DX and/or 23mm f/1.8 DX - Samyang does a 16mm f/2, but it's quite big and lacks AF. The 20mm f/1.8 FX and 24mm f/1.8 FX primes are good lenses, but they're also quite expensive and on the large side. So I went with Sigma - the 30mm f/1.4 Art is a more intesting lens than Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 DX (optically, they're comparable, but the Sigma is brighter and has much nicer bokeh), but their single best APS-C lens is actually a zoom: the 18-35mm f/1.8 Art. It's huge, it lacks I.S., but it delivers better images than any of the primes available - in fact, it surpasses both "normal" lenses at 35mm and thus replaces at the very least three primes (at 18mm, 24mm, 35mm). But did I mention it's bloody big?! It's just not a lens I can bring myself to carry daily.
That's what Fuji really got right: Provide nice lenses, and cover most focal lengths in a sufficiently systematic manner.
's choice is even better (but there are more players), and even Sony's catching up. Nikon? No joy - and Canon's little better (two primes for their EOS M line, two for their APS-C DSLRs - are they serious? I don't get it ... So in my view, if you want to get the most out of your system choice, the compact (and very good!) native primes are sort of a no-brainer in my eyes, at least in the long run. I think I'd never have "got" mirrorless if I hadn't acquired some primes early on - not that the zooms are to be sneezed at ...Interestingly, if you look at Pentax's line-up, it appears impressively competitive - their Limited lens line provides a whole host of very interesting focal lengths for APS-C, and their lenses are really compact as well as optically competent. Now, I'm a Nikon shooter and would lose too much money in a switch, but if I had to recommend an APS-C DSLR (midrange or high-end) at the moment, I'd probably single out the Pentax KP - or the K-70, respectively - before mentioning such prestigious cameras as the D7200 or 80D (let alone the D500 or 7D MkII). Add some of those Limited primes, and you're in enthusiast heaven. It's a pity that neither Nikon nor Canon get that picture ...
M.
