Fuji to Nikon ?

frod said:
I'll be interested to see what the 14mm isn't wide enough for.
Click to expand...

The 14mm isn't ultra wide though - in fact it's not much wider than my 16-50 kit lens..

Is a nice lens though so I will consider it
 
I can't see myself ever considering going back to DSLR's for size and weight reasons, focus accuracy reasons (no MA to faff on with, just good accuracy time after time) and I'd hate to lose the WYSIWYG that you get with mirrorless cameras. For example I just love shooting whilst keeping an eye on the in view histogram and knowing that what I see is what I'm going to get and that I'll get the shot first time and not have to guess the exposure and check later to make sure I've got a good shot and not one that's blown and have to delete it and dial in compensation and shoot again.

Not having to guesstimate, chimp and reshoot is IMO one of the big advantages of the more digital mirrorless cameras.
 
I've replaced all my second hand Canon gear with brand new Fuji lenses and second hand camera about a year ago. Ended up with money to spare!

Canon 17-40 F4 L, 24-105 F4 IS L, 70-200 F4 IS L, 85 F1.8 and 5D mark 2, all bought and sold second hand.
to
Fuji 10-24, 55-200, 60mm F2.4 macro, all brand spanking new from John Lewis, and a second hand X-E2.

Admittedly if I had needed and bought a replacement for 24-105, like a second hand 18-55mm, I'd be breaking even. But still, my point is that Fuji lenses are not expensive. They are of higher quality than my Canon L lenses, the 10-24mm alone is well worth the effort of switching system, to get similar quality, I'd have to spend MORE for one lens, on the 16-35mm F4 IS lens.
 
woof woof said:
I can't see myself ever considering going back to DSLR's for size and weight reasons, focus accuracy reasons (no MA to faff on with, just good accuracy time after time) and I'd hate to lose the WYSIWYG that you get with mirrorless cameras. For example I just love shooting whilst keeping an eye on the in view histogram and knowing that what I see is what I'm going to get and that I'll get the shot first time and not have to guess the exposure and check later to make sure I've got a good shot and not one that's blown and have to delete it and dial in compensation and shoot again.

Not having to guesstimate, chimp and reshoot is IMO one of the big advantages of the more digital mirrorless cameras.
Click to expand...
Bub
Whats MA and wyftias etc?
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Bub
Whats MA and wyftias etc?
Click to expand...

Micro-adjust: DSLR Phase detector sensors need adjustment to be accurate. Mirrorless use contrast detect for the last part for accuracy. Latter doesn't need adjustment, ever.

What You See Is What You Get refers to EVF advantage over OVF. But I personally prefer idea of hybrid OVF like in x100T or X-pro2. EVF are too unnatural and feels strange for me.

Also, IMO stands for In my opinion. Just FYI ;)
 
Thanks for all the advice folks - much appreciated :)

I'm going to stick with the fuji - to much to lose when I really think about it.

Will keep my eyes open for a 14mm or 10-24mm at a good price!!
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Bub
Whats MA and wyftias etc?
Click to expand...

I think I was lucky in that the DSLR's I had didn't seem to need the micro adjusting that the newer fancier and higher mp count cameras seem to need.

I suppose any camera with such a convoluted focus system as a DSLR is bound to be prone to inconsistencies and inaccuracies. I suppose it's amazing that they work as well as they do but on the whole I think it should be rather obvious that deciding what's in focus by looking at the chip that records the image is going to be a more accurate and more reliable way of doing things :D
 
justa1972 said:
Thanks for all the advice folks - much appreciated :)

I'm going to stick with the fuji - to much to lose when I really think about it.

Will keep my eyes open for a 14mm or 10-24mm at a good price!!
Click to expand...

I think that's the right decision.

I can see advantages for DSLR's in specific instances and the same is true for CSC's so it's a case of making the right decision based on needs. One clear advantage for DSLR's is that you can get a really cheap one but of course it will not be top of the line and the lens will be no more than adequate.
 
Too be honest I hadn't even thought about micro adjusting - in fact I didn't even know what it was
 
I think a lot of people tinker with M/A not knowing what they are doing and it all ends up worse than it was originally.

Personally never bothered on the one camera I had with that facility, all seemed fine anyway.

Modern photography seems like the totally wrong hobby for those affected with OCD
 
Last edited:
I enjoyed using my D90 and I would still use Nikon, especially the D750, but I think i would miss some of the features that I use and take for granted on my X-T1: obviously, the ability to see the exposure change before my eyes as I change the aperture/shutter speed/ISO, the focus peaking is great, and I can take pics at much lower shutter speeds thanks to the lack of a mirror. The weight factor is also important to me, I mean when I'm carrying it for 6-8 hours I appreciate something like a X-T1 + 14 or 18-55, rather than a DSLR + lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top