[JJ_SO]

Of course I have no first hands impression.

 

But to me, the camera is definitely less big and heavy than the D810 - and for sure, less heavy. Now, lenses... depends: If your're used to pancakes or small and not so fast f/2.8 or f/4 lenses, then yes. But if I call a Sigma Art 50/1.4 a standard lens, then things are slightly different:

 

Fuji: ø 84 × 71, 405 grams

Sigma: ø 85.4 × 99, 815 grams

 

Now, which makes my back happier? 

 

But of course, it depends. The 120 macro is around 1 kg, while a "normal" FF macro like the 105/2.8 micor Nikkor only comes to 750 grams.

 

Decent wide angles - none so far. Tele-lenses like 150-600 (190-760 with this crop factor of 1.27 × roughly): will not come, will not be affordable and nobody needs them, as long as current APS-C are that good.  

 

With an adapter for Zeiss, Mamiya or Schneider lenses (which sometimes are second hand available and cheap compared to their original costs) I'd loose AF - but with that EVF I don't see a big problem. At the moment genuine lenses are only three, another two are visible on the official camera pictures. Yes, the price is something I don't spend just for fun. But it's one of the more affordable bodies in this sensor size category. And a high MP Canon is also around 3.5 - 4 k€. Using low cost lenses for this pixel count makes the whole thing less well performing, so on the lens side they are not that much more expensive. But they are.

[wim]

 

The advantage with my FF system is that I already own all the (high grade) lenses I'd ever want and want to carry, except maybe extreme UWA. I doubt whether any, or rather all of these will be available anytime soon for the Fuji, not to mention the pricing. I'd rather go for a less conspicuous camera with a slightly smaller sensor in that case. As to lenses, think long macrolens, tilt shift, dedicated macro, a bunch of primes, and a long zoom ....

 

The cheaper option would definitely be a 50MP FF camera for me .

 

I have been playing with the idea of MF for a long time, as well as larger formats, film in that case, but I doubt I would ever even bother to carry an even bigger imaging apparatus with me than a relatively small FF camera plus lenses.

 

Besides, I reckon an  MF camera really ends up being a studio camera more than a take anywhere camera, even when made as small as possible like the Fuji . I prefer handheld use over tripod use .

 

Kind regards, Wim

[JJ_SO]

As I already said in another thread: I don't call the Fuji "Medium Format" (as well as the Pentax "645" or the Leica SL). It's simply a blown up FF. From 42×56 mm sensor size we're talking again.

 

That's what makes the Fuji attractive to me: The form factor is not bigger than any current CaNikon FF bodies. Minus the less reliable AF system of DSLRs (generalizing, but after days of AF-adjustment I feel confident to say so). 

 

Now the lenses.

 

Tilt-shift? How about that:



Would be difficult to get a more versatile tilt shift lens, but since all of them are MF, adapt it.

 



 

For a new system they already provide some interesting stuff, I have to say.

 

As I said, the money is nothing I would just blow away for fun. But the IQ of that Fuji, as far I could see, is very yummy. Plus, with a Bayer sensor there will be less fuzz to get the RAWs developed.

 

I don't expect Nikon to come up with a well-made, well-thought mirrorless body to use my exisiting lenses. Even if they did, it will be done by using an adapter.

 

Today we constantly see new lenses coming out which go high- or even high-end quality, but also high volume and weight and occassionally also price. I have to say, I was quite happy enough with a Mamiya 645 and only 2 lenses. For special glass like UWA, longer teles I would be happy to rent a lens if i need one. Really long lenses will become far too heavy to handle, so I'd prefer APS-C anyway. And a macro lens is already in the portfolio.

 

After all, the sensor is around 4× the area of APS-C, but only twice the MP-count. I saw a photogrpaher wondering about HQ output at ISO 12.800.

[wim]

 

I won't go there anymore, I am done with more systems, unless I become a collector again after I have amassed a few millions first (not very likely ). Besides, I am quite happy with what I have, and I can do 99.5% of my shooting with it, if not more .

 

As to high isos: personally I do not care much. I grew up with film, and 1600 iso was really the max there if you wanted anything recognisable, and I am happy with iso 6400 on digital - it is actually much better than film in the past anyway. Above 6400 iso, it starts looking like film again, so if need be, I'll go there and process it accordingly  I've done so on occasion.

 

In short, looks like a fun camera and system, but it is not meant for me .

 

Kind regards, Wim

[miro]

Hi old friends,

more then 10 jears ago I was active here.

I´ve made my setup from canon 400D and 50d + bunch of lenses from 8..300mm including macro and fixed focal length.

tripods filters flashes and reflectors.

That was enough for me, and I have never fill limited as photographer except for TS=17mm

I see that you guys are went further FF 1/2FF 1/4FF 2*FF MLC etc. I have never touched such thinks.

I have mastered adobe photoshop CS

My question is do I miss something as photographer?

 

Regards,

Miro

[wim]

Hi Miro,

 

Long time no see, and good to see you again!

 

Have you missed anything? Not likely , same old, same old. The main difference is that over the years sensors did output cleaner images, and some lenses were brought out which were sharper and better than their predecessors.

 

However, it is always about the photographer, not the gear, so good on you you kept photographing and improving your skills!

 

Considering the age of your camera bodies, you may start thinking about replacing them. This does of course also depend on how many images you shot of course.

 

Kindest regards, Wim

[JJ_SO]

The answer to that question you can give yourself.

 

You think you missed something? Then you do.  ^_^

 

Even if it's "only" the joy for toys 

 

Edit: I never heard "... FF 1/2FF 1/4FF 2*FF MLC" - what does that mean?

[davidmanze]

 I meant to mention before after JoJu's comments about the upcoming new replacement FF Nikor having very low noise, apparently it's got a new sensor that is RGBW (if I remember correctly) so it's normal Red/Green/Blue but plus "White", the latter just recording monochrome and mixing it in with RGB to give lower noise. So there's life in the old DSLR dog yet!

 

 Is MF going really to be that much better bang for IQ?  Shallower depth of field is possible with large aperture lenses, but they will be monsters, expensive ones, you can get sufficient shallow DOF now with the latest F1.4s, matching DOF on FF will need only one stop less (F2?) and with that frame coverage we are talking 3-4K a pop, or more. There will be will no doubt be older adapted Pentax MF lenses at ever increasing prices,which will also disappear fairly quickly.

 

  As for me I'll stick with DSLRs till the death, be it mine or Nikon's (surely mine), I've got all I need and am hoping that my spending is now at an end (ish), changing a system is not the most relaxing thing to do with one's life nor the least inexpensive. Add to that that all recent lenses that have taken a rise in price, I can easily see an MF system costing $20K. (with a large ouch!)

 

 

 So I'm going for the "If it doesn't itch, don't scratch it".

[toni-a]

Hi miro, well even by today's standards 50D is still a very decent camera, it can even do video if you update to third party firmware (magic lantern)

Of course since then softwares have evolved greatly, Canon DPP4 made a major leap forward from its predecessors worth downloading

[JJ_SO]

Is MF going really to be that much better bang for IQ?  Shallower depth of field is possible with large aperture lenses, but they will be monsters, expensive ones, you can get sufficient shallow DOF now with the latest F1.4s, matching DOF on FF will need only one stop less (F2?) and with that frame coverage we are talking 3-4K a pop, or more. There will be will no doubt be older adapted Pentax MF lenses at ever increasing prices,which will also disappear fairly quickly.

 

Dave, there's more than IQ (in terms of resolution and other parameters to measure). If you go larger than FF, not depending on MP-count, you get necessarily longer focal lengths. These change the proportions of in focus / out of focus parts in a picture. Wether that's to my taste or not, the curse of larger than FF formats is shallower DoF - and the best pictures of these cameras not only convince by the amount of detail but also by isolating the subject much more than fast FF lenses can.

 

I had better bokeh with a 110/2.8 in front of the Mamiya 645 than I had with a Zeiss 85/1.4 in front of a Contax/Yashica. Not to mention the difficulties in focussing very fast lenses with only a matte screen in a comparatively tiny finder.