08-24-2019, 11:55 AM
(08-23-2019, 08:59 PM)Sinasina Wrote: I think, if Fuji used a Bayer sensor a lot fewer ppl would go FF, because their lenses are good enough on Aps-c really, FF lenses in the same price bracket aren't better and are often a stop slower too, so concerns about blur quantity & noise aren't relevant.
Really? You think, just screw in a Bayer pattern and fewer people would go FF? Update your half-knowledge!
56/1.2: 890.-, same lens with
APD 1250.-
vs.
Nikkor 85/1.8 G (same DoF, ⅔ stop slower): 550.-
Tamron 85/1.8: 770.-
Nikkor Z 85/1.8 S: Amazon offered it yesterday for 800.- and its isn't even in stock yet
23/1.4: 830.-
vs.
Nikkor 35/1.8 G: 545.-
Tamron 35/1.8: 600.-
Sigma 35/1.4: 800.- (and not even a stop slower...)
16/1.4: 870.-
vs
Sigma 24/1.4: 750.- (and not even a stop slower...)
Nikkor 24/1.8: 820.-
Actually, I don't see (to my own surprise) a difference in favour of Fuji. On the contrary, I see a lot of old lens designs (that stupid clutch is annoying because AF-C + manual focus override don't go together).
It is not possible to miniaturize a camera system and reduce it's price the same way. At best, it's somehow even, but usually making things smaller cost more.
And one word to Bayer vs. Fuji patterns: If you're unhappy with the way Adobe crap renders the Fuji file, just try a better converter, that helps a lot - Capture One is available in a special Fuji only version.