Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
so the phantom (XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6) is finally here ...
#11
Quote:Even at Nikon rumors forum there are people using FF Nikon and APS-C Fujifilm coexisiting.
 

That would be me. How quickly it became 90% Fuji/10% Nikon. Size & weight make all the difference, when the IQ difference is minimal.
#12
Quote:That would be me. How quickly it became 90% Fuji/10% Nikon. Size & weight make all the difference, when the IQ difference is minimal.
Fuji only makes APS-C. I am pretty sure that when comparing to Nikon APS-C the weight difference is not overly dramatic?

 

JoJu, nice to read you are happy with that lens. 

#13
There is no 100-400 from Nikon. The next would be 80-400 (1570 gr) or 200-500 (2300gr). The Fujinon only has 1375 gr., although "very much metal" feeling. I just don't recall my friend's new 80-400 as well balanced as the Fujinon, but I didn't try it recently. He got his when it just was released and exchanged the old version against it.

 

Of course, the Nikkors are FF and therefore have to be a bit heavier - and a lightweight body behind the lens also changes the feeling. But my impression (which goes even more for the 150-600 Sports) is, the Nikkors have a lot of weight at the front lens, and when zoomed out, the difference is noticeable.

#14
Quote:Fuji only makes APS-C. I am pretty sure that when comparing to Nikon APS-C the weight difference is not overly dramatic?

 

JoJu, nice to read you are happy with that lens. 
 

BC, the size and weight differences are profound! Register distance is everything -- no matter how "small" the D90 is, the Fuji X-A1 is less than half the size.

 

http://camerasize.com/compare/#483,179

 

If you shoot primes (like me) then there are a lot of tiny options for the Fuji too. Their latest offerings have been too big IMO except for the 35/2.
#15
Quote:BC, the size and weight differences are profound! Register distance is everything -- no matter how "small" the D90 is, the Fuji X-A1 is less than half the size.

 

http://camerasize.com/compare/#483,179

 

If you shoot primes (like me) then there are a lot of tiny options for the Fuji too. Their latest offerings have been too big IMO except for the 35/2.
The D90 is not small, the D3300 is.

 

To make the assumption even more comical:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#520,448

 

Register distance is NOT everything, only with wide angle lenses.

 

Like I said, the weight difference is not overly dramatic. Sure, you can make combinations especially designed to make it look like the difference is huge. For instance, You can compare the FF Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L USM II to the Fuji X 35mm f1.4, and the difference indeed is huge.
#16
Quote:The D90 is not small, the D3300 is.

 

To make the assumption even more comical:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#520,448

 

Register distance is NOT everything, only with wide angle lenses.

 

Like I said, the weight difference is not overly dramatic. Sure, you can make combinations especially designed to make it look like the difference is huge. For instance, You can compare the FF Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L USM II to the Fuji X 35mm f1.4, and the difference indeed is huge.
 

The register distance *is* the thing, BC! Look at the top view (or side view) of the cameras, or their weight.

 

Here is a comparison to the D3300 you mentioned:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#520,509

 

You're right, the D3300 is much smaller/lighter than the D90. It's also a consumer camera without some important controls from my perspective. (Might not be from yours, but certainly from mine.) For example, I need to be able to control aperture and exposure compensation directly, in Av mode. And still, the D3300 alone weighs more than my X-A1 + 18mm/2 lens.

 

Yes, I understand that if you're shooting a 300mm/2.8 lens, the difference in weight of these cameras is insignificant. But that's not what most people are shooting. (And I already acknowledged that this 100-400 is too big & heavy for me.) I have a D4 for that sort of shooting -- horses for courses, as they say.
#17
Yes, I know that you can get particularly small combinations to weigh particularly little. I have an even smaller and lighter Canon EOS M with 22mm f2 lens myself. Still, the difference in weight with a Canon EOS 100D with EF-S 24mm f2.8 STM is again not overly dramatic, even if the flange distance is very different.

 

I would not mind operating the aperture and exposure compensation with the same dial, but that indeed is personal. Also personal: I do not like these small mirrorless cameras, I just can't get used to live view only... I get along better with OVF's apparently.

#18
Tonight I updated the firmware of the Sigma 150-600 to the new version 1.03 and again, it got faster AF - no empty promises. Great. Really sporty and I know, the keeper rate is not too bad (and for sure much better than with the Fuji combination) when AF-C and 3D tracking kick in. But still, I can carry the 100-400 + X-E2 with one finger without getting tired. The FF-version of this range less so.

 

It's funny, I already "buried" the Sigma lens into it's box because it looked as if someone want to buy it. Then this guy asked for another price reduction and I thought "no, for what? I adjusted it and it's more precise now than out of the box, so why throw money at him?" I'm looking forward which lens will be more out of the bag in the future.

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)