Right-Sized

I knew there was something "right-sized" about the Fuji X-T1:

With the Leica M4. Graphic courtesy Camerasize.com.

Can anybody provide a picture of the Fuji XF 23mm ƒ/1.4 with either of the 35mm ƒ/1.4's from Canon or Nikon? (Or the Zeiss 35mm ƒ/1.4 for the Sony A7[x] cameras.) I think that's the size comparison that really makes the Fuji right-sized for me.

...All a matter of personal preference of course!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Curt Gerston: "Here's [a graphic from] Camerasize.com again with an XT1 and 23mm ƒ/1.4 compared to the Canon 5DIII with the 35mm L II. I agree: the Fuji is just right for me too."

Mike replies: There are functional differences between the setup on the left and the one on the right (to satisfy the nitpickers), but they both do essentially the same thing according to what I need them for, and based on the radically different size and weight (Fuji: 301 g, Canon: 760 g) of the lenses, I know which one I personally would carry along and which one I'd leave at home in the closet....

Comments

[Anthony Shaughnessy]

camerasize.com is an absolutely indispensable purchasing tool.
Anthony

[Steve P.]

I'm very much hoping for a 23mm f2 WR Fujinon in the same vein as the imminent 35mm f2. I can't really figure out why Fuji chose to release a slightly smaller version of the 35mm f1.4, albeit weather resistant, as a first reiteration of an existing focal length.To me the greatest advantage of this approach would be to give photographers a choice between fast f1.4s and truly compact f2s, a la Summilux v Summicron. Imagine how much more "right-sized"the Leica M4 comparison shot would look then!

[marcin wuu]

Bear in mind that APS 23 f1.4 size wise is more like 35 f2.0 for 135 format.
I thing it's a dead horse, though, the equivalence between formats. Very little use beating it.

[It's only "f/2" in relation to shallow d-o-f at the extreme end; in terms of the amount of light it lets through it's an f/1.4. To me, aperture is not a measure of how little d-o-f you can achieve, it's a measure of how "bright" the lens is, i.e., how much light it transmits. Statements like "an f/1.4 lens for APS-C is like an f/2 lens for full-frame" come across as persistently hare-brained to me--true in a secondary, arcane sense, perhaps, but not in the main property the specification is meant to measure. To me such statements, endlessly parroted, are just a misperception of the Internet age--an example of incorrect thinking and sloppy misuse of terminology for which I have no patience. No insult intended personally, Marcin, of course. --Mike]

[Bryce Lee]

Size eh?
When digital first arrived, the sensors were small; as soon as the sensor physically equalled a 135mm image size, I changed. Looking through the viewfinder of less than 135mm always to me at least ended up with a distorted result. Fifty plus years of only shooting slides (Kodachrome/then Fuji) perhaps makes the transition to the Nikon D750 easier. I dunno.
As for camera sizing itself, a small camera is way too small, at age 69 can still pickup a fully inflated basketball with ease hence a more comfortable camera grip as the D750
has made the change to what is termed full frame so much easier.
I still carry as well a $25.00 pawn shop Point and Shoot; I don't have a mobile telephone. Who am I going to call at too many cents a minute, eh?

[John robison]

Photos of cameras, taken straight on from the front do not always reveal true size 'feel'. As a comparison the straight on view of my Olympus Pen F and OM-4T bodies reveals the Pen body to be just as tall and long as the 4T. But, due to a lack of prism hump and mirror box the Pen F, in the hand, feels much smaller. Of course, the modern advantage of mirrorless digital cameras is absence of a mirror box, makeing them much slimmer. That said the Fuji's viewfinder hump seems to closely resemble the old prism humps of convential SLR designs. Handling wise, I much prefer the uncluttered flat top of such D cameras as the Sony A6000 or Fuji XT series of cameras. Just my opinion (or personal preference) I guess.

[JG]

I feel exactly the same way about my RX1:

[Mike A.]

What about an A7x with a Zeiss ZM 35mm f/1.4 attached?

[Albano]

Its very unfair to compare aps vs full frame lenses regarding size

[brian]

And all this time I thought that you were just pining for the Fujica AX-5

http://www.pentax-manuals.com/fujica/photos/ax5_b.jpg

[Bruce Mc]

This is not a picture, but it gives dimensions for the lenses you asked about.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=fujifilm_xf_23mm&products=canon_ef_35_1p4_usm_ii&products=nikon_35_1p4g_afs&products=sony_fe_35_1p4_za&sortDir=ascending

[Thomas Tveit Rosenlund]

And now you can check out the X100t Vs M4 comparison. Just saying.

[David Evans]

My GX8 is 133 x 78 mm which I reckon is closer to the Leica than your Fuji is. AND it doesn't have a "pentaprism" hump.

[David Zivic]

I agree with your thinking here regarding camera size and the direction you are going. I recently went from Nikon D700 which was the size of a small transmission to a Sony A7r with an A6000 as a backup. I ended picking up the A6000 90% of the time and with the pancake zoom it is really a convenient companion. My Zeiss 55mm 1.8 on the smaller sensor becomes a very desirable for me, 85mm. I have never enjoyed photography more. With the introduction of these smaller mirrorless cameras I always liked the expression "Poor Mans Leica".

[Soeren Engelbrecht]

This (which is not my picture, I should say) might help a bit:

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8001/7592998058_d2af6d4c74_b.jpg

The picture shows 35/1.4 lenses on crop bodies, i.e., the Canon T4i body in the picture is significantly smaller than a full-frame EOS body would have been.

[Steve P.]

Marcin, I'm not sure if your point about equivalence was posted in response to my earlier comment but, just to be clear, in the spirit of the O.P. I was referring only to the physical size of a possible future 23mm f2 WR Fujinon, nothing else. Really I'm hoping that the 35mm f2 WR that's rumoured to be unveiled as early as tomorrow might herald the start of a new line of truly compact WR f2 or f2.8 prime lenses which would balance nicely with the Fujifilm bodies in a way that the optically superb but somewhat larger recent additions to the line-up really don't.

[toto]

To paraphrase, the size of the tool doesn't matter; what you do with the tool is what matters.

[Ken Tanaka]

A closer match would be the Fujifilm X-E2:

http://j.mp/1W2BTee#sthash.bNEo4h5g.dpuf

It really has much more similar weight, feeling and operational characteristics (including limitations) to the Leica M film cameras.

[Maggie Osterberg]

,a href="https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/t31.0-8/12017507_10154225154962080_6536765159994846163_o.jpg">X100 and M2.

I knew there was a reason my X100 felt so right.

[Larry Gebhardt]

"Statements like "an f/1.4 lens for APS-C is like an f/2 lens for full-frame" come across as persistently hare-brained to me--true in a secondary, arcane sense, perhaps, but not in the main property the specification is meant to measure. To me such statements, endlessly parroted, are just a misperception of the Internet age--an example of incorrect thinking and sloppy misuse of terminology for which I have no patience."

Doesn't it all come down to what you are trying to make equivalent? Equivalent shutter speeds and equivalent depth of field both seem equally valid imaging parameters to me.

[Then find a feasibly sensible way to express that. f/2 is not "equivalent" to f/1.4 in any sensible meaning of the word. It's like saying that the Canon 500mm f/4 is "equivalent" to the Canon 600mm f/4 because they both use fluorite elements, or George HW Bush is "equivalent" to George Washington because they're both 6'2" tall. --Mike]

[Keamu]

Not exactly what Mike was looking but I think it illustrates the point fairly well. The D700 is mounted with the 24-70 f2.8 and the Xe-1 with the kit 18-55 F.28-4. Comparable combos, but the size, oh my! By the way, after playing with the fuji for 2 years, I am again using a Nikon DSLR (D810)... It's just too much of a joy to use, and the flexibility and results are well worth the weight.

https://flic.kr/p/zZpBS5

Separately, Flickr is getting better, should start using it again...

[João de Medeiros]

I feel the same about the A7 and my M-lenses. but with the voigtlander close adapter you can now focus a voigtlander 35mm f 1.2 or a Leica 90mm APO f2 closer than anything before.

https://instagram.com/p/86FigXHLvT/

[marcin wuu]

Allow me a bit of defence. Because it's not all that straightforward as that - total amount of light gathered by the bigger sensor (or total number of photons captured if you will) through a f2.0 lens will be more or less the same as the amount gathered by the smaller sensor through the 1.4 lens. It's one of the reasons bigger sensors are better in low light. They get more of it.

[So now you're saying that the f-number of a lens depends on the coverage of its image circle?! Again, I don't mean to pick on you personally, Marcin, but this is a perfect example of the kind of basic confusion and imprecise terminology I'm talking about. An f-number is a property of a LENS, and isn't changed by the size or sensitivity of the sensor or film you put it in front of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

--Mike]

[John Camp]

I would like somebody to give me a rational reason for the pentaprism hump on there Fuji and Olympus cameras. Is it really the most effective form-follows-function solution for packing more electronics into the least amount of space? Or is it because they want the cameras simply to look more like traditional SLRs? 'Cause I think it looks dumb. I even thought SLRs looked ungainly, but I understood the reason for it.

[BH]

I have to admit that the problem I had with the Fuji was the size of the 23 f/1.4. Yes, it was significantly smaller than my Canon 35 1.4, but it was large compared to the Fuji body. Someone mentioned wanting a slower, smaller 35 equivalent for Fuji and I agree completely. I mounted a small Voigtlander 35 to the X-T1 and the size and functionality was brilliant. Only problem is that it turned into a 55mm.

[BH]

One thing worth noting: When a camera or a lens is released nowadays the size and weight are more or less the only thing I look at. I'm more or less guaranteed that the image quality is going to be sufficient no matter what make or model. (Well, I do check the megapixels to make sure it doesn't have too many, but that's about it.)

[Frank]

All these little cameras are perfectly fine for static shots but they fall to pieces once you try to use them for sports, children, animals... anything moving and alive. An 8-year old prosumer CaNikon will let you shoot quite a bit faster with 80-90% in-focus. Every mirrorless I've tried putters along and maybe gets 10-20% if I'm lucky.

To me getting stuff in focus trumps most other factors.

[Rob]

Go to Camerasize.com and check out a comparison of the X-T1+ 23/1.4 and the FF Sony A7II+Loxia 35/2. It's very close. I would have posted it here, but I cannot figure out how to embed an image in my comment.

[Steve P.]

A raised viewfinder located centrally on the camera is a better fit for left-eyed shooters. It may not be it's raison d'etre but it's preferable to a VF in the top left corner, flush to the body. Also that XT-1 EVF is nice and big. Maybe it needs the VF hump to accommodate it. Just guessing, though.

[Pete F.]

It becomes a tougher call for me when you compare the Fuji to the 6D with the 40mm pancake

http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.422,380.345,ha,t

[Robin]

It's not old money. The other stops represent the light gathering f stop not the actual f stop. This is because the R lens has a circular graduated filter to improve the bokeh which also happens to reduce light transmission. So nothing to do with APS vs FF.

[Mark Harrington]

I can't wait until camersize.com add the just announced Leica SL to their database. Should be good for some giggles.

[Bruce Mc]

How important is shallow DOF compared to size? I ask because there are much smaller cameras than the Fujifilm out there...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#570.30,633.383,520.422,wa,t

Disclaimer: there are many reasons to prefer one camera over another.

[jim woodard]

Just got back from a week long trip with a Sony A7II and a Fuji XT-1 and five lenses. Their small size and light weight was like having one D700 and two lenses! And the files are great. However the speed of auto-focus leaves a lot to desire!

[Dan]

Glad the Fuji works well for you.
Hand size makes a big difference. Tried the Fuji cameras and the X-E1 and small bodies are just too small to use comfortably. The Canon 1 Series Pro bodies and Nikon 810 with grip feel fine.
If it works for you, enjoy it and take photos to satisfy yourself.

[ctein]

Dear Albano,

How is this in any way unfair?! This is an article about size. Not about format.

Size is one of several factors that is dissuading me from considering a full frame replacement for my Olympus OMD. My two favorite lenses are 45 mm (90 mm equivalent) and 75 mm (150 mm equivalent) f/1.8's. Even taking a stop-plus hit on maximum aperture, the size differences are huge. A 150 mm f/2.8 lens is twice as long and weighs three times as much as the 75 mm I have.

pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com
======================================

[Rick Baumhauer]

The centrally-placed EVF hump works reasonably well if you happen to be left eye dominant, typically locating your nose near the right edge of the screen. EVFs in the top-left corner put your nose in the middle of the screen.

[ctein]

Dear Marcin & Larry,

The primary function of f-number has always been to describe the light gathering capability of the lens. Aperture x Time equals Exposure. That's the fundamental and important characteristic. It is independent of format. For the same ISO, an f/4 lens is going to give you the same exposure time, regardless of the size of the format. Yes, a larger format lens gathers more photons, but they are distributed over a larger sensor/film area. It cancels out. That's why f-number is the useful concept it is.

This is very, very basic photography–– what you get taught in the first week in Photography 101 in school.

A **secondary** consequence of aperture is depth of field. It depends on aperture, subject distance, focal length, and acceptable blur circle. VERY roughly, you can scale it with format size–– double the format size and you need to roughly and I mean ROUGHLY double the f-number to get comparable depth of field.That rule fails, like all depth of field rules of thumb, under quite a range of circumstances, but it's a sometimes-useful starting point.

It's a consequence, though. It's NOT a definition. trying to make it one is ridiculous.

Larry, even if you want to try to make the case that it's “just another way of looking at it” (to put words in your mouth [smile]), very few people look at it that way. It is a very small minority of photographers (and photographs) that are primarily concerned with how shallow a depth of field one can get out of a lens. No doubt it's important to the two of you, but, really, you are in an extreme minority. Exposure, on the other hand, is important to ALL photographers. Substituting a harebrained and derivative “equivalency” for a useful parameter, to benefit a very few photographers at the expense of many, is not even a remotely sensible thing to do.

Just to show you how totally silly it sounds… Back in the day, when I was using a Pentax 67, my standard lens was the normal focal length 105 mm f/2.4. 6 x 7 format has almost twice the form factor of 35mm. In focal length equivalence, it was a 55 mm (eq) f/2.4 lens. If I had gone around claiming that it was equivalent to a 55mm f/1.2 nobody would ever, ever have taken me seriously as knowing the first thing about photography. I'd been laughed out of the club.

You guys aren't being laughed out of the club. You're only being corrected. It's a kinder gentler world. Take advantage of that. Learn.

pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com
======================================

[Nick Hunt]

When I decided a few months ago that I had come to the end of the line with my Canon 40D (still working well but the poor noise performance was starting the irk) I was prompted by TOP and other sights to look at mirrorless, and the Fuji line in particular. The penny dropped when I realised how close in size and weight the X-T1 is to my old Pentax ME, and that's what I now have. The handing and combination of solidity and delicacy takes me back to being a teenager getting into photography, and is a constant delight.

Also: what Steve P. said. I really want that 23mm f/2, the size and weight of the 18.

[Kevin Purcell]

@John Camp: "I would like somebody to give me a rational reason for the pentaprism hump on there Fuji and Olympus cameras."

It's because good (big apparent image) viewfinders require optics that require more depth (and larger eye lenses).

When the depth of the VF exceeds the thickness of the camera body then you can make them "overhang" a bit e.g. Panasonic GX7/GX8/G5 and others. Or stick them in a hump on the top of the camera possibly folding the optical path in the process.

So there are two wins here: an optical design one and a marketing one ("Hey, this looks like a Real Camera™").

[Gerry]

The Canon 35mm f/1.4 is certainly a beast. I decided to get the Canon 35mm f/2 IS instead, and I use it a lot. I like the photos I get with it and it's only about 10% larger and heavier than the Fuji 23mm f/1.4. If I really needed f/1.4 on a portable camera I'd be seriously looking at the Fuji, but f/2 is plenty for me.

[Mike Johnston]

Dennis,
You didn't leave an email address, so I can't contact you privately, but I didn't publish your comments because they are factually wrong. Please see Ctein's reply to Marcin and Larry.

Mike

[Kevin Purcell]

On the equivalence argument don't get hung up on "wide aperture" values. It's more useful to think about the "typical values" that both APS-C and full frame can reach rather than the "bokehlicious wide open lens on a bigger sensor" images as the former is what most people shoot most of the time.

For "equivalent images" i.e. same motion blur (same shutter speed) and same DOF (scale aperture by crop factor) the smaller camera will get crop factor**2 times more number of photons on a sensor that has 1/crop factor**2 are. That is both configurations get the same photon flux per unit area so the photon shot noise will be the same for both sensor sizes. This is true for all configurations that both cameras can reach.

The larger sensor camera will have to use an ISO that a crop factor higher to (recall the exposure triangle) e.g. for 35mm frame versus APS-C the 35mm frame will be shooting 1 stop higher ISO to give equivalent images.

There is no different in noise (or DoF or motion blur) between the images so you wonder why you're carrying a larger heavier camera with a bigger sensor.

There always are some (small) image differences not accounted in this simple model but they're all to do with the lens performance at different apertures (or diffraction).

[Mark Kinsman]

"..An f-number is a property of a LENS, and isn't changed by the size or sensitivity of the sensor or film you put it in front of."
Mike,
THANK YOU!!! I get so tired of my friends mis-using the F-number in relation to sensor size or bokeh. Time and again, I remind them it is a measure of light gathering, bokeh is secondary.

[Steve]

I have a BS in Mathematics and an MFA in Photography from back in the day when there weren't digital cameras. Mike and Ctein are absolutely correct. Please see Ctein's *secondary* section for a correct explanation of DOF both aesthetically and mathematically. I could not have done it better if I had tried 20 times.

It is amazing how much misinformation there is on the internet regarding this issue.

[Hugh]

5D3 and 35/1.4L II - 1620g.
XT-1 and 23/1.4 - 740g.

If a weight difference of 900g or 2 lbs was significant, I'd be lifting weights, not changing cameras. Unless what I really wanted to do was buy a new camera.

[marcin wuu]

Can't really say I didn't bring it down on me weary head by myself, but boy, does being explained the definition of exposure feel kinda strange. Like when you say something and everybody starts giving you those wary looks and edge away ever so slowly, so as not to seem impolite, and then you realise you're the guy with the biggest personal space at the party :-)

[Moose]

As a data point in the other direction, the one I live in:

Oly E-M5 II with Oly 17/1.8 lens = 519 g.
Fuji X-T1 with 23/1.4 = 740 g.

As I'm almost never looking for shallower DoF, I would be happy to trade 3/4 of an F-Stop for the smaller size and weight.

Based on my careful comparisons using DPR and IR studio test images, any meaningful difference in IQ between the E-M5 II and the Fuji X series images from Raw files is illusory.

[Marc]

I've yet to see or handle in the flesh an X-T1, though I've an X-E1 and a 5DMkII. I've only the 35/1.4 for the X-E1 and I've the cheap-and-cheerful 50/1.8 and 35/2 for the Canon for comparison. The X-E1 is definitely "right-sized" for me in this context and I have wondered about the X-T1 (maybe with its new 35/2). I do love myself some 5DMkII with 24-205/4L or 70-200/2.8L IS and it delivers the goods, but I find they take in me the motivational commitment of a 15-20km walk in the Australian Alps, or a trip to Bangkok, or... expeditions where the size of the camera is, in relative terms, a minor exertion*.

But that X-E1 with 35/1.4... I could live with just that or its "right-sized" familiars. And I probably should. But that's just me.

(*physical and mental - it's just my own subjective, "burden"-related thing)

[Paulo Bizarro]

Well, following the line of reasoning, an Olympus EP5 with the Olympus 17 f1.8 lens will be even smaller, and do the same thing (say with the external EVF attached). Nitpicks apart of course...

[Roger Bradbury]

I might have said this before here, but I think that a camera with the lens I have on it falls into just a few size categories. Within limits, the weight isn't too much of a problem for me. For you, any given camera and lens may fall into a different category.

These categories are:

a) Big and bulky. Needs a lot of looking after all the time. Think APS-C and full frame DSLRs, with any lens.

b) Needs a certain amount of looking after all the time; will not fit into a jacket pocket. Think 35mm SLRs with standard lenses or Micro 4/3 cameras with standard zooms.

c) Fits into a jacket pocket and needs little attention paid to it. Think 35mm compacts, Canon G16, Olympus Pen with a pancake lens.

d) Fits easily into a jeans pocket or small handbag. Can be ignored when not in use. Think most small digital cameras for non-enthusiasts.

Two cameras may be rather different in size, yet still be in the same category, or a camera with a different lens may change its category. In the end the question is, what am I prepared to do, to carry a camera around? This depends on what I’m doing; am I going out to take pictures, or am I doing something else but am taking the camera with me? It also depends on what mood I'm in.

Of course, I'm talking about when the camera is not in use, but if it's too much trouble to take around that day I will not be taking any photos.

As for depth of field, I'm usually looking for the maximum, not the minimum. APS-C gives me enough control for that, either way.

[Viktor]

It is true that the zony 35 1.4 is huge.
But if you are into manual focus and are willing to loose one stop of light, the combination below is similar size as the Fuji.

http://j.mp/1R8UGHA

[Larry Gebhardt]

Man, I never thought simply acknowledging that the aperture of a lens affects both exposure and the range of apparent focus (I'll stay away from DOF) and that someone might want to make decisions based on either of those properties (along with weight, size, flare, etc.) would be so controversial.

"Just to show you how totally silly it sounds… Back in the day, when I was using a Pentax 67, my standard lens was the normal focal length 105 mm f/2.4. 6 x 7 format has almost twice the form factor of 35mm. In focal length equivalence, it was a 55 mm (eq) f/2.4 lens. If I had gone around claiming that it was equivalent to a 55mm f/1.2 nobody would ever, ever have taken me seriously as knowing the first thing about photography. I'd been laughed out of the club."

I think if you're going to accept the concept of equivalent focal length as a shorthand for angle of view you should be equally willing to accept equivalent f/stop when talking about the range of apparent focus. My guess is you (Mike and Ctein) are unwilling to accept this generalization since it gets confusing since the "equivalence" doesn't extend to exposure as well.

Personally I find all of the equivalence concepts to be of dubious value and just add to the confusion in the long run. I bet we can all agree on that.

[Kodachromeguy]

http://j.mp/1PA50Xz

The Leica SL is now on the comparison tool. Wow, the Bismark has weighed anchor. Camerazilla is stalking the planet.

[Earl Dunbar]

In the first/lead picture, the one on the left is a camera. :) [ducking and hobbling away...]

[Remi]

The question is really what you value - I'd focus on the print quality - a 35mm film (or APS-C digital) will enlarge less well than 6x7 (or full frame digital) - so you might have to slower film (Plus-X instead of Tri-X or a lower f-stop 1.4 instead of 2.4 in Ctein's Pentax 67 example).

The word equivalence is the problem here...

[Steve P.]

Two more size related examples of internet-received wisdom that bug me; that a camera should be small enough to fit in your pocket, and easy to operate while holding in one hand.
People don't talk to me much at parties either. Can't think why!