« Micro 4/3 Flexes Its Muscles | Main | Camera Size »

Thursday, 07 January 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

So? The Fuji is aimed at the regular photographer, while the Nikon is aimed at the sports and wildlife photographer who needs the combination of reach and continuous AF that at the moment only crop-sensor DSLRs can deliver. Different beasts.

As far as GAS is concerned, I'm currently fighting the urge to want the Sony RX1RII. I would be fighting a similar urge for the Olympus 300mm f/4 lens you wrote about yesterday, if it wasn't for the fact that we first need a camera that that lens can be used on for fast action. Hopefully later this year.

Mike: My antidote for GAS is to take out my current gear and fondle it for a few minutes. Usually works.... To combat new car lust, I lovingly hand-wash my current ride and give it a good waxing. I re-bond with it and it remembers to continue to be good to me. Sort of like a momma seal and her pup.

I haven't shot Nikon for a number of years, but I have to say, that D500 looks really sexy....

Mike this is an excellent comparison between the D500 and the Fuji with the same size sensor. In addition, Fuji has developed some very fine prime lenses for the XT-1, and Nikon has virtually abandoned the DX prime market. It makes no sense to switch from a Fuji to a Nikon DX. I had a D300 and like a lot of folks wanted to upgrade with DX but went for the D700 instead that lead to a D800 and ultimately a D750. A great camera to be sure but too large and bulky for travel. Thus the Fuji XT-1 with a couple primes fit perfectly into a small camera bag and stores nicely under a seat in an airplane. Thanks for the comparison you cured my GAS for the Nikon D500. All the best in 2016

I am trying a new method for managing my GAS - all purchases have to be funded by sales of other equipment first. So far it has quenched my thirst for new shiny things, streamlined my kit and without any noticeable impact on my wallet (don't tell my wife that I didn't really need the other kit!).

I'm in the same boat as you, Mike. Wanted the A7II until dissuaded by its size and weight with lens attached. Saw the D500 announcement and fantasized about switching ASAP back to Nikon - but, again, put off by size and weight. (My wallet is out right now celebrating.) Even then, though, I didn't imagine just how much bigger the D500 is than the X-T1 until I saw your post. My GAS nerve is completely relaxed now - at least until the XPro2 appears (and the X-T2 - I do hope Fuji will continue to progress with low-light focussing and focus speed - the one thing I miss in a high-spec DSLR).

The Fuji X70 looks interesting. A competitor for the Ricoh GR/GR2? The promised optional viewfinder is especially intriguing.

GAS? I always get it at exactly the wrong time! At the end of last year broke down and bought a D750 so I could get the autofocus performance from my Nikkor lenses that I'd been missing with the Sony A7II. Now it looks like not only will there soon be adapters that will autofocus Nikon lenses on Sony but a rumor of one that will also autofocus M mount manual lenses on Sony!! As soon as I sell my Fuji XT-1 and lenses, Fuji will have a soft ware fix for their slow focus issues! I guess I'm single handily improving camera features for everyone else!For Mikes sake, at least, I bought the D750 through TOP link!

Typo: in the third bullet point, "weights" should be "weighs."

Why not take your comparison a step further? A Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX zoom weighs 753 grams, has a 77mm filter thread, no image stabilization, and a street price of roughly $1500. The equivalent Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS weighs 330 grams, has a 58mm filter thread, has image stabilization, and sells for $700. Both cover the same format, both have a fixed f/2.8 maximum aperture, and both are excellent performers, yet the Nikkor is twice as heavy and twice as expensive. I will leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions.

Shiny new technology is truly seductive.

While I don't have great appreciation for my current gear, I do have an inner 20-year-old who who dug a very deep hole with credit cards. After filling that hole, this financially responsible 40-year-old is able to tell my financially-oblivious, inner 10-year-old to shut the **** up.

It's a no-brainer for me, but perhaps not for others. I see no point in carrying a camera as big as a D750 with a sensor only half as large.

GAS is worse among older guys? I'm pretty sure if we compare your current self with your younger self the dollars spent on camera gear, or camera and audio gear, will prove its an affliction of the young.

[Hi Josh. You haven't been around me much recently. Want to buy my two Rolleiflex 6008AFs? --Mike

If you want to really be dazzled, add the Sony RX100 III or IV to the size comparison, and use the "add a lens" option to put an equivalent 24-70 lens on the Nikon and the Fuji. I have the X-T1 and recently got the RX100 III; I'm not sure I'll be using the Fuji much anymore; the Sony is that good, never mind the huge size difference.

I am familiar with the affliction of gear acquisition syndrome, having been a longtime sufferer myself. Strangely, ever since I bought my 5D Mk III, I haven't had a significant relapse. I keep looking for reasons to be dissatisfied and re-enable my inner child, but so far it keeps impressing me. I take photos in low light, use high ISO, take photos outdoors and use low ISO, then I look at the good shots, and they're...good. At least good enough for me. Are there occasions when I wish I could shoot noise free at ISO 12,800? Yep. Do they occur often enough to spend $3K again? Not yet. I get really close to suffering again when I look at lenses though, which is a considerably more serious affliction when it comes to financial effects. When Olympus can get 5D Mk III performance from that m4/3 sensor, I'll be back in the pool of sufferers. My EM1 is good, but not fantastic. Did I mention I'm still not totally free of gear acquisition syndrome? Keep up the good work Mike :)

MIke, nice to hear you been able to resist the latest round of GAS...I know it's siren song for many of us (particularly guys).

Personally, I'm going to wait on the X-Pro2 until there is some really good high ISO noise performance testing data is available for the new 24 megapixel sensor. The last gen (or is it the current gen?) 24 megapixel APS-C sensors did not have the noise performance at high ISO of the 16 megapixel sensors when last I looked, so I'm waiting.....

On top of that, I have to say I am very, very, very happy with my current Fuji X cams, X-T1, X-Pro1 and X100T, and those amazing Fuji lenses, and do not feel any GAS pangs (pun intended) or need to upgrade.

Then again, I'm a guy who is still successfully using a Canon 1D MkII N for pro motorsports photojournalism.

When you have $ to spend on new toys, you can't help but imbibe occasionally, some... considerably moreso. When you don't, you learn to make do with what you have. I'm fortunate in that I can sustain my needs with a hybrid film/digital workflow.

There are many digital toys I'm tempted by to this very day, do I need them- no. Not saying everyone could or should get by in said manner- just lucky I can.

As an old(er) guy with a beard, I have to ask myself, "Why do I keep reading these things?" I mean, that ten-year-old in me, (my wife would say "younger"), gets restive enough and doesn't need outside stimulation. Please let him stay asleep. Talk about style, philosophy, books, the good old film days, your house, anything else, even pool!

[I hate to say it but I'm into snooker now. The Masters starts on the 10th, oh boy. --Mike]

My inner ten-year-old wants to go outside and play...

Somebody smarter than me once told me that serenity is wanting the things you have.

Thank god I still want my Canon 5D Mark II ... though I must admit that new Sony is sorely tempting.

Happy New Year!
Richard Howe

That Fujifilm would be nicer to carry around, but for shooting pictures, I know which one I would pick.

[The Fuji? --Mike

(Just kidding you.)]

My digital cameras are now so old they are like classic cars which the guys are drooling over. What is old is new again.

I think the X-Trans magic will still be there, but the X-Pro2 is a lot of camera.

It should make a decent sports/action camera as it sports the same sensor found in the Sony A6000.

For most shooting, the X-Pro2 won't have much advantage over the X-T1.

It is a good thing indeed to want what you have. I have gone through several rounds of G.A.S. and every time* after I go through what is most important to me in term of features, capabilities and compromises, I keep coming back to the E-M1 being the right camera for me.
* Except when I bought an E-M5 mkII. At least I didn't stray too far. But I sold it and reunited with the E-M1 once it got silent shutter in FW4.0.

I thought GAS is what TOP runs on.

I suppose it's not biting the hand that feeds you if, as I suspect, a post like this has no negative effect on our collective GAS.

Moose: "That's kinda interesting, but I don't really have any need for it. But then, it'll help Mike if I buy one. And maybe I could use it to ..." \;~)>

[Nah, I don't see my job as making people buy gear they wouldn't otherwise buy. I just like it when they use my links for gear they are going to buy ANYWAY.

Besides, these recent two posts are about my GAS, not yours. --Mike]

" whether the new 24-MP Fuji X-Trans CMOS III sensor in the Fuji X-Pro2 ... will have the same magic as the existing X-Trans sensor, and whether I'll be tempted to upgrade when the X-T2 comes out."

Is this the time to remind you of that MP numbers are in essence resolution squared?

The Panny GX8 upped the µ4/3 ante to 20 MP. Wheee! But that's only a 12% in crease in linear resolution. And that theoretical increase will seldom, if ever, be noticeable, even to us pixel peepers.

For your Fuji 16=>24 MP increase, that's not 50%, but 25% or less, depending on the actual pixel dimensions.

GAS-X Moose

A lot of the smaller bodies are excellent - but - too many times they don't fit larger hands. No matter what they can do and how whiz-bang they are, if they are too small to use comfortably I don't buy.
Still love the full size Canon and Nikon Pro bodies. Size and 'feel' are a big part of handling and too small is just that -"too small".

I'll buy you a rollei and you get me a Leica Monochrome? I would go play with one tomorrow, CES, but that seems like a pointless exercise in torturing myself.

[Hi Josh. That's actually a lesson I have learned, though it might surprise you to hear me say it. I don't covet anything from the L-company. I used an M6 for 2-3 years before Zander was born and an M4 (Nick's, borrowed--you remember?) for one year, and I wouldn't trade those experiences for anything, but I just know I'd never be happy either paying or having paid Leica's hefty "exclusivity tax." But then, the A7RII is too expensive for me too, so I'm not Leica's target market. --Mike]

The Fuji X70 rumors say it will have a lens and sensor that are the same size as the Nikon Coolpix A. Note that Nikon is selling refurb Coolpix A's for $299.


Afraid Gordon Lewis's lens comparison is not fair.

That Fuji lens quoted is not a fixed f/2.8. A better comparison would've been with Fuji's 16-55mm f/2.8 lens, that weighs in at 655g. Still 100g better, but not quite so different from the old Nikkor.


I still have and love my Leicas. I don't use them, but I have them. I'm an unabashed Leica lover. Have been for 20 years and I doubt it'll ever change. Having said that, $7,300 for a 50mm f2? I'm not their target market either, and sadly won't probably ever be again, the wife has refused to let me sell the kids. Now if Leica wants to give me one...(I gotta try.)

The Nikon D5500 is almost the same weight as the Fuji (few grams here or there, has a tilty/flippy screen AND a built-in flash and delivers slightly higher resolution than that new D500....just sayin'....

Battery also lasts twice as long as the Fuji, it feels much better in hand than the Fuji and the touch screen really helps with the lack of buttons; I do wish Nikon made some nice primes for DX though. Regardless, I am seriously tempted to get rid of the Fuji and lenses given the features of the D5500 (along with the compatible Nikon equipment I've accumulated over the years). After all, it was only nostalgia and the desire for a smaller camera that led me to Fuji when the X-T1 was announced. The D5500 actually feels nicer in my hand and I will put money in the bank by switching. (But I will miss those primes....;)

I think you're 100% correct, Mike, at least from the point of view of aspiring to ever-more excellent images. From the point of view of "maybe this is good enough already" there are lots of options, and people in that camp can dismiss this.

My most dramatic illustration of this came from my first years with DSLRs. I had been playing around with digital point and shoots at the "prosumer" level, but it was just playing, and I knew it. I was not going to get a fine print. Then I splurged on a Nikon D70 in 2004. Both the sensor and lenses were far better than what I had been using, but even the 18-70 kit lens that came with it easily out-resolved the sensor. I got some other lenses without being too picky, because they too were pretty much all better than that early sensor. As I got new bodies but kept those lenses, there was a crossover that I didn't notice. My sensors were better than the lenses in some situations. All lenses have sweet spots, and some lenses have weak areas that can be pretty bad, showing weakness at certain apertures and focal lengths (for zooms). After a few body upgrades I had some lenses that were far weaker than the bodies they were on. In the years between 2005 and say 2011 or so, as the bodies caught up to and then overtook the lenses, it was not completely clear to me that it was happening. It's pretty embarrassing to admit, but I really didn't have a handle on what was going on in this regard. These days I pixel peep and scrutinize and have very high standards, and I feel like I'm very in tune with it. But in those early years I didn't really have high expectations of digital photography anyway. Mostly my images were getting better with technique and equipment, but I guess the main point is that a lot of my exposures could have made even better images or made prints with a whole lot less post-processing fiddling. (I've mentioned in previous posts that DxO is essential for my older images, and this is why).

I didn't really even notice how bad one of my lenses was until my wife and I were photographing an event side by side. I had a much better camera body than her, but it turned out she had a nicer lens on her camera. I still wasn't noticing; these were just photos of an event, but my daughter looked at both sets together and said, "Kate's are better than yours!!" And it was dramatically true. Changed my life as a digital photographer, right there.

There is another discussion I can tease about the lenses not just in terms of pure quality but as catalysts of ways of seeing. A nice prime can be a vision of the world; we can tune our vision to see the possibilities in front of us to match these single lenses. My Nikkor Fx 85mm has very nice bokeh and generally has a chance to display that quality if the subject is not far away and in bright light. I know that lens will see that way, and it's the first one I pull out of my bag if I want to isolate a subject and have some nice softness. A good zoom has its visions too; for example I know the MFT Olympus Pro 12-40 at all shorter focal lengths and stopped down a bit will be very sharp and have great depth of field -- a completely different vision from the 85 Fx lens.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007