Make the Switch?

<p>As always, I've come to Photo.net for some excellent advice.</p>

<p>I'm considering the move to mirrorless from Canon full frame, primarily for the reduction in weight. Currently, I shoot with the 5D3 and four "L" lenses...17-40, 24-105, 100 Macro and 100-400. This setup is ideal for what I normally shoot, landscapes and nature.</p>

<p>I'm currently looking at the new Fuji XT-2 body with comparable lenses to what I now have.</p>

<p>Am I crazy or does this possible switch seem to make sense to those of you utilizing the mirrorless system? Will I miss the resolution of FF or be completely satisfied with the move. I'm not really interested in the Sony system.</p>

<p>Any and all responses are appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Glenn</p>

<p>Don't imagine it is comparable, but some time ago, I bought a complete Ricoh GXR kit. Every lens module they made, two bodies, finders, and Nikon lens adapter, all will fit on a 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper. The system is very capable, and certainly tiny, light, and flexible. I use it as my "opportunity" kit, when I don't really plan to take photos but want the capability. I recently took a split kit on a trip, a Nikon FX and a couple of lenses and a GXR with the same. I hardly used the mirror less. When it comes down to "serious" photography, I prefer my DSLRS. That said, I have taken and posted a lot of very satisfactory photos done with the GXR. Possibly one of the new generation of mirror less would take over the primary role, but I think it is what you are accustomed to, in my case SLR / DSLR. If you do switch, it may take you some time to get used to the difference.</p>

<p>I went from Leica RF to Sony A7 and haven't regretted it, although the former system still gets mileage. I am not sure what it is about Sony FF that you don't like (and would be curious to know), but I was also a doubter for some time, before I tried Sony and Zeiss optics on the versatile Sony bodies that convinced me a future change would be worthwhile in my work. Not perfect, but what system is? What Sony and other FF mirrorless cameras really need to do in my humble opinion is to reduce the size of many of the mirrorless optics, to futrther enhance reduction in weight. The smaller sensor Fuji system seems to have advanced in that regard, but I have little on hands knowledge of it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not really interested in the Sony system.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then stay away from it if weight reduction is your primary goal. Many of the Sony/Zeiss lenses don't have any weight or size advantage over their DSLR counterparts. By selecting carefully, you can create a Sony system that is much smaller and lighter than what you currently have (and what you could put together with a DSLR) - but the question then becomes whether or not that system would serve your needs. One thing it will do for certain, reduce the weight of your wallet (not as much as buying into Leica would though).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Many of the Sony/Zeiss lenses don't have any weight or size advantage over their DSLR counterparts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True, but the same holds true for other system too. Indeed, I think the core of the response is "selecting carefully": it really depends on the cameras and lenses one needs. To support my decisions about the switch, I spent several hours (months in elapsed time, also because at the time the mirrorless lens lineups weren't complete) by preparing a spreadsheet and filling it with the specifications of my old system (Nikon) and a number of possible variants with Sony, Fuji, MFT. I could first exclude combinations that didn't give me a weight advantage (MFT was excluded first, Sony and Fuji were substantially on par), then I went and read all the reviews to check that I wasn't going to lose the quality. It was a long thing, but in the end I think I picked a good solution.</p>

<p>Can't imagine that there would be a debate of a weight differential between full frame DSLRs and Mirrorless. The jury is in, mirrorless is all about weight loss and the XT-1, XT-2 camera's define that cause to the nth degree. There are short telephoto lenses in full frame line ups that are double the weight of Fuji X camera's! To make the leap to APS from full frame, you might ask yourself how big are your interests in printing? Size and weight interests have been a real issue with Photographers and the mirrorless realm has answered the call along with build quality and superb ergonomics. I too was at the precipice in deciding on mirrorless, and went with Fuji. Fuji optics are a huge factor to consider. Fuji's willingness to listen to Photographers is another. Just look at the differences between the XT-1 and XT-2 and how Fuji made the changes intelligently. I'm particularly impressed with the readiness and portability of my XT-1 on my shoulder when traveling, or hiking in the field doing landscape work. The profile of this camera has eliminated hurdles in getting the shot. My situation is a little different when making the leap. The Fuji X-system is my first leap from the film realm to the digital realm. So my first pick in the digital realm is Fuji, a long and drawn out decision process that for me it was image quality from the Fuji X-Trans sensor that made the difference, and now with the XT-2 even better. </p>

<p>Thank you all for the replies. Sony doesn't interest me much due to the overall size of their lenses, which equate to pretty much the same as what I currently have.</p>

<p>I rarely print larger than 16x24, so a crop sensor shouldn't be an issue, even with landscapes. In fact, perhaps MFT's could even be an option with Olympus. However, all the research I have already done leads me to the Fuji X system with their stellar lenses.</p>

<p>I really want to pull the trigger, I'm just so concerned that I will regret it later with the quality I am accustomed to.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone!</p>

<p>you are not crazy, many people enjoy a lighter camera system and the good thing is a mirrorless can use almost any lens (with appropriate adapter)<br>

<strong><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless/">www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless</a></strong></p>

An important consideration would be if the AF performance of the Fuji is sufficient for your needs compared

with the 5D3, specifically continuous focus, tracking, and frame rate. Does the Fuji flash system currently meet

your need? How much is the weight savings of a your contemplated Fuji system compared with Canon FF (or even Canon APSC)? The Fuji 100-400 weighs about the same as a Canon 100-400 MkI (somewhat less than the new Mk2), though has

longer reach on an APSC sensor. At the end of the day, FF sensors are about 2.36x larger (in area) than

APSC, with the inherit benefits of a larger sensor and larger/heavier lenses (especially pro zooms).

<blockquote>

<p>Currently, I shoot with the 5D3 and four "L" lenses...17-40, 24-105, 100 Macro and 100-400. This setup is ideal for what I normally shoot, landscapes and nature.<br>

I'm currently looking at the new Fuji XT-2 body with comparable lenses to what I now have.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fuji lenses aren't completely comparable to Canon across the board, but a close equivalent might mean 10-24, 18-135 and 100-400. There's no equivalent to the 100 macro; there is the 60/2.4 which goes to 1:2, and the upcoming 80/2.8, which won't be in production until 2017. That would be a decent kit for landscapes and nature, assuming you're ok with the Fuji colors. However, if i were you, i'd consider some of the Fuji primes, which are one of the biggest reasons people get into the Fuji system. You may also consider the Fuji 55-200 instead of the 100-400, which is a huge honker of a lens and not all that well reviewed, considering the price.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Am I crazy or does this possible switch seem to make sense to those of you utilizing the mirrorless system? Will I miss the resolution of FF or be completely satisfied with the move.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it could make sense, although the weight savings will be less if you stick to zooms. Only you can say whether you will be satisfied with 24mp APS-C's resolution, but unless you shoot crazy high ISOs and/or print extra large, i wouldnt worry about this too much. The XT2 has no anti-aliasing filter, so it may seem sharper than the 5d3.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>An important consideration would be if the AF performance of the Fuji is sufficient for your needs compared with the 5D3, specifically continuous focus, tracking, and frame rate. Does the Fuji flash system currently meet your need?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I actually don't think focus tracking would matter all that much for nature and landscapes, unless you are trying to track tumbleweeds or prairie dogs. the XT2 actually has a higher frame rate than the 5D3 btw.</p>

<p>Sony RX10 Mk3. 20mp, 20-600 zoom. Its so popular its on backorder.</p>

<p>16 x 24 with a crop sensor is possible, but it is very near or past the limit and I think that this would be particularly so with landscapes or other images requiring high detail out to the edges of the frame. Cameras on tripods and careful exposure can perhaps do that with a crop sensor, but how many pictures would be made under such ideal conditions? If you need zoom lenses for much of your photography then it is granted that DSLRs and FF mirrorless systems will give you perhaps more weight and size than you may want. In that case, I would think about a crop sensor camera like the Fujis and settle for somewhat smaller prints. Each photographer has different needs and satisfying them can require compromises.</p>

<p> </p>

Your post implies that you are going to switch,

i.e. Dispose of your existing gear. I suggest

you try the Fuji with whatever lens equivalent

you use the most before selling your other

gear. After a few months you will have a better

idea of whether it will work for you as a

replacement. Personally I find a small mirror

less a great complement but would have been

very unhappy if I'd tried an out and out

replacement.

<p>Don't sell. Buy the basic kit in mirrorless, but don't go hog wild with a bunch of new lenses. Above all, keep your Canon gear. I can almost guarantee that you will regret it if you get rid of it.</p>

<p>I shoot some with my Sony mirrorless gear, but I find myself going back to my Nikon gear most of the time.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>When I switched, I didn't sell Nikon stuff before being able to try the Sony replacements. So, in general, I second the advice about not selling the old stuff immediately.<br>

If you live in a country where there's an affordable rental service, it might be a good idea to use it to try some expensive stuff before buying. Of course, it all depends on the actual costs.<br>

Unfortunately I don't have any such service in my country, so I had to carefully evaluate and then risk the buy before trying every single item.</p>

<p>I got Fuji last month, really love it. </p>

<p>I think you're on the right track to move to a mirrorless system.</p>

<p>I don't want to repeat the advice given so far. However, I can tell you that the Fuji sensors are sharper than a lot of full-frame DSLRs. I can't say it's my absolute favourite system but I don't know why anyone asides from sports photographers would choose a DSLR. YMMV.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I'm considering the move to mirrorless from Canon full frame, primarily for the reduction in weight."</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Will I miss the resolution of FF or be completely satisfied with the move."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with Greg Alton's suggestion to try the Fuji mirrorless for a few months before deciding if you want to get rid of your Canon equipment. In my case, the mirrorless and the dSLR work well together.</p>

<p> </div>

<p>No, a priori, I don't think you are crazy. I think it is what I would consider too. I'd also agree to holding on to your DSLR for a while to check it works out for you. I also think you will have plenty of resolution with the new 24MP sensor for great landscapes.</p>

<p>I went from a Nikon D800E with its 36MP of impressive resolution to a 16MP Fuji X T-1 and have not looked back. I regularly print 13x20 images and find them to be impressively sharp and detailed. My Nikon "holy trinity" zooms, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 plus the D800E body weigh almost 10lb, the equivalent Fuji set, 10-24, 16-55, and 50-140 weigh about 4lb less. That difference is pretty noticeable when hiking or traveling. I understand the depth of field differences with APS-C, and that the 10-24 Fuji is an f/4 lens but it all works pretty well. I looked carefully at the Sony A7RII, even rented one, and thought it was a great camera and system but it is true that their top of the line full frame f/2.8 lenses are large, heavy, and expensive. Sony is not really a major difference in weight from the Nikon/Canon equivalents. I agree with other posters, rent or buy a Fuji (wait for the X T-2 with its 24MP and its other great features such as dual card slots, which Sony does not have...yet) and see if it meets your needs. Unless you do sports, it's likely the Fuji will meet your needs. I also have a bunch of Fuji primes some of which are jewel-like in their size and construction, and super sharp. Take your time, as someone else said, if you buy, don't get a full set of lenses right away. You might like the Sony too, there might be something exciting at Photokina in September, only a month away. Whatever you do, have fun.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My Nikon "holy trinity" zooms, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 plus the D800E body weigh almost 10lb</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If one is concerned about weight, I wouldn't use those so called "holy trinity" Nikkor lenses. I too have the 14-24mm/f2.8, which I rarely use unless I need to shoot indoors under tight space. Its bulging front element makes it inconvenient to use and vulnerable. Instead, I typically travel with a mostly plastic 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S, which is optically excellent and light weight. I also use the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR for its longer reach and the f4 version of the 70-200mm AF-S VR if I hike. I use the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR for indoor parties and performances.</p>

<p>For the most part, the true weight and bulk reduction comes from switching to smaller formats, i.e. from the 35mm format (24x36mm) to APS-C or even Micro 4/3.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My Nikon "holy trinity" zooms, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 plus the D800E body weigh almost 10lb, the equivalent Fuji set, 10-24, 16-55, and 50-140 weigh about 4lb less.<br>

If one is concerned about weight, I wouldn't use those so called "holy trinity" Nikkor lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well, this thread is about weight savings from switching camera brands, so a 40% reduction from Nikon to Fuji is fairly significant. The OP is talking about switching from Canon to Fuji, however, so mentioning the Nikon trinity isn't going to be an exact equivalent comparison. And, i said this before, but where Fuji really shines are in its prime lenses. the 10-24/4 is pretty highly regarded for a WA zoom, but the 14/2.8 is a featherweight in terms of weight and a heavyweight in terms of optical quality. the 18-135 is the closest thing Fuji has to a superzoom, and is somewhat of a convenience lens. the 100-400 is a super-tele on APS-C, but it weighs slightly more than 3 lbs. And at $1900, it's pretty expensive for a lens whose optical performance is not as good as the Canon 100-400. <br>

<br>

If i was the OP, i would dip into the Fuji waters cautiously, with perhaps the 10-24 or 14 and 1-2 primes, such as the 35/1.4 or 56/1.2. I'm not convinced that thinking of mirrorless systems as equivalents to full-frame or DSLR is the best way to go about it, as mirrorless has somewhat different strengths and weaknesses. If you think about it as an alternative system instead, you might be more pleased with what it can do. Also, if i was looking solely to save weight compared to a FF DSLR, i would include M4/3 in my search, since the greatest weight savings will be found there. </p>

<p>I'm talking about the highest quality lenses, be they primes or zooms and that's what the Nikon or Canon lenses can be. I'm happy that Shun has both the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 AND the f/4 version, but I could not justify that. Others may disagree but I think how large one expects to print is among the most important considerations. If one just posts on the web, almost any point and shoot will do the job. But if one wants to print for exhibition or oneself, the lenses are the most important part of the decision equation and Fuji's are among the best. I also tried micro 4/3 but found that there was a bit more noise than I liked even at base ISO. Many excellent images are made with micro 4/3 and I'm certainly not dissing it. Many people, myself included feel that sensor real estate is the ultimate arbiter of quality and if I could, I'd have a Phase or Hasselblad but cost and size preclude that. I have found that, for me at least, APS-C is the sweet spot between too big and too small with all the other implications. Do what feels right for you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>well, this thread is about weight savings from switching camera brands, so a 40% reduction from Nikon to Fuji is fairly significant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a misleading comment because the weight savings is mainly the result of switching to a smaller format. Of course a 50-140mm lens is lighter than a 70-200mm with the same maximum aperture, but the 50-140 is the "equivalent" because of the switch from FX to APS-C, not because of camera brands or SLR vs. mirrorless.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm talking about the highest quality lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So am I. IMO Nikon's 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR is every bit as good as their f2.8 version (in fact I own both f2.8 versions also), but being f4, it is naturally smaller and lighter, and it also won't work as well under indoor, low-light conditions. Furthermore, the 14-24mm/f2.8 had way too many limitations that it is not a lens I use much, even though I have had it since 2008, shortly after it was introduced.</p>

<p>Again, if one wants to reduce weight, the real answer is to go to a smaller format. And of course when other factors being equal, the smaller the format, the less light will hit the sensor so that you'll face more limitations in low-light conditions and more noise. Photography as well as life is full of compromises; that is nothing new. It is up to each individual to decide what the right compromises are for that person.</p>

<p>Fuji has a long history of making excellent sensors as well as lenses. The Hasselblad H system uses Fujinon lenses, for example. It might be the right system for you, but one needs to get it for the right reasons.</p>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=20594">Karim Ghantous</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 01, 2016; 07:25 a.m.</p>

 

<p>I think you're on the right track to move to a mirrorless system.<br>

I don't want to repeat the advice given so far. However, I<strong> can tell you that the Fuji sensors are sharper than a lot of full-frame DSLRs</strong>. I can't say it's my absolute favourite system but I don't know why anyone asides from sports photographers would choose a DSLR. YMMV.<br>

...<br>

So some say but i have not see ANY hard evidence of this ..can you show me evidence of this ? ...however if anyone intrested i have irrefutable hard evidence that shows that a X-trans sensor will not resolve the fine detail of a APS-c bayer sensor </p>