Fuji X-Pro 2 with Nikon Lenses?

<p>The XPro2 has a magnesium body, which is able to withstand the stress of heavy lenses in normal handling. If there is a tripod foot on the lens, you might want to use that if the camera were mounted on a tripod. The same would be true of a full sized Nikon DSLR (my D3, for example). That's just common sense, to limit stress on the tripod socket if nothing else. I don't try to hold my Nikon 70-200 by the body only, but because it would be awkward to manipulate without supporting the lens. I have no problem carrying it on a strap or with one hand until I raise it into position. I do the same with my Sony.</p>

<p>While the XPro2 might look like a "rangefinder" camera, it has a hybrid viewfinder as well, and is perfectly capable of handling longer lenses.</p>

<p>The question is not one of looks, rather whether one must abandon or replace expensive lenses. The answer to that is generally "no." To get the best out of the Fuji, you would ultimately want lenses made for that camera. Please spare us this obsession that a light camera is only useful in a lightweight configuration. The fact is, you can use it heavy or light, depending on your choice of lenses. However you'll never make a D5 any lighter or smaller than what it is. Whatever gets the job done.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>While the XPro2 might look like a "rangefinder" camera, it has a hybrid viewfinder as well, and is perfectly capable of handling longer lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i already pointed this out. however, pointing this out is missing the point. every single review of the XP2 ive read, as well as Fuji's own design team's published comments, clearly state the camera is designed to work best with shorter lenses. For example, Fuji makes a vertical grip for the XT1, but not for the XP2. Whether you choose to acknowledge this fact or not is more attitude than practicality.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Please spare us this obsession that a light camera is only useful in a lightweight configuration. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps we need to review the OP's remarks which launched this thread, where he clearly indicates the problem with his current kit is its heaviness and bulk. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>the only thing stopping me is the weight of the camera, <strong>most of the times I don't bother carrying my camera because its too heavy</strong> to carry around for a night out with friends or family.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Obviously, replacing a 7-lb kit with a 5-lb kit doesn't completely mitigate this issue. OTOH, an XT10+18-55 would weigh 1.5 lbs. while providing 80% of the functionality of the larger kit. An XP2 would weigh around 100g more. </p>

If I'm not mistaken, the Tamron 24-70 has the built-in motor (pretty sure for the VC model), so it ought to work with a D3x00 - but I might be wrong in which case indeed the plan might make less sense.

<p>the D3300 is exactly 300g lighter than a D600. Not a huge weight savings there. however, the 24-70+80-200 combo will <em>always</em> weigh 5 lbs. Even if the Tamron has a focus motor, unless the OP has the rarer 80-200 with AF-S, that lens will not AF on a D3300. Which to me would be highly problematic. To me, getting a somewhat lighter Nikon body and using the same exact heavy/bulky lenses doesnt solve the problem of the kit being too large/heavy for casual carry. I think i mentioned this before, but i have a Nikon FX set-up with 24-70+70-200, as well as a lighter Fuji kit with several primes and 18-55. there's no question what i would rather carry for long periods of time. </p>

<p>I kind of feel like this discussion has become a bit circular, since we are now re-discussing things which have already been discussed. The bottom line is that you can't significantly lighten up your kit by using the same heavy lenses which were the issue in the first place. You can maybe shave 1/3rd to 2/3rds of a lb. by swapping the FX body for a DX body, but you can't reduce the weight of those two zooms. </p>

<p>In the beginning, just about every purchaser of a mirrorless camera thinks they'll use their "legacy" lenses with the new camera. As time goes by, with few exceptions, nearly everyone ends up using the manufacturer's lenses, primes or zooms. Unless you enjoy hassles, and manual focus, and problems with wide angles (eg Leica wides on Sony A7's), you'll likely succumb. After all, making images is what we do, not fussing with adapters. I had an Olympus OM mirrorless and bought Leica and Nikon adapters, I used them initially but soon used only the Olympus lenses. I now use a Fuji X T-1 and initially bought adapters for it too, but now have Fuji's "holy trinity," 10-24, 16-55, 50-140 and rarely even use my Fuji primes, as lovely as they are. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I kind of feel like this discussion has become a bit circular, since we are now re-discussing things which have already been discussed. <br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That never stopped you before. Oh wait! You prefer to parse other peoples' responses, expose them for the errors they commit (in your opinion) and restate your own.<br>

<br>

Perhaps if you printed the OP and used a yellow highlighter you would come to the point more quickly. If your opinions weren't always so right, perhaps you could accept another point of view.<br>

<br>

In summary, the OP would like a lighter camera (which includes lenses) yet have the ability to use his current Nikon and Nikon-compatible lenses. He seems to like the XPro2, which is a small, light camera with a good variety of high quality lenses by the same manufacturer. He would like a camera more convenient for hobby photography and easier to carry. You could do worse than choosing an XPro2.<br>

<br>

It wouldn't be my choice, but my needs are different. I'm trying to see it from the OP's point of view, rather than as an excuse to spend someone else's money.<br>

<br>

Eric Brody makes an excellent point. Adapted lenses are okay up to a point, but native lenses are a lot more convenient. You can do it in stages with an XPro2 (or other mirrorless camera). With Nikon bodies, you're stuck with Nikon or Nikon-wannabee lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Eric Brody makes an excellent point. Adapted lenses are okay up to a point, but native lenses are a lot more convenient.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this exact point has been made already several times during this thread. that's what i mean by circular discussion. in this situation, the OP's standard zoom isn't ideal for adaptation due to lack of aperture dial. moreover, using that and his other zoom on a Fuji body will still leave him with a heavy, bulky set-up -- which is counter-intuitive to the thread's topic, i.e., going lighter. that's simply not possible in a meaningful way, as long as you're still carrying 5 lbs of lenses, and long lenses at that. <br>

<br>

if i was the OP, i would meander over to the <a href="http://www.fujix-forum.com/">Fuji X-Forum</a>, and ask a wider sampling of actual Fuji shooters their opinions on the XP2 or other Fuji bodies and the pros and cons of using adapted Nikon lenses on Fujis in general, as well as those two specific F-mount zooms. You might get some of the same responses, but at least you'll get a larger demographic of people who have actually used Fuji cameras. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"However, the only thing stopping me is the weight of the camera, most of the times I don't bother carrying my camera because its too heavy to carry around for a night out with friends or family."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The weight and bulk of a camera is usually not an issue for me. I will carry an 8x10 view camera, a heavy tripod, and a case full of cut sheet film holders if that is what the job requires.</p>

<p>However, during the times when weight and bulk is a problem, my Fuji X camera is not the first camera I grab. Instead, I will carry a micro 4/3 camera if I need a small camera with interchangeable lenses or I will carry a compact digital camera (such as a Canon G15) if I only need one camera with one lens.</p>

<p>If that is still too much weight and bulk, I will not take a camera ... I will just take my cell phone.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> a night out with friends or family.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>to me, this is the crux of the issue. it's not that this application requires a full-frame body with two long zooms. indeed, almost any compact could suffice for this, including a small DSLR, an X-camera, a m4/3 setup, an LX100, Ricoh GR, or an RX100. What you really want here is a camera which doesnt get in the way, and lends itself to casual/candid shooting opportunities. i dont even think interchangeable lenses and/or a zoom lens is required. For me, the X100 with its 35/2 equiv. lens handles this well and is jacket-pocketable. the XE1+18-55 is a bit more obtrusive, but essentially replaces a larger DSLR with standard zoom. a small form factor is a key component in candid shooting, since my 24-70 Nikon can be intimidating. i guess at this point, my advice is not to overthink this too much. The OP may even find that the D600 with just the 50/1.4, which he already has, is enough.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if i was the OP, i would meander over to the <a href="http://www.fujix-forum.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Fuji X-Forum</a>, and ask a wider sampling of actual Fuji shooters their opinions on the XP2 or other Fuji bodies and the pros and cons of using adapted Nikon lenses on Fujis in general, as well as those two specific F-mount zooms. You might get some of the same responses, but at least you'll get a larger demographic of people who have actually used Fuji cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure I'll head over to those forums as well and see what they have to say, though the responses will be the same. That for a short time frame I can use adapters on my Nikon lenses but eventually I will end up buying Fuji lenses.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You could do worse than choosing an XPro2.<br /><br />It wouldn't be my choice, but my needs are different. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Edward, what are those needs?<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The weight and bulk of a camera is usually not an issue for me. I will carry an 8x10 view camera, a heavy tripod, and a case full of cut sheet film holders if that is what the job requires.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same here, if I go on photo walks or workshops I carry my full kit + manfro tripod. Though now I'm trying to reduce the amount I carry and make due with just 1 lens which most of the time is the 24-70.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a small form factor is a key component in candid shooting, since my 24-70 Nikon can be intimidating.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly, the minute I start point my 24-70 people start posing...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The OP may even find that the D600 with just the 50/1.4, which he already has, is enough.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes but at a dinner table a 50/1.8 doesn't focus on close subjects that's why I prefer carrying zooms.<br>

<br>

<br>

<em>ANYWAYS</em>, this was enlightening. <strong>Bottom line</strong> is, even though I can use my Nikon lenses via various adapters I will have to suffer with various loss of functionality be it IS, AF or whatever. And <strong>EVENTUALLY</strong>, I will have to let go of my legacy lenses and get camera/brand specific lenses.<br>

<br>

Thank you all for your insight. Eric, I will look into the X100 + 35/2 or XE1 + 18-55 & XT10 and also the m4/3 maybe as a backup camera.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I will look into the X100 + 35/2 or XE1 + 18-55 & XT10 and also the m4/3 maybe as a backup camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>just to clarify, the X100 comes with a built-in 35/2, and XE1 and XT10 are seperate bodies which can each mount the 18-55 or other lenses. you can also get a wide adapter to make the X100 a 28mm equiv. lens. it's perfect for candid shots such as dinner pics. i rarely find i need something wider for those situations. Also, Nikon has a rebate price currently on its 24/1.8, which might complement your 50mm with the D600. So, no shortage of options. </p>

I'm probably in the minority here but I shoot an X-P1 and only use adapted lenses. In fact I've been shooting adapted lenses for several

years on various mirror-less bodies. I think Fuji native lenses are terrific but all of my lenses combined cost less than a Fuji 35/1.4 (which

I did have for a while). I also think it is perfectly doable to go MF. The last time I looked Leica M cameras were still all MF. I don't shoot a

lot of action but I have been able to get a number of candid of both 13 year old and my hyper active terrier so it's not impossible to do. It

just takes a bit of anticipation.

 

At the moment I have (Nikon wise) an HC 50/2 and a 28/2 AiS. I'll probably be picking up a Nikkor-O 35/2 and/or Nikkor N 24/2.8 in the

near future as well. The most significant drawback is the lack of a good WA option when shooting adapted lenses. I myself almost never

shoot WA so it's not a problem. On the rare occasion I want a wide shot I will use my 28 and create a short panorama. My 28/2 is my

normal lens and the 50/2 is a short telephoto. For the kinds of things I want to for it works great. Image quality wise, I find the Nikon

lenses to very impressive. They don't have the modern look that native lenses do but they produce great results none the less.

<p>Rockwell's blanket statements creates puzzlement from here to there. I don't deny he is a very knowledgable experienced person regarding camera hardware etc, but to say that fuji's are for people Photography and not for things and Landscapes can't stand up to the fact that Fuji camera's offer so many menu options for film modes, shadow, highlight options, sharpness, on and on. There are endless picture appearance options to state this. As for XPRO-2 autofocus, I've seen live performance autofocus from the XPRO-2, there's not an issue enough to make it an issue. I read that Rockwell review of the XPRO-2, he really ripped it. Not justified IMV, over the top. The reason I'm making this point is, people see that stuff and it forms perceptions. Be careful.</p>