Fuji X-Pro 2 with Nikon Lenses?

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by huzaifa_shabbir, Jun 4, 2016.

  1. Hello peoples...
    I am in the market for changing/upgrading my camera. I currently own a Nikon D600 with Tamron 24-70 f2.8, Nikkor 80-200 f2.8, Nikkor 50 f1.8, Samyang 14 f2.8 (manual focus) and Lensbaby Edge 80 with Composer Pro.
    I shoot as a hobby, so I don't want to go for the D800 or D810. I was thinking of upgrading to the D750, since I have invested in the lenses (the Samyang and the Lensbaby are recent purchases). 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.
    I am looking at the Fujifilm X-Pro 2 but the only thing stopping me is the investment in lenses. So up until I end up with a couple of fujifilm lenses can I use my Nikon lenses with any adapter of sorts? If yes, what would be my best option?
     
  2. A couple of things:
    Yes, you can buy any number of adaptors from about $10 to $100 or more but most of them are manual affairs. See Metabones or a number of online shops. I got mine for around $19 from Amazon. I use some old Canon FD glass also on the Fuji.
    I also have a D300 and am looking at upgrading. I did invest in a Fuji XT10 w/ 18-55, 14 and 55-200. You won't believe how small and light it is. Make sure you *want* the rangefinder experience vs. the XT10/XT1 or upcoming XT2.
     
  3. Another consideration: the Tamron 24-70 and Nikon 80-200 you have are both quite large and heavy. Check upfront if you like how they balance with a much smaller body. The X-Pro2 looks to be an excellent camera, but handling-wise it looks more made for small primes than it is for large zooms. The X-T models will probably handle just that bit nicer with large lenses like yours.
    What exactly is wrong with your D600? What problem are you looking to fix exactly? The D600 is not vastly outdated by any means, so whatever "upgrade" you will do, the benefits you will see will be relatively small - no matter to which camera you move.
     
  4. Ken Rockwell just published a review of the X-pro 2 and brutalized it as only K.R. can. I tried using my Nikon lenses on some M43 cameras via adapter and it didn't work out that well for me. Heavy, no AF, no IS, and it turned my Nikkors into uninteresting focal lengths. Adorama has some very good prices on the XE-2 kit right now and I think the XE-2 can be upgraded via software to do everything the XE-2n and XT-10 do, silent electronic shutter and area focus being my favorite new features. Part of their offer include a spare battery which is essential to the Fujis.
     
  5. Yes, you can cobble everything & the kitchen sink on a Fuji with manual focus and manual aperture operation. That 's fine for landscape and studio shots, especially from a tripod, but happy-snapping is much more convenient with Fuji's own AF zooms which get again beaten by an original DSLR made for your lenses.
    I only handled the X-Pro2 with 58mm f1.2 in a store and the AF didn't appear as quick as I'd love it to be, maybe comparable to elderly Pentax screwdriver AF stuff or still worse than that.
    If you crave a lighter system than you have: maybe wait for other Fuji bodies with the X-Pro2's sensor; the X-Pros are Fuji's heavy built series.
    Also: Fuji's marketing policy is nasty; they grant huge rebates on kits. For me it was cheaper to get the 2 consumer zooms with a body than just the two lenses on their own. - Keeping that in mind I wouldn't buy just a Fuji body. - I haven't seen Fuji kit-zooms on sale like other brands' & AFAIK there aren't any 3rd parties daring to compete with the Fuji lenses yet, if we don't count the all manual stuff like Samyang, Lensbaby etc.
    While I was still pondering a Nikon 70-210 f2.8 purchase even the mid sized D750 felt a bit lost behind that lens.
     
  6. @Wouter... I don't think it'll handle the big & heavy lenses off the tripod very well especially the 24-70 ... And to answer your question there is nothing wrong with the D600... In fact I had no issues with it that the whole photography world was bitching and moaning about... The only reason why I'm thinking of changing is that now I'm finding it heavy to carry around with me everywhere...
    @Jochen.... Strange... I checked out the X-Pro 2 at their launch here in Dubai and comparing to the D600 the AF is very very fast...
     
  7. 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.​
    the heaviest thing about your kit isnt the camera, it's the lenses. the tamron is almost 2 lbs, the nikon zoom almost 3 lbs. the d600 is a little heavier than the tamron, but not an especially heavy body as these things go. So my first suggestion would be lighter lenses for your current kit. carrying bulky 2 pro-spec zooms isnt the best choice for casual shooting opportunities. you could maybe add a 35 or 24mm prime, or a lighter zoom like the 24-85 VR or 28-105.
    second suggestion would be a lighter Nikon DX body which allows you to use your current lenses. however, you'd want at least a d7000 to maintain AF with the 80-200, and you'd only be saving less than 100g from the weight of the d600. so that doesn't really solve your problem (large, bulky lenses).
    I am looking at the Fujifilm X-Pro 2 but the only thing stopping me is the investment in lenses.​
    I don't really think there's a way around this. Adding an XPro2 (495g/17.5 oz) would shave about 1/3rd of the body weight from the camera. However, this would be a poor choice with your current lenses. neither of those zooms would balance especially well on an XP2, and they'd be just as bulky as on a d600, plus you'd lose AF. the XP2 in particular is designed to work best with shorter lenses, and on top of that, it's somewhat counter-intuitive to use 3rd party lenses on a Fuji X-camera, since much of the system's appeal is its native glass, and they have many attractive options in that department.
    The reality is that if you want a smaller/lighter system, you need smaller/lighter lenses. this seems obvious, yes? Any system you adopt is going to require investment in lenses, and getting a different body but using the same lenses doesn't solve your weight issues. Honestly, i would forget about using the 24-70/80-200 on a non-Nikon system. Just doesnt make a great deal of sense, IMO. If you just need a casual, lighter kit, any of the Fuji x-bodies with the 18-55/2.8-4 would be sufficient, while the Fuji 35/2 makes for a great single-lens candid/street kit. You could also be satisfied with something like an A6000+ 16-50, a Panasonic LX100, or a Fuji X100-series. (I also have a full Nikon FX kit with 24-70+70-200, but for the type of shooting you describe, the X100 works like a champ, in my experience). Even a Sony RX100 could be a compact solution.
    So, in summary, you can't go small/light while retaining large, clunky lenses. Therefore, your best options are either a lighter ILC system or a lighter all-in-one body. You could also just get lighter lenses for your current system. the 24-85 VR weighs about 1 lb., or almost 1/2 the weight of the 24-70. If we're doing weight comparisons, a d600+24-85 VR = 26.8 oz +16.4 oz = 43.2 oz, or just over 2 1/2 lbs. a Xp2+18-55 = 15.7 oz. + 11.64 oz = 27.34 oz.
    I only handled the X-Pro2 with 58mm f1.2 in a store and the AF didn't appear as quick as I'd love it to be​
    That may be so, but the X-system's AF speed is highly dependent on the lenses it's used with. The 56/1.2 isn't a snappy lens by any reckoning, but something like the 14/2.8 would be near-instantaneous.
     
  8. Adorama has some very good prices on the XE-2 kit right now and I think the XE-2 can be upgraded via software to do everything the XE-2n and XT-10 do,​
    XE2 is a pretty good, very compact body, but it lacks the hybrid VF of the XP series. i have an XE1 and it's very svelte yet capable with the 18-55 or 27/2.8 lenses. That said, XPro1s are down to just $499 new right now. XE2 and XT10 have faster AF, but that's still a very good price on what was once a flagship body which cost $1700 at introduction.
     
  9. Huizafa, i have to say, also, that i dont completely understand the logic behind buying a $1700 body and not spending a dime on lenses, especially since that same $1700, or far less, could get you a body+lens combo or an all-in-one compact. it would be one thing if the XP2 worked perfectly with Nikon lenses and solved your bulk/weight problem. But it doesn't. Ultimately, it's your money, but i'm seeing the XT10+18-55 kit is just $900 on Amazon right now, which could be a solution for you. That $800 you save vs. the XP2 body-only could finance a 23/1.4, 35/2, or other fast Fuji prime.
     
  10. "XPro1s are down to just $499 new right now" Eric.
    In the UK you can pick a pro1 for as little as 250gbp and the superb 27mm lense for 200gbp. I have tested this lens against my Nikon prime lenses and it is a noticeable step above in image quality.
    Serious bang for your buck....and this camera was considered better than a Leica M9 by many reviewers.
    00dz0i-563502384.jpg
     
  11. In the UK you can pick a pro1 for as little as 250gbp and the superb 27mm lense for 200gbp. I have tested this lens against my Nikon prime lenses and it is a noticeable step above in image quality.​
    yeah i have the 27mm too. i wouldn't say it is head and shoulders above Nikon primes, but certainly comparable in IQ. it's not better than the Sigma 35/1.4 ART, but that lens is massive for a prime. you have to love the Fuji 27's 41mm equivalent focal length and be okay with the relatively slow (for a prime) 2.8 aperture, but the tiny size is a huge plus for street and the sharpness is corner to corner, which is rare for a pancake-y lens. i find, however, that i use the 27 and the 35/1.4 far less than i thought i would, mainly because the 18-55 is so good and reasonably compact. I would rank the 18-55 right up there with my Nikon 24-70/2.8 AF-S for IQ, but the Fuji's may be sharper since they dont have an AA filter. and the 18-55 is also stabilized. Agree that the XP1 is a steal right now, and a good entry-point into the X-system. The later bodies all have better/faster AF, which may or may not be worth the price differential.
     
  12. happy-snapping is much more convenient with Fuji's own AF zooms which get again beaten by an original DSLR made for your lenses.​
    agree that using adapted Nikkors in manual-focus mode is not the best for "happy-snapping," but the second half of the sentence is puzzling. In my experience, the Fuji 18-55--which is the only zoom i have for my X-cameras--is comparable or better in IQ to the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 AF-S. the Nikkor has constant 2.8, but its weight and bulk make it unwieldy for walkaround use.

    other than printing super-large, the main reasons to go with a Nikon FF DSLR over a similar Fuji set-up would really be high-ISO performance and AF speed, and even then i'm not sure a d600/tamron 24-70 combo is going to be the snappiest. some might add shallow DoF to that list, but none of the FF 24-70's really have excellent bokeh, though you do gain 2 stops of shallower DoF with a 24-70 @ 70mm, compared to an 18-55 @ 50mm. anyway, in practice, ive found the 18-55/2.8-4 to be a surprisingly good little gem of a lens. enough so that im not considering adding the 16-50/2.8.
     
  13. " o"kay with the relatively slow (for a prime) 2.8 aperture, but the tiny size is a huge plus for street". Eric
    With the low light performance of the Fuji pro1 2.8 aperture is not a problem. I like its ability to handle very harsh sunlight which was a problem for me on my x100 and other cams.
    .
    00dz11-563503384.jpg
     
  14. With the low light performance of the Fuji pro1 2.8 aperture is not a problem​
    i didn't say aperture was a "problem." but you can get shallower DoF with a faster lens. it's all a matter of preferences. if you're used to shooting street and what-not with a fast 1.4 or 1.8 lens at wider apertures to get that 'pop' from subject isolation, f/2.8 may seem slow. the Fuji 27's bokeh isn't especially great, either. where the 27/2.8 excels, however, is that it is edge to edge sharp when stopped down, something faster lenses like the 35/1.4 never achieve. i also occasionally like shooting urban scenes in extreme low-light. i sometimes do this with a FF DSLR and a 1.4 lens, and sometimes with APS-C bodies. with my Fuji XE1, low-light performance is pretty good, and ISO 5000 is fairly clean. however, there are times when 2.8 is not bright enough for what i want to shoot. i can't shoot as cleanly at ISO 6400 as i can with my D3s, but i can make up for that with the 35/1.4. Again, not knocking the 27, just stating that every lens has pros and cons.
     
  15. "... up until I end up with a couple of fujifilm lenses can I use my Nikon lenses with any adapter of sorts? If yes, what would be my best option?"​
    When I first got my Fuji X-Pro1 body, I adapted my Nikon legacy lenses (24mm f/2, 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, 28-70mm f/2.8, 80-200mm f/2.8) to use on my X-Pro1. At first, I had a problem with the adapter I tried. I had to damage the adapter to remove it from the lens. After I got a better adapter, I had no problems.

    My adapted Nikon lenses worked fine for a while until I started needing faster focusing. I eventually replaced some of my legacy Nikon lenses with auto focus Fuji lenses (16mm f/1.4, 23mm f/1.4, 56mm f/1.2, 16-55mm f/2.8, 50-140mm f/2.8). The only legacy lenses I did not replace were the macro lenses and the lenses longer than 300mm.
    00dz1r-563504584.jpg
     
  16. can I use my Nikon lenses with any adapter of sorts?​
    just noticed the Tamron 24-70 doesnt have an aperture ring. Which means it's not ideal for using with an adapter. First of all, you'd need an adapter with an aperture ring; not all of them support this function, and most of the ones that do don't have numbered markings (except for the Metabones Speed Booster, which costs 5x as much as the basic Metabones f>x adapter). So at best, this would be an imprecise way of using F-mount lenses. AF-D, AI, and AS-I lenses would work better in this regard than G lenses.
     
  17. there are plenty of adaptors for Nikon to Fuji X, but given the lenses you have and want to use with it, I'm not sure you are any better off than what you already have. I have the X-Pro2 and love it, and I even thought about getting such an adopter to the 17-35, but then it would create such an out of balance kit not sure what the point is. I thought Eric had some good suggestions if you really want to go Fuji. By the way if your lenses don't have aperture rings, then you have to get an adaptor that does, and they can also begin to get pricey.
     
  18. if i was starting from scratch and had decided on an XP2 as my main body, i would get: 14/2, 16/1.4, 23/1.4, and 35/2. possibly the 27/2.8 instead of the 23, although i do love fast primes. no zooms. these lenses all play to the camera's strengths. expensive, yeah, but that would be a nice kit. if i just wanted a compact body+ lens, i'd look at XE2 or XT10 w/ 18-55/2.8-4 OIS. if i was planning on mainly using big zooms, i would instead look at the XT1 with 16-55/2.8 and 40-150/2.8. at that point, however, i have a mirrorless DSLR equivalent and have moved away from the compact RF aesthetic. using 3rd party zooms with an adapter on an XP2 kind of sounds like an exercise in counter-intuitivity, especially if these are lenses without dedicated aperture rings. it can be done, but that's a Frankencamera, and kind of a waste of an XP2, IMO.
     
  19. i dont completely understand the logic behind buying a $1700 body and not spending a dime on lenses​
    Eric, its not that I'm not going to spend a dime on the lenses. I will HAVE to invest in any new camera that I plan to buy in the future, but I want to do it over time.
    Initially I had planned to sell off my complete Nikon kit, but the prices that people offered for the lenses were mind boggling. I bought a used Tamron 24-70/2.8 for AED2200 (approx $580), some f*cking idiot offers me $200.
    That's when I thought that if I could use the my Nikon Lenses on the X-Pro 2 until I get both good deals on Fuji lenses and good buyers for the Nikon Lenses.
    XPro1s are down to just $499 new right now.
    the XT10+18-55 kit is just $900 on Amazon right now, which could be a solution for you.​
    Eric, I will look into this. There is someone selling a X-Pro 1 with 18-55/2.8-4 for AED2750 ($740) here in Dubai, while XT10 (body only) for AED2350 ($640), another XT10 with 35/1.4 is for about AED3200 ($870).
    At first, I had a problem with the adapter I tried. I had to damage the adapter to remove it from the lens. After I got a better adapter, I had no problems.​
    John, which one would you recommend since my Tamron 24-70/2.8 doesn't have the aperture ring?
     
  20. if i was starting from scratch and had decided on an XP2 as my main body, i would get: 14/2, 16/1.4, 23/1.4, and 35/2. possibly the 27/2.8 instead of the 23, although i do love fast primes. no zooms. these lenses all play to the camera's strengths. expensive, yeah, but that would be a nice kit. if i just wanted a compact body+ lens, i'd look at XE2 or XT10 w/ 18-55/2.8-4 OIS. if i was planning on mainly using big zooms, i would instead look at the XT1 with 16-55/2.8 and 40-150/2.8. at that point, however, i have a mirrorless DSLR equivalent and have moved away from the compact RF aesthetic. using 3rd party zooms with an adapter on an XP2 kind of sounds like an exercise in counter-intuitivity, especially if these are lenses without dedicated aperture rings. it can be done, but that's a Frankencamera, and kind of a waste of an XP2, IMO.​

    I'm not a very big fan of primes. 1-2 is what I'd have, maximum if I had to would be 3. From your list I'd have either the 14/2 or the 16/1.4, leaning towards the 16 because it'd be a faster lens and the for the second I would get a 56/1.2 which John mentioned instead of the 35/2. Main lenses would be the zooms, 16-55/2.8, 50-140/2.8. And then maybe IF I wanted to I'd go overboard with the new soon launching 100-400mm. Oh yes, I'd invest in a Lensbaby Composer Pro for the Fuji or use the current one I have with an adapter for the tilt-shifted part of me.
     
  21. The weight of my DSLR kit also sometimes gets in my way; so far I cured that itch with film cameras with smaller lenses. Eric's point about the lenses being the biggest part of the weight is spot on - the 80-200 f/2.8D is simply large and heavy. The D600 is large-ish but not even all that heavy. So, as long as you consider using those lenses, you're not solving anything by getting a small, compact mirrorless.
    Nothing against Fuji - if I get into some mirrorless system, it'll be a fuji near certain. But the X-Pro2 appeals to rangefinder shooting, and isn't the ideal choice for zooms, nor large heavy lenses. The X-T models are much better at home with those, in my view. I'd forget about using large Nikon zooms on them, period, and just save more on the camera and spend the money straight away on the Fuji lenses you want.
    As an alternative, have you considered a small, entry-level Nikon DSLR, with something like a 18-105VR which can cover most normal duties, and isn't large nor heavy? It would take all your Nikon lenses without adapter, though with some functionality impairments for some lenses.
     
  22. "John, which one would you recommend since my Tamron 24-70/2.8 doesn't have the aperture ring?"​
    First, let me say that I know this will not help you much but I have tried to avoid buying lenses that do not have aperture rings. That is why I did not buy the Tamron 24-70/2.8 or the Nikon 24-70/2.8 and bought the Nikon 28-70/2.8 instead.
    The only Nikon G lenses I own are the 14-24/2.8 (because there was no other choice that had an aperture ring) and the 18-55mm (which was so inexpensive that I could not resist it).
    Second, I own a Tamron (28-200mm f/3.8 to f/5.6 auto focus) that I love to use as a full length to tight face portrait lens. It has an aperture ring. However, for some reason, this lens does not work well with adapters. Therefore, based on my experience with my Tamron and based on my bias against lenses without aperture rings, I would not bother trying to adapt a 24-70/2.8 Tamron.
    https://flic.kr/p/8XTJQ8
    00dz4H-563514284.JPG
     
  23. 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. - OP​

    You can have the best of both worlds. If you want the smallest, lightest combination, you will want to get a lens or two made for the Fuji XPro2, either primes or a mid-range zoom. Personally, I'm inclined to use prime lenses when the goal is to minimize weight and to stay (relatively) unobtrusive.

    That said, you can use your existing Nikon lenses with an adapter, which will range in cost from a few dollars to $300 (? I haven't shopped for Fuji, just Sony). Some will have a way to adjust the aperture in lenses without aperture rings, but without any markings to guide you in between the end stops. If you use "aperture priority" and/or auto-ISO in the camera, exposures will be fully automatic. It's not an ideal arrangement, but it works.

    At least two companies are making adapters for Nikon lenses AF-S which will provide auto-focus on a Sony E mount body. It's only a matter of time before similar adapters will be available for Fuji and other mirrorless cameras.

    While a two pound (or heavier) lens is not ideal for a "light" camera system, any "imbalance" is a matter of attitude rather than practicality. Quite simply, you hold the lens and guide the body. That's pretty much what I do with a D3 and 70-200/2.8, and the D3 is by no means a lightweight body. A two pound, 24-70/2.8 zoom on my 13 oz Sony A7 body is not exactly balanced, but still a workable combination for flexibility.
     
  24. Main lenses would be the zooms, 16-55/2.8, 50-140/2.8.​
    Full stop. if you plan on using Fuji's pro-spec zooms, i would NOT get an XP series body. the OVF with its framelines isnt designed to work with anything that long. True, you can just use the EVF, but IMO it would make more sense to get an XT1, or wait for the XT2, if you're gonna be EVF-reliant and use long zooms. The XP series is optimized for use with primes, and smaller primes at that.

    The other thing to consider is that an XT or XP body + 16-55 +40-150 doesn't actually save you all that much weight over your existing kit. The 16-55 is less than 200g lighter than the Tamron 24-70. the 40-150 weighs 300g less than the 80-200. So, you're shaving just 1 lb. total on lenses. If the goal is to have a lighter system with less bulk, replicating your DSLR set-up with an APS-C mirrorless isn't the best way to get there. For comparison's sake, the Fuji 18-55 weighs less than 1/2 what the 16-55 does.
    you can use your existing Nikon lenses with an adapter, which will range in cost from a few dollars to $300​
    we already covered this, but the Nikon adapters range all the way up to $500 USD for one with a number scale. The cheaper ones either have no aperture rings, unmarked aperture rings, or line markings. this would make more sense to me if the OP's lenses were all AF-D, AI, or AI-S.
    While a two pound (or heavier) lens is not ideal for a "light" camera system, any "imbalance" is a matter of attitude rather than practicality.​
    Not necessarily. An imbalanced body/lens combo could put additional stress on the camera mount, impacting long-term durability. if the OP were to insist on getting the 16-55+40-150--which adds about $2400 to cost btw--it defeats the purpose of the rangefinder-style body. In that case, you'd want the XT1 and the optional grip, which adds even more weight and bulk to your "lighter" system.

    From a practicality standpoint, you can't go light without subtracting significant size and weight. well, you can, but the savings may not result in much actual difference when it's all said and done, at considerable expense. Swapping a 7-lb system for a 5-lb system, at a cost of more than $3500, would only be slightly less cumbersome. Therefore, my advice is, if you're gonna go light, get more compact lenses. If you want 2.8 zooms in a mirrorless system, the Panasonic 12-35+35-100 for m4/3 bodies offer significant weight savings over their FF DSLR equivalents as well as the Fuji 2.8 zooms. the 12-35 is only 10 oz, the 35-100 is only 12 oz. both can be had right now for under $2000. Of course that would entail a smaller sensor format, but that's the only way to get pro-spec zooms and also enable a significantly more compact kit. The main reason to invest in a Fuji system IMO are the splendid primes. if you just want to use zooms, i would probably look elsewhere.
     
  25. have you considered a small, entry-level Nikon DSLR, with something like a 18-105VR which can cover most normal duties, and isn't large nor heavy? It would take all your Nikon lenses without adapter, though with some functionality impairments for some lenses.​
    i addressed this point earlier too. An entry-level DX Nikon body won't have a focus motor, which would render the Tamron 24-70 manual focus-only. you'd have to step up to a d7000 at least to get full AF capabilities. And even then, you haven't really solved the problem, because you're still lugging around 5 lbs. worth of lenses on a slightly lighter body. The d7000 is only 3 oz. lighter than a d600.
     
  26. 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.
    While the XPro2 might look like a "rangefinder" camera, it has a hybrid viewfinder as well, and is perfectly capable of handling longer lenses.
    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.
     
  27. While the XPro2 might look like a "rangefinder" camera, it has a hybrid viewfinder as well, and is perfectly capable of handling longer lenses.​
    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.
    Please spare us this obsession that a light camera is only useful in a lightweight configuration.​
    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.
    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.​
    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.
     
  28. 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.
     
  29. the D3300 is exactly 300g lighter than a D600. Not a huge weight savings there. however, the 24-70+80-200 combo will always 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.
    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.
     
  30. 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.
     
  31. I kind of feel like this discussion has become a bit circular, since we are now re-discussing things which have already been discussed. ​
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  32. Eric Brody makes an excellent point. Adapted lenses are okay up to a point, but native lenses are a lot more convenient.​
    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.

    if i was the OP, i would meander over to the Fuji X-Forum, 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.
     
  33. "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."​
    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.
    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.
    If that is still too much weight and bulk, I will not take a camera ... I will just take my cell phone.
     
  34. a night out with friends or family.​
    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.
     
  35. if i was the OP, i would meander over to the Fuji X-Forum, 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.​
    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.
    You could do worse than choosing an XPro2.

    It wouldn't be my choice, but my needs are different.​
    Edward, what are those needs?
    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.​
    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.
    a small form factor is a key component in candid shooting, since my 24-70 Nikon can be intimidating.​
    Exactly, the minute I start point my 24-70 people start posing...
    The OP may even find that the D600 with just the 50/1.4, which he already has, is enough.​
    Yes but at a dinner table a 50/1.8 doesn't focus on close subjects that's why I prefer carrying zooms.


    ANYWAYS, this was enlightening. Bottom line 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 EVENTUALLY, I will have to let go of my legacy lenses and get camera/brand specific lenses.

    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.
     
  36. I will look into the X100 + 35/2 or XE1 + 18-55 & XT10 and also the m4/3 maybe as a backup camera.​
    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.
     
  37. 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.
     
  38. 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.
     

Share This Page