If Canon came out with a 7D mkII would Nikon upgrade the D300s?

fotolopithecus · July 26, 2014

I don't think there will ever be a D400 regardless of what Canon does. Nikon has their plan and they're sticking to it. Someone said get a D7100, and I agree, or wait for the D7100 replacement which should be along in the relatively near future.

ilkka_nissila · July 26, 2014

Nikon cannot give a lens roadmap because of the Osborne effect. There are many examples of companies that gave advance warning of future products and it led to the end of the company very quickly. Nokia mobile phones is one of the latest examples (it came to public knowledge that they were abandoning their existing Meego and Symbian platforms and would not have products using the Windows Phone platform until about 12 months, and this knowledge totally destroyed their sales and finances in a free fall to the bottom). Fuji can give a roadup since they want to give the impression that a system is coming at a time where they do not yet have products to sell. Another reason there will not be a Nikon DX specific lens roadmap is that the F mount is today a dual format system and FX lenses can be used on DX cameras. I also don't think Nikon considers DX and FX as dividing line between different customers since many of us use both formats. Over time FX lens and camera sales take a greater part of the DSLR market. It is likely that of DX sized cameras, mirrorless will increase its share.

Nikon cannot easily make a compact fast high quality wide angle for DX because of geometrical limitatations of the F mount and its flange distance. From a user's point of view it makes sense to get a mirrorless camera if you need this type of a lens and if you don't want to use FX for some reason. But I prefer doing fast wide angle work using FX DSLRs.

I don't feel "chained" to DSLRs; I use them because I want the best optical viewfinder that I can get so that I can see the subject clearly in real time. I use this information to compose and time exposures accordingly. I find that small details in the human face are critical for communication of emotions and I need to see these as clearly as possible while I'm shooting. I like fast primes myself and it has become clear that if the fast wide is your thing, DX DSLRs are not the right choice of camera.

As for FX sales, time will tell what they will be. A mid-generation update isn't going to generate as much excitement as the D700->D800 update which finally gave Nikon users a reasonably priced high resolution camera.

Dieter Schaefer · July 27, 2014

Eric, I had hoped it to be obvious that my above response had been made with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

I would never expect Nikon to release a lens road map - for the reason that Ilkka mentioned. Sony seems to be aware of that danger when they released their lens road map for the A7 system, restricting it to the type of lens and how many will be available by the end of 2014 and 2015. It's already July and of the 6 lenses that should at least be announced in 2014, one (70-200/4) is available, one has been shown (PZ 28-135/4 for video), one has been announced as being in development and is expected to be officially announced in August or September (16-35/4 - not even an image of it available yet), for the remainder there are only expectations (though there are plenty of officially looking road maps that just add to the confusion). Add five manual focus Zeiss lenses that are supposedly revealed at photokina in September. Only one thing seems to be clear from history - between Sony announcing a lens and it becoming available, several months will have passed.

eric_arnold · July 28, 2014

Nikon cannot give a lens roadmap because of the Osborne effect.

</blockquote>

interesting theory. but i'm not sure i'm completely buying it. they certainly could give us a roadmap, they just dont want to. they didnt even give us a roadmap for Nikon 1, which is a new system. and i'm not sure the Nokia/Osborne analogy works here, since computer and cel phones aren't the same market as camera lenses. let's put it this way: if loyal Nikon users knew Nikon was addressing the gaps in their system, they might not be tempted to switch to a different system for the lenses they want. every day i read about people who have sold all their Nikon gear. i haven't quite been pushed to that extreme, since i still shoot events and paid gigs with Nikon DSLRs, but instead of buying a new Nikon body, i invested into Fuji. had the Df been a d600 body with the D4 sensor, i might have bought one of those instead. IMO Nikon missed an opportunity by offering a niche product, rather than a camera which could have been regarded as a true d700 successor. i wouldn't rule out getting another Nikon body at some point, but i'm in no rush, and might as well wait for the D5. For Nikon, it seems to be about protecting a dwindling market share, covering the entry-level base, and trying to push people into FX rather than offering DX users a complete system.

From a user's point of view it makes sense to get a mirrorless camera if you need this type of a lens and if you don't want to use FX for some reason.

</blockquote>

the main issue being weight/size. most of us dont print large enough to where an APS-C-sized sensor is a limiting factor. traveling or casual outings with a compact body and a couple of primes is far less cumbersome than an FX kit, and the IQ is "good enough" in most cases. even the kit lens zoom has excellent IQ and is a lot easier on the back and shoulders than the 24-70, which is my main FX zoom. far less obtrusive too, which is advantageous in street shooting and candid photography.

I prefer doing fast wide angle work using FX DSLRs.

</blockquote>

with the 14/16/18 primes, Fuji have addressed a longstanding need. all are wide and reasonably fast. the 18 and 14 are seriously compact, too. every time i go out shooting casually, i have to think about whether i want to lug the FX body and lenses. I get great IQ from them, but the size/weight differential between my FX kit and my Fuji kit is significant enough to mitigate any optical advantage i might get from the weightier set-up, most of the time.

I don't feel "chained" to DSLRs

</blockquote>

it's hard to put into words how liberating it is to use a smaller system, or even a compact fixed-lens body like the x100, after years of lugging around heavy equipment. and i cant help but feel like Nikon missed more opportunities with their mirrorless entries and the Coolpix A. The Nikon 1 clearly had no idea where it was going at launch, and thusfar, the mantra has been, "less features, smaller sensor, same price (or more) as DX." it makes zero sense that a V3 would cost as much as a D7100. Similarly, the Coolpix A could have been a huge hit even at $1100 if it would have had more headline features, like an f/2 lens, stabilization, and a CLS commander mode. as it stands now, it makes no sense to buy one at that price when the almost-identically-specced, more configurable Ricoh GR is now selling for $700 -- with an optical VF and 32GB memory card.

As for FX sales, time will tell what they will be. A mid-generation update isn't going to generate as much excitement as the D700->D800 update which finally gave Nikon users a reasonably priced high resolution camera.

</blockquote>

the one glimmer of hope here is that the d810 seems to be a more significant update to the 800 than it appears at first glance. that's great if you truly have need of a 36mp sensor, but i'm not going to spend that kind of money for something which i'd only use occasionally. i do have a full FX lens kit, and have been thinking about doing more studio/portrait work, but in the meantime, i can just rent if i need to.

Eric, I had hoped it to be obvious that my above response had been made with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

</blockquote>

yeah, i got that. sorry my response wasn't more flippant. ;)

Sony seems to be aware of that danger when they released their lens road map for the A7 system, restricting it to the type of lens and how many will be available by the end of 2014 and 2015. It's already July and of the 6 lenses that should at least be announced in 2014, one (70-200/4) is available, one has been shown (PZ 28-135/4 for video), one has been announced as being in development and is expected to be officially announced in August or September (16-35/4 - not even an image of it available yet), for the remainder there are only expectations (though there are plenty of officially looking road maps that just add to the confusion). Add five manual focus Zeiss lenses that are supposedly revealed at photokina in September. Only one thing seems to be clear from history - between Sony announcing a lens and it becoming available, several months will have passed.

</blockquote>

okay, but roadmaps have worked well for Olympus/Panasonic and Fuji. I can't claim to know what Sony was thinking--it seems they would have generated more momentum around the A7 had more lenses been available at launch--and the lack of native lenses has been frequently mentioned as a downside to that system. So far i haven't really been tempted by Sony, mainly because their lenses havent generated the same buzz as Fuji's, but some of their bodies look pretty good.

In Fuji's case, they're not splitting themselves between several mounts and sensor sizes, so perhaps it's less problematic for them to deliver lenses they promise. in any event, their lens selection started out strong, with small, high-quality primes, and has only gotten stronger. to their credit, they haven't been spinning their wheels, releasing endless iterations of the same lens while ignoring obvious gaps in their system.

i guess it doesnt really matter to me at this point whether Nikon updates the d300s or not. i got tired of waiting already, and already sank money which could have gone to Nikon into another company's pockets.

if Nikon wanted to get me excited again about being their customer, they'd release a Ds (high-FPS FX in a compact body), a Dx (high-res FX in a compact body), a Coolpix P (fixed-lens APS-C sensor compact with an 85/1.8 equivalent lens), a Coolpix N ( fixed-lens APS-C sensor compact with a 50/1.4 equivalent lens), and maybe a 20 or 24/1.8 G. If they fixed the ergonomic and UI issues with Nikon 1, and provided a complete set of lenses, i could maybe have some use for that. But as far as DX goes, i'm pretty much over it and will either keep my current lenses or sell off my entire system down the line -- unless they wow me with some new lens offerings which shift my FAS back to NAS.

Dieter Schaefer · July 28, 2014

splitting themselves between several mounts and sensor sizes

</blockquote>

That's a big issue with Sony - their A-mount lenses can be adapted to the A7 line - but it's not elegant. It almost looks like Sony created a scenario quite similar to Olympus with the 4/3 to m4/3 transition - they have two mounts and two different formats requiring no less than four different lens systems; something will have to give eventually if the entire thing isn't going to come crashing down like a house of cards.

generated more momentum around the A7 had more lenses been available at launch

</blockquote>

They should have solved the issue with adapting M-mount lenses before releasing the A7/A7R - the issue was known already from the NEX system and as Leica shows, there are solutions (a combination of sensor design and software correction). And certainly, a few more native lenses available right out of the gate would have looked a lot better too.

But as far as DX goes, i'm pretty much over it and will either keep my current lenses or sell off my entire system down the line -- unless they wow me with some new lens offerings

</blockquote>

If Nikon has plans for some DX lenses, then saying so right now is not a moment too late - I certainly am not expecting anything and it is very unlikely that I will purchase another DX lens (I already passed on the Sigma 18-35). My current plan is to have one DX (D7100 successor) body to use with the 80-400 for air show and bird photography - I may have to make a couple of adjustments to have all my needs covered with either Nikon FX or Sony A7 - I'm not in too much of a hurry though.

Andrew Garrard · July 28, 2014

<blockquote>whereas most Nikon primes don't AF on the lower-end bodies. In more than a decade Nikon has not managed to update many of their FX primes to AF-S - so how can we possibly expect them to focus on DX primes?</blockquote>

Wait, what? The "current" AF-D primes are:

<ul>

<li>10.5mm DX fisheye (but the 10mm Sigma has HSM)</li>

<li>14mm f/2.8 (but the 14-24 is much better and the 10-24 is much cheaper)</li>

<li>16mm f/2.8 fisheye (why would you use this on DX?)</li>

<li>35mm f/2 (but several faster options)</li>

<li>50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 (both have better AF-S versions)</li>

<li>55mm (but there's the 60mm)</li>

<li>85mm f/1.4 (but there's the AF-S)</li>

<li>105mm micro (but there's the AF-S)>/li>

<li>200mm micro</li>

</ul>

Of these, there are some tiny lenses that would get bigger with an AF-S motor in them, and for which there are already faster alternatives. The 14-24 replaces a lot; in DX, the 18-35 Sigma covers a lot of them. The big gaps I see are the DC lenses (which I'm dubious about in general, even though they partly motivated my switch to Nikon), the 180mm (but the 70-200 is sharper) and the 200mm micro (but Sigma's 180mm f/2.8 macro covers both the 180mm and, nearly, the 200mm micro needs). I'm far more worried about Nikon not having any fast cheap wide primes at all (24mm f/1.8, maybe a DX 14mm or 16mm f/1.8) than the lack of AF-S options, but the Sigma 18-35 helps a lot.

I really don't know how much the situation with high-end DX lenses is self-fulfilling. On Canon, even with a crop DSLR, I always avoided crop lenses (other than the kit one) because I wanted the option of using film and, later, of shooting full-frame. With Nikon, I've always gone full frame, but if I had a DX camera and wanted to make a substantial investment in glass, I'd still err towards FX lenses unless I had a very good reason. If I was shooting with a D7100, I may still have aspirations to own a D800 or D4 at some point, and not want to replace everything. If I was shooting with a D3300, that may be a less likely goal (the premium over my current body to go FX would be bigger) - but I don't know that D3300 owners are those moaning about the lack of high-end lenses.

<blockquote>Now I am wondering why there isn't a 24-85/2.8 for FX - or a 16-70/2.8 for DX.</blockquote>

An 18-35 f/1.8 isn't the equivalent of a 24-70 f/2.8 - keeping the aperture as the zoom range grows is hard, which is why the 18-35 is a 2x zoom and the 14-24 is even less than this. The move from 28-70 (2.5x) to 24-70 (2.9x) was quite an achievement, but stretching that to 85mm is going to have a significant effect on the weight and cost of the lens. I'm not sure how much easier a DX crop makes a 16-70 (4.4x zoom) - given that the 24-120 is only f/4 (though admittedly with VR). I'm not saying it can't happen, but I'd not hold my breath, or expect amazing optics.

ilkka_nissila · July 28, 2014

Eric, I calculated that the weight of the X-Pro1 with 18/2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, and 56/1.2 lenses is about 500g smaller than the weight of the D810 with 28/1.8, 35/1.8, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 (even though the f-stops of some of the FX Nikkors are smaller, the total light over the whole sensor area is still greater in all cases but one where it is equal) and while the Nikon FX kit is more expensive the weight difference is not that great. The FX 28mm projects 1.4 stops more light wide open than the (APS-C) 18mm over the whole image area while the 85/1.8 is about the same as the 56/1.2 in terms of depth of field, angle of view and signal-to-noise ratio over sections of the whole image area. 2kg vs. 1.4kg - neither is a heavy kit; my camera backpack is often 7kg and it doesn't bother me. A healthy human adult can easily carry 10-15% extra over their own body weight; 2kg is just a few percent. Thus I really don't understand the complaint about weight with regards to Nikon FX.

36MP isn't about making large prints, it is about flexibility in framing and lighting. The high dynamic range means the contrast of sunlight is now easier to work with, even in portraiture. The high resolution means you can frame a horizontal image and take pictures of the interaction between people and yet crop a single portrait out of it when a good expression on one person happens to not coincide with the others in the picture, with minimal loss in image quality. You get more range for your lenses to track subjects at different distances without changing lenses. There are so many applications for it, it is really a great tool. I don't crop more than 2X from the D800 by the way, and usually much less. But in case one needs to, it is really handy. The disadvantage is the large files but the increase in processing time can be ameliorated by appropriate configuration of the computer used for processing the images, at least to an extent. (The D7100 also handles cropping to some extent well.)

eric_arnold · July 28, 2014

Thus I really don't understand the complaint about weight with regards to Nikon FX.

</blockquote>

that's because your (on-paper) comparison was overly weighted toward Nikon. first off, i have an XE1 (2 of them, actually) in Fuji X-mount and a D3s in Nikon FX. the D3s+ 24-70 is MUCH heavier than an XE1 +18-55; in fact, i can bring a 2-body kit for less weight than the D3s with just one lens. the 27mm pancake is a paperweight and the 14, 35 and 60 are all similarly light. if i'm taking a standard zoom + fast prime out, my 24-70+ Sigma 35/1.4 far outweigh the 18-55+ Fuji 35/1.4. Even if i swap the 35/1.4 Sigma for the Sigma 50/1.4, there's still a significant weight advantage with the mirrorless kit -- enough to where i can throw in the 14mm and not feel it. And even if i swap the D3s for my D300s + Sigma 17-50 OS, the weight savings are considerable.

My fully-loaded FX kit (D3s, 24-70, 70-200 VR, 35/1.4, 85/1.4, maybe the Sigma 15-30 or Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye) weighs 15-20 pounds. sometimes i'll throw in the d300s. it's a lot to lug. if i can get reasonably equivalent functionality from a lighter kit, I'm going for the lighter kit unless I'm shooting action or know i'm going to need to shoot above ISO 3200. the D3s is just too heavy for most casual shooting situations, unless i strip it down to just the 50/1.4, just the 35/1.4, or just the 35/1.4+85/1.4. and even then, the D3s+35/1.4 is still gargantuan, compared to the X100 (which has a 35mm equiv. FL at f/2). The point is, i know exactly what i'm giving up with the Fuji and exactly what I'm gaining. with the x100 or XE1+27, i just shoot without having to worry about, do i really need to dip in my bag and pull out a big honking camera. when i shoot street, i like to carry a messenger bag, since backpacks are fairly inconvenient. the 14/18-55/35 combo with the XE1 weighs next to nothing and takes up very little space in a bag.

So, after owning Fuji cameras for about 8-9 months, i find myself reaching for them more and more in real world conditions, even though i have Nikon FX and DX options available. There's a tradeoff, sure -- the XE1 isn't nearly as intuitive as the D3s, and not even close as an action camera, and Fuji's telephoto options aren't nearly as developed as Nikon's -- but the Fuji's are changing the way i shoot and making shooting a more fun experience.

36MP isn't about making large prints, it is about flexibility in framing and lighting.

</blockquote>

Point taken. I'm not knocking the d800 at all. there are definitely times i want more than 12-16mp to work with. But in general, i shoot too many frames when covering events to be able to manage those large files, and much of the time, 36 mp is overkill for my needs. as stated earlier, i'd rather have the d4 sensor in a d600 body than a d800, although if someone were to give me a d800, i wouldn't turn it down.

Dieter Schaefer · July 28, 2014

Andrew - the 14-24 isn't a prime lens and hence shouldn't be in that list of yours. I, for one, would never buy that lens because of the bulbous front element. Not because of the filter issue but because I know from my 10.5 fisheye what a pain it is to keep that front element reasonably clean. Also, you can't list Sigma lenses as alternatives when the discussion is about what Nikon did or didn't do.

Naturally, AF-S primes will be larger than the current AF-D ones and below 24mm, I don't expect that whether the lens is DX or FX makes much of a difference in size. Frankly, the only DX prime I would have liked to see is a 24/2 - which I expect would be a lot less bulky than Sigma's 18-35. As already stated, I don't care anymore if Nikon brings out any DX prime - if I wanted fast in DX, then with the Tokina 11-16/2.8 and Sigma 18-35/1.8 I would have everything I needed.

You are right though that there are a few large aperture (and hugely expensive) AF-S "updates" to AF-D primes - and maybe that is all we are going to get (since some new zooms are as fast as those old primes and optically better). Considering the $2k+ 24/1.4 as a substitute for a 24/2 (FX or DX) is the same kind of thinking that suggests a D4 instead of a D7100 - for some people these are simply not valid and reasonable alternatives.

Currently, Nikon doesn't offer me a small(ish) 20mm AF-S lens - and frankly, the 20/2.8 is a dog when shot wide open or even at f/4 (I owned one and recently go rid of it; it wasn't even good on DX).

I really don't understand the complaint about weight with regards to Nikon FX

</blockquote>

To me it is more about bulk than weight - the lenses I use on my A7 are metal and I am not saving much in terms of weight - but the difference in bulk is substantial. I can fit the A7, 21/1.8, 35/2, and 90/2 in the same space that holds a D700 with either a 35/1.4 or 85/1.8 attached.

eric_arnold · July 28, 2014

With Nikon, I've always gone full frame, but if I had a DX camera and wanted to make a substantial investment in glass, I'd still err towards FX lenses unless I had a very good reason.

</blockquote>

if you are a DX shooter, FX lenses aren't going to work for ultra wide angle. which brings us back to the fast wide prime condundrum. it hardly makes any sense to use a 14-24 or a 14mm on a DX camera just to get a wide angle focal length, and even then, the crop factor robs you of those lenses' ultrawide capabilities. OTOH, the 14mm Fuji, while not inexpensive, is reasonably compact and has excellent IQ with very minimal distortion. now, when i'm shooting wide, i have a choice between the fuji and 14mm, the d300s with 12-24, and the D3s with 15-30 and 17/3.5. i'm finding i'm grabbing the Fuji more often because of the overall compactness and low weight. another plus is that i can use ND grads or other filters on the 14mm fuji, whereas the 15-30 (and 14-24) don't accept filters due to the bulbous front element. so, again, perfect for travel and casual shooting.

Andrew Garrard · July 28, 2014

<blockquote>that's because your (on-paper) comparison was overly weighted toward Nikon. first off, i have an XE1 (2 of them, actually) in Fuji X-mount and a D3s in Nikon FX.</blockquote>

Wait, you're comparing a stripped down mirrorless system (okay, you could have gone Pentax Q, but still...) with an EVF to the largest pro Nikon cameras? I don't have anything against the XE1, but a weight comparison starting with Nikon's biggest lump of prism glass is a bit harsh. An XE1 is 350g. A D3s is 1240g (the D4s is 1350g). A Df is 760g - quite a bit lighter than a D300s, even (and the D810 is barely more than the D300s). I'm not really going to claim an FX DSLR is lightweight, but there's a big difference between an F75 and an F5, and not all FX DSLRs are the same.

<blockquote>the D3s+ 24-70 is MUCH heavier than an XE1 +18-55;</blockquote>

Well, yes. And the Fuji 18-55 is f/2.8-4. Comparing depth of field, we're looking at the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR as the Nikon equivalent, which is 465g vs the 310g of the Fuji - but with more range and more depth of field control. A more direct comparison would be without VR - the 28-80 f/3.3-5.6 G, which is only 190g.

<blockquote>in fact, i can bring a 2-body kit for less weight than the D3s with just one lens. the 27mm pancake is a paperweight and the 14, 35 and 60 are all similarly light. if i'm taking a standard zoom + fast prime out, my 24-70+ Sigma 35/1.4 far outweigh the 18-55+ Fuji 35/1.4. Even if i swap the 35/1.4 Sigma for the Sigma 50/1.4, there's still a significant weight advantage with the mirrorless kit -- enough to where i can throw in the 14mm and not feel it. And even if i swap the D3s for my D300s + Sigma 17-50 OS, the weight savings are considerable.</blockquote>

Well, you are comparing heavy Nikon bodies. The XT1 is 440g, which is a fair bit closer to a Df's weight. The OM-D E-M1 is nearly 500g. Though the D7100 is actually heavier than the Df! I'm not going to argue that the DSLR - especially an FX one with a prism - is lighter than a crop-sensor mirrorless, but I do think the D3s and faster lenses is a bit of an unfair start. And I like the X100s (it's on my "to buy" list if I have a moment of inaccurately estimated finances), but it's really not that small either.

Honestly, though, my problem with the whole argument is Ilkka's 10-15% figure. Which means I can probably carry a 400 f/2.8 without noticing...

Peter_in_PA · July 28, 2014

Size and weight are a problem for many of us. My EM-5 is so much smaller and lighter than my D90 it is the reason I'm going µ43 and leaving Nikon DX (as soon as somebody buys my stuff).

I was disappointed when Nikon's mirrorless offerings ended up being toys and not tools, and never wanted to go full-frame. Like many (like virtually all of Nikon's DX market) I am an amateur. If I can get equivalent image quality in something smaller (size is key here, not weight. The DX bodies are all nice and light for their size imho) so that I actually take it with me instead of leaving it at home, that's everything. My EM-5 with the little 14-42 kit lens and the tiny 40-150 tele zoom give me everything from fov 28mm all the way to 300 in something that fits with the rest of my life. Yay. win. Not important to everyone, especially perhaps a pro, but really vital to me anymore. Since it takes better images even than my D90 (which I have NO complaints about. It served me well for years and years and still takes nice images), I don't really lose much.

I keep hearing people say that there's a lot of people like me (I know of at least 3 or 4 on this very forum) who have said "enough" and gone to something smaller and mirrorless, but I think most of the market is slower-moving than that. So is it an issue? Not now, probably.

One thing is for sure, they're selling fewer and fewer cameras every year. Eventually there will have to be fewer models. It logically follows (like has happened in the dead P&S segment).

And... looking forward 18 or 24 months... frame rate does not matter... why?

The absolute best frame rate will be things like the Panasonic GH4 which shoots 4K video at 24 - 30 fps. Just do a frame grab, you have your image. I am starting to think that that particular feature will define the next sports cameras.

Would you rather have a $2KUS D400 that shoots 9 or 10 fps 24MP or would you rather have a $1.5K (I'm reaching here) Dxx00 that does 30 fps if it shoots 4K video. THAT is what Nikon should make.

So (I'm rambling, but so are y'all... this is fun...), if I were Nikon, in 2015, I'd have D4, D810, D610, D9x00 (7x00 and 400 replacement), D5300, D3300 and I'd phase out one of those last two if I could, or make them use a substantial number of similar parts or something. Better than Canon... good GOD how many Rebels are there for sale right now? Too confusing. A year later I'd get rid of another one. (I'm not counting the Df, it's a joke niche product, imho).

eric_arnold · July 28, 2014

Frankly, the only DX prime I would have liked to see is a 24/2 - which I expect would be a lot less bulky than Sigma's 18-35. As already stated, I don't care anymore if Nikon brings out any DX prime - if I wanted fast in DX, then with the Tokina 11-16/2.8 and Sigma 18-35/1.8 I would have everything I needed.

</blockquote>

Dieter makes a good point here, with a caveat being that both are reasonably hefty zooms, not smallish primes. as i said before, the Fuji 14mm is very compact, even with its metal build. we will wait and see how bulky the 16/1.4 is.

Wait, you're comparing a stripped down mirrorless system (okay, you could have gone Pentax Q, but still...) with an EVF to the largest pro Nikon cameras?

</blockquote>

well, yes, because... wait for it... that's what i actually use. so i'm not just talking hypotheticals here, but actual real-world, field-tested experience. what matters to me isn't just the weight savings, but the fact that the Fuji 18-55 is a really good optic, so there's no real image quality drop-off from my $1700 nikon zoom vs a lens i got for $300 in a kit deal. see where i'm going with this? even your observation that the 18-55 is f/4 on the long end is mitigated by the OIS, at least with static subjects. and my XE1 is about 1 1/2 stops better at high-ISO than my d300s, too, although obviously not as good as the D3s in that regard.

Comparing depth of field, we're looking at the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR as the Nikon equivalent, which is 465g vs the 310g of the Fuji - but with more range and more depth of field control. A more direct comparison would be without VR - the 28-80 f/3.3-5.6 G, which is only 190g.

</blockquote>

this is a pointless comparison. who's using a plastic el cheapo 28-80 on a FX body? and you are certainly nitpicking saying the 24-85 has more range. the difference is, what, 2.5 mm on the long end? ooh, now i'm worried i'm going to miss some shots because of that!

I like the X100s (it's on my "to buy" list if I have a moment of inaccurately estimated finances), but it's really not that small either.

</blockquote>

allow me to point out another instance of you being wrong, Andrew. the x100 (same body as x100s) is both small and light (without being too light). the lens barely protrudes and it's light enough i can wear it around my neck for extended periods of time.

my problem with the whole argument is Ilkka's 10-15% figure. Which means I can probably carry a 400 f/2.8 without noticing...

</blockquote>

well, Ilkka is known for carrying a 200/2 for street shooting. I, on the other hand, have had back issues from carrying the D3s/24-70/70-200 for extended periods of time on assignment. so any excuse to go lighter means a lower chiropractor bill.

My EM-5 is so much smaller and lighter than my D90 it is the reason I'm going µ43 and leaving Nikon DX

</blockquote>

this just emphasizes my point.

If I can get equivalent image quality in something smaller (size is key here, not weight. The DX bodies are all nice and light for their size imho) so that I actually take it with me instead of leaving it at home, that's everything.

</blockquote>

so does this.

I keep hearing people say that there's a lot of people like me (I know of at least 3 or 4 on this very forum) who have said "enough" and gone to something smaller and mirrorless, but I think most of the market is slower-moving than that.

</blockquote>

even if you were trying to be a Nikon loyalist, the company isn't giving you much reason to stay the course, or at least follow a reasonable upgrade path. i'm not going to say the Df was a joke, but it was much more of a niche product than many of us wanted. the one pro shooter i saw with one raved about its small size, but a few minutes later had to tell a group he was trying to shoot to wait because he couldnt adjust the settings fast enough.

as far as the market moving slow, it's all relative. there are a lot of forum members who are heavily invested into nikon glass, especially long lenses and such. they've already got the d800 for their landscape work and a d7100 for their wildlife shooting. they will probably be the last to leak to mirrorless systems. OTOH, the camera industry is experiencing a slow meltdown. DSLR sales have peaked; compact P&S sales have plummeted. mirrorless is the only segment which grew in the first six months of 2014, and guess what? most of those cameras aren't Nikon (or Canon). one can only speculate how much of that leakage is people who bought the d300 and now want an XT1, A7, or E-M1.

Peter_in_PA · July 28, 2014

OTOH, the camera industry is experiencing a slow meltdown. DSLR sales have peaked; compact P&S sales have plummeted. mirrorless is the only segment which grew in the first six months of 2014, and guess what? most of those cameras aren't Nikon (or Canon). one can only speculate how much of that leakage is people who bought the d300 and now want an XT1, A7, or E-M1.

</blockquote>

I wonder this, too. I don't care one way or the other, I buy stuff to use to make images now, not as investments or anything like that, and again, like pretty much 95%+ of the market, I'm an amateur. I'm over carrying big cameras, but don't want a toy like an iPhone or any phone or P&S product.

So... I lined up my shiney new (used) EM-5 against my (still love it) D90 just to see the difference in "carrying size". Both with a midrange zoom kit lens... Holy Crap... look...<div></div>

Peter_in_PA · July 28, 2014

And fwiw, I am an unashamed Nikon fan-boi!

ShunCheung · July 28, 2014

Sorry Peter, I can only speak for me, but there is no way I would prefer the Olympus on the left. The lack of a proper grip, like the Nikon Df, is a major no no. A couple of years ago, I reviewed the Olympus E-PL3 for photo.net, so I know how those small cameras are like: http://www.photo.net/equipment/olympus/pen/e-pl3/review/

While I don't have a D90, I use the D7000 and D7100 extensively. They are similar in size as the D90. If anything, IMO those DSLRs are a bit too small for comfortable holding.

Incidentally, back in February (this year, 2014), the OP here started the following thread on the Canon EOS Forum: <a href="/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00cN3a">Is a Canon 7D mkII coming soon?</a> On that thread, quite to a bunch of Canon fans' dismay, I bluntly pointed out that there is no future for more high-end APS-C DSLRs, as neither Canon would introduce any so called 7D Mark II nor Nikon any D400 as a successor to the D300/D300S.

Dieter Schaefer · July 28, 2014

I use the D7000 and D7100 extensively. If anything, IMO those DSLRs are a bit too small for comfortable holding.

</blockquote>

IMO, on the D7000 it's the poor grip design (the Df is more comfortable to hold and that says a lot); the D7100 is better. I handled the E-M5 and due to the lack of a proper grip, it is definitely not for me. What surprised me though is how well the NEX 6 fit my hand (the button arrangement is a different story) - it's not necessarily the size of the camera, but the size and shape of the grip. Also, the smaller the camera, the shorter the lens one can comfortably use without changing the way one holds and carries the combo - I prefer to do so by the grip while supporting the lens from below when shooting. When the lens reaches a certain length (and/or weight) that's no longer possible and one has to hold the combo by the lens.

This shows a size comparison between a D60 with 35/1.8DX and a NEX 6 with Leica NEX 6 - I can handle both equally well:

Here a comparison of the same cameras with 85/1.8G and Leica 90/2:

I could post similar comparisons between a A7 and a D700 - it would be even less in favor of the DSLR.

This is a combo that I can no longer handle by the NEX grip but needs to be held by the lens: Tokina 11-16/2.8: - I don't have an issue handling it by the grip when mounted on a DSLR.

Tokina 11-16/2.8 and Sigma 18-35/1.8 ... both are reasonably hefty zooms, not smallish primes

</blockquote>

No argument here - though strictly only valid if one would not carry more than two or maybe three primes instead - otherwise bulk and weight will quickly equalize. Naturally, a small prime on a small body still has the advantage of not being as obvious as a bulky zoom. Then again, changing lenses frequently has its drawbacks too.

ilkka_nissila · July 29, 2014

well, Ilkka is known for carrying a 200/2 for street shooting.

I don't purposedly carry it for street; I mainly use it for concerts and dance on stage, occasionally indoors at weddings, academic events, figure skating, water polo, and landscape. At outdoor events such as when there is some parade or ceremony, no one pays attention to it but on an ordinary day on the street I think it is too attention-grabbing; my street tele of choice is currently the 85mm.

Carrying and using heavy equipment can certainly cause back problems. What I was trying to say above is that it is possible to put together a portable FX rig (using a grip-less body with f/1.8 primes, also 70-200/4 if needed) which should not cause those problems yet results-wise is very competitive. Also there are ways to carry the equipment which are better for the photographer's back; I have put some time and effort into finding the right bags to carry my equipment in. I currently use a Think Tank Retrospective 20 for carrying a camera and 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 type rig and it somehow makes it very comfortable to carry this type of a load. I find the padding provided minimal and to be safe I put additional padding at the bottom of the bag. I use a Manfrotto professional backpack (they recently bought Kata bags) 20 or 30 (I don't remember which it is) but it can house a camera body, two primes and the 200/2 with some configuration effort (excluding the 200 I think it can take up to 5 lenses) and yet it is very comfortable to carry (and contains great padding). A lot of camera bags do not feel comfortable to carry and many times I think people make the mistake of buying a backpack that is too large (and heavy) for long term health. I'm very picky about what I put in the bag and try not to put anything that I will not need. With shoulder bags I never found one that I felt was comfortable to carry with heavy load before I tried the Think Tank - it adopts to the shape of your body and as a result is nice to carry. I think it is in part due to its relatively thin padding at the sides. It is relatively deep so the long lens fits in nicely, and it is relatively thin so it keeps the weight of the lenses very close to the body, which is great.

Peter_in_PA · July 29, 2014

Now we're into a horses for courses thing. And it's why I hope and expect that after the whole camera thing shakes out, we'll be left with fewer choices, but good ones for whoever needs them.

Shun, you CAN (too expensively) add a grip to the Olympus and not bring its size up much. I considered that, till I realized that it was actually really comfy in my hand, especially for going back and forth between the viewfinder and the display (INCREDIBLY useful when I'm photographing a big gathering of kids I've learned). Also, their (overpriced) top of the line EM-1 has a grip built-in... both are still too small for your comfort I'll wager.

In terms of hand-comfort, I agree with you. In fact, I find the huge pro bodies most comfy in the hands... that means nothing (for MY kind of shooting) if I don't have the camera with me because it means carrying a whole extra bag.

If I was shooting professionally (weddings, events, stuff like that) there is no way I'd do anything less than a full-frame Nikon (probably D610), but, like most amateurs, that is simply a luxury I have no need or use for.

I realize that most on this board are far more serious amateurs and pros. I always feel like my perspective brings the balance of people who normally don't come to places like this.

But... and lastly... if Nikon had done mirrorless "right" (imho), I would have stuck with it. But... to my eyes... that battle is already lost to Fuji (amazing cameras, just didn't work right for me), Olympus, Panasonic and (yuk) Sony.

Andrew Garrard · July 29, 2014

Pedantry discussion with Eric...

<blockquote><blockquote>Wait, you're comparing a stripped down mirrorless system (okay, you could have gone Pentax Q, but still...) with an EVF to the largest pro Nikon cameras?</blockquote>

well, yes, because... wait for it... that's what i actually use. so i'm not just talking hypotheticals here, but actual real-world, field-tested experience.</blockquote>

Sure. I appreciate that you can say "I went lightweight Fuji to complement my heavyweight Nikon system". I came into this seeing Ilkka say "FX isn't that heavy compared with an X-Pro1", and your "my D3s-based system is" response. If your aim was to get the level of functionality offered by your Fuji kit out of a Nikon FX system with weight savings compared with the D3s, you could absolutely do so. I'm not saying that you should have done - it wouldn't offer all your D3s can do, and probably not quite all the Fuji can do, and it wouldn't be quite as light. But it's not going to be as much heavier as the D3s and pro lenses are.

<blockquote>what matters to me isn't just the weight savings, but the fact that the Fuji 18-55 is a really good optic, so there's no real image quality drop-off from my $1700 nikon zoom vs a lens i got for $300 in a kit deal. see where i'm going with this? even your observation that the 18-55 is f/4 on the long end is mitigated by the OIS, at least with static subjects. and my XE1 is about 1 1/2 stops better at high-ISO than my d300s, too, although obviously not as good as the D3s in that regard.</blockquote>

I'd heard mostly good things about the 24-85 VR, at least up to 24MP (which is more than Fuji are offering right now). And it has VR, just like the Fuji. Not every decent lens costs and weighs as much as the 24-70 f/2.8. Does a 55 f/4 let you do what a 70 f/2.8 does in terms of subject isolation? No. You're (mostly) not paying for "good optics". Not that I'd be surprised if the 24-70 gets a respin at some point.

<blockquote><blockquote>Comparing depth of field, we're looking at the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR as the Nikon equivalent, which is 465g vs the 310g of the Fuji - but with more range and more depth of field control. A more direct comparison would be without VR - the 28-80 f/3.3-5.6 G, which is only 190g.</blockquote>

this is a pointless comparison. who's using a plastic el cheapo 28-80 on a FX body? and you are certainly nitpicking saying the 24-85 has more range. the difference is, what, 2.5 mm on the long end? ooh, now i'm worried i'm going to miss some shots because of that!</blockquote>

With the range, you're right - I can't multiply when tired, and had stared at the 50-230mm Fuji lens. Though the 3mm at the short end compared with the 24-85 actually is significant. But as for who'd use a cheap lens on an FX camera... well, the 28-200 was my "body cap" for my D700 for a long time. It's not really up to the D800, but I keep meaning to try my 28-80. I've used it on an F5, because it has faster focus than almost anything else out there. A dealer tried to laugh at me for using my 28-200 (silver!) on a D700. I suggested that he check the reviews of the 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 VR and Sigma 20mm f/1.8 that he was trying to foist on me before judging.

<blockquote>allow me to point out another instance of you being wrong, Andrew. the x100 (same body as x100s) is both small and light (without being too light). the lens barely protrudes and it's light enough i can wear it around my neck for extended periods of time.</blockquote>

An X100s is 127x74x54mm, and 445g. Compare with the RX100-III (102x58x41mm, 290g), my old GF2 (113x68x33mm, 310g, + 14-42PZ lens), a Coolpix A (111x64x40mm, 299g) or even a D3300 (124x98x76mm, 430g, + lens). There are things the X100s can do that the others can't, and I'm not dissing it, but what it's not is a small and pocketable camera. It's almost as big as a Bessa R. No, it's not a D3 or an F5, but nor are all Nikons. And don't get me wrong, I would have liked Nikon to make something with the flexibility of an F5 but with weight much closer to an F75 - not everyone needs to use their camera as a hammer. Mamiya arguable managed this with the 7.

<blockquote>well, Ilkka is known for carrying a 200/2 for street shooting. I, on the other hand, have had back issues from carrying th D3s/24-70/70-200 for extended periods of time on assignment. so any excuse to go lighter means a lower chiropractor bill.</blockquote>

I sympathise, and I'm not saying that everyone should carry a bigger camera. For what it's worth, I've often taken a 200 f/2 to weddings and a 150-500 rambling. But as Ilkka says, they're not all that subtle. My point was just that you're comparing a particularly heavy Nikon kit in a weight comparison. The difference is there, but not necessarily as big as you were suggesting. I would like to see Nikon do more of a response to the Eos 100D/SL1 "microbody".

At Dieter...

<blockquote>Andrew - the 14-24 isn't a prime lens and hence shouldn't be in that list of yours. I, for one, would never buy that lens because of the bulbous front element. Not because of the filter issue but because I know from my 10.5 fisheye what a pain it is to keep that front element reasonably clean. Also, you can't list Sigma lenses as alternatives when the discussion is about what Nikon did or didn't do.</blockquote>

I was just suggesting that alternatives exist for wide primes in terms of speed and image quality. I concede that size, price (not that the 14mm f/2.8 is cheap) and convenience come into it. I agree that Nikon should be improving their range, but Sigma alternatives are valid for people trying to decide between systems.

<blockquote>Naturally, AF-S primes will be larger than the current AF-D ones and below 24mm, I don't expect that whether the lens is DX or FX makes much of a difference in size.</blockquote>

It probably does for a wide-angle. Not so much in telephoto. Retrofocal coverage is tricky.

<blockquote>You are right though that there are a few large aperture (and hugely expensive) AF-S "updates" to AF-D primes - and maybe that is all we are going to get (since some new zooms are as fast as those old primes and optically better). Considering the $2k+ 24/1.4 as a substitute for a 24/2 (FX or DX) is the same kind of thinking that suggests a D4 instead of a D7100 - for some people these are simply not valid and reasonable alternatives.</blockquote>

Yes, in that case I'm sympathetic. And I would be interested to see Nikon release a 24mm f/1.8. I even wouldn't be all that surprised.

<blockquote>Currently, Nikon doesn't offer me a small(ish) 20mm AF-S lens - and frankly, the 20/2.8 is a dog when shot wide open or even at f/4 (I owned one and recently go rid of it; it wasn't even good on DX).</blockquote>

On FX (obviously there are kit zooms on DX) I agree - A guess you're supposed to use the 16-35. To be fair, neither the Canon f/2.8 nor the Sigma f/1.8 are tiny, and both are awful in the edges at wider apertures. The Zeiss 21mm is huge, obviously. I guess the question is how many FX shooters wouldn't be happy with either the 14-24 or the 16-35. I've been tempted by a smaller wide-angle myself, for travel, but haven't yet been grabbed by the options.

ilkka_nissila · July 29, 2014

I think further weight reductions of size and weight within the DSLR concept would lead to mechanical instability and reduction of the usefulness of the optical viewfinder (which is the DSLR's reason of existence) and substantially reduced focusing accuracy. Already I find the D800 a bit on the too fragile side, a bump can throw off the AF, so if anything I would like to see improvements in the robustness of the camera and the optical quality of the viewfinder (also in the contrast between in/out of focus areas) rather than further developments along the lines of the pentamirror system (which is probably one of the reasons why mirrorless has been gaining market; the fuzzy pentamirror viewfinder does not do justice to the DSLR and makes EVFs look good). I think it is much more important to get better reputation for AF consistency (which of course requires better performance) than shave off weight. If Nikon completed the transition from screwdriver AF to SWM in the whole lineup of lenses then some weight could be lost by leaving out the in-camera focus motor at least in some more models, but as of now it isn't likely to happen in the short term. So many older lenses are in use. But the loss of weight may bring with it instability also just because a light weight object will vibrate more easily than a heavier one. So not as good results at slow shutter speeds.

You are right though that there are a few large aperture (and hugely expensive) AF-S "updates" to AF-D primes - and maybe that is all we are going to get (since some new zooms are as fast as those old primes and optically better). Considering the $2k+ 24/1.4 as a substitute for a 24/2 (FX or DX) is the same kind of thinking that suggests a D4 instead of a D7100 - for some people these are simply not valid and reasonable alternatives.

But there are already four AF-S f/1.8 primes (28, 35, 50, 85) which are not much more expensive than the AF D variants yet are much improved optically and similarly priced or only moderately more expensive than their AF, AF-D and Ai-S variants cost. Making still smaller aperture primes may not make all that much sense in this focal range since then we get to the same apertures that zooms provide, and already these f/1.8 models are quite compact and lightweight for what they are capable of. From what I understand of Nikon's patents of recent years, the AF-S f/1.8 range is likely to expand in both directions.

eric_arnold · July 29, 2014

as far as light kit goes, there are certainly ways to minimize the weight of a D3s system. last night i shot in a nightclub with the 35/1.4 and 85/1.4, not the full kit, in a Kata messenger bag. i was above ISO 3200 all night, so a Fuji or Nikon DX probably wouldn't have worked. But there's no way to minimize the bulk of a pro FX camera. i'm actually considering getting a larger Domke bag as the D3s is so bulky, especially with the 24-70 and/or 70-200, that the Kata's internal dividers get loosened from the velcro grip. my condundrum is that i like a messenger for quick lens access, but a backpack is better for my back. i have a Kata backpack too, but it's not appropriate for nightclub shooting.

Does a 55 f/4 let you do what a 70 f/2.8 does in terms of subject isolation? No.

</blockquote>

i don't really use the 24-70 or 18-55 for subject isolation so much. the 24-70's bokeh isn't that great, compared to my fast primes. the fuji does have decent subj. iso capabilities at 18mm and 2.8, but in general, i switch to a sub-2.8 lens if i really want to emphasize this. again, here's another area where the overall compactness of the fuji system is a plus -- all my 1.4 FX lenses are fairly weighty and/or bulky.

There are things the X100s can do that the others can't, and I'm not dissing it, but what it's not is a small and pocketable camera.

</blockquote>

the 1/2000 flash sync on the x100 makes it perfect for daytime fill flash, and i'd consider it a small camera, though one with enough heft to feel good in the hands. one reason i passed on the E-M5 was the small buttons. somehow that hasn't been a huge issue with the XE1, which i use with a hotshoe-mounted thumbgrip. most of the controls i need are either on the camera's external body, or easily accessible with a button push.

I would like to see Nikon do more of a response to the Eos 100D/SL1 "microbody".

</blockquote>

me too. i also have a d90, and it works as a small "grab n go" kit with a 35/1.8 or the tokina 35/2.8 macro. the problem i have is that some of my DX 3rd party lenses are non-AF-S, and while the d90 has an internal focus motor, any smaller nikon DX camera probably wouldn't have one.

how many FX shooters wouldn't be happy with either the 14-24 or the 16-35. I've been tempted by a smaller wide-angle myself, for travel, but haven't yet been grabbed by the options.

</blockquote>

if all we're shooting is landscape, travel and street, a Fuji system works great. in fact, you can get an XE1, 14mm, and one other lens for the price of the 14-24 alone, and you can use ND grads on the 14mm.

Andrew Garrard · July 30, 2014

<blockquote>i don't really use the 24-70 or 18-55 for subject isolation so much.</blockquote>

I see f/2.8 zooms as a compromise - they offer some of the low-light ability and depth of field control of a fast prime, while still having some of the flexibility of a superzoom. f/2.8 happens to be a good compromise for depth of field control on an FX sensor; I can see that f/4 would give you less control on a crop sensor. I'll admit that I see "moderate fastness" as more useful in a longer lens, which is why I do own a 70-200 f/2.8 (and not an f/4), but I don't own a 24-70. But if you like that focal range, it still does the job.

<blockquote>here's another area where the overall compactness of the fuji system is a plus -- all my 1.4 FX lenses are fairly weighty and/or bulky.</blockquote>

The subject isolation abilities of a lens, and the amount of light it can capture, is - at least for longer lenses - roughly proportional to the size of the front element. Scale to capture the same image with different sensor formats and you find the FX lens is longer than the DX one, but not necessarily that much heavier - the difference is effectively that of a teleconverter, after all. The extra length does usually make the lens a bit more unwieldy. On the other hand, it's easier to make slower lenses with good optical quality even allowing for coverage, so one might expect a 300 f/2.8 to have fewer aberrations than a 200 f/2. There's a reason that most very fast lenses have some optical issues. However, Metabones (and other focal reducers) seem to do a good job of maintaining quality with longer lenses.

With lenses that have their designed compromised by the presence of a mirror box (retrofocal wide angles), it's true that an equivalent lens can typically be made much smaller on a mirrorless system. However, the need to have moderate telecentricity at the exit aperture still applies - you can have a wide-angle that almost touches the film plane, but it will likely behave poorly on a digital sensor.

It's all swings and roundabouts. If it was easy, we'd see more lenses being launched. Nikon could fend off a lot of complaints by launching more lightweight and extremely short lenses - not that the "limited" range seems to be helping Pentax to sell.

<blockquote>the 1/2000 flash sync on the x100 makes it perfect for daytime fill flash, and i'd consider it a small camera</blockquote>

Yes, the leaf shutter (and ND filter) are high on the reasons I'd like one. And sure, it's small compared with an FX DSLR, but it's a bit smaller than a Df, and a lot smaller than a D3! It's huge compared with an RX100, and it really is too big to fit in the pocket of anything but a large jacket - similar to my GF2 + 14-42PZ combo. We measure differently - I don't consider a 70-200 f/2.8 to be a big lens, because I've now used the 200 f/2 for long enough that my sense of "heavy" is skewed. But I acknowledge that others may feel differently.

<blockquote>if all we're shooting is landscape, travel and street, a Fuji system works great. in fact, you can get an XE1, 14mm, and one other lens for the price of the 14-24 alone, and you can use ND grads on the 14mm.</blockquote>

Fuji have a good system (especially when they have more telephoto options). There are times that a 16MP sensor with a rejigged colour layout isn't really a substitute for a D800, but it has its uses. we may just have to agree that there's no perfect camera.

But if you don't need the depth of field and light handling of full frame, and you don't need the features (better or worse) of an optical finder, the mirrorless crop systems do have a lot of appeal. There are probably things that a maxed-out crop sensor DSLR could do if Nikon threw all their technology at it, but at this stage, we'll have to see what they can come up with if Canon do something. I suspect a fair bit of the rumour-mongering is being managed by the marketing departments anyway, but I've never in my life understood the decisions made by marketing teams!

eric_arnold · July 31, 2014

I see f/2.8 zooms as a compromise - they offer some of the low-light ability and depth of field control of a fast prime, while still having some of the flexibility of a superzoom. f/2.8 happens to be a good compromise for depth of field control on an FX sensor; I can see that f/4 would give you less control on a crop sensor.

</blockquote>

fuji is coming out with a 16-50/2.8, but i'll probably pass on it because the 18-55 is so good optically and it's gonna be not-so-compact, which is a real plus of the 18-55. i can see where on paper the fuji "kit" lens doesnt seem all that great, but in practice it's superb, almost as good as their primes--and sharper than their 18/2 at 18mm, actually. f/4 isnt all that limiting either because a) the lens has OIS and 2) the fujis are great at hi-ISO.

it really is too big to fit in the pocket of anything but a large jacket

</blockquote>

i have a black leather ever-ready case for the x100 that can go under a jacket, so this isnt really an issue in the real world. i get that people sometime obsess about size, but it works for me.

There are times that a 16MP sensor with a rejigged colour layout isn't really a substitute for a D800, but it has its uses. we may just have to agree that there's no perfect camera.

</blockquote>

the Fuji's output is good enough, most of the time. if you NEED to shoot with a d800, then obviously, it's not for you. also, if there was a perfect camera, everyone would buy it and no other cameras would be sold, ever. what fun would that be?

Andrew Garrard · August 1, 2014

<blockquote>i can see where on paper the fuji "kit" lens doesnt seem all that great, but in practice it's superb, almost as good as their primes--and sharper than their 18/2 at 18mm, actually.</blockquote>

Sure - I'm not doubting its optical quality, just pointing out that - because of the larger effective aperture - the 24-70 can do something that the 16-50 can't. Whether that "something" is useful to you is another matter (and I've said that I don't own a 24-70, so I'm not claiming it's useful to me either!) - but that's part of what you're paying for (in weight and money) with a 24-70, so it's only fair to point out the distinction.

<blockquote>i have a black leather ever-ready case for the x100 that can go under a jacket, so this isnt really an issue in the real world. i get that people sometime obsess about size, but it works for me.</blockquote>

Indeed. If I was that obsessed, I'd not carry my D800 as much as I do. I do think the X100s is on the large side for a compact camera, and that rules out some of the times you might want to use it, but by no means all of them. It's clearly on the right side of your personal comfort limit where a D3 wasn't, so that's the important thing for you.

<blockquote>the Fuji's output is good enough, most of the time. if you NEED to shoot with a d800, then obviously, it's not for you. also, if there was a perfect camera, everyone would buy it and no other cameras would be sold, ever. what fun would that be?</blockquote>

Well, I still want an X100s for the times when it is the right camera (excuse me while I find a way to make infinite money), but horses for courses. And I'm sure if there was a perfect camera, we'd still find a way to argue about it! (The way camera sales are trending, there will eventually only be one camera for sale as an alternative to a smartphone. I just hope it's a good one.)

Sign In

If Canon came out with a 7D mkII would Nikon upgrade the D300s?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in