k-hawinkler
Well-known member
24?
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Yes K-H, the 24 - it would complement my 85 nicely ...
No arguments regarding Sony's lens offerings but it also depends on WHAT you shoot. FWIW I have an all native lineup of fast-ish primes and there are another 3 ultra wide offerings that were released within the last two months and another one coming by August. The FF Sony offerings are actually not as bad as some will have you believe these days but no the choices aren't asextensive as many competitors. It's getting there though.Truth is that there is only one mirrorless FF system available today as we all know and this is Sony FE mount. Unfortunately it is far from being complete WRT to lenses.
For me and many others this is obviously one of the biggest complaints about this system. And please no arguments one can use third party lenses via adapters, this is simply no solution at all for me and many others.
Plus - unfortunately CaNikon still did not get out any serious mirrorless system and it is questionable if they ever will, although it would have been easy for them.
Keeping all this in mind m43 is really the most complete mirrorless system today, followed IMHO by Fujifilm X system. Will be interesting to see how fast Fuji can close the gap WRT missing lens offerings in the future. Once this gap is closed Fujifilm X might soon become the best mirrorless choice overall!
Interesting discussion, although OT. For ergonomics, I prefer Panasonic to Olympus. Menus are easier to navigate and understand, and physical ergonomics come very close to what I'm used to from Nikon. Fuji is lovely, as are the images taken with those cameras, but video performance is not. Again, Panasonic is the winner, although Olympus isn't bad either.No arguments regarding Sony's lens offerings but it also depends on WHAT you shoot. FWIW I have an all native lineup of fast-ish primes and there are another 3 ultra wide offerings that were released within the last two months and another one coming by August. The FF Sony offerings are actually not as bad as some will have you believe these days but no the choices aren't asextensive as many competitors. It's getting there though.
IMO I still believe that Fuji will trail M4/3 in operation if AF is your priority. Both the Olympus OM-D and Panasonic GX/GH/G cameras were significantly faster to lock on focus when I compared last summer. The OM-D EM1 was still significantly faster than the X-Pro 2 as well to where I could tell the difference with focusing at something far away then something close repeatedly.
What I will say is that the Fuji is more natural in operation for Nikon shooters as the aperture turns the "wrong way." A good friend of mine is a Nikon shooter and wants to add an X-T1/2 camera so I see the benefits there as I fumbled with it... This isn't a knock on Nikon or Fuji... I fumble with the Zeiss style apertures on Sony lenses that I typically leave in "A" mode for camera controlled aperture too.
Maybe so. I never wanted for better lens performance on the Micro 4/3 cameras I used. I only really wanted a larger and better sensor performance from them. Physics demands that they'll always lag behind the larger sensors of the same generation but we're approaching a time where the performance is less of an excuse beyond the ability to produce a more shallow DoF.Interesting discussion, although OT. For ergonomics, I prefer Panasonic to Olympus. Menus are easier to navigate and understand, and physical ergonomics come very close to what I'm used to from Nikon. Fuji is lovely, as are the images taken with those cameras, but video performance is not. Again, Panasonic is the winner, although Olympus isn't bad either.
When it comes to price and size of the 12mm f/1.4, this is a lens that I expect to be superior to everything out there, at least as long as we're talking lenses costing less than $2,000. It's the lens that I will buy when I need something better than the zoom that I use now. I guess I should start saving
"You canna change the laws of physics" (now who said that?)Maybe so. I never wanted for better lens performance on the Micro 4/3 cameras I used. I only really wanted a larger and better sensor performance from them. Physics demands that they'll always lag behind the larger sensors of the same generation but we're approaching a time where the performance is less of an excuse beyond the ability to produce a more shallow DoF.
I also believe that Fuji is still behind in AF performance compared to m43. Question is for how long? Another question is if the current Fuji AF performance (XPro2 and upcoming XT2) is not already more than enough for many tasks and people? Including myself as well?No arguments regarding Sony's lens offerings but it also depends on WHAT you shoot. FWIW I have an all native lineup of fast-ish primes and there are another 3 ultra wide offerings that were released within the last two months and another one coming by August. The FF Sony offerings are actually not as bad as some will have you believe these days but no the choices aren't asextensive as many competitors. It's getting there though.
IMO I still believe that Fuji will trail M4/3 in operation if AF is your priority. Both the Olympus OM-D and Panasonic GX/GH/G cameras were significantly faster to lock on focus when I compared last summer. The OM-D EM1 was still significantly faster than the X-Pro 2 as well to where I could tell the difference with focusing at something far away then something close repeatedly.
What I will say is that the Fuji is more natural in operation for Nikon shooters as the aperture turns the "wrong way." A good friend of mine is a Nikon shooter and wants to add an X-T1/2 camera so I see the benefits there as I fumbled with it... This isn't a knock on Nikon or Fuji... I fumble with the Zeiss style apertures on Sony lenses that I typically leave in "A" mode for camera controlled aperture too.
Perhaps but that's why there are choices.I also believe that Fuji is still behind in AF performance compared to m43. Question is for how long? Another question is if the current Fuji AF performance (XPro2 and upcoming XT2) is not already more than enough for many tasks and people? Including myself as well?
Once you can answer these questions with YES, then IMHO the Fuji X system is already giving the better choice right now. Cameras are there WRT AF speed and flexibility, resolution is at the absolute sweetspot already with 24MP (that will be reached nay m43 in another 4 years in best case) and lens selection is also already more appealing for many users than the plethora of m43 glass, which nobody really needs and/or which is so big and heavy that it kind of drives the whole concept of m43 nonsense.
For me the Olympus 2.8/40-150 is one of the most excellent lenses I ever owned, but WRT size and weight it has nothing really in common with what m43 started to propagate some years ago when it was introduced. A Fuji 100-400 is a much more natural fit to a XT1 (and upcoming XT2) body and even the XPro2 in combination with that lens is a perfect system.
What remains is image quality and there Fuji will from now on always top m43 just because the larger sensor, already available razor sharp 24MP and the wonderful film simulations available.
Finally video, especially 4k - I am convinced the XT2 will offer pretty perfect 4k as well as several other advanced 1k modes, so at least for an average video shooter like me this is more than enough already.
Conclusions out of these considerations are pretty obvious I think
Well, WRT lens size and overall system size we are 100 percent on topicI also believe that Fuji is still behind in AF performance compared to m43. Question is for how long? Another question is if the current Fuji AF performance (XPro2 and upcoming XT2) is not already more than enough for many tasks and people? Including myself as well?
Once you can answer these questions with YES, then IMHO the Fuji X system is already giving the better choice right now. Cameras are there WRT AF speed and flexibility, resolution is at the absolute sweetspot already with 24MP (that will be reached nay m43 in another 4 years in best case) and lens selection is also already more appealing for many users than the plethora of m43 glass, which nobody really needs and/or which is so big and heavy that it kind of drives the whole concept of m43 nonsense.
For me the Olympus 2.8/40-150 is one of the most excellent lenses I ever owned, but WRT size and weight it has nothing really in common with what m43 started to propagate some years ago when it was introduced. A Fuji 100-400 is a much more natural fit to a XT1 (and upcoming XT2) body and even the XPro2 in combination with that lens is a perfect system.
What remains is image quality and there Fuji will from now on always top m43 just because the larger sensor, already available razor sharp 24MP and the wonderful film simulations available.
Finally video, especially 4k - I am convinced the XT2 will offer pretty perfect 4k as well as several other advanced 1k modes, so at least for an average video shooter like me this is more than enough already.
Conclusions out of these considerations are pretty obvious I think
Fair enough. In my experience it's usually not weight and size alone that people should judge. How a lens/body combination balances along with the body's ergonomics play a huge factor.Well, WRT lens size and overall system size we are 100 percent on topic
Ok, back to topic again - this was actually my main complaint, for a m43 lens - even if it is a 1.4/12 (1.4 24 equivalent in FF terms) this lens is far to big, which puts me off.
Far too big, indeed.Ok, back to topic again - this was actually my main complaint, for a m43 lens - even if it is a 1.4/12 (1.4 24 equivalent in FF terms) this lens is far to big, which puts me off.
You are absolutely right! But with that in mind, this lens only balances well with the EM1 plus grip or GH3/4 like cameras. Maybe the GX8 would do as well.Fair enough. In my experience it's usually not weight and size alone that people should judge. How a lens/body combination balances along with the body's ergonomics play a huge factor.
I agree on this one.There is a "proper" camera to lens size ratio. This has been mastered by Leica.
Just check the Leica Q vs Sony RX1R.
I don't get it, Vivek: far too big for what ?Far too big, indeed.
Already explained. Reread all the post in this thread.I don't get it, Vivek: far too big for what ?
Mis-proportion ? What's wrong with top quality lenses (big/heavy) especially if there are also near-top lenses (small/light) to choose ?I agree on this one.
But to be fair - for me a system is composed of cameras and all different types of lenses for different purposes, including street, social, landscape, portrait but also sports and wildlife. What I mean is that whenever one wants to use the wonderful m43 system for example for more extreme wildlife and sports, the combinations get overly sized big - EM1+grip-2.8/40-150 or GX8+100-400 etc. Also for landscape and other areas.
And this new 1.4/12 is a very typical example of mis-proportion and too large size. I would have taken a 10 percent less quality (IQ, build etc) anytime for 50 percent reduced size and weight - especially for that system. Well maybe these percentages are a bit too extreme, but I think you are getting my point.
Well there are obviously different tastes, opinions and needs in play with different users - or how would you argue that otherwise.Mis-proportion ? What's wrong with top quality lenses (big/heavy) especially if there are also near-top lenses (small/light) to choose ?
I'd welcome the choice and pick what suits my needs or interests.
Stop grinning like that, K-H:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs: :grin: