I agree that if you factor in body and lenses, the cost difference between the X-Pro and NEX combos isn't that different. However, if you're investing in a brand new system, I'd rather spend more money relatively on the lenses, which I'm unlikely to replace often, versus a body/sensor which will become outdated much more quickly. Assuming sensor technology continues to make significant advances every 3-4 years, I'd rather spend $600 to upgrade my body rather than $1700.
ceder wrote:
Folks - I done a quick and dirty comparison between the Fuji X-Pro1 and the Canon EOS 5D MkII: http://www.cederphotography.com/Blog
(Scroll down to "part 2")
Now the bashing begins...
Cheers!
Other than resize the Fuji files to the same pixel dimension as the 5DII, did you do anything else? The Fuji f/1.4 crop shows a fair amount more sharpening halos than at f/1.6... could it be that Fuji varies the processing of files dependent on a variety of shooting parameters, including sharpening dependent on aperture?
Also your IR teaser for part 3 eliminates one theory I had in mind for why Fuji might use a thick sensor cover glass - to better block IR. That was a problem Leica faced with the very thin cover glass over the M8's sensor, and to some degree also the M9's.
No, I just re-sized! The haloes only showed up after that, and I have no clue if the Fuji sharpens more aggressively at bigger apertures than smaller.
How do you know that the Fuji has a thick glass on the sensor? Anyhow, the X-Pro1 is much much more sensitive to infrared than the EOS 5D MkII, that is for sure!
Cheers!
rscheffler wrote:
Other than resize the Fuji files to the same pixel dimension as the 5DII, did you do anything else? The Fuji f/1.4 crop shows a fair amount more sharpening halos than at f/1.6... could it be that Fuji varies the processing of files dependent on a variety of shooting parameters, including sharpening dependent on aperture?
Also your IR teaser for part 3 eliminates one theory I had in mind for why Fuji might use a thick sensor cover glass - to better block IR. That was a problem Leica faced with the very thin cover glass over the M8's sensor, and to some degree also the M9's....Show more →
- shoot at a reasonable ISO
- output to web or smallish prints
- don't wildly crop
- don't need 4" of DOF
you would be well suited with an OM-D.
I guess if you deviate from any of those criteria, you have to determine your "compromise system.". Is that right?
i would generally agree with that, except i would add a point about not needing to shoot high dynamic range in a single shot. i often found i needed to take multiple exposures with µ4/3 in situations where i do not with NEX (i believe the latest µ4/3 sensors have improved a bit in this regard).
then there is the optical viewfinder thing, the value of which seems to sharply divide people. there are many who simply cannot accept anything other than an ovf. at the same time there are people like me who think that an ovf with no way of seeing focus is a horrible waste of space and money.
- shoot at a reasonable ISO
- output to web or smallish prints
- don't wildly crop
- don't need 4" of DOF
you would be well suited with an OM-D.
I guess if you deviate from any of those criteria, you have to determine your "compromise system.". Is that right?
I think that's a fair assessment of the OM-D's capabilities, but represents compromise itself.
Compromises of cameras that interest me one way or another:
D700 - only 12MP, bested in low-ISO DR now, Liveview isn't particularly useable (LV is one of those things I didn't know I needed until it existed), excellent Nikon lenses wider than 50mm are very expensive and very large, body itself is large and heavy
D800 - big files = more strain on storage and computing (not that big a deal IMO), body is large and heavy, ditto Nikon lenses above
5D III - more expensive than a D800, fewer MP but no apparent advantage in DR or noise, ditto body and lens issues above (less so on the expensive part)
NEX-5N - hotshoe EVF, no OVF, controls are not very usable IMO, only one native lens I'd want to use
NEX-7 - no OVF, not the best for shooting above 1600, ditto lens issue above, expensive once you factor in Zeiss glass
OM-D - no OVF, vast improvement over previous MFT sensors (it seems) but still will lag behind at 1600+ and probably in low-ISO DR, Panasonic lenses may chatter
XP-1 - EVF not as good as Sony's, AF slower, current native wide-angle probably inferior to the Olympus 12/2 (though once you balance sensor performance it may even a bit), currently no RAW support from Adobe, body is expensive even though lenses are relatively cheap, even with new tech I don't entirely believe the Fuji sensor will be 'better' than the D700, much less the D800.
For me, my choices run XPro-1, E-M5 and then the D800/D700 (don't know which I'd go for right now).
I think all of the above are priced pretty well for what they offer, except perhaps the 5DIII. But that's still a heckuva camera itself.
alwang wrote:
I'd rather spend more money relatively on the lenses, which I'm unlikely to replace often, versus a body/sensor which will become outdated much more quickly.
+1. Plus it also seems, or I am just guessing / hoping / expecting, that there will be something of an evolutionary leap in compact technology within the next 1 - 3 years. Since I can't predict which maker will have the most interesting offering, for me, a couple years down the road, I'm preferring to spend my money on lenses that are cross platform. Fortunately for short back-focal length compacts (not you K-01!) that means we can turn to SLR or rangefinder lenses and move them wherever the wind blows, as long as one is ok with or prefers manual focus.
BTW maybe CV lenses are a good price and performance match for the Fujinon for price comparisons between a NEX or what-have-you and the X-Pro 1.
michaelwatkins wrote:
+1. Plus it also seems, or I am just guessing / hoping / expecting, that there will be something of an evolutionary leap in compact technology within the next 1 - 3 years. Since I can't predict which maker will have the most interesting offering, for me, a couple years down the road, I'm preferring to spend my money on lenses that are cross platform. Fortunately for short back-focal length compacts (not you K-01!) that means we can turn to SLR or rangefinder lenses and move them wherever the wind blows, as long as one is ok with or prefers manual focus. ...Show more →
sebboh wrote:
then there is the optical viewfinder thing, the value of which seems to sharply divide people.
Yep thats me, cant do without OVF. Also after 15 months with the x100 as my main outdoors camera the idea of taking my DSLR anywhere seems about as appealing as taking my barbeque.
Therefore any comparisons with DSLR/mirrorless seem irrelevant to me as I'd still take the XP1 even if it was 6mp and double the price. But I appreciate people doing these tests because it gives me an idea of what to expect.
A few hundred extra on the body is not that big of a deal to me - $600 over 3 years, say, and you recoup $150 of that in resale. A little over $10/month difference - or a couple of trips to Starbucks and between .75 and 1.5 packs of cigarettes depending on where you live.
miloz wroteA little over $10/month difference - or a couple of trips to Starbucks and between .75 and 1.5 packs of cigarettes depending on where you live.
$18 in Australia for a pack of 25's
(probably a good thing, I gave up a couple of months ago)
Mar 26, 2012 at 05:30 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
FlyPenFly wrote:
I think to price it fairly, you should price the XPRo with the zeiss lenses + adapter.
IMO, this doesn't make sense unless it turns out the ZM 35 f/2 is significantly better on the XPro-1 than the Fuji 35 f/1.4. The Fuji is a stop faster, it is lighter, and significantly cheaper. In addition, because it is designed for the sensor it might well perform better as well. If it does, then it would make no sense to buy the ZM for the XPro. The zeiss is a great lens and perhaps its performance on the Fuji will justify it on the XPro, but that seemed like a lot to presume given that the 35 f/1.4 looks very good so far. Basically, I picked the lenses that seemed to me to be the likely most common picks at 35mm for each system. At this point I think they will both have very good performance and each will have slight benefits. The Fuji is obviously a stop faster and it wouldn't surprise me if the ZM 35 is a bit better stopped down.
Mar 26, 2012 at 05:39 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
alwang wrote:
I agree that if you factor in body and lenses, the cost difference between the X-Pro and NEX combos isn't that different. However, if you're investing in a brand new system, I'd rather spend more money relatively on the lenses, which I'm unlikely to replace often, versus a body/sensor which will become outdated much more quickly. Assuming sensor technology continues to make significant advances every 3-4 years, I'd rather spend $600 to upgrade my body rather than $1700.
This is a good point and I agree. I generally think that cameras have 50% depreciation over a 3 year period and lenses have about 10%. If this is roughly true then the depreciation cost of the XPro-1 kit would be $950, while the depreciation cost of the NEX 7 - $764, so over a 3 year period even including depreciation we are talking less than $300 difference in the kits and it is very had to know which camera will cost more to replace in 3 years. For example the D700 was about $500 more than the 5D MKII, but now the situation is reversed with the 5D MKIII costing about $500 more than the D800.
Considering the 5N is even tricky because of the external EVF. It seems quite likely to me that this EVF will become obsolete in 3 years (won't work with the two generations ahead NEX 5). If that guess is correct it will suffer even more depreciation than 50 percent meaning that there won't be a great deal of difference in depreciation between the NEX 5N and the NEX 7 kits. It is just speculation, but I doubt in three years that the external EVF will be worth more than $100 meaning the 5N kit depreciation cost would also be over $700.
So even considering depreciation, I still don't see price as being a huge factor in deciding between these cameras, but that is just my point of view. It might matter more to others.
alwang wrote:
I agree that if you factor in body and lenses, the cost difference between the X-Pro and NEX combos isn't that different. However, if you're investing in a brand new system, I'd rather spend more money relatively on the lenses, which I'm unlikely to replace often, versus a body/sensor which will become outdated much more quickly.
While I agree with this, the problem is that a particular camera may require certain lenses. For a simple example, one may have an excellent 25mm and 50mm lens for their M9, but the new 1.5x crop camera will require an additional lens purchase to equal the 25mm on full frame. Add to that the problem a short register lens causes on certain crop sensors, so add another lens, say a SLR lens to provide a normal view without the need for cornerfix. Then, all of a sudden, the lens inventory gets longer.
I got mine today, finally.
It feels good, size, weight and general feel and quality reminds me a lot of my zeiss ikon and less of my Contax G. Definitely a japanese aesthetic but one of the better ones, more lexus than toyota sort of thing.
I like it
