Fuji v Nikon

[Hugh]

Says this is the place for questions so here goes:

d5300 with 18-55 vs xt1 with 18-55. Nikon around $500 and used lens in good condition about $100. With recent price reducition, Fuji is $1399. At least $800 difference. Any sigificant difference in image quality? Low light capability? Of course Fuji more compact and better build quality. Please help me decide.

 

HUGH

[MSW]

Says this is the place for questions so here goes:

d5300 with 18-55 vs xt1 with 18-55. Nikon around $500 and used lens in good condition about $100. With recent price reducition, Fuji is $1399. At least $800 difference. Any sigificant difference in image quality? Low light capability? Of course Fuji more compact and better build quality. Please help me decide.

 

HUGH

Just my opinion but I think when comparing two modern cameras with fairly similar format and resolution actual image quality depends more on the photographer than the equipment.  I also think the preceeding should be modified to consider that ease of use, ergonomics and such may have an impact on the on how well the photographer does his/her photography thing..The most obvious difference between the two cameras is the controls.  Much of what you do on the Nikon via the menu system is can be done on the Fuji with external controls.  Some people are more comfortable with using the menu than with  the external controls.  Needless to say those who prefer Fuji are by contrast more comfortable with the external controls.

 

Then there are unique features.  I've owned a D5100 and for me the one thing I miss most is the articulated LCD screen.  On the other hand on the Fuji you can display a histogram in the view finder before shooting - this gives me more useful information about the exposure I want.

 

BTW, I passed on the X-T1 and use the X-E2.  Its a little smaller and costs less.  The areas where the T1 excels turn out to be less critical for the photos I make.

[Max_Elmar]

It's a very significant cash difference for the Fuji combo. These things really need to be judged on a system basis rather than by a single camera - but let's try. You get a smaller camera with weather sealing with the XT-1. You get a slightly better kit lens with the XT-1. You get a higher frame rate with X-T1. Maybe better build quality and more dedicated control wheels and buttons. You get a generation newer sensor with more pixels with the D5300 - but not a huge difference. A built-in flash, built-in GPS. Bigger, longer lasting battery with D5300. Just judging by the kits as described side by side - I like the D5300.

 

If you like Fuji color film, you will like the film simulations on the Fuji. If you like shooting with smallish, excellent prime lenses in the mid range, the Fuji is looking really good. If you want a great flash system - Nikon. If you want to use a wide range of fast zooms, or exotic, fast, long lenses - or simply the ability to rent whatever you want - Nikon.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Max_Elmar

[Warwick]

Both cameras will give you good pictures.

The Nikon is bigger and heavier, but significantly cheaper.

The Fuji is smaller and lighter with lots of external controls, but significantly more expensive.

So which would make you happier for longer?

Would you feel happier carrying around your Nikon and the knowledge of how much money you've saved?

Or would you feel more of a long-term thrill from the look and feel of the Fuji every time you use it?

It's not just a rational decision - like all important decisions in life, it's an emotional decision too.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited February 21, 2016 by Warwick

[lauriebrett]

Hi Hugh

 

I think it depends on what you'll use it for. Probably the Nikon would be better for sport and movie, otherwise I would go with the Fuji every time. I'm in the process of moving wholesale from a full frame Nikon D800 set up, and I would say the image quality of the Fuji is nearly as good at low ISO and better at high ISO. The image noise on Fuji's X-trans sensor is very even and more like film grain. Do the comparison on DP review and you'll see what I mean. 

As regards handling and user-satisfaction, there are two camps, some prefer the optical viewfinder and the menu's and dials of Nikon, others (like myself)  prefer the EVF and dials and buttons of the Fuji. For me the X-T1 in particular (I also have an X-E1) is a REALLY nice camera to use. The electronic viewfinder has (for me) many benefits:

(i) Real-time preview of exposure, colour etc. through the viewfinder - the Nikon live view is only on the rear screen

(ii) No mirror means you don't need mirror lock for tack sharp photos

(iii) Long sighted spectacle wearers can see all the menus through the (dioptre adjusted) viewfinder, so they don't need to wear specs when on a shoot.

(iv) Using a heavy ND filter (e.g. Lee Big Stopper), one can still see, focus and compose through the viewfinder, and there is no risk of light leakage through the prism as there is in an SLR.

(v) Instant preview of the photo you just taken - through the EVF.

 

Apart from the EVF the X-T1 is a really nice camera to use. The Nikon would have faster auto focus if that's important, but the X-T1 is no slouch.

 

Laurie

 

www.lauriebrett.co.uk

[addicted2light]

If I were you, I would forego the X-T1 and look instead for an X-T10 with the 16-50 xc.

 

Full disclosure: I am primarily a Sony shooter (A7r), even if I'm thinking really hard of switching completely to Fuji as soon as X-Pro2 prices will go down a bit.

 

I used to have a Nikon D3200 for (non-photographic) travel use (cheap, no need to worry that much for it to be stolen from an hotel room etc.). The D3200 is basically a D5200 without a tilt screen (you can read the review I wrote here, but since then I grow despising it more and more...).

 

I ended up selling it because:

 

- the 18-55 is competent as a kit lens but not that great optically (the 35/1.8 is nice, though)

- the build quality is patently uber-cheap

- the much talked about 50-200 VR sucked big time, both optically (the softest lens I ever shot with, including some no brand cheap lenses I got second hand attached to cameras I bought) and in terms of stabilization (useless at anything lower than 1/200s @200mm; and please keep in mind I have an extremely steady grip and I can usually shot well below the "safe" shutter speed with most lenses even without VR/OIS).

- the camera is squarely aimed at people who doesn't know a thing about photography, so it keeps second guessing you. For example, if you shoot with the self timer to avoid inducing vibrations it keeps resetting itself to single shoot mode (unless you use a remote)

- the viewfinder is extremely small; no comparison whatsoever with an EVF

- it is small, but not even remotely like an X-T10 (see it on Camerasize); that's a biggie, because when traveling this means it takes a ton of space to store it in a bag that you carry with you, and this will limit how much you can carry around (a spare jacket, water, guides etc.)

- the worst part: to get the colors the way I liked, it took way too much post processing and messing around.

- even worse: the pictures look horrible on the crappy LCD, so during my entire first trip with the camera I kept thinking "what I was doing wrong" while actually I was taking quite nice pictures

 

The X-T10, instead, I tried it out at a Fuji event near my area (you can read my "45 minutes review" here, should you be interested). We hit it off right away and has the same image quality of the X-T1, just without weather sealing.

- it is much smaller than the Nikon D5300 http://camerasize.com/compare/#620,490

- it is much better built

- it is a much quieter camera (and with the electronic shutter on completely silent)

- the 16-50 is way underrated. At least my copy is remarkably sharp corner to corner, not "just for a kit lens"

- the shutter button has the perfect detent, IMO

- the stabilization of the 16-50 (mk II) is rather good. I can get a pinpoint sharp shot at 1s (one full second!) with just two or three tries @ 35 or 50mm.

- the colors are great straight out of the box; my post processing consists often just in tweaking the white balance, bump the contrast a bit and dodging and burning to taste

Edited February 21, 2016 by addicted2light

[mdm]

Hugh, may I ask you what model of mobile phone do you use?