Moving from Nikon FF to Fuji

[sharkman53]

I am currently shooting with a D810 with my most used lens 16-35 1.4, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, all great glass.  I would like a smaller lighter kit for travel and longer hikes.  Does anyone have any suggestions on Fuji glass that would be equal in quality, obviously the end result of the image is the photographer and skill.  Thanks.

[darknj]

I am currently shooting with a D810 with my most used lens 16-35 1.4, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, all great glass.  I would like a smaller lighter kit for travel and longer hikes.  Does anyone have any suggestions on Fuji glass that would be equal in quality, obviously the end result of the image is the photographer and skill.  Thanks.

16-35 F1.4 ?! I guess you meant the F4, right ? If so, you can easily replace it with the Fujinon XF 10-24 F4, as for the 2 others, you have the two 2.8 zooms.

B

 

But please do not even try to compare the AF speed, the D810 is far more accurate and faster than the Fuji's bodies, at least currently.

[steviewonder]

If the XT-2 has the features I expect (2 SD slots, 5 or more bracket shots, better AF and 24 MP) I will be purchasing it. I have seen and read the numerous “advice needed” threads, but still am not sure about my best options.

[steviewonder]

 

"If the XT-2 has the features I expect (2 SD slots, 5 or more bracket shots, better AF and 24 MP) I will be purchasing it. I have seen and read the numerous “advice needed” threads, but still am not sure about my best options."

 

The XT-2 has met my needs and been pre-ordered. Still considering lens options. Ironically, I submitted 3 shots to a juried fine art show, 2 taken by my D800 (the ones I posted earlier in this thread) and one by my Sony Rx-100; the photo by the P&S was selected rather than the Nikon shots.

Edited July 10, 2016 by steviewonder

[aceflibble]

Always the way. The most (publicly) popular photos I've taken have been with a Canon A-1, a Canon 60D, and the X100S. Everything I take with the X-T1/T10, 7D mk II, 1Ds mk II/III, 1D X, Mamiya RZ67, Leaf Credo 50, and Rollei, are all considered perfectly satisfactory for work, but nobody ever wants to hang those pictures on their wall. None of them would ever win awards, other than in some kind of purely technical mastery contest.

I can take a hundred photos with a pro 70-200 or the 56mm f/1.2 or whatever, but it'll be the one picture taken with the 18mm f/2 which people spend the most time looking at.

If I let a model sit in on photo selection after a shoot, they'll love one of the ones I would throw away, and they'll hate the ten 'better' ones I would pick instead.

My father's done professional photography and design work for four and a half decades, but the only photos he's printed and put on his walls are ones taken with point & shoots. Not a single one from anything else.

The D800 is a helluva camera, but people judging collections of photos don't care about the lack of noise in the blue channel at 1:1 magnification on a 4K screen, or whatever. Technical gear superiority counts for nothing.

 

Always the way.

Edited July 10, 2016 by aceflibble

[mdm]

Yeah... You should repost it in every thread of XT2-whatsoever branch.

[LeonD]

I've been shooting with Fuji for the last few years first with an X-Pro1 and then adding an X-T1 and X100S.  (I just didn't want to be carrying my FF Canon around everywhere.)  Out of the three Fuji's, the X-T1 and X100S are the keepers.  They just work for the way I shoot.

 

Recently I wanted to give DSLRs another try.  I ended up getting a Nikon D810 and a few primes.  Heavy as all get out but amazing resolution and dynamic range.

 

Not sure why it's an either or situation for most people.  I see strengths in both camps.  The Nikon gets used mostly on a tripod and is used for still lives and landscapes where I can use LiveView/mirror lock up and take my time.  The X-T1 is the walking around/every day camera.  And the X100s is the camera to take when I normally wouldn't take a camera.  And it's also the discrete, people picture camera.

 

It's great to have choices.  And take advantage of them.

[jlmphotos]

For me:  18-55 (I don't leave  home without it)   16mm 1.4, and the 55-200 if I only could pack three lenses.  I also used to carry around a D800 + a gaggle of Nikons but no more....

[deva]

 

Not sure why it's an either or situation for most people. 

 

 

Cost of course. Many people cannot afford 1, let alone both

[abonhamc]

My advice is going to be very bare-bones compared to most of the other users, but I would not worry about taking so much gear. I have a X-Pro2, 16 f/1.4, 35 f/2, and a 90 f/2. That is my travel kit, home kit, and everywhere in between kit. I recently switched from a Canon system to save weight and so far, my whole kit fits into a case that used to only fit a 70-200 f/2.8L. Take less, enjoy more. On the flip of the coin, I have traveled across the South with only a RX100 and got plenty of nice photos, so I don't put much stock in having the "right" gear, only gear that I know and trust.

[Adam Woodhouse]

When traveling I just bring the 10-24/F4 and 18-135/F3.5-5.6mm.  

 

This way I have a general walk around lens with OIS and a great ultra wide angle with OIS.  It's a great, light combo.

[Jon Porter]

Another vote for the 10-24mm/18-135mm combination. It provides a very useful range for general travel photography and also has important overlap in case something happens to one of the lenses. Lose either and I still have the critical 24mm focal length (35mm equivalent) that's most useful for travel/walking-around photography. And with the good high ISO performance of today's cameras, using slower lenses isn't a problem.