Fujifilm X-PRO2 giving us an idea of what native Nikkor DX wide primes may come

CaMeRaQuEsTCaMeRaQuEsT Posts: 317Member
edited January 2016 in Other Manufacturers
Been pixel peeping at this picture, an official Fujifilm sample taken with the X-PRO2 and a 16mm f1.4 prime:

image

Fujifilm says that the acuity of the X-PRO2 files excels those out of a D810, but I don't see it having any more acuity over even my "lowly" D3300 coupled with my cheap 50mm f1.8g. What I do see is that there is no way to get as sharp an image with any of the current Nikkor lenses that reach down to 16mm and don't cost an arm and a leg to buy or weight a ton and a half to carry. This really pisses me off! I want cheap, compact 16mm and 24mm Nikkor DX prime lenses to wring the most out of those fabulous 24MP AA filter-less sensors in the current DX lineup! We need some love over here Nikon! You tout DSLRs as being way ahead of mirrorless, but you cut short on your promises by not giving us good DX wide angle primes, what gives? I think Nikon has given enough love to FX already, it's about time it spread some of that love down to DX too!
Post edited by CaMeRaQuEsT on
«1

Comments

  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 1,831Member
    edited January 2016
    Personally I think trying to go wide ,by which I mean 10mm on DX is a lost cause .The physics does not add up..going from 20 down to 10mm needs 4x the pixels to maintain IQ.
    Primes always give there worst quality wide open and you get no depth of field so its really an F5.6 whatever its max aperture......
    If you want a cheap light 16mm you got it ..its called a Samyang 14mm f 2.8
    Post edited by Pistnbroke on
  • CaMeRaQuEsTCaMeRaQuEsT Posts: 317Member
    Personally I think trying to go wide ,by which I mean 10mm on DX is a lost cause .The physics does not add up..going from 20 down to 10mm needs 4x the pixels to maintain IQ.
    Primes always give there worst quality wide open and you get no depth of field so its really an F5.6 whatever its max aperture......
    If you want a cheap light 16mm you got it ..its called a Samyang 14mm f 2.8
    If anything, Fujifilm shows that it can be done with primes, but all the Nikkor DX wide options are zooms. I can't use manual focus lenses, what with my terrible eyesight. But then even Canon only has one APS-C prime, and they only brought that out last year, so maybe Nikon feels no rush to do wide DX primes. I'll be more than happy with a compact 24mm like Canon's, which has been a huge hit for them.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,069Moderator
    Personally I think trying to go wide ,by which I mean 10mm on DX is a lost cause .The physics does not add up..going from 20 down to 10mm needs 4x the pixels to maintain IQ.
    Primes always give there worst quality wide open and you get no depth of field so its really an F5.6 whatever its max aperture......
    If you want a cheap light 16mm you got it ..its called a Samyang 14mm f 2.8
    I was amazed by the results I got using my 11-16 TOK at 11mm on my D7100 for a large group at a wedding. You could see very clearly each guest and whether they had eyes open or closed. I don't need better than that.
    Always learning.
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 1,000Member
    Personally I think trying to go wide ,by which I mean 10mm on DX is a lost cause .The physics does not add up..going from 20 down to 10mm needs 4x the pixels to maintain IQ.
    Primes always give there worst quality wide open and you get no depth of field so its really an F5.6 whatever its max aperture......
    Nikon makes a fantastic compact 10mm... its just only for CX mount.
    Some primes like the 300f4 PF are sharpest wide open.
    Nonetheless, I think Nikon is doing the right thing focusing on things that are not easily replicated by a mirrorless or cell phone... and that is action at a distance. EVERYTHING else will be replaced by mirrorless and iPhones sadly.
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    When the mission is critical, or the subjects are moving or far away, or I need high ISO I use Nikon FX.

    For most other photography (grandkids, travel etc.), I use Fuji DX.

    Why ?:
    The control system equivalent of Nikon professional body (D810 etc) in a body smaller and lighter that d5nnn.

    A series of lenses for DX format that are across the line as good as Leica's, Light, small, and not hideously expensive. Fuji's 18-55mm / 28 - 4 is every bit as good as Nikon's 17-55 / 2.8, it is 1/3 the size and weight, 1/3 the price, and image stabilized.

    Fuji's 90mm/ 2 is the sharpest lens I own (including Leica 90/ 2 summicron).

    Fuji's other fast primes (56 /1.2, 16 / 1.4, 24 / 1.4) are much better wide open than their Nikon equivalents, even shooting Nikon FX at comparing results at the same image size.

    Mirrorless does have real optical design advantages for wides because of lens to focal plane clearance, but even Fuji's DX teles's are better.

    Nikon's engineers are certainly as good as any in the world, I think the difference is that Fuji management takes this market seriously.

    Most Fuji shooters including myself say that the reason for choosing Fuji over Sony, Samsung etc. is the lens line up.

    I just pre-ordered a Fuji X-Pro2. I will not be buying a D500, I almost certainly will buy the next D810 replacement.

    This forum is much more interesting than Fuji's.

    Regards ... H

    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • CaMeRaQuEsTCaMeRaQuEsT Posts: 317Member
    haroldp, you are making a really convincing case for me to switch to Fuji! I'm dipping my toes with a used X10 and already find its RAW files much easier to work with under artificial lights than Nikon's, and that rangefinder-type OVF is so neat to use. I'm now looking at cheap X-E1 and X-PRO1 bodies and 18mm f2 lenses to start a Fuji system. Where Nikon hand down wins is on price, what with the huge availability of refurbished bodies and cheap gray market and used lenses, also Nikon has an almost 4 year head start with 24mp sensors.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,004Member
    Your best to skip the first gen Fuji X cameras, they leave a lot to be desired.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,042Member


    Fuji's other fast primes (56 /1.2, 16 / 1.4, 24 / 1.4) are much better wide open than their Nikon equivalents, even shooting Nikon FX at comparing results at the same image size.

    What are the Nikon equivalents to these? A DX f/1.4 is equivalent to an FX f/2.8, which Nikon does not make in their "G" lineup. Are you comparing the Fuji to the Nikon's shot wide open or at f/2.8? If you are comparing them to the Nikon's FX lenses when wide open, then I don't think it is a fair comparison as Fuji cannot do that.

    Besides these quibbles, there is some truth to your assertions and if I wanted to invest in a DX system, it would be a Fuji system based on their great lens lineup.

    I hope that Nikon is watching closely and carefully considering the danger posed by companies that "appear to" or actually match Nikon on quality for a cheaper price, like Sigma and Fuji. Personally, I hope they respond by increasing the quality of their FX offerings to compete against Sigma's Art lenses and not let Fuji convince the general public that "DX is just as good as FX", because it isn't even if Fuji has executed their format incredibly well. I am not trying to get "better for cheaper". But if Nikon gets lazy, then they won't be able to respond to a serious and unexpected challenge.
  • CaMeRaQuEsTCaMeRaQuEsT Posts: 317Member
    Your best to skip the first gen Fuji X cameras, they leave a lot to be desired.
    They couldn't be worst than a Canon M or M2 coupled with the 22mm, could they? I had owned both of those and really, really loved how sharp that little lens was, but because of my poor eyesight I had a really bad time shooting at arm's length. For the uses one mostly have for wide angles (landscape, group pictures) AF performance is not that important, but truth be told the M was just hideously slow even after I updated its FW. The M2 was alright, though, and from what I've read the X-E1 and X-PRO1 both beat the M2 in that regard.

  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,004Member
    Never touched a Canon mirrorless camera, so I couldn't compare. I just know that I consider the first generation Fuji cameras slow. Lets put it this way, they were better than cheap point and shoots, but not as good as some of the expensive ones from the same time period.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    @westendphoto

    I am comparing the Fuji's to Nikons shot at F1.4 and F2, which is how I shoot fast primes. I am correcting for comparable field of view, but not for depth of field or relative ISO capability. A 24mm F1.4 Fuji is compared to a 35mm f1.4 Nikon, a 35mm f1.4 Fuji is compared to a 50mm F1.4 Nikon.

    As much as I like my 105 f2.0 Nikon DC (my favorite portrait lens), the Fuji 90mm f2 is in a different league )it is sharper at F2 than than Leica's 90mm Summicron), as is their 56mm F1.2 which is good at F1.2, stunning at F1.4 and perfect edge to edge at F2.

    I am comparing DX Fuji's at 16mp to FX Nikons at 36mp at the same image display size which enlarges the fuji by a factor of 2 and they still hold up better.

    By F2.8 the Nikkors become essentially perfect and the order reverses, 36mp FX is better than 16mp DX.

    I have no Sigma art lenses and cannot compare. I am waiting for them in Sony FE mount where Sony's body based VR will greatly increase their usefulness.

    The wide lenses are also much smaller and lighter.

    The question is not 'is DX as good as FX' theoretically, and for ultimate IQ it clearly is not.

    However, if I want smaller and Lighter, Nikon FX is a non starter for both body and lens, and Nikon DX with Nikon DX lenses and smaller (D5nnn) bodies, is clearly inferior to Fuji DX, and I hate the UI in Nikon's smaller cameras. I often use Fuji where I simply will not carry a D810 (let alone a 3x) and it's IQ is much better than Nikon's left at home.

    This is why I maintain a full set of Nikon and Fuji gear, 'horses for courses'.

    @CaMeRaQuEsT

    Up to the x-pro2, all current fuji x system use the same 16mp sensor. The only differences other than UI between an X-E1 and an X-T1 that matter, are much faster Autofocus on the X-T1 and X-T10, and better (more pixels, faster refresh) EVF's.

    For anything moving, stick to the X-T1 and X-T10, or Nikon who still has much better AF tracking than either (not in D5nnn).

    I think the X-T10 is a real sweet pot in price / performance .

    I still use my X-E1 for landscapes and architectural when traveling.

    Comparing Nikon 24mp DX with Nikon DX lenses to Fuji 16mp DX with Fuji lenses, it is not even close, lens performance wins hands down.

    I hope this is helpful ... H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,172Member
    edited January 2016
    the 24mp Fuji sensor has long been expected.. its been delayed by a whole year and a half. The thing that I am worried about is that they did not get it working properly and have rushed it out no matter what cost cos its been a year's delay.

    so I will be waiting patiently ( patience pays as with D500 !! LOL) lets see how the X-E? series performs with the 24MP Xtrans sensor !! Of course I am very hopeful! and like I mentioned.. the Mirrorless is marching on and the D500 pro DSLR may well be the Last of its kind. ( i still want one though !! )
    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 1,831Member
    edited January 2016
    Re wide angle on DX is a lost cause ....
    Tokina 11-16mm on D7100 rated 11MP by DXO (less above f5.6)
    Samyang 14mm on D810 rated 27MP by DXO

    My experience with the Sigma 10-20 on a D7000 caused me to buy a D800 which I used for months with the Sigma 17-35 then Samyang 14mm until I made the mistake of going FX for my main camera which is heavier, less DOF and has a poor choice of lenses at least if you need a zoom. OK it is quiet which is very important at a wedding...
    Post edited by Pistnbroke on
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    Re wide angle on DX is a lost cause ....
    Fuji's 10-24 F4 IS is an outstanding crop format wide angle, but it's design does not hve to clear a mirror.

    Nikon's 12-24 F4 is also very good but wants f5.6 for best results and has no VR.

    ... H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • moreorlessmoreorless Posts: 120Member
    I'm really not seeing evidence of savings in size/price or better performance when it comes to mirrorless UWA's. The issue I spose is that digital sensors mean you have to keep the light angles much less extreme than you could get away with for film.

    Nikon could I'd agree use some new DX UWA's though, update the 10-24mm with VR and perhaps more importantly introduce something to compete with the Canon 10-18mm on price/performance.

    In terms of going after Fuji I personally think Nikon is lacking both the lenses AND the body to target the same market, I think they would need to come up with something the size of a D5xxx with D7xxx level build and basic handling or potentially a new DX mirrorless mount. Either way I think the camera and a good deal of lenses to support it is a much more expensive investment that the likes of the D500 or the Df that draw on existing FX lenses mostly.
  • picturetedpictureted Posts: 153Member
    I'm very tempted by the new X-Pro2. I've been tremendously impressed with my X100s - both sensor and lens - seem comparable to Nikon DX at higher MPs. The factor I like best is the OVF. Being able to keep my eye on a subject through exposure is a great benefit - something I first experienced with a Contax G2 and something all M Leica owners know well. My Nikon F3HPs and Contax G2s coexisted well for years - Nikon for macro and long lens, Contax for street and casual travel…

    I feel the same now. I can't imagine trying to build a system more capable of macro and still lifes than a D810 with Zeiss 50/2, 100/2 macros, Nikon 60, 105 and 200 macro, 300 AF-s with tubes, ARAX 80/2.8 TS. Or a D500 with 200-500VR for birds. For street shooting, give me an X-Pro2, 23/1.4, 56/1.2 and 14/2.8. Each in it's place.
    pictureted at flickr
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    @pictureted

    I do not do macro, but do a fair amount of wildlife and birding.
    You appear to have come to the same mix that I use, Nikon for subjects that move fast, or are far away, and Fuji or Leica for those that are neither.

    I have pre ordered the x-pro2, primarily for faster autofocus.
    My choice of Fuji over other mirrorless alternatives is mostly based on the quality and availability of lenses.

    @moreorless

    Small DSLR's currently have a price advantage over mirrorless, primarily because of their very high production volumes.

    Mirrorless cameras like the Fuji X-T10 are smaller still than a Nikon D5nnn and the X-T1 is about the same size, but they have the equivalent of Nikon's professional body UI and control system which I greatly prefer. Nikon's small bodies are clearly focused on those who will use them on automatic most of the time. Whenever I use (my wifes) D5100 on manual, I wind up wanting to throw either the camera or myself into the river, and I don't have a river.

    Mirrorless DX size sensor WA lenses are definitely smaller and optically simpler than DSLR DX WA lenses. Even though digital sensors do not like very acute impact angles, it is not as restrictive as clearing a mirror, particularly with modern microlenses.

    Nikon also made a design decision years ago which I agree with, but hurts them with DX WA lenses. Nikon policy is that all 'F' mount lenses can mount in all 'F' mount bodies which means that even DX lenses must clear an FX size mirror.

    Canon crop format lenses will not mount on Full Frame cameras or even APS-H (1.3 factor), so they can build them to barely clear a crop format (DX) mirror and move the rear element further back than Nikon can.





    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    @haroldp, just as a point of note, Fuji's sensors are not designed with offset microlenses, and so people have a hard time using high-quality wide-angle rangefinder (M-mount) lenses. Fuji decided that they would make their lenses retrofocus or other more complicated formulas (WATE) rather than simplify the lens design and allow for highly angled rays of light to hit the sensor, which would have required a more complex offset microlens design, on top of their custom X-trans color arrangement.
    Bottom line: Fuji has no inherent advantage over a DX lens designed for a DSLR, for perhaps different reasons, but the end result is they need to use the same techniques (i.e. retrofocus) for lens design.
    Sony on the other hand has implemented offset microlenses in their Alpha line and this allows for very simple WA lens design, and 60 year-old M-mount lenses to work flawlessly.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,042Member
    I would think that having offset microlenses will cause the same problem at the tele end that it fixes at the wide end, so I doubt that you will see this technology in anything other than a prime non-interchangeable camera, like my Coolpix A.
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    edited January 2016
    Uhh, well someone should tell sony they are doing it wrong. And Leica. And... If it is done correctly you will reduce vignetting and other aberrations and not hurt the tele end. The light is almost always hitting the edge of the sensor at some angle, this effect is worse with UWA.
    Post edited by Ironheart on
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    @ironheart

    You are correct that Fuji does not use offset microlenses, Neither does Sony.

    One of the side effects of the BSI sensor used in the A7rII is a 'flatter' sensor plane which also reduces some of the issues associated with acute light angles.

    I do use a WATE mounted on a Sony A7II and it is an excellent match. Image stabilized to boot. I would not try a super angulon on it.

    As far as I know, only Leica uses them and to WestEndFoto's point, compensates for their effect in firmware, which is why Leica M's need to know which lens is mounted.

    That being said, the need to clear an FX size mirror requires more clearance from rear element to focal plane than would be needed by a retrofocus design sufficient to avoid the color cast problems of acute angles. That is one of the reasons Canon crop format lenses will not mount on FF cameras, so they only need to clear a DX size mirror.

    For whatever reason, Nikon's 12-24 F4 DX while quite good, is substantially bigger, heavier , more expensive, and not in the same league as Fuji's 10-24 F4 OIS.

    Regards ... H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    edited January 2016
    From http://discover.store.sony.com/sony-technology-services-apps-NFC/tech_imaging.html
    image

    "Gapless, optimally positioned on-chip lenses
    Sony optimized the design and positioning of every on-chip lens (OCL) covering every pixel to significantly enhance light-gathering efficiency. This raises sensitivity while maintaining low noise and achieving an impressive S/N ratio. A gapless on-chip lens design eliminates the gaps between micro-lenses to collect more light. Moreover, each on-chip lens is optimally positioned depending on its location to accommodate the sharper angle of light entering the periphery, which is caused by larger sensor dimensions being teamed with the E-mount's short flange-back distance."
    Post edited by Ironheart on
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    @ironheart

    Thank you, I am always happy to learn something.
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    Currently this looks so interesting I was adding up the total cost of body plus lenses, but will wait until Nikon comes through, and this may be sooner than we think.

    I think Nikon sensors have been quite successful for me to dates thus my reluctance to jump ship.....
    Msmoto, mod
Sign In or Register to comment.