Sell my Nikon FX gear and go with Fuji X-Pro 2?

[nerwin]

Canon has those close up filters that Bryan Peterson loves.

 

[Derrel]

Canon has those close up filters that Bryan Peterson loves.

Yes, Canon has the 250D and the 500D. Nikon had the 5T and the 6T. These are two-element, achromatic optical "lenses" mounted in a high-grade filter ring. They are much better built than the simple, + diopter, three-filter sets available at pawn shops for $8-$12 per set, almost always found in a small leather case with a snap-flap. Two-elements achromats use two types of optical glass, like crown glass and flint glass, to help eliminate chromatic aberration: these are NOT just "magnifying glasses", these are high-grade, precision-made, carefully designed two-element lens systems.

Most people have no actual experience with these types of two-element close-up lenses. I have the Canon 500D, and it's pretty good. Mine's a 77mm diameter one, and I've used it on 70-200 and 300/4 lenses. It's pretty good.

Following a tip from Nikon lens expert and nature photography expert Bjorn Rorslett, on his zoom lens evaluations page for the 100-300mm f/5.6 Nikkor lens Zoom Lenses For Nikon 'F' Mount: Telephoto , he writes:

"The real surprise of the 100-300, however, comes when you put a close-up lens onto its front threads. I employed my standard Nikon 6T (reverse-mounted) and was absolutely floored by the high quality close-ups produced by this combination. High image sharpness and contrast, perfectly flat field, and virtually no CA are features you associate with an expensive Micro-Nikkor, not a makeshift combination of a achromatic attachment and a consumer zoom lens. Food for some real thoughts."

I had a 100-300/5.6, and once I located a used 6T, I bought a 62-62 filter reversing ring, and tried it on the lens. He's not exaggerating. I shot some photos of currency taped to a wall: the optical quality is outstanding, and the field is perfectly FLAT across 24x36mm, sharp, high contrast, and has no color fringing. Together, these two items, a used 100-300mm f/5.6 and a more-expensive 6T would likely set a guy back $100 for the lens and $150 for the 6T close-up lens--from the right seller.

One nice thing is that wide-open at f/5.6, the diaphragm shape is perfectly rounded, since no blades cut off any of the light.

The 6T was designed back in the day when Nikon's mid-range and higher-grade zooms used 62mm filter diameters, and the 5T was for the many,many,many 52mm diameter Nikkors.

 

[bhop]

Have you looked at Capture One for raw files it is industry standard most top photographers use it, I've been using it for about 10 years and it produces wonderful colours

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

I've only been using Lightroom for my digital processing, but I looked up some info on Iridient Developer and Capture one and after seeing some blog posts with comparison shots, i'm interested in trying something else. I'm curious if Capture One is worth the extra cost? ($200 more than Iridient!!)

 

[gsgary]

Have you looked at Capture One for raw files it is industry standard most top photographers use it, I've been using it for about 10 years and it produces wonderful colours

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

I've only been using Lightroom for my digital processing, but I looked up some info on Iridient Developer and Capture one and after seeing some blog posts with comparison shots, i'm interested in trying something else. I'm curious if Capture One is worth the extra cost? ($200 more than Iridient!!)

I've never used iridient

Have you looked at Capture One for raw files it is industry standard most top photographers use it, I've been using it for about 10 years and it produces wonderful colours

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

I've only been using Lightroom for my digital processing, but I looked up some info on Iridient Developer and Capture one and after seeing some blog posts with comparison shots, i'm interested in trying something else. I'm curious if Capture One is worth the extra cost? ($200 more than Iridient!!)

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[Gary A.]

I am late to this thread ... but I have a FF system (1Ds), an APS-C system (X100S, XT1, XP1, XP2) and MFT system (EM1). I found the Fuji to be a wonderful compromise between the IQ of FF and the small footprint of MFT. If you're looking for video, then Fuji isn't for you.

Unless, you're a rangefinder type of guy, I wouldn't recommend the XP2. Fuji invested a lot into the XP2's design to reflect and project a film camera's feel and handling. Hence, no articulating lcd, to accommodate the rangefinder-ish optical viewfinder the EVF isn't nearly as large and as good as the XT1, so far no battery grip - so going vertical isn't as easy as with the XT1 and if you change ISO often - the lift and turn ISO dial on top the SS, for many is problematic (I don't mind it).

If you are a rangefinder type of guy, then the XP2 is definitely for you, if not ... then wait for the XT2.

On the positive, the XP2 is a wonderful camera. Fuji controls are designed for manual handling, the body and lenses are metal (rock solid), the AF is fast and accurate, Fujinon lenses are top notch, Fuji IQ is top notch. The Fuji cameras are sexy and the XP2 has the very best shutter sound than any digital camera I've had or heard. Fuji's are a sheer pleasure to use and they capture one helluva image.

I have just switched from Aperture (which is not longer being supported by Apple) to Iridient Developer for RAW conversion. Most Fuji shooters rate Iridient as the best program for Fuji RAW conversion. Iridient is a hundred bucks.

Yes, Iridient appears to be the best software out there for converting Fuji's X-Trans raw files, but its only available for Macs. Maybe they will make a Windows version someday. But doesn't seem like it. Fuji has Silkypix converter which works okay. But even so after testing out numerous raw files from the XP2 and X100T, my raw files from my D610 are just superior in every way. But, can't really compare as one is full frame and the other is not. That's a makes a huge difference. I just don't think these cameras can replace a DSLR, not yet anyways. They are just two different cameras for different needs. There is no one solution for photographers, that's why there is a vast selection of cameras available on the market.

But in terms of looks, Fuji is making me sweat. hahahaha.

Have you looked at Capture One for raw files it is industry standard most top photographers use it, I've been using it for about 10 years and it produces wonderful colours

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

Yes, I have Capture One. I haven't a problem with Capture One ... I just read repeatedly that Iridient was very very good. I think PhotoNinja is ever so slightly better than Capture One, but PhotoNinja doesn't handle a ton of files well and dives into slo-mo. Iridient was only $100 ... So I thought I'd give it a whirl. At this time, I think Capture One isn't fully operational for XP2 files.

 

[goodguy]

The Sony X100 seems like a decent camera and I really like the Fuji XP2. I don't do video. However, I would go with one that would not require selling off your D610.

Yeah...I think the RX100 M3/M4 is great choice for me. But by the time I sell..if I sell..my macro lens..I might as well just pick up the new Nikon DL 24-85!! No viewfinder..but I think I can manage.

From what I see the Nikon DL 24-85mm is 300$ cheaper then the RX100 IV

 

[thereyougo!2]

This thread make me feel fit rather than (well at 200 pounds+ as well as) fat. I regularly drag around a A7RII nd a few lenses and the 645Z and a few lenses. Hell, I've got to be strong to carry my weight around, lol