Fuji Fuji XT-1 - new top dog Fuji X or over-festooned retro?

In my experience it's more the full-frame sensor (bigger, so more prone to gather dust) than the DSLR aspect that provoke the need for more frequent cleaning.

My K-01 and K-30 are pretty equivalent in terms of cleaning needs (a air blower shoot every couple of months), whereas I needed to clean my sensor after almost every outings when I had a 5D mark I.

Would be interesting to know about the A7/A7r on this subject though.

That's interesting. Didn't happen on the RX1, but then that's a closed system. If that's the case, that's a pretty good argument for staying away from full frame ILC, although I too would be interested to know how the A7 does to test your hypothesis. I cleaned my sensor a couple of days ago, tested it this morning and it was looking good, but I just went out for a couple hours of walking around and all of my shots from the second half of the walk need cloning to clean up some dust spots. I'm not sure I'm up for a camera that requires this kind of attention on a regular basis. Although otherwise I rather love shooting with it and the results are otherwise stellar...

-Ray
 
i had no idea there was a difference in sensor cleaning needs based on sensor size. thats really interesting. dont the fuji have that same 'sensor shake' cleaning tech that the oly m4/3s have? gosh, i havent ever cleaned my own sensor, but now that i think about it my 5d really was a freaky dust magnet!
 
Reliable I have to quibble with though. The need to fine tune AF occasionally (an experience I've yet to have) and clean sensors on a regular basis (one I've gotten all too familiar with in the past weeks) are real DSLR downsides that I've yet to run into with any MILC. The amount of crud that gets into a DSLR body and then moves around in there (I assume because of the flapping mirror) has been a real eye-opener to me.

-Ray

Ray, I'm wondering if it's all down to sensor size or a combination of sensor size and Nikon's cleaning system. I never saw any dust on my 5d3 that I had for over a year. I shot the 24-105, 28, 40, and 100 in that time and didn't see it. Olympus also has an excellent, some claim the best, dust removal system, starting from almost day one when they included it on it's 4/3 dslr line. The original Canon 5d was said to be a dust magnet so apparently Canon's system has improved.
 
Ray, I'm wondering if it's all down to sensor size or a combination of sensor size and Nikon's cleaning system. I never saw any dust on my 5d3 that I had for over a year. I shot the 24-105, 28, 40, and 100 in that time and didn't see it. Olympus also has an excellent, some claim the best, dust removal system, starting from almost day one when they included it on it's 4/3 dslr line. The original Canon 5d was said to be a dust magnet so apparently Canon's system has improved.

I really don't know. But I do know that in four years of shooting with various m43 bodies, various Fuji bodies, a couple of Nex bodies, and various fixed lens cameras (both fixed focal length and zooms), I'd NEVER even thought about having to clean a sensor. Even once - just not part of my consciousness. With the Df, it's been a ongoing issue since about the second day I shot with it. For a while I was just cloning out more and more dust spots when they happened to land in the sky (where they're visible - not much of an issue when they're hiding in the foliage or architecture). And for the past few days, I've gotten obsessive about cleaning only to find that even if I start out a shoot with a clean sensor, after several shots, dust starts showing up again. Which means it'e getting sucked in and/or it's being moved around inside the camera. I can't help but think that the constant movement of the mirror has got to play a role in this, but if other folks have had much better experienced with other DSLR's maybe that's not it. I hadn't shot extensively with and sort of SLR since the film days and I obviously never had to clean THOSE sensors. So this is a new experience for me, and one I'm really not fond of. It's probably gonna be a deal breaker honestly. Photography isn't my job, it's my joy, and dealing with constant sensor dust issues makes it feel like too much of a job...

-Ray
 
Sounds like you need an X-T1, Ray ;)
I"m just about there Nic. It's kind of funny after the last year of exploring various different cameras and systems that I may well end up right back where I was two years ago for the most part - Fuji for primes, m43 for longer focal lengths and zooms, and some sort of pocket camera (now the Nikon A rather than the GRD3 or LX5 I had then). Even the sensors in the Fuji and Oly cameras are the same, although the bodies and lenses have grown up pretty well around them.

I went back through some Fuji raw files and played with a couple of them and I was always quite happy with them through about ISO 3200 and adequately happy at 6400. With full frame I'm quite happy through 6400 and adequately happy at 12,800. So I lose a stop or a little more to the Df, but I get most if not all of it back in the lenses I'm willing to carry, which tend to be a stop faster with the Fuji gear than the Nikon gear. Even relative to the RX1 - the Fuji 23mm f1.4 gives me about the same DOF and low light capability of the 35mm f2.0 in the RX1, with a sensor that's about a stop better. I've enjoyed spending some time with full frame, but until and unless they can bend the laws of physics to make really good and fast full frame lenses AND keep 'em small-ish, I think APS and m43 are a better set of compromises for me overall.

I'm planning to take the Df to the Bay Area next week, but I don't really want to have to think about keeping the sensor clean during a heavy week of shooting and enjoying the city. If I can find an XT1 in stock, I may take all of that money (from the RX1, GX7, and m43 primes) I had ready for the very expensive Df and a few cheap lenses and instead buy the much less expensive XT1 and a few more expensive lenses and take that instead. Along with the EM1 for the ultra-wide and telephoto stuff, which I'll probably do very little of, but some... I'm sure I'll come back with images I'll like roughly as much and I won't have to give a thought to dust on the sensor... I should probably wait and give the Samsung stuff a good try, but Fuji is a known quantity and I like those files a lot...

-Ray
 
I don't think that Samsung has a camera that quite matches the standards of the E-M1 and X-T1 just yet. IQ-wise yes with the NX300 and new NX30, but their "flagship" model is still a couple of months off until they launch the NX1 (or something like that); the camera that is designed to be kitted with the recently announced 16-50mm f2-2.8.

Regarding your sensor dust issues with the Df; if you aren't using zooms then it shouldn't be the lenses that are sucking in dust, and since I assume that you aren't changing lenses whilst facing into a dust storm there must already be a lot of junk inside your camera that is being circulated. The Nikon D600 has earned itself a fairly unenviable reputation for getting dirt and oil on sensors but I didn't think that the problem was endemic to Nikons in general.
 
I don't think that Samsung has a camera that quite matches the standards of the E-M1 and X-T1 just yet. IQ-wise yes with the NX300 and new NX30, but their "flagship" model is still a couple of months off until they launch the NX1 (or something like that); the camera that is designed to be kitted with the recently announced 16-50mm f2-2.8.

Regarding your sensor dust issues with the Df; if you aren't using zooms then it shouldn't be the lenses that are sucking in dust, and since I assume that you aren't changing lenses whilst facing into a dust storm there must already be a lot of junk inside your camera that is being circulated. The Nikon D600 has earned itself a fairly unenviable reputation for getting dirt and oil on sensors but I didn't think that the problem was endemic to Nikons in general.

Yeah, if I liked zoom shooting more than I do, that 16-50 alone might be reason enough to go with Samsung. But I don't. And for primes, Samsung has some good ones but Fuji I think has more and seems more aggressive about really fleshing out their system. I'd go back to the 14 and 18, add the 23, and probably the 56. All I need is a really excellent 16 to give me all I'd want. Don't know if they'll ever do it, but I'd likely buy it even though it's sandwiched pretty tightly between 14 and 18, but that's my neighborhood and I like to know ALL of the streets in it...

The dust thing I don't know about. I'm sure it's not the lenses. But I'm not doing anything differently than I've done with mirrorless systems for the past few years and I've never once had to mess with cleaning a sensor or cloning out dust spots. And it's been a constant since I've been shooting with the Df. It's a problem I could probably solve or at least learn to manage if I saw enough reason to. But I'm leaning against the Df anyway, just because I don't think it has enough of a sensor advantage to matter unless I was willing to shoot with the really high end glass, which is both huge and hugely expensive. And I'm clearly not. Not to mention the various shooting advantages I find with mirrorless. I really like having a good constant live view available. I like an OVF more than an EVF, but EVFs are getting good enough that I'd rather have a good EVF and all of the rest of the live view environment than have an OVF and almost no useful live view...

As you said in an early post in my thread about whether a dedicated mirrorless shooter could learn to love a DSLR, there are a lot of reasons to prefer live view and you couldn't love a DSLR. I like more about the Df than I thought I might, but on balance I think I'm coming down on the same side you're on.

-Ray
 
ray, just out of curiosity, and regardless of any view you might have on compromises, if we consider irrelevent the stop difference between rx1/Df and fuji, do you see noticeable IQ differences, as in resolution, microcontrast, color rendering etc? i ask because in going back through my X photos and my rx1, i personally see some pretty big differences at every iso in terms of detail, contrast, and color. additionally i find a much different overall 'look' if you will, which i characterize as a 'richness' in the rx1 that i dont see in the X. i,m very curious as to your insights, especially as my perception was that it was these perceptible differences that launched you on your Df odyssey in the first instance.

in fairness, for some reason i cant explain--perhaps because i'm daft--i find that the X b&w files seem to have a much broader range of tonality than the rx1, and i personally find that much more pleasing. but color is another story entirely, at least for me. interestingly, i like the rx1 b&w files much better at around iso1600 than at more normal iso. just a meandering digression, still very interested in your IQ observations.
 
ray, just out of curiosity, and regardless of any view you might have on compromises, if we consider irrelevent the stop difference between rx1/Df and fuji, do you see noticeable IQ differences, as in resolution, microcontrast, color rendering etc? i ask because in going back through my X photos and my rx1, i personally see some pretty big differences at every iso in terms of detail, contrast, and color. additionally i find a much different overall 'look' if you will, which i characterize as a 'richness' in the rx1 that i dont see in the X. i,m very curious as to your insights, especially as my perception was that it was these perceptible differences that launched you on your Df odyssey in the first instance.

in fairness, for some reason i cant explain--perhaps because i'm daft--i find that the X b&w files seem to have a much broader range of tonality than the rx1, and i personally find that much more pleasing. but color is another story entirely, at least for me. interestingly, i like the rx1 b&w files much better at around iso1600 than at more normal iso. just a meandering digression, still very interested in your IQ observations.

Well, I think they're different. Not quite in the various subtle ways you describe, but clearly different. Better or worse is a matter of taste. The RX1 seems to have more just flat out POP than either and I suspect that's more to do with resolution than anything. I saw a similar type of thing but to a greater degree with the Sigma DP1M when I shot with one. Even when down-sampled for the web or for medium sized prints (where resolution shouldn't matter that much), it seems to matter. But I loved the RX1 files and only liked the DP1M files a lot, so even among the super-resolved, there are differences!

The Df and Fuji are more similar, maybe because they're both 16mp sensors - both are pretty much creamy and smooth, clean skies at base ISO, etc. I like 'em both a lot. Others might call it a lack of detail, but I like it. The Df files seem to hold up a bit better under extreme processing (as do RX1 files), so at some point there must be something inherent in the larger pixels on the full frame sensors, and some difference in DR. But generally I see more similarity between the Df and Fuji files than I do between either and the RX1. Although the Nikon colors and the Fuji colors are both unique in their own ways. In terms of B&W and color, I pretty much always find that files that work well in color work well in B&W too, but I tend to lean more to contrast with B&W than to the subtleties of tonality...

In terms of what launched me on the Df journey in the first place, it was more a matter of hoping for an RX1 like quality with a few more prime lenses than one - not in any way a hope of bettering the output from the RX1, which I could not have been happier with. That and a rampant and dangerous and expensive curiosity that always gets me into trouble but usually back out of it as well. I'm probably about to end up with largely the same system I had two years ago, albeit with nicer bodies and more nice glass, after having tried every conceivable option. I'm evidently a lot like democracy, I usually arrive at the right answer (for me - not espousing for anyone else), but not until I've tried all of the wrong ones well and thoroughly first... I think it might have been Churchill who said that about democracy but I might have the wrong author...

-Ray
 
thanks. like you, i was fantasizing about rx1 quality out of the Df body. but im kinda glad it doesnt produce because it was beyond my self imposed per piece price limit that ive kept for many years, so a lot less frustrating. interestingly, on the web at least, the Df files looked to me very close to rx1, but obviously web viewing aint for real.

anyway, from your description im more happy settling in with my rx1. truth is, when analysing how i shoot, its mostly 35mm that i grab, and sometimes i need portrait FL, but not nearly as much as my grab n go 35. i like something compact in that regard, which is why ive shot the x100 so heavily. so really a fixed awesome 35 really does work for me the vast majority. and really the epl5 + 45 or my leica 50 and 90 really should serve me well for 75% of my remaining needs. so i guess im happy...

buuuut, id be a mess happier if the rx1 had real zone focusing ability and the epl5 was easier/more fun to shoot manually...

anyway, thanks for your views and good luck on your next steps.
 
Yeah, if the RX1 had been 24 or 28mm, I'd have probably never thought about another full frame option. I can walk around for days at a time with that focal length. Every now and then I like something wider and then I also like to have a portrait length or two (my Oly 75 is one of my favorite lenses ever). But the vast majority of my walk around shooting happens in that 24-28 range. The Nikon had a really nice small 24 and 28 and I shot with them a lot over the past few weeks. But they're f2.8 so not really better than some faster APS or even m43 options at f2.0 or better. I'd think about buying an RX1 back (because it is a bit wider than 35 and in my comfort zone, if just) but I think that now that Fuji has a 23 f1.4, the low light should be comparable and then I can also shoot with the 14 and 18 and eventually add the 56 for a shorter and really fast portrait option. I'm looking for XT1 bodies now...

-Ray
 
Ray to save your sanity on the San Fran trip you may want to check into Nikon's View NX or Capture NX. I think they both let you do a dust off photo and then will magically remove dust from the photos in raw development.

I wouldn't like to rely on this for a long term solution, but might be ok for your trip.

Here are a couple of links. They talk about Capture NX, but I think View NX also does it and it will be not the cd that came with the df.

https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/6807/~/how-does-image-dust-off-work?

Nikon Capture NX Users Group

If you need to download View NX - This page does say the dust off photo is supported
Nikon Support
 
Ray to save your sanity on the San Fran trip you may want to check into Nikon's View NX or Capture NX. I think they both let you do a dust off photo and then will magically remove dust from the photos in raw development.

I wouldn't like to rely on this for a long term solution, but might be ok for your trip.

Here are a couple of links. They talk about Capture NX, but I think View NX also does it and it will be not the cd that came with the df.

https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/6807/~/how-does-image-dust-off-work?

Nikon Capture NX Users Group

If you need to download View NX - This page does say the dust off photo is supported
Nikon Support

Thanks, that could be a decent short term option. Although its mildly disturbing that it's been enough of a problem for them to develop software to deal with it in that manner! And just yesterday I had the experience of going out with just one small dust spot near the bottom of the image frame (where you'd pretty much never see it) and the first several photos looked fine, but then stuff I took about a half hour into the walk and beyond had dust spots in the sky again, about three or four of them. Not horribly obvious until processing the shot and seeing them pop out. So clearly one way or another I'm letting dust into the cavity and then once I start shooting and the mirror starts moving air around, some of them are migrating to the sensor. It's just not something I really want to have to think about. Particularly on a trip where I'm hopefully gonna be shooting a lot. I've had folks on the Nikon forum on DPR say that when they're shooting a lot, they clean their sensor daily. No way I'm signing up for that...

But thanks for the thought - it's a cool idea in a slightly disturbing way.

-Ray
 
Yeah, if I liked zoom shooting more than I do, that 16-50 alone might be reason enough to go with Samsung. But I don't. And for primes, Samsung has some good ones but Fuji I think has more and seems more aggressive about really fleshing out their system. I'd go back to the 14 and 18, add the 23, and probably the 56. All I need is a really excellent 16 to give me all I'd want. Don't know if they'll ever do it, but I'd likely buy it even though it's sandwiched pretty tightly between 14 and 18, but that's my neighborhood and I like to know ALL of the streets in it...

As it stands I probably wouldn't be looking at any of the larger Samsung gear either, but I'll wait and see how it looks. The problem I have with Samsung is that I have been well and truly spoiled by the two 20mm and 30mm pancakes which cost me about $100 each second hand and have no right to perform as well as they do edge-to-edge even when resolving on a 20mp APS-C sensor. It is not by accident that I don't own any of the Micro 4/3 pancakes anymore. For a few months now I've been eyeing off the NX 45/1.8 lens for $269 brand new which by all reports is at least as good as the pancakes and find myself hesitating on price!

The dust thing I don't know about. I'm sure it's not the lenses. But I'm not doing anything differently than I've done with mirrorless systems for the past few years and I've never once had to mess with cleaning a sensor or cloning out dust spots. And it's been a constant since I've been shooting with the Df. It's a problem I could probably solve or at least learn to manage if I saw enough reason to.

I definitely had more dust issues with my Canon DSLRs than any mirrorless camera, but I don't know if it is specifically related to being a DSLR because Olympus DLSRs and mirrorless cameras have both been equally good. I was told a funny story by an Olympus rep recently. When Olympus created 4/3 about ten years ago they were the first to investigate dust reduction and ended up patenting 20 different methods before settling on the SSWF system. The story went that anytime you buy a different brand of camera, the best dust reduction system that you are going to get is No. 21! He might have been stretching the truth but it was funny all the same. It really does sound like unless there has been problems reported with other Df cameras there must be a specific issue with your particular camera. You shouldn't be having problems virtually every time you go to use the camera.

But I'm leaning against the Df anyway, just because I don't think it has enough of a sensor advantage to matter unless I was willing to shoot with the really high end glass, which is both huge and hugely expensive. And I'm clearly not. Not to mention the various shooting advantages I find with mirrorless. I really like having a good constant live view available. I like an OVF more than an EVF, but EVFs are getting good enough that I'd rather have a good EVF and all of the rest of the live view environment than have an OVF and almost no useful live view...

As you said in an early post in my thread about whether a dedicated mirrorless shooter could learn to love a DSLR, there are a lot of reasons to prefer live view and you couldn't love a DSLR. I like more about the Df than I thought I might, but on balance I think I'm coming down on the same side you're on.

I better stick by that comment because I said it :). I was a happy DSLR user until I picked up an E-P1 in 2010. In no way was it going to replace the Canon 50D I had at the time in terms of IQ and performance, but the way the lighter weight and live-view technology let me compose without a viewfinder was an immediate improvement for me, as well as the accurate exposure preview that let me get it right the first time rather than wait to find out after I had taken the shot. The Panasonic GH1 I bought in 2011 bumped up both the performance and IQ as well as adding an articulated screen which I loved, and then in 2012 the Canon G1X and the Olympus E-M5 meant that my DSLR days were over for good.

Had mirrorless not come around my next move would have been to look at a 5D Mark II and I had a bunch of full-frame lenses that would have ported straight over, but the thing that gave me pause was that full-frame lenses of about 50mm and wider have big corner and edge issues at larger apertures. My 24-105L lens (RRP of $1000+ then) works very nicely on an APS-C body but has massive vignetting, corner softness, and distortion issues at wide-angles on a full-frame sensor despite being designed for digital. My 20mm f2.8 prime was a nice ~35mm lens on APS-C but again suffers badly when the full image circle was used. The less that is said about the two Canon 50mm f1.4 and f1.8 lenses the better because neither is anywhere near sharp in the centre until f2.8 and their edge performance up until that point can best be described as disasterous. The greater issue here is that none of these lenses are particularly cheap except for the truly horrible feeling Canon 50mm f1.8 II. That is essentially why I formed the opinion that unless I was using the full-frame telephoto primes and zooms which do perform well across the frame and at their larger apertures, the perceived advantages of full-frame disappear under the weight of wide-to-normal FL lenses that just don't perform until stopped down.

The X-T1 here, the Olympus E-M1, the Panasonic GH4 and anything else similar that has yet to emerge are just some of the most impressively specced cameras I have seen that have the added benefit of being part of systems that are not particularly large because of their cropped sensors and are all live-view based. Nothing stays the same forever of course, but I can't see the zone between 4/3 and APS-C being anything other than the best compromise of sensor performance, lens performance, size (not too big OR too small) and weight.
 
I was told a funny story by an Olympus rep recently. When Olympus created 4/3 about ten years ago they were the first to investigate dust reduction and ended up patenting 20 different methods before settling on the SSWF system. The story went that anytime you buy a different brand of camera, the best dust reduction system that you are going to get is No. 21! He might have been stretching the truth but it was funny all the same. It really does sound like unless there has been problems reported with other Df cameras there must be a specific issue with your particular camera. You shouldn't be having problems virtually every time you go to use the camera.
That's hilarious! Number 21-25 or so must still be OK, though because I've never had the need to clean any sensors from Panasonic, Fuji, or Sony either, among the ILCs I've spent significant time with. Nikon must be in the high 20's or early 30s!

I know the Df doesn't seem to have the splattering oil problem that the D600 had, but an awful lot of folks on Nikon's DPR forum just seem to take really frequent sensor cleaning as the cost of admission, so it's hard to say that the Df doesn't have this problem or just that longtime Nikon (at least) full frame users are de-sensitized to it and just deal with it. I'm sure I could probably eventually learn to control it or at least manage it better than I have so far, but I'm just not interested...

-Ray
 
I know the Df doesn't seem to have the splattering oil problem that the D600 had, but an awful lot of folks on Nikon's DPR forum just seem to take really frequent sensor cleaning as the cost of admission, so it's hard to say that the Df doesn't have this problem or just that longtime Nikon (at least) full frame users are de-sensitized to it and just deal with it. I'm sure I could probably eventually learn to control it or at least manage it better than I have so far, but I'm just not interested...

-Ray

I'm with you. I couldn't deal with it happening with that sort of regularity. I still have photos that need dust removal from my old 350D and 50D from years back before I knew how to clean sensors myself. Recovering a highlight or unblocking a shadow is cool, cloning out dust spots is not cool...

Nikon's issue might not be so much to do with the dust removal system but why the cameras are throwing so much gunk around inside them in the first place.
 
If there was only a perfect solution. It`s all there, but scathered over many makes and systems. So please, Santa, bring me that X-T1 body with the Nikon DF sensor, a X-Pro1 type improved Hybrid VF, 1/8000 max shutter speed, the Fuji aperture ring & distance scale prime lenses in FF format, and lastly, to make it complete, the Olympus AF speed, IBIS and touch screen.
 
If there was only a perfect solution. It`s all there, but scathered over many makes and systems. So please, Santa, bring me that X-T1 body with the Nikon DF sensor, a X-Pro1 type improved Hybrid VF, 1/8000 max shutter speed, the Fuji aperture ring & distance scale prime lenses in FF format, and lastly, to make it complete, the Olympus AF speed, IBIS and touch screen.

You wouldn't know it from all of my jumping around, my tour around the camera world over the past couple of years has actually confirmed how happy I am with the current state of affairs. The ONLY advance that will likely make much difference to me (and maybe only me) going forward (other than continuing inevitable improvements in sensors of all sizes) is whether really good fast full frame lenses can be scaled down to about the size of APS lenses currently. I think almost every new camera of reasonable size (I don't like 'em too tiny or too big) is at the point of being excellent in terms of interface and performance. This wasn't the case 3-4 years ago but it is now.

I think shooting with a DSLR for the past month or so has confirmed for me that I like 'em well enough but I really prefer a good mirrorless live view / EVF setup than a great OVF with a barely useable live view. And I'd imagine that full frame sensors will always be more capable than APS or m43 sensors. But I can't imagine I'm ever going to be willing to shoot with fast full frame lenses at the scale they exist today, particularly at the longer and wider focal lengths than the 50mm neighborhood (where they've been making good fast ones at a reasonable size for many years). Which means for my purposes, there's not all that much difference between full frame and APS by the time you compare the slower full frame lenses I'm willing to use against the faster APS lenses with a "slower" sensor.

I might be willing to go with somewhat larger lenses with a small mirrorless body than I am with a full frame DSLR body - I'm OK with the size of the Df, but only combined with smaller lenses, even their faster 28 and 35mm primes are getting past my tolerance, let alone their really wide and long lenses. We'll see as the full frame mirrorless thing continues to mature or not with the A7 / A7r and any competitors it may spawn. For now, though, I'd love to shoot with full frame but not with the lenses I'd have to use to gain a real meaningful advantage over APS. So I'm gonna stick with APS and m43 and keep my eye on mirrorless full frame developments. I have my doubts about what's possible but I maintain some amount of optimism due to the really small APS primes Pentax has managed to develop for it's APS DSLRs. They're not all that fast, but they do seem to have defied the laws of physics to some degree so maybe Sony or someone else can do the same with full frame mirrorless?

If that one can be solved, I'll probably jump to some full frame system at some point. If not, I'm happy enough with current APS and m43 offerings and will be happier yet as the sensors continue to advance. But short of smaller full frame system components going forward, my past year with the RX1 and month with the Df may have just been a really interesting experiment. I loved the RX1 with it's 35mm f2.0 lens, and if I don't like the APS Fuji with the 23mm f1.4 as much, maybe I'll buy some similar fixed lens full frame camera going forward, depending on what they may come out with. But if I like the results with the Fuji as much at 3200 as the RX1 at 6400 (which I'm sure will be close enough), I'm probably staying with the crop sensors until some miracle of full frame lens sizing happens...

-Ray
 
Back
Top