I picked up the camera yesterday and have had a great day today getting to know it. Already, I love it. The only disappointment (not the camera's fault) is that I have to use DNG Converter to make the files ready for Bridge (I've got CS6 and, whereas the X-T2 needs ACR 9.6.1, my CS won't go any further than 9.1.1). Until I upgrade my software, I'm stuck with the extra DNG conversion stage; unless someone on the forum knows any different.
I had a Sony A7rii and, because it had no soul, I cut my considerable losses and went for the X-T2. Spent most of the day running round after a small nephew with the X-T2 and the 50-140 f2.8. The kit matched him in speed, his mum's delighted with the shots, and I'm rediscovering my photographic mojo.
The reasons are several, some a matter of personal taste some objective differences, and some of them are probably classifiable under the "extra mile" category, so to speak. Always keeping in mind that they are both great cameras anyway, and that I shoot mostly landscapes and not portraits (where the full frame COULD have an edge, depending on your particular style).
The following is more or less the "pros and cons" list I've sketched up trying to decide:
The five biggest pros (together make up for 90%):
Ease of post processing. I can get Sony and Fuji files to look more or less the same with post processing. But with the Fuji I get where I want to be MUCH faster. To give you an idea, and not considering localized adjustment (dodging and burning etc.) that depends on the content of the single image and may or may not be needed on a case to case basis, I generally spend less than 2 minutes for each file in Lightroom / Photoshop with Fuji files, while with the Sony's the time can easily stretch to 10 or more.
Highlights. Related to the previous point: even if the Sony has more dynamic range both on paper and by my own tests compared to the straight (i.e. without any kind of compensation, DR, or curve adjustment; this is the key) Fuji files, in reality the highlights with the Sony look always strange and peeled off. Please keep in mind I shoot most of the times in the woods, where dappled light is the norm and the contrasts are extreme. So for me is fairly easy to have a couple of spot of lights on a lightly colored tree trunk that look (but are not) blown out. So most of the time I spend with the Sony files are to make sure the highlights are ok (underexposing and compensating) and using localized adjustments (brush etc.) to recover the single spots. With the Fuji all this is unnecessary. My guess they use a different, more film-like, curve in camera, so the highlights are always ok as long as you expose properly. This is a BIG point for me, probably 50% of the reason.
Colors: Fuji colors, possibly because I've shot for years with Fuji films, look the way I want most of the time almost straight out of the box. The same with Olympus, btw. And with the Fuji you get more color separation, for lack of a better term. Look at the dead leaves in the 2nd picture. Like I said you can almost get there with post processing with the Sony, but life is too short to spend it in front of a computer!
Shutter shock. This point is directly related to the A7r: no shutter shock. I love shooting with long lenses (200 and up). But with the A7r I had quickly forego this because unless you use a fast enough shutter speed (like you were shooting handheld) the images most of the time come out blurry. I could solve this buying an A7 II or an A7r II, but this wouldn't solve the previous points, though.
DOF. With the Sony, even with a 18mm lens @ f/16, is impossible to have everything in focus in most shots (remember, I don't shoot "landscapes at infinity", but "landscapes in the woods" most of the time). So for most of the shots you'll have to resort to focus stacking. Besides the added workload this means loosing shots, because something moved during the shooting or because the software algorithm made an error or because you made an error. The light can change, the wind can be blowing, etc., you get my point. With the Fuji one shot is enough 99% of the times...
Blue channel. With the various Sony cameras I've shot (not just the A7r) the second you start post processing your files, even at 50 or 100Iso, unless you aggressively expose to the right (but then you'll have troubles with the highlights, see the second point), the blue tones of skies and clouds (and sometimes the reds of trees bathed in sunset light) will become completely riddled with noise. To give you an idea, is like shooting at 3200 iso with the Fuji! Not ideal for landscapes...to say the least.
Several other reasons that could have made me buy an A7 II / A7r II instead (but thanks to the previous points Fuij is still the best solution for my needs):
Tripod. With the Sony to avoid shutter shock even with the wide angles I have to use the same tripod and head I used with my large format 5x7" setup. No need to say it is HEAVY. The Fuji is rock steady, even in mechanical shutter mode, even with the lightest tripod I own.
Haptics: I'm comfortable with the controls of the Sony, but all the same I found myself reaching for the Fuji every time I go out. Most of that has to do with the terrible shutter button of the Sony, mushy as hell without a clear point of detent. THE worst shutter button I ever used, and in several decades (I started shooting when I was 5) I've shot with a LOT of cameras.
Weight. In all a slightly lighter setup compared to the one I use now (taking lenses into the equation), possibly up to 1Kg less.
Lenses. Fuji has the focal lengths I need and at the right price point for my pockets (on a side note: a 3.000€ 50mm lens? Sony must be kidding!)
Iso. Base Iso of 200: faster shutter speeds to freeze wind-blown branches and grass
High Iso. No hot pixels at high iso. The Sony puts out hundreds of hot pixels most of the time (especially under artificial light) at 1600 and up, the Fuji is whistle clean.
There are as well cons, but they are outweighed by the pros, at least for me:
OIS only on zooms (come on Fuji...)
harsher out of focus transitions unless you use the same focal length (not the equivalent one), especially noticeable when there are defocused highlights in the background ("bokeh balls"). Not a big deal, like I said it suffices using a slightly longer lens stepping back a bit (1.5 times!)
The watercolor effect, especially noticeable with "aerial" shots where there is a lot of air between you and the subject (long lens landscapes). This is solvable using aggressive sharpening or Irident. And, to a lesser and different extent, is a problem even with the Sony, because has to do with the air currents lowering a lot your real resolution. The difference is that Sony files become muddy/blurry instead of "watercolored".
As you can see you shouldn't have asked me this question on a Sunday morning, I have too much free time on my hands!
Hi! As the games has begun, I thought it would be good idea to start a topic and maybe find other photographers at the Olympics, who use Fujifilm. Also I'll be posting pictures taken with my X-Pro2, so feel free to comment!
Opening Ceremony @Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games by Hendrik Osula, on Flickr
Opening Ceremony @Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games by Hendrik Osula, on Flickr
Irina Embrich and Yiwen Sun @Rio de Janeiro Olympics by Hendrik Osula, on Flickr
Julia Beljajeva @Rio de Janeiro Olympics by Hendrik Osula, on Flickr
I am lucky enough to have a prime set up and 16-55mm set up. The 16-55mm is great for when I want to travel lighter or have the convienence of not having to change lenses, whilst shooting on vacation with family.
The IQ is solid, practically close to the primes. Sharpness too. It doesn't have the super shallow DoF of the f1.4 & f1.2 lenses but the versatility and weather sealing is very helpful.
For me adapting (old) lenses makes totally sense!!! I'm no portrait, model etc. shooter so about 1000 € for the XF56 or the XF90 is too much for me (because I use that focal length too rarely). I shoot everything like many others here. If I want good quality shots I use the XF35 or the XF18-55 which are great! And if I ever take a portrait of a person (and SOMEtimes I actually do) then I use a cheap old lens that gives the pictures a very special character especially cause of a nice bokeh. The old Fujinon 50mm f/1.4 is very sharp I think even wide open. Like Casa mentioned before sharpness isn't everything!!! I take pictures cause of the picture itself. I will never say: "Look at this totally ugly photo it is sooooo incredible sharp! Sharper than in real! Wow!" It's the same like the megapixel war! But that's a different kettle of fish.
Here are three pictures (click to enlarge) taken with different lenses and I think they are all very sharp (enough sharp). The first one was taken with a 135mm at 1/80s. Look at the micro (focus point) it's sharp (and it isn't even the full resolution)! And that with a 40€ lens!
Up by KwyjiboVanDeKamp, auf Flickr
Bright-eyed contentment by KwyjiboVanDeKamp, auf Flickr
Pstraums reacted to backtofuji in Day 1 with the X-T2