Herco

Fujifilm X Acquire doesn't support the M1 Macbooks (yet). Usually Fuji is really slow in adapting it's software to these new platforms... I guess that's the downside of freeware.

I have both the X-Pro2 and the X-H1 and I've worked with the X-T3, the X-T4 and the X-Pro3 for a while. The X-Pro2 is one of my favorite cameras of all times for personal work. For professional work I decided not to pursuit to the X-T3/4 and also stopped using the X-H1 by the way. Apart from the obvious differences in form factor between the X-Pro and the X-T models that affect the handling of the camera, there's of course the difference in launch date that impacts some specs (like the higher resolution of the viewfinder). The X-H1 is a very different camera in handling compared to the X-T3. The latter might look nicer with a more retro-styled form and handling, the X-H1 is more of a 'work horse' pro-camera with a decent deep grip and a more robust body. Also compared with the X-Pro2 the build quality of the X-T3 and X-T4 feels/shows less robust. Overall these newer models have somewhat higher repair rates (corrected for age and according my local Swiss camera repair shop) than the older models. Seems that Fuji is cutting some cost here and there. The more intense you use the camera, the more important that becomes. Your basic question is whether there's a difference in IQ between the 24MP X-Trans III sensor/processor and the 26MP X-Trans IV sensor/processor. Theoretically there is. Apart from the extra 2MP, the 26MP sensor is Back Side Illuminated, which should result in somewhat lower noise levels at higher ISO. However, that advantage is offset by the smaller pixel pitch due to the extra 2MP on the same surface. In practice therefore, there's essentially no visible difference. We've made some large 40x60 prints incl. low-light images, and one is not better than the other. There is however a difference in AF speed and video bitrates. Because the 26MP sensor is BSI, it has shorter circuitry and can handle video bitrates up to (I believe) 400 Mbps (200 Mbps for the 24MP sensor/processor). The 26MP also has more AF pixels on its sensor and combined with the faster processor, updated algorithms and BSI technology, that results in somewhat faster AF (esp. in AF-C modes). For some users that might be the benefit they were looking for. Another topic to consider is that Fuji more or less stopped supporting the 24MP platform with firmware updates. They only issue new firmware to accommodate new lenses or accessories like new flashes (the EF-X500) and bugs that come out of that. No camera bug fixing or new features anymore. Esp. the X-H1 still suffers from a few unrepaired bugs since the start and some erratic eye-AF behavior. That's one of the reasons I stopped using it professionally (next to the AF behavior and build quality of the lenses. The 26MP platform is still being supported though and every now and then some improvements (esp. to AF and IBIS for X-T4/S10) are being released. In that sense, the X-T3 is still a bit more future-proof until the next gen of sensor/processors arrive.

My suggestion would be to go to a good retailer and bring your Olympus as well. They can help you transfer your preferences to the Fuji menu. When you buy a $1400 camera these days you're entitled to some support and at the same time you help your community retailer against the moguls like Amazon or similar. That's usually worth the extra $50 or so... In my experience at least 90% of all options are set once and never touched again. That remaining 10% can be handled through the Fn buttons or in My Menu and be direct accessed from there.

The 8-16 is the 'natural' companion for the 16-55 (as is the 50-140). However, since the 'long end' of the 10-24 is definitely the 'weakest' part, the actual overlap with the 16-55 is smaller than you might think. From 20mm onwards the 10-24 becomes rather soft with low contrast. An alternative could be the 14/2.8 or if you need wider, the Zeiss Touit 12/2.8. That is actually a great lens. I've had the 50-140, but I wasn't really impressed esp. considering the price. It's a good lens though, but if I now compare to my new Nikkor Z 70-200, the difference is stunning, which is of course also part due to the camera. The 55-200 is IMO very close to the 50-140 in terms of sharpness and IQ, but of course much slower in terms of aperture and it has noisier AF (and lacks WR). Considering the price though, I regard the 55-200 as a very good lens and better suited for incidental tele work than the more expensive 50-140.

The X-mount on most Fuji camera models is not particularly robust in my experience. Only the ones on the X-H1 and the GFX are better. Part of the issue is the quite shallow electronic contacts. Esp. with heavier lenses. The 50-140 on an X-Pro2 gave me constant issues until I got the X-H1 (according to Fuji 25% enforced mount) and never experienced problems with the same 50-140 again. Just a little bump may throw-off the contact between lens and camera, resulting in the "turn off-on" message or the infamous "f0" message. You also may want to check whether there is some lateral or rotational tolerance between the 10-24 and the X-T4. I had to swap two times a Fuji lens: one 16-55 with a misaligned mount and one 16/1.4 with too much tolerance when mounted. Something you wouldn't expect with a premium brand...

There are rumors about a new Fuji 18mm (=27mm FF equiv.). It is supposed to be f1.4 according these rumors, but I would love an update of the 18/f2. At f1.4 will be between the 23/f1.4 and 16/f1.4 in size and that's too big to my liking for my X-Pro2. Either way, I hope it will be significantly better than the 23/f2 or the 16/f2.8. More at the level of the 35/f2...

Thanks for confirming. The 16-80 is definitely not Fuji's best zoom lens. I can only recommend it if you're insisting on one lens only that covers beyond 55mm. Would be interesting to so a comparison between the 16-80 and the 'old' 18-135. I wouldn't be surprised when the oldie came out on top...

In fact they did cover this story: https://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm-patent-48mm-f1-2-lens-for-mirrorless-camera-with-1-inch-type-sensor/. A 1-inch sensor is in fact smaller than the APS-C sensors in the Fujifilm X-system (about 1.5x smaller and about 3x smaller than full frame). The news suggests a line of compact video and/or stills cameras. Not directly full frame. Wouldn't be a logical move anyway by Fuji. To compete in full frame, you'd need to design a new system with interchangeable lenses and accessories, next to the X-system and the GFX-system. It would cannibalize both existing platforms and end-up in a heavily competitive segment within a total market that is in rapid decline. The total camera market has dropped by 90% in the past 10 years...

Hi, Although there's a different sensor/processor in the X-T3 compared to the X-H1 (26MP vs. 24MP) the difference in image quality is virtually invisible. Theoretically the low light performance (noise level) of the 26MP sensor should be better due to 8% less amplification but that is hardly noticeable in practice. The lower amplification is offset by the smaller pixel size (26mio vs. 24mio on the same surface). Generally, the lower the pixel count, the better the low light performance. I've had both cameras, used them professionally, but I kept preferring the X-H1 due to it's better grip and IBIS. Even printed at poster size, there was no real visible advantage for the 26MP sensor. Just some perception in edge cases in really low light. The real difference between the two sensors is in AF speed and video bit rates. Due to its shorter circuits (BSI-principle) and faster processor the X-T3 has snappier AF and can handle higher video bit rates.

Thanks Marcel, I didn't know such an adapter existed. I'm using Nikon Z in the studio here but some of my colleagues use Sony EF. I've been jealous of a few of the lenses (the Loxias and the GM135). I think I'll order one to see if it works and I'll let you know here.

Correct. Fuji issued a few firmware updates to correct issues with the combination of IBIS and OIS for the X-Trans 4 platform (X-T4 and X-S10) but not anymore for the X-Trans III platform (a/o X-H1). In general there is no support anymore for that platform other than accommodating for new lenses or speedlights and fixing bugs that come out of these new firmware updates. I've done some tests last year with my X-H1 and the 10-24 and it wasn't solved then.

The interaction between OIS and IBIS in the X-H1 is a known issue with multiple lenses. To date Fuji has never solved it in firmware updates and over the past two years their only updates for the X-H1 were about fixing new gear (new lenses or flash) to the X-H1 and the bugs that came out of that. Not about fixing X-H1 inherent bugs. I fear that we don't get that level of support anymore for the X-H1. That's why I stopped using it for professional work.

Although I really appreciate Jonas Rask, don't forget he's a Fuji X-Photographer. One of Fuji's requirements for that is that you exclusively shoot with Fuji. That's a bit limiting should you wish to test lenses. I value the views of Gordon Laing (Cameralabs) and Dustin Abbott as well as the very scientific approach of fototest.de (in German) and Lens Rentals' break-down of lenses. In my experience Fuji has indeed a bit more sample variation than some other brands (I compare with Nikon and Leica) but that is IME more in mechanical issues (loose aperture rings, noisy AF motors...) than in optical issues like element alignments or faults. Anyway, that should not withhold us from evaluating lenses as also 'bad copies' can get into a users hands and he/she might never know it by lack of being able to compare. That is why e.g. fototest.de tests multiple copies of a lens.

There's also a setting in the AF menu determining whether you use release or focus priority. You might want to set this to focus priority. That will force the camera to acquire focus first before releasing the shutter. You can set is separately for AF-S and AF-C. Note that the combination of X-T2 and XF55-200 is not really fast in terms of focusing. There's also a lag between the green box and beep and the actual shutter release. Esp. when you have fast moving subjects to and away from the camera. The hit rate might therefore be lower than newer camera/lens combinations. You mention Nikon FF and the 70-200/2.8 (superb lens btw). I'm not sure which Nikon you used, but even the fastest AF mirrorless cameras (Sony) have issues keeping up in terms of AF with DSLR cameras like a D610, D7xx or D8xx. And Fuji is certainly not amongst the fast focusing mirrorless cameras 😉

Calibrating focus is not needed for mirrorless cameras. It is something that applies to DSLRs with a separate AF sensor. A mirrorless camera reads its focus of the image sensor. To check for malfunction of the camera it is best to make some test shots on a tripod. With both manual and auto focus shooting either a test card or a brick wall from at least 2-3m away. Ideally you can compare with your friends camera under similar circumstances. Sharpness is the result of many factors. Applying good focus is of course the most important. That is something to practice. When you set the camera in S-AF mode select the smallest possible AF box that suits the subject and be careful where to aim for. Also be aware of the method of locking focus first and then recompose the image. If the subject is closeby (less than a few meters) that could lead to incorrect focus (Pythagorean theorem). Dor subjects further away it’s not that critical. Other things to bear in mind is the lens (some are “sharper” than others), but also your “sharpness” setting in camera and in post production. Finally, contrasty images often seem sharper than more flat images.

The 18-55 is an excellent lens for video. AF is quite good and silent and there’s not a lot of focus breathing. An alternative esp. for indoor shooting could be the 10-24 but in my recollection it has quite some focus breathing. The new MkII of that lens is actually worse for video as the OIS combined with the IBIS of the X-T4 creates strange wobbly background effects. Stick to the non-WR MkI version which is also cheaper to get. Avoid older Fujinon lenses as they’re rather noisy in AF mode and the mic might pick that up: esp. the 14/2.8, 23/1.4, 35/1.4 and 56/1.2.

It is the sound of the IBIS system. Like a small fan running. Best to set IS to ‘when shooting only’ in the settings menu. That saves a bit of battery life.

I guess it depends heavily on where you are located. In all my 35+ years with Leica (I've always had one or two) I rarely had to fall back on their Customer Support. But when I did, I directly reverted to their Wetzlar office in Germany and they've always been great and swift. I hear similar stories from colleagues in the US re. Fujifilm Professional Service (FPS) over there, but here in Europe FPS is a bit of a joke. I have (of have had) various Fuji cameras and more than 10 lenses but the process of repair and service is tedious and costly. Even with an FPS subscription (although it is for free). And when you ask for a temp replacement, they never seem to have one...

XF lenses do not work on GFX cameras. Their image circle isn't large enough to cover the sensor. An APS-C lens covers about 25% of a GFX sensor. Some full frame lenses work with a GFX but only restricted to a smaller part of the image (about 70% of the GFX sensor). I've worked with the GFX50S and shortly with the GFX100 for fashion and portraits. The combination of the 32-64 and the 110 works very well. Alternative is the 45-100. For landscape I can recommend the 23. Combine that with the 45-100 and you have a nice kit covering most. You also mention longer glass (XF50-140). Note that for GFX there's essentially one longer prime lens: the GF250, which is a bit shorter than 140mm in APS-C equiv.) and one zoom: the 100-200 (a bit over 100mm in APS-C). Both are massive and quite a burden to carry around. Fuji claims that the GFX100S is only slightly larger than a full frame mirrorless, but that's only half the story. When you take the lenses into account it is considerably larger and heavier to carry around compared to full frame. Although the GFX platform by design is well-suited for landscape, there's only one native real landscape lens (23). I guess there's room for a wider lens there. There are some third party options but at a lower quality standard (and price level).

The EVF view is essentially showing what the sensor captures. The limitations of the X-Pro3 for wide-angle and telephoto lenses are only applicable to OVF-mode, which is of course one of the main reasons for having an X-Pro camera. By the way, judging from the title you're looking at the 14/2.8 vs. the 16/2.8. There are some apparent differences between the lenses. The 14/2.8 is not WR and has slower (and somewhat noisier) AF. Nevertheless, I prefer the 14 by far. It has much better IQ (almost to the level of the 16/1.4). Better contrast, sharper corners, less loca...). Having said that I understand the the 16/2.8 fits nicely on an X-Pro. Don't get overly exited about the WR. It is largely a marketing item... I've had reliable non-WR lenses vs. WR-lenses that 'fell apart' after a day of steady drizzle.

The X-H1 was launched as a specific hybrid camera (equally well suited for video and stills). Esp. when shooting video linear MF makes sense. The X-Pro3, X-T3 and the X-T4 also have the option to set linear MF in the Setup menu, under Button/Dial setting there's an option to set the focus ring operation. It's unfortunately not on the X-Pro2. Don't know about the other cameras in the 26MP generation. I've used the Sony A7RIV for a while last year together with two Zeiss Loxia lenses (the 21 and the 50). These are MF-only lenses, but in terms of MF this is as good as it gets. In terms of image quality as well by the way... What bugs me is that Fuji spends a lot of time in 'halo-products' like the 50/1 and the 8-16/2.8 (both not even very good lenses compared to the competition) and forgets to update their bread-and-butter lenses like the 14/2.8, the 23/1.4, the 35/1.4 and the 56/1.2. These lenses should be the sweet spot: relatively compact, fast, good IQ at a decent price. I now hear that their plan is to launch an 18/1.4 instead of updating the 18/2. What are they thinking...? We already have an '18/1.4' which is called the 16/1.4 and it excellent.

The 16-55 is about twice as heavy as the 18-55. That's a big difference on longer photo walks that will also help you to keep the 18-55 more steady. Whenever you don't really need the extra 2mm or a constant f2.8 save yourself some money and go for the 18-55. The difference in IQ between the two is marginal (I've had both). Only with really large prints you will be able to see a slight difference in sharpness in the corners. The 16-55 is a bit more 'contrasty' though, but that can be corrected in post. IMO the good ol' 18-55 has visibly better IQ than the 16-80.

In virtually all 'modern' AF lenses the lens group determining the focus is steered by AF motors who are controlled electronically. As the focus is determined by the sensor (in mirrorless cameras), the lens needs the processor in the camera to determine when the image is in focus. Even when you control the focus manually ("fly by wire"). To have a mechanical manual focus it would require a costly mechanism in the lens but still the connection to the sensor and processor to show you the actual focus. It would make lenses much more expensive (think factor 2 or so). Linear focus is something different. Normally the AF operates non-linear meaning that the faster you turn the focus ring, the bigger the adjustment. Even when the rotation is exactly the same degrees. That way you can make big MF changes by quickly turning the MF ring and finer adjustments by turning in slowly. In some Fuji cameras (like the X-H1) you can set MF to linear. In that setting it doesn't matter whether you quickly or slowly turn the MF ring because the rotation in degrees determines the focus travel. Linear is often used for video when you want to make controlled focus-pulls (moving focus from background to foreground or v.v.). If you use non-linear in that case, the focus pull will be influenced by how quickly or slow you turn the MF ring. You can use linear also for stills. However, the downside is that Fuji makes lenses with huge focus strokes. Sometimes (in MF) you have to turn the focus ring 3 full rounds to get from shortest focus to infinity. Non-linear prevents that. It allows you to turn the MF ring quickly with a short stroke to go from one end to the other. Overall, Fuji has still some way to go to tweak their manual focus-by-wire to the level of some other manufacturers. In my personal experience Leica has a degree of perfection (even in 'fly-by-wire') that is unsurpassed. I've used their SL2 and I own the Q2 Monochrome. But also Nikon and Sony are in my experience more refined when it comes to MF in mirrorless cameras (and AF by the way too). There's one exception though: Fuji has a few lenses with a focus clutch (the 14/2.8, the 16/1.4 and the 23/1.4). There lenses (though also fly-by-wire) have an MF ring that you can pull-back and use it in MF-mode with hard stops from closest to furthest focus distance. Unfortunately, they stopped using that mechanism on newer lenses. Probably cost concerns. PS. I only use the X-Pro2 for personal work now, but I'd love to see a very good 18/2 MkII as well that's up to the standards of the 35/2 (and not that of the mediocre 23/2 or 16/2.8). For some reason Fuji has a very erratic roadmap when it comes to wide-angle lenses. Their remake of the excellent 10-24/4 is painful. You leave the IQ unchanged (which is good), add WR (not really needed, but OK) and then you mess-up the OIS...?

There can be a significant difference in price based on where you buy the lens. Fuji runs promotions in various countries whereby cashback amounts, expiring dates and type of lenses may differ. So your e-bay quote might be based on a rebated lens and your local supplier might not have access to that rebate (or might not have included it in his quote -- as cashbacks need to be applied for after the purchase and by the buyer). Also be aware that esp. on Fuji's older lenses (the non-WRs) there's a larger variance in pricing. Some retailers charge the MSRP of e.g. the 35/1.4 or the 56/1.2, whereas larger online stores have almost constant sales on these lenses. That depends also on whether they have it on stock or they have to order it esp. for you. If the lens you've asked for is by accident the 10-24 zoom or the 27 pancake be aware that for these lenses there's a MkII version (marked WR for Weather Resistant). The MkI versions are now on sale. Finally, Fuji is in the process of moving the lens production to the Philippines. All XC and most XF lenses are already manufactured there. The red badge zooms are in the process and the GF lenses remain made in Japan for now. There should be no difference in build quality standards according Fuji, but there's definitely the difference in perception in some peoples' minds... That could affect 2nd hand value for these lenses.

This is indeed an issue that occurs more frequently with X-mount and esp. combined with the larger/heavier lenses. We've had it several times on various X-Ts and only the X-H1 is really better (and the GFX). Make sure that when they tighten the screws they put a drop of Loctite on the tip of the screw. That really helps.