benjaminthomson

Keep my xp1, sell my xt1

I've been doing a fair few tests the last few days as I work out which direction to go in for my professional work as far as investing further in a system (not a brand loyalist at all but I love pretty much everything about the X-series). I've always assumed the Sony A7 series had better image quality, but wanted to be sure rather than go on gut feeling before I invest in a bunch more lenses (obviously prefer the feel and ergonomics of the Fujis).
 
These results are obviously subjective to my workflow. I use lightroom, it's perfect for me and not interested in any other raw converters. VSCO is also a big part of my workflow.
 
The results:
 
Sony wins
• Detail, thanks to the extra megapixels and lightroom still having the 'waxing' issue with Fuji raw files for fine details like brickwork etc.
• Highlight roll-off - something extremely important to me for subtle changes in skintone that tend to sit near the top of the histogram.
• Colour Depth, it's a subtle difference but noticeable in the red channel and skintones again.
• Iso, both are pretty shithouse from 3200 and up from my point of view, but that's all I really need anyway. The Sony has a slight edge in the mid-isos from 1250 - 2000. Hard to explain, but the Sony seems to cope in poor, flat light better in my experience, whilst the Fujis really need good light to shine (not always available on quick location shoots).
 
Fuji wins
Dynamic Range by a solid margin - you really have to push your luck to get either of these cameras to blow out highlights or clip shadows, but for me, the x-t1 had an edge, at any iso (see top windows in screenshot).
 
 
Obviously there are a whole new generation of Sony A7s that probably kill the X-T1 for dynamic range, but the value plus the lack of native lenses available means I'll be keeping my X-T1 for work stuff as well as play for at least another year. I could still be tempted by the cropability of the Sonys though. Looking forward to the improvements that the next gen of X-Series bring too.
 
Also worth mentioning that you can buy the 56 and 90mm for the price of the batis 85mm if you shop around.
 
In conclusion, all I've really learnt is that no camera or system is perfect and if you're looking over the fence, you're just distracting yourself from taking great photos.
 
 

To me it all comes down to if lightroom can render the raw files properly. If not, I'm going to move away from the x system. If adobe had better luck with the next gen then I'll be in all the way.

I'm actually pretty pumped about this, will almost definitely buy it. I mostly shoot street on my x-pro1 with the 18mmf2, to have that in my pocket would be sick. I'd give up the viewfinder and just shoot from the hip, which I do 50% of the time anyways.

I wouldn’t jump on the bandwagon this early! 
 
Whatever it is that they are putting in the X Pro 2 will be featuring in the X-T2 later on. 
 
Unless one is completely new to the system one would be better served by waiting than rushing into  buying the newest camera which, in all probability, given the track record, will also be more expensive at first that It would be once the X-T2 comes on the scene.
 
As I’ve said. 
 
I doubt, unless there will be a truly revolutionary camera, that I would be buying into generation 2 if it will all come down to a larger pixel count and a faster and more precise autofocus for moving object ( plus some goodies in the form of film simulation).
 
If that is all that generation 2 has to offer then I will wait for generation 3 or leave things as they are for the rest of my foreseeable photographic future.
 
Many years ago I had a friend who kept on calling me and saying :
 
“ We have to find a system to get richer!”,
 
“ Ok!”, I said, “  but what will we be doing when we are richer?
 
Will we buy a larger house?
But we have a house.
Will we buy a bigger car?
But we have a car.
 
In other words we have already everything we need.
 
What will we be doing with 24 million pixels that we cannot do now?
 
Print larger prints? My lab promises 135cm x 90 with 12Mp. 
 
Large enough for me already and with 16Mp. even more than that.
 
I shoot mostly things that aren’t moving too fast and, judging from the fact that most of us show girlfriends or spouses , grandkids, landscapes et similia, do mostly the same.
 
What would I do with a faster autofocus? Know that I can shoot pictures that I don’t shoot?
 
Maybe better to buy roses for one’s heart with the money that I’ll save!

You are right about 3d tracking, but that's much more of a software thing. If you look at the 35mm 1.4 for example though, that lens is going to be slow until it has the next gen of Fuji AF motor tech inside it. No firmware or software upgrade is really going to move the needle on that lens, nor the 18mm f2, the 23mm 1.4, the 23mm f2 on the x100, the 56mm 1.2 yada yada yada

The 16-55, 35mmf2, 90mm, 50-140mm are all lightning fast. Fuji's AF won't improve until they refresh their older lenses.

Still use my x-pro1 every day and love it.

Still use my x-pro1 every day and love it.

-

-

Keep my xp1, sell my xt1

[quote name="Sidtw" post="13836" timestamp="14449248
 
Fuji should really spend some resources of getting the OVF damn straight right, I mean that you can the OVF to check focus. Like in the old days. Manually. If not, it's stays what it is: a gimmick.
 
I think too many people compare it to a true rangefinder where its more like a modern Contact G2.

24mp would be pretty much perfect for me.

Keep my xp1, sell my xt1

I would love great video, but would be bummed if they took any resources away from perfecting the stills experience.

Keep my xp1, sell my xt1

Yes, your observation is correct, the 23mm f/1.4 does block a portion of the OVF. But so what?
 
You can't manually focus with the OVF anyway. The OVF is just a gimmick. Use it if the sun is too bright and you can't see clearly through the EVF, or you want to feel like investigating a crime scene and want that additional old-school feeling of the OVF. That's it. Don't worry about the OVF.
 
Fuji should really spend some resources of getting the OVF damn straight right, I mean that you can the OVF to check focus. Like in the old days. Manually. If not, it's stays what it is: a gimmick.

14 23 56.
 
I like the looks of the 16 but i don't need shallow DOF at a wide angle.
 
Also really love the character of the 35 but that focal length can feel like a bit of a compromise sometimes. Too tight for environmentals, too wide for head and shoulders type shots.

For me, if the autofocus speed is a decent upgrade, I'd probably buy it and keep both 35mm lenses. The f2 for street and the f1.4 for editorial.

I actually owned the combo of x100t and x-t1 for a while and the multiple battery sizes drove me nuts! I love the 23mm 1.4 but doesn't make sense that it covers a quarter of the ovf on the x-pro. Will be interesting to see what Fujis next step is, as things feel a bit muddled.

I actually owned the combo of x100t and x-t1 for a while and the multiple battery sizes drove me nuts! I love the 23mm 1.4 but doesn't make sense that it covers a quarter of the ovf on the x-pro. Will be interesting to see what Fujis next step is, as things feel a bit muddled.

Very intrigued to know the sensor size. Is it full frame?

2-3 Stops? So you're saying that iso 800 on an em5ii is the same as around iso 1600-3200 on a fuji? I own and use both and can confirm that is not the case. Particularly when you account  for how much Fuji bluffs iso numbers.
 
Also Fujis are fantastic in high-contrast light, but in poor lighting, I find the sensor can struggle. I've taken shots at iso 1250 on the x-t1 in low-contrast light that look like ass. I've also taken shots in the studio at iso 4000 on the x-t1 by accidentally bumping the iso knob that look fantastic. The Em5 mkii and Fuji X-t1 are fairly comparable at iso 3200 to my eye. Fuji wins by maybe half a stop at 400 through to 1600.

Dual sd for true pro use.