Jump to content

xt1 versus xt10

antonio

By antonio
in Fuji X-T1 / Fuji X-T10

 Share

Recommended Posts

antonio Contributor

antonio

Posted
Posted

i was going to buy xt1body to pair with xpro1, but as long as I heard about xt10 approaching...hhuumm., I believe it will be the same camera without weather-sealed body (that Idont need) , as good as but cheapper,  Iam I wrong..?

Link to post
Share on other sites
x-tc Community Regular

x-tc

Posted
Posted

i was going to buy xt1body to pair with xpro1, but as long as I heard about xt10 approaching...hhuumm., I believe it will be the same camera without weather-sealed body (that Idont need) , as good as but cheapper,  Iam I wrong..?

the x-t1 has additional direct controls which may not be needed by everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FabianVienna

Guest FabianVienna

Posted
Posted

I also thought about buying a XT1 but the cheaper price and the smaller size of the XT10 is much more suited for my needs. I compared the two cameras buy their technical details but what about the Firmware upgrades. Will it get the same treatment as the XT1 or not so much upgrades like the XE series?

 

If there is a a major firmware upgrade the XT1 will definitely get it and that might makes me want to buy the XT1...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Antony Collaborator

Antony

Posted
Posted

The EVF is the same resolution, but smaller than the X-T1. It will be a LOT better than your X-Pro 1. The buffer of the X-T10 is the big difference between the cameras. It's a lot smaller than the X-T1, and the camera can't take the new faster cards. This means that if you need to shoot fast the X-T10 won't cut it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
aceflibble Collaborator

aceflibble

Posted
Posted

I used the X-T10 today and there was absolutely no difference in low light EVF performance compared to the X-T1. If naything, by virtue of everything being crammed into a smaller space, it was actually nicer to use when I pointed it towards a dark space. Obviously you don't see details as large, but the tighter spacing completely removes every hint of lag and flicker.

Link to post
Share on other sites
simonfred Newbie

simonfred

Posted
Posted

For those who have tried it how good\bad is the buffer on the xt10. That and how a larger lens balances on it are the only concerns for me.

 

I came from a Nikon full frame 70-200mm set up and tracking and speed are the only things I miss. Otherwise for all my other work I love the Fuji set up ( the glass is something vvv special). Now deciding on a xt but which one to compliment my xpro and XE and x100.

 

 

Appreciate any feedback

Link to post
Share on other sites
aceflibble Collaborator

aceflibble

Posted
Posted

Buffer: usable if you shoot .JPG and the slower burst speed. Useless if you use raw and the highest continuous burst speed. You'll get just under one second. When I used the camera I tried it set to raw and shot normally (not continuous burst, but still taking frames fairly rapidly) and I ran the buffer down in about 8 or 9 shots. That's good enough for how I typically shoot, but if speed is important to you, the X-T1 completely smashes it as far as buffer depth goes. But even then, if you're looking for something which is very fast, tracks well and has a large buffer, honestly you should go pick up a DSLR to have as your sports/wildlife/action/whatever camera. My X-T1 doesn't feel slow, but I still keep a Canon 7D for wildlife because even the fastest mirrorless still isn't quite as fast as the fastest DSLRs. I think the X-T2 will probably be when mirrorless finally catches up in speed.

Balance: I'm used to very unbalanced cameras (a 1D X with small primes and a 7D with gigantic telephotos), so it's a little hard for me to judge how it will feel for other people. The X-T10 felt lighter than the X-E cameras. To me, the 14mm, 18mm, 27mm, 35mm and 60mm hardly feel any different to handling the camera with no lens on at all. The 18-55mm feels like a 'normal' fit. The 16mm, 23mm and 56mm out-weigh the X-T10. I was happy handling them on it, but other people may find those lenses just a little bit awkward. The 50-140mm is so much larger and heavier than the X-T10, putting the X-T10 on it barely affects the feel; you might as well just be holding the lens on its own. So I would not say there is any lens which feels bad with the X-T10, but it certainly can feel odd if you switch between lenses and with one lens it's front-heavy and the other it's back-heavy. There's less of a difference with the X-T1, which feels the same with all lenses except the 50-140.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Giampaolo Masserano
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By Giampaolo Masserano · Posted

      I use a TECHART ring to mount Canon EF lenses on the GFX 50S-II and 100S-II, maintaining image stabilization and autofocus. The only limitation are lenses with a small rear element diameter that make it impossible to cover medium format. Fast lenses like the EF 85/1.2L or the 100-400L, however, work great.
    • thelostkiwi
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By thelostkiwi · Posted

      I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
×
×
  • Create New...