Ken Rockwell X-T2 Review... X-T2 not really for Pro's

[Patrick FR]

From Ken Rockwell's Fujifilm X-T2 Review: "Fuji goes off about "pro" with this camera, but it's not really. If you want small, consider a small DSLR for the best of all worlds."

 

Review here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-t2.htm

[BillS22]

Put the X-T1 or T2 in the hands of a pro and you'll see some beautiful work!

[emoji6]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited October 15, 2016 by BillS22

[darknj]

Meh... Ken Rockwell review... it's worth about that much in my books.

 

He sung all the praises for the X-T1 at the release and now suddenly the X-T2 is not good enough ?

[Guest]

I agree with Ken. Fortunately, I'm not a pro, so I can keep using my X-T2.

[synthesaur]

High ISO jpegs are still much better from my old Canon 6D. Fuji's low light jpg's look like cheap camera shots, noisy and all smeared.
The new XP2 and XT2 have a several year old Sony sensor...
They should have gone a FF way from the start.. A full frame sensor at 16mp would have been a monster killer..
So, yes if you want efficient camera to do (typical) weddings etc, Fuji may not be considered a pro camera.
For casual and street shooting it is great. I've had x100s, xt1, xp2 and now xt2... 
After having shot with the xt2 I realize that i overpaid for it, the camera is not much better than its predecessor...

[dalto]

Interestingly, it seems like the primary reasons he believes this camera is not for Pros is that he doesn't like the autofocus for tracking moving objects and he can't get SOC jpegs to his preferred degree of oversaturation.

[BillS22]

This guy gave it a Pro Use vote. I'm not a pro.

 

[Snodge]

Ken Rockwell... the Donald Trump of the photography world...

[Gareth_E]

I wouldn't trust anything that Ken Rockwell has to say. This is the guy that refers to 'P' mode as Pro Mode.

[Aswald]

Let's see......here's what Ken says.

 

AF too slow and clunky

Color not good for landscape but good for people

Bad ISO dial design

Bad Menu system

Too big especially with the EF-X500 flash

Better to use dslr like D3300 or SL1 for pro work than the X-T2

 

Hmmmmm......any Pros here. What are your thoughts?

[Aswald]

Meh... Ken Rockwell review... it's worth about that much in my books.

 

He sung all the praises for the X-T1 at the release and now suddenly the X-T2 is not good enough ?

 

Buyer's remorse? Essentially it's just higher mpix, slightly faster AF and oh....the turbo charged battery grip.  

[darknj]

Buyer's remorse? Essentially it's just higher mpix, slightly faster AF and oh....the turbo charged battery grip.

 

Still, the X-T2 is a good camera, I just really don't like the fact that you need the extra battery grip to unlock the full potential of the camera, while on the other hand Olympus just released a new camera that is so impressive that makes every single other one from their company look like flying pieces of turds.

 

The X-T2 essentially feels like a slightly upgraded X-T1, I feel no need to buy it, it doesn't change much of from the X-T1 to value the extra money in it. Plus, the X-T1 still remain an excellent camera, it has a few weaknesses in faster moving subjects but ISO stuck at 6400 but that aside, it really is an enjoyable camera.

[Aswald]

It's the same with the Pro2. In a lot of ways, I prefer the pics of the Pro1. If it wasn't for the AF......but I guess I don't own as many cameras as Ken. So, my buyer's remorse isn't half as bad.

[santtu]

Ken Rockwell uses Nikon D3300 and his recommended settings is JPEG BASIC and image size SMALL (6Mpix) because "The default of JPEG Normal wastes twice as much space in your computer" and "Since the pictures look the same at BASIC, I use it so more pictures fit on my card, and more importantly, I don't clog up my computer and everything transfers, copies and sends twice as fast." and "I'm serious: even at the Small setting you've got 6 very sharp megapixels, which is more than enough to print at any size if your photo is in focus in the first place."

 

He also said "The NORMAL, FINE and NEF RAW modes are for people who don't mind fitting only 12 images on a card. The pictures really do look the same; try it and see if you're curious. I did, which is why I shoot JPG BASIC."

 

So, it is the same that I will say that my doctor is not "pro", I can choose my medicine myself!

[Gareth_E]

Ken Rockwell uses Nikon D3300 and his recommended settings is JPEG BASIC and image size SMALL (6Mpix) because "The default of JPEG Normal wastes twice as much space in your computer" and "Since the pictures look the same at BASIC, I use it so more pictures fit on my card, and more importantly, I don't clog up my computer and everything transfers, copies and sends twice as fast." and "I'm serious: even at the Small setting you've got 6 very sharp megapixels, which is more than enough to print at any size if your photo is in focus in the first place."

 

He also said "The NORMAL, FINE and NEF RAW modes are for people who don't mind fitting only 12 images on a card. The pictures really do look the same; try it and see if you're curious. I did, which is why I shoot JPG BASIC."

 

So, it is the same that I will say that my doctor is not "pro", I can choose my medicine myself!

 

Despite his self promoting 'pro' advice, reading his reviews and articles smacks of nothing more than an enthusiastic amateur trying desperately to come across as more... but then with alarming regularity he will state an opinion as fact, that flies in the face of reason, or real working practices. 

[Tom H.]

I thought everyone knew already that this guy is a joke...

[Puma Cat]

Still, the X-T2 is a good camera, I just really don't like the fact that you need the extra battery grip to unlock the full potential of the camera, while on the other hand Olympus just released a new camera that is so impressive that makes every single other one from their company look like flying pieces of turds.

 

The X-T2 essentially feels like a slightly upgraded X-T1, I feel no need to buy it, it doesn't change much of from the X-T1 to value the extra money in it. Plus, the X-T1 still remain an excellent camera, it has a few weaknesses in faster moving subjects but ISO stuck at 6400 but that aside, it really is an enjoyable camera.

 

In my experience the X-T2 is much more than a slightly upgraded X-T1. I don't know if you've shot with one in a professional context, but I shot my last pro motorsports race entirely with an X-T2 last month, something I could not have done with my X-T1. Whether that meets your requirements for the significance of an upgrade, that's up to you to determine, horses for courses, as they say. All I can say is my pro Canon gear is going up for sale...

[Puma Cat]

Buyer's remorse? Essentially it's just higher mpix, slightly faster AF and oh....the turbo charged battery grip.

The AF is not slightly faster, it's signficantly faster....particularly particulary AF target acquisition and tracking.

[johant]

I thought everyone knew already that this guy is a joke...

Everyone knows ... except when he praises one's camera ... most people only criticise KR when he talks down their gear.

[johant]

The AF is not slightly faster, it's signficantly faster....particularly particulary AF target acquisition and tracking.

Maybe, but for someone who could live with the X-E1 auto-focus, and is happy with the X-T1 ergonomics, the X-T2 is basically a waste of money.

[Scott Grant]

His tune will change when there is sufficient stock of the camera.   Until then he will harp that another camera (that is well stocked) is the best choice and everyone should buy it through his links to reputable dealers, from which he will get a small percentage.

Edited October 16, 2016 by Scott Grant

[mdm]

...the X-T2 is basically a waste of money.

Yeah! As all our bloody hobbies are...

[johant]

Yeah! As all our bloody hobbies are...

Uhmm nope ... my most used clarinet is from 1972, and plays like a dream. My favourite sax is also from the seventies, and cost considerably less than a Fujifilm X-T2.

 

Newer may be better, but is it better for you?

[mdm]

Newer may be better, but is it better for you?

 

Good for you. My vinyl_LP_mania cost me a fortune and those from sixties and seventies quite more expensive than newer ones.

Edited October 16, 2016 by mdm

[dalto]

Maybe, but for someone who could live with the X-E1 auto-focus, and is happy with the X-T1 ergonomics, the X-T2 is basically a waste of money.

 

Isn't that true of basically every upgrade of any product?  If the new features aren't interesting to you than upgrading is a waste of money.

 

I would hope that people who are upgrading are doing so because the new features *are* something worth buying to them.