Jump to content

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

Patrick FR

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ken Rockwell is just like all photo blogs. He writes about his impressions and opinions of photo gear and we can make of it what we want. As to whether or not something is pro gear, who cares? "Pro" is a nebulous term. Ask a dozen people their definition of a professional photographer and you'll get a dozen different answers. I consider a pro someone who's primary income is from shooting pictures. Not the guy who shoots an occasional wedding, or a camera store clerk or a photo instructor. Others would disagree with me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm a pro, and have owed xe1   xe2   xt1 (still have 2, selling one) and the X-T2.... and the X-T2 is the first one that keeps up with me. Although I did shoot significant jobs with the xt1, I found it to be crippled when it came to stuff like portraits of busy people when I was under pressure -- the recording time was much slower, and images which I wanted to review for, say, lighting, didn't pop up fast enough.  And so for those i used my canon 5d mk3.   


I've found the xt2 focus faster; i like the redundant card slots; i like the write/review speed.  The better fuji lenses are amazing. The higher pixel count is welcomed.


I find the xt2 better for skin tones than the xt1.  but... the canon files really do sing.      if the canon's weren't so heavy and bulky, i'd prefer them.  but they weigh a ton, i love the fuji electronic viewfinder, and the xt2 is fun to use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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


Yes, I've seen your racing shots. Pretty impressive.


I find that in good light, the T2 is about 20-30% faster than the T1 in most AF areas. However, where it really trumps over the T1 is low light and low contrast situation......and when the booster battery grip is in use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spending money on your hobby is only a waste of money if you feel it is. If you honestly believe you got your money's worth, nobody else can legitimately say it was a waste. The whole point of a hobby is to make you happy, to be an outlet for whatever urges you have. It's a deeply personal thing.


As a related example, take mechanical watches. I love them, I have a modest collection of low-to-mid-range ones and don't at all see them as a waste of money, but I can well understand how someone with no interest in such things would see it that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I don't think Ken Rockwell knows what he's talking about, at least when he reviews Fujifilm cameras.  Of all the many blogs out there now days, his is one I never bother to read anymore. Nothing personal, but shots of kids eating cereal or back yard scenics is in my opinion not a true test of what any upper level camera can do, especially a tool like the X-T2.  


I've been using the X-T2/Booster daily here in the islands where I work for the past 6 weeks and it has worked flawlessly for many different assignments.  I can truthfully say that there hasn't been a day where I wish I had my Canon's back, or my Nikon's, or, I think you get the point.  I still use my Linhof 617s III for certain shots, and once the GFX 50S is released, I'm fairly certain I'll be set.  And by the way, I will be keeping my X-T2.     

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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


Ha Ha!


I can't really believe that there are still people who pay any serious attention at all to Ken Rockwell!


The camera is used by professionals (like me) who earn their money with their cameras. Personally I don't want a "pro spec" camera as they are usually far too expensive and heavy to boot. It's not the camera that defines a "pro" its how they earn their money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken Rockwell isn't a pro photographer, he's a pro commentator on camera crap. He's written more than once that his technique is to set the camera to jpg small basic, P mode and the most vivid color mode and point and shoot at the most colorful thing he sees, which is why he takes more photos of trash cans than of people who aren't his kids. He has no idea how to use Fuji color modes, which is why he shoots his kids in vivid with saturation +4. He would no more be able to shoot a wedding with a couple of 5Diii's and L glass than he would with an X-A2 and the kit zoom. His web site isn't read by pros, it's for beginners.


What I'm saying is that his opinion on whether an X-T2 is a "pro" camera is completely irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...


I went another road for the paid shots, went and got myself a Nikon D500 and I did compared both the X-T2 and D500 and in term of AF speed, 3D tracking and buffer, the X-T2 while being superior to the X-T1 is still lacking compared to the D500.

The X-T3 might close the gap even further but I tend to use the right tool for the right job.


Don't get me wrong, I still love my X-T1, very much so, the shooting experience with the Fuji camera is still far above what I feel from my Nikon gear. Now if I am being paid, I will take my Nikon gear with me, if I am there for my own pleasure, that's where the Fuji comes in. My X-T-1 never leaves my daily bag with either of the 35mm lens on it or 27mm when I want the lowest profile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

May be I'm not a pro. But I bought and tried all the Fuji body those 5 past years and finally quite and sold all my Canon stuff with a lot of lenses. The Fuji XPro2 and XT2 are perfect a lot much better than the 1 serie , mainly AF concern. Before it was impossible to let Canon. One more thing, may be I'm not a pro but the money I make with Fuji is the same than with Canon and I live very well as reporter and still photographer since 38 years....and it continue.....but may be I'm not a Pro KR is a tourist of photography....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I shoot professionally, and the xt2 is more than sufficient. In manual mode, so,was the xt1 for anything other than sports and wildlife.


In fact, going toe to toe with the 5dm3, I prefer the Xt2. Trade offs exist among all the bodies, but the xt2 holds its own against Sony, Nikon, and Canon. Different systems will have different advantages, but you can build a professional bag around thenxt2 and be perfectly happy about it. No need for hand wringing or feeling unsure about it.


I read his xt2 review a while ago and it reeked of someone who hadn't really used the camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites


You're blaspheming  !!!  Shame on you !!! Don't you know (surely you do know) that ...


... Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography

Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]

Ken Rockwell doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.

Sure, Ken Rockwell deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers.

Ken Rockwell doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.

Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.

Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him.

Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth

Ken Rockwell ordered an L-lens from Nikon, and got one.

Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.

When Ken Rockwell brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories

Before Nikon or Canon releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a Nikon sticker and the less good get a Canon sticker

Once Ken tested a camera, he said I cant even put Canon on this one,thats how Pentax was born

Rockwellian policy isn't doublethink - Ken doesn't even need to think once

Ken Rockwell doesn't use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.

Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius

Ken Rockwell wanted something to distract the lesser photographers, and lo, there were ducks.

Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you

Ken Rockwell's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure

Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.

When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.

Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes

On Ken Rockwell's desktop, the Trash Icon is really a link to National Geographic Magazine

Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"

When Ken Rockwell went digital, National Geographic nearly went out of business because he was no longer phyically discarding photos

For every 10 shots that Ken Rockwell takes, 11 are keepers.

Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.

Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his DoF

Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.

The term tripod was coined after his silhouette

Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer

A certain braind of hig-end cameras was named after people noticed the quality was a lot "like a" rockwell

Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.

Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing great about Ken Rockwell is that he posts large pictures of the camera on his site, in which i'll use to post for my ads on craigslist.



His reviews are pretty pathetic.  On top of that, his website is so poorly outdated

Edited by Handonam
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rockwell discounts the color on the Fuji, "for my most serious nature and landscape work, I prefer the color palettes of my Nikon and Canon DSLRs."  Anyone who shoots serious nature and landscape shoots RAW and Fuji RAF files are full of awesome color and fine detail that you don't need to be a 'pro' to access.  


Rockwell shouldn't be taken seriously.  His reviews are targeted at new users who find the depth of information at dpreview to to be intimidating.  He doesn't care to share knowledge about how to make better photos, as he only make money off of 'click throughs' to online vendors.

Edited by rconrad2k
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having spent enough time to read through KR's whole post, I have come to the conclusion that he has failed to read the instructions.


Like it or not, reading the instructions is pretty well essential for all cameras and the X-T2 is no exception. KR's complaints about the operation of the camera are a clear indication that he has no idea how it functions in real life. Using the buttons rather than the menu to format the cards seems to be the practical way. Fuji listened to the criticism about the ISO dial operation and introduced the new locking method. This works fine for me and I would regard it a real improvement on the one of the X-T1. The examples go on...


There are posts that KR does quite well. On this occasion, I feel that he got out of the wrong side of his bed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im gonna catch hell for this, but gonna say it anyway. His review seems like what I like to call "Old Man Syndrome" Stuck in his own ways. Buttons needs to be a certain way, menus need to be the way he needs it. In a sense he is reviewing it the way he wants to use a camera.


Each point he brings up makes me scratch my head and just say out loud...." so what, who cares." or "one can learn to work this way, its not a big deal" in practically every line he wrote. Im not an XT2 shooter, I prefer the OVF like the Pro 2 personally and I tend to appreciate it more when I stepped away from DSLRs. Once in awhile a colleague would show me a new DSLR and I would ask myself how insane the complexity of them has become, and there is no way I would ever consider going back.


Im also going to not comment on his "like a woman" derp. My god its 2016, and Ill leave it at that.


To his credit he has great knowledge of cameras and the history of the lot. Im sure he probably has tried them all. For anyone that has read this review of his review. I would just pass, on his overview of this camera as it does not fully represent what this camera does, can do. Or what you can make it do with what you know about photography, the tool is just right for 99% of general photographers out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a pro... I'd say more than half my documentary work is shot with Fuji (either the film or a rangefinder from the X-series).  I don't own an XT, but my X-Pro 1 & 2's are "pro" enough for me.  Can't wait to start shooting lit portraits with their medium format - I still use my Canons for those. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...