X-T2 and 18-55mm

[Hermann]

Hello everyone,

 

As a future newcomer to Fuji X systems, I wonder if a should take the X-trans III or take a cheaper X-trans II (X-T1 for example).

What I know is that I will probably use only the 18-55mm.

 

So here is my question: do you think that the increased resolution of the X-Trans III (24Mp vs 16Mp) is useful with a such lens, which is quite good but not stellar? Is the 18-55 sharp enouth to benefit from these additional megapixels?

 

Thank you very much!

[kimcarsons]

You're unlikely to notice a significant difference between 16 and 24 megapixels with any of Fuji's lenses (zooming in to 100%). And you're certain not to notice any difference at normal display and print sizes. This isn't to say that the lenses aren't sharp enough for 24MP---they are. It's just that the 8MP difference is not very significant. 

 

The new cameras are faster overall and have better autofocus performance and much better video quality. But for stills, and especially for slower paced shooting, rest assured you're not missing much by getting one of the 16MP bodies. I wouldn't pay the full retail price for the X-T1, though.

[Puma Cat]

You're unlikely to notice a significant difference between 16 and 24 megapixels with any of Fuji's lenses (zooming in to 100%). And you're certain not to notice any difference at normal display and print sizes. This isn't to say that the lenses aren't sharp enough for 24MP---they are. It's just that the 8MP difference is not very significant. 

 

The new cameras are faster overall and have better autofocus performance and much better video quality. But for stills, and especially for slower paced shooting, rest assured you're not missing much by getting one of the 16MP bodies. I wouldn't pay the full retail price for the X-T1, though.

 

I agree with majority of your points, Kim, but you CAN see the difference in resolution between the two cameras on a 27" 5K Retina iMac. That being said, I fully agree that 16 megapixel resolution is plenty for the vast majority of applications and/or prints.  

Edited November 25, 2016 by Puma Cat

[kimcarsons]

I agree with majority of your points, Kim, but you CAN see the difference in resolution between the two cameras on a 27" 5K Retina iMac. That being said, I fully agree that 16 megapixel resolution is plenty for the vast majority of applications and/or prints.  

 

I'll take your word for it. My basis of comparison is a 50" 4K (UHD) screen, looking at center frame crops with my face about 1.5' from the screen (same subject, framing, lens). Yeah, I can see a very subtle difference in sharpness in this scenario. But if I was comparing two images of different subjects, I couldn't tell you which came from the X-Pro1 and which came from the X-T2. They're extremely close in IQ. If we were talking 16MP vs 36MP, it would probably be a different story...

 

Even with the same subject, fit to screen (i.e. zoomed out), I can't tell the difference (4K is only 8MP after all)...

[sacherjj]

Lenses almost always beat bodies.  I went with an X-T1, because I don't have the lenses yet.  Once the lenses I need are in place, I may go with the X-T2.  I will most likely wait till there are good used ones for a lesser price.

 

I would love to have a little faster focus, but only place I've seen this is trying to get the limited depth of field shots of pets looking up.  Sometimes, I'm 1/4 second too slow with the whole process.  Not sure if the X-T2 would help or not.

[Nick05]

It partially depends on how you use the camera. Obviously the X-T2 offers improvements, but the X-T1 is a fantastic camera. If you need video, the faster AF, and/or the much easier to adjust focus point adjustment, you should go with the X-T2. If not, the X-T1 would be a good choice. I had bought the X-Pro2 earlier this year and got used to the joystick and better AF. I can't go back now.