---

[photonongrata]

---

Edited September 30, 2022 by photonongrata
---

[Tom H.]

My Canon's couldn't wear like that because they were ugly black plastic to begin with... And my old film cameras I bought already worn, so no complaints there.

 

Why not put it right way up, just on the qr plate? I do that all the time.

 

That said, my X100T is very scratched and the base layer beneath it is very white, so that's a shame. That emphasises the wear a tad instead of being something that looks nice and aged. The X-T2 is probably the same.

 

I guess changing the colour of the base layer is not something easily done.

[photonongrata]

---

Edited September 30, 2022 by photonongrata
---

[kimcarsons]

I think it's because Fuji uses black paint rather than more durable anodization or powder coating (or just plastic sheathing) employed by other brands.

[photonongrata]

---

Edited September 30, 2022 by photonongrata
---

[kimcarsons]

Very interesting, thank you!

 

Yeah, still, the X-T2 isn't nearly as bad as the X-Pro2. I had that thing for a month and babied it but it was still all scratched up by the end. Contrast that with my six year old Pentax K-5 that's been through hell and back and still looks and works just like it did when it came out of the box---nary a scratch. All the reviewers who tell you these things are "built like tanks." have obviously never handled anything not made entirely out of plastic.

[Mike G]

Kim, I understand that some people spend quite a bit of time to artificially rub the paint off of their cameras!

 

Why on earth are you putting the X-T2 down upside down?

[photonongrata]

---

Edited September 30, 2022 by photonongrata
---

[kimcarsons]

FYI you can get arca swiss plates / l-brackets for the X-T2 for around $20 now. That way you can set the camera down right side up... Otherwise, get a roll of gaffer tape and go nuts.

[photonongrata]

---

Edited September 30, 2022 by photonongrata
---

[MirrorMirror]

If it has worn so quickly, after such a few put downs and pick ups, then you could argue it is a genuine defect with your particular camera. If I were you I'd take such an expensive item back to the retailer and insist on my consumer rights (...items to be fit for purpose and last a "reasonable" length of time...) by getting a replacement (not a repair) or a full refund.

 

I understand that it's not an issue for you and you'll probably not do this. But by standing up for your rights you make it better for all.

[kimcarsons]

I've never understood I-brackets unless you're primarily shooting in a studio.

 

A professional camera that has earned high scores for endurance should not get white edge scratches from being laid on a table upside-down, or any other direction a few times. Other similarly priced cameras don't do this. It's a defect, and we should demand better.

 

I've at this point decided I don't really care, but it's disappointing that Fuji didn't use a better coating process on their flagship camera.

 

Yeah, the problem is that the people who gave it those high scores are bozos. The only reviewers that I've ever seen to any real durability tests were DigitalRevTV, and they did it for the lulz, not scientifically. Let's face it, Fuji doesn't really have a reputation for making durable cameras... They've only been making these ILCs for 2 model generations now---hardly long enough to develop any reputation.  If you ask me they're pretty fragile. They're figuring it out as they go. Who knows, maybe they're trying to emulate Leica with the paint... Just doesn't look as good wearing off of magnesium/aluminum alloy as it does brass.

 

As to the L Bracket, you can take off the L and then it's just a full length, perfectly fitted arca swiss plate with an opening for the battery door... Much better ergonomically, if you ask me, than a little 40mm plate---assuming you're going to leave it on the camera all the time.

Edited December 28, 2016 by kimcarsons

[photonongrata]

---

Edited September 30, 2022 by photonongrata
---

[mdelrossi]

Fuji GW690III is a 90’s-era 6X9 medium format rangefinder

Fuji GX680

Both built like a tank.

 

Let's face it, Fuji doesn't really have a reputation for making durable cameras... 

[TwoTone777]

As I was prepping my X-T1 to be sold I noticed that the paint had rubbed off of the top of the viewfinder. I also don't baby my gear. I use it, but don't abuse it. It didn't bother me when I saw it either, I thought it made it look 'well loved.' But I can't remember a time where I put undue stress on that part of the body. I honestly think that the paint rubbed off from being transported in the camera bag. It was not a snug fit by any stretch of the imagination, but the camera didn't sit on its bottom while being transported, it typically rested on its back so the top of it would be in contact with one of the padded walls of the bag.

 

I thought about taking a black sharpie to the points where it rubbed off, but I decided against it. The camera sold very quickly even though it had those blemishes and also had the issue where the grippy part of the camera where the heel of your right thumb rests was peeling off.

[kimcarsons]

kimcarson-- Fair point On the L Bracket, that sounds cool! I've had them advocated to me before, and I've thought they would be amazing for a studio camera. I might mess around with one next time I'm at the store.

 

Well, it's probably not worth the $$$ they'll want at a store. The $20-$30 ones all over ebay are fairly priced though.

 

Fuji GW690III is a 90’s-era 6X9 medium format rangefinder

Fuji GX680

Both built like a tank.

 

This is digital, 2016. All new chassis designs and materials. Do you really think they used the same tooling for the X-Series cameras as the GX860? Do they even have that same division of their company anymore? Are the people who made it still even living? And what on earth does "built like a tank" really mean anyway? You lose all credibility when you say that, because I've never seen a camera that was. A short drop is enough to damage any of them. 

[mdelrossi]

@kimcarsons, If you say so. 

[photonongrata]

And what on earth does "built like a tank" really mean anyway?

 

depleted uranium casing, duh   

[MirrorMirror]

It's missing the gun off the ugly looking top turret.

 

edit: oops missed the smiley face!

Edited December 28, 2016 by MirrorMirror

[photonongrata]

It's missing the gun off the ugly looking top turret.

 

Back to the store it goes!

[TwoTone777]

"Built like a tank" is a figure of speech that uses word-smithing to convey that an item is of solid construction and under normal use (even in extreme conditions) would not become damaged or destroyed. Not very much unlike my grandad's Buick, or my mom's favorite frying pan, and my Mamiya RB67...

 

And I hate to break it to you, but even a tank will break if you drop it even from a relatively short height.

[kimcarsons]

"Built like a tank" is a figure of speech that uses word-smithing to convey that an item is of solid construction and under normal use (even in extreme conditions) would not become damaged or destroyed. Not very much unlike my grandad's Buick, or my mom's favorite frying pan, and my Mamiya RB67...

 

And I hate to break it to you, but even a tank will break if you drop it even from a relatively short height.

 

Right. Unfortunately this figure of speech is also completely meaningless because it is applied to every new camera that comes on the scene which isn't made entirely of plastic (and perhaps some that are), despite the vast difference in quality and durability. You simply can't pick something up, handle it with white gloves, and declare it indestructible.

 

Put a Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Fuji in a rock tumbler for 30 seconds... Now that's a test. Submerge them under 6" of water for 30 seconds... Now that's a test! Hold them in your sweaty palm for 8 hours ... Now that's a test!

 

Give me something more meaningful.... At least be specific. Is it built like a Sherman or an Abrams?

[TwoTone777]

What would putting a camera through a rock tumbler prove? Who wants a camera that can survive a rock tumbler but can't easily make decent photos?

 

But you see, the X-T2 HAS been tested in conditions that while extreme are still conditions that a normal photographer would encounter. Conditions such as in the freezing cold of Iceland, Conditions such as rain showers in Florida. I can literally take my X-T2 with weather resistant lens and pour water on top of it during a shoot and it won't even skip a beat. RC Concepcion did a similar demonstration in a GRID video for Kelby Media.

 

My old Canon 7D survived when I was taking photos in Afghanistan from inside the artillery pit as the soldiers executed a fire mission. It took the concussion of the blast from the big gun and the splash of gravel and debris like a champ... That was the only time I have ever used a clear filter on my lens, and only because it was my beloved 24mm f/1.4 II... Had it been any other lens I wouldn't have cared..... THAT'S a test.

 

What would submerging the camera in 6' of water prove? It'll prove you're too cheap to buy an underwater camera or housing for your gear, but it certainly won't prove that it's a bad camera because no DSLR or Mirrorless ILC camera is designed to do that (yet).

 

I would say that the little X-T2 is built like a tank when compared to other cameras in its class.

[photonongrata]

I can literally take my X-T2 with weather resistant lens and pour water on top of it during a shoot and it won't even skip a beat.

 

Do not actually do this. Most water damage to cameras is gradual, with corrosion gradually getting worse over say a year. So you may think you're fine, but you may have doomed your camera to a short life. Also, Fuji WR is explicitly not rated for that and company literature has said not to do it.

 

I certainly hope that the camera will last functionally as you say. I'm just disappointed the worn points become white on a black camera.

Edited December 28, 2016 by photonongrata

[TwoTone777]

My Canon 5D Mark III survived a direct splash in the splash zone during the Shamu show and many other splashes throughout that visit... Salt water splashes, no less. The 16-35mm on it and the camera are just fine. It's been two years now and been to Canon for repairs of other things and the water damage has yet to emerge. While I've shot my X-T2 in the rain, I wouldn't pour water on it while shooting it. Why? Because it wouldn't prove anything and it certainly wouldn't make me any money. I use my gear, but I don't abuse it.