Convince me not to dump my X stuff

[Thephotomaker]

I am and industrial photographer who shot medium and large format film. But for fine art portable work, I bought a Leica and two lenses. until a few years ago, I shot all Nikon digital, because I had so much Nikon Glass, was locked into their system. A Contax  friend talked me into the X-Pro 1 and two new hi end zooms for my fine art, 10-24, and the 18-135. both produce great images. But when I tried shooting my grandson's little league games, the camera wouldn't focus fast enough. I ended up purchasing the Fuji X-E2 with their very fine 18-55 lens (also a Sunwayfoto L-bracket/grip).  This camera is heads above my favorite X-Pro1 for focusing, and hand held work. I think if you use the fast prime X lenses, you will find this might be the answer to your needs. the only draw back I have found (besides no tilting LCD screen)  might be the flash system (perhaps Metz might have a flash that works).  I shoot homes for builders and realtors, so I shoot off camera flash units fired with a radio control.  yes, I think Sony would be my second choice, but don't underestimate Fuji. they might be slow getting up to speed with the competition, but when the do, it is usually a very fine product, which is why Hasselblad had them make some of their cameras and lenses. 

 

On another note, Hasselblad has a modified Sony full frame DSLR (I know its heavy and larger) camera that they were selling for $12,000. since they couldn't give this camera away, B&H has been trying to sell them for $3,999, with a very fine 12-70mm 2.8 lens. Even though it's a Sony, dressed as a Hasselblad, it means that Hasselblad probably tweaked this camera to the highest specs. which means this might be a great all around one lens travel camera if you don't mind the size       

[Trenton Talbot]

From the forum's main page "…my X stuff" part is always hidden, so every time this thread pops to the top, its headline reads like this:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ChatNoir]

'Nikon shit'. I've got a lot of difficulty to understand people hopping from one system for another one, to another one, and likely over a few years again to another one. Nikon is still a first class manufacturer I'm not really understanding the 'shit' in it - using myself Nikon F for more than 30 years now. Or you bought the wrong Nikon camera for your purpose, or you don't have the best fitted lenses. Not one other system in the world allows me to work in such a flexible manner with the same glass on a top notch roll-film era SLR and a DSLR (well, not even Canon). When I bought the Fuji X-Pro1 just after its release for its lightweight, small form factor footprint and 'filmic performance', I've had more shit with this camera than with any other system I've ever touched (and that were quite a few). Gradually it became more or less a normal functioning camera, but I was never blown away by its AF-performance and I even started liking my Nikon stuff more and more over the X-Pro1 which remained an extremely difficult tool in low light. The X-T1 I've purchased - just out of frustration, at that moment in time - is a lot better and I assume the X-Pro2 will finally be the kind of 'electronic RF' I wished for. But it has taken about 4 years to get there and thus likely 3 investments - to deliver the performance that an entry-level Nikon FX provides me readily. It's just a free choice - and yes, the lightweight, form factor aspect and RF-concept might be tempting but it won't ever buy you more compelling pictures or make you a better photographer - that's just a myth. And the Sony A7 doesn't really do anything better than FX Nikon gear, not the least in ergonomics - also that is a myth.

[ranger9]

...the lightweight, form factor aspect and RF-concept might be tempting but it won't ever buy you more compelling pictures or make you a better photographer - that's just a myth.

 

[content deleted]

[ranger9]

Yes, ISO 800 on my E-M1 compares to ISO 1600-3200 on my Fuji. I've never taken side to side comparisons...

 

[content deleted]

[Tom H.]

I just finished doing exactly that. You can see the results on my Tumblr here: Piercing the Shadows: Fuji vs. Olympus at High ISOs

 

The TL/DR version: Comparing the E-M 5 mk II (which may be a bit better than the E-M 1) to the X-T 10 (because that's what I have) I found that the Olympus and Fuji were very comparable in noise "signature" and detail sharpness on an ISO-for-ISO basis.

 

Fuji does have a significant edge in shadow gradation, but other than that I'd describe their low-light/high-ISO performance as a wash. Yes, I was surprised.

I never do static testing. I tried both for over a year now. For me, the difference in acceptable iso is 2 to 3 stops. Yes, ibis helps mitigate that. But when shooting people or street, you can't go down to those slower shutter speeds, so no use for my kind of shooting. Again, personal opinion after 9000 shots on the Olympus and 7000 on the Fuji's. The Olympus is a good camera, but mine is for sale for that reason.

[DKPhoto]

As a Canon shooter I first got into mirrorless with the OM-D E-M5.  I wanted something I could have on me all the time, but where I didn't loose the ability to take control that the Canon system gave me.  I loved the retro look, the feel and the functionality of the E-M5.  But I was never quiet happy with the amount of noise I found in practically any image that wasn't taken in a studio environment.  I upgraded to the E-M1.  Brilliant functionality, but OMG the noise was just horrible.  I sent that one back.  My son then suggested I take a look at Fuji.  Before Canon I used to shoot Fuji, so was interested.   I bought the Pro 1.  This is long after the issues with AF, and following a number of upgrades.  I loved this camera.  Loved the quality and sharpness of the images it produced.  Still do.  This led me to buying the T1.  I love this camera too, but it doesn't have the sole of the Pro 1, and isn't therefore as much fun to use.  Though without doubt a better camera.  I like a bit of fun when I'm taking pictures.  It shouldn't all be about function.  It's also about being creative.  Then a friend let me play with their X100T.  What a camera!  Love it, love the pictures, love using it.  I have the two extension lenses, and together it is a perfect travel and street setup.  This setup in one form or another now goes with me everywhere.  As much as I love the other cameras the X100T is the one I always find myself reaching for.  So much so I'm having to plan and structure use of my other ones.  Never mind my Canon's which are gathering dust for most of the time.  I'm rarely disappointed with the camera or the quality of the images it takes.  When I get noise, I find it adds rather than irritates, especially when compared to the Olympus system.  Mind I shoot a lot in manual, and the way these cameras (including the Olympus for that matter) are setup are perfect.  And the limitations on flash are just not there, again because I'm used to doing it manually.  And what I like best, is Fuji support their systems.  This is noticeable when compared to Sony that seen to release a new version every year or so.  I know my investment in Fuji is going to last.  That gives me confidence to buy into it.

[benjaminthomson]

I just finished doing exactly that. You can see the results on my Tumblr here: Piercing the Shadows: Fuji vs. Olympus at High ISOs

 

The TL/DR version: Comparing the E-M 5 mk II (which may be a bit better than the E-M 1) to the X-T 10 (because that's what I have) I found that the Olympus and Fuji were very comparable in noise "signature" and detail sharpness on an ISO-for-ISO basis.

 

Fuji does have a significant edge in shadow gradation, but other than that I'd describe their low-light/high-ISO performance as a wash. Yes, I was surprised.

Exactly what I found in real life usage as well.

[Tom H.]

Exactly what I found in real life usage as well.

 

Looking at those samples a bit closer now I'm on the big screen, I can clearly see colour noise creeping in already at ISO 1600 on the Olympus, which I found as well often, even as low as ISO 800. And banding too, which is near impossible to get rid off. Still, again, personal experience. I found that banding and discolouring is near completely absent from my Fuji files all the way up to ISO 6400. The grain itself is the least of your problems at those ISO's. And yes, the Olympus files are sharp, as the lenses are great. No argument there.

[ChatNoir]

Sorry, not buying that one. The reason is that I've been there. I used to lug around a Nikon system: 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, and an 85/1.8, plus one body and battery grip. Even that modest-by-professional-standards load was a constant, subconscious drag factor: I got to the point that I wouldn't bother to climb the stairs to see if the angle was better, or walk another block looking for more interesting subject matter. I never consciously felt that I was hindered by the amount of gear I was carrying, but I was still always looking for excuses to stop carrying it. Once I had gotten the "safe," obvious picture and set the bag down, it was a challenge to pick it up again.

 

Going to a lighter-weight system definitely bought me more compelling pictures and made me a better photographer, at least in the sense of being more persistent.

 

"Lugging around stuff" - well of course FX zooms of this type are huge. So primes are not only offering a better IQ, the weight is a lot more acceptable and it's really an exaggeration that the size is so different of the Fuji equals. I've always been using my Nikon F cameras with (the best wave of) primes, just as I do with my X-T1. 

 

Of course this is the Fuji X forum, there's only one brand that does it all and never has an issue.

 

But there's really nothing out there that I couldn't have done with my Nikon FX-gear and in quite a few cases, it would have been better too. Where I know that is a sure fact, I won't even care about the weight and 'lugging'.  The Fuji might be an ideal travel camera - but there have been moments in the last three years I really started getting nervous from all the AF-missers, the way to many low light issues, the X-Pro1's shutter lag, the problems with flashes and even transceivers and most of all, RAW-conversion problems (that were in the beginning really dramatic).

 

I finally dumped the X-Pro1 one year ago in favor of the X-T1 - and that was a major relief, the X-T1 is a credible concept. Fuji evolved a lot in a very short time, but there's still a lot at stake. I don't want to restart this over-and-over discussion again but the X-series are missing the full frame concept and that will gradually render their further penetration in the market extremely difficult.  The A7 and even Leica M.240 might not even had any chance for their supremacy in their market segments if the the X-series and in particular, the X-Pro1 would have received a 35mm sensor & glass from the very start.

 

A camera remains a tool. I'm not buying a new chainsaw every year, because there is a lot of media-hyped fuzz about a new model. I won't do the same with cameras but things seem to be different in this MILC-world. I feel the mood that a lot of people are excessively changing from cameras and systems in this market - this forum is full of this type of users.  Well, one or years is an extremely short lifecycle - I can't even depreciate over that period of time.

 

Nikon dealt 55 years with the same concept and I hardly ever felt the need to change a camera after 3 years - I'm still owning film F-cameras and using once in a while in for particular fine art missions. Going three years back with today's knowledge, very likely I wouldn't become a MLIC adopter again - I'm still waiting for the 'better result' that just isn't there, it's just a commercial myth - 'buy a new camera, and become a better photographer' is something that looks pretty much like 'buy a better computer and become an IT-specialist'.

[ranger9]

Looking at those samples a bit closer now I'm on the big screen, I can clearly see colour noise creeping in already at ISO 1600 on the Olympus, which I found as well often, even as low as ISO 800. And banding too, which is near impossible to get rid off. Still, again, personal experience. I found that banding and discolouring is near completely absent from my Fuji files all the way up to ISO 6400. The grain itself is the least of your problems at those ISO's. And yes, the Olympus files are sharp, as the lenses are great. No argument there.

 

Of course, what you're actually looking at is your monitor, showing PNG files, showing screenshots of Lightroom compare views. But of course there's no way any of that could be influencing the results. Far better to form unshakeable conclusions based on personal beliefs than get confused by mere "static testing."

 

I can see I've been wasting my time here...

[Tom H.]

Of course, what you're actually looking at is your monitor, showing PNG files, showing screenshots of Lightroom compare views. But of course there's no way any of that could be influencing the results. Far better to form unshakeable conclusions based on personal beliefs than get confused by mere "static testing."

 

I can see I've been wasting my time here...

 

If you know anything about statistics, you'd know that one sample from a controlled environment is not a representative sample. I've taken 9000 shots on my Olympus all over Europe, in lots of different circumstances. Experience tells me otherwise, not belief. But feel free to stay indoors and shoot static displays.

 

Also, I'm not the only one to draw this conclusion. Cameralabs came to exact the same findings, and feel free to argue with them on their static test.

 

"The combination of the X Trans sensor, X Mount lenses and Fujifilm's latest image processing, which includes diffraction and edge softness compensation, simply delivers outstanding quality. In my RAW noise tests the X-T1 was two stops ahead of the Olympus OMD EM1 and exhibited less noise speckles than some of my tests with full-frame cameras."

 

http://cameralabs.com/reviews/Fujifilm_X-T1/verdict.shtml

[Alan Sircom]

"Lugging around stuff" - well of course FX zooms of this type are huge. So primes are not only offering a better IQ, the weight is a lot more acceptable and it's really an exaggeration that the size is so different of the Fuji equals. I've always been using my Nikon F cameras with (the best wave of) primes, just as I do with my X-T1. 

 

Of course this is the Fuji X forum, there's only one brand that does it all and never has an issue.

 

But there's really nothing out there that I couldn't have done with my Nikon FX-gear and in quite a few cases, it would have been better too. Where I know that is a sure fact, I won't even care about the weight and 'lugging'.  The Fuji might be an ideal travel camera - but there have been moments in the last three years I really started getting nervous from all the AF-missers, the way to many low light issues, the X-Pro1's shutter lag, the problems with flashes and even transceivers and most of all, RAW-conversion problems (that were in the beginning really dramatic).

 

I finally dumped the X-Pro1 one year ago in favor of the X-T1 - and that was a major relief, the X-T1 is a credible concept. Fuji evolved a lot in a very short time, but there's still a lot at stake. I don't want to restart this over-and-over discussion again but the X-series are missing the full frame concept and that will gradually render their further penetration in the market extremely difficult.  The A7 and even Leica M.240 might not even had any chance for their supremacy in their market segments if the the X-series and in particular, the X-Pro1 would have received a 35mm sensor & glass from the very start.

 

A camera remains a tool. I'm not buying a new chainsaw every year, because there is a lot of media-hyped fuzz about a new model. I won't do the same with cameras but things seem to be different in this MILC-world. I feel the mood that a lot of people are excessively changing from cameras and systems in this market - this forum is full of this type of users.  Well, one or years is an extremely short lifecycle - I can't even depreciate over that period of time.

 

Nikon dealt 55 years with the same concept and I hardly ever felt the need to change a camera after 3 years - I'm still owning film F-cameras and using once in a while in for particular fine art missions. Going three years back with today's knowledge, very likely I wouldn't become a MLIC adopter again - I'm still waiting for the 'better result' that just isn't there, it's just a commercial myth - 'buy a new camera, and become a better photographer' is something that looks pretty much like 'buy a better computer and become an IT-specialist'.

 

Personally, I don't have any problems with larger cameras and lenses. Check in desks are another matter, and one that will likely only get worse, because RyanAir is charging customers for every single bag that goes in the hold, and Swiss can turn round flights fast because it prevents people from using the hold and restrict the size, weight, and number of cabin bags on some flights. Other airlines will follow suit, because both actions mean more profitability.  

 

I also don't think anyone here is blind to Fuji's shortcomings. If anything, those of us who use the system are more aware of its shortcomings than those who sit on the sidelines and pick holes at random. I would prefer Fuji got its act together in several important criteria, such as flash, AF (it's better but still not 'there' IMO), oversmoothed high ISO JPEGs, and its battery technology. It would also be nice if Adobe and Fuji worked still closer, although I'm liking C1 more and more.

 

Arguments for film camera time-frames don't survive in the digital age. You could measure the life of a film camera or a lens in decades, and the only aspect of photography where that still applies (just) is Leica lenses. Everything else is on a much faster turnaround time. You don't need to buy every iteration of camera or lens, but hardly any of the Nikon lenses that currently sell are the same models that were in the Nikon line-up of 10 years ago. Canon does better in this, now. 

 

I also don't see how someone who used Nikon, then a Fuji XP1, then a Fuji XT1, and then went back to Nikon in a few years gets to lecture about people 'excessively changing from cameras and systems'. I had a Nikon system. Now I have a Fuji system. The cameras that I bought in that Fuji system I still use today, whether they are fashionable or not. 

 

Finally the arguments for Fuji going FF do not stack up, IMO. Fuji is a niche player. The niche player in FF is Leica. If Fuji spent time, money, and energy to develop a system that trailed behind Leica in the FF market, how is that a good thing? Surely Fuji would be better improving what it already does well than going after what few scraps fall from the FF table?

[olli]

The entire FF market is a niche market. Go that route and Fuji just dissipates its resources. I understand that there are people out there who want or occasionally need 35mm sensors, but can you understand that there are also plenty of us who do not want to go down that route? In my case so much so that I abandoned Sony, whose cameras I had been using since the A200, for Fuji precisely because Sony decided to put their energies into FF and put APS on the back burner.

[pizzaman]

...

[benjaminthomson]

Are you not romanticising your memory of the contax g2 at all? I used a friends 2 days ago, the viewfinder is a tiny porthole similar to a Nikon d3300, plus the af is fairly glacial by today's standards. The lenses though, that 45mm might be in the top 10 lenses of all time.

[pizzaman]

... 

[abjurina]

I think that when I sit back and weigh all of the pros and cons of Fuji vs DSLR or another kind of camera, it all comes back to the "fun factor". My X cameras are just so fun to use for both my business and my hobby. The ability to travel light with amazing image quality, great manual focus options (that's right, I said Manual focus), and simple controls are what keeps me grounded with satisfaction. Each time I reach for a dslr, I am reminded on how it can certainly do the job of the fuji perhaps better, it doesn't come near being as enjoyable to use. And when it's all said and done, if you don't enjoy what you do, however perfect or imperfect it may be, then what's the point?

[CRAusmus]

Well said.  The enjoyment is what it all boils down to and Peter will enjoy the Sony with his Contax lenses better.  In the end that's what matters..

[DKPhoto]

Abjurina - well said.  Exactly. I don't think I've ever enjoyed using a camera system as much.

[Ektachrome]

Yes, ISO 800 on my E-M1 compares to ISO 1600-3200 on my Fuji. I've never taken side to side comparisons, but one year of shooting both weekly, I find that I hated the Olympus output in anything but daytime shots. And the Fuji has often surprised me even at 6400 ISO. Noise levels on the Fuji are always bareable, even if it's there. On the OIympus, I will quite often get noise at even low ISO...

 

Owning both an E-M1 and X-T1 for nearly a year, and using both in anger a lot, I think it's more complex than that. It's true I do occasionally get a little more noise than I'd like at base ISO on the E-M1, but 95% of the time, I also get higher detail in, e.g., landscapes with fine grasses, etc., and a more appealing tone and colour palette out of the can (yes, really, but I shoot RAW).

 

FWIW, I do believe Fuji cheats noise performance slightly, and applies non-defeatable luminance NR in the RAW pipeline. I can't prove this, but it's very like what I see when I apply luminance NR to non-Fuji files. This makes it appear to have better ISO performance, but in reality, it's not much better overall than applying NR in post to other APS-C cameras. Of course, with m43, you do lose about half a stop more than APS-C.

 

Conversely, I'm often surprised by how decent high-ISO performance is for m43, although it wouldn't be my first choice for astrophotography, but then neither would the X-T1.

 

What I do find is that the E-M1 bests the X-T1 detail, and particularly dynamic range. I know people praise X-trans for this, but I haven't found it so. The E-M1, for all that it has a little more noise, is often a more 'natural' looking sensor, to my eye, at least.

 

What I have found on the X-T1 is that it is possible to retrieve amazing shadow detail, almost without penalty, which is very nice on occasion.

 

Also, I find I can push the Fuji raw files much harder in post if needed. The MFT ones are great when properly exposed. But anything underexposed is usually a throw away... My personal opinion though, but if you are not happy with your Fuji ISO performance, I'd surely steer clear of MFT...

 

I agree, but Fuji is the same the other way around - if you've over-exposed, forget it. I think this is just a matter of learning how to get the best out of each of the two sensors. The thing which is rather harder to circumvent as a user, is Lightroom's handling of fine texture/detail, especially in greens, although I've been more and more happy with Capture One in this regard, so much so it has stopped me selling my Fuji for now...

[ChatNoir]

I really liked the X-Pro1 concept from day one and in

 

Owning both an E-M1 and X-T1 for nearly a year, and using both in anger a lot, I think it's more complex than that. It's true I do occasionally get a little more noise than I'd like at base ISO on the E-M1, but 95% of the time, I also get higher detail in, e.g., landscapes with fine grasses, etc., and a more appealing tone and colour palette out of the can (yes, really, but I shoot RAW).

 

FWIW, I do believe Fuji cheats noise performance slightly, and applies non-defeatable luminance NR in the RAW pipeline. I can't prove this, but it's very like what I see when I apply luminance NR to non-Fuji files. This makes it appear to have better ISO performance, but in reality, it's not much better overall than applying NR in post to other APS-C cameras. Of course, with m43, you do lose about half a stop more than APS-C.

 

Conversely, I'm often surprised by how decent high-ISO performance is for m43, although it wouldn't be my first choice for astrophotography, but then neither would the X-T1.

 

What I do find is that the E-M1 bests the X-T1 detail, and particularly dynamic range. I know people praise X-trans for this, but I haven't found it so. The E-M1, for all that it has a little more noise, is often a more 'natural' looking sensor, to my eye, at least.

 

What I have found on the X-T1 is that it is possible to retrieve amazing shadow detail, almost without penalty, which is very nice on occasion.

 

 

I agree, but Fuji is the same the other way around - if you've over-exposed, forget it. I think this is just a matter of learning how to get the best out of each of the two sensors. The thing which is rather harder to circumvent as a user, is Lightroom's handling of fine texture/detail, especially in greens, although I've been more and more happy with Capture One in this regard, so mu

 

My Nikon gear is great and I've shot Nikon for over a decade now. It just works and gets out of your way. Every time. They are very solid workhorse tools. 

 

Sorry, just used the term 'shit' in passing because as good as the gear is, I still don't really enjoy using it like I do other tools. I haven't encountered anything better in the small format realm since I started being a photographer. Yet, I am still looking.

 

I want something smaller with the same quality and that can come close in terms of overall responsiveness and versatility and feel like it's getting closer to existing. Basically how the Contax G2 gave us that option in the film days (depending on what your uses/needs are). I share your hope that the X pro 2 is there - but I do think that the Sony with Contax G lenses adapted gives you very good quality in a smaller size - but you do lose responsiveness with the whole adapter thing and yes, the native lenses are big enough to offset many arguments about size. 

 

And no a different camera/form factor won't make you a better photographer, but it might give you a camera you can use differently. The tool definitely affects the work. It's unquestionable. Most of the time you can very much tell when a photographer changes tools - especially when the form of the tool changes.  Maybe it's not better or worse - but there is a change. Look at Alec Soth shooting Sleeping by the Mississippi on an 8x10, and Dog Days Bogota on a Mamiya 6, and Songbook with a digital Hasselblad and a huge flash. The soul of his work is consistent but the feel of it changes with the form of the tools. 

 

ch so it has stopped me selling my Fuji for now...

 

I really liked the X-Pro1 concept from the day it was announced. I really hoped it was a kind of Leica M-competitor, without having to miss the modern convenience of what a Pro-DSLR could offer. There were a lot of good ideas in it, but when I finally owned one, it felt so disappointing. From built quality (I really suffered from issues) to its true, core performance. I've given all chances to Fujifilm and their kaizen-approach, but also to Apple, Adobe, Capture One,... to come with a decent RAW conversion and it just didn't fully happen.

 

The most important is that Fuji really learned from what the users were saying - that may sound extraordinary, but maybe they didn't even have a choice with such a new system. Once again, going for 'APS/C only' to developing the XF-flange wasn't the most clever choice. I still think Fuji's management has originally with the X100 been looking more for a solution to save their compact camera business and compete with M43 than they were searching to become a true hard-core professional camera manufacturer.

 

If the X-Pro1 would have received a FF 24MP X-trans sensor (which was available in those days in Sony & Nikon camera's) and a more or less professional AF-servo system - they could have released possible the ultimate winner for the next 3 years - the dream camera for many professionals, the ultimate, standard tool but maybe not something they could sell at at a more elevated price at a wider, advanced shooter audience. But only being APS/C with a disappointing AF and a quite poor low light performance, we all now the X-Pro1 never became a sales miracle.

 

Well I like the X-T1 but I still don't judge this to be a 'swiss knife'. My own perception remains that the bodies might be close to an advanced expert solution like a D7200, but it's no Nikon FX. Design-wise it looks better and works less disturbing and offensive in many situations, it's lightweight, interesting for travel, has an ideal form factor. And the optical formulas of those Fujinons are excellent.

 

I don't know what stepping up means for Fuji. Or they have to leave the 'hobby arena' that is business-wise their camera division now and aim to become something like Sony or Nikon is now (which will be a huge challenge and business risk) - or they can stay a relatively small, but niche player making not the best solutions out there, but the ones that holds the middle between a wider range of more affordable solutions in the medium advanced APS/C segment and truly expert kind of stuff.

 

To say it different I don't expect a Leica M.240 or Sony A7RII concept from Fuji in a near future. The X-Pro2 will have that slightly higher 24MP resolution and get rid of a few hurdles or missing features (like more solid video, where I'm btw myself not waiting for). Still no organic sensor, no world-shocking new technologies, no sensor stabilization. And no high resolution mode.   

 

To be honest, I don't know I will still consider the X-Pro2 in 2016.

 

Investing in a second system remains extremely expensive. Despite the X-T1's improvements and competences, the fact it's a more fluent player I keep on reaching for my Nikon gear, my best Nikkors and the new wave of Sigma Art glass, in which I still have more trust on the more critical missions. That's not the best sign, most of all because in the 2016-2017 timeframe we will likely face Nikon (FX?) competition and full Nikon F compatibility in the MILC market and if that ever becomes true, I don't know I can still justify to use Fuji.

[pizzaman]

For anyone who was following this or stumbles upon this trying to figure out their own situation with this I ended up selling of all my Fuji stuff and grabbing an A7rII with the techart 3 adapter for my contax lenses, though I'll eventually pick up that 55mm 1.8 as well. I would have kept the Fuji if money were no thing (but it is), since the Sony is a sort of different animal, but not all that different. 

 

In the end am not at all bummed about this, if anything I waited too long.

There are some things to miss about the Fuji, but none of them really practical things. Mostly the form factor of the camera, which doesn't really have real world implications that I've found. Unless you're interested in it as a shoulder accessory.

 

From IQ to IBIS to getting full frame back to the responsiveness/ AF of the Sony - this is noticeably better across the board in challenging conditions in my opinion.

 

Cheers. 

[johant]

Good that you found what works for you!

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[darknj]

[...]

From IQ to IBIS to getting full frame back to the responsiveness/ AF of the Sony - this is noticeably better across the board in challenging conditions in my opinion.[...]

 

Well, that's a FF sensor at work there and that 40+ MP monster.

 

Glad that you finally found something that suits you, it's always frustrating to feel being held back because the tools don't fit the needs :]