Convince me not to dump my X stuff

[Ektachrome]

I'm not sure I agree, having held and used A7ii body - it's a little more heavy than an X-T1, but actually no more than an E-M1. If you use big zooms, the lenses can be bigger, but if you stick with the Batis 25 and 85, and Sony 55 1.8, 35 2.8, 28 2, etc., you still have a pretty compact and lightweight setup. OK not quite X-T1 and primes, but definitely nowhere near FF DSLR and primes either.

 

Another concern of mine (maybe not to the OP?) is video. The A7rii is pretty much state of the art for a stills camera which also shoots video. I can't see Fuji even trying to compete in this category.

 

When you add to that the noise (or lack of) and dynamic range being almost at D810 standard, it's a bit of a monster, really.

 

The only thing I'll miss about my Fuji is its looks, and some (though not all) of the ergonomics, and the brilliant dual split screen manual focus aid, but none of those are enough to keep me with what is increasingly seeming like a system which is falling further and further behind the curve of competing cameras. It pains me to say it, but my love of something with a little 'soul' at some point has to face a reality where the results I can get simply aren't up to another system. My film Leica (M6) had to eventually face that reality, and so now must the Fuji. If I could afford to keep both, I would, but I can't.

[danwells]

          Remember the size of the Sony lenses, too. The primes are big, and the zooms are huge! Many of the lenses are actually LARGER than comparable full frame DSLR lenses once you take aperture into account. As examples, the Sony FE 55 f1.8 is 1.5 times as heavy as the Nikkor 50 f1.8 and just about the same weight as the Nikkor 50 f1.4(the Sony IS a higher end lens, and the Sony is much lighter than the faster Sigma ART 50 f1.4, which is more comparable in price and quality). The Sony 24-70 f4 is almost exactly the same weight as the Nikkor24-85 f 3.5-4.5, which has a useful bit of extra focal length on the long end, allowing it to serve as a portrait lens. The Fuji lenses are much more compact, and include several pancakes as well as the highest quality compact zoom on the market (with the possible exception of the Leica T 18-56mm zoom). For the weight of the Sony 24-70 or Nikkor 24-85, Fuji's response is a weathersealed 18-135 with twice the range (slower at the long end).

       A large part of that is that Fuji has the only full line of high-end APS-C lenses out there. Most Canon/Nikon/Sony APS-C lenses are entry-level zooms that are meant to go with $400 bodies. There are exceptions, but nobody has a full line of exceptions - Pentax may be closer than the bigger players.The Leica T lenses are nice, but the line is limited (and they make the Fujinons look cheap by comparison) High-end FF lenses are, of course, an option, but at a significant sacrifice in size and weight.

    

[cosinaphile]

well i think the answers been said

 

i currently enjoy my xe1 and xe2 black bodies with latest firmware with many lenses both legacy and native fuji....... but by far my best legacy experience  is reusing ....with adapters my excellent contax g system lenses .......the   incredibly sharp, yet bokeh beautiful 

45mm f2 planar,   and lovely 90mm 2.8 sonnar...

 

 

i find them both  better than any Leica or cosina voigtlander i also love and use .    i us an inexpensive  dedicated adapter for each which stays with the lens   the 3 mf options regular enlarger   focus peaking and digital split image all offer value in different situations  

 

im a huge fan of contax lenses  on fuji rangefinder styled bodies especially the  xe2 obviously .....the beautiful build quality , and optical excellence and the tactile excellence of the user experience are  truly  a great enjoyment  and photographic benefit to me.

 

 

im not a fan of SLR styled Fuji  as excellent as they are.  the xe2 s 16mp sensor is aging yes   but its capable of astounding files with class leading iso and quality for its mp rating imho ....lastly the lenses compact  build balances beautifully and gracefully on the fuji body in a manner that no native fuji lens does ,....sadly 

 

 

cheers

[frod]

Mirrorless has come so far in the last 3-4 years, I feel like we're at a tipping point, being driven by mft and fuji x (and smartphones). As someone said earlier, mft is pretty good for video, I bet the next generation of fuji will improve focus speed and be good for video (thus further endangering the flappy mirror cameras) and the generation after that will kill off all but the very specialist uses of DSLR.

 

Just in time for smartphones to kill everything.

[pizzaman]

...

[pizzaman]

Whoa! This isn't DPReview.

 

The OP's needs are relatively specialist and not easily met, by Fuji or any other mirrorless system, IIRC. No camera system is perfect, and no camera system is ideal for everyone, and what the OP describes is beyond Fuji's flash system as it stands. We should be pleading with Fuji to make a flash system that allows people like the OP to stay in the Fuji fold than patronise people who hit the limits of the system. 

 

IMO the worst thing a company can do is listen to its fanboys. It's even worse than listening to the detractors, because at least the detractors give you an indication of what might not be that company's finest hour. The OP raised some valid points about AF (that a few of us have addressed if not entirely resolved) and about flash (which no one can fully address). It's that kind of commentary (and the rational responses) that Fuji should be noting.

I agree. If I were a company I would want to know what is making my users consider not using my equipment anymore at least as much as I would want to know what they love about it. 

 

Also, I never said my work was good. If you asked me, I'd say I make pretty crap pictures in general. Somehow it is my job though, and I love it and want to keep doing it therefore I am always looking for ways to do it better. Tools come into this equation only when I can find tools that get out of my way more easily. Seeing as the Fuji tends to just 'get in the way' in real life applications - for me at least - (despite it's smaller size) I was looking for some input from other users. 

[Marc G.]

You should probably first read into the issues with the A7 cameras. It's not just hype and happy wonder dreamland with that system.

 

Overheating problems with video and A7r II, you're forced to use lossy 11+7 raw bit compression, native lenses with appealing specs (1.4/1.8, AF, high optical quality) are rare or non existent (2.8 zooms).

 

Besides, I don't see the point in this thread as you gave sufficient evidence that you're not interested to get the most out of Fuji X and take the easy way out (see Wedding Photography thread). Either take a look at the X-T1 with latest firmware or don't and keep believing that Fuji X is not your thing.

[benjaminthomson]

Can I make a bold suggestion? Ditch the fuji and get an Olympus em5 mkii.

 

It'll fix your low light issue because you won't need to ever shoot over iso 800 thanks to the excellent in body stabilization. There's also a huge lens selection.

 

I've owned the canon 6d andthe Sony a7 but sold both. The 6d was cumbersome and had average af. The a7 had great iq but fairly awful controls.

 

I now shoot professionally just with 2 fuji bodies and love the control layout and colours.

 

But I always have an em5 mkii in my backpack at all times for snaps and its a highly capable camera. Love the lenses, love the colours, absolutely love the 4x3 ratio which would complement your Pentax mf nicely.

[benjaminthomson]

Also don't believe the bullshit about compressed raw files with the Sony a7 series. Their raw files are totally fine.

[Alan Sircom]

peterh, given your initial flash requirements, I don't think the Sony Alpha line provides a significantly better solution to your demands. It has better TTL and some kind of rudimentary wireless TTL, but even if it is a generation ahead of the Fuji, it's still two generations behind Canon's and Nikon's system. 

 

I agree that if your assignments include IBIS and high ISO in very low-light settings, then the Fuji system is not for you, but using IS in low-light is pretty far from a panacea. In my opinion, IS works best at improving your 1/focal length hand-holding technique, but beyond a certain point, it becomes academic. You may get five stops of hand-tremor removal, but below about 1/4 second, you are starting to counter slower periodicity body movement (such as breathing) that it is not geared up to deal with. In a way, this is reverse of things like noise-cancelling headphones - they are great at cancelling constant noise (like the drone of aircraft engines) but until recently not so good at countering fast transients (such as train wheels going over welded track). You might be best pushing the ISO higher than you might expect, rather than work at ISO 6400 and use IBIS. In such cases, I'd go with the A7RII instead of the A7II.

 

Also, the point about NYT togs using Sony Alpha on international assignment is a valid one that I've heard before, but it masks more pragmatic reasoning. First, most NYT photographers are now asked to shoot video (even if B-roll) alongside stills, and that limits the pool of camera systems that reliably do both well. More significantly, the operative word in your sentence was 'international'. Baggage weight and size concerns have become unfeasibly pressing for photographers travelling across the EU, because an increasing number of airlines demand you pay excess for any luggage stowed in the hold, impose weight limits on hold luggage, and are now more strict on cabin baggage size and weight. If you fly Swiss Economy Light, for example, you are limited to a single bag weighing 17.5lbs and a maximum size of 22"x15.5"x9", and they do weigh and measure your bag. This was a contributing factor in my switch to Fuji, because I was having to pare down my Nikon system too much for what my company would pay for pan-European travel. The days of putting a big Peli case in the hold for the cameras are long gone.

[ranger9]

Can I make a bold suggestion? Ditch the fuji and get an Olympus em5 mkii.

[content deleted]

[Tom H.]

One of our biggest newspapers sends their international reporters on the road with Fuji's. They are currently reporting from Syria, Iraq, Nepal, etc and those images are more than good enough. Portability and access is the key, not image quality. Domestic stuff they still use Nikon, for now...

[pizzaman]

... 

[ranger9]

[content deleted]

[CRAusmus]

I'm all good with you switching to Sony, but you are making me seasick when it comes to Fuji.

 

In one post you say it gets in your way of your work.  In another post you say you enjoy using it so much you're going to keep it for personal projects for a while.  In yet another you say that you don't want to become efficient with it and get the most out of using it.

 

So if you enjoy shooting it so much, why the hell wouldn't you want to become efficient at using it?

 

Your process makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, but whatever dude.  If you ever decide to get rid of your fuji gear, look me up...

[benjaminthomson]

I would have to disagree with this. I own both an E-M 5 mk II and an X-Pro 1 (the OP's current Fuji camera) plus an X-T 10. The Olympus has unquestionably better picture-taking performance in every way EXCEPT low-light/high-ISO shooting. Noise levels are comparable -- but the Fuji has better shadow gradation at every ISO, from 200 on up.

 

The difference isn't enough to matter in a lot of picture-taking scenarios (you could even argue that Olympus' faster shadow roll-off makes photos look more "snappy") but peterh mentioned that he has a specific interest in photographing buildings at night, and shadow gradation is important for this. So, potentially a good answer for a lot of people, not so good for him.

 

I just did a test comparison on this for my own purposes, and will post a writeup of results if anyone is interested...

 

I think you're missing the fact that you can hand hold the x-pro1 / x-t1 down to about 1/30th of a second, but you can comfortably shoot the olympus at half a second. How many stops of iso is that saving?

[ranger9]

I think you're missing the fact that you can hand hold the x-pro1 / x-t1 down to about 1/30th of a second, but you can comfortably shoot the olympus at half a second. How many stops of iso is that saving?

[content deleted]

[nodslr]

For me it's simple. I switch to mirrorless to save weight and space. For me cameras are part of a system with lenses. To save a few gram on the camera body doesn't help. Even the lenses must be smaller and lighter. That's why initially all mirrorless cameras was introduced with MFT sensors or APS-C sensors. I don't understand mirrorless with full frame sensors. With these cameras we are back to what initially mirrorless solved in the first place. To save weight and space. A full frame lens by nature must be larger than one for a smaller sensor. 

[Tom H.]

I think you're missing the fact that you can hand hold the x-pro1 / x-t1 down to about 1/30th of a second, but you can comfortably shoot the olympus at half a second. How many stops of iso is that saving?

 

You save ISO stops, but Fuji ISO performance is at least 2 or 3 stops ahead of my Olympus E-M1. MFT is great for daytime use, but after dark, boy does it fall apart quickly. Shadow noise is really bad, and while it's not great on the Fuji, at least it's useable. I will happily shoot my Olympus all day, but as soon as darkness comes, it goes back into the bag. IBIS is really nice, but honestly, it's a feature I don't miss at all since moving mostly to Fuji. The MFT stuff I only use for video nowadays, for which it's perfect.

[benjaminthomson]

You save ISO stops, but Fuji ISO performance is at least 2 or 3 stops ahead of my Olympus E-M1. MFT is great for daytime use, but after dark, boy does it fall apart quickly. Shadow noise is really bad, and while it's not great on the Fuji, at least it's useable. I will happily shoot my Olympus all day, but as soon as darkness comes, it goes back into the bag. IBIS is really nice, but honestly, it's a feature I don't miss at all since moving mostly to Fuji. The MFT stuff I only use for video nowadays, for which it's perfect.

 

2-3 Stops? So you're saying that iso 800 on an em5ii is the same as around iso 1600-3200 on a fuji? I own and use both and can confirm that is not the case. Particularly when you account  for how much Fuji bluffs iso numbers.

 

Also Fujis are fantastic in high-contrast light, but in poor lighting, I find the sensor can struggle. I've taken shots at iso 1250 on the x-t1 in low-contrast light that look like ass. I've also taken shots in the studio at iso 4000 on the x-t1 by accidentally bumping the iso knob that look fantastic. The Em5 mkii and Fuji X-t1 are fairly comparable at iso 3200 to my eye. Fuji wins by maybe half a stop at 400 through to 1600.

[Tom H.]

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...

[Tom H.]

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...

[Dis]

Peterh, no hope here. Fuji X is dead crappy system used only by crazy fans. You won't be able even sell it for real money as nobody wants it. You should switch to sony.

Have you seen the utilization sign on Fuji equipment? It means you can't just through this eqipment to garbage. You have to utilize it properly. Luckily I work in the utilization facility so I can do it for you free of charge. Just send me all your worthless Fuji gear and forget adout it as a bad dream.

[ianpiper]

Hey all,

I bought the x pro 1 + 35mm when it came out, followed by the 27mm pancake.

It's a great little set up, but I need(want) more out of it and I am getting sick of waiting while it looks like Sony is on the level that I am looking for.

 

I'm not that up on gear stuff, I buy and use what I need and I don't sweat the rest. I'm a working editorial photographer that shoots portraits and stories and I really just want to get away from carrying my Nikon shit everywhere. I have always preferred pairing a small but capable small format body with a medium format body. Pentax has given me a solid digital option for the MF, but I am still looking for a digital contax G2 - my favorite camera ever and one that I still use more than my Fuji because it is still more intuitive, smaller with equivalent lenses and the flash recycles (much) faster. I'm also just not a fan of the XT-1 body. I've always liked and felt better with the RF type design.

 

I'm not ready to dump the Fuji stuff, but I am also not buying any more glass (the only thing I really want is the 56mm and a smaller 35mm. 

 

So - do you guys know anything I don't? Is there a better camera system out there? It seems like there is so much stuff out there now and I get tired of reading about it all when I'd rather go shoot. Am I really supposed to take panasonic and samsung seriously as camera companies. This is the stuff I don't want to bother with. 

 

So this below is my wishlist, and I need to make a move - equipment wise - by the end of the year - will anything fit better? Is it time to just give it up and go Sony, or is Fuji going to put out a damned update to the X Pro that I haven't heard about?

 

- Smaller is better, I don't want to go any bigger than the x pro 1.

- Lowlight capability needs to be better than x pro 1 - which I find for my purposes usable to 1600. I would like to be able to get to 12800 with usable images. I handhold images and print 11x17 and bigger shot in low light, so this is important. Right now that is a bit limited by the ISO. MP count is not important so long as we're at least 16-20, but I do like the look of Sony pushing towards 35-40. Full frame/bigger sensor would be cool but not a necessity. I am still pairing this with a 645 Digital, and I use that with a tripod for the real slow stuff, but I want to minimize this more if I can.

 

- I need good lenses at the (full frame equivalent) 35mm, 40mm, 50 and 85-95mm focal lengths. Fuji has a great (27)40mm. Their current 35mm renders great but smaller would be better. I'd give up a stop for that, especially if they can bump up their ISO capability. Again, contax G size lenses and focal lengths are perfect. the 35/2, 45/2 and 90/2.8 on that are all I've ever needed for small format camera.

 

- Better flash. The contax tla200 is the perfect flash for me - the look, the coverage and the recycle times are all usable. The ef-ex20 - is there any way to hook up a power pack to it or something? It looks ok and I can deal with it, but it shoots way too slowly, and I shoot a lot of overexposed/flash portraiture. I hate using a big ass flash on top of my nikon - it doesn't look the same and it's a lot bigger, but right now I have to resort to that for most jobs. I don't have the time to wait for the fuji flash to recharge when I'm shooting someone who only has 10 min. 

 

Right now - I feel like buying the new sony with a contax g lens adapter and tossing the old contax flash on top is the best way to go. But I don't like that idea of ditching my Fuji stuff and I like how the fuji is designed, feels in the hand, and how the sensor renders the colors. But I can't figure out a way to get the best of the Fuji stuff to function for me in the working environment that I need.

 

Convince me that they are working on these things and I shouldn't chuck the Fuji stuff. I would really rather keep it, but it's not as useful as I need it to be right now. 

Finding the right camera for the individual seems to be an odyssey for all of us. I used Olympus cameras for two decades, but grew tired of over-complex menus and inferior (to me) image quality from the MFT sensor. I tried Nikon (7100) cameras, but the bulk and weight of these is really shocking. The epiphany (and that's not too strong a word, really) for me came one day when I was browsing in John Lewis and saw the Fuji X100. Everything I'd read, plus the initial impression, suggested that it was a bit contrived - a sort of poor man's Leica. Then I picked it up and looked more closely, and immediately got it. Simple, clever controls on the outside rather than buried in menus or hidden in modal control wheels. Dual viewfinder! Solid construction, great hand feel and usability - the camera begged to be picked up and used. Reader, I bought it (especially as it was a half-price ex-demo model!).

 

For a few months I struggled with the duality of the X100 against my other, "main" camera, until I realised that actually the X100 had become my main camera. I sold my other kit and have been on Fujifilm ever since (I suppose you could say I "found my girl"). I currently use an X-T1 and my venerable X100, and some of the best glass my limited money can buy. It would take something truly extraordinary to make me revisit that choice (I'd never buy a Canon or Pentax, or Sony, or Nikon).

 

It looks to me like you haven't found "your girl" yet, but one way to get there is to try these things in your hand. It's unlikely that anyone here will convince you one way or another; direct experience has much greater power to convince than committed product evangelists like me and others here.

 

Whatever you end up with, good luck. If you do decide to sell your Fuji kit, you'll find ready buyers here (I'm one of them if you're in the UK!).

 

 

 

Ian.

--

[frod]

When I looked into Sony a few months back the lenses were thin on the ground, not overwhelmingly well reviewed, mostly oddly slow (f/4 zooms and f/2.8 primes? thus defeating the object of "that full frame bokeh") and what was available was pretty expensive for what it was too. I'm sure it's a different experience in use but you're basically committing to third party lenses and adapters, which I've never really had a lot of comfort in using.