Fuji X Series

Soldato
Joined
3 Dec 2012
Posts
2,703
Location
Northern Ireland
the lenses at the time, the 23/1.4 and 35/1.4, although decent (for hobby), they do not stack up against the Canon L glass. The 35L is leap and bounds better than the 23/1.4.
You sort of touch on my point here. My issue with Canon is that for high(er) end use it only makes sense when you use their L glass and once you go there it’s darned expensive and there’s no going back. You can still of course use the older EF lenses with the adapter but they are heavy and clunky and I don’t miss them one bit from my Canon DSLR days. Furthermore, the higher end Fuji glass isn’t far behind those older lenses in terms of IQ.
One of the things I like about Fuji is you can pretty much come in at any level (exceptions do apply) and have yourself a very good setup but there’s always scope to improve. With Canon I found their budget line (Full frame and APS-C) just bang average and not all that cheap on occasion. As i said, you have to get the L glass and the higher end bodies to really see what Canon are capable of - and at that point you’re into (very) roughly 3x the cost for a body + mid range and telephoto f2.8 zooms.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
74,153
Location
Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Yup, I agree that Canon consumer or prosumer lever weren’t great. Their business plan of gimping features down every level is infuriating. Fuji, whilst they do cut corners on lower levels, the core camera remains largely the same.

So in a way, for a consumer/hobby, the features in the flagships Fuji are more nice to have, like dual cards and weather sealing.

My point though, up until recently, I don’t think the best of Fuji cut it for me if I had to use it for weddings. Whereas Canon offered the gear, albeit they are expensive. Right now Canon RF are just no go for me, it’s not value for money. Sony line up is much better bang for the buck in every single way, from body to lens options.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Dec 2012
Posts
2,703
Location
Northern Ireland
Yep that would be my take as well. As I mentioned above, IF I was a full time wedding photographer I would imagine (for the most part) money is no object when it comes to gear and I would absolutely buy the best of the best for the job but for 98% of other uses it does not represent good value for money.
I am jealous of the lens selection with Sony at the moment, some of the lenses coming from Sigma lately look to be outstanding. And of course Sony’s own lenses are superb as well, the little 70-200 f4 would almost be enough to make me change systems ;)
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Feb 2013
Posts
4,134
Location
East Midlands
I had both full frame and APS-C cameras and on the internet you can see all the people harp on about how full frame is 10000X better. You can see now on a lot of Fuji reviews comments on how Fuji is APS-C and its dead,because Canikonsonysonic haz muh full frame,100x better AF,etc(yet none of them seem to talk about the Fuji GFX system). I remember a Hexus forum member who used APS-C Pentax gear because of its weather sealing and got mocked by their local camera club because they were not using full frame Canikon a decade ago. They ended up winning international awards for their work.

As a person who started with film cameras you were lucky to be able to use above ISO800 colour print film, and slide film had very narrow DR,so some of the measurebating comments make me laugh. Cameras had very few AF points clustered around the centre of the frame.Even the AF of something like an X-T5 is leagues better than cameras 5~10 years ago. Yet nearly a decade ago,with my entry level D600 I was using it to take pictures at airshows using a non-stabilised lens.

But as you touched on in the last point,Fuji has great out of camera results,whereas some of the competing systems need you to fart around editing RAW files. Sony had the same issues with JPEGs a decade ago when I was using their old Alpha system.

The problem is people are approaching digital cameras like they do computers,ie,my spec sheet is better than yours. Fuji is nearly as old as Kodak and one of the few imaging companies that make film,printers,etc even on a commercial level. They know what they are doing WRT to "colour science" and image processing.

The reality is that any of the decent cameras from the big companies,whether it's micro 4/3,APS-C or full frame are capable of excellent results. It's more dependent on the photographer knowing how to use the strengths and weaknesses of their system. But a superior spec sheet does not mean you get a better camera for your particular photography style.

If that is the case Minolta would have won in the 1980s.

I see it all as subjective with so many factors that there is no better. To me, as a general rule, if someone can afford it, doesn't mind the weight and is good at editing raw with a good understanding of colour grading, then I can see how they will benefit from FF. This doesn't make FF a better camera though. If Fuji ever opted to go FF, I'd happily try it. People won't talk about the Fuji GFX system as the AF is generally slightly slow, the lens choice is a little limited and it's not native 3:2 all whilst still being expensive. It's slightly odd though how some are now shooting FF, but using film like profiles and presets for a more nostalgic look, then often adding in grain and trying to reduce sharpeness. At this point, why bother even shooting ff in the first place with the extra cost and weight unless you need that shallow dof. I do stand by the Sony GM 35 and 50 being pretty nasty though. Far too sharp and zero character whilst looking far too digital.

The other thing hardly mentioned is that the faster FF lenses like the f1.2s offer such shallow dof, that you often have to stop down to get enough of say a face in focus. On APS-C, you can get away with the faster speed lenses much more with the equivalent example of a face say, as the dof isn't as shallow. This then negates some of the advantage of the FF camera, as the APS-C camera can use a slightly faster shutter speed or use a slightly lower ISO.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
74,153
Location
Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Some balance here about the X100VI amongst the hype. Talking about limits of lens on increased MPX sensor. https://youtu.be/DCHSeIBpifI?si=wcLHTrCVRiiFFxfc

I've seen that too, but the one that convinced me from "Narh, I might get a used V or F to I will definitely stretch a bit more for the VI" is this blog by a former Fuji Ambassador. (Massive grain of salt required) The part that really stands out is he has had it since October, as opposed to sites like PetaPixel who only had it for a day. Since until like yesterday there was no support for the RAW and he has been shooting in JPEG, those photos are really telling on the strength of this camera's output and colour, which is to say, excellent, and I am sold.

 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
16 Jul 2009
Posts
7,929
Location
Edinburgh
I've seen that too, but the one that convinced me from "Narh, I might get a used V or F to I will definitely stretch a bit more for the VI" is this blog by a former Fuji Ambassador. (Massive grain of salt required) The part that really stands out is he has had it since October, as opposed to sites like PetaPixel who only had it for a day. Since until like yesterday there was no support for the RAW and he has been shooting in JPEG, those photos are really telling on the strength of this camera's output and colour, which is to say, excellent, and I am sold.


Really like the images that Jonas Rask produces; some cracking stuff in that review
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Sep 2009
Posts
2,637
Location
London
I also like the M-RAW feature where it goes straight into a 50mm lens by the twist of the focus ring. That is so clever. And again into 70 something mm...Talk about taking a leaf out of mobile phones lol And 10mp is fine for social media.

I mean my X100 is only 12mp...

Yes , saw this. The 20mp for 50mm is great.

However tempting it is for me to go from my 100v to VI. I'm going to resist the fomo. I think the VI will bring down the 100v to a great price for those deciding between the two.

My use case is jpeg and save. I rarely crop. Most I'll do is sort the horizon. All of which is the opposite of what I do with the R5.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
2,389
I've seen that too, but the one that convinced me from "Narh, I might get a used V or F to I will definitely stretch a bit more for the VI" is this blog by a former Fuji Ambassador. (Massive grain of salt required) The part that really stands out is he has had it since October, as opposed to sites like PetaPixel who only had it for a day. Since until like yesterday there was no support for the RAW and he has been shooting in JPEG, those photos are really telling on the strength of this camera's output and colour, which is to say, excellent, and I am sold.

I think this guy could take good pictures with a 350D, a great reminder its mostly not about the gear! Thanks for the link, lovely read.
 
Associate
Joined
25 Oct 2002
Posts
2,297
Location
Sarf Lahndahn
Had a serious think about it and decided I'm going to leave it and see what happens with stock and prices- it's a lot of money for something that may or may not reignite my interest in photgraphy. In the meantime my mobile is good enough for capturing events, so I might just sell all my gear anyway.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Dec 2012
Posts
2,703
Location
Northern Ireland
In the meantime my mobile is good enough for capturing events, so I might just sell all my gear anyway.
Considering a slightly similar move myself. I have my X-H2s and X-T5 for work/landscapes but also a X-e3 for small walk-around sort of general fun. However, I’ve been experimenting with my iPhone this past few weeks and I’m very tempted to offload the little X-e3 (as much as it would pain me) and use a combination of my phone and/or X-T5 for hobby shooting.
 
Back
Top Bottom