Another 'should I switch to Fuji' thread

N

Northaway

Messages
156
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

At the moment I shoot primarily landscapes using a Nikon D7200, with a Tokina 11-16 2.8, Sigma 18-35 1.8 and a bargain-basement Tamron 70-300 4-5.6. I sell prints online and at art fairs, so while I'm not a complete pro, nor am I purely an amateur. I have also been known to shoot the occasional wedding with the same kit. I am generally very happy with the system. However, I have two problems with it:

1. It's heavy to lug up fells
2. It's big to the point that I don't really use it for anything other than full-on landscape expeditions

I'd like to broaden my photographic horizons a little, take more shots of my family, and generally get my camera out more. I had considered getting an additional small Fuji like an X100 but it's not really affordable at present. So, I'm considering simply switching to Fuji as my main system, part exchanging in my Nikon gear. MPB are offering £1080 for my current gear, and herein lies the rub.

With that price for my current gear, I'm looking at an X-T20 for the body. That leaves about £425 for a lens - I can round that up to £450 for argument's sake. That doesn't leave a great deal of choice - as I'd only be able to afford one lens, I'd rather not limit myself to a prime. That really leaves the 18-55 f2.8-4 as the only option. The 16-55 f2.8 and 10-24 f4 are both wildly expensive new and very rare used.

The quandary I have is as follows. The 18-35 is probably the best APS-C zoom lens around in terms of image quality. It's just stupidly sharp. While the Fuji 18-55 is respectable, especially for a kit lens, it's just not as sharp as the Siggy. However, the Sigma's size is one of the main factors in my reluctance to get the camera out more, and in my having a bad back! The Tokina is a decent little lens, but I am happy to do a bit of pano-stitching to achieve the same coverage, especially as that mitigates the unfortunate shrinking effect of very wide angle lenses in the middle of the frame.

The Tamron is generally pants, but here's the thing: I have sold a not insignificant number of prints taken with it. At A4, you really can't tell the difference between that and a super sharp lens. And this leads me back in a circle to the Sigma and its quality - yes it's stunning, but is it noticeably stunning to anyone but a pixel peeper, for the likes of an A4 print or an Instagram post?

What it boils down to is, do I stick to a big, pretty high quality system that I only shoot occasionally with (once a month in general), or switch to a slightly lower quality but more convenient and enjoyable system that I will likely shoot more with? I realise to a certain extent that only I can answer this question in the end, but it would be good to hear some other opinions and angles on things.
 
How much more do you think you would use a lighter outfit?
Is it just the size and weight or other factors limiting your outings

Don't forget the Fuji refurb shop and the older 16mp cameras are still very decent at a considerably cheaper price
 
How much will you realistically save weight wise though? Personally, I think it is a false justification as a weight saving exercise for landscape photography. A bottle of water in your bag would equal the difference between the two sets of kit.

Why not get a cheaper m4/3's camera for general use and keep your current Nikon kit for when you want to do 'serious' photography?
 
Fuji cameras are not particularly light. I doubt there is much weight advantage.

The 18-55 is incredibly good zoom I doubt you'd tell much different although I've never used the 18-35.

I'd go with your original idea and go for an older x100 or x70 as a trial. You will be able to sell on for what you paid for it no doubt.
 
I went through the same exercise some 18 months ago, I ended up selling virtually all my Canon gear and buying a Fuji XT-1 and the 18-135 and I could not be happier , I use it now as its not too heavy to carry around.
I notice MPB have some used XT-1 bodies for £400 and Castle Cameras are showing the 18-135 for £619 on camera price buster
 
TBH, I've never noticed any of the reputed Fuji artefacts even in A3+ prints.
The 18-55 is a fabulous lens and shouldn't be classed alongside any other "kit" lenses - it's only a "kit" lens because it's often bundled with a body as part of a kit.
Have a look at the weights of your proposed kit alongside your current kit - the Fujis aren't that light compared to some other APS-C systems.
Adaptors and legacy lenses will almost certainly be cheaper than Fuji lenses (especially the XF range!) and will be fine for landscapes - speed of set up is less important and AF isn't necessary than (for example) sports!
Personally, I'd go for a second hand X-T1 rather than an X-T20 but you're the buyer, not me.
 
Yeah, the Fuji cameras are indeed smaller, but they weigh as much if not more than Nikon's crop sensor offerings, because they are better built.

Your Sigma might be a great lens, but it is huge and heavy, I know I'd rather use a couple of light primes. Why not look at the XT-1? It's better built than the XT20, it's older, but still more than a match for the D7200. Going for a used XT-1 will leave you £600 or so for lenses, this widens your options significantly. I would consider the 18-55 used, and a 35mm for low light work, either the 1.4 or the newer F2, whichever I could find the better deal on.

Never mind the 'artifact' nonsense, you only need visit the fuji threads to see many examples of landscapes where there are no signs of such thing.

I moved from a D800E, which was one of the best landscape cameras at the time, to the XT-1, and couldn't be happier. I know I don't miss lugging about the extra weight, and I am shooting a lot more regular with the tidier set up. If I didn't notice much by way of image quality difference between a Full frame Nikon and the XT-1, you certainly won't going from crop to crop.

People tend to exaggerate and dramatise issues so much. Also, the bottle of water point ... er, won't he have that also with the heavier gear? :thinking:
 
Last edited:
Craigus said:
How much will you realistically save weight wise though?
Click to expand...

rjbell said:
Fuji cameras are not particularly light. I doubt there is much weight advantage.
Click to expand...

Nod said:
Have a look at the weights of your proposed kit alongside your current kit - the Fujis aren't that light compared to some other APS-C systems.
Click to expand...

By my calculation my Nikon and three lenses totals just over 2.8kg. The X-T20 and 18-55 comes to 729g. So the Fuji setup would be over 2kg lighter. That Sigma is a monster - 810g on its own. It's my walk around lens - that means I walk around with just over 2kg of camera.

Nod said:
Personally, I'd go for a second hand X-T1 rather than an X-T20 but you're the buyer, not me.
Click to expand...

The X-T20 is basically an X-T2 in a different form factor - new sensor, new processor, better AF. It would be a much less noticeable drop in spec than the X-T1.

rjbell said:
I'd go with your original idea and go for an older x100 or x70 as a trial. You will be able to sell on for what you paid for it no doubt.
Click to expand...

I would but can't afford that unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
Northaway said:
The X-T20 is basically an X-T2 in a different form factor - new sensor, new processor, better AF. It would be a much less noticeable drop in spec than the X-T1.
Click to expand...

You are certainly not "dropping spec" from the D7200 to the XT20, not even to the XT-1. I don't know where you get this weird idea from? Read my post above ... I moved from a 36mp full frame beast, one of the highest rated sensors over the past 5 years, to the XT-1. I Don't feel like I'm losing out on anything bar the gigantic file sizes and some crop-ability tbh
 
Last edited:
If you're happy to lose the extra focal ranges that those lenses give you. Grass isn't always greener though.
 
Cagey75 said:
Never mind the 'artifact' nonsense, you only need visit the fuji threads to see many examples of landscapes where there are no signs of such thing.

Click to expand...

But also plenty of posts and examples where it is present. I tested my Fuji extensively and could not conclusively find out why it's sometimes there and sometimes not. It's certainly not the software imo, as I've mentioned several times on here I tried at least 7 or 8 different software using every setting recommended for Fuji files. If I cold have figured it out I would have happily kept my Fuji as it's a lovely system and when the images are good (most of the time) they are superb.
 
snerkler said:
Landscapes are where Fuji artefacts are most apparent.
Click to expand...

Toby, whilst this has been your experience, it is not the experience of the majority.

Significant improvements are to be had from both X-Trans 3 - which the OP is interested in and you have no personal direct experience of (To my knowledge) and using Irident TransformerX as a RAW conversion tool. That said Lightroom has noticeably improved with RAF files over the last 12 months.

Anyway back to the OP, the Sigma 18-35 is indeed very very sharp, and I think you would have to look at Fuji primes to get anywhere near it, and even then perhaps the XF16, XF23F1.4 and XF90 might match it.

If 'shots of my family' involves fast moving children, rather than static poses, then really only the latest generation of Fuji bodies should be considered. The others just won't focus fast enough, so this means X-T20 leaving less in the lens budget. If the family is statis shots, then an X-T1 might be a better bet, as it would leave you some extra £££ in the lens kitty, buts its also not as good in low light as the latest sensors.

Although I'm a huge Fuji fan, I would tread very carefully if the lens choice will restrict your image sales. How much do you shoot with the Tokina for example, and at what typical focal length. There are some low cost primes from Samyang, but all the Fuji optiuons, 10-24, 14 and 16 (and the future 8-16) are expensive.

Changing systems usually involves losing money, but you don't want to loose it twice on the hardware and the print sales!!!
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Toby, whilst this has been your experience, it is not the experience of the majority.
Click to expand...
I never said that it was, but I feel it important that people are aware of it before swapping systems so they don't end up disappointed like I did. I've said it before too, a number people posted examples where the artefacts weren't supposedly apparent but they were on some. I also had a number of images where the artefacts weren't there though.

Significant improvements are to be had from both X-Trans 3 - which the OP is interested in and you have no personal direct experience of (To my knowledge) and using Irident TransformerX as a RAW conversion tool. That said Lightroom has noticeably improved with RAF files over the last 12 months.

Click to expand...

Irident was one of the ones I tried yes.
 
snerkler said:
But also plenty of posts and examples where it is present. I tested my Fuji extensively and could not conclusively find out why it's sometimes there and sometimes not. It's certainly not the software imo, as I've mentioned several times on here I tried at least 7 or 8 different software using every setting recommended for Fuji files. If I cold have figured it out I would have happily kept my Fuji as it's a lovely system and when the images are good (most of the time) they are superb.
Click to expand...

Why do you post about Fuji artifacts everytime someone is thinking about switching if your own tests were inconclusive? I figured out in my own experience that the odd time it does happen, it is in OOF areas, which would not affect landscape. And I'm on the older sensor.
 
Cagey75 said:
Why do you post about Fuji artifacts everytime someone is thinking about switching if your own tests were inconclusive? I figured out in my own experience that the odd time it does happen, it is in OOF areas, which would not affect landscape. And I'm on the older sensor.
Click to expand...
For the reasons I mentioned to Mr Perceptive, ditching a load of gear for a new system and then not being happy can be quite disappointing and costly.

TBH, I realise myself that I sound like a broken record so I'll try not t post anything about it in the future (y)
 
snerkler said:
For the reasons I mentioned to Mr Perceptive, ditching a load of gear for a new system and then not being happy can be quite disappointing and costly.

TBH, I realise myself that I sound like a broken record so I'll try not t post anything about it in the future (y)
Click to expand...

Fair enough, and I guess some people do experience it more so than others. I wonder is it just that some of us are more aware of it, and so we adjust settings accordingly or whatever while actually shooting?

I remember experiencing it a bit when I first got the XT-1 and the 55-200 lens, when I was shooting birds in the garden, the backdrops where there was OOF foliage had some of it, and weirdly it was only with certain types of foliage (some ferns for example). I learned to re-compose when I noticed on spot.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Irident was one of the ones I tried yes.
Click to expand...

And Transformer X has moved on a lot since you tried it.

snerkler said:
For the reasons I mentioned to Mr Perceptive, ditching a load of gear for a new system and then not being happy can be quite disappointing and costly.
TBH, I realise myself that I sound like a broken record so I'll try not t post anything about it in the future (y)
Click to expand...

I actually suggested very careful consideration before changing gear, and without the budget for lenses personally I wouldn't change.

And at least none of the Fuji interchangeable Lens Cameras have been subject to recalls........
 
Cagey75 said:
You are certainly not "dropping spec" from the D7200 to the XT20, not even to the XT-1.
Click to expand...

Regarding the X-T20, that's what I said :). XT-1, I'm not so sure. While I'm fully aware megapixels aren't the be all and end all, the difference in 16 and and 24MP is pretty major. The X-T20 also has slightly better DR and generally a newer sensor which makes me less nervous. In any case, the price difference between the X-T1 and X-T20 isn't big enough to let me afford, say, the 16-55 2.8 anyway, though I could probably squeeze in a prime.

Mr Perceptive said:
Although I'm a huge Fuji fan, I would tread very carefully if the lens choice will restrict your image sales. How much do you shoot with the Tokina for example, and at what typical focal length.
Click to expand...
I shoot fairly evenly across all three lenses. I'm more worried about losing the reach of my longer lens as I am happy with pano-stitch for wider angles. My print sales aren't anything major in terms of income - really more of a 'bit on the side'.
 
Last edited:
Time for the popcorn.
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
That should do for the next 30 minutes.
Here starts another 100 post thread about the benefits or otherwise of changing to Fuji. How long before someone comes along and says that Sony is better?
Artefacts? Legacy lenses? A/F on moving subjects? We are in for a real treat.
A certain couple will argue black is white then retreat, each thinking they have won.
I do so enjoy these mindlessly repetitive threads when the same old arguments are trotted out by the same old people.
Sometime, someone will say something new.
 
Northaway said:
Regarding the X-T20, that's what I said :). XT-1, I'm not so sure. While I'm fully aware megapixels aren't the be all and end all, the difference in 16 and and 24MP is pretty major. The X-T20 also has slightly better DR and generally a newer sensor which makes me less nervous. In any case, the price difference between the X-T1 and X-T20 isn't big enough to let me afford, say, the 16-55 2.8 anyway, though I could probably squeeze in a prime.


I shoot fairly evenly across all three lenses. I'm more worried about losing the reach my longer lens as I am happy with pano-stitch for wider angles. My print sales aren't anything major in terms of income - really more of a 'bit on the side'.
Click to expand...

Before I bought the XT-1 I weighed up other options, I even looked at Canon offerings, like the 80D. I had used the Nikon D200, D90 and then the D800 and had lenses to go, some nice ones too! I wanted a change as much as a lighter system. I was just as wary as you. I did a tonne of research and the XT-1 just seemed the perfect fit. It is a few years old now, but honestly, that 16mp X-Trans is more than a match for most 24mp sensors, obviously the XT2/20 will top it. But I'd not trade my XT-1 for a D7200, I know that. I have pondered on the XT20 though. I was more giving you better lens options ;)


mickledore said:
Time for the popcorn.
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
That should do for the next 30 minutes.
Here starts another 100 post thread about the benefits or otherwise of changing to Fuji. How long before someone comes along and says that Sony is better?
Artefacts? Legacy lenses? A/F on moving subjects? We are in for a real treat.
A certain couple will argue black is white then retreat, each thinking they have won.
I do so enjoy these mindlessly repetitive threads when the same old arguments are trotted out by the same old people.
Sometime, someone will say something new.
Click to expand...

The only thing repetitive here is your moaning.

I did wonder when the usual misery trolls would turn up. Once again contributing nothing to the thread ...

We should just ignore new members maybe? for fear anyone might give repeated good advice?
 
Last edited:
I am NOT a pro, but just love taking photos. I got rid of my Canon 70D & 1100D and 9 lenses one of which was the Sigma 150-600mm. I got the X-T20 and both XC 16-50mm and 50-230mm, then I got the X-T2 and XF 18-55mm. For me and only me, it was the best switch I have ever done, so light to carry it altogether. I have taken shots of some buskers and can NOT see any of this so called waxy skin, even some of my shots showing tress are ok too. For me like I said Best move ever, try before you buy and see what you think :)
 
To be honest I wouldn't know an artefact if it bit me on the arse and I've been a Fuji user for a good few years now.
Same for the worms or whatever they are known as, those I do recognise as a result of oversharpening
 
Last edited:
If the weight is a factor for you then switching to mirrorless may be a great option for you. I'd avoid Fuji though if you're a landscape photographer. It's been widely reported that foliage in particular looks naff from a Fuji sensor. I think you would get a better IQ from one of the mirrorless Sony models.
 
Northaway said:
I shoot fairly evenly across all three lenses. I'm more worried about losing the reach of my longer lens as I am happy with pano-stitch for wider angles. My print sales aren't anything major in terms of income - really more of a 'bit on the side'.
Click to expand...

The XC50-230 lens is optically good (but plastic bodied), but can be had for just over a hundred of your earth pounds secondhand. Its not quite as sharp as the 55-200 but its still very good.
 
Last edited:
Mr Perceptive said:
The XC50-230 lens is optically good (but plastic bodied), but can be had for just over a hundred of your earth pounds secondhand. Its not quite as sharp as the 55-200 but its still very good.
Click to expand...

Funny you say that about the XC 50-230mm, as in August this year I got my best ever shot of a F16 at the airshow, cropped it in a bit & I was over the moon, imo it was better than the Canon f4 L IS shots of yrs gone by.
 
Cagey75 said:
The only thing repetitive here is your moaning.

I did wonder when the usual misery trolls would turn up. Once again contributing nothing to the thread ...

We should just ignore new members maybe? for fear anyone might give repeated good advice?
Click to expand...
You appear to be the most argumentative person on here. You do seem to relish crossing swords with everyone. Any excuse will do.
 
mickledore said:
You appear to be the most argumentative person on here. You do seem to relish crossing swords with everyone. Any excuse will do.
Click to expand...

I only reserve my anger for trolls. I'm a fluffy bunny to all else. Also, I gave good advice, you gave ... erm, none. Am I wrong? your post was completely pointless and unhelpful to the OP, who is a new member.
 
Last edited:
ryanyboy said:
If the weight is a factor for you then switching to mirrorless may be a great option for you. I'd avoid Fuji though if you're a landscape photographer. It's been widely reported that foliage in particular looks naff from a Fuji sensor. I think you would get a better IQ from one of the mirrorless Sony models.
Click to expand...

That`s unless your name is Dan Bailey, a great landscape photographer if you Google Dan Bailey X-T2.
 
Dave70D said:
That`s unless your name is Dan Bailey, a great landscape photographer if you Google Dan Bailey X-T2.
Click to expand...

That's hilarious. He's a Fuji X ambassador! One look at his website suggests he's more an advert for Fuji than a professional photographer. I'd be willing to bet every penny I own that he would be using a different camera for his landscape work if Fuji wasn't stuffing his bank account with cash.

I also note that he is sponsored by Lowepro. You'll be telling me they make the best bags next!

Oh and Lumiquest!! Stop I'm going to crack a rib in a minute :D :D :D

Don't be so gullible.
 
Cagey75 said:
I only reserve my anger for trolls. I'm a fluffy bunny to all else. Also, I gave good advice, you gave ... erm, none. Am I wrong? your post was completely pointless and unhelpful to the OP, who is a new member.
Click to expand...
The OP knows full well there are other threads on this subject because he has said so.
If he were to do a search he'd see that we have a thread like this nearly every week. The wonder is that it has taken until Thursday this week for one to appear.
Your points are repeated every week and you argue the same points with the same people every week. Not very helpful.

We should really get the mods to make a sticky of one of these multiple "Should I swap to Fuji/Sony/whatever" then you can carry out your repetitive discussions in just one place.

Before I leave and add you to my ignore list so that I don't see any more of your dross could you give advice on legacy lenses?
 
Dave70D said:
To ONLY the OP and NOT the Children, like I said try before you buy, there are some great mirrorless cameras out. Get the feel of each one first :)
Click to expand...

Am I "child" for disagreeing with you and pulling apart your ridiculous reference to Mr Bailey?
 
mickledore said:
Before I leave and add you to my ignore list so that I don't see any more of your dross could you give advice on legacy lenses?
Click to expand...

I'm sad that I wasn't already on it tbh,

Dave70D said:
To ONLY the OP and NOT the Children, like I said try before you buy, there are some great mirrorless cameras out. Get the feel of each one first :)
Click to expand...

Only one child here and he does it every time, I've given OP good advice before having to point out his nonsense thank you ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top