Another 'should I switch to Fuji' thread

To the OP: no, you should not change systems. Not until you've disregarded forum opinions, and made your own mind up by reading the more respected and neutral reviews, and handling the kit on your shortlist. I'm sure, if you wish, there are many members of TP who would be delighted to let you try their own kit if within geographical reach. I myself am happy for you to come up to the Yorkshire Dales and try my Fuji kit without prejudice. I care not a jot about what anyone uses as long as they are happy. :)
 
I bought an X-T2 a couple of months ago for times I did not want to carry my D810 (now D850) around.

Great little camera however would I do a switch... not a chance!! I really don't like it for landscapes (which is what I do a lot of), also I find it really poor with any sort of panning. Really not a patch on the Nikon and now I actually think the weight difference is made up for by the better quality.
 
Stephen L said:
To the OP: no, you should not change systems. Not until you've disregarded forum opinions, and made your own mind up by reading the more respected and neutral reviews, and handling the kit on your shortlist. I'm sure, if you wish, there are many members of TP who would be delighted to let you try their own kit if within geographical reach. I myself am happy for you to come up to the Yorkshire Dales and try my Fuji kit without prejudice. I care not a jot about what anyone uses as long as they are happy. :)
Click to expand...


In this case I agree, better to get non bias opinion elsewhere, because these threads always tun into nonsense "what I own and use most is best" unhelpful BS with a dollop of mis-information to boot. It's not hard tell who is trying to offer reliable advice but it gets lost among the muck.

Do the research, that's what I did before switching. And trust your gut. If there's doubt at all, stick to what you got.
 
Jase said:
I bought an X-T2 a couple of months ago for times I did not want to carry my D810 (now D850) around.

Great little camera however would I do a switch... not a chance!! I really don't like it for landscapes (which is what I do a lot of), also I find it really poor with any sort of panning. Really not a patch on the Nikon and now I actually think the weight difference is made up for by the better quality.
Click to expand...

Why don't you like it for landscapes?
 
ryanyboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

For a start I am not gullible, never have been never will be :)
 
Northaway said:
Why don't you like it for landscapes?
Click to expand...

Hard to single one thing out TBH. I don't actually like using it in general during sunrise/sunset for some reason, whether it is the EVF/Screen, there's just something that I don't like.

The Dynamic Range is not as good as the D810, although I didn't expect to notice that I really did.

Certain things just don't look right, again hard to put a finger on. Images are certainly not as detailed and may even look un-natural at times (shooting RAW) similar to which skin looks soft or unnatural in certain conditions.

Like I said before it's a nice camera for times when I want something small but not a camera I'd use unless that was the factor, it's just not good enough IMO especially now that I have a D850 which is just in another league.
 
This guy does a direct comparison between the XT-1 and the D800E: You might be surprised


Expect even better from the XT-2.
 
Cagey75 said:
This guy does a direct comparison between the XT-1 and the D800E: You might be surprised

Expect even better from the XT-2.
Click to expand...

Interesting he mentioned about the blurry foliage, he said it's not as noticeable on the X-T2 but also said he doesn't shoot that much of it.

I didn't know there was a known issue but it certainly is something I noticed straight away. Also I was comparing to a D810 and now a D850, there is a big difference imo. He was using a D800E I upgraded from that to a D810 and that was a step up.

I'm now thinking what else I don't like, I'm used to having 64 ISO, very handy for stuff that I do when I'm trying to get an exact shutter speed with limited NDs not to mention the other advantages. Higher ISO is not as good on the Fuji.

Using the dials is nice, but you can't do everything from them and have to be used in combination with the dial often which I find annoying. I'm also used to FF :)

These are all my opinions, I own both and use both and IMO there is no comparison really.

All I'd say to the OP is before you change, hire one and try it for a weekend, the grass is not always greener on the other side.... I now consider the extra weight worth it in most situations.
 
Northaway said:
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

.
Click to expand...

Surely that not comparing like with like though, shouldn't you be comapring the D7200 with something like a Nikon 16-85? No idea what the weight is probably heavier than the Fuji but a lot lighter than 2.8 kg.
 
Jase said:
Interesting he mentioned about the blurry foliage, he said it's not as noticeable on the X-T2 but also said he doesn't shoot that much of it.

I didn't know there was a known issue but it certainly is something I noticed straight away. Also I was comparing to a D810 and now a D850, there is a big difference imo. He was using a D800E I upgraded from that to a D810 and that was a step up.

I'm now thinking what else I don't like, I'm used to having 64 ISO, very handy for stuff that I do when I'm trying to get an exact shutter speed with limited NDs not to mention the other advantages. Higher ISO is not as good on the Fuji.

Using the dials is nice, but you can't do everything from them and have to be used in combination with the dial often which I find annoying. I'm also used to FF :)

These are all my opinions, I own both and use both and IMO there is no comparison really.

All I'd say to the OP is before you change, hire one and try it for a weekend, the grass is not always greener on the other side.... I now consider the extra weight worth it in most situations.
Click to expand...


My post was for general interest and for the OP to ponder [I already said I switched from the D800E to the XT-1 earlier in this thread], more so than directly aimed at you though. I had the D800E, and it was amazing, if the D810 is much better, then it's about all any photograher [besides sports specialists maybe] would ever need.

He is also using the older XT-1 to compare, if the D810 is better, then so too is the XT-2 over it's predecessor. The comparisons are going to be very similar.

What it does show, as you point out, is that outside of the issues some find with foliage, there is very little difference, and this is compared to a full frame Nikon. It'll stand up better again to a DX.
 
Cagey75 said:
My post was for general interest and for the OP to ponder [I already said I switched from the D800E to the XT-1 earlier in this thread], more so than directly aimed at you though. I had the D800E, and it was amazing, if the D810 is much better, then it's about all any photograher [besides sports specialists maybe] would ever need.

He is also using the older XT-1 to compare, if the D810 is better, then so too is the XT-2 over it's predecessor. The comparisons are going to be very similar.

What it does show, as you point out, is that outside of the issues some find with foliage, there is very little difference, and this is compared to a full frame Nikon. It'll stand up better again to a DX.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with that Keith, at one time last year I had a X-T2 and a D7200 and I preferred the Fuji IQ but they are both more the capable cameras.
 
I’d pick the Fuji XT-2 over any Nikon DX equivalents, the Fujinon lens lineup far exceeds what Nikon has on offer.... how many high quality (pro) DX lenses does Nikon have 2 or 3? The Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 is one of them which I’ve owned buy apart from that your forced to by FX lenses which negate the size advantages of going with a APS-C body.
Nikon need to act fast to remain competitive imo, no innovation for a long time.
 
Last edited:
Now the thread has calmed down :D

I think that the OP has two main issues to consider here:-

1) Quality, I and many others are very happy with the output from the Fuji. You can trawl through the very long X-T1/X-T2 owners thread to understand what these cameras are capable of, there also plenty of stuff on the web, and of course the negative side, but you get that on any product. the web also tends to (over) highlight the negative. Just be aware that Lightroom has improved with RAF files, and in my experience X-Trans3 is very different to preceeding Fuji X-Trans sensors.

There are plenty on here who regularly produce stunning images, three of the top of my head would by @yamahatdm900 @dave.hallett and @psybear

2) Budget - at £1080 you cannot get the 'optimum Fuji setup to replace your existing equipment, but you might be able to get a very good working setup by buying secondhand.eg

X-T20 second hand (fairly rare) - £650
XF18-55mm s/h (more widely available), unboxed typically around £240
Samyang 12mm (rareish s/h) around £200
XC50-230mm Mk1 for around £125 s/h

so a working total of £1215, just over a hundred pounds above your sell to MPB total.

Buying new will be a lot more, and ideally to replace your existing equipment, you are looking at body + 10-24 + 18-55 + 55-200

As I said previously, if you are making money from your photography, I would be reluctant to change until you can get the glass you really need.
 
tijuana taxi said:
About fourteen minutes would be the answer to that one.

Personally don't see Sony as an alternative, lenses will never be small or light as they have to cover a FF sensor
Click to expand...

People do keep saying this and I wish a more balanced view was possible...

The Sony bodies are about the same size as an APS-C Fuji or MFT mini SLR style body and there's little point arguing about a mm give or take on the thickness of the body or more likely the grip. The lenses can vary but it depends what lenses you're looking at (I like compact primes and there are some very nice ones for the Sony A7/A9) and these days we have the easy to use comparison site...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#673.383,579.394,621,520,ha,b

So can we avoid sweeping statements like Sony lenses will never be small and light?

Personally I wouldn't touch Fuji for two reasons... the suspicion that I'd be irritated by the quirks of the colour filter and the effect on pictures and the whole fantastic claims and smoke and mirrors thing which I know would eat at me...

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/03/x-trans-vs-bayer-sensors-fantastic-claims-test/
 
woof woof said:
Personally I wouldn't touch Fuji for two reasons... the suspicion that I'd be irritated by the quirks of the colour filter and the effect on pictures and the whole fantastic claims and smoke and mirrors thing which I know would eat at me...
Click to expand...

I can understand the first one if you were genuinely not happy with the result, but the second is like me saying Sony should stick to making Walkmans, just pointless (they do make nice mp3 players though)
 
tijuana taxi said:
I can understand the first one if you were genuinely not happy with the result, but the second is like me saying Sony should stick to making Walkmans, just pointless (they do make nice mp3 players though)
Click to expand...

No it isn't. It's my opinion of the techical desisions they've made, the implications for the pictures I'd take and process and also my disdain of the marketing hyperbole.

Linking Sony cameras to Walkmans, MP3's or DVD players is indeed not worthy of anyone with an even half functioning brain. This is something else I tire of reading on line. How many times are (for eg) Canon cameras linled to their photocopiers? I can't say I've ever read that. Most of them make other stuff so why do people on forums insist on mentioning Sony MP3's and DVD players etc... Things like this are just brainless and make me want to leave internet forums and never return.

Some of the less good tech side of things are hard for me to forgive and forget (Panasonic shutter shock being another) and I'm affraid that the design desisions and also the marketing hype and slight of hand in Fuji land are examples of things that are hard for me to live with. It's bordering on being just grade A BS. IMO.

One the whole though I do wish people could just stop with the sweeping generalisations, daft one line throwaway gibberish and get off the fan boy bandwagons.

Sorry if that offends anyone, but hey ho.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
2) Budget - at £1080 you cannot get the 'optimum Fuji setup to replace your existing equipment, but you might be able to get a very good working setup by buying secondhand.eg

X-T20 second hand (fairly rare) - £650
XF18-55mm s/h (more widely available), unboxed typically around £240
Samyang 12mm (rareish s/h) around £200
XC50-230mm Mk1 for around £125 s/h

so a working total of £1215, just over a hundred pounds above your sell to MPB total.

Buying new will be a lot more, and ideally to replace your existing equipment, you are looking at body + 10-24 + 18-55 + 55-200

As I said previously, if you are making money from your photography, I would be reluctant to change until you can get the glass you really need.
Click to expand...

So how much weight would be saved?

This seemed like it was the main justification for the OP. I would point back to my original statement that you wouldn't be saving any noticeable amount of weight when you are as the OP says 'hiking up fells' with a pack full of stuff.

If you want to switch for other reasons then fine, but weight saving is a false premise.
 
Craigus said:
If you want to switch for other reasons then fine, but weight saving is a false premise.
Click to expand...

As i mentioned earlier in the the thread, my current setup is 2.8kg. An XT-20 with 18-55 is 729g. I call that a weight saving.
 
Northaway said:
As i mentioned earlier in the the thread, my current setup is 2.8kg. An XT-20 with 18-55 is 729g. I call that a weight saving.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't replace what you have at the moment. You currently are carrying three lenses covering much more focal range. How much does your current body with one lens weigh? That's a better comparison to make.
 
Craigus said:
But that doesn't replace what you have at the moment. You currently are carrying three lenses covering much more focal range. How much does your current body with one lens weigh? That's a better comparison to make.
Click to expand...

My usual walk-around setup is the D7200 with the Sigma 18-35, which is just over 2kg. The Sigma really is a monster - 810g on its own.
 
Craigus said:
So how much weight would be saved?

This seemed like it was the main justification for the OP. I would point back to my original statement that you wouldn't be saving any noticeable amount of weight when you are as the OP says 'hiking up fells' with a pack full of stuff.

If you want to switch for other reasons then fine, but weight saving is a false premise.
Click to expand...

Probably very little, switching from FF with heavy glass is one thing, but switching from APSC with appropriate glass probably has very little weight saving (though the OPs Sigma 18-35 isn't exactly a lightweight)

It's the same thing with travel tripods, often the weight saved in CF from aluminium is only about 200g, and carries a 50% increase in price (example Benro Slim, £79 v £119)

The best way to reduce weight is to carry less gear, take one lens not 3, work with it and I don't expect you'd actually miss any shots and those that you do, you can find a creative way of using the one lens you took and come home with something unexpected.

I regularly go out the house with just a Fuji X100F and WCL/battery in my pocket. I never think about the shots I've missed by not bringing everything but it forces me to work hard and I reckon I come home with alternative and better shots.
 
D7200 is 765g, I make that a total of 1.5kg. You really will not notice a saving of 700g when you are hiking, unless all you take is your camera bag.

It's up to you of course, I just know it's easy to convince yourself of things when you want something (believe me I've done it many times before!)
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Probably very little, switching from FF with heavy glass is one thing, but switching from APSC with appropriate glass probably has very little weight saving (though the OPs Sigma 18-35 isn't exactly a lightweight)
Click to expand...

See my answer above - the XT-20 with 18-55 weighs less than the Sigma on its own.
 
woof woof said:
No it isn't. It's my opinion of the techical desisions they've made, the implications for the pictures I'd take and process and also my disdain of the marketing hyperbole.

Linking Sony cameras to Walkmans, MP3's or DVD players is indeed not worthy of anyone with an even half functioning brain. This is something else I tire of reading on line. How many times are (for eg) Canon cameras linled to their photocopiers? I can't say I've ever read that. Most of them make other stuff so why do people on forums insist on mentioning Sony MP3's and DVD players etc... Things like this are just brainless and make me want to leave internet forums and never return.

Some of the less good tech side of things are hard for me to forgive and forget (Panasonic shutter shock being another) and I'm affraid that the design desisions and also the marketing hype and slight of hand in Fuji land are examples of things that are hard for me to live with. It's bordering on being just grade A BS. IMO.

One the whole though I do wish people could just stop with the sweeping generalisations, daft one line throwaway gibberish and get off the fan boy bandwagons.

Sorry if that offends anyone, but hey ho.
Click to expand...


So basically you are agreeing with me when I said its pointless mentioning Walkmans in relation to a camera? (shame you didn't highlight my whole sentence)
Not really sure what sleight of hand Fuji have engaged in, but all companies use a degree of hyperbole or at least their advertising agencies do.

You like Sony, ok we got that and I like Fuji, not sure why you get so heated about it and maybe yes leave internet forums if such trivia gets you that fired up, lifes too short.

Still like and buy their mp3 players though, but who knows if Fuji were to make one
 
Last edited:
Switching to Fuji could be a costly mistake if it turns out you don't gel with the system. It doesn't matter how light and small a camera is if you hate using it. You might even end up using it less than your current gear. I speak from experience!.

If you want a lighter more compact set up for family shots sell the least used zoom and replace with a light weight fixed focal length lens like a 35/1.8 or a 24/2.8.

Just my thoughts..
 
Northaway said:
You're right there, the weight I found includes a kit lens.
Click to expand...

I think if you are missing the wide angles and the tele end of the focal range for landscapes (especially if you are used to having those) it wouldn't be long before you have bought those lenses for the Fuji system and you're back to square one and out of pocket. Again, that is fine, but if you are happy with the IQ with your Nikon kit I would be hesitant to switch for that reason alone.

If the Fuji system is appealing to you for other reasons then go for it!
 
I always get tricked by sleight of hand, dang Fooji, you got me again! :eek::D

End of the day, end results matter most. Unless you can cover the range you desire when switching, you might end up disappointed and then take it out on the gear. Pictures matter most, what you have right now is working, bar the weight. Just plan ahead better, don't take all 3 lenses everywhere.

I would seriously consider selling the sigma for a couple of light primes. That lens might be amazing but it's stupidly heavy for the range it covers.

Actually I would sell it and get ONE prime, the Sigma 35mm 1.4 a lens I owned and loved when I had the D800. Amazing lens for the money, I do not think you will miss the 18mm end of the zoom, and you gain a stop of light, and drop 200g of weight. It's also a much easier lens to handle in general.

Or, the cheaper DX specific Sigma 30mm 1.4 DC HSM, I can't vouch for that one personally though
 
Last edited:
I bought an XT2 and loved it until I noticed the blurred foliage problem on some of my shots (even on the RAWs).

Shame because I loved the colours it produced and the handling was sublime.

Now back to FX DSLR and feeling the weight but loving the quality of the images

May try m4/3 in the future.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
I bought an XT2 and loved it until I noticed the blurred foliage problem on some of my shots (even on the RAWs).

Shame because I loved the colours it produced and the handling was sublime.

Now back to FX DSLR and feeling the weight but loving the quality of the images

May try m4/3 in the future.
Click to expand...

Got to say, the shot of Rosie the GSD on flickr with the X-T2 is a cracker :)
 
I would try and get a used X-Pro 1 (around £250?) and used Samyang 12mm f2 (around £180 - £200) and take these out on a trek one day. Since you do a lot of landscapes you won't need fast AF and the IQ from the X-Pro1 is fantastic (and the sensor doesn't show any evidence of smudging, worms etc). The Samyang is a very sharp lens too.

If you like the results you can either keep either camera or sell (I doubt you'd lose very much at all) and put the money towards a newer Fuji model. For what it's worth, the X-T2 is a very, very good camera and capable of retaining excellent details.
 
Another option would be to get a Nikon 10-24 or 12-24 as your light weight walk around landscape lens. It is lighter than the tokina, and has the bonus of being usefully longer making it a more reasonable single lens option when you want to go light.
One other small landscape lens to consider is the olympus 9-18, one of the smallest wide angle lenses i have used, assuming you are open to considering m43. Camerasize link below comparing an em10 with the 9-18, an xt20 with a 10-24 and a d7200 with a 10-24, and a gm1 with the 9-18 - that will likely not have the manual controls you want, but is certainly a very compact option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top