1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Tags:
  1. mal robb

    mal robb

    Messages:
    46
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Hi All,

    I am thinking of moving to Fujifilm but was after some advice on how I should perhaps do it. Replacing a camera system is an expensive business both in time to learn a new system and money to get an equivalent set up. I currently have the following pieces of equipment for my Canon set up and am a mid range sort of guy I think:

    Canon 60D
    Canon 70-200 L 2.8 IS Mark 1
    Canon 1.4 Tele convertor
    Canon 17-40
    Canon 50mm 1.8
    Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 DC HSM
    Panasonic DMC LX 5

    I am thinking of changing kit as I sense my kit is quite old and my 60D has a crack in the top screen. It still works fine but will affect the second hand value of it. I bought the Lumix to have a smaller form factor that I would take out and about but cannot get used to a camera not having a viewfinder. I mainly shoot family stuff, landscapes and like going to events like motorbike racing, airshows etc. I shoot in RAW and do some basic editing in LR.

    I had in my head to perhaps get a second hand XT1 (around £450) and then perhaps one Fujifilm lens to cover the landscape part of the things I shoot (to cover the 17-40mm) and keep the 60D and 70-200mm for sport/action. If the Fujifilm works out in terms of auto focus speed and image quality, then perhaps consider trading in my DSLR and 70-200 for a Fuji telephoto lens.

    Is this a good approach or am I better going "all in" with Fujifilm and taking all my gear to a dealer and seeing what they can do? If just getting a landscape lens for Fujifilm are there any strong recommendations. The 16mm f2 is meant to be a great lens although clearly a prime and expensive. I bought all my kit new (less the 17-40mm) but would consider second hand lenses if there are any out there.

    Looking for comment on the above approach or any recommendations to try the mirrorless category.

    Thanks

    Mal
     
  2. badboy1984

    badboy1984

    Messages:
    2,581
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I guess depend on what kind of sports you do, I'm sure the Fuji guys will jump in and says it will work. I've made a switch from full on nikon FF system to Fuji system. What I did was replace one of the FF body to the Fuji XT1 with a 35mm f2 prime to taste the water. I end up liking what I see and the handle of the camera, then I end up selling everything to buy more fuji lens and add another fuji body.

    I would strongly recommend trying to the camera first before you jump in and make a switch. Maybe getting rid of your panasonic DMC LX5 for the XT1 with a mid zoom to test the water?
     
    MDR, mal robb and trevorbray like this.
  3. tijuana taxi

    tijuana taxi

    Messages:
    8,049
    Name:
    Rich
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I switched from Canon to Fuji about three years ago originally with a X-E1 and 18-55mm then a X-T1 and various lenses.

    In my opinion Landscapes especially lots of foilage are not a Fuji strong point, OK would probably be my conclusion.
    You won't go far wrong with the 10-24mm and the 55-200mm is also very good, I like the 14mm too

    For sport you will probably want the 50-140 or 100-400, both fairly large and expensive, but get good things spoken about them.

    Have to say I mainly take photos of static objects or architecture and it suits me nicely, not so sure about your main interests though
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
    mal robb likes this.
  4. ryanyboy

    ryanyboy

    Messages:
    5,133
    Name:
    Ryan
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I'd stick with your current equipment if I were you.
     
    mal robb likes this.
  5. Furtim

    Furtim

    Messages:
    1,168
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I went the Big Bang (ish); sold all my canon gear (5D3 and loads of lenses) and then bought just one body XPro2 and a couple of lenses (23/56) to test the water.

    A year later I've added lots of glass and a XT2, so happy it worked out.

    Generally for static stuff there's no difference between and SLR and Mirrorless. For moving stuff, I'd say the Fuji is around 90% as good as the 5D3 on things like AF, but certainly not as good.

    In other areas though, including portability it is a lot better, mainly because the glass is all sized for a crop sensor so even if something like the 50-140 is a beast, it's still less of a beast than the 70-200 equiv on the 5D.

    As others say, try one first. If you do go for the XT1, know that the AF is significantly better in the XT2 / Xpro 2
     
    mal robb likes this.
  6. Jelster

    Jelster

    Messages:
    4,110
    Name:
    Steve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Mal, I have, over the last 12 months or so, moved over from Canon to Fuji. It started on a whim, I bought an X-T1 with std kit lens (17-55 f2.8-4) and a 35mm f1.4. I soon found that whilst I still used my 7D2 & long lenses for wildlife, the 6D was getting "stuck at home" most days.

    In November we went on a trip to the Cairngorms, and I purchased the 16mm f1.4 to take with me. In fact, by the time the trip came around I had also purchased an X-T2 with grip, so in the back of my Mini was:

    1) A bag with a 7D2, Sigma 150-600, Canon 300 f4 & a 1.4EX
    2) A bag with a 6D, 17-40, 24-105 & 50mm f1.8
    3) Another bag of kit, with the two X-T bodies, my 3 Fuji lenses, and a hired 100-400 with 1.4EX

    Bags 1 & 2 never got opened, in fact all of my Canon gear, except what was in bag 1 has been traded and I now have a 100-400 with the 1.4EX, a 10-24 and a 60mm f2.4, and I also bought another T1 body for my son who has started getting into photography.

    The kit in bag 1 will probably be moved on soon to make way for a couple of other lenses as I go fully Fuji.

    I prefer the feel of the Fuji kit, it's lighter, I take it out more often, and more importantly, I enjoy using it and taking photographs more than I did using the Canon kit (and I've had Canon kit for over 30 years, still have my Canon EOS 620 film body).

    Sometimes I use the T1, other times the T2, I use the 10-24 a lot of the time, 16mm for specific work, the 100-400 gets used for my wildlife work. The 60mm f2.4 also gets a lot of use, especially for flora & fauna. My son has the 17-55, and he's borrowed the 35mm until I go and get it back :)

    In short, I was going to run two systems side by side, but found I just preferred the the Fuji kit. I'm off to Mull in June and not sure if I'll get rid of the Canon gear before I go. I just find it far too heavy, but I can carry the T2, Grip & 100-400 all day without an issue.

    Not sure if the above has helped, but it does give you a bit of "real world" experience of what happened when I thought about changing.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
    mal robb likes this.
  7. Nod

    Nod Ethel Prescott

    Messages:
    27,953
    Name:
    Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes

    For those, an X-T2 will be far better than the X-T1 but at a (significant) cost. If you can afford to run 2 systems side by side, get a 2nd hand X-T1 and an 18-55 to see how you get on with the smaller system before taking the plunge and dropping the DSLR completely. If you know someone with an X-T2 that you can play with for a few days, even better!
     
    Furtim and mal robb like this.
  8. Slyelessar

    Slyelessar

    Messages:
    248
    Name:
    Slyelessar
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    The X-T1 is a fantastic camera. I love it for street photography, but an X-T2 might be a better option. Making the jump is easy, as you are moving over to a quality system with lots of support and decent lenses.
     
    mal robb likes this.
  9. mal robb

    mal robb

    Messages:
    46
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Thanks to all who responded. Its great getting different perspectives on how it should/could be done.
    @Jelster I am off to Glen Shiel in May and then upto Torridon in September to do some hillwalking which I always combine with photography and the prospect of lighter kit is very appealing and hopefully better Image Quality. I will have a little think about what to do and as much as an XT-2 would be a great option I feel it would be out of my price range for where I am currently so a second hand XT 1 might be an easy way into the system.
    Thanks again for taking the time to respond, it is much appreciated.

    Mal
     
  10. GreenNinja67

    GreenNinja67

    Messages:
    2,006
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Try a Fuji before you dump all the DSLR stuff.

    I went in head first to XT2 and regretted it.

    Google Fuji artifacts in foliage and waxy skin in portraits.

    I've since gone back to FX but Canon this time, not Nikon and am thoroughly enjoying it.
     
  11. badboy1984

    badboy1984

    Messages:
    2,581
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I shoot RAW and I don't see the waxy skin affect. Does it appear on your RAW as well or only in jpeg?
     
  12. Stephen L

    Stephen L

    Messages:
    1,723
    Name:
    Stephen
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Many of us have never seen any artifacts in foliage. Not saying they're not there, but I've never seen it. Can't speak for waxy skin as I don't shoot people.
     
    Toxic likes this.
  13. GreenNinja67

    GreenNinja67

    Messages:
    2,006
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    On RAW as well.

    I could point you to a photo taken by someone else on here where it was glaringly obvious but I don't think they'd be too happy about it.

    It appears some Fuji users don't get this weird effect, some can live with it and some flatly refuse to acknowledge it;'s there.

    All I can say is I saw it and was not happy with it.

    Horses for courses.
     
  14. GreenNinja67

    GreenNinja67

    Messages:
    2,006
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes

    I'm happy you've never seen them Stephen. If I'd not seen them I'd still have the Fuji kit.

    Unfortunately once I saw them I was studying every image minutely. It ruined my Fuji experience.

    Shame as the lenses and colours are fantastic.
     
  15. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    3,942
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I personally can't jump in fully with Fuji purely because I like my lenses and Fuji don't have the same ones that matches, they also don't produce the same look even if the are the same equivalent focal length with the same aperture. i.e. the 56/1.2 does not produce the same bokeh as the 85/1.2.

    I am the kind of person who shoots wide open a lot, so I am used to that 1.2, 1.4; that means shooting even at a Fuji 1.4 lens would give around a 2.0 look on FF.
     
  16. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    5,202
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Some exaggerate it too. I'd love to see samples also, as I don't experience this with the XT-1. And I moved from a D800E

    To the OP, try before you buy, if possible. But look to real samples online at least over people just saying "artifacts" ...

    You are not going to miss anything image quality-wise if you sell that kit and buy fuji lenses. If anything you might be surprised to find an improvement. The Fuji cameras are better built for one thing, and fuji glass is superb all round.

    People saying 'keep what you got' clearly do not even know the differences. The 60D is an all plastic APS-C body, it is also no better for sports than an XT 1/2 - both of which are all magnesium-alloy construction and weather resistant.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2017
    Dave70D, frod and mal robb like this.
  17. troutfisher

    troutfisher

    Messages:
    1,167
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I did what you are contemplating in that I sold most of my Canon gear and bought an XT-1 , 18-135 and a 100-400.
    Now I do not shoot moving objects on a regular basis but the first time I did with the Fuji I was shaken with the EVF blackout which I had never experienced before and TBH that occasion was a one off I have not tried it since
    Having said that I am giving very serious thought to getting rid of the remaining Canon gear and going totally Fuji as it suits my shooting style.
    If I shot BIF or Motorsport then I would probably keep the Canon but buy a dedicated lens just for those times.
     
  18. tijuana taxi

    tijuana taxi

    Messages:
    8,049
    Name:
    Rich
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Is this the so called "painterly" effect or the "worms" as I have seen mentioned.

    Have to say I have never personally noticed it and i was quite an early Fuji X-Trans user with more than one model of camera
     
  19. Alastair

    Alastair

    Messages:
    10,277
    Edit My Images:
    No
    There were problems with the first generation of x-trans sensors, principally with jpgs. But they weren't easy to replicate on-demand, and successive firmware upgrades and new generations of the x-trans sensor (now on the third generation) are generally accepted as having resolved the problem. Personally I've never seen them in my images (using first an X-Pro1 and now an X-E2), but I have seen them in images taken by others.

    Fanboys don't see problems.
    Haterz don't see solutions.
     
  20. Retune

    Retune

    Messages:
    141
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Just out of interest, which raw converter, and with what noise reduction settings? Using lower ISO settings and processing in something like Fuji's own RFC (Silkypix) with the minimal acceptable noise reduction settings reduces artefacts like 'waxiness'.
     
  21. badboy1984

    badboy1984

    Messages:
    2,581
    Edit My Images:
    No
    The poster above had problem on his XT2 with the waxy oil effect. On my XT1 and XE2s I don't see it, at least not on RAW or JPEG for me.
     
  22. badboy1984

    badboy1984

    Messages:
    2,581
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I think the XT1 do blackout when shooting that kind of movement subject. The XT2 solve that problem I think. I don't do sports anymore so I can live with the XT1 and XE2s. In fact I enjoy shooting with Fuji then DSLR simply because is small, light and good handle ability. DSLR I keep thinking about which lens, or try to go small as possible .....
     
  23. Furtim

    Furtim

    Messages:
    1,168
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    If you go into Lightroom, zoom in at 4:1 and max all the sharpening controls, you'll see the 'worms' on a Fuji image. Do the same on a Canon image and you'll see a shed load of other artifacts, but not worms. Both look crap, different yes, but still crap!

    Sharpen a Fuji image in the same way you sharpen a bayer image and you won't get the same results beyond a point. I think that's got a lot to do with it. One thing against Fuji at the moment is Lightroom's sharpening algorithms are really centred around bayer sensors. They work well enough for Fuji in my book, but then again, I don't really do a lot of sharpening, but we're also seeing variation in how well it performs based on the x trans sensor version.

    For example, there are a lot of people out there who swear that for X Trans 2, the approach in lightroom is Detail to 100, and low sharpening amount. Then for an X Trans 3 sensor, you do the opposite 100 sharpening and low amounts of detail (with some success I must add). There are others who say Capture One is the best for this, and then others still who will say Irident is the best and so on.

    This added 'faffing' about does detract from the Fuji experience, especially if you are the kind of person who wants to see razor sharp focus a 400% magnification. On a similar vein, you'll agonise over in camera jpeg conversion over lightrooms profiles and drive yourself insane with the minutiae of details to the point where you'll sell up and go back the the 'safe' big brands.*

    *EDIT - not saying Fuji are not sharp - they are, but if you have to worry about whether you've processed it in the 'right' way, that can annoy people.

    My own opinion is, once you get to the stage where you can just enjoy what the camera produces, dip into 1:1 to check focus but then step away from the computer, Fuji's make an excellent system. Enjoy the film simulations, enjoy tweaking those in camera to suit, enjoy the portability and enjoy the ergonomics and tactile experience of turning those dials and rings, enjoy the 1000's of photos you simply would not have taken with a DSLR because you would not have it with you, and if you pick up an XPRO style, enjoy the connection with the subject as you don't hide behind a camera!
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2017
    frod, Nod, SsSsSsSsSnake and 3 others like this.
  24. Stephen L

    Stephen L

    Messages:
    1,723
    Name:
    Stephen
    Edit My Images:
    No
  25. badboy1984

    badboy1984

    Messages:
    2,581
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Yeah, that really sums it up. I admit I don't zoom in like 4:1 to check sharpness, if the image is sharp at 100% then I'm all fine. I don't print big anyway and I don't pixel peep too these days.
     
    Furtim likes this.
  26. Alastair

    Alastair

    Messages:
    10,277
    Edit My Images:
    No
    That sort if person isn't really in it for the photography, are they? ;)
     
    frod, Furtim and badboy1984 like this.
  27. badboy1984

    badboy1984

    Messages:
    2,581
    Edit My Images:
    No
    My point is if the waxy oil effect is that bad, why do the pro use it for studio portrait, wedding etc.
     
    Mr Perceptive and Stephen L like this.
  28. Speedy136

    Speedy136

    Messages:
    2,313
    Name:
    Nick
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    This has been documented many times on the internet. The waxy skin issue is caused by noise reduction, most Fuji users just turn it off ( -4 ) on my Xpro2. Also the choice of software makes a difference with lightroom causing the mushy foliage artifacts. Capture one and Irident developer manage to convert files without these artifacts appearing also On1 raw is getting better with each update. This is down to Lightroom not being able to convert X Trans sensors as well as Bayer sensors. Shooting directly into the sun can cause a grid effect sometimes which can show on the purple flare patches but rarely, even then you can see the flare in the evf and change your position.
     
    badboy1984 likes this.
  29. Alan Clogwyn

    Alan Clogwyn

    Messages:
    6,813
    Name:
    Richard Alan Jones
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    If the sharpening bothers you, shoot jpeg and learn to get it right in camera.

    [​IMG]jpgsnip1 by Alan Jones, on Flickr

    (Raw is set at Sharpening 30, detail 100 and masking 60, my default values, it's also using Velvia preset rather than Provia for the Jpeg, not that it affects sharpness)
     
  30. badboy1984

    badboy1984

    Messages:
    2,581
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Thats very good know. I turn the NR off on my camera and I don't shoot directly to the sun (not yet at least), so thats probably why I did not experience the same problem.
     
  31. Jelster

    Jelster

    Messages:
    4,110
    Name:
    Steve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I just don't understand the issues.....

    This was shot on an X-T2 and developed in LR CC. At 400 ISO I would have checked the noise, and it's unlike me to expose it that well that it didn't need a bit of help...

    [​IMG]Arundel_4 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr
     
    Stephen L and badboy1984 like this.
  32. Alastair

    Alastair

    Messages:
    10,277
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Wrong type of foliage to spot the issue if it's there. When it appears it's with wider shots and finer foliage details.
     
  33. Jelster

    Jelster

    Messages:
    4,110
    Name:
    Steve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    You don't work for Network Rail by any chance do you? ;)
     
  34. Stephen L

    Stephen L

    Messages:
    1,723
    Name:
    Stephen
    Edit My Images:
    No
    You mean, on the sort of shots that nobody will notice any difference on when printed? ;)
     
  35. Alastair

    Alastair

    Messages:
    10,277
    Edit My Images:
    No
    What, you mean that photo quality shouldn't be judged on 400% on-screen views and should instead be judged based on printed images?

    [​IMG]
     
    -Oy- and addicknchips like this.
  36. Stephen L

    Stephen L

    Messages:
    1,723
    Name:
    Stephen
    Edit My Images:
    No
    That's why people take photos, isn't it? It's not a photo until it's printed, just a collection of noughts and ones. :D
     
    -Oy- and Nod like this.
  37. Alan Clogwyn

    Alan Clogwyn

    Messages:
    6,813
    Name:
    Richard Alan Jones
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Yes, but you can print the Jpeg from the camera far larger than the Raw file put through Lightroom before anyone says "That tree looks a bit fuzy" .
     
  38. Speedy136

    Speedy136

    Messages:
    2,313
    Name:
    Nick
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    What Alastair said :) Not noticed it myself neither but have seen images of the so called problem and to be honest it looks no different to what I used to get on full frame Nikon. Also the lenses I own, 14, 23 1.4, 35 1.4 and 50 f2. I quite often don't need to sharpen and if I do it is only very slightly. Fuji lenses are incredibly sharp, equal to or maybe even sharper than the sigma 35 art I owned.
     
    badboy1984 likes this.
  39. badboy1984

    badboy1984

    Messages:
    2,581
    Edit My Images:
    No
    You are right, I only need to sharpen a little bit.
     
    Speedy136 likes this.
  40. ryanyboy

    ryanyboy

    Messages:
    5,133
    Name:
    Ryan
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I share a similar experience to @GreenNinja67.

    There are some issues with Fuji kit that are going largely undiscussed and (it seems to me) that a lot of heads are buried in sand.

    These views are based on my experience as a professional wedding photographer. I mention this as I rarely shoot subjects such as wildlife, landscapes or sports.

    1) Fuji AF is not as good as a DSLR. People walking and dancing is typically the fastest subject I shoot. Not particularly fast but nearly always in low/rubbish light. The X-T2 struggled A LOT in the these situations. Often missing the target or simply failing to acquire any focus at all (hunting). Someone mentioned that a Fuji is about 90% as good as a 5D Mk III. I use Nikon so I can't compare but in comparison to the FF Nikons I use, 90% would be a huge exaggeration.

    2) Noise - the crop sensor results in more noise by nature and in my experience it was not only more prevalent but more objectionable too.

    3) Lenses - the lenses are very good. For what they are. But they don't offer the same subject isolation and shallow DOF. Simply down to the crop sensor.

    4) Battery life - rubbish. I don't have a problem swapping batteries (it's not hard) but it's something else to think about on the day. With my Nikon's a battery will last all day and I don't have to think about it.

    5) Post processing. For me this was the nail in the coffin. Simply put - Fuji -X-trans RAW files do not play well with Lightroom. One evening I was editing a shot of two "best-woman" from a wedding. When I looked closely I realised that they were starting to look like Crichton from red dwarf (you know - the boxy headed hologram character). There was definitely some weird artefacts present in the image that shouldn't have been there. I think the "waxy skin" description is a fair one. And the foliage issue is very true too. As I mentioned, I'm not a landscape photographer so I could live with it, but if I were shooting lots of foliage that mattered I would have been pretty peed off. So with this lightroom issue in mind I started to look at alternative RAW converters. From everything I read the Iridient Developer software came most strongly recommended. I downloaded a demo and looked at incorporating it into my workflow. This was the final straw. This increased workflow would have killed me. Shooting 45-50 weddings a year means I spend enough time in front of a computer as it is. I dread to think just how many more hours adding Iridient Developer to the process would have created. No way! So it meant sticking with LR and being unhappy with the images or doing something about it......

    And I did do something about it. I sold all my Fuji kit. Six months after I traded in all my Nikon kit I re-bought it all again (albeit with one different body and three different lenses to what I had before). A costly mistake but one that I hope others can learn from.

    I have considered writing a blog post about this issue. In the same way that some (well known) pros have written about the wonders of the Fuji kit I'd like to write something simply to counter all the hype and give people a more rounded view. There has to be better reasons to jack in all your DSLR stuff than "it's lighter" IMVHO.
     

Share This Page