- Messages
- 5,434
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Now put your armour on Ryan. [emoji2]
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.
All comes down to having the right tools for the job
For me as a hobbyist the Fuji system is exactly what I want, can see why a wedding, sports or wildlife photographer could want something else.
Use mine all the time and very happy with the results, but if I miss something from slow af or battery drain it won't affect my income or prevent the bills being paid.
Pointless me telling the pro what they want or need, works the other way too. If the enthusiast says they are satisfied no point trying to dissuade them with pitfalls they probably will never encounter
Dissuation was never my intention.
A person with all the facts is able to make an informed choice.
If I knew what I know now I'd not have lost all that time and effort switching systems.
Luckily I was not out of pocket.
I feel like my Fuji system are not fully capable to fulfill my talent...sounds big headed but hear me out.
I have or want a certain level of photographic vision, this level moves with technology, my experience and knowledge, and I like my gear to either keep up or move along with me in order to allow me to execute the images I have in my head into my fingers and turn it into real world images.
My Canon set up have a larger latitude to create images at the boundaries than my Fuji, the boundaries in the Fuji is smaller. Of course if I work within those boundaries covered by both cameras then it matters not what camera I use. I feel like I am not doing myself justice if I intentionally using inferior tools.
Are they inferior or just a different fit which doesn't meet your needs?
Is a bigger sensor 'better' or is portability 'better'? It's a subjective choice based on the needs of an individual.
For me, I'd take portability over sensor size to a pony that works for me. Others may take an 8x10 inch 'full frame' plate over portability.
Not suggesting size is the only factor by the way!
I feel like my Fuji system are not fully capable to fulfill my talent...sounds big headed but hear me out.
I have or want a certain level of photographic vision, this level moves with technology, my experience and knowledge, and I like my gear to either keep up or move along with me in order to allow me to execute the images I have in my head into my fingers and turn it into real world images.
My Canon set up have a larger latitude to create images at the boundaries than my Fuji, the boundaries in the Fuji is smaller. Of course if I work within those boundaries covered by both cameras then it matters not what camera I use. I feel like I am not doing myself justice if I intentionally using inferior tools.
It's more than just sensor, there are lots of little things, like lens selection, bokeh, feel, optical VF, to little things like where the lens mount release button is, to the Fuji lenses are so small I have nowhere to grip the lens to twist it! I also don't like where the exposure comp is at the top and I can't just turn a dial to change it with the new firmware.
I heard you out. Still sounds big-headed.
On x-T2 you can adjust exp comp. with a dial
I don't consider size between the 2 to be a problem, if I want a photo, i would do my best to get that photo, if the only obstacle is weight then I'll just have to get through that problem. We are not talking about size of a fridge vs a microwave. Both canon and Fuji can be picked up with 1 hand, both are perfectly portable.
My ex said that size does matter to her, thats why i'm her ex thought it might lighten the mood
That's a bit rich....................... Rich
This wasn't a "specific manufacturers thread". It was a thread asking "should I change from x to y". And I don't think anyone has said Fuji cameras are s****. But in a world where you can easily read how wonderful the Fuji cameras are, I don't think it hurts to offer an alternative view.You are probably right Terry, but it's also a bit rich coming on a specific manufacturers thread to tell everyone how s*** their cameras are.
This is from the same person who equates box collection with looking after equipment, more old cobblers
This wasn't a "specific manufacturers thread". It was a thread asking "should I change from x to y". And I don't think anyone has said Fuji cameras are s****. But in a world where you can easily read how wonderful the Fuji cameras are, I don't think it hurts to offer an alternative view.
I think I know what you referring to. And yes, lots of egos who think the photography is about them and not the actual photo.I apologise, you are right about it not being a specific manufacturers thread. My comments stand though with regard to the sanctimonious nonsense about limiting oneself etc.
Alternative view is fine and yes constructive criticism is good, but a load of other crap being spouted that actually means bugger all
The point was more over your choice of 'inferior'. Different in this context means worse in some ways, better in others. What better and worse are subjective given the needs of the individual.
Size does matter to me. The knobs and dials matter to me. The EVF matters to me. Minimising noise doesn't, ultra shallow DoF doesn't so I made choices.
If I want to use your language, my current setup is superior to my full frame 5D and glass a plenty.
Not the case for everyone, but you get the point?
Raymond, for a very conscious fellow, you seem not to want to learn how to use a different system. For me personally, the X-T2 has everything where I want it, it's all in easy reach, and I know I have small hands, so maybe that's why I get on with the Fuji stuff so well.
What is more important, is that since I switched to Fuji I want to go out and shoot more often, that in itself is a major plus. My T2 & 10-24 come out with me much often than my 6D & 17-40 ever did.
For me, bokeh plays a big part in my photos. It is a matter of fact to APSC don't get the same bokeh at the same aperture. Even if everything else being equal, you cannot alter this fact, and to me, this element is inferior. Bokeh matters to me a lot.
As to other things like EVF, I can take it or leave it, I kinda know what the image will look like without looking at it, just need to be in the room and I can guess the settings 90% of the way there, having an EVF knowing what the image will look like before a shot? Most of the time I already have it in my head before the camera is even up to my eye, and the stuff i shoot is about anticipating the moment, not setting it up and wait. If its the former you need to know the settings before you take the shot anyway or you'll miss it, if its the latter you have an eternity to set it up and do it right so makes little difference if its Optical, chiming, EVF or LCD. So, at least to me, EVF is not that big an advantage
Dials, it looks cool but it slows down work flow. It is a 2 hand job operating the camera. I can change ISO, Shutter speed, drive type, etc with 1 hand and quickly, and without taking my eye from my VF.
I am not talking about Fuji don't create good images, I am saying the limits of the Canon system are bigger.
Like many I've been around the block and tried all the manufacturers (Canon / Nikon / Fuji / Sony ). The grass is never greener, and the Fuji wont do anything your canon can't do. But gas is a real and valid reason to change
You can always sell it if you fancy a change ,i do and it's fun
If you want to make some go my way ...Lol it's not a concern to me to be honest,if it spreads a little happiness to someone else that's worth a lot,I've never really bothered about money ,it comes and goes lol,must be the 60's lad in me
If you want and need the qualities available with a 10x8 stand camera then that is what you need. However it will bring masses of down sides with it.
Likewise a full frame 35mm DSLR has upsides and downsides that we all know about.
This is also true of a Crop CSC.
However there is also no doubt that leaving pixel peeping aside, prints and images on computer screens, seen at appropriate viewing distances, can look for all intents and purposes pretty much Identical, whether taken with a crop DSLR, a full frame DSLR or a CSC.
In most circumstances a well exposed and processed image taken on any of these types of camera will display no problems as to noise, tonality, colour or sharpness.
At abnormal magnifications the images from sensors will start to break down for various physical reason, Pixel count and size and pixel density related to sensor size are the obvious reason for this. what is not a reason is the viewing system used such as a mirror viewfinder as against EVF.
Fuji make among the very best crop sensor cameras, and the images they produce are among the very best in every respect.
They are in fact so good, that they are competing in the same market place as Full Frame cameras. Which is why they are both being discussed in this thread.
However we are not comparing like for like, and at their extremes. they have significant differences, one to the other.
The quality of the lenses at this top level have insignificant differences, but all follow the rule that the smaller the sensor the smaller and lighter the lens can be made.
While 2/3rds cameras are generally smaller than APS and they in turn smaller than Full frame. this can only be taken to extremes at the expense of handling properties. Sony have demonstrated how small FF cameras can be made, Fuji have not gone down this route and kept their cameras more proportionate to both hands and lenses.
We all know that Contrast detection focussing is far more precise than Phase detection. Up to now It is also rather slower. We also have seen that hybrid on sensor focussing has very largely eliminated this gap. at least as far as non specialist uses are concerned.
The functional lay out of cameras varies considerably between makes. Leica and Fuji have tried to maintain a traditional feel and layout which I definitely prefer to my Canon. But this will always be a matter of personal preference.
The other main difference on Fuji cameras is the use of their X-Trans array in place of the more common Bayer filter array. This has distinct advantages in terms of aliasing and moire effects. However at and over 100% pixel view, this does tend to show some patterning artifacts that are otherwise invisible. This seems to be more a case of the raw processor used and the amount and method of sharpening, as some algorithms are better at not showing this than others.
In actual use we do not view files at those extremes anyway. But it seems to disturb some more sensitive pixel peepers
The advantages of the X-trans array more than make up for this in real use. Prints made at 100% do not show this as a problem.
A photographer should always chose a camera for what it can do and how well that fulfill his needs.
I do not need a FF camera, I do like CSC's and the advantages of EVF's. I do like the way Fujis handle and the results they produce. They do whit I need them to do........
Why limit yourself to the Canon in that instance? After all a 35mm and crop sensor really are not all that different in size. Why not go for one of the larger formats? Film or Digital?
Manual focussing with mirrorless systems via an EVF is so much more accurate than with DSLR via and OVF. May not matter to you, but, you know - balance.
I do struggle to understand this though - not doubting your experience, but so wildly different from mine. The one hand / two hands yes - you do need both hands to operate something like the Fuji, but it's for the same reason it is so quick to change settings on the fly if needed. Literally everything is just a turn away (apart from the ISO on an XPRO2!), and you can change two things at once
Think of a limit in terms of something that prevents someone from achieving their aim, and not just something smaller. Just add a 'for me' to that last statement and everyone's cool
Everyone seems agreed that different systems work for different people based on what they want to get out of it.
I guess what niggles is that you're of the view that because of your visionary photographic prowess, your aims should apply to everyone and by failing to embrace those we are somehow inferior photographers by choosing the limit ourselves.