Fuji X-T1/X-T2/X-T3/X-T10 Owners Thread

Messages
10,220
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Thanks for all the help guys.

I am going to keep the X-T2, already a fabulous camera, and I’m now on the look out for the best prime I can get for £500, probably the 35mm F2
Cheers all.
Quite probably the 14mm I have just listed in the classifieds :)
 
Messages
4,035
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Just reading the XT-3 early reviews and specs. Im interested in how the new sensor performs over the old one. Really tempted to upgrade.

One issue that really buggs me about my X-T2 is the RAW performence of X-Trans in lightroom. I know the RAW files need managing in a different way but even with this some shots, especially woodland scenes werent as pleasing to look at as my old Canon 70D. The XT-3 raw files arent viable with Adobe until they bring out an update apparently.

Interested to see if this performs any differnt with Lightroom/Photoshop or whether its just the same.

Anyone know how long Adobe usually takes to update the raw converter for a new sensor?
Adobe are usually pretty quick, either on the official day of release (20th) or very shortly afterwards. Fuji worked with Adobe with the X-T2, so I imagine that this has been done with the X-T3 as well.
 
Messages
3,296
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
the XF16mm F1.4 might meet all your requirements, giving you a slightly wider option, and low light capability. It also has the capability of focusing close and has amazing IQ (one of the sharpest Fuji primes). Its also WR
It's my favourite lens bar none.

Bolete?
by Ian, on Flickr
 
Messages
873
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
Just reading the XT-3 early reviews and specs. Im interested in how the new sensor performs over the old one. Really tempted to upgrade.

One issue that really buggs me about my X-T2 is the RAW performence of X-Trans in lightroom. I know the RAW files need managing in a different way but even with this some shots, especially woodland scenes werent as pleasing to look at as my old Canon 70D. The XT-3 raw files arent viable with Adobe until they bring out an update apparently.

Interested to see if this performs any differnt with Lightroom/Photoshop or whether its just the same.

Anyone know how long Adobe usually takes to update the raw converter for a new sensor?
Just tried a file with Fuji RAW Converter and that doesn't work yet neither does Iridient X Transformer. Just seen there is a beta version of Adobe RAW 11, dpreview have used it on their sample images gallery.
 
Last edited:
Messages
12,967
Edit My Images
No
Just reading the XT-3 early reviews and specs. Im interested in how the new sensor performs over the old one. Really tempted to upgrade.

One issue that really buggs me about my X-T2 is the RAW performence of X-Trans in lightroom. I know the RAW files need managing in a different way but even with this some shots, especially woodland scenes werent as pleasing to look at as my old Canon 70D. The XT-3 raw files arent viable with Adobe until they bring out an update apparently.

Interested to see if this performs any differnt with Lightroom/Photoshop or whether its just the same.

Anyone know how long Adobe usually takes to update the raw converter for a new sensor?
Unfortunately no software manages to handle the Xtrans files perfectly yet, even irident, and I can't see why the new sensor in the XT3 would be any different tbh. I keep praying for Fuji to back to bayer but I can't ever see that happening now. You can minimise the problem to the point it's barely visible at normal viewing sizes.
 
Messages
3,298
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Unfortunately no software manages to handle the Xtrans files perfectly yet, even irident, and I can't see why the new sensor in the XT3 would be any different tbh. I keep praying for Fuji to back to bayer but I can't ever see that happening now. You can minimise the problem to the point it's barely visible at normal viewing sizes.
Don't start! :D. Not all of us see any issue with Fuji raw files in Lightroom. The best way to deal with sharpening raw files in LR is to do nothing. Accept whatever defaults Adobe have set for the relevant Fuji raw, and all will be well. They don't NEED sharpening.
 
Messages
4,926
Name
Trevor
Edit My Images
Yes
I love the Fuji jpeg. If I ever process a RAW I turn off all sharpening unless I print the picture.
Even then I find minimal is enough.
 
Messages
4,035
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm heading that way after the weekend, some of my jpegs out of the XH-1 were better than the RAW's (waits patiently for Mr P to tell him he's useless at pp then) :D
:D:D:D

You all need to remember that the 'no sharpening' applies to X-Trans3 (not early X-Trans sensors). You'll all be ahead of me with X-Trans4 as I've not ordered an X-T3, I'm waiting for the GFX50R release and some proper reviews and images from you guys with the X-T3 before making my mind up (its all a bit mature for me!!)

Stick with X-T2, or GFX50S or GFX50R or X-T3 (the X100F is going nowhere!!). The IQ of the X-T3 would have to blow me away for me to make the jump, the extra £100 I'd save by pre-ordering is nothing compared to getting the wrong camera!!!!
 
Messages
873
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
:D:D:D

You all need to remember that the 'no sharpening' applies to X-Trans3 (not early X-Trans sensors). You'll all be ahead of me with X-Trans4 as I've not ordered an X-T3, I'm waiting for the GFX50R release and some proper reviews and images from you guys with the X-T3 before making my mind up (its all a bit mature for me!!)

Stick with X-T2, or GFX50S or GFX50R or X-T3 (the X100F is going nowhere!!). The IQ of the X-T3 would have to blow me away for me to make the jump, the extra £100 I'd save by pre-ordering is nothing compared to getting the wrong camera!!!!
Wash your mouth out sir, there's no such thing as a wrong Fuji :D
 
Messages
6,284
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
I am liking the Fuji XT-3 but... :D lol :sony:
 
Messages
6,284
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
We need an "I love Glass Cabinets" Emoji, yesterday you were talking about a Leica Q, if you visit a Leica store you'll be right at home as everything is in glass cabinets :D:D:D
I know, they look so lovely those cabinets..... I actually bought a display cabinet for my Sony gear but then that idea came to a thud when I released I have a 3 year old who would probably rip the cabinet off the wall and make my G Master lenses look like metal road cones :D lol
 
Messages
873
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
I know, they look so lovely those cabinets..... I actually bought a display cabinet for my Sony gear but then that idea came to a thud when I released I have a 3 year old who would probably rip the cabinet off the wall and make my G Master lenses look like metal road cones :D lol
Ask the Mrs for one of these for Xmas, perfect for every Sony fanboy :p:D
https://bit.ly/2oZcElM
 
Messages
1,739
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
No
Don't start! :D. Not all of us see any issue with Fuji raw files in Lightroom. The best way to deal with sharpening raw files in LR is to do nothing. Accept whatever defaults Adobe have set for the relevant Fuji raw, and all will be well. They don't NEED sharpening.
Not sure that I agree that they don't need sharpening at all - I suppose it depends on your preferences - and to some degree your workflow. I have all sharpening in LR turned off by default (if you don't turn it off then the Adobe default settings will apply some sharpening) but I always work with my RAW files and I always finish them off in Photoshop. There I sharpen by using the High Pass filter method, and invariably with a radius of 2 pixels (whereas I would usually go to 3 pixels with my Nikon D800 files).

Each to their own of course, but this works for me.
 
Messages
3,298
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Not sure that I agree that they don't need sharpening at all - I suppose it depends on your preferences - and to some degree your workflow. I have all sharpening in LR turned off by default (if you don't turn it off then the Adobe default settings will apply some sharpening) but I always work with my RAW files and I always finish them off in Photoshop. There I sharpen by using the High Pass filter method, and invariably with a radius of 2 pixels (whereas I would usually go to 3 pixels with my Nikon D800 files).

Each to their own of course, but this works for me.
As you say, each to their own. I leave the Adobe settings for sharpening alone, but increase Clarity by up to 18. Only use PS for text layers. Bit of a waste, but it came free with LR!
 
Messages
398
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
Still in two minds, maybe you guys could assist in my decision...

I have an X-T2, has it since launch and I love the camera. It’s my first ‘good’ camera and I chose it mainly because as I’m learning, having the manual dials has been very beneficial. Since I’ve had it I’ve taken it on holidays and events but I also use it to film quite a lot - I am slowly building a career as a screenwriter and I’ve found that creating little shorts of my work has been essential.

I find the camera performs very well and when it doesn’t, like not focusing on moving subjects etc, I think it’s more user error than anything else.

Lens wise, I only have the XF18-55, which is usually always on the camera, and the lesser quality XC 55-230 for the very rare times I need such a zoom (although I find the quality of that lens pretty poor so I usually don’t bother).

So obviously I’ve been looking at getting more lenses. Then the X-T3 comes out.

I’ve got about £500 to spend so I could trade my camera and grip in and use the money for the X-T3, which is appealing to have the latest camera, better low light, AF and a new warranty.

Or I could get some new glass.

Really don’t know. Part of me knows a nice prime or replacing the XC is probably more beneficial overall but these good trade deals won’t last very long...
Glass all day, no need to update what is an amazing body. Get the 23 or 35 f2 - awesome
 
Messages
1,660
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Still thinking of returning to Fuji, and as part of the decision making process, obviously the cost of replacing glass has to factor in. It goes without saying that the most used focal length without doubt has to be in the 24(28)mm to 70mm ish range (equivalent). That being the case, what are the relative thoughts on the Fuji 16-55 F2.8 vs the diminutive Fuji 18-55 F2.8-4 ?

I did have the latter last time round but I mustn't have got a good copy as mine wasn't overly sharp. Taking sample variation away, is the 16-55 really worth the extra dosh and size/weight over its smaller cousin ? I appreciate they are two slightly different lenses with the 16-55 being a red badge pro grade lens that is both wider and a constant aperture, but whilst I've never held one, it does look like a beast, and despite my reservations over my previous sample of the 18-55, most people rave about it's superb optical qualities ?

Thoughts please ?
 
Messages
4,035
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Still thinking of returning to Fuji, and as part of the decision making process, obviously the cost of replacing glass has to factor in. It goes without saying that the most used focal length without doubt has to be in the 24(28)mm to 70mm ish range (equivalent). That being the case, what are the relative thoughts on the Fuji 16-55 F2.8 vs the diminutive Fuji 18-55 F2.8-4 ?

I did have the latter last time round but I mustn't have got a good copy as mine wasn't overly sharp. Taking sample variation away, is the 16-55 really worth the extra dosh and size/weight over its smaller cousin ? I appreciate they are two slightly different lenses with the 16-55 being a red badge pro grade lens that is both wider and a constant aperture, but whilst I've never held one, it does look like a beast, and despite my reservations over my previous sample of the 18-55, most people rave about it's superb optical qualities ?

Thoughts please ?
If you need constant F2.8 than the 16-55 is a no brainer, but is fairly big and weighty compared to the 18-55

If you need stabilisation then the 18-55 is a no brainer - or wait for X-H2

Optically they are both good and at F8 etc there is/should be very little difference.

It really depends on what your shooting requirements are.
 
Messages
1,453
Edit My Images
No
Still thinking of returning to Fuji, and as part of the decision making process, obviously the cost of replacing glass has to factor in. It goes without saying that the most used focal length without doubt has to be in the 24(28)mm to 70mm ish range (equivalent). That being the case, what are the relative thoughts on the Fuji 16-55 F2.8 vs the diminutive Fuji 18-55 F2.8-4 ?

I did have the latter last time round but I mustn't have got a good copy as mine wasn't overly sharp. Taking sample variation away, is the 16-55 really worth the extra dosh and size/weight over its smaller cousin ? I appreciate they are two slightly different lenses with the 16-55 being a red badge pro grade lens that is both wider and a constant aperture, but whilst I've never held one, it does look like a beast, and despite my reservations over my previous sample of the 18-55, most people rave about it's superb optical qualities ?

Thoughts please ?
I shoot a lot of natural light in my studio so I went for the 16-55 with my XT2, it is brilliant wide open and feels balanced when I use a gripped body.

I also have the 18-55 which I use for video when it is required.

Of the two the 16-55 is the daddy for me.
 
Messages
873
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
Still thinking of returning to Fuji, and as part of the decision making process, obviously the cost of replacing glass has to factor in. It goes without saying that the most used focal length without doubt has to be in the 24(28)mm to 70mm ish range (equivalent). That being the case, what are the relative thoughts on the Fuji 16-55 F2.8 vs the diminutive Fuji 18-55 F2.8-4 ?

I did have the latter last time round but I mustn't have got a good copy as mine wasn't overly sharp. Taking sample variation away, is the 16-55 really worth the extra dosh and size/weight over its smaller cousin ? I appreciate they are two slightly different lenses with the 16-55 being a red badge pro grade lens that is both wider and a constant aperture, but whilst I've never held one, it does look like a beast, and despite my reservations over my previous sample of the 18-55, most people rave about it's superb optical qualities ?

Thoughts please ?
It can feel like a beast when you first hold it but you soon get used to it. Compared to some of the Sony / Sigma glass it's lightweight. 16-55 all the way for me, I had an 18-55 for a short time and couldn't get on with it, always felt something was lacking on sharpness.
 
Messages
3,298
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
If you need constant F2.8 than the 16-55 is a no brainer, but is fairly big and weighty compared to the 18-55

If you need stabilisation then the 18-55 is a no brainer - or wait for X-H2

Optically they are both good and at F8 etc there is/should be very little difference.

It really depends on what your shooting requirements are.
Why wait for X-H2?
 
Messages
12,627
Name
George.
Edit My Images
No
Just a simple Fujigraph taken at Folkestone Kent UK of one of the model houses scattered around the seafront area of which this one is floating in the outer harbour.

X-T2, 100-400mm Lens, 1/420th @ F8, ISO-200, Handheld.
Desirable Residence-03263
by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

:ty: for looking., (y):fuji:

George.
 
Messages
3,298
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Just a simple Fujigraph taken at Folkestone Kent UK of one of the model houses scattered around the seafront area of which this one is floating in the outer harbour.

X-T2, 100-400mm Lens, 1/420th @ F8, ISO-200, Handheld.
Desirable Residence-03263
by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

:ty: for looking., (y):fuji:

George.
Like the colours and light on this. But it begs the question “why?” :D
 
Top