The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Apparently there's quite a shortage of XT3s atm, well in America anyhow.
 
i do not compare with other cameras, that is a pointless exercise. some other cameras might be out 2/3 of a stop compared to Fuji, but others are the same as they use the same standard.
The problem for those who want to compare between them is that the differences produced by the two systems are not linear. so you get different results at different points on the scale.

What you can say is that one camera produces "better" and "cleaner" results in the same light conditions. ISO is a red herring.

The comparison was made, I never made it. To say Fuji is cleaner than all other apsc at the same exposure is not true.
 
The comparison was made, I never made it. To say Fuji is cleaner than all other apsc at the same exposure is not true.

i would not know if fuji produces cleaner shots or not, I have no way of knowing.
However I do like the quality of the images that fuji X cameras produce. The rest is academic.
 
That is why I m thinking of getting the silver one this tome. The images I got out of my black XT1 and XT2 were not that good [emoji6][emoji848]
Graphite is the way to go! The images I got out of my Graphite X-Pro 2 were, well, er, ... Oh, forget it. :(
 
Anyone want to help eradicate this? On my X-T2 shooting white background stuff, with the whites fully blown I get speckles in the blown areas of Jpegs. Not sure if as a result of Jpeg compression or something else? Seen here in LR with highlight warning you can see the non pure white speckles clear as day. The X-T1s did not do this.

LR Snip.PNG
 
I dont think Id agree with that, Fujis ISO isnt measured the same way as the rest. The A6500 is the same when you take that into account, the D500 is actually the best.

AF is a big thing and will tempt people, thats the difference between me buying a camera or not.

Let's say below FF ML then

As for the AF, it doesn't matter so much to me, those who need the speed will buy it of course. But what was there before did them just fine.
 
Last edited:
Let's say below FF ML then

As for the AF, it doesn't matter so much to me, those who need the speed will buy it of course. But what was there before did them just fine.

Nope, its equal to the Sonys and the D500 whoops the Fujis.

Look at this.... the Fuji ISO is 2/3 to 1 stop out at this kind of ISO so this is pretty accurate.

Screen Shot 2018-09-22 at 15.07.18.png
 
Nope, its equal to the Sonys and the D500 whoops the Fujis.

Look at this.... the Fuji ISO is 2/3 to 1 stop out at this kind of ISO so this is pretty accurate.

View attachment 134969


Afaik the D500 isn't ML, so what's your point? why are you showing a whole stop difference?

. And the X-T2 was already about the best of the APSC world up to that point. So, even if it's a bit behind, it still remains better than the likes of the A6500, 80D, all M43, D7*** whatever. It didn't suddenly get worse because of it's new big bro

I mean, this is what you're coming after me for right? and I've added, maybe just ML then. I don't get your post
 
Last edited:
Afaik the D500 isn't ML, so what's your point? why are you showing a whole stop difference?

Do you not understand that Fujis exposure is darker at the same settings as most other manufacturers because of the ISO standard they use? To get the same exposure as the other brands with Fuji you have to bump the ISO.
 
Do you not understand that Fujis exposure is darker at the same settings as most other manufacturers because of the ISO standard they use? To get the same exposure as the other brands with Fuji you have to bump the ISO.

Says who? show proof or you're just talking nonsense tbh. I don't know why you're even trying to convince me :D I said the T2 is just as good as the T3 basically
 
Last edited:

I still don't get your point? I don't even shoot Fuji atm, I'm failing here to understand what you're trying to convince me of? :/ I'm saying the T3 isn't any better than the T2, which was already very good at higher ISO ..
 
I still don't get your point? I don't even shoot Fuji atm, I'm failing here to understand what you're trying to convince me of? :/ I'm saying the T3 isn't any better than the T2, which was already very good at higher ISO ..

My point is that its NOT the best APSC sensor for noise as you said and you need to consider the ISO standard difference if you are to compare it against the other manufacturers.
 
My point is that its NOT the best APSC sensor for noise as you said and you need to consider the ISO standard difference if you are to compare it against the other manufacturers.

It's the best APSC ML and I don't buy all that BS. Still, it's not me you need convince. My original point was that the X-T3 is no better at higher ISO [that i would never use anyway] than the X-T2
 
Last edited:

You're starting to just look dumb now. I know you're one of the Bingo bus crew but now you're just spamming one of the better threads in here, this aint the Sony gearhead thread
 
Last edited:
No, you're proving how dumb you are without doing any research.

See edit above, you're still just spamming, where's your evidence? I'm not the one claiming anything, why would I have to do the research? If you have some hard facts to back up your notions, then show it. I'm neutral, I'm not defensive over Fuji ... it's like you're trying to convince me of some BS you read online, when it's not going to matter to me either way
 
See edit above, you're still just spamming, where's your evidence? I'm not the one claiming anything, why would I have to do the research? If you have some hard facts to back up your notions, then show it. I'm neutral, I'm not defensive over Fuji ... it's like you're trying to convince me of some BS you read online, when it's not going to matter to me either way

Why would you need to? You make bold statements without any research, thats a dumb thing to do.

Bingo bus crew, you're probably older than I am Keith. So I guess that makes you one of them!
 
Last edited:
Why would you need to? You make bold statements without any research, thats a dumb thing to do.

Bold statement? no, it's MY opinion you fool. Jesus how old are you? and I mean mentally. You're spending way too much time in the bitter, gear head orientated Sony thread. Stop trying to ruin a good thread with your stupid BS. You haven't posted anything to back up your dim witted point yet, and you're accusing me of 'bold statements' ... lolz
 
Bold statement? no, it's MY opinion you fool. Jesus how old are you? and I mean mentally. You're spending way too much time in the bitter, gear head orientated Sony thread. Stop trying to ruin a good thread with your stupid BS. You haven't posted anything to back up your dim witted point yet, and you're accusing me of 'bold statements' ... lolz

Your opinion you put across as fact, thats odd.

Bitter, thats pretty funny, you're in every thread spamming. Im not ruining anything, just correcting your BS.
 
Your opinion you put across as fact, thats odd.

Bitter, thats pretty funny, you're in every thread spamming. Im not ruining anything, just correcting your BS.


You haven't corrected anything though, where's this proof? I think it's you with the 'bold' statements. I think you'll find my posts are generally on topic, hence no spamming. You're mouthing about ISO variance without any links or proof of any kind, that IS spamming. And as I said, you're preaching to the wrong guy, my post was an opinion based on what I've seen in comparisons done by others. I didn't say 'fact' anywhere, I didn't need to as it's just my thoughts on it.
 
You haven't corrected anything though, where's this proof? I think it's you with the 'bold' statements. I think you'll find my posts are generally on topic, hence no spamming. You're mouthing about ISO variance without any links or proof of any kind, that IS spamming. And as I said, you're preaching to the wrong guy, my post was an opinion based on what I've seen in comparisons done by others. I didn't say 'fact' anywhere, I didn't need to as it's just my thoughts on it.

Okay, Im not here to argue with you, so its your opinion and NOT fact, thanks for clearing that up, have you shot a Fuji alongside another manufacturer with exactly the same exposure settings? Have you bothered to quickly google what Im talking about?

For a Fuji only user this makes no difference, its only when you compare against other manufacturers you realise you need to bump the brightness to meet the exposure you require.
 
Last edited:
Okay, Im not here to argue with you, so its your opinion and NOT fact, thanks for clearing that up, have you shot a Fuji alongside another manufacturer with exactly the same exposure settings? Have you bothered to quickly google what Im talking about?

For a Fuji only user this makes no difference, its only when you compare against other manufacturers you realise you need to bump the brightness to meet the exposure you require.


It's not up to me to google, you're the one who requires back up evidence otherwise you're just spamming nonsense you heard somewhere. You're saying with a Fuji ISO 3200 for example, = 1600 on other systems? My G80 would be very pleased with that if truth. I would actually be interested in hard evidence, but i'm not the one bothered enough to go through a whirly-gig of googling to find out - I've also said it's my opinion twice now
 
Last edited:
It's not up to me to google, you're the one who requires back up evidence otherwise you're just spamming nonsense you heard somewhere. You're saying with a Fuji ISO 3200 for example, = 1600 on other systems? I would actually be interested in hard evidence on that, but i'm not the one bothered enough to go through a whirly-gig of googling to find out - I've also said it's my opinion twice now

No, its not what Ive heard, Ive used many Fuji cameras alongside other brands as it was my second system for a very long time, I KNOW the difference. At lower ISO its not quite 1 stop, its generally 2/3 stop difference. Its up to you to educate yourself.
 
No, its not what Ive heard, Ive used many Fuji cameras alongside other brands as it was my second system for a very long time, I KNOW the difference. At lower ISO its not quite 1 stop, its generally 2/3 stop difference. Its up to you to educate yourself.

If you say so, I'll just take the number for what they are. I don't shoot high ISO, so it doesn't matter to me either way. Whatever the setting is I require at the time is what I'll go by, no matter the camera. Otherwise I can only go by what image resource sites show me. Why don't they run comparisons with Fuji a stop higher?
 
If you say so, I'll just take the number for what they are. I don't shoot high ISO, so it doesn't matter to me either way. Whatever the setting is I require at the time is what I'll go by, no matter the camera. Otherwise I can only go by what image resource sites show me. Why don't they run comparisons with Fuji a stop higher?

You can do, because unless you're shooting 2 systems alongside or are used to certain conditions and wondering why the shots are a little darker or you need to bump ISO it shouldn't make any difference to you. Its just something to be aware of when comparing Fuji to other makes.

Its not like Fuji sucks, it just doesn't have that stop advantage vs the competition, they do however have excellent chroma noise suppression, you only really get proper ISO gains with a bigger sensor.
 
Last edited:
Picked up my 3 this morning. As is usual when I get something new the weather has clamped down so only initial impressions as it's a little damp outside!

Firstly, although it clearly looks like the 1 and 2, it does feel a bit different in the hand. The black paint finish is different, there's a satin feel to it and the corners are a bit sharper. Dare I say it feels a bit more 'Germanic'. The switches and buttons have a more positive click to them, which is a good thing on the on/off switch and EV dial for instance, less so on the back button/wheel IMO. The grip on the body is bigger and does feel better in the hand. The thumb rest feels a little bigger too but I'm not sure on that, could just be my imagination as a result of the larger front grip.

The battery grip feels very different. The handles are more pronounced and a bit more blade like. This make it easier to carry the camera in one hand and to hold in portrait mode, it' slightly less comfortable in landscape to my mind. You don't need the grip now for the 11fps frame rate, which is nice to have in the body directly but the camera does feel more balanced still with the 50-140 and I would assume the 100-400, though I've not put that on it yet.

Only a couple of test shots in passing so far so not very interesting I'm afraid. These are SOOC jpegs. The AF worked absolutely fine on a trundling train(!) and stayed locked on as it disappeared up the track in a cloud of diesel smoke at ISO 800, as you would expect and IQ looks nice to me with ISO 160 on the still one. The group shot is at ISO 2500.


Train
by jamiewednesday1, on Flickr


Group
by jamiewednesday1, on Flickr


Fumes
by jamiewednesday1, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
You can do, because unless you're shooting 2 systems alongside or are used to certain conditions and wondering why the shots are a little darker or you need to bump ISO it shouldn't make any difference to you. Its just something to be aware of when comparing Fuji to other makes.

Its not like Fuji sucks, it just doesn't have that stop advantage vs the competition, they do however have excellent chroma noise suppression, you only really get proper ISO gains with a bigger sensor.

I’m going to have to agree with @twist on this.
It’s not that the Fuji system is bad, if you compared them back to back, the difference against the Sony A6500 is not big.
There is a bigger/noticeable difference when comparing to FF though.
I like the Fuji system a lot and as a total ownership proposition, it’s the best APS-C system available.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top