So what's all the fuss with Fuji then?

Alastair said:
The Canon M is an interesting example, why Canon has never marketed it to the North American market remains a mystery. It's almost as if they don't believe in the system and are only going along with developing it out of a sense of appearance.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make any sense as they are potentially missing out on a huge market.
There is no doubt that mirrorless technology is evolving quite rapidly and we have seen the fall from grace from the likes of Nokia by ignoring development of Android phones.
 
CSCs are certainly something I've looked at as I'm finding it more and more difficult to lug a DSLR about. Only thing that puts me of is the apparent lack of viewfinder. The only one that seems to have one is the Sony A7 which appears to be double the price of the other brands.
 
fabs said:
CSCs are certainly something I've looked at as I'm finding it more and more difficult to lug a DSLR about. Only thing that puts me of is the apparent lack of viewfinder. The only one that seems to have one is the Sony A7 which appears to be double the price of the other brands.
Click to expand...
Which ones have you been looking at? - almost all the Fujis have a viewfinder (X-E1, X-Pro1, X-E2, X-T1)
 
fabs said:
CSCs are certainly something I've looked at as I'm finding it more and more difficult to lug a DSLR about. Only thing that puts me of is the apparent lack of viewfinder. The only one that seems to have one is the Sony A7 which appears to be double the price of the other brands.
Click to expand...

Marc the Fujifilm X-Pro1 does have a view finder, it was the lack of a viewfinder that put me off the idea of the Canon EOS M.
Mirrorless tech is still not quite there for my needs at the moment but with the 55-200 lens, ukaskews photos have certainly made me sit up and think.

Oops, Alastair beat me to it :D
 
Last edited:
Alastair said:
Which ones have you been looking at? - almost all the Fujis have a viewfinder (X-E1, X-Pro1, X-E2, X-T1)
Click to expand...

hashcake said:
Marc the Fujifilm X-Pro1 does have a view finder
Click to expand...

So it does but it's a compact style viewfinder rather than the TTL one that the Sony has. How do you know you have the focus correct with the fuji one?
 
The main reason I changed from a Nikon D800 based outfit to a Fuji XT-1 with roughly equivalent lenses was weight, I have arthritis in my lower back I found I was using the nikon less and less
because it was just to painful carrying around, in the seven weeks I have been using the Fuji I have already shot about three times the number of images than I did all last year with the Nikon,
as far as image quality is concerned ultimately the Nikon is more capable but the Fuji is very very good, earlier today I did some A3 and some A2 prints and they are excellent, one of the A2s
a black and white taken in Scotland at the beginning of February will be up on the living room wall tomorrow, I've been a Nikon user for many years but won't be going back.
 
Last edited:
I shot with Nikon in the past. The D7000 was what killed it for me. Great camera don't get me wrong but loaded with so much stuff I wouldn't ever use. I perhaps jumped to something a bit too OTT for me, granted. It killed the interest a little for me until I picked up an XPro1.
The Fuji X just allowed me to focus on what was necessary and it's small form factor was also welcome as well as nice JPEGs straight out of the camera as others have said. The lenses are pretty decent too, especially the 35mm 1.4. I was personally impressed with the results and the weight difference especially when travelling.

I would never say choose one over the other however. I know a lot of people bang on about whats good and whats not etc but really it all comes down to personal choice and what you actually shoot. Some have owned the X system and gone back to DSLR and vice versa, while others have it as a secondary camera alongside a DSLR.
 
D'oh, realised I'd only looked at the X-Pro and not the XT. Bit more expensive but way less than the Sony.
 
fabs said:
D'oh, realised I'd only looked at the X-Pro and not the XT. Bit more expensive but way less than the Sony.
Click to expand...
Don't overlook the -E2. Better EVF and AF than the -Pro1, available for £315 if you know where to look.
 
Alastair said:
Better EVF and AF than the -Pro1
Click to expand...

Better in what way?

TBH, if I was to go down the Fuji route, the X-T1 looks like it would suit me best. My fingers really don't work very well and it looks the more ergonomic of the range.
 
old bloke said:
The main reason I changed from a Nikon D800 based outfit to a Fuji XT-1 with roughly equivalent lenses was weight, I have arthritis in my lower back I found I was using the nikon less and less
Click to expand...

Again this is another reason that I had overlooked, I know that I have had kneck strain in the past that has been caused by a heavy DSLR and a long zoom lens.
It's reasons like this that make far more sense than technical comparisions, even more so now that I have seen some superb photos taken with the Fuji X system.
 
I've moved from Canon to Fujifilm and don't regret it. I prefer holding a DSLR but all things considered the more compact system suits me well.

Image quality is very good. Cameras and lenses are well made, though there have been issues that suggest Fujifilm has been a little lax in R&D. I put together a blog-type post explaining my switch to Fujifilm that may be of interest, Darran.
:)
 
The fuss about Fuji is they just make a great package, simple as that. Excellent bodies and lenses and JPEG output that's damn near perfect.

None of this is new however - the S5 was a great DSLR of it's time as was the S3 before it, let down by requiring Nikon lenses. It's a shame they never did a full frame version, that would have been brilliant.
 
Sam Tip said:
I've moved from Canon to Fujifilm and don't regret it. I prefer holding a DSLR but all things considered the more compact system suits me well.

Image quality is very good. Cameras and lenses are well made, though there have been issues that suggest Fujifilm has been a little lax in R&D. I put together a blog-type post explaining my switch to Fujifilm that may be of interest, Darran.
:)
Click to expand...
Your blog is an interesting read and I much prefer the views of a user than those of a reviewer, some really nice photo examples as well.
The points you make about the small form factor and the button locations are also easy to look over at first but as you say, it's just a case of getting use to it.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
The fuss about Fuji is they just make a great package, simple as that. Excellent bodies and lenses and JPEG output that's damn near perfect
Click to expand...

There is no doubting that from the posts people have been making on this thread, including some fantastic photos.
In fact, if it wasn't for wildlife photography I would certainly be interested in pursuing this route.
There was a time when I said I would never use a laptop over a desktop but that has change in recent years so I am always open to making a change.
 
hashcake said:
....
There was a time when I said I would never use a laptop over a desktop but that has change in recent years so I am always open to making a change.
Click to expand...
The difference here is that a laptop has never really competed directly with a desktop - one is a portable device and the other is a non portable device.

A laptop vs phablet analogy is more similar to a dslr vs mirrorless analogy. A lot of people are happily using a full hd or quad hd phablet instead of lugging a laptop (many laptops are still not even full hd, let alone quad hd) about the whole time
 
boliston said:
The difference here is that a laptop has never really competed directly with a desktop - one is a portable device and the other is a non portable device.

A laptop vs phablet analogy is more similar to a dslr vs mirrorless analogy. A lot of people are happily using a full hd or quad hd phablet instead of lugging a laptop (many laptops are still not even full hd, let alone quad hd) about the whole time
Click to expand...

That's not strictly true, Alienware (although now owned by Dell) have been producing high spec gaming laptops for quite a long time which has won the heart of many die hard PC gamers.
Although the point I was trying to make is that I am not adverse to change.
 
I use a Nikon D810 with a supremely heavy lens for my photography outings -- nearly 2.5kg altogether. When I go to work (truck driving) or just taking the dog out I use my Fuji X20. The pictures (unless I want to project them onto the side of a building) are not distinguisable from the Nikon under normal photographic conditions and it's a fraction of the weight. However out side those 'normal' conditions my Fuji is just plain hard work -- small(er) viewsceen, dodgy coverage in the viewfinder (but at least it has one) and much worse performance at the extremes of light, ISO, zoom etc.

Would I give up the Nikon in favour of the Fuji? No, undeniably not.
Would I give up the Fuji now I've got a brand new all-singing-all-dancing phone? Maybe, the phone's pictures are ridiculously good and with a five inch screen, that's one hell of a viewscreen.

Fuji make good cameras, but for a certain purpose.

On the subject of laptops vs desktops:

I'm typing this on a blisteringly fast desktop that I use for photographs and gaming. It has a 24 inch monitor plus a 19 inch monitor and a full size keyboard. I can plug in a multitude of USB devices, it has card slots for a myriad of different types and it is expandable in so many ways. If I need a laptop-type device please refer to the five inch phone above. Nope, desktops can't be 'topped', unless you are on the move all the time.
 
ShinySideUp said:
I use a Nikon D810 with a supremely heavy lens for my photography outings -- nearly 2.5kg altogether. When I go to work (truck driving) or just taking the dog out I use my Fuji X20. The pictures (unless I want to project them onto the side of a building) are not distinguisable from the Nikon under normal photographic conditions and it's a fraction of the weight. However out side those 'normal' conditions my Fuji is just plain hard work -- small(er) viewsceen, dodgy coverage in the viewfinder (but at least it has one) and much worse performance at the extremes of light, ISO, zoom etc.

Would I give up the Nikon in favour of the Fuji? No, undeniably not.
Would I give up the Fuji now I've got a brand new all-singing-all-dancing phone? Maybe, the phone's pictures are ridiculously good and with a five inch screen, that's one hell of a viewscreen.

Fuji make good cameras, but for a certain purpose. . . . . . . . .
Click to expand...


I'm not much of a camera buff, but I don't think that a Fuji X20, which I believe is a fixed lens compact, is likely to be comparable to a full frame DSLR or even to the latest offerings from Fuji.

I have just sold my EOS5D mkII, grip and 'L' lenses to buy a Fuji X-T1 with the kit 18-55mm lens, a vertical grip, 10-24mm, 55-200mm and 23mm lenses and I must say that I am extremely happy to have done so. I am not a professional photographer and for what I want the Fuji kit is absolutely ideal. Whilst I was proud to have owned a FF DSLR, I was becoming tired of the weight and bulk of the equipment and found myself just taking the camera and 24-105mm with me every time I went out, especially on holiday when the last thing I wanted was a thumping great camera bag weighing me down.

Although I have not used the Fuji extensively as yet, the shots that I have taken have been comparable in quality (as far as I can see) to those from my Canon. Not only that, but the accessibility of the functions and the quality and feel of the Fuji camera and lenses have reignited a passion for a hobby that I have enjoyed for over 50 years. I am excited by the prospect of being able to get out and about (when I have finished decorating my hall, stairs and landing) and more fully exploring the capabilities of the equipment.

We all have our own thoughts and ideas of what our ideal kit bag would contain. I wanted a 5D mkII from when they came out until I could afford to buy one back in 2010. However times change, technology advances, new ideas are developed and I am getting older and I no longer feel the need to own a FF DSLR to achieve the results that I am looking for.
 
OK, my turn to ask a question here - how do the Fuji's compare to the Olympus range - specifically in focus speed, moving subjects etc..?
I sold my canon 5d2 and lenses for an Olympus OMD EM1 mainly for weight reasons but am still struggling slightly when trying to take pictures of kids playing sport - kids running towards the camera are very hard to focus on compared to my 5d2/70-200 f2.8 IS - in most other respects I am very happy but didn't really look at the Fuji range when I bought into Olympus.
 
The fuji x20 is not really directly comparable to the fuji x mirrorless series - the sensor is only about one fifth the size for starters - it is still however one of the best point and shoot cameras you can get.
 
hashcake said:
Exactly, I am just interested in those who have switched from a DSLR to a mirrorless system such as the Fuji X.
I would also be interesting to know if people are moving up from a compact system to a mirrorless rather than a DSLR.
Click to expand...

I have both. From experience Olympus, panasonic and fujifilm are wonderful and portable (for example the 100-300mm is 200-600mm f/5.6 effective and the size of a superzoom but anyone saying it can get the same shots and IQ as one of the Canon f/4/f/2.8 wildlife lenses is an idiot) with fantastic IQ, but I also like the ergonomics of a dslr, sigma's macro lenses and Nikon's primes.
I think that all it boils down to is the answer to the age old newbie question: "which camera should I get X or Y" "go to the shop and hold them in your hands so you can get a feel for them and then decide".
 
boliston said:
The fuji x20 is not really directly comparable to the fuji x mirrorless series - the sensor is only about one fifth the size for starters - it is still however one of the best point and shoot cameras you can get.
Click to expand...

X20 right out of camera in that new portrait mode which sends the background out of focus.

View attachment 32099
 
The X-30's better!!! ;) Not saying that the 20's bad it's just that the 30 offers enough extra to be an upgrade.

I traded my D800 body in against most of an X-Pro1 system and have since added to the Fuji system with the X-T1. I love the dial based rather than button based controls (which could be a problem for you, Marc - they can be a bit fiddly) and the SOOC JPEGs that can be printed to A3+ with no PP. The lenses are fantastic and cover almost all my wants, although the ???-400 will probably find its way to me at some point, the 55-200 is a fairly direct match to the 70-300 which is my longest lens in the Nikon system I still use. If I'm going to be on foot, I'll almost certainly take the Fuji, possibly just the X-T1 with the 18-135 fitted as a walkabout but if I'll be vehicle based and weight isn't a factor, I may well take the Nikon D750 which does beat the current Fujis at high ISO settings.
 
I'm not a Fuji convert as such, as I still have my FF Nikon gear, but I have just added a x100s to my arsenal.

The main things that attracted me were its ability to kick out awesome jpegs, so I hopefully no longer need to spend hours editing holiday photos. Also it has a leaf shutter which means it can sync with flash at silly speeds. This, coupled with the built in 3 stop ND filter is, quite simply, frickin awesome for off camera flash photography (y).

It will no way replace my DSLR set up. It's got a fiddly menu setup, and the autofocus just isn't in the same league, but it's perfect for a holiday camera and amazing for OCF.
 
I bought into the Fuji world over christmas in a small way - with the X-M1. The Amazon "Lightning Deals" of a X-M1 body and 3 lenses fror £400 were a no brainer really. For me, it's not really a replacement for the SLR, it's more of a higher quality replacment for the Canon G12, trading a little on size for vastly improved handling and image quality, plus the ability to use different lenses should I wish...

I see it as much the same as when I was shooting back in the 80's... I'd a 5x4" for landscape stuff (because I was young and fit enough to lug 10-15kg of kit up mountains with me in addition to my normal hiking gear), I'd a Medium Format camera for shooting general stuff in the studio, a couple of 35mm bodies and a bunch of lenses for things that were a bit more fast moving, and I'd a couple of rangefinder 35mm's for just "popping in my pocket and going for a walk"

In short, it's not about "one camera to do it all" its about "the appropriate camera for the situation".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
For me the Fuji system offers a lot of quality for not too much money or weight - I shot with an XA1 which is the bottom end of the range but am happy with the results, the range of affordable fast primes is really good though I would not be able to move fully across as I need a DSLR and long lenses for some stuff. For me the XA1 is a superb camera for days out with the family as it is easy t carry around and delivers decent results. I am not an expert but here's a link to some of my shots with the Fuji - https://www.flickr.com/photos/37669825@N04/sets/72157644663855791/
 
hashcake said:
That is very interesting as I also hate editing but I have never felt good enough to shoot in JPEG only, does the Fuji also support RAW?


Again that is a very interesting point and it's one that never occurred to me when I was thinking about starting this thread.
Click to expand...

Fuji do support raw however their unique filter array means that some raw processors do nor have the necessary algorithms to produce Good results.
there are differences even between the best ones, and people will argue endlessly about which is the best. Adobe with camera raw in Photoshop and light room have pretty well caught up with the best, after a very poor start. The results from raw can now be stunning .

The question of micro adjustments seems to be very much a question of quality control... It us understandable that third party lenses might need minor adjustments on canon cameras as they do not provide any technical help to other manufacturers. But I find it completely unacceptable that their own cameras and lenses leave their factories poorly calibrated.
 
Can Fuji mirrorless cameras make great quality photos? Definitely.

Are they as usable as a DSLR? Only the individual can determine that by trying them out.

I liked the results but not the handling. You just have to suck it and see.
 
postcardcv said:
For me the Fuji system offers a lot of quality for not too much money or weight - I shot with an XA1 which is the bottom end of the range but am happy with the results, the range of affordable fast primes is really good though I would not be able to move fully across as I need a DSLR and long lenses for some stuff. For me the XA1 is a superb camera for days out with the family as it is easy t carry around and delivers decent results. I am not an expert but here's a link to some of my shots with the Fuji - https://www.flickr.com/photos/37669825@N04/sets/72157644663855791/
Click to expand...

You have some very nice photos there but it's a shame that the largest size seem heavily cropped?
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
The question of micro adjustments seems to be very much a question of quality control... It us understandable that third party lenses might need minor adjustments on canon cameras as they do not provide any technical help to other manufacturers. But I find it completely unacceptable that their own cameras and lenses leave their factories poorly calibrated.
Click to expand...

an aside - why? You have two very highly engineered pices of precision equipment. Why is it a surprise you have to match one to the other to get the best results?
 
A few years ago there was a thread on here about how some pros only shoot in JPEG when using a DSLR and that they could produce perfect photos without any editing.
Quite a few of you have mentioned how good the JPEGS are that the Fuji X system produces.
Now, just as with a DSLR you have control over exposure, aperture, ISO etc, how have Fuji managed to gain an advantage over the likes of Canon and Nikon at producing such good JPEGS?
Everyone I know and quite a lot of people on here only use RAW then spend a lot of time doing pp / editing and personally I find nothing more boring and tedious than having to sit using lightroom with every photo I take.
I remember only using JPEG when I first started this hobby and after posting a few photos I received some really good advice on here about using RAW and I am sure that I have probably spent more time pp photos than I have had hot dinners in my life.
I have quite photos from a few years ago that I have archived the RAW images as I just couldn't be bothered with the effort of editing them.
 
Last night I was out shooting twilight landscapes, and it was demonstration of why the Fuji X cameras do so well.

I was using my 5DIII with a 24mm TSE II on a tripod with a set of Lee grads, plus the X30 in my pocket 'just in case'.
Got back and sorted out the images merged into the same Lightoom folder; I can tell which is which my looking at the image quality and checking the metadata.
I only realised one of the shots was taken on the X30 when I spotted my tripod lurking in the shadows; image quality was excellent, despite being hand-held well into the blue hour.
Viewed at full HD, it is quite hard to spot differences between the two sets of equipment other than the Fuji tends to be better exposed and has more natural looking colours :)
I only shoot RAW on the X30, so lets lay the RAW converter problem to rest... It was an issue on the X10, but the X20, X30 uses a different sensor arrangement and the Adobe RAW converter does a much better job.

Two of the shots in my ARPS panel were taken on my old X10, which did me great service for many years till being replaced by the X30. I love challenging people to try and guess which the two images are by looking at the A3 prints - it's really difficult!
While the X10 delivered the goods, it's handling was a bit quirky; the X30 is in a different league. I use the viewfinder nearly all the time and the control it offers is excellent.
The weird thing is that people always bang on about the small sensor size in the baby X-series. It's not a problem!
The image quality from the X30's bigger x-series siblings will be better, but I've never felt the need to upgrade...

So what's all the fuss about Fuji?
Great colours, accurate exposure, decent handling (current models) in a stylish compact body at a price point that significantly undercuts a comparable DSLR.
 
Last edited:
hashcake said:
A few years ago there was a thread on here about how some pros only shoot in JPEG when using a DSLR and that they could produce perfect photos without any editing.
Click to expand...

Bet a pro didn't say that. We'll shoot whats appropriate at the time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top