The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Very eloquently put Terry.
 
Sootchucker said:
OK, there is going to be a bit of a loaded question on a Fuji thread but here goes. As a self-confessed GAS head (I just can’t help myself), I’ve acquired and sold some very nice photographic equipment over the years.

My current set up is decent Micro Four thirds system (EM1 MK II and G9), and a really nice developing Fuji system (X-T3 and X-H1) with some nice Fuji glass (including the 10-24, 16-55, 50-140 and 100-400). Despite having all this nice equipment, my “disease” doesn’t stop me looking at other systems. The one that caught my eye recently is the Nikon Z series, with a Z6, FTZ adaptor and the 24-70 F4 lens to be had for just over £2k on the like of Panamoz. It was whilst pondering this system I got to actually thinking about how much of a step up (if any) in quality, a FF camera would give me over my Fuji system.

Now, here’s where it gets a little difficult. Just a few years ago, the obvious reason to move away from FF was the size and weight of such cameras and their lenses. Now whilst most of the FF lenses are still large and heavy, the body sizes have now come down to the same size and weight as Fuji (or Miro Four Thirds for that matter), and (certainly for the Nikon Z), the new 24-70 lenses are very much smaller and lighter than traditional FF lenses, so it’s now starting to erode the argument that a lot of people used against FF in the past.

So, then onto the question of image quality. Now, I should clarify, I’m not referring to DOF here, as most of the time, it’s not super important to me to have razor thin DOF, and in any case, chances are that there’s a lens in Fuji’s line up (like the 56mm F1.2) that will get you very close to what FF can offer (not exact, but not massively different). So what then about DR and High ISO noise. I keep hearing that FF has much better noise handling that say a Fuji X-T2/3 and better DR, but how much better is better? Is it a Stop, is it less than that, as depending on what website you end up on, the figure changes from “a massive difference”, to “imperceptible and a 1/3 of a stop at most”. When I check images on line, unless it's shot on a low light monster (such as a Nikon D5), I myself, certainly don't see a huge difference (certainly up to around ISO 6,400-12,800 which is about as high as I will ever go), from my Fuji cameras (maybe rose tinted spectacles ?).

So to put my GAS to bed once and for all, those that have had Fuji and moved up to FF, or those going the other way round, what exactly have you gained / lost ?
Click to expand...


Andrew, I moved across from Canon and have been fully Fuji now for about 18-24 months. I had a 7D, 7D2 & 6D (mk1) with a number of L lenses, plus a Sigma 150-600 Sport.

Now, my favourite subject is wildlife, followed by a bit of landscape, and portraits remaining an interest but I never really went out of my way to shoot them. The 6D was great for the last two, but the 7D2 was my main body, I felt I needed APSC to get me closer to the subject. I bought an X-T1 on a whim (GAS attack maybe) I had a hefty commission cheque one month, picked it up in the shop and bought it there & then.

I didn't realise what I had done. I fell in love with the tactile feeling of that body, and at a time when I was struggling to get out and shoot stuff, it brought my "photo mojo" back. I now have a pair of T2's, the 100-400 & 1.4TC has replaced the 150-600 and I'm still happy with the results. I now enjoy shooting landscapes more than I did, and I have plans to bring my studio back to life once we move house.

Do I miss FF? In a word, no, but for what I shoot, that's probably not surprising. Would I go FF again? If I had the money and I could get an 850 with that 200-500 or something similar, then yes I probably would. That 50MP sensor would stand up to some serious cropping so reach isn't an issue. However, I would use it rarely, due to the weight.

Until I see mirrorless FF bodies & lenses showing the sort of IQ I know you can get with that big 850D sensor, I see no point. What I have works... I need to get better, not my kit.

I guess that probably doesn't really help does it :sneaky:
 
Sootchucker said:
OK, there is going to be a bit of a loaded question on a Fuji thread but here goes. As a self-confessed GAS head (I just can’t help myself), I’ve acquired and sold some very nice photographic equipment over the years.

My current set up is decent Micro Four thirds system (EM1 MK II and G9), and a really nice developing Fuji system (X-T3 and X-H1) with some nice Fuji glass (including the 10-24, 16-55, 50-140 and 100-400). Despite having all this nice equipment, my “disease” doesn’t stop me looking at other systems. The one that caught my eye recently is the Nikon Z series, with a Z6, FTZ adaptor and the 24-70 F4 lens to be had for just over £2k on the like of Panamoz. It was whilst pondering this system I got to actually thinking about how much of a step up (if any) in quality, a FF camera would give me over my Fuji system.

Now, here’s where it gets a little difficult. Just a few years ago, the obvious reason to move away from FF was the size and weight of such cameras and their lenses. Now whilst most of the FF lenses are still large and heavy, the body sizes have now come down to the same size and weight as Fuji (or Miro Four Thirds for that matter), and (certainly for the Nikon Z), the new 24-70 lenses are very much smaller and lighter than traditional FF lenses, so it’s now starting to erode the argument that a lot of people used against FF in the past.

So, then onto the question of image quality. Now, I should clarify, I’m not referring to DOF here, as most of the time, it’s not super important to me to have razor thin DOF, and in any case, chances are that there’s a lens in Fuji’s line up (like the 56mm F1.2) that will get you very close to what FF can offer (not exact, but not massively different). So what then about DR and High ISO noise. I keep hearing that FF has much better noise handling that say a Fuji X-T2/3 and better DR, but how much better is better? Is it a Stop, is it less than that, as depending on what website you end up on, the figure changes from “a massive difference”, to “imperceptible and a 1/3 of a stop at most”. When I check images on line, unless it's shot on a low light monster (such as a Nikon D5), I myself, certainly don't see a huge difference (certainly up to around ISO 6,400-12,800 which is about as high as I will ever go), from my Fuji cameras (maybe rose tinted spectacles ?).

So to put my GAS to bed once and for all, those that have had Fuji and moved up to FF, or those going the other way round, what exactly have you gained / lost ?
Click to expand...


ISO performance and DR are the only real major differences between systems these days IMO. I'm with you on the DOF side, I can get it when I need shallow DOF even with M43, it's not difficult, it maybe more so when trying to achieve it for wider shots but that's when I usually don't want it. As for DR, even the small M43 sensors pack a punch these days when it comes to pulling and pushing files in post [M43 sensors have better DR than Canon APSC for example] - Fuji APSC are right up there vs the competition in terms of noise handling, only when you push a bit high there is that old issue with artifacts, mainly due to the software used, not all of them inc LR can deal with Xtrans files very well. But you can certainly get clean usable files up to 3200, even 6400 - beyond that even the best FF is going to throw some noise at you too. Interestingly, the XT-2 is slightly better for low light than the XT-3, though the 3 is possibly better in every other way, but not by a tonnes.

It is definitely GAS if you're already running 2 systems and find you're wanting more, especially if you can't quite put a finger on why. I would look to more glass to fill the gaps, like the 56 f/1.2 and 90mm F2.
 
Thanks guys. responses are pretty much what I expected (and hoped for), so I think it's cured my FF GAS for the time being at least.

I'm actually in a bit of a quandary even over my existing gear. In June this year, the wife and I will be going on nearly 3 weeks holiday with our best friends to Orlando Florida, and it's obviously a shooters paradise (wildlife, Disney and Universal Studios theme parks, Everglades, Kennedy space centre etc.)

Originally I was going to take my usual travel kit. That being my OMD-EM1 MK II, the 12-100 IS Pro, the Pana Leica 8-18 and my Olympus 25mm F1.2 Pro, which would give me a FF equivalent of 16mm to 200mm and a great low light 50mm F1.2 . However now I have the X-T3 (which body wise is even smaller and lighter than the EM1 MK II), I'm starting to wonder. If the new rumoured 16-80 lens was here I think it would be a no brainier. I'd probably take that with the X-T3, the 10-24, the 55-200 and the 35mm F2.

However I don't think my 18-55 F2.8-4, as good as it is, (the 16-55 F2.8 will just be too big and heavy) will really substitute for the amazing reach, stability, weather resistance and quality of the 12-100 Olympus. With the weather being quite changeable at that time of the year, I'd rather go with a weather sealed lens and not have to keep changing it for a longer lens all the time, so I'm wondering if adding a used Fuji 18-135 would do the trick. Anyone used one - any good ?

Thirds world problems eh ?
 
Last edited:
Sootchucker said:
OK, there is going to be a bit of a loaded question on a Fuji thread but here goes. As a self-confessed GAS head (I just can’t help myself), I’ve acquired and sold some very nice photographic equipment over the years.

My current set up is decent Micro Four thirds system (EM1 MK II and G9), and a really nice developing Fuji system (X-T3 and X-H1) with some nice Fuji glass (including the 10-24, 16-55, 50-140 and 100-400). Despite having all this nice equipment, my “disease” doesn’t stop me looking at other systems. The one that caught my eye recently is the Nikon Z series, with a Z6, FTZ adaptor and the 24-70 F4 lens to be had for just over £2k on the like of Panamoz. It was whilst pondering this system I got to actually thinking about how much of a step up (if any) in quality, a FF camera would give me over my Fuji system.

Now, here’s where it gets a little difficult. Just a few years ago, the obvious reason to move away from FF was the size and weight of such cameras and their lenses. Now whilst most of the FF lenses are still large and heavy, the body sizes have now come down to the same size and weight as Fuji (or Miro Four Thirds for that matter), and (certainly for the Nikon Z), the new 24-70 lenses are very much smaller and lighter than traditional FF lenses, so it’s now starting to erode the argument that a lot of people used against FF in the past.

So, then onto the question of image quality. Now, I should clarify, I’m not referring to DOF here, as most of the time, it’s not super important to me to have razor thin DOF, and in any case, chances are that there’s a lens in Fuji’s line up (like the 56mm F1.2) that will get you very close to what FF can offer (not exact, but not massively different). So what then about DR and High ISO noise. I keep hearing that FF has much better noise handling that say a Fuji X-T2/3 and better DR, but how much better is better? Is it a Stop, is it less than that, as depending on what website you end up on, the figure changes from “a massive difference”, to “imperceptible and a 1/3 of a stop at most”. When I check images on line, unless it's shot on a low light monster (such as a Nikon D5), I myself, certainly don't see a huge difference (certainly up to around ISO 6,400-12,800 which is about as high as I will ever go), from my Fuji cameras (maybe rose tinted spectacles ?).

So to put my GAS to bed once and for all, those that have had Fuji and moved up to FF, or those going the other way round, what exactly have you gained / lost ?
Click to expand...

You've had one or two good answers to this already but as the situation pretty well describes me, I thought I'd chip in as well! I went from Nikon DSLR to micro 43 to Fuji, looking to solve the optimum cost/weight/quality riddle. Now I have a Z6 after being defeated by GAS early in the New Year. The last FF I had was a Nikon D700 and that was certainly a heavy beast with lenses to match. I eventually fled. The Z6 is a very different kettle of fish, though. Alone among the manufacturers, Nikon seems to have given some genuine consideration to producing from the outset excellent lenses with realistic apertures which keeps both cost and weight down. I have to say that the quality of lens+sensor combination of the 24-70 or 50 comfortably outclass Fuji equivalents like the 35mm f1.4 or 18-55 in clarity, sharpness and lack of lens aberrations. High ISO noise handling? Actually there's not a lot wrong with Fuji in that department but Nikon holds colours and definition rather better. Considering that Nikon lets in more light at the equivalent aperture, I agree with the consensus that around a stop is probably realistic purely in terms of noise. As for dynamic range, a lot of the time you probably won't see much difference but it is there in situations with low contrast above all. I've seen with the Nikon subtle sky tones which the Fuji (X-Pro2 in my case) can't get. At ISO 100 at any rate, highlight recovery is better though not usually dramatically so.

I should say I have only so far bought the Z6 lens/adaptor kit plus the newish, light and remarkable cheap for the quality 70-300 AF-P so the Fuji remains technically for the time being my primary system. Sorry to possibly wake your GAS again but I'm odds on to switch to Nikon and sell Fuji though it's not yet a done deal.
 
I’ve decided i’m going to run the Xt1 with the 23mm f2 & 35mm f1.4 for Street Photography, the Xt2 with the 56mm f1.2 & 16-55mm f2.8 for Portraiture and General Walkaround & the Xt3 with the 10-24mm f4 and 50-140mm f2.8 and 100-400mm for Landscape, Birds in Flight and MotorSport. I’m gunna set up three Grab & Go Bags. As the year progresses I might even add a bag of f2 Primes too.
 
Last edited:
lunar22 said:
You've had one or two good answers to this already but as the situation pretty well describes me, I thought I'd chip in as well! I went from Nikon DSLR to micro 43 to Fuji, looking to solve the optimum cost/weight/quality riddle. Now I have a Z6 after being defeated by GAS early in the New Year. The last FF I had was a Nikon D700 and that was certainly a heavy beast with lenses to match. I eventually fled. The Z6 is a very different kettle of fish, though. Alone among the manufacturers, Nikon seems to have given some genuine consideration to producing from the outset excellent lenses with realistic apertures which keeps both cost and weight down. I have to say that the quality of lens+sensor combination of the 24-70 or 50 comfortably outclass Fuji equivalents like the 35mm f1.4 or 18-55 in clarity, sharpness and lack of lens aberrations. High ISO noise handling? Actually there's not a lot wrong with Fuji in that department but Nikon holds colours and definition rather better. Considering that Nikon lets in more light at the equivalent aperture, I agree with the consensus that around a stop is probably realistic purely in terms of noise. As for dynamic range, a lot of the time you probably won't see much difference but it is there in situations with low contrast above all. I've seen with the Nikon subtle sky tones which the Fuji (X-Pro2 in my case) can't get. At ISO 100 at any rate, highlight recovery is better though not usually dramatically so.

I should say I have only so far bought the Z6 lens/adaptor kit plus the newish, light and remarkable cheap for the quality 70-300 AF-P so the Fuji remains technically for the time being my primary system. Sorry to possibly wake your GAS again but I'm odds on to switch to Nikon and sell Fuji though it's not yet a done deal.
Click to expand...

Yep. This.
The native 24-70 along with 35 and 50mm primes (expensive) are first class and fairly easy in terms of portability. I accept that the Fuji primes win on size.
I loved my X-H1 setup..but extremely happy to now shoot the Z6.
 
Last edited:
@Speedy136.... Nick, Great capture and lovely shot.
 
@addicknchips... Jonathan she sure is a very photogenic young model. Another nice capture.
 
Phiggys said:
What a lovely looking young lady ! You’ve done a cracking job I’m sure she will be delighted when she looks the the images.
Looking forward to getting my 56mm 1.2 R lens :)
Click to expand...

thank you. 56 is one of the must-have lenses for the system i think.
 
Just a simple Fujigraph taken at Dungeness Kent UK of part of the desolate landscape and some of the things scattered about the beach that have just been left behind.
I'm also working on a personal project called Things Left Behind and this will be one of the shots included.

X-T2, 60mm F2.4 Lens, 1/800th @ F8, ISO-200, Tripod.

Dungeness Landscape (3)-03271by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

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

George.
 
addicknchips said:
thank you. 56 is one of the must-have lenses for the system i think.
Click to expand...
Without a doubt sadly I dropped my first copy which the courier managed to lose on its way back to me from being serviced.Fuji being the incredible company that they are immediately replaced it with a up grade to the XF52mm f1.2 APD version free of charge ! :):fuji:
 
LC2 said:
Why would you consider the APD an upgrade?
Sure it costs more and the bokeh is softer, but from everything I've read it's a T/1.7 rather than T/1.2 of the original lens.
Click to expand...
Yes they had no stock of the R version and offered the APD as a replacement.
Hence my 56-1.2 R should arrive tomorrow :)
Why another ? I really prefer the cheaper version which uses both phase and contrast detection for focusing as opposed to contrast only on the APD which can hunt a little in lower light conditions although neither are exactly quick to focus.
 
chrism_scotland said:
Is anyone using the new “Enhance Details” function in Lightroom/Camera RAW? Does it make as much difference on Fuji raws as they’re making out?
Click to expand...

I tried it over the weekend and compared it to the Iridient software. They both made a noticeable difference to the 'worms'. When viewed at 300% Iridient was marginally better - but not enough to make me buy it when the LR Enhance is already covered by the CC subscription.
 
Slightly non-photography question here, but hoping someone will know the answer.

Are warranties on Fuji lenses transferable? I am considering buying a second hand lens, but really just a month or two old so plenty of warranty remaining. If the seller includes the original receipt, will I still be able to claim on the warranty on the off chance that there is an issue?
 
bass_junkie83 said:
Slightly non-photography question here, but hoping someone will know the answer.

Are warranties on Fuji lenses transferable? I am considering buying a second hand lens, but really just a month or two old so plenty of warranty remaining. If the seller includes the original receipt, will I still be able to claim on the warranty on the off chance that there is an issue?
Click to expand...
I expect technically no but if you got the original receipt you shouldn't have a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top