I up-voted this because I think the Fujifilm X series cameras need more love than they currently get.
I have an X-E2 and I love it, but I'm very curious to see if they release an X-E3 and what features of the X-T2 and X-Pro2 it will incorporate.
The whole X series is a pretty great system IMO. The designs are simple, bodies offer fully manual control, the lenses are extremely high quality, and certain models of lenses are much smaller than DSLR counterparts (18mm, 27mm, 35 f/2).
If you like classic manual cameras, especially rangefinder style ones, you'll like the X-E1/2 and the X-Pro1/2. The X-T2 however, is sort of an "SLR" format camera with the viewfinder in the center, which I'm not big on. One of the major advantages of mirrorless cameras (for me) is that you are able to put the viewfinder on the side and keep the camera's screen from smashing your nose when you shoot.
If you are into photography and haven't considered the Fujifilm offerings, I highly recommend that you do.
P.S. Fujifilm's engineers are continuously updating and refining the firmware from user feedback. With the 4.x release of the firmware for my X-E2, it add a boatload of features and really made it into the camera of my dreams. The 16MP sensor is getting a little bit dated, but that is going to happen with any camera. Plus, their X-Trans technology offers some advantages over traditional Bayer array sensors.
Agreed, Fujifilm gets what many other manufacturers don't: that the camera needs to get out of the way of photography. Their recipe for this is to have great physical manual controls combined with great automatic settings. Fujifilm cameras don't beep and boop, they don't Instagramize your pictures, they don't have "fireworks over a snowy beach while your kids are chasing backlit dogs" mode. They just take pictures and get out of your way when you need to tell them how to take pictures differently.
I have an (original) X100 and my only complaint is I wish it had more knobs and buttons: at least an extra knob for ISO, and a third or even fourth user-configurable button. (It looks like the X-T2 is swimming with knobs and buttons, so good for Fujifilm, they must listen to customer feedback.) I rarely need to use the knobs but when I do, they're right there so I don't need to spend time navigating menus.
> I have an (original) X100 and my only complaint is I wish it had more knobs and buttons
A little OT: I held onto my X100 until the X100T landed because a better physical interface was a big deal to me: better buttons, the Q menu, the better EVF - the X100T did a good job of delivering on these. Better sensor performance was almost a nice to have: cameras, esp. in 2015/2016, are so darned good for most use cases (short of shooting sports in the dark...) that the need to upgrade for raw IQ is pretty rare.
The X100T isn't perfect, but I find it to be the right compromise for me: fixed prime, doesn't need its own dedicated bag, lasts all day (with the way I shoot), and there's plenty of latitude in the RAW files.
The X-T2 (and X2 Pro, even) are great cameras, and the Fuji lens system is pretty fantastic, but it's nice that Fuji offers simple options too. Constraints are good for creativity :)
I sold my X100 and it's the biggest regret I've ever had. I have a D600 with all the glass and an E-M5, both been sitting in the closet for too long now.
My biggest problem w/ modern DSLR and mirrorless cameras is that critical controls are buried in menus or they are assigned to dials whose behavior changes. Photography is very much a flow / muscle memory thing for me. I just can't get in the flow when I'm questioning whether this dial is assigned to ISO or exposure compensation or was it shutter speed? Worse, I'll probably pick it up and shoot something quickly not realizing that the settings are totally wrong. With the Fuji I can tell what state it's in without turning it on.
Fuji took a UX worked for decades on film cameras and applied it to digital cameras. The result is that I'm having a lot more fun taking pictures.
Up voted as well. I just purchased an a6500 after quite the back and forth with myself.
Fuji actually uses Sony sensors. So the XPro2 / XT2 has the exact same sensor as a a6300 and a6500. So on paper, the Sony have a lot more going for them in terms of price to features. It should be really interesting to see what kind of pressure that puts on them.
That's not to say that the Sony's are better cameras. Fuji has a great glass selection, has arguably better ergonomics, but is also slightly larger and heavier. Fuji is a great camera company no doubt.
Overall, in the APS-C format, the offerings are pretty comparable across a wide range of price points.
Edit: Sony does not have the exact same sensor as the Fuji. Fuji's X-Trans sensor doesn't use a Bayer array. But Fuji's sensor is made by Sony.
X-T2 is still a mirrorless camera. I think you meant that for rangefinder-inspired cameras like the X-E2, the viewfinder is on the side.
Also, even with that design, your nose can still smash into the screen if you're left eye dominant. I personally just use the back screen to shoot, not the viewfinder. Technically I guess I'm not taking advantage of the X-T2's beautiful viewfinder.
But I do agree with your suggestion of Fuji's cameras. With the old-school dials, it helped me to understand how to use the camera manually.
I know it's a mirrorless camera. The point is, the advantage of a mirrorless design (over an SLR) is that the viewfinder doesn't need to be centered in the body like every SLR and DSLR has been for the last 60 years.
However, even with this design advantage, in this instance Fujifilm chose to make it "look" like an SLR. From a marketing standpoint I understand this, but from a usability one, I don't.
Ha. I'm left-eyed, and it never occurred to me that the viewfinder offset to the left would be an advantage if I were right-eyed. They should make left-eyed versions!
True, but they're not "pro" enough. I do need the dual memory cards, the vertical grip, the speed, etc. I also use the viewfinder on sunny days because the screen is tough to see in the sun. But shooting from the hip using the screen is a main advantage of mirrorless cameras, especially since the X-T1/2 has tilt screens.
Not sure why your being down voted (if this was a serious comment). The "pro" DSLRs do have speed advantages, both in FPS, and in auto-focus tracking etc. Dual memory cards are also important if you are working paid gigs and want a smaller chance of corrupted image files. When you use flash cards as much as the pros do, they can, and do wear out.
Fuji is one of the few companies out there that is very good at building lenses and does not offer a full-frame camera. I'm a big fan of smaller-than-full-frame sensors for a bunch of reasons I won't go into here, but I still love shooting with really good glass. This leaves out Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc because they put their best glass on full-frame only. Hopefully Fuji doesn't abandon APS-C in favor of their new medium-format system!
Agreed. I jumped on the X series train when the X-Pro1 first came out, and it's been an absolute joy to use. I've been especially appreciative of the firmware releases that continually improve their cameras.
As a amateur photographer, I have always been attracted to the Fuji X-series products. Currently I'm packing Nikon FX system but before my current camera body I had X100s which I carried with me on many trips and really loved the results and the joy of photographing with it. The fixed focal length was non-issue 95% of the time. Now having returned to the Nikon system, I can totally get results that are what I'm expecting but it doesn't feel the same! Maybe one more generation and I'll sell my FX gear and move to the Fuji camp.
With X-series Fuji provides the proven UX to handling the exposure settings, compact sizing and excellent image quality. Secretly I'm still hoping for a compact Nikon mirrorless FX body with Df / Fuji X / traditional exposure settings. Let's see!
One thing I like very much about the Fuji X100T is the leaf shutter. I wish they had incorporated leaf shutters into the lenses of their interchangeable-lens models!
I agree, if you like clever flash photography it really is a game changer.
The only down side to the leaf shutter for me is that you loose rear curtain sync (as there is no curtain to sync with).
I was never really sure if there was an alternative way for Fujifilm to simulate the same effect on the X100 but given their wonderful commitment to updating firmware on even the old cameras, if they could do it I think they would have added it already.
"Rear curtain sync" just means that it fires the flash at the last moment the shutter is open before it closes. It is absolutely possible with a leaf shutter.
I own and love the Fuji X100 (older version). Loved the pictures it took and brought it during many vacations. I also own the Sony A6000, and have used manual old lenses -- and the pictures I took with it are amazing as well. However, the last couple of vacations, I am now leaning more towards just using the phone I have at all times. My iPhone! I think this is the predicament of all SLRs. As smartphones improve their cameras, most will be transitioning to using those instead.
My phone takes great shots... at 28mm. That's about my most-hated focal length. Not wide enough to really be interesting and not nearly long enough to take a photo of a single human being, animal, object, etc.
When I bring my camera with me, I like always having a second wide-angle camera in my pocket though! I feel like one of those wedding photographers with two bodies hanging off them at all times. :D
I have the original X100 and I'm not entirely happy with it because of the slow and sometimes inaccurate AF, and I prefer the DSLR-style dials to the older-style controls. Great raw files with excellent latitude, though!
I'll probably upgrade to the Olympus PEN-F, keeping the Fooj for a certain style of portrait shots.
Camera releases are one of the most vivid examples of "these are my distinct, specific requirements; therefore this product will surely fail instantly."
I'm a semi-pro photographer, do commercial work from time to time, get flown to shoot weddings across the globe.
$1600 is a ridiculous amount of money for this camera, considering the competition.
$1600-1700 buys you a used Sony A7s, the king of low light photography and video (if you don't count the new prototype from Canon), and it's full frame, unlike X-T2.
$1650 buys you a used Canon 5D mark III, which is also full frame, and is a great photo camera, which can also shoot RAW video with custom firmware.
It depends on what is important to you. I like good UI and I will pay a premium for it. Fuji has the best UI - physical knobs for everything. Even ISO has a physical control. I find that UI makes a big difference for my workflow and makes it easier for me to take good pictures, so the price is worth it.
Also, I happen to use an X-Pro2 not the X-T2, but I think similar arguments apply.
Agree - also an X-Pro 2 user, and the camera was worth every penny because ultimately (at least in this case) UX trumps technical capability.
The A7s is the undisputed low-light boss, but IMO Sony's UX is convoluted and too many features are buried behind too many menus.
At this point I see few reasons to worry much about spec sheets - every single camera, even small-sensor point-and-shoots - made right now are lightyears ahead of even the best 135 film cameras with the most exotic film back in the day.
Every modern crop-sensor body can shoot clean RAWs at ISO 6400, many shoot cleanly up to ISO 12,800. And what point do we accept these capabilities and focus on things that make it easier to get better photos?
The joystick on the back of the X-Pro 2 and X-T2 is a game changer, as are the advances in AF speed. I can nail shots purely by muscle memory, and that's great. The camera feels less like a thing I have to operate and more like an extension of my brain.
If you're a photographer you'll be needing maybe 5 controls:
ISO
Aperture
shutter speed
Metering mode
Autofocus point placement
Shutter and aperture might be automated away with different shooting mode. Even on Canons which I don't use often, I can bend it to my will, even if the buttons are in a "funny" place. I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor.
Everything else is literally noise.
The nikon d800, and canon or sony equivalent is the same price point. Not only that its full frame you can use real lens, but you get deep depth of field.
Of course aps-c isn't a phone sensor, because making a monolith lens thin enough isn't worth it. (a lenticular array, maybe. But then who outside of VFX wants light field pictures?)
You are of course aware that sensor size and focal length directly affect the depth of field. Smaller sensor for the same focal length yields a wider depth of field. Yadda yadda field of view. This is why the stock lens 35 mm, because its about the same field of view as 50mm lens on a 35 mm sensor. (or why medium formats have ~80mm lens)
However, of course I'm just parroting that "from else where". Yup, no sir, no first hand experience at all.
For most of the history of photography, you only had two (and a half) of those five at your disposal - shutter and aperture, the half being iso, which you effectively changed by using different films or pushing/pulling the exposure.
As others have already stated, the Fujis score big in UX - I'd like to add that their lenses are second to none.
As a long-term luddite (I own two digital cameras (A Nikon DSLR and a Fuji X100), but most of my shooting is done using either Fuji or Leica analog cameras), IMHO the camera is secondary - it is merely a light-tight box where you affix a lens at one end and the film at the other - the lenses are what matters.
Fuji makes some wonderful lenses. Resolution is awesome, contrast excellent and colour rendition best-in-business for those who care (I don't, I am colour blind - the last point is just parroting) - all in a (for the current mirrorless crop) in a very compact package (my GX680 lenses are somewhat less portable).
Fuji's current range can probably be accurately described as photographer's cameras - they've, just like Leica, distilled photography to its essentials and made their way to the front of that niche. Kudos!
Now this is an argument that I was expecting. I was very seriously looking at the x100 when it came out. Precisely because it was styled to be a manual rangefinder.
I tried it, but I just didn't like the compromises. It felt like the rangefinder was a bit of a gimmick. The manual focus grid was non existent.
I loved that it was compact, but the quality wasn't quite up to the full frame, similar priced breatheren.
The only argument for it was the weight and compactness, which to me didn't matter all that much.
What I really wanted was a CCD insert for my olympus rangefinder (35 rd, poor man's noisy leica) However I suspect that ship has sailed.
-Agreed on the X100; I tried one (An -s)for a few weeks, but found myself constantly comparing it to a 'real' rangefinder, probably not fair to the poor little thing, which IMHO is an excellent little camera, though a bit lacking in the manual focus department.
I've found - to my surprise - that I much prefer Sony's focus peaking when it comes to digital manual focus aids. It is responsive, accurate and much less obtrusive than I initially thought it would be. Still no beating a proper rangefinder, though (IMHO).
Oh well. It is my day off, it is lovely autumn weather outside and I've got a few rolls of Tri-X and Portra to expose. (In the Texas Leica - google the Fujica G690BL for a chuckle if you're not familiar with it)
Depth of field is directly tied to focal length. The smaller the sensor, the smaller the focal length. Smaller focal length means deeper depth of field (ie more of the subject is in focus at a given f stop)
Agreed, the price is way too high for this decent crop sensor camera. Many people like the aesthetic of the Fujis, including myself (I have an XT-1). In the end, the low-light performance and build quality of this great little camera just wasn't good enough and I got a refurb 5Diii body for about the price of this new model.
While certainly more limited than the selection for Canon, Fuji does have some really nice lenses for these X series cameras. The 23mm 1.4 (=35mm FF) is truly fantastic.
> Agreed, the price is way too high for this decent crop sensor camera.
The price is lower than a 7D Mark II or a D500 (in my market).
The fixation with sensor size if ludicrous. I mean, if you want to spend as much on a 6D and deal with its bulk and shitty autofocus while trying to convince yourself you have a better camera, don't let me stop you. But you're in la-la land.
I think the idea is that Fuji is specializing in smaller cameras. It's APS-C, so you get a smaller body and smaller lenses. If your primary mission is to photograph something, it doesn't really matter how big the camera is and the decision on what camera to use is all about semiconductor yield for the sensors ("full frame" is tiny, but easy to manufacture profitably). It's your primary mission so you'll bring whatever equipment you need to get the job done. This is a niche in the photography world; the vast majority of photographs are spur-of-the-moment cell phone photos, after all. Fujifilm sees more money in that market than specialist applications.
This camera isn't going to prevent the user from taking serious photographs. APS-C is big enough to capture plenty of data. I have a "1 inch" camera and really all 21 megapixels are usable at base ISO. The small size trades off the flexibility that an 8x10" camera gives you, but is easier to carry around. (It's harder to carry around than a phone, though, but provides vastly better images.)
As soon as you start moving into certain specialties in photography, certain models start making more sense. Wedding photography is about creating fine-art shots in a sports photography environment, so the professionals are using high-end "enthusiast" cameras to great effect. The autofocus gets almost every shot. The metering is always correct. Those cameras don't trade off speed for detail, so you can still make nice 8x10" enlargements that look fantastic (but maybe not take 30fps bursts as sports/photojournalism cameras might).
Other specialties are cost-constrained right now. Nobody wants to take their macro shots with a DSLR, but Phase One backs are $33,000 for your $10,000 view camera, and hobbyists don't have that much money. (It's even expensive for the pros, very much a pricing based on semiconductor yield rather than the time cost of not having one.) Hence they compromise by spending 8 hours in photoshop working around the limitations of their camera, or just use film.
If you don't care enough about the results to do either and are only going to buy one camera, an X-T2 is just as good as anything else. Carry it around to take excellent spur-of-the-moment shots, snap that nice landscape, use it at home to take some pictures of that bug you just killed. It's as good as anything else. (Upgrade to a D810 for a few more pixels and a lighter wallet.)
> I'm a semi-pro photographer, do commercial work from time to time, get flown to shoot weddings across the globe.
I think this differentiates you fairly significantly from the target market of this camera.
By way of example, I'd take an X100T over your above suggestions, despite it being less expensive and not full-frame and having a few annoying quirks. I consider the way a camera integrates into your image-making process more important than low-light capability, pixel count, and couldn't give any less cares about video.
Agreed. I own an A7 and an X100s, and while the A7 is certainly a better and more versatile camera according just about any spec you care to use, the Fuji is the camera I grab before heading out 19 times out of 20.
The X100 is a very special/quirky camera and that's easy to love despite any imperfections because it will let you do things other cameras can't. E.g. sync flash at > 1/1000
There's not many other cameras that will allow you to overpower day light if you don't want to lug a monoblock or multiple flash guns with you.
The raw specs are objective can be clearly stated as superior. Handling and ergo is a subjective and largely personal preference. I'll agree that the Fuji X-T* has some better ergo, but to me the difference over the A7 is marginal and not at all vastly superior.
I used a fuji X-E1 before I picked up my A7. I really enjoy the Fuji X series, but the prices are so close to the Sony A7 series that the extra expense is more than worth it for the clearly superior Sony FE system. I mean, the X-T2 is pretty much the same price as an A7ii.
I do love the build and feel of the Fuji XF lenses though, particularly the lenses that have the aperture ring.
You might be right about the price. But for a lot less you can pick up a used X-E2 or X-T1 which are still fine cameras. The best part about any of them (including the X-T2) is you get access do Fujifilm's superior glass.
Their lenses are truly high quality lenses, on par with much more expensive stuff, though not the cheapest either.
I own an X-E2S and I think that model is even over priced. However, Fuji is becoming the Apple of cameras for consumers, and frankly their audience is happy to pay a bit more for a camera that fits the aesthetic they want while still being high quality and reputable.
If I was a pro, I'd be shooting Canon or Nikon, I don't think the Fujifilm line is worth switching to given that the slight benefits of a mirrorless don't make up for the drawbacks for pros, but I know many pros are very successful with them, so what do I know.
That being said, I love my Fujifilm and take it everywhere. It's a leica without leica cost, and that's exactly what I wanted.
Leica is leica, there's not really an analog in the tech world. I can't remember the last time I dropped $10k on a starter computer system or device, Apple or otherwise (which would be a Lieca M body with Leica glass today).
Leica, IMHO, is pretty much the Rolex of the camera world.
While arguably 'the best' if you choose your criteria narrowly enough, their strongest selling point nowadays is the Veblen factor - they are seen as something special, the pinnacle, the yardstick competitors are measured against. Same goes for Rolex - while making excellent watches, there's hardly any denying that the competition is just as competent at a vastly less unreasonable price point.
(Full disclosure - I am a long-time Leica enthusiast, but I've long abandoned their cameras for (to me) more sensible options - I use a Zeiss Ikon ZM (Made by Cosina) with Leica lenses. The ZM is more rugged, arguably has a better rangefinder and is less idiosyncratic than any Leica body. Just try loading a film in an ZM versus a Leica, for starters)
It's a niche camera. I wouldn't recommend it for anyone starting out in photography, but for someone who values the ergonomics of film cameras, I think Fujis may suit their needs better than the Sony or Canon you mentioned.
It's like buying a Subaru BR-Z in 2016. There are other cars that perform better, but sometimes it's the experience of using something in a particular fashion that brings the most joy.
>Previous model of this Fujifilm camera also got raving reviews from Verge and was mocked in photography circles.
I've found "photography circles" to be ignorant pixel peepers, who wouldn't appreciate good ergonomics or know how to take an actual good picture even if their live depended on it.
(Have worked, among other odd jobs, as a freelance human interest/travel photographer back in the day).
Totally agree. Pros do use Fuji cameras. It depends on the job.
Remember, it's the photographer who takes the picture. The camera is just a tool, and if the photog wants to use a Fuji because it makes him happy and his pictures are bomb as fuck then who is to complain.
>I've never known any 'pro' to use anything other than Nikon, Canon, and Sony. But I know plenty of amateur's who use Fuji.
How many do you know? Pros range from portrait and wedding photographers, to travel photographers, photojournalists, sports photographers, product photographers, professional fine arts photographers, etc.
Sports photographers and journalists did switch to Canon at some point because of the faster/more automated autofocus system, but they bounced back to Nikon circa the D3, and people use stuff all over the map now.
And of course back in the film days (pre 2000-2005) tons of pros used Minolta, Leica, Olympus, Pentax and other brands, and lots of them kept their brand loyalty.
Also most really well paid pros in fashion and product photography used medium formats such as Hasselblad. And with news and wedding photographers transitioning to video, lately Canon (which started promisingly) and Nikon have been seen as big jokes compared to Sony and even Panasonic.
This looks like a premium-priced hobbyist camera, not a realistic substitute for a good SLR.
There's a lot to be said for the form factor for hobby/casual photography. SLRs can be a PITA to carry around in a way that smaller cameras aren't. Just by being portable, this camera will catch a lot of images that a big SLR won't.
But image quality is clearly a good few steps short of the output of an equivalently priced Canon or Nikon DSLR.
That will be an acceptable compromise for many buyers - but it won't work for everyone.
I think that's true of all mirrorless. A full-frame SLR is going to take better photos because it lets in more light and has a larger sensor. It's hard to get around physics.
But, as you noted, carrying an SLR can be a pain. I tried to get into photography many years ago, with a Canon Rebel XT. It didn't stick because I hated carrying the bulky thing around. I stuck to point & shoots, then my iPhone.
I recently picked up an Olympus PEN e-PL6, which, for me, strikes a nice middle-ground. It fits in my wife's purse, or my small backpack (easy to carry-on flights, unlike the Canon, which ate up my underseat area on its own). It is light enough to carry all day. And has an excellent selection of lenses for all purposes.
Of course, I also frequently carry my Canon S100 because it is truly pocketable and still takes excellent photos.
A lack? There's a huge and often price-insensitive market in decades-old manual-focus lenses for the Sony mirrorless cameras to the extent that I've given-up trying to find bargains and curiosities amongst 35mm lenses on eBay, and I've been in this hobby for nearly 30 years.
The only untouched seam of treasure appears to be medium-format lenses ( Mamiya, Hasselblad, Pentax etc ) which are too big and bulky for the mirrorless crowd.
I know there are tons of old lenses on the market. For me the main reason to go with Fuji was that they have a 100-400mm lens for which Sony doesn't have an equivalent. Obviously this may change but as of now I find the Sony APS-C lens selection a little uninspiring. I thought about the A7ii though but I didn't like the handling.
I have an X-E2 and I love it, but I'm very curious to see if they release an X-E3 and what features of the X-T2 and X-Pro2 it will incorporate.
The whole X series is a pretty great system IMO. The designs are simple, bodies offer fully manual control, the lenses are extremely high quality, and certain models of lenses are much smaller than DSLR counterparts (18mm, 27mm, 35 f/2).
If you like classic manual cameras, especially rangefinder style ones, you'll like the X-E1/2 and the X-Pro1/2. The X-T2 however, is sort of an "SLR" format camera with the viewfinder in the center, which I'm not big on. One of the major advantages of mirrorless cameras (for me) is that you are able to put the viewfinder on the side and keep the camera's screen from smashing your nose when you shoot.
If you are into photography and haven't considered the Fujifilm offerings, I highly recommend that you do.
P.S. Fujifilm's engineers are continuously updating and refining the firmware from user feedback. With the 4.x release of the firmware for my X-E2, it add a boatload of features and really made it into the camera of my dreams. The 16MP sensor is getting a little bit dated, but that is going to happen with any camera. Plus, their X-Trans technology offers some advantages over traditional Bayer array sensors.