The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fuji X-T1 shows up on Fuji's site

Elderly

Well-known member
As somebody who was a big fan of the film in a green box,
was a huge fan of my Fuji 680III,
still have my S5Pro
and was brought up in the days of twiddling a lens aperture ring,
and a shutter speed dial -
I REALLY like the idea of this new Fuji .......



....... so I'm hoping there will be many naysayers to make me feel better about
recently investing in an EM1 and 12-40 :p;)
 

turtle

New member
I disagree that one has to go from 16 right up to 36mp to really see a difference. I can see a very significant difference (it is not remotely subtle) between my 12 MP X100 and 22 MP 5D III in fine detail and that's a significantly smaller linear growth ratio than 16 to 36. Then there is tonality and that sense of 'photoreality'.

The only myth here is that additional MP, mated to the right lenses, don't really make much difference. When you are making large prints with fine detail, it makes on heck of a different (with lenses that can do the higher resolving sensor justice).

The same argument abounded with 'there's no point in shooting 645 instead of 35mm... you have to go to 6x7 to see a real difference' and '645 and 6x7 are basically the same quality, so you might as well shoot 645'... 5x4 is so close to 5x7 that why bother with the larger format? It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. Small differences make a small difference (not 'no real' difference) and big differences make a bigger difference than small differences!

16 MP cameras are capable of great things, but all that was being said by me and other people is that it would be nice to have an option of 'a little more'. I've bought into the Sony A7/A7R system, so it does not matter for me (and I am therefore glad I did, seeing as Fuji is stuck at 16MP), but I'd love to see them stretch things a bit further IQ-wise. There are lot of people out there who want to see this.

As for those who say that DR suffers, well the Sony sensor on the A7R and D800 manage just fine!
 

PenSon

New member
The Mpixel race. Downsampling the light waves to sound waves. Will it allways be better to sample the sound with two microphones contra one microphone ? It is allways the quality of the mic that do the job. Back to the light waves - Nikon D4 or Fuji only 16 Mpix, but god in sampling.
 

raist3d

Well-known member
@turtle - "As for those who say that DR suffers, well the Sony sensor on the A7R and D800 manage just fine!"

Yes, the sensor of the A7R and D800 "manages just fine" because it's a FullFrame sensor, not an APS-C sensor. That's one of the advantages of going FF- you can increase that resolution and keep the sensor image quality parameters good.

Keep in mind Fuji without the AA filter approaches 24 MP of the Sony A7 more than it wouldn't. The 16MP sensor of the K-5/K-5ii/D7000 and possibly the very Fuji Xtrans sensor (just different CFA array) is phenomenal on all aspects of image quality. Crank that up, and you lose something.

Sure, this is better for the landscape photographer. Well then, go full frame. I like that Fuji seems from the get go what vision they have for the XSystem and are pursuing it accordingly instead of just going by a mindless "bigger is better" mentality.

16MP Xtrans already gives a lot for a wide range. It delivers better quality than anything micro four thirds has. 24 MP will come in time, but I don't see any issues with them having stuck to 16MP right now because 16MP delivers for a wide range of photography from the entry level all the way to the professional level. Quality pixels any day over 24m MP diminished.

As Penson mentions- a very expensive Nikon D4 is 16MP. Why? And why does it sells *to professionals*?

How many of you in honest truth are regularly making prints bigger than 13''x19'' and this Fuji can even print higher well.

A 24MP model will come when it's ready. I stand by Fuji in their photographer oriented choice.

- Ricardo
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Yes and no, I think. They have the following models at 16MP:

Xpro 1
X-E1/2
X100S
X-T1

They all effectively have one sensor in common and that, IMO, is too narrow a spread. They have lots of cameras coming very close in terms of their application and utility. While they may have differences in their manner, in niche/role they are very, very close.... just different flavours. The X-T1 just breaks out a little in terms of presentation and some functions, but in essence is another (IMO better) variation.
Not one bit. Since when a camera role and function is solely determined by just one part- the sensor? The handling of an X-E2 and X-M1 is quite different. So is with this camera.

An X-M1 would be a better match than this for many street life applications, this one would be a better match to all around weather assignments, weddings, etc. And how they respond and operate is quite different. These are hardly "just different flavors" just because they share a sensor (and the RAWS are different- the XT1, XE-2 have 14 bit RAW vs 12 bit of the XM1, XE1, Xpro 1).

As a quick mental experiment: imagine two XT1's - one 16MP and one 24MP but the rest- the responsiveness, ergonomics, color, etc. was identical. Are they really different just because the different resolution int he sensor? They are almost identical.

- Ricardo
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Looks like another great camera.

No, I'll not be drinking the Kool Aid. Between the Olympus E-M1 and my Olympus/Panasonic-Leica lenses for it, and the Sony A7 and my Leica R lenses for it, I'm done. =8^o

G
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I disagree that one has to go from 16 right up to 36mp to really see a difference. I can see a very significant difference (it is not remotely subtle) between my 12 MP X100 and 22 MP 5D III in fine detail and that's a significantly smaller linear growth ratio than 16 to 36. Then there is tonality and that sense of 'photoreality'.

The only myth here is that additional MP, mated to the right lenses, don't really make much difference. When you are making large prints with fine detail, it makes on heck of a different (with lenses that can do the higher resolving sensor justice).

The same argument abounded with 'there's no point in shooting 645 instead of 35mm... you have to go to 6x7 to see a real difference' and '645 and 6x7 are basically the same quality, so you might as well shoot 645'... 5x4 is so close to 5x7 that why bother with the larger format? It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. Small differences make a small difference (not 'no real' difference) and big differences make a bigger difference than small differences!

16 MP cameras are capable of great things, but all that was being said by me and other people is that it would be nice to have an option of 'a little more'. I've bought into the Sony A7/A7R system, so it does not matter for me (and I am therefore glad I did, seeing as Fuji is stuck at 16MP), but I'd love to see them stretch things a bit further IQ-wise. There are lot of people out there who want to see this.

As for those who say that DR suffers, well the Sony sensor on the A7R and D800 manage just fine!
I could not agree more!

I have shot many times 24MP in parallel to my 16MP cameras and I ALWAYS see the difference in larger image size, resolution and thus more possibilities for cropping etc. And I must say, that I usually never found DR to be an issue of the 24MP APSC sensors.

Also true, 36MP are fantastic if on the right FF camera - I can speak for the D800E here, but from what I have seen the A7r is similar, if not even better WRT IQ.

All what is said and keep repeating to say is, that some people, including myself, would have been happy to see a 24MP sensor from Fuji - as this is not now in the XT1, hopefully the XPro2 will have that! And actually - for me the 16MP "restriction" of the XT1 will most likely be the deal braker. I already own the EM1 which is a fantastic camera based on a fantastic lens lineup, with even more fantastic lenses coming in the future. And this Oly system is currently my GO TO system for travel, action, wildlive, street, portrait - almost everything. And I really like size and weight.

The one thing which would have make me move completely into the Fuji camp would have been a 24MP XT1 with similar IQ as the current XTRANS sensor. The Fuji lenses are stellar - dare I say to my eyes even better than the Oly lenses currently available for m43 (with exception of the 12-40), the size of camera and lenses is still pretty small and they also offer this nice aperture rings. So all would have been perfect for me if only 24MP.

Why? because for me 24MP is the sweet spot in photography today IMHO. Just enough resolution in combination with still not too large file sizes. Same as for others it is 16MP. So why not just accept instead of trying to convince that 16MP are enough? And I am pretty sure that soon 24MP will be the quasi standard for APSC sensors and I am also pretty sure that all the current naysayers will then suddenly see these 24MP as what they need, must have and being the absolutely greatest.

No matter that XT1 is 16MP, this means I will just stay with my m43 system plus use the wonderful XE2 as my P&S and in parallel work with FF for now if I want and need higher resolution. This is the Nikon system based on the D800E and maybe in near future a A7 or A7r in order to be able to use my M lenses on FF and if it becomes available and depending on the sensor and IQ the A99 successor in order to be able to use that wonderful FF Zeiss A mount lenses again.

Life is just wonderful, no matter if XT1 is 16 or 24MP ;)
 

nostatic

New member
Looks like another great camera.

No, I'll not be drinking the Kool Aid. Between the Olympus E-M1 and my Olympus/Panasonic-Leica lenses for it, and the Sony A7 and my Leica R lenses for it, I'm done. =8^o

G
I sold off most of my u4/3 kit (kept the GH3 and Panny 2.8 loom lens pair, mostly for video) and have kool-aided up with the A7. This new green flavor Fuji is temping though, mostly due to what appear to be some ideal lenses. The macro is ready to go, as is a very fast portrait.

Or, I could just really go in with both feet and buy an A7r to go along with the A7 :ROTFL:
 

etrigan63

Active member
I really want to drink the green kool-aid, but until I sell off my blue kool-aid I can't pre-order. Somebody please buy my kit!
 

jonoslack

Active member
I'm seriously tempted BUT if I don't want FF what's wrong with my lovely m43 kit, and if I do, well the Fuji ain't it!

This is a conditional decision :)
 

greypilgrim

New member
I'm seriously tempted BUT if I don't want FF what's wrong with my lovely m43 kit, and if I do, well the Fuji ain't it!

This is a conditional decision :)
We're in the same boat although if I did not have my m43 kit built out so much, I would say this would likely be my choice (with a speed booster of course as well :)).

Doug (and yes, conditional here, too)
 

Sharokin

New member
I'm really interested in this camera as a travel/street shooter. My question is how good are the Fuji lenses? My only experience with Fuji optics on digital camera is the H lenses for the Hasselblad. Those lenses are very sharp but lack character except for the 100 F/2.2
Also I hear Fuji has excellent colors but rarely any opinion of skin tones.
 

Dale Allyn

New member
I'm really interested in this camera as a travel/street shooter. My question is how good are the Fuji lenses? My only experience with Fuji optics on digital camera is the H lenses for the Hasselblad. Those lenses are very sharp but lack character except for the 100 F/2.2
Also I hear Fuji has excellent colors but rarely any opinion of skin tones.
Everybody's standards and expectations are different, but IMO Fuji glass is very good (excellent, really). Even the "kit" zoom is pretty nice. The 35mm f/1.4 (52mm FF Equiv) is tack sharp; the 14mm (21mm FF Equiv) is stellar; 56mm f/1.2 (85mm equiv) is looking grand; and so on. For me, the weak spot or hole in the offering is 75-90mm ~f/2 prime, as there's nothing announced in that space yet.
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
You beat me to it, Dale. I took delivery of a pristine CV 58/1.4 SL yesterday, but am waiting for an adapter. found one, but will take a week or so to get here. I will post images as soon as it does.

Re. skin tones: this is Fuji's strongest suit, in my experience (S5 Pro, X-100, X-E1).
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I disagree that one has to go from 16 right up to 36mp to really see a difference. I can see a very significant difference (it is not remotely subtle) between my 12 MP X100 and 22 MP 5D III in fine detail and that's a significantly smaller linear growth ratio than 16 to 36. Then there is tonality and that sense of 'photoreality'.
Going from 12 to 22 MP corresponds to going from 16 to 29 MP.

If I pixel peep, I can clearly see a difference between 16 and 24 MP too. But if I print two photos of the same motive, one from a 16 MP and one from a 24 MP camera, mix them around so I don't know which is which, hang one on the wall and watch it from a normal viewing distance, take it down, wait 15 minutes, hang the other one on the wall and watch that one from the same distance, will I see which is which? Not in my experience.

These high numbers look so impressive, but remember that going from 16 to 24 MP corresponds to going from 4 to 6 MP, or 8 to 12. If one needs 16 MP to print A2 format (594 x 420 mm) with a satisfactory result, 32 MP is needed to print A1 (840 x 594 mm) with the same resolution. Now, that isn't 100% true either, since the larger format would give a slightly longer view distance, which means that less resolution is needed, so one could print a bit larger again, but that would give an inferior result for pixel peepers ;)

But following a similar logic, going form 16 to 24 MP is in reality less than going from 4 to 6, since 4 MP wasn't really enough to print satisfactory A3 (420 x 297 mm) prints, which is the largest format most amateurs can do, while 6 MP worked fine with that format. 16 MP of course, works fine with A2+, so cover most bases for most people.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I sold off most of my u4/3 kit (kept the GH3 and Panny 2.8 loom lens pair, mostly for video) and have kool-aided up with the A7. This new green flavor Fuji is temping though, mostly due to what appear to be some ideal lenses. The macro is ready to go, as is a very fast portrait.

Or, I could just really go in with both feet and buy an A7r to go along with the A7 :ROTFL:
I'm probably going a similar route, keeping the GH3 for video and buying Fuji for photography. That means the hassle of having two systems, but it's the best of both worlds. I see the X-T1 as the digital Contax that never was (not counting the N Digital), 10 years after the sad demise of the original, but a Contax with a Fuji sensor, no less. One can use it with the old Zeiss glass and a speed booster or with the new Fuji glass. Both are among the best lenses money can buy. For the time being, I don't see anything resembling photographic Nirvana more than this.
 
Last edited:

raist3d

Well-known member
I honestly don't understand the koolaid comments or the commentary that someone feels like they need to upgrade from an em-1, a Sony or name your good camera here (Nikon, Pentax, whatever). All of these are great cameras and its about tradeoffs and/or you like the new design.

Its like insecurity or looking status or something. The fuji xt1 looks outstanding. So is the camera that matches your needs. I honestly don't get the defensive commentary on non or upgrading.

Hardly phoography anyway ;-)

- Ricardo
 
Top