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!

X-T2... oh bugger

V

Vivek

Guest
Jorgen, You forget that the Fuji XT2 can do 4K video while the Sony A72 can not! Very important!

There is this minor issue with sensor stabilization. May be Fuji will issue a few FW updates in the next several months to offset that?
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I thank you for a positive approach. You seem to see the good in the efforts that are made.

In a lab somewhere I see a poor camera engineer who tried to read everyone's mind, keep his boss and the marketing dept happy and deal with the laws of nature. Such is the life of an engineer. If a horse was designed by a committee, it would end up looking like a camel.

I will go on a bit of limb here and add that I think the user has a responsibility to adapt themselves to a certain extent to the product. Nothing will be perfect. Either find away around the imperfections, look for something else or go home. - Just dressing in my flame suit now.
I try to be as objective as I can be most of the time. There really aren't many bad cameras these days in reality. I can't see myself using a sensor smaller than 35mm FF though for myself so Fuji is out of the game for me until they release their rumored MF camera. I've been looking at them, Micro 4/3, and cropped sensor Sony cameras for my wife though.

Consequently, regarding engineers, I often lament engineers that create products without the input of users/operators. The saying "they were so happy with the fact that they could that they never really asked if they should" comes to mind often with engineers.
 

UHDR

New member
An interesting comparison indeed. Unfortunately, the current top Sony the A7R II costs almost exactly twice as much as the X-T2, $3,200 vs. $1,600. The 24MP A7 II on the other hand, is just $100 more expensive than the Fuji and 100 grams heavier. The question is if it's worth $100 more:

The lenses:
Fujinon 56mm f/1.2 (84mm eqv.), $999 and 405 grams (total weight = 912g)
Sony 85mm f/1.4, $1,798 and 820 grams (total weight = 1,419g)

Fujinon 16-55mm f/2.8 (24-82mm eqv.), $1,199 and 655 grams (total weight = 1,162g)
Zeiss 24-70mm f/4, $1,198 and 430 grams (total weight = 1,209g)

I own neither camera, but what the above figures and illustrations tell me is that the differences in quality, price and weight are ignorable between these two systems when using camera bodies and lenses of similar price. No normal person would be able to see any significant difference in image quality between them. The fact that one has a larger sensor is also becoming irrelevant unless one chooses to buy the more expensive Sony top model that offers significantly higher resolution, an even then, one would have to print very large to see the difference. What it boils down to is personal preferences.

Where I live, Sony and Fuji happen to be the two best selling brands of interchangeable lens cameras at the moment. It will be interesting to see what Photokina brings to the table this year.
hehe, im not actually replacing my A7r. you can see my signature, i normally run a Fuji/Sony combo anyway. But recently, my tri-elmar front element is turning yellow, and it starts to show in the final image. so i will be replacing my XQ2 and tri-elmar with XT2 and Sony 16-80mm, hence my new travel setup will be:

A7r + VC 15mm + batis 25mm
X-T2 + 16-80mm

the overall bulk and weight will be increased but it's not that bad.

A7II is not really on my list, A) i like fuji colour, B) i do prefer the AA-less look. :grin:
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
IMHO IQ of all sensor sizes has already become so equal that differences between m43, APSC and FF are fading away - at least for me. Having said that I rater appreciate the larger DOF of smaller sensors for most situations and if one really needs small DOF almost in every system there are longer to extreme telephoto lenses available to get the same optical impression as expected form FF.

Having said that there are also the lenses and lens sizes in the equation and then APSC simply wins hands down to FF, even not to mention m43.

But what APSC brings to the table is kind of the sweetspot over lens size, camera size, IQ, DR, etc. etc. as long as one does not start again with APSC DSLRs mounting social APSC lenses (CaNikPen) on these bodies or even FF lenses. APSC lenses form the incumbent vendors are mostly an after thought and generally not bringing top quality and FF lenses are simply adding too much bulk and weight to the equation.

The Fuji X system is kind of in a pretty excellent sweetspot here and that shows in usability, size, weight and optimized IQ. Now that they managed to bring AP to comparable levels, they are offering a really competitive system.

PS: WRT size and weight - I just tried the Leica SL last week with the 90-280 and while this is a stunning combo with IQ better than most if not anything available today I would really mind carrying this combo around for a full day (or multiple days), as it simply is far too heavy. Which cannot be said from the XT2 with the 100-400 mounted, even with the grip added. At least this my personal opinion.
 

Tim

Active member
what APSC brings to the table is kind of the sweetspot over lens size, camera size, IQ, DR, etc. etc. as long as one does not start again with APSC DSLRs mounting social APSC lenses (CaNikPen)
This is my finding also. Having carried and used an OM film system with primes for many years, nothing digital has quite been the same. Been to m43 but left as the IQ/DR left me wanting more.

As Jorgen has pointed out the lens price/size ratio is interesting.
For me its now either

Sony A7 II with Sony/Zeiss 50mm and a Zeiss 21mm Loxia or
Fuji X-T2 2 with Fuji 35mm f2 and 14mm f2.8.

Price wise the Fuji and lenses is cheaper, tech wise the Fuji has no AA and has 4K (which I may use).
The Sony has the in-camera stabilizer and is FF.

Tough choice
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Jorgen, You forget that the Fuji XT2 can do 4K video while the Sony A72 can not! Very important!

There is this minor issue with sensor stabilization. May be Fuji will issue a few FW updates in the next several months to offset that?
There are many things I didn't mention, and again: it's an individual choice. The point for myself and many other photographers is that the sensor size doesn't matter that much anymore, and as Peter and Tim point out above, the APS-C format looks increasingly like a sweet spot. Few photographers have a need for clean ISO above 12,800, and that is where we are getting now. m4/3 still has a noise disadvantage but wins with regards to lens size.

Here's an interesting review comparing the Fuji 100-400mm to the corresponding PanaLeica. I'm not sure if the m4/3 lens maintains the "crop advantage" here. The Fuji seems to offer more resolution, and if high ISO is needed, Fuji would probably win handsomely. It is heavier though. It's a pity he didn't have a D500 to test the Nikkor on.

http://naturalexposures.com/mirrorless-telephoto-comparison-leica-fuji-nikon-olympus/
 
V

Vivek

Guest
IIRC, Fuji planted that thought that APS-C (theirs) is on par with full frame (others) when they debuted the XPro1.

I see that you, Tim and Peter are on the same wavelength and quoting one another is mutual reinforcement. :)

That is good as at least one of you is likely to buy the new camera and tell us all if that is true. :)

FWIW, the A7 II output shows more color noise (the details are still there) that is easily removed in the post.
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Fuji has an attractive APS-C lens line up, as do Olympus / Panasonic for MFT.

One reason for me to use an APS-C a6300 rather than a Fuji camera is that I can use my FE lenses from my A7r/2 cameras in addition to E lenses.

I find IQ from the various systems sufficient so that other features become important for me. The following items got me to use those systems:

Telelenses and IBIS: MFT OM-D cameras
4K video, slow motion x4 and x5 1080p video on tripod: a6300
Available light photography, IBIS: A7r2

Lately the TechART Pro autofocus adapter on A7r2 and a6300 has seen a lot of use with my Leica M and R lenses.

However, none of my systems above exceeds or even matches the focus speed of my D800E with say the AF-S 80-400/4.5-5.6 VR lens. Will the new mirror-less X-T2 be a game changer in that regard? :grin:
 

Tim

Active member
IIRC, Fuji planted that thought that APS-C (theirs) is on par with full frame (others) when they debuted the XPro1.

I see that you, Tim and Peter are on the same wavelength and quoting one another is mutual reinforcement. :)

That is good as at least one of you is likely to buy the new camera and tell us all if that is true. :)

FWIW, the A7 II output shows more color noise (the details are still there) that is easily removed in the post.
A year or so back dumped everything and have only been using my GR and DP2M.
I AM in the market for a ICL camera. I will soon, around October be doing some home studio waist up and head shot sitting portraits.
I feel almost anything could do this but I am looking for a great image. An image to wow.
My problem is I stupidly want whatever I buy now to double duty for a light travel kit also.

So I compare the Fuji images for this work and like what I see.
The A7 may be the better choice still, I am though having to work within a budget so the new Hassleblad is out for me.
The Fuji, Sony and even the Pentax K1 are on my short lists. I need to go handle the K1.

As a wildcard I am keeping a Pentax 645D/Z even on the list.
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
IIRC, Fuji planted that thought that APS-C (theirs) is on par with full frame (others) when they debuted the XPro1.

I see that you, Tim and Peter are on the same wavelength and quoting one another is mutual reinforcement. :)

That is good as at least one of you is likely to buy the new camera and tell us all if that is true. :)

FWIW, the A7 II output shows more color noise (the details are still there) that is easily removed in the post.
APS-C isn't on par with full frame, and it never will be. However, as sensor technology evolves, the advantage of full frame will become uninteresting, and to a certain degree, it already is. For anybody not needing more than ISO 6400 and 24MP, it's difficult to find a reason to go into full frame. The classic full frame "look"? Lenses have "look", sensors reproduce colours and varying degrees of light and contrast.

Even a $750 Nikon D5500 offers image quality at least on par with the best full frame cameras that could be bought just 5 years ago. In another 5 years, the APS-C sensors will be 36 or 48MP with a usable ISO of 25,600. Still many will say that full frame is better, and they will be right. The question is: Better for what?

Here are the D5500 and the 4 years old A99 for comparison. The A99 was around $3,000 at launch, wasn't it? Scary stuff:





 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I currently own the D810 with some nice glass and the EM1 with most of the Pro lenses and especially the 2.8 40-150 is the lens that keeps me in m43 again and again.

Currently I am on family vacation in the Austrian mountains and guess what I took with me - the EM1 with 3 lenses and not the Nikon. The Nikon would have been absolute overkill and hardly I had taken it out for some hikes.

Had I already the XT2 in my arsenal, I most probably would have taken this camera because it can nicely fit my requirements for small, light and portability, but at the same time has some wonderful pro lenses and tele lenses too if that is required.

I guess this shows the point ....
 

Tim

Active member
I currently own the D810 with some nice glass and the EM1 with most of the Pro lenses and especially the 2.8 40-150 is the lens that keeps me in m43 again and again.

Currently I am on family vacation in the Austrian mountains and guess what I took with me - the EM1 with 3 lenses and not the Nikon. The Nikon would have been absolute overkill and hardly I had taken it out for some hikes.

Had I already the XT2 in my arsenal, I most probably would have taken this camera because it can nicely fit my requirements for small, light and portability, but at the same time has some wonderful pro lenses and tele lenses too if that is required.

I guess this shows the point ....

I sometimes wonder if I should pick the printer, work out its largest res, and work the camera and lens needed from there.
Could be that most would do the job, depending on the printer chosen.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I sometimes wonder if I should pick the printer, work out its largest res, and work the camera and lens needed from there.
Could be that most would do the job, depending on the printer chosen.
I use an Epson 3800, which prints A2 format. Only when I look specifically for details will I see any difference between photos I took with the D810 and those I have taken with my 12 and 16 MP cameras. This is actually one of the reasons why I sold the D810 without too much regret. The files were spectacular, but they didn't affect my prints much.

Interestingly, while the files from the D700 have always looked much better than those from the D300, both 12 MP cameras, the prints don't look much different. So I sold the D700 also.

This is where I think Fuji has hit the right balance. They are never the first to introduce higher megapixel sensors, and there is higher technology cameras around seen from more or less every technical aspect except one: image quality. That is where they shine, and for some of us, the image is still the most important purpose of photography.
 

Elderly

Well-known member
Fine to wait to September to


- See what the E-M1 will be like


- Figure out what to do next :p
Oh Bugger indeed :banghead:

Because of weight and size I was an early adopter of micro 4/3rds starting with a GH1 in 2009
and I had recently decided that my 'investment' in Olympus lenses finally tied me to this format,
but this X-T2 announcement has unsettled me :facesmack:.

It's got good old fashioned wheels :thumbs: and a sensor that would allow me some cropping room
and an ability to use faster shutter speeds in low-ish light conditions
(I'm not talking about FF ISO ability so useful for vampires :grin:).

For my everyday carry (going nowhere special) of one body with one lens attached I suspect that I would prefer to use an XT-2 with an 18-55 f2.8-4 OIS to my EM1 with my 12-40 f2.8;
with the X-T2 sensor balancing out the speed advantage of the Oly f2.8.

But once I start adding longer, larger, faster? lenses, and it also looks as if I would need a grip for those too, my shoulder and my chosen airline would both object :cry:.

NO - I'M NOT GOING TO RUN TWO SYSTEMS :argue:.
Unless Olympus offer me a generous part exchange for my S5Pro and grip which languishes in a cupboard somewhere, and why oh why do I still keep (deeper in that cupboard!) my Nikon F100
and a couple of lenses for both systems that I never use ????????????????
Of dear, come September depending on the specs of the new EM1 - I can see where this is going :loco:
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Oh Bugger indeed :banghead:

Because of weight and size I was an early adopter of micro 4/3rds starting with a GH1 in 2009
and I had recently decided that my 'investment' in Olympus lenses finally tied me to this format,
but this X-T2 announcement has unsettled me :facesmack:.

It's got good old fashioned wheels :thumbs: and a sensor that would allow me some cropping room
and an ability to use faster shutter speeds in low-ish light conditions
(I'm not talking about FF ISO ability so useful for vampires :grin:).

For my everyday carry (going nowhere special) of one body with one lens attached I suspect that I would prefer to use an XT-2 with an 18-55 f2.8-4 OIS to my EM1 with my 12-40 f2.8;
with the X-T2 sensor balancing out the speed advantage of the Oly f2.8.

But once I start adding longer, larger, faster? lenses, and it also looks as if I would need a grip for those too, my shoulder and my chosen airline would both object :cry:.

NO - I'M NOT GOING TO RUN TWO SYSTEMS :argue:.
Unless Olympus offer me a generous part exchange for my S5Pro and grip which languishes in a cupboard somewhere, and why oh why do I still keep (deeper in that cupboard!) my Nikon F100
and a couple of lenses for both systems that I never use ????????????????
Of dear, come September depending on the specs of the new EM1 - I can see where this is going :loco:
Well, why not run both mirrorless system - EM1m2 and XT2?
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
NO - I'M NOT GOING TO RUN TWO SYSTEMS :argue:.
Unless Olympus offer me a generous part exchange for my S5Pro and grip which languishes in a cupboard somewhere, and why oh why do I still keep (deeper in that cupboard!) my Nikon F100
and a couple of lenses for both systems that I never use ????????????????
Of dear, come September depending on the specs of the new EM1 - I can see where this is going :loco:
The S5 Pro is actually a nice camera. Mine unfortunately has a broken main board, so it won't autofocus and I only have access to parts of the menu. I even have the S3 Pro still, very well used, but still fully functional. I should take them for a walk now and then :)
 

Elderly

Well-known member
Well, why not run both mirrorless system - EM1m2 and XT2?
I wish there had been a smilie after your question :D.

The serious answer is that I can't financially justify running two systems.

As somebody brought up on film with all its associated real running costs
I don't think that digital bodies are expensive, BUT, to get value out of the fast depreciating hobby items that they are, they have to get constant use,
and I don't see myself giving two systems enough of a workout.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I do hope the X-T2 IQ approaches a little the IQ from the K-1.
Just look at these - Pentax K-1 images - FM Forums
This is oh bugger
Check the photos of Rico Pfirstinger on flickr. He has posted several full resolution samples taken with a pre-production X-T2. Some of them look very good. Here's one:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ricopfirstinger/27506423513/sizes/o/

This one is excellent too, taken with a cheapish 50-200 lens:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ricopfirstinger/27840831490/in/dateposted/
 
Top