Fuji XT-3

[biglouis]

Photos included in this post but a little preamble about where I am at!

I'm a refugee from the m43rds section of getDPI as I moved to the XT3+100-400 two weeks ago primarily for bird photography.

I had a tough time deciding whether or not to abandon mirrorless entirely. The lacklustre reports of the Z6 and Z7 versus the entirely stellar reports of the D500/D850 didn't help. I also considered the A9+100-400 but I had Sony before and frankly was not impressed with the ergonomics or lenses.

In the end, as I own the GFX50S and I wanted to remain with a mirrorless system I took the plunge with the X-T3 which has had consistently excellent reviews for both the body and the glass. It also helped that Fuji threw in a free power grip with the body and a GBP 310 cashback on the lens. I've now sold pretty much all my m43rds kit which was a bit of wrench as I have been m43rds for most of the 10 years since Panasonic launched the format.

Here are some early results:

While this example is not technically bang-on my previous camera never could handle bif in front of foliage of any kind. For once I am confident the softness is down to my panning technique and not a camera issue. (100-400)

Likewise, the responsiveness of the AF to challenging events like this is something I've been missing until now. (100-400)

I am pleasantly surprised at the colouration of the lens and especially the bokeh (100-400)

Another great AF lock on in a time critical situation. My previous camera would probably have fluffed this. (100-400)

Likewise (100-400+TC1.4)

I am pleasantly surprised that the TC1.4 does not detract much (if at all?) from the IQ. Again this was the kind of challenging situation my previous set-up would mostly fluff. This group came towards me and the AF locked-on quickly and gave me a good sequence of in focus shots. The angle was not great but I post this as another example of the 100-400 with the TC1.4

The usability of high iso photographs is also a revelation. I stopped this action at 1/2000 but as it was in shadow the iso shot up to iso3200.

I always test a new camera/lens by going to a spot in Buckinghamshire in the English countryside which is teeming with Red Kites. Actually, I made a mistake using continuous OIS which according to one internet pundit leads to softness in the images. I still managed to capture this (100-400+TC1.4)

It's not always about birds. Emerging from a forested area on my countryside excursion I thought initially this was a fox due to the colouring. But is turned out to be a Muntjac deer which are becoming quite common in the UK. Again, not a great pose but a good lock-on in a time-critical situation (100-400)

Bottom line: so far, so good. I am surprised more people are not raving about this camera. It is small, lightweight and produces excellent results combined with the 100-400. It has no black-out when using the electronic shutter (like the A9, apparently) and has a decent sized sensor (26mpx which is great for cropping). The 100-400 is a very pleasing lens. I thought I would be disappointed with the 'look' after owning the Lumix Leica DG 200/2.8 but I'd say Fuji has equalled the colouration and bokeh. I actually prefer the physical dials to the fly-by-wire of my previous system but that may actually be an age thing (it is easier for me to work analogue than electronic controls). How will I feel in six months? Who knows!

LouisB

 

[ptomsu]

Bottom line: so far, so good. I am surprised more people are not raving about this camera. It is small, lightweight and produces excellent results combined with the 100-400. It has no black-out when using the electronic shutter (like the A9, apparently) and has a decent sized sensor (26mpx which is great for cropping). The 100-400 is a very pleasing lens. I thought I would be disappointed with the 'look' after owning the Lumix Leica DG 200/2.8 but I'd say Fuji has equalled the colouration and bokeh. I actually prefer the physical dials to the fly-by-wire of my previous system but that may actually be an age thing (it is easier for me to work analogue than electronic controls). How will I feel in six months? Who knows!

LouisB

Louis,

congratulations on that camera and lens. Well if you would read back in the threads about the X-T2 you could find that I was already raving about the X-T2 and especially in combination with the 100-400. So the X-T3 I only can imagine must be so much better!

Not sure why not more people are shooting Fuji especially for wildlife with that lens. It is a stellar performer and actually much better suited for my type of photography than the m43 Olympus 4/300 PRO as this is a fifed focal length lens and that's limiting for wildlife. I think I made kind of a mistake selling the 100-400 in order to fund the 4/300 PRO, but who knows I might be anyway on the switch to a new system pretty soon and one of the most likely would be Fuji.

Meanwhile have great fun with your new camera and lens and please keep posting images :thumbs:

Peter

 

[iiiNelson]

Photos included in this post but a little preamble about where I am at!

I'm a refugee from the m43rds section of getDPI as I moved to the XT3+100-400 two weeks ago primarily for bird photography.

I had a tough time deciding whether or not to abandon mirrorless entirely. The lacklustre reports of the Z6 and Z7 versus the entirely stellar reports of the D500/D850 didn't help. I also considered the A9+100-400 but I had Sony before and frankly was not impressed with the ergonomics or lenses.

In the end, as I own the GFX50S and I wanted to remain with a mirrorless system I took the plunge with the X-T3 which has had consistently excellent reviews for both the body and the glass. It also helped that Fuji threw in a free power grip with the body and a GBP 310 cashback on the lens. I've now sold pretty much all my m43rds kit which was a bit of wrench as I have been m43rds for most of the 10 years since Panasonic launched the format.

Here are some early results:

While this example is not technically bang-on my previous camera never could handle bif in front of foliage of any kind. For once I am confident the softness is down to my panning technique and not a camera issue. (100-400)

Likewise, the responsiveness of the AF to challenging events like this is something I've been missing until now. (100-400)

I am pleasantly surprised at the colouration of the lens and especially the bokeh (100-400)

Another great AF lock on in a time critical situation. My previous camera would probably have fluffed this. (100-400)

Likewise (100-400+TC1.4)

I am pleasantly surprised that the TC1.4 does not detract much (if at all?) from the IQ. Again this was the kind of challenging situation my previous set-up would mostly fluff. This group came towards me and the AF locked-on quickly and gave me a good sequence of in focus shots. The angle was not great but I post this as another example of the 100-400 with the TC1.4

The usability of high iso photographs is also a revelation. I stopped this action at 1/2000 but as it was in shadow the iso shot up to iso3200.

I always test a new camera/lens by going to a spot in Buckinghamshire in the English countryside which is teeming with Red Kites. Actually, I made a mistake using continuous OIS which according to one internet pundit leads to softness in the images. I still managed to capture this (100-400+TC1.4)

It's not always about birds. Emerging from a forested area on my countryside excursion I thought initially this was a fox due to the colouring. But is turned out to be a Muntjac deer which are becoming quite common in the UK. Again, not a great pose but a good lock-on in a time-critical situation (100-400)

Bottom line: so far, so good. I am surprised more people are not raving about this camera. It is small, lightweight and produces excellent results combined with the 100-400. It has no black-out when using the electronic shutter (like the A9, apparently) and has a decent sized sensor (26mpx which is great for cropping). The 100-400 is a very pleasing lens. I thought I would be disappointed with the 'look' after owning the Lumix Leica DG 200/2.8 but I'd say Fuji has equalled the colouration and bokeh. I actually prefer the physical dials to the fly-by-wire of my previous system but that may actually be an age thing (it is easier for me to work analogue than electronic controls). How will I feel in six months? Who knows!

LouisB

Congrats on your new camera and I think the XT3 is getting proper praises in many circles.

It won camera of the year with many publications stateside and when I recommended it to you (back in October 2018) it was based on my own limited testing with it while tracking cars on a busy street. It's one of the tests I do with nearly every camera I pick up because it's close to a constant testing environment given that that street is always busy and at an intersection where I can test both lateral movement, movement of cars driving away, and movement of cars coming straight on and transitioning into a turn.

It’s a great camera and if I went to Fuji I’d likely hold out for the XH2 (alongside a GFX)... or get the XT3 now and use it for the Fuji primes. The 16/1.4, 16-55/2.8, 50-140/2.8, 90/2, 80/2.8 Macro, and 200/2 lenses are all excellent. The 56/1.2 and 35/1.4 are extremely good too but focus more slowly. I didn't love either of the 23mm lenses but they aren't bad.

Nice shots and I guess this sort of proves that many mirrorless cameras are capable enough to get the pictures but sometime PDAF is needed.

 

[biglouis]

An indoor shot using available light with the X-T3 and 18-55 kit lens, taken inside the ancient church of St Pancras (old church) in the shadow of Kings Cross, in London, yesterday. For comparison below it is the same subject photographed with my GFX50S and 23mm/f4 a few months earlier.

X-T3, 18-55/2.8-4

GFX50S, 23/4

 

[Thorkil]

Hi Louis
At first glance its pictures from different worlds. The GFX play, at first, in a total different leque, with exceptional 3.D view, and immense contour-shaping - helped by the soft light though.
But then it looks you have had flash on the X-T3? while there are some strong light coming from behind above your head.
So it might appear flatter from the flash/strong light?
So, first of all it must be the light/soft-light/shadow-difference.
(Because, else I would have to start saving strongly, just for a tiny GFX50R+the23mm...)... :lecture:
Best

 

[ptomsu]

@ Louis,

for me the X-T3 picture looks much better, much deeper, better color and much more drama. The GFX pictures is just like a snapshot compared to that.

Not sure what went wrong with that GFX photo, as normally it should excel ....

Just my 5c

Peter

 

[iiiNelson]

@ Louis,

for me the X-T3 picture looks much better, much deeper, better color and much more drama. The GFX pictures is just like a snapshot compared to that.

Not sure what went wrong with that GFX photo, as normally it should excel ....

Just my 5c

Peter

Well for one they're two completely different perspectives. The 23mm on the GFX is approximately equivalent to an 18mm FF 35mm lens. The widest side of the 18-55 is a 27mm equivalent. The XT3 was certainly processed with bolder color choices but I strongly prefer the look/composition/subject separation from the background in the GFX shot for the subject shown between the two.

Comparisons of the quality to either is apples to oranges IMO and the only similarity is that they're shooting the same subject. I'm sure saturation can be added in post to the GFX to make it look more like the XT3 in tone and vice versa. Can't easily replicate the look of the GFX in the XT3 though.

 

[biglouis]

Thorkil and Peter, thanks for the feedback.

I have to go with Thorkil. I love the rendering on the GFX50S photo which is pretty much unchanged from the RAW file. BTW, I did not use flash on either shot but the GFX50S shot was on a tripod and the X-T3 was handheld.

As Peter points out, the X-T3 has created a beautifully rendered image but unlike the GFX50S version I did have to pass it through some post processing to get what I wanted. One thing I will say is that the hi-iso noise level on the X-T3 is nothing short of amazingly well controlled and after using Nik Dfine I think the noise level for iso2500 creates a completely usable image.

Here are some crops from the photos.

X-T3, 18-55/2.8-4, iso2500, f5.6 1/30 21mm

GFX50S, 23mm/4, iso100, f16, 7secs

The differences are minor but it is clear that the GFX50S is more detailed when looked at closely.

I particularly like the way the GFX50S/23mm has handled the flowers and fabric behind them which you can appreciate in this crop. Since dispensing with my Leica kit I don't think I've owned a system which can draw light as well until now.

In a choice I would photograph with the GFX50S but I would not be at a significant disadvantage with the X-T3 and indeed it does have a fabulous sensor. As I mentioned in my post prior to these ones I bought the X-T3 for wildlife photography but it makes a great second body and in some cases I will use it when carrying the GFX50S is not practical.

LouisB

 

[Thorkil]

Hi again, Louis is there any artificial light in the X-T3 picture?
While its still two different worlds to me. I'm still tending to believe that the way the soft diffuse light render the shapes with a smooth sliding transition from light to shadow is the foremost reason while the shapes are such 3-dimentional pronounced at the GFX picture.
But looking at Alan's pictures too in the MF-forum with his GFX pictures compared with his previously X-T2 ones, has gained shape in a sort of same direction, I think. Perhaps it also could be explaned by a bit different pp?
But, I'm still in, in a "small" belief that the GFX does a sort of "modest-magical" rendering in that picture compared with the X-T3 (which I haven't used yet that much, but it seems to draw way better than the X-T2). The bottom-line to me: the GFX with the 23mm is shaping in a very, very strong way....hhmmmm..
(I might be in fear of feeling the need of a GFX-R...but I certainly hope not, because I can't afford it)

 

[k-hawinkler]

GFX 50S • GF23 @ f/5.6 • ISO 100 • focus stacked would be my choice. :grin:
Oh, on tripod with electronic shutter, no delay between shots.

 

[AlanS]

But looking at Alan's pictures too in the MF-forum with his GFX pictures compared with his previously X-T2 ones, has gained shape in a sort of same direction, I think.

Hi Thorkil, hope you don't mind me jumping in here but I am in agreement with your thoughts about the GFX. I personally think it is a format "size" thing myself, I can get more believable images with the bigger sensor (most of the time). I found it more apparent when I used 4x5" film and I have struggled with small format digital for some time.

 

[Shashin]

It is a difficult comparison as the X-T3 images are far more yellow. I find Fuji jpegs shifted to the warm side of things. That can make them pleasing, but it also takes the subtlety out of the images. RAWs tand to be more neutral, but I often have to play with color temperature when opening them. Also, the first image has mixed lighting, with a warm interior light adding to the image.

 

[biglouis]

Hi again, Louis is there any artificial light in the X-T3 picture?
The bottom-line to me: the GFX with the 23mm is shaping in a very, very strong way....hhmmmm..
(I might be in fear of feeling the need of a GFX-R...but I certainly hope not, because I can't afford it)

Only artificial light but I did increase the warmth in the X-T3 one so the comparison is not as straightforward as it could be. But like you, there is just something about the GFX/23mm photo which gives it the edge (as it should do).

GFX 50S • GF23 @ f/5.6 • ISO 100 • focus stacked would be my choice. :grin:
Oh, on tripod with electronic shutter, no delay between shots.

I've played with focus stacking - something I would never have bothered with when I was shooting MF film (obviously) - and I've come to the same conclusion that stopping down gives results which are so close in most cases as to make focus stacking unnecessary. Maybe if I was doing product shots but it is overkill for this type of still life as I believe the crops show.

It is a difficult comparison as the X-T3 images are far more yellow. I find Fuji jpegs shifted to the warm side of things. That can make them pleasing, but it also takes the subtlety out of the images. RAWs tand to be more neutral, but I often have to play with color temperature when opening them. Also, the first image has mixed lighting, with a warm interior light adding to the image.

Yes, agree. As I stated above I did warm up the X-T3 version, probably a bit too much. OTOH I liked the GFX version straight out of camera that I think all I did was maybe relieve some shadow.

LouisB

 

[Thorkil]

.. from the crops (the GFX is very impressive here, but should be so) it is obvious that the artificial light in the X-T3 is coming direct into the vertical center of the figures (see the half-circle shadow beneath the figures, which is in total symmetry), therefore the way the light falls at the figures are totally different, and where the GFX gains diffuse light from both the right side and from the left side, from windows, but stronger from the right window (the clouded sun must be to the right), so the light shapes the shapes in a more delicate, natural and strong in its way in the GFX picture, where the X-T3 light has to be shaping in a less interesting way because of direction and force…but still it is, in my head, a sort of alarming obvious and in a very impressive way how the figures are stepping out from their background in an extremely welldefined and strong way by the GFX (one gets that instinctive feel that you just are able to reach out and grab them) – alarming in my head while its seldom one see it in this way (but the natural light has to be with you), apart from some of Alan’s B&W wood pictures too. And it might have something to do with being rather close to subject too, I guess.

 

[Thorkil]

Hi Thorkil, hope you don't mind me jumping in here but I am in agreement with your thoughts about the GFX. I personally think it is a format "size" thing myself, I can get more believable images with the bigger sensor (most of the time). I found it more apparent when I used 4x5" film and I have struggled with small format digital for some time.

Hi Alan, Yes perhaps it is foremost explained by format itself, and some days ago I was about leaving a comment to you about the gain in your pictures from the X-T1/2 to your GFX-pictures where the shapes have those rather more welldefined roomy appearances, and the difference is rather strong and obvious. Don't know if its "only" the format, or the GFX 23mm contributes very well to it too ..
(the dreams become rather expensive for me now )

 

[Thorkil]

PS, Alan, I can't find what I thought to remember as your B&W GFX 23mm pictures, so I might be wrong in memory, perhaps you don't own it at all....

 

[ptomsu]

As a general thought on comparison between pictures - which can be very interesting and eye opening - BUT:

At least one should compare pictures taken roughly at same conditions as far as possible (light, equivalent distance, equivalent focal length, shutter speed and aperture).

Otherwise it becomes pretty useless to do such comparisons and waste too much time into arguing about the differences.

JMHO

Peter

 

[Thorkil]

Peter..you might be right..and I might, by that sensible argument, better keep both feet on the ground..
I do already have too much very good equipment to investigate in (for the rest of my life, I think)
And several things are playing a mighty role in how much you are using and liking your equipment (and which will keep on being long-time-fresh), and perhaps foremost your equipment's ability to do a fluently, simple and nice handling and communication with your mind, whether your mood is good or bad, are perhaps the most underrated and important thing when dreaming of equipment - at distance and secure placed in our armchair.
And for that last and own part, my ranking still will be 1) Z7, 2) Df/X-T3 (where the Df and X-T3 are about even, but in a very different way and mood)
best

 

[faberryman]

Otherwise it becomes pretty useless to do such comparisons and waste too much time into arguing about the differences.

Unless you are posting 100% crops, you are unlikely to see any meaningful differences in small images posted on the web anyway. I could post iPhone images in the Fun with Nikon Z6 thread, and no one would know the difference.

 

[biglouis]

As a general thought on comparison between pictures - which can be very interesting and eye opening - BUT:

At least one should compare pictures taken roughly at same conditions as far as possible (light, equivalent distance, equivalent focal length, shutter speed and aperture).

Otherwise it becomes pretty useless to do such comparisons and waste too much time into arguing about the differences.

JMHO

Peter

Yes, I agree. I think all I was trying to say with these two photos is I am pleased with both cameras. The X-T3 would not be at any disadvantage compared to the GFX, other than I prefer how the GFX images are nearly always great straight out of the camera and they do have an edge in overall look.

Unless you are posting 100% crops, you are unlikely to see any meaningful differences in small images posted on the web anyway. I could post iPhone images in the Fun with Nikon Z6 thread, and no one would know the difference.

Also agreed. I've almost given up taking my kit to events where friends or family expect me to take photos - I just rely on my smartphone. Why bother with anything else when the photos are only going to have a brief life on social media - and in fact the quality coming out of my Huawei P9 Pro (especially in B&W mode) is incredible. If for some reason in a hundred years time someone relies on the photo for historical research then I suspect it will still be usable just not the best possible quality but again, who cares?

LouisB