Fuji Ken Rockwell on X-T2...

mesmerized

Regular
Dear Users,

I've just come across this review of X-T2: Fuji X-T2 Review

This is what Ken Rockwell says:

Fuji X-T2 versus DSLRs

DSLRs are the workhorses of the pro industry. They give the best picture quality, widest range of lenses and fastest operation.

The reason to look at mirrorless cameras is mostly for small size and weight, but this is a big mirrorless camera, bigger than the previous model. Add the ludicrous EF-X500 flash, and it's just as big as a DSLR, but without the image quality and real-world speed.

I prefer a small DSLR like the Nikon D3300 or Canon SL1 to this X-T2, and each weighs and costs less. They don't feel as nice in-hand because they're plastic, but they work at least as well and their images are even better for nature and landscape due to their snappier color rendition.

Fuji goes off about "pro" with this camera, but it's not really. If you want small, consider a small DSLR for the best of all worlds.

While this Fuji's color is all about people, if you also do landscapes and nature, you'll do better with a DSLR.

I'm wondering what your opinions are. After all Canon SL1 is a very basic, entry-level model... So is Nikon 3300 as far as I know. Do these cameras still exceed Fuji's image quality?

Cheers
 
Ken Rockwell? - ha, ha, ha....

As regards IQ though - almost any ILC camera is capable of stunning quality in the right hands. Which system is right for you depends on a lot more than IQ.
 
Ken is a legend in his own mind. He is an entertainer first and foremost, exaggerates for effect and plays to the gallery. I would never turn to him for a serious or considered opinion.
 
As a guide, this is the guy who stated that you'd be better off using an iPhone 5 camera rather than a Ricoh GR, yet praised the Nikon Coolpix A to high heaven. That was 3 years ago, never taken him seriously since then.
 
Take ALL equipment review(ers) with a grain of salt.
A lot of people criticize Ken Rockwell. Some, who probably knew better, criticized quite crudely yet Ken still publishes his reviews and evidently makes a good deal of money doing so. He does seem to change his mind about what's "best" often though and in this case is completely ignoring the very real reasons for Pro model cameras from any manufacturer. His stated reasons for preferring the D3300 or SL1 to the XT2 would be equally valid for any comparison, even the "Pro" DSLR's made by Nikon or Canon yet he doesn't measure them by the same yardstick.

He DOES though ask a good question. The initial reason for M43 or mirrorless cameras was the significantly smaller size of cameras and lenses. How does size creep impact this? It's a good question (perhaps asked differently though?).

I for one have a few opinions on this. My XP2 is still quite significantly smaller and lighter than the DSLR I did use and that others around me are still using. I prefer the IQ of my XP2 to the IQ of my FF DSLR. I vastly prefer the performance and the OVF of my XP2 to my DSLR. In fact, as I reject claims of DSLR IQ superiority I wonder just what the reasons for continued DSLR use could be. It strikes me that the DSLR, like the telephone on the kitchen wall, are trading on previous glories and have become niche products.

re the EF-500 flash, as I read the promotional material this flash will free me from the stupefyingly slow flash sync speeds of other camera/flash setups. That's a first step in the right direction.
 
Speaking only for myself…



He begins with a flawed assumption, and then runs with it from there into oblivion. He assumes that small size is the only reason to go with mirrorless. It is a factor for me, for sure, but it is not the only factor. My own list – rank-sorted by importance – might go more like this:

1. Haptics. How easy are the controls to use? How intuitive? Do the right aspect controls fall under the right fingers? Can I look down at a camera that’s not powered up, as I walk along to the next shot, and see all my important settings? Can I click the shutter, aperture, or ISO up or down by thirds just by feel, before I raise the camera up? Because I do that, constantly, and the Fuji bodies and primes let me do that easily. Down a stop on the aperture and up a stop on the shutter, by feel, as I bike with my other hand… easy.

2. Size. How big are the bodies AND the lenses? How big are the fast primes? Do they make any “sweet spot” f2 / f2.8 lenses that are compact?

3. Lens prices. How much does a “holy $hit” good f1.4 prime cost? Is it $400 - $800, or is it $1400-$2500?

4. SOOC Jpg quality and wifi. I need to beam pics directly to my iphone and post to Instagram, twitter and facebook during events. It’s a big advantage, and a must in my opinion, if you’re going to compete with cell phones, which are only getting better optics and sensors.



I could go on a little farther. But looking at this list, it’s no wonder I pick up a friend’s 5D and feel nothing.

**Your list will be different from mine. Hurray, choices!**
 
Personally, to me opinions are like butts; everybody’s got one, and that’s really fair enough until someone tells me that their opinion matters more because of etc…etc… etc or to treat their words as gospel because of blah..blah…blah… or he’s a leading authority in something because he won a beard lice picking competition back in 1922, that’s usually when I tune out, switch the channel or if in the pub utter the words “ohhhkaayyy…” and slowly back away from the person.

Ken Rockwell to me is this kind of person, he’s got his own opinions, some we will probably agree upon, and some we will bitterly disagree with until we’re both dead, and that's fine. It’s all the BS in the middle that makes me treat what he says with a grain of salt

He could do open and objective reviews but let’s face it that’s not what people who follow him are after, they want to read how he rubbishes one item and praises the other while contradicting himself on past statements, and that his opinion is gospel, this is what his followers are after. If he did reviews like “this is camera A, this is what I liked, this is what I disliked, YMMV, The End”, his followers would be utterly confused, it’s like taking a bunch of Ted Nugent fans to Creedence Clearwater Revival concert.

Well that’s really my butt, I mean opinion.


Now that I have given my opinion………….Help Me Help You, I support my growing family through this website, as crazy as it might seem. If you haven't helped yet, please do, and consider helping me with a gift of $5.00.





 
While I do have little respect for KR, he does have one point. I first started down the mirror less trail, because of size, smaller cameras, smaller lenses and smaller chips. I started with a Olympus M4/3 camera system and was very happy understanding it's abilities and weaknesses, then the Fujis showed up I went with XPro1s and XT1s loved the IQ and the ever growing list of optics, great system but it was getting bigger, both bodies and lenses to accommodate the larger chip. Now I have changed yet again to Sony FF mirror less cameras and the size has grown a lot especially the lenses, no longer is the mirror less system any smaller than my FF DSLR stuff, the bodies yes the lenses no.
Why do I have both? Interesting question.
 
I agree with a lot of what is said here. Frankly, the only times KR writes well is when he sticks to either film cameras or is talking about Leica and Nikon (mainly because he probably handles them a lot and so makes some good points now and then).

Having said that I sort of agree with Ken's point about Fuji touting the XT2 as a Pro Camera. I actually walked into a store the other day specifically to look at the XT-2. Great build, lighter than a DSLR, great picture quality on the face of it, but ... if you really need fast autofocus and the ability (as one Malaysian photographer puts it) to create ultra-prints, I still think that an advanced DSLR (not entry level) is the way to go. While I was at the store I also happened to pick up the Pentax K-1 (and I haven't had a DSLR since the K-5). While it is not the fastest DSLR out there, it nailed focus a lot faster. And a little bit of pixel peeping easily distinguishes one camera from the other. Made me want to pull out some of my old glass!

This is not so say that the XT-2 is not a fine camera. But it is not Pro is many senses of the word. So in regards to Ken's comment about "While Fuji's color is all about people, if you also do landscapes and nature, you'll do better with a DSLR", I have to admit that I agree with him.
 
Alas Ken Rockwell believes his own hype and as he declares, his main source of income is his website and the associated links that people use - he is opinionated and that draws people to his site and the more contentious he is, the more people seem to read his posts and either agree or disagree with what he says.
I would never base my decisions on an article / review he has written but his writing can certainly be entertaining!
 
Spode raises an interesting point. What does "Pro" actually mean, in marketing speak? A "Pro" in this context is someone who earns the bulk of their income from photography. They may do so with ANY tool that captures images. I'm not a Pro because I use an X-Pro2 but many Pros use one. I wouldn't get hung up on the term.
 
Back
Top