Fuji The itch for Fujifilm, to switch or not.

L0n3Gr3yW0lf said:
What I would like to add is that there are features on Fujifilm that I am excited to get (or re-get as an ex Olympus and Panasonic user) that (at least my current) Sony camera does not have:
*Black-out free burst & 20 FPS
*Pre-Shot
*Focus Bracketing
*Fully capable Electronic Shutter
*Vertical screen tilt capability
*More dependable weather sealing (well for the X-T and X-H cameras)
*No camera/feature lockup while writing to the card
Click to expand...
You may want an X-H2S then.
 
My 2 cents. I understand your feelings toward Sony. Even though I have a fantastic Sony system, I find Olympus much more pleasurable to use. Fuji has always piqued my interest and I have tried one Fuji ILC (I don’t remember the model now, it was a few years ago) and I tried the X100F and X100V. I sold each of them. I just did not gel with Fuji. There is no perfect camera or system so you need to find what you enjoy using. The Sony A7 series produces incredible images and the AF is amazing, but for me, I like a more involved/manual process. Sony is just kind of sterile for me. So though I think I am crazy for thinking this but, it is what it is.

I dipped my toes in the Leica world this past year buying a gently used Q2 and then an M10-R. I really enjoy the M10-R, the Q2 is a nice camera but the M10-R scratches my creative/process itch. James Popsys did a video this week addressing how easy it is to get an image these days with auto everything. The premise resonated with me in my own journey this year. I think the Fuji might be something that you would enjoy but I would also look at maybe a used EM1 MKiii or ii and a few manual focus lenses. The beauty of MFT is the range of lenses available for every budget and size. Put a Voigtlander or Laowa lens on an Olympus camera and you now have much more control. Go all manual if you like. Then there is Leica, you could save your money for a bit more, buy a gently used body and some Voigtlander lenses. Here is an interesting article on the “cost” of using a Leica. Good luck in your decision but most importantly, enjoy the ride.
 
Last edited:
Well, I'll add my 2 cents then also... Maybe try renting a Fuji setup if possible where you are? Might save you some trouble in the end if you find that you don't enjoy it quite as much as you thought...

I took another dip in Fuji waters this spring myself, and just like @BruceRH I found that it wasn't for me. A bit of a shame, since I found the X-E3 to be a thing of beauty, but it didn't really work that well for any of my shooting. First of all, the AF wasn't any better than what it was on the GX80. Then the problems with the ergonomics, it didn't fit my hand any better than the X-Pro1 I had some years earlier. And I still hated the shutter release. Too stiff, I ended up with mostly blurry shots due to camera movement from releasing the shutter. So it didn't work for my candid shooting well enough. Ditto for landscapes, since there isn't a wireless remote for the X-E3, and every time you shut the camera down the self timer resets, so it's a pain for tripod use. All this made me feel I was always fighting the camera instead of working with it, as much as I wanted to like it.

I also didn't fall in love with the Fuji JPEG's. Sometimes they're really good, but most of the times I didn't find them that much more special than - gasp - a Sony JPEG. And the film sims are nice, but not for me. Well, at least the colours were more predictable than they were on the Panny GX80, that was a strong point. Even in mixed lighting situations. But it didn't make me a believer... And the X-trans raw-files gave wormsign very early when applying any amount of sharpening, both in Lightroom and ART.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think the Fujis are horrible cameras. Quite the opposite. But they didn't cut it for me, and despite all the nice & shiny knobs and dials didn't make photography any more fun for me. Others have quite different findings, however, so try before buying is my advice. Sucks less to pay a little fee in rent - if you can rent, that is - than making a big honking lens investment and then finding out you don't like it.
 
Iron said:
...To try... or else you won't be able to sleep?

I am also brand agnostic and since we now have plenty choose from, we are in search of that one camera that we are going to enjoy working with perpetually.

I am a fan of weather-sealing on anything. Cameras, outdoor equipment, sensors, etc. My work in my previous life involved working all seasons and in rough terrain so IP44 was just the bare minimum. I even worked with equipment rated at IP79K!

Weather-sealing is a tricky topic because even when a manufacturer rates their cameras IP55 or IP65, oftentimes they don't publish them because of liability. High-end Canon and Nikon DSLRs are easily IP44 but they don't claim it due to liability. Weather-sealing is only as good as the weakest point and, oftentimes, the weakest point is exposed by the user. You took very good care of your X100 in the Sahara with carbonate dust, while many others bring their IP44 cameras there and most probably failing to close one flap completely and get the dust to flood the whole body/lens.

Good practice is still best when dealing with weather sealing with any equipment. Many technicians observe corrosion inside weather-sealed bodies, even with pro gear. Users just don't let the system breathe. Many would shoot in a thunderstorm/torrential rain using a weather-sealed kit, dry the outside, keep the lens attached until the next season, only to discover the the main board or some other component has already failed due to corrosion/water ingress.

I think weather-sealing is completely misunderstood. IP44, which is the bare minimum for my ex-work, simply means that Ingress Protection (IP) is assured for solid objects (4) above 1mm and "water" splash at any angle (4) and to get that limit, water ingress, even by a small margin is allowed. A good example is the older MFT Olympus cameras where their testing involves water jets at all angles but the pressure coming from the jets is undisclosed. They are marketed as weather-sealed but only rated them IPX4, which is of course, very conservative. X means they didn't rate them for solid objects, but it doesn't mean they aren't tested. The latest O-M5 is rated at IP53 so, they accept liability up to ingress protection by (5) dust that could interfere with normal operation but not fully dust-sealed and (3), lower than the E-M5 III, which is just water protection from any angle at 60 degrees.

I did a crash course in optical engineering and I can say that it's very, very, very, very difficult to design an MFT lens that is unsharp even at the edges. When the edges are unsharp on an MFT lens, there is usually a compromise somewhere in the design, like prioritising ridiculous centre sharpness, giving extra background blur, etc.



CIPA stabilisation is just stamped by the manufacturers, like IP ratings. Independent testing in the EU and even in Japan place majority of the 35mm and APS-C cameras at around 4.5 to 5 stops only, not the 6, 7 or 8 stops that many manufacturers are claiming. Olympus even under-rated their IBIS as laboratories even place the E-M1 II at 8 stops stills IBIS body only! I can't find the links but they are in Japanese or from a certain country whose servers are unacceptable at the moment due to a certain geopolitical incident. One can do it at home, by the way. CIPA IBIS ratings are published online.
Click to expand...
Previous Olympus bodies were publicly rated IPx1, which was obviously laughably conservative since even at the E-M5.1 launch, Olympus execs were emptying bottles of water over the camera.

IP79k: I had to google that, never knew it went beyond 8 for water. Can't find anything beyond 6 for dust?

Also, I didn't realize letting the camera dry out internally would help, I always figured if I finally manage to scrape together the budget for a WR ILC, I'd just get one WR superzoom lens and leave it on forever. But ofcourse even a lens as well sealed as an Olympus Pro, with its waterproof membrane to deal with the air pump effect, will still pull in moisture from the air which will still condensate after a temperature drop.
 
BruceRH said:
My 2 cents. I understand your feelings toward Sony. Even though I have a fantastic Sony system, I find Olympus much more pleasurable to use. Fuji has always piqued my interest and I have tried one Fuji ILC (I don’t remember the model now, it was a few years ago) and I tried the X100F and X100V. I sold each of them. I just did not gel with Fuji. There is no perfect camera or system so you need to find what you enjoy using. The Sony A7 series produces incredible images and the AF is amazing, but for me, I like a more involved/manual process. Sony is just kind of sterile for me. So tho es I think I am crazy for thinking this but, it is what it is.

I dipped my toes in the Leica world this past year buying a gently used Q2 and then an M10-R. I really enjoy the M10-R, the Q2 is a nice camera but the M10-R scratches my creative/process itch. James Popsys did a video this week addressing how easy it is to get an image these days with auto everything. The premise resonated with me in my own journey this year. I think the Fuji might be something that you would enjoy but I would also look at maybe a used EM1 MKiii or ii and a few manual focus lenses. The beauty of MFT is the range of lenses available for every budget and size. Put a Voigtlander or Laowa lens on an Olympus camera and you now have much more control. Go all manual if you like. Then there is Leica, you could save your money for a bit more, buy a gently used body and some Voigtlander lenses. Here is an interesting article on the “cost” of using a Leica. Good luck in your decision but most importantly, enjoy the ride.
Click to expand...
I saw Jame's video and I even left a comment on it, similar to this: I disagree that automation for the autofocus system (be it very efficient at it or being able to detect subject types) is a step to far. Focus is the one thing that is almost unfixable when it's wrong (exposure, colour, composition can be recovered more easily within reason and RAW and cropping). When it comes to still or slow subjects of course you can manually focus but for moving subjects it gets harder. While it's easy to tell someone to "get good" and improve your skill, the amount of time you have to do that is not universal to everyone and it's not linearly increasing over time either, priorities change, life happens and time is not a commodity (especially not compared to previous generations where there wasn't as much demand on out free time).
Getting things done efficiently and correctly as close to the first try as possible is not invaluable just for professionals but also the amateurs where time, while not paid, can be less plentiful.

Personally I would love to have an AF as responsive and dependable as what A7R V showed, that way I can focus on the other elements of photography and not worry if I got the focus right or not. Where the automation is more problematic for a photographer is the manipulation of the image after you taken on smartphones, where you have less control on colour, sharpness, noise reduction, exposure in modes like Night/Low Light.

From shooting portraits, pet photography, street photography, wildlife, birds in flight, most of the generals I'm interested or even just curious would benefit (to greater degree or lease by improving and better AF-C, Subject Detection and automatisation between these two.
Also manual focus is always an option on any system, better on some (mechanical linked focus) or lesser (bad focus focus by wire implementation). The problem for me right now is cost, it needs to get lower on either more mainstream models or the higher end to get cheaper on the used market.
 
I tried Fuji back in the XE2 days. I didn’t like it. The 16Mp RAF files didn’t suit landscape well with terrible loss of detail in green foliage. I also found a propensity for worms to appear when sharpening using LR. I also don’t like the old-school shutter + aperture control scheme, much preferring the PASM approach. I then spent a little time with an XT2 a year or so later and got cramp from the grip and dial positioning. And that’s before having to lose IBIS. Not for me. So many other cameras out there, I think Fuji is the last system I’d look to use.
 
bartjeej said:
Previous Olympus bodies were publicly rated IPx1, which was obviously laughably conservative since even at the E-M5.1 launch, Olympus execs were emptying bottles of water over the camera.
Click to expand...
I saw those videos. IPX1 means assured protection from vertical drops of water. It's a bit vague but what they demonstrated clearly weren't just "drops." They were very confident with the performance. They probably just were worried about someone doing the same bottle wash incorrectly.
bartjeej said:
IP79k: I had to google that, never knew it went beyond 8 for water. Can't find anything beyond 6 for dust?
Click to expand...
The rating is the highest among equipment sealing. 9K for water is protection assurance against ingress due to pressure washing and steam cleaning. It was provisional before as 8 was the highest but, now, the rating is pretty much standard across manuals/standards. 7 for dust is present in some standards but provisional in many. It is assurance from solid particle ingress with the use of high pressure sources of air like wind tunnels, some blower, etc. Sooner or later, it will be standard and will be common across engineering standards. 6 for dust is just total sealing against dust particles and no pressure is indicated, at all. They probably aren't sure what sort of air pressure/volume they will use globally. The 79K is seen on many scientific experiments, particularly weather-related ones and even has backup sealing just in case the main sealing fails. Pretty hardcore, actually.
bartjeej said:
But ofcourse even a lens as well sealed as an Olympus Pro, with its waterproof membrane to deal with the air pump effect, will still pull in moisture from the air which will still condensate after a temperature drop.
Click to expand...
Yes, the sealing usually is waterproof foam similar to what is used in houses, windows, etc. At the moment, Olympus uses single-density foam/sealing across lenses. Pentax placed dual-density at least on the K200D and triple to multi-density sealing on K-7 and beyond. These materials are able to wick out/repel water up to a certain time before the membranes get breached and get saturated. Once water gets in, they must get out so airing/breathing is good practice with any weather-sealed equipment.

Regarding breathing, some manufacturers like Sony used to have some sort of a breathing design but it's completely misunderstood by the users as standing water will easily breach into the system through the breather. To be fair to Sony, those users placed their cameras in standing water in the rain and didn't at least get the system to breath/dry out.
pdk42 said:
The 16Mp RAF files didn’t suit landscape well with terrible loss of detail in green foliage.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Fuji X-Trans images work incredibly well with RawTherapee. It's often overlooked as the exposures with such sensor are very different to the Bayer ones but RawTherapee understands it reasonably well. Actually, when a Fuji camera default simulation DCP is applied in RawTherapee, the result is often closer to the actual film than the SooC film simulation. It can get very addictive but I understand it may not be for everyone.
 
I tried Fujifilm with the X-PRO1, X-T1 and X-T3 plus the 16-55/2.8 and 50-140/2.8 PRO grade red badge zooms, the 10-24/4 and the 16/2.8, 23/1.4 and 35/1.4 lenses.

Long story short, it wasn't what I was expecting, and the grass always looks greener on the other side.

As much praise as the jpeg recipes receive, I just couldn't find one that made me stop shooting raw. These approach may work for A LOT of people, but not for me.
What about the legendary Fujifilm colour science? It is beautiful indeed, but Olympus colour science is beautiful as well and when you are shooting raw you can adjust the colour as much as you want. The only thing that Olympus colours are lacking this days is the hype that the Fujifilm colours have.

The autofocus with the X-T3 (that back then was the flagship model) was not great, it always gave me instant confirmation but then after checking my images, a lot of times my target was not in focus. And I'm talking the most basic AF mode: S-AF. (There are videos and forum threads of people with the exact same issues out there). To me, this was extremely dissapointing and I think it was the main reason that made me ditch the system.

The good old 35/1.4 (my favourite in the system) and to a lesser extent the 23/1.4 were hard to sell for me, these two lenses render BEAUTIFUL images. A lot of people out there praise the 35/1.4 and I agree with them. The 16/2.8 (one of the "Fujicrons" was an okay lens, nothing bad or wrong with it, but nothing special either.

The optical quality of the red badge zooms was great, but once again my Olympus PRO zooms gave me at least the exact optical quality in a smaller package and without any AF problems.

Since I use Capture One, I had no issues with the X-Trans sensor, the detail of the .RAF files was excellent, shadow recovery was indeed better than with my Micro 4/3 kit, the EVF on either the X-T1 and X-T3 was great. The dials to control everything on those cameras were a huge plus.

However the size of the zoom lenses, the lack of IBIS and the unreliable AF were a big factor to ditch the system. I don't shoot video at all, so all the video features on the X-T3 were useless to me.

After a while I decided to sell everything, and stick with my Micro 4/3 kit that I was running at the same time, and that I'm still using very happily to this day.
 
Last edited:
I've been doing a bit of lens research for the last few days and I think I am noticing some patterns:

*Of all the standard zoom lenses, Fujifilm is not holding up to well in terms of sharpness, where the XF 18-135mm being softer then average (I have watche multiple reviews to get a bigger sample then just one copy), the XF 16-80mm is better but not by much, the XF 16-55mm is one of the best ones BUT Tamron 17-70mm beats it at most of the range and it's cheaper unless I get a used copy of the Fujifilm (the Tamron is to new to find a used copy yet).
This is a bit do a disappointment because I have quite high expectations from using and owning my copy of Tamron 28-75mm f 2.8 and the copy of Tamron 28-200mm was exceptionally good for a zoom of its class (and I would be interested in re-acquiring it if I stay with Sony). (I value a good standard to midrange zoom lens as a every day lens when I don't feel like swapping primes, especially when doing street photography and walking my Little Legs)

*The Fujifilm primes have a very beautiful rendition and strong character to them but the Sigma f 1.4 trio seem to perform significantly better at significantly lower price (again, unfortunately Sigma trio ia to new to find many used copy on X mount and their price new is very close or slightly above used copies of Fujifilm). And the lack of affordability of macro lenses on X Mount outside of Samyang and Laowa manual focus means I can't use Focus Bracketing.

*It seems that the best bang for the back combo would be the Tamron 17-70mm f 2.8, Tamron 150-500mm f 5-6.6 and the Sigma 16mm f 1.4, Sigma 30mm f 1.4, Sigma 56mm f 1.4 which means I wouldn't have an aperture ting on any of the lenses so they would fit at home a bit more on Fujifilm X-S10 control scheme more then Fujifilm X-T series.

My enthusiasm for Fujifilm has gone down a bit.
 
L0n3Gr3yW0lf said:
I saw Jame's video and I even left a comment on it, similar to this: I disagree that automation for the autofocus system (be it very efficient at it or being able to detect subject types) is a step to far. Focus is the one thing that is almost unfixable when it's wrong (exposure, colour, composition can be recovered more easily within reason and RAW and cropping). When it comes to still or slow subjects of course you can manually focus but for moving subjects it gets harder. While it's easy to tell someone to "get good" and improve your skill, the amount of time you have to do that is not universal to everyone and it's not linearly increasing over time either, priorities change, life happens and time is not a commodity (especially not compared to previous generations where there wasn't as much demand on out free time).
Getting things done efficiently and correctly as close to the first try as possible is not invaluable just for professionals but also the amateurs where time, while not paid, can be less plentiful.

Personally I would love to have an AF as responsive and dependable as what A7R V showed, that way I can focus on the other elements of photography and not worry if I got the focus right or not. Where the automation is more problematic for a photographer is the manipulation of the image after you taken on smartphones, where you have less control on colour, sharpness, noise reduction, exposure in modes like Night/Low Light.

From shooting portraits, pet photography, street photography, wildlife, birds in flight, most of the generals I'm interested or even just curious would benefit (to greater degree or lease by improving and better AF-C, Subject Detection and automatisation between these two.
Also manual focus is always an option on any system, better on some (mechanical linked focus) or lesser (bad focus focus by wire implementation). The problem for me right now is cost, it needs to get lower on either more mainstream models or the higher end to get cheaper on the used market.
Click to expand...
My 2 cents:

1. Tack sharp focus is overrated.
2. I am the creator, the AI is not. We won’t always agree on what to focus on.

I understand that subject detection is a useful tool to many. But it is not a tool I have sought in my photography. I usually turn off all subject detection modes, as they get in the way of my process.
 
TNcasual said:
My 2 cents:

1. Tack sharp focus is overrated.
2. I am the creator, the AI is not. We won’t always agree on what to focus on.

I understand that subject detection is a useful tool to many. But it is not a tool I have sought in my photography. I usually turn off all subject detection modes, as they get in the way of my process.
Click to expand...
My used cases, at the moment, is:
*Documenting life and enjoyment of the residence with learning disabilities I work with, they are not always cooperative or understanding (there's language barrier for some and complete lack of communication for others), I often have to react within split second to get the shot. I have found my Tamron 28-75mm f 2.8 G2 absolutely invaluable for such situations. And a lot of activities can be indoors with no control over light , I end up pushing ISO 6.400 and 12.800 on regular basis at f 2.8 and my "new" primes at f 1.8 have been a life saver to get 1/125 and 1/60 second (at 85mm and 35mm). (I will not and cannot use flash because of risk of sezures)
*Pet photography, it's the ONE and ONLY type of photography I would like to do professionally (at least as a side gig to earn my free time). My own struggle and lesson was this summer needing almost 2 months and more then two dozen attempts to get about 4 pictures of my dog running (towards me) through a field of grain in sharp focus with my Sony a7R II and Tamron 28-75mm f 2.8 G2, Tamron 150-500mm f 5-6.7 and Sony FE 50mm f 1.8 ... I would like a more reliable and dependable setup to make action pictures of dogs for their owners (and mine as well).
*Wildlife photography... Self explanatory:p
 
I come from Nikon - everything Nikon since the 80's.
Now I possess 5 Fuji cameras, of which the X-S10 is the newest in technology and the only one with IBIS.
They're all great. They really are fun to work with, very intuitive and highly (too much so!) customisable

If you're looking to rekindle the fun element of photography, grab a Fuji
 
When is the XT-5 joining the conversation ? I also have been considering an addition to my Olympus. I really like my em5mkll but have mentioned before it seems a little light when it comes to details especially landscape IMO.Of course this is based on watching these guys with 8k camera bodies and 12k lens . I really enjoy shooting people but thanks to what seems to be a lot of concentrated efforts from certain groups people it seems harder to connect with interested people and I find myself looking else where for the pleasure of photography. The Xt5 seems very photo concentric which appeals to me but would like to hear what the fuji shooters are thinking.
 
Last edited:
Acraftman said:
I really enjoy shooting people but thanks to what seems to be a lot of concentrated efforts from certain groups people it seems harder to connect with interested people and I find myself looking else where for the pleasure of photography.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what your meaning is. Clearly you are expressing something that you have strong feelings about, but from the way it's said, I fail to follow. Maybe you can elucidate? Or maybe you want to keep it vague? I've read this paragraph several times and can't really get the gist of it, sorry.

Acraftman said:
The Xt5 seems very photo concentric which appeals to me but would like to hear what the fuji shooters are thinking.
Click to expand...

I think the general feeling is excitement. All the announced improvements sound very promising
 
Irene McC said:
I have no idea what your meaning is. Clearly you are expressing something that you have strong feelings about, but from the way it's said, I fail to follow. Maybe you can elucidate? Or maybe you want to keep it vague? I've read this paragraph several times and can't really get the gist of it, sorry.



I think the general feeling is excitement. All the announced improvements sound very promising
Click to expand...
The last time I was blunt about an opinion it was removed as being conspiracy orientated. This was on another site a lot of 4/3rds shooters have come from. So not to hurt anybody's "feelings" I was trying to (vaguely) indicate (IMO) that changes have been taking place that seem to promote the benefits of isolation. I am not one who benefits from this trend e.g. four years ago we had three meetup groups in the metro area I live. Now we have none. The last four photo shoots I had collaborated to do the other party's have disappeared 🤷‍♂️, hence my interest in landscape which actually comes in second to my recent interests in shooting wildlife I am hoping the XT-5 will cover those niches since I haven't done a camera upgrade in seven years.
 
Hi @Acraftman

Thank you for providing more clarity, without which I hadn't been able to ascertain that this was your implied meaning.
I've noticed no such trend, and often read notices about group photo walks taking place. It's not 'my thing' at all, so
I don't pay much attention to those, but probably due to the pandemic any type of group activities have been toned down?
Do you not feel comfortable doing that and shooting what you enjoy on your own?
 
Irene McC said:
I come from Nikon - everything Nikon since the 80's.
Now I possess 5 Fuji cameras, of which the X-S10 is the newest in technology and the only one with IBIS.
They're all great. They really are fun to work with, very intuitive and highly (too much so!) customisable

If you're looking to rekindle the fun element of photography, grab a Fuji
Click to expand...
I suspect you will have an X-T5 or X-H2S in the foreseeable future 😺
 

Similar threads

T
Fuji Fuji 18mm f1.4 or 23mm f1.4 LM WR- how to decide?
Replies
9
Views
266
Bobby T
Bobby T
L0n3Gr3yW0lf
Why Fujifilm can and others can not?
Replies
3
Views
219
Irene McC
Irene McC
drd1135
Fuji Fuji 100-400
Replies
1
Views
98
mnhoj
mnhoj
Back
Top