Fujifilm's new X-T2 camera has 24 megapixels, 4K video, and great controls

Quality wise most of their lenses are top notch and can easily hold their own against the offering of other brands.

Nikkor lenses are overall very good, but IMHO the Fuji mirrorless ones mostly have them beat in both resolution, contrast and aberration control. (Much of the reason probably being that overall, it is less hard to get excellent optical quality when you do not have to design around the huge mirror box sitting between your lens and sensor!)

I'll definitely keep my medium format (film) cameras, but as for digital, I am seriously considering offloading two decades' worth of Nikkor lenses and switch allegiance to Fuji X - once they come up with a wider wide angle lens than the current 14mm offering. (When doing landscapes, I often find myself reaching for the 17mm end of my widest lens - equivalent to 11mm or so in APS-C. The difference between 11mm and 14mm is much, much larger than one would expect!

tl;dr: Fujinon lenses are excellent. You are not likely to be disappointed unless you need extreme wide angle or telephoto lenses.

If people aren't interested, they won't upvote.

And the interest doesn't necessarily lie in the camera itself. Maybe we'll get a discussion about APS-C. Maybe about some cool medium format cameras. Maybe about aquarell paintings. Who knows?

If your camera can do clean images with 100,200,400 ISO, then one more stop to 800 is a huge deal.

If it can do 100,200,400,800,1600,3200 and 6400, another stop is no huge deal anymore.

Same goes for DR.

"because that's what's going to make a difference in your photo"

No.

I've had my photography written off as useless after people found out that I used a 12MP camera (a D3) - only to have the same people look at some of my prints (made from D3 raw files, carefully processed in Lightroom), ooh-ing and aa-aahing over them and wondering what camera I used to take such wonderful photos.

(Then again, for a really big sensor, I bring out my Fujica GL690 - a beast of a rangefinder in 6*9 medium format.)

The biggest improvements in the last few years have been in dynamic range and being able to take photos in darker and darker scenes.

I think the easiest win now is getting top-quality (not necessarily new) lenses. Newer lenses can be worse in some ways. They've generally traded build and image quality for the convienience of auto-focus and zooming.

Super zooms are in a way embracing the positive traits of small sensors. But there is more than one kind of camera. Small sensors will still have trouble in low light (since their area is smaller they capture less light) or resolution (if you want to make them capture more light you could make the pixels larger, trading off resolution, but potential noise in low light also reduces resolution).

Cameras are and always have been about capturing light and the tradeoffs involved with that. As such it is absurd to claim that “optical zoom” is what it’s all about. It was and always will be a delicate interplay of optics, light and technology (whether film emulsion or digital sensors) and there is more than one way too solve this problem.

The sensor this camera used to have was widely hailed as excellent and had moderate 16MP. 24MP isn’t such a great jump (and really not that special for an APS-C sensor), but this sensor could conceivably deliver that additional resolution with no cost in low light performance. And that would be brilliant. (But there is more than one camera in this category.)

But in a way I agree with you. Not about super zooms, that’s just silly. But about tools fit for the job. I have the X-T100 (no weather proofing, fewer control points, less solid build, identical 16MP sensor as the X-T1, cheaper) and if the X-T2 had ditched the control scheme of the X-T1/T100 I don’t think I would even consider it, even if it had 48MP. Or 96MP. I don’t need that. I need a camera that’s pleasant to use and that delivers great photos. I don’t need a megapixel monster. I need a camera I love to take in my hand. Handling, to me, is much more important than nearly anything else, beyond a certain baseline of image quality and performance.

That being said a small m43 body with a pancake lens will give you pretty amazing pictures in a much more portable package.

I have an X-T10 and two lenses, and while the weight is somewhat lighter than a DSLR system, it's not much lighter and the bulk is just the same. Plus all lenses have different filter sizes requiring the use of step-up rings, making operation more annoying as you have to remove the rings when stowing.

After using my X-T10, it loses vs. DSLR on almost every front (mechanical construction is great though). Micro four thirds systems are much smaller. I am going to go back to a DSLR, and I'll also get a micro four thirds system for when weight is an issue.

A couple of years back, I bought a Sony A6000 (they're up to A6300 now) and love it.

Mirrorless APS-Cs occupy a really interesting space.

Small and light enough to carry around all the time (unlike even the lighter DSLRs I've tried). Big enough sensor to (potentially, depending on the body/lens) offer great low light performance, clarity, and reasonably good DOF control. Depending on the shutter type, blazingly fast continuous drive (the 11fps on the A6000 is incredible).

I still have my Nikon D90 (APS-C DSLR) but it doesn't see as much use these days. The portability and convenience of the A6000 (micro USB charging, wifi transfer of photos to my phone) make it my go-to. The lenses I have for the Nikon, however, are superior. The format (Nikon F mount) has been around for a very long time, and really high quality lenses are really affordable these days.

I definitely think it's a move worth making.

The same point as every other post here. People are interested and upvote it.

> My two year old smartphone has a superb camera with equal spec.

No it doesn't. Your smartphone does not have an APS-C sized sensor, nor phase-detection focus.

> My years old DSLR too.

A DSLR is not a mirrorless camera.

it has what?