Fujifilm X-T2 review: for the love of photography
theverge.com
theverge.com
I have an X-E2 and I love it, but I'm very curious to see if they release an X-E3 and what features of the X-T2 and X-Pro2 it will incorporate.
The whole X series is a pretty great system IMO. The designs are simple, bodies offer fully manual control, the lenses are extremely high quality, and certain models of lenses are much smaller than DSLR counterparts (18mm, 27mm, 35 f/2).
If you like classic manual cameras, especially rangefinder style ones, you'll like the X-E1/2 and the X-Pro1/2. The X-T2 however, is sort of an "SLR" format camera with the viewfinder in the center, which I'm not big on. One of the major advantages of mirrorless cameras (for me) is that you are able to put the viewfinder on the side and keep the camera's screen from smashing your nose when you shoot.
If you are into photography and haven't considered the Fujifilm offerings, I highly recommend that you do.
P.S. Fujifilm's engineers are continuously updating and refining the firmware from user feedback. With the 4.x release of the firmware for my X-E2, it add a boatload of features and really made it into the camera of my dreams. The 16MP sensor is getting a little bit dated, but that is going to happen with any camera. Plus, their X-Trans technology offers some advantages over traditional Bayer array sensors.
Fuji actually uses Sony sensors. So the XPro2 / XT2 has the exact same sensor as a a6300 and a6500. So on paper, the Sony have a lot more going for them in terms of price to features. It should be really interesting to see what kind of pressure that puts on them.
That's not to say that the Sony's are better cameras. Fuji has a great glass selection, has arguably better ergonomics, but is also slightly larger and heavier. Fuji is a great camera company no doubt.
Overall, in the APS-C format, the offerings are pretty comparable across a wide range of price points.
Edit: Sony does not have the exact same sensor as the Fuji. Fuji's X-Trans sensor doesn't use a Bayer array. But Fuji's sensor is made by Sony.
Definitely not. Fuji X-Pro and X-T2 use the Fuji X-Trans III, while Sony a6300/a6500 uses a conventional Bayer array sensor.
I have an (original) X100 and my only complaint is I wish it had more knobs and buttons: at least an extra knob for ISO, and a third or even fourth user-configurable button. (It looks like the X-T2 is swimming with knobs and buttons, so good for Fujifilm, they must listen to customer feedback.) I rarely need to use the knobs but when I do, they're right there so I don't need to spend time navigating menus.
A little OT: I held onto my X100 until the X100T landed because a better physical interface was a big deal to me: better buttons, the Q menu, the better EVF - the X100T did a good job of delivering on these. Better sensor performance was almost a nice to have: cameras, esp. in 2015/2016, are so darned good for most use cases (short of shooting sports in the dark...) that the need to upgrade for raw IQ is pretty rare.
The X100T isn't perfect, but I find it to be the right compromise for me: fixed prime, doesn't need its own dedicated bag, lasts all day (with the way I shoot), and there's plenty of latitude in the RAW files.
The X-T2 (and X2 Pro, even) are great cameras, and the Fuji lens system is pretty fantastic, but it's nice that Fuji offers simple options too. Constraints are good for creativity :)
Also, even with that design, your nose can still smash into the screen if you're left eye dominant. I personally just use the back screen to shoot, not the viewfinder. Technically I guess I'm not taking advantage of the X-T2's beautiful viewfinder.
But I do agree with your suggestion of Fuji's cameras. With the old-school dials, it helped me to understand how to use the camera manually.
However, even with this design advantage, in this instance Fujifilm chose to make it "look" like an SLR. From a marketing standpoint I understand this, but from a usability one, I don't.
Fuji took a UX worked for decades on film cameras and applied it to digital cameras. The result is that I'm having a lot more fun taking pictures.
Edit-- just got an XT2 w the 90mm F2.
With X-series Fuji provides the proven UX to handling the exposure settings, compact sizing and excellent image quality. Secretly I'm still hoping for a compact Nikon mirrorless FX body with Df / Fuji X / traditional exposure settings. Let's see!
The only down side to the leaf shutter for me is that you loose rear curtain sync (as there is no curtain to sync with).
I was never really sure if there was an alternative way for Fujifilm to simulate the same effect on the X100 but given their wonderful commitment to updating firmware on even the old cameras, if they could do it I think they would have added it already.
When I bring my camera with me, I like always having a second wide-angle camera in my pocket though! I feel like one of those wedding photographers with two bodies hanging off them at all times. :D
I'll probably upgrade to the Olympus PEN-F, keeping the Fooj for a certain style of portrait shots.
$1600 is a ridiculous amount of money for this camera, considering the competition.
$1600-1700 buys you a used Sony A7s, the king of low light photography and video (if you don't count the new prototype from Canon), and it's full frame, unlike X-T2.
$1650 buys you a used Canon 5D mark III, which is also full frame, and is a great photo camera, which can also shoot RAW video with custom firmware.
While certainly more limited than the selection for Canon, Fuji does have some really nice lenses for these X series cameras. The 23mm 1.4 (=35mm FF) is truly fantastic.
The price is lower than a 7D Mark II or a D500 (in my market).
The fixation with sensor size if ludicrous. I mean, if you want to spend as much on a 6D and deal with its bulk and shitty autofocus while trying to convince yourself you have a better camera, don't let me stop you. But you're in la-la land.
(And I don't even own, or want to own, a Fuji.)
I used a fuji X-E1 before I picked up my A7. I really enjoy the Fuji X series, but the prices are so close to the Sony A7 series that the extra expense is more than worth it for the clearly superior Sony FE system. I mean, the X-T2 is pretty much the same price as an A7ii.
I do love the build and feel of the Fuji XF lenses though, particularly the lenses that have the aperture ring.
Their lenses are truly high quality lenses, on par with much more expensive stuff, though not the cheapest either.
BTW, the Provia and Velvia film simulations are stunning, IMHO.
There's not many other cameras that will allow you to overpower day light if you don't want to lug a monoblock or multiple flash guns with you.
Also, I happen to use an X-Pro2 not the X-T2, but I think similar arguments apply.
The A7s is the undisputed low-light boss, but IMO Sony's UX is convoluted and too many features are buried behind too many menus.
At this point I see few reasons to worry much about spec sheets - every single camera, even small-sensor point-and-shoots - made right now are lightyears ahead of even the best 135 film cameras with the most exotic film back in the day.
Every modern crop-sensor body can shoot clean RAWs at ISO 6400, many shoot cleanly up to ISO 12,800. And what point do we accept these capabilities and focus on things that make it easier to get better photos?
The joystick on the back of the X-Pro 2 and X-T2 is a game changer, as are the advances in AF speed. I can nail shots purely by muscle memory, and that's great. The camera feels less like a thing I have to operate and more like an extension of my brain.
ISO
Aperture
shutter speed
Metering mode
Autofocus point placement
Shutter and aperture might be automated away with different shooting mode. Even on Canons which I don't use often, I can bend it to my will, even if the buttons are in a "funny" place. I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor.
Everything else is literally noise.
The nikon d800, and canon or sony equivalent is the same price point. Not only that its full frame you can use real lens, but you get deep depth of field.
A repackaged phone sensor??? I think you need to take another look at Fujifilm's APS-C sensor tech and image quality.
One of the more spectacularly ignorant and stupid things I've read on HN, which is saying a lot.
> but you get deep depth of field.
Oh, right you don't actually know what you're talking about, you're just parroting talking points you read somewhere.
Of course aps-c isn't a phone sensor, because making a monolith lens thin enough isn't worth it. (a lenticular array, maybe. But then who outside of VFX wants light field pictures?)
You are of course aware that sensor size and focal length directly affect the depth of field. Smaller sensor for the same focal length yields a wider depth of field. Yadda yadda field of view. This is why the stock lens 35 mm, because its about the same field of view as 50mm lens on a 35 mm sensor. (or why medium formats have ~80mm lens)
However, of course I'm just parroting that "from else where". Yup, no sir, no first hand experience at all.
Was it a social experiment, as well?
> You are of course aware that sensor size and focal length directly affect the depth of field.
Yes, but it doesn't make it deeper on larger sensors, which is what you asserted.
As others have already stated, the Fujis score big in UX - I'd like to add that their lenses are second to none.
As a long-term luddite (I own two digital cameras (A Nikon DSLR and a Fuji X100), but most of my shooting is done using either Fuji or Leica analog cameras), IMHO the camera is secondary - it is merely a light-tight box where you affix a lens at one end and the film at the other - the lenses are what matters.
Fuji makes some wonderful lenses. Resolution is awesome, contrast excellent and colour rendition best-in-business for those who care (I don't, I am colour blind - the last point is just parroting) - all in a (for the current mirrorless crop) in a very compact package (my GX680 lenses are somewhat less portable).
Fuji's current range can probably be accurately described as photographer's cameras - they've, just like Leica, distilled photography to its essentials and made their way to the front of that niche. Kudos!
Now this is an argument that I was expecting. I was very seriously looking at the x100 when it came out. Precisely because it was styled to be a manual rangefinder.
I tried it, but I just didn't like the compromises. It felt like the rangefinder was a bit of a gimmick. The manual focus grid was non existent.
I loved that it was compact, but the quality wasn't quite up to the full frame, similar priced breatheren.
The only argument for it was the weight and compactness, which to me didn't matter all that much.
What I really wanted was a CCD insert for my olympus rangefinder (35 rd, poor man's noisy leica) However I suspect that ship has sailed.
I've found - to my surprise - that I much prefer Sony's focus peaking when it comes to digital manual focus aids. It is responsive, accurate and much less obtrusive than I initially thought it would be. Still no beating a proper rangefinder, though (IMHO).
Oh well. It is my day off, it is lovely autumn weather outside and I've got a few rolls of Tri-X and Portra to expose. (In the Texas Leica - google the Fujica G690BL for a chuckle if you're not familiar with it)
Would love a CCD insert too, btw. :)
It's 21.3 iPhone 6 sensors. (Full frame is about 2 APS-C sensors.)
> Not only that its full frame you can use real lens, but you get deep depth of field.
Technically, cropping has absolutely nothing to do with depth of field. It's a depth-of-field to angle-of-view you're thinking about.
I think this differentiates you fairly significantly from the target market of this camera.
By way of example, I'd take an X100T over your above suggestions, despite it being less expensive and not full-frame and having a few annoying quirks. I consider the way a camera integrates into your image-making process more important than low-light capability, pixel count, and couldn't give any less cares about video.
This camera isn't going to prevent the user from taking serious photographs. APS-C is big enough to capture plenty of data. I have a "1 inch" camera and really all 21 megapixels are usable at base ISO. The small size trades off the flexibility that an 8x10" camera gives you, but is easier to carry around. (It's harder to carry around than a phone, though, but provides vastly better images.)
As soon as you start moving into certain specialties in photography, certain models start making more sense. Wedding photography is about creating fine-art shots in a sports photography environment, so the professionals are using high-end "enthusiast" cameras to great effect. The autofocus gets almost every shot. The metering is always correct. Those cameras don't trade off speed for detail, so you can still make nice 8x10" enlargements that look fantastic (but maybe not take 30fps bursts as sports/photojournalism cameras might).
Other specialties are cost-constrained right now. Nobody wants to take their macro shots with a DSLR, but Phase One backs are $33,000 for your $10,000 view camera, and hobbyists don't have that much money. (It's even expensive for the pros, very much a pricing based on semiconductor yield rather than the time cost of not having one.) Hence they compromise by spending 8 hours in photoshop working around the limitations of their camera, or just use film.
If you don't care enough about the results to do either and are only going to buy one camera, an X-T2 is just as good as anything else. Carry it around to take excellent spur-of-the-moment shots, snap that nice landscape, use it at home to take some pictures of that bug you just killed. It's as good as anything else. (Upgrade to a D810 for a few more pixels and a lighter wallet.)
It's like buying a Subaru BR-Z in 2016. There are other cars that perform better, but sometimes it's the experience of using something in a particular fashion that brings the most joy.
If I was a pro, I'd be shooting Canon or Nikon, I don't think the Fujifilm line is worth switching to given that the slight benefits of a mirrorless don't make up for the drawbacks for pros, but I know many pros are very successful with them, so what do I know.
That being said, I love my Fujifilm and take it everywhere. It's a leica without leica cost, and that's exactly what I wanted.
> I love my Fujifilm and take it everywhere. It's a leica without leica cost, and that's exactly what I wanted.
I don't know how you can rectify those two statements.
P.S. Leica is the Apple of the photography world.
Fujifilm price points are much more Apple-like.
While arguably 'the best' if you choose your criteria narrowly enough, their strongest selling point nowadays is the Veblen factor - they are seen as something special, the pinnacle, the yardstick competitors are measured against. Same goes for Rolex - while making excellent watches, there's hardly any denying that the competition is just as competent at a vastly less unreasonable price point.
(Full disclosure - I am a long-time Leica enthusiast, but I've long abandoned their cameras for (to me) more sensible options - I use a Zeiss Ikon ZM (Made by Cosina) with Leica lenses. The ZM is more rugged, arguably has a better rangefinder and is less idiosyncratic than any Leica body. Just try loading a film in an ZM versus a Leica, for starters)
Previous model of this Fujifilm camera also got raving reviews from Verge and was mocked in photography circles. The review, not the camera.
The only untouched seam of treasure appears to be medium-format lenses ( Mamiya, Hasselblad, Pentax etc ) which are too big and bulky for the mirrorless crowd.
Compact and mirrorless APS-C is the main selling point really.
It does seem that Sony is targeting a whole another segment with the a6300 and a6500.
I've found "photography circles" to be ignorant pixel peepers, who wouldn't appreciate good ergonomics or know how to take an actual good picture even if their live depended on it.
(Have worked, among other odd jobs, as a freelance human interest/travel photographer back in the day).
Remember, it's the photographer who takes the picture. The camera is just a tool, and if the photog wants to use a Fuji because it makes him happy and his pictures are bomb as fuck then who is to complain.
Regardless its a great camera, but I honestly prefer my A7.
How many do you know? Pros range from portrait and wedding photographers, to travel photographers, photojournalists, sports photographers, product photographers, professional fine arts photographers, etc.
Sports photographers and journalists did switch to Canon at some point because of the faster/more automated autofocus system, but they bounced back to Nikon circa the D3, and people use stuff all over the map now.
And of course back in the film days (pre 2000-2005) tons of pros used Minolta, Leica, Olympus, Pentax and other brands, and lots of them kept their brand loyalty.
Also most really well paid pros in fashion and product photography used medium formats such as Hasselblad. And with news and wedding photographers transitioning to video, lately Canon (which started promisingly) and Nikon have been seen as big jokes compared to Sony and even Panasonic.
Here's a Fuji guy: http://ideasandimages.co.uk/gallery/commercial/
Heck, here's a pro (and a magnum photographer at that) using Olympus compacts: http://www.robgalbraith.com/multi_page8c1c.html?cid=7-6468-7... (Olympus compacts)
This looks like a premium-priced hobbyist camera, not a realistic substitute for a good SLR.
There's a lot to be said for the form factor for hobby/casual photography. SLRs can be a PITA to carry around in a way that smaller cameras aren't. Just by being portable, this camera will catch a lot of images that a big SLR won't.
But image quality is clearly a good few steps short of the output of an equivalently priced Canon or Nikon DSLR.
That will be an acceptable compromise for many buyers - but it won't work for everyone.
But, as you noted, carrying an SLR can be a pain. I tried to get into photography many years ago, with a Canon Rebel XT. It didn't stick because I hated carrying the bulky thing around. I stuck to point & shoots, then my iPhone.
I recently picked up an Olympus PEN e-PL6, which, for me, strikes a nice middle-ground. It fits in my wife's purse, or my small backpack (easy to carry-on flights, unlike the Canon, which ate up my underseat area on its own). It is light enough to carry all day. And has an excellent selection of lenses for all purposes.
Of course, I also frequently carry my Canon S100 because it is truly pocketable and still takes excellent photos.
I have yet to see Fuji mocked in "photography circles".