The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

clicktor said:
...but I'm attracted to the shallower depth of field possible with Fuji...
Click to expand...

I don't have a Fuji but when I had Canon FF, Canon APS-C and Panasonic MFT I did a ton of comparisons between them all and I came to the conclusion that the DoF differences between APS-C and MFT weren't worth thinking about. YMMV but I personally wouldn't choose between APS-C and MFT for reasons of DoF unless you decide that having a bit more DoF is an advantage to MFT. Shallow DoF wise, I'd just forget it as a non issue.
 
clicktor said:
I currently shoot with an aging Panasonic G2 m43rds. I need to make a decision soon as to whether to stick with m43rds and get a cheap grey E-M1 (£535), or switch to Fuji and get an X-T10 (£499). What concerns me about the Fuji is the lack of grip compared to what I am used to. I know you can buy a grip for £90. Are there any cheap clones on the horizon? Also, convinced myself ages ago to go with IBIS on my next body, but I'm attracted to the shallower depth of field possible with Fuji. On the other hand, the E-M1 I think may focus better for tracking subjects which I do want to a little bit of.
I currently use Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, Olympus 45mm f/1.8 and the kit lens 14-42. If I went to Fuji I would get the 18-55 kit, the 50-200 kit and I'd try to get the 35mm f/1.4 or the upcoming f/2 version OR the 56mm f/1.2.
Fuji lens prices are not cheap are they! :(

I think I would use the 56mm focal length more personally as I shoot a lot of portraits. The kit lens would probably suffice for wider stuff.

Thoughts about my boring ramblings?
Click to expand...

I used to have a GH1, same grip as your G2, it's a horrid grip IMO, the Fujis are a lot nicer to hold. The XT10 is smaller than what I have but I still think it would be hard to be as nasty as the early G series. That said, you could swing a G series from your fingertips, you can't an X.

Lens prices are pretty much on par with decent m4/3 ones. The 55-200 and the Panasonic 45-200 are very similar beasts IMO, but the Fuji lens range has a lot more consistency as a whole, unlike the Panasonic/Olympus mash up of features styles and functions. They all perform similarly too, it is very difficult to tell images apart from the different lenses, so you can rest assured whichever you choose will be good!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
simonblue said:
Anybody using the blackrapid strap,I was thing of getting one when I am carrying an XT-1 with grip and the 16-55mm,do you think the Fuji battery grip is strong enough to take the weight ? :)
Click to expand...
I use this combination and so far it is fine. The original vertical grip and the large metal grip are well built
 
Last edited:
For IR go with the Hoya R72, but pay close attention to which lenses you're using it with - some are fer better than others. There's a list somewhere on the forum (and on FujiX) of the ones that work very well, and those that don't work so well.
 
woof woof said:
I don't have a Fuji but when I had Canon FF, Canon APS-C and Panasonic MFT I did a ton of comparisons between them all and I came to the conclusion that the DoF differences between APS-C and MFT weren't worth thinking about. YMMV but I personally wouldn't choose between APS-C and MFT for reasons of DoF unless you decide that having a bit more DoF is an advantage to MFT. Shallow DoF wise, I'd just forget it as a non issue.
Click to expand...

I think for someone who wants the shallowest DOF it is noticeable but for someone not aiming for that specific characteristic its not so important. Obviously the user can use a longer lens or faster lens to compensate so that also comes into play.
 
twist said:
I think for someone who wants the shallowest DOF it is noticeable but for someone not aiming for that specific characteristic its not so important. Obviously the user can use a longer lens or faster lens to compensate so that also comes into play.
Click to expand...

I used equivalent focal length (or there abouts) to compare and also aimed for a razor thin DoF look by using longer lenses and / or reducing the camera to subject distance. Yes, your FoV/framing will be different if you use longer lenses or reduce your camera to subject distance but you can still get a nice picture and you can get thin DoF with either APS-C or MFT if that's your aim.

In FF terms for APS-C f1.4 x 1.5 (crop) = f2.1, MFT f1.4 x 2 = f2.8. So if we equalise the focal lengths APS-C v MFT the DoF difference is f2.1 v f2.8. Yes there's a difference but it could maybe be less than a step forward.

The best way to see if it matters is to try the systems side by side, YMMV but I decided it didn't matter to me. In fact with MFT apart from my time with a 25mm f0.95 I now have f1.7 and f1.8 lenses rather than f1.4.
 
Alastair said:
For IR go with the Hoya R72, but pay close attention to which lenses you're using it with - some are fer better than others. There's a list somewhere on the forum (and on FujiX) of the ones that work very well, and those that don't work so well.
Click to expand...


Many thanks for that, I'll have a read [emoji106]
 
Thanks for the advice above re. MFT vs Fuji X. I went and did something old fashioned today...I went to a shop! ;)
I found a good camera shop near me that has a fantastic range of all major and even less known manufacturers. I've been meaning to do this for a while, but all shops I went to were rubbish and had nothing other than a couple of DSLRs.

I was able to fairly casually compare the X-T1, X-T10 and E-M1 all side by side. This was with the 18-55mm kit lens on the Fujis, and the 12-50mm kit lens on the Olympus.
Regarding the 18-55 kit lens, this lens is lovely. Built like a tank (all metal) and a lovely feel to the zoom ring.
I did not feel like there was that much difference between the X-T1 and X-T10 in physical feel and operation and size. I think the dedicated controls are nice, but I would not pay extra on the XT-1 just for the dedicated ISO wheel, and the viewfinder is not enough better/larger that I would pay extra again.

I found neither camera particularly intuitive which I found interesting. Many people complain of of the Olympus menu systems being bad. Well...I wouldn't say I found either camera easy to use straight off the bat. Both will require learning which is fine with me and expected.
The E-M1 I think I preferred the grip on. For me, the grip does not make the camera any more bulky as even with a pancake lens on, the grip would not pretrude further forward than a lens I don't think. The focusing in the shop seemed faster on the E-M1 compared to the X-T10.

Unfortunately the main things I want to test are the IBIS of the E-M1, and the focusing of each camera which is not really feasible in a shop as I want to test fast moving things like sports.

Overall, if I went down the Fuji route, it would be the X-T10 and I would be buying it mainly for shallower DOF and "better" sensor. The issue for me is that, where the Fuji bodies are a little bit thinner back to front, this is kind of outweighed by the lenses generally being a little bit bigger in diameter and length and weight. I guess this is often down to them having OIS built into the zooms, but then even with the primes these are typically large aperture ones which again makes them bigger.

So in conclusion...still don't know really. lol
 
clicktor said:
Thanks for the advice above re. MFT vs Fuji X. I went and did something old fashioned today...I went to a shop! ;)
I found a good camera shop near me that has a fantastic range of all major and even less known manufacturers. I've been meaning to do this for a while, but all shops I went to were rubbish and had nothing other than a couple of DSLRs.

I was able to fairly casually compare the X-T1, X-T10 and E-M1 all side by side. This was with the 18-55mm kit lens on the Fujis, and the 12-50mm kit lens on the Olympus.
Regarding the 18-55 kit lens, this lens is lovely. Built like a tank (all metal) and a lovely feel to the zoom ring.
I did not feel like there was that much difference between the X-T1 and X-T10 in physical feel and operation and size. I think the dedicated controls are nice, but I would not pay extra on the XT-1 just for the dedicated ISO wheel, and the viewfinder is not enough better/larger that I would pay extra again.

I found neither camera particularly intuitive which I found interesting. Many people complain of of the Olympus menu systems being bad. Well...I wouldn't say I found either camera easy to use straight off the bat. Both will require learning which is fine with me and expected.
The E-M1 I think I preferred the grip on. For me, the grip does not make the camera any more bulky as even with a pancake lens on, the grip would not pretrude further forward than a lens I don't think. The focusing in the shop seemed faster on the E-M1 compared to the X-T10.

Unfortunately the main things I want to test are the IBIS of the E-M1, and the focusing of each camera which is not really feasible in a shop as I want to test fast moving things like sports.

Overall, if I went down the Fuji route, it would be the X-T10 and I would be buying it mainly for shallower DOF and "better" sensor. The issue for me is that, where the Fuji bodies are a little bit thinner back to front, this is kind of outweighed by the lenses generally being a little bit bigger in diameter and length and weight. I guess this is often down to them having OIS built into the zooms, but then even with the primes these are typically large aperture ones which again makes them bigger.

So in conclusion...still don't know really. lol
Click to expand...

The EM1 is faster at AF-S the XT1 is faster at AF-C. The Fuji lenses are larger because the sensors larger, tis the way it works.
 
twist said:
The EM1 is faster at AF-S the XT1 is faster at AF-C. The Fuji lenses are larger because the sensors larger, tis the way it works.
Click to expand...
Sure. :)
If money was not a factor I would have both systems. Since it is, MFT is more attractive based on lens costs.
 
clicktor said:
Sure. :)
If money was not a factor I would have both systems. Since it is, MFT is more attractive based on lens costs.
Click to expand...

Not really when you look at equiv lenses. Sure there are cheaper lenses available but they arent equivalent.
 
twist said:
Not really when you look at equiv lenses. Sure there are cheaper lenses available but they arent equivalent.
Click to expand...

In what way are they not equivalent? Focal length? Focus speed? Aperture? DoF? Absolute image quality?

Some of these things will come down to assessing if a mm here or there really matters and if focus speed is fast enough and image quality good enough but other than minor differences I think that MTF and Fuji are possibly quite close. In the case of MFT it has a really good line up of f1.4, 1.7 and 1.8 primes which seem reasonably priced to me and are widely available used at reasonable prices and there should be enough equivalence in focal length unless you demand equivalence to the last mm. I'm happy with the lenses I have, 14mm f2.5, 20mm f1.7, 25mm f1.8, 45mm f1.8. All seem to offer good image quality at reasonable prices.

I'm not trying to say which is best but to me looking at the two systems they look pretty close and for me it'd come down to handling and nit picking minor differences. Actually I'm sticking with MFT just for the reason of the limited higher ISO settings available on the Fuji's. I'll use my GX7 at any ISO up to and including 25,600, but I can understand people going for the Fuji's.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
In what way are they not equivalent? Focal length? Focus speed? Aperture? DoF? Absolute image quality?

Some of these things will come down to assessing if a mm here or there really matters and if focus speed is fast enough and image quality good enough but other than minor differences I think that MTF and Fuji are possibly quite close. In the case of MFT it has a really good line up of f1.4, 1.7 and 1.8 primes which seem reasonably priced to me and are widely available used at reasonable prices and there should be enough equivalence in focal length unless you demand equivalence to the last mm. I'm happy with the lenses I have, 14mm f2.5, 20mm f1.7, 25mm f1.8, 45mm f1.8. All seem to offer good image quality at reasonable prices.

I'm not trying to say which is best but to me looking at the two systems they look pretty close and for me it'd come down to handling and nit picking minor differences. Actually I'm sticking with MFT just for the reason of the limited higher ISO settings available on the Fuji's. I'll use my GX7 at any ISO up to and including 25,600, but I can understand people going for the Fuji's.
Click to expand...

In terms of DOF (which is important to some people as youve already seen) at the SAME distance with the SAME focal length and SAME aperture. The Fuji lenses are also much nicer to hold and use imho. Fuji also has an excellent line up from f1.2 upwards, M43 benefit from larger variety of cheaper lenses that are smaller. I prefer Fuji IQ overall though ...except for that dodgy ISO.

Like you say, both have things to offer to different shooters. Both can be a good choice.
 
twist said:
In terms of DOF (which is important to some people as youve already seen) at the SAME distance with the SAME focal length and SAME aperture.
Click to expand...

I think maybe you mean at the same distance with an equivalent focal length as if you use the same focal length you're going to affect the FoV and changing the camera to subject distance for the same framing will alter the DoF again?

Anyway, whatever we mean and however we look at it...

I personally think that most of this thin DoF lust is in the mind and that people should think about how often they want to shoot at the widest apertures and if the difference between the formats matters in reality (APS-C = f1.4 x 1.5= f2.1, MFT = f1.4 x 2 = f2.8, a difference of f0.7 in FF speak.)

The best thing IMVHO is to put thin DoF lust in a box for a moment and shoot with the two systems and see what's possible with each. You know my opinion :D It's that the difference between APS-C and MFT DoF wise is insignificant :D but everyone can make their own mind up and all I'd advise is that they do it without assuming that APS-C is going to provide a massively different result DoF wise. IMVHO it's a difference that can be wiped away by taking a step or even half a step forward or shooting with a slightly longer lens and accepting the changed FoV.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I think maybe you mean at the same distance with an equivalent focal length as if you use the same focal length you're going to affect the FoV and changing the camera to subject distance for the same framing will alter the DoF again?

Anyway, whatever we mean and however we look at it...

I personally think that most of this thin DoF lust is in the mind and that people should think about how often they want to shoot at the widest apertures and if the difference between the formats matters in reality (APS-C = f1.4 x 1.5= f2.1, MFT = f1.4 x 2 = f2.8, a difference of f0.7 in FF speak.)

The best thing IMVHO is to put thin DoF lust in a box for a moment and shoot with the two systems and see what's possible with each. You know my opinion :D It's that the difference between APS-C and MFT DoF wise is insignificant :D but everyone can make their own mind up and all I'd advise is that they do it without assuming that APS-C is going to provide a massively different result DoF wise. IMVHO it's a difference that can be wiped away by taking a step or even half a step forward or shooting with a slightly longer lens and accepting the changed FoV.
Click to expand...

Yeah, oops.

If they didnt matter we would all use fast aperture compacts (forgetting about ISO for a min), so I think they do.

Ops already taken the right steps and tried them, more than most would or can do these days.
 
Last edited:
clicktor said:
Thanks for the advice above re. MFT vs Fuji X. I went and did something old fashioned today...I went to a shop! ;)
I found a good camera shop near me that has a fantastic range of all major and even less known manufacturers. I've been meaning to do this for a while, but all shops I went to were rubbish and had nothing other than a couple of DSLRs.

I was able to fairly casually compare the X-T1, X-T10 and E-M1 all side by side. This was with the 18-55mm kit lens on the Fujis, and the 12-50mm kit lens on the Olympus.
Regarding the 18-55 kit lens, this lens is lovely. Built like a tank (all metal) and a lovely feel to the zoom ring.
I did not feel like there was that much difference between the X-T1 and X-T10 in physical feel and operation and size. I think the dedicated controls are nice, but I would not pay extra on the XT-1 just for the dedicated ISO wheel, and the viewfinder is not enough better/larger that I would pay extra again.

I found neither camera particularly intuitive which I found interesting. Many people complain of of the Olympus menu systems being bad. Well...I wouldn't say I found either camera easy to use straight off the bat. Both will require learning which is fine with me and expected.
The E-M1 I think I preferred the grip on. For me, the grip does not make the camera any more bulky as even with a pancake lens on, the grip would not pretrude further forward than a lens I don't think. The focusing in the shop seemed faster on the E-M1 compared to the X-T10.

Unfortunately the main things I want to test are the IBIS of the E-M1, and the focusing of each camera which is not really feasible in a shop as I want to test fast moving things like sports.

Overall, if I went down the Fuji route, it would be the X-T10 and I would be buying it mainly for shallower DOF and "better" sensor. The issue for me is that, where the Fuji bodies are a little bit thinner back to front, this is kind of outweighed by the lenses generally being a little bit bigger in diameter and length and weight. I guess this is often down to them having OIS built into the zooms, but then even with the primes these are typically large aperture ones which again makes them bigger.

So in conclusion...still don't know really. lol
Click to expand...

Dont forget when shooting sports you will need a lot of the time high shutter speeds to freeze the action,and the IBIS of the Olympus wont come into play much :)
 
twist said:
Yeah, oops.

If they didnt matter we would all use fast aperture compacts (forgetting about ISO for a min), so I think they do.

Ops already taken the right steps and tried them, more than most would or can do these days.
Click to expand...

With compacts you're probably looking at reducing the size of the sensor again and compacts with equivalent lenses of f1.4 / f1.8 DoF wise are thin on the ground to non existent. A better option could be the Xpro type fixed prime lens jobbies or LX100 fast zoom type jobbies.

Personally I think that anything of MFT or ever so slightly smaller format (like the LX100) and upwards to FF is fine if you want some DoF control and a practical walk about camera. Much smaller than MFT and I think it gets difficult to pretty much not impossible and above FF I personally don't see as being practical for handheld walking about with it shooting, not for me anyway.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
With compacts you're probably looking at reducing the size of the sensor again and compacts with equivalent lenses of f1.4 / f1.8 DoF wise are thin on the ground to non existent. Personally I think that anything of MFT and upwards to FF is fine if you want some DoF control and a practical walk about camera. Smaller than MFT and I think it gets difficult to pretty much not impossible and above FF I personally don't see as being practical for handheld walking about with it shooting, not for me anyway.
Click to expand...

Thats what Im saying regarding DOF, some want it thin others cant be bothered. My favourite format is FF because I think bang for buck it has the most to offer, especially now that all the manufacturers are selling them so cheap. Ill only use a smaller sensor as a secondary camera.
 
twist said:
Thats what Im saying regarding DOF, some want it thin others cant be bothered. My favourite format is FF because I think bang for buck it has the most to offer, especially now that all the manufacturers are selling them so cheap. Ill only use a smaller sensor as a secondary camera.
Click to expand...

See I prefer APS or even MFT because I can work handheld a lot easier, f8 on MFT is all you need for landscapes, hell f5.6 would do for many. With decent stabilised lenses a tripod can happily be left at home then. (I hate tripods!)

I do like Shallow depth of field though, and APS gives me just enough of that for my liking. MFT would I think now too given the lenses now available, they just weren't around when I had my GH1.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
See I prefer APS or even MFT because I can work handheld a lot easier, f8 on MFT is all you need for landscapes, hell f5.6 would do for many. With decent stabilised lenses a tripod can happily be left at home then. (I hate tripods!)

I do like Shallow depth of field though, and APS gives me just enough of that for my liking. MFT would I think now too given the lenses now available, they just weren't around when I had my GH1.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you want more DOF M43 is great. Agreed, hate tripods.

I just find FF gives me the best all rounder for what I do, its not a bigger than someone elses thing as Ive owned all the systems, in terms of AF speed (especially AFC as thats what I use), sensor performance (ISO, DR, sharpness, etc), lens selection. For my use it just works. Regarding lenses, I mostly shoot portrait stuff, can be in low light and shallow dof and I use F1.4 lenses wide open a lot 35, 50, 85 1.4 and a 70-200 2.8.

Since mirrorless coming we have so much choice though!
 
Cheers Adrian. :)

Simon i have no idea what I'm doing with it, so the big one will have to wait unfortunately.

Seeing as i have the saving will power of a 5 year old i figure if i just keep adding gear to my bag, when i do sell it all i should just be able to afford a D750 body... ;)
 
minnnt said:
Cheers Adrian. :)

Simon i have no idea what I'm doing with it, so the big one will have to wait unfortunately.

Seeing as i have the saving will power of a 5 year old i figure if i just keep adding gear to my bag, when i do sell it all i should just be able to afford a D750 body... ;)
Click to expand...

Was temped by the D750,but then i want to this lens and that,and i just cant carry that weight around anymore :(
 
I wish i had kept my d750 of longer than a couple of months or was that weeks :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top