Fuji X-T3 coming
- Thread starter ahsanford
- Start date
So much for the few fellow forum members who still keep droning on how "difficult it is to put WiFi into a magnesium-alloy camera body". Really funny. ;D
Other than that? For a camera sized and priced like a Fuji X-T2 (or T3) it "really outta" have an FF sensor inside. At least me and [most of the] > 90% of all camera buyers who shun Fuji see it that way.
Upvote
0
I shoot Fuji and I'm happy with their implementation of an APS-C sensor. The images are on par with my FF Canon. And the lenses are well designed and reasonably priced for the sensor size. And the system is reasonably compact - it is great for travelling.
I'm yet to be convinced that FF mirrorless systems are noticeably smaller than DSLR systems. And size, after all, is the only true benefit of mirrorless systems. Maybe the new Canon FF mirrorless cameras will prove the exception?
I'm yet to be convinced that FF mirrorless systems are noticeably smaller than DSLR systems. And size, after all, is the only true benefit of mirrorless systems. Maybe the new Canon FF mirrorless cameras will prove the exception?
Upvote
0
The reason cropped sensor can not match the FF image is availability of the fast prime lenses - everybody need to decide if accepts the price difference, but IQ difference is obvious - for example at https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/3 - Depth-of-field equivalenceHillsilly said:
The reason I do not even think about Fuji X system is difference on used ISO scale - around 6400 it is 2 EV - flash/light meter is way off.
Upvote
0
Fast prime lenses work just as well on crop cameras as they do on FF cameras. And Fuji have a great range of F/1.2 and F/1.4 lenses. And I'd say that the Fuji lenses work great wide open, whereas some comparable Canon lenses have some sharpness issues wide open, which negates some of the depth of field argument. After all, if you need to stop your lens down to F/2 or F2.8 to get an acceptable image on a FF camera, is that better than using a lens at F/1.4 on a crop camera?
Even then, I personally wouldn't consider depth of field to be a major consideration when comparing one camera with another. But I can respect the opinion of others who might think otherwise. (After all, my favourite/most used lens is probably the 135/2, which only tends to be used at F/2). I'm more interested in the "look" of an image. Depending on the image, that would comprise aspects like the colour, noise, perceived sharpness etc. Depth of field and bokeh is more of a lens decision.
I've heard that story about Fuji metering being out. I don't know if there is much basis to it, as I've never really noticed a problem, and have only ever seen it mentioned on DSLR forums. FWIW I've got 3 Fuji cameras - X100, X-E1 and X-T1. The metering works perfectly on all of them.
Even then, I personally wouldn't consider depth of field to be a major consideration when comparing one camera with another. But I can respect the opinion of others who might think otherwise. (After all, my favourite/most used lens is probably the 135/2, which only tends to be used at F/2). I'm more interested in the "look" of an image. Depending on the image, that would comprise aspects like the colour, noise, perceived sharpness etc. Depth of field and bokeh is more of a lens decision.
I've heard that story about Fuji metering being out. I don't know if there is much basis to it, as I've never really noticed a problem, and have only ever seen it mentioned on DSLR forums. FWIW I've got 3 Fuji cameras - X100, X-E1 and X-T1. The metering works perfectly on all of them.
Upvote
0
Hillsilly said:
56/1.2 does not offer any better IQ than my current Sony 85/1.4 or Canon 200/2. And as there are no equivalent lenses FL & maximum aperture for APS-C (24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 35/1.4, 85/1.4, 135/1.8, 200/2), it is needed to use FF lenses and prolong working distance or using wider FL which both affects background rendering.
Hillsilly said:
Fuji metering is not problem, Fuji ISO scale is the problem - if you use the same aperture, same shutter speed and the same ISO speed (same number) - Fuji image is 2 EV darker if the ISO is set to 6400, comparing to Canon/Nikon/Sony cameras. (I do not know which scale Panasonic/Olympus/Pentax use.)
Upvote
0
Thanks. I think I understand your point. But the difference in background blur that we're talking about is pretty minor. It isn't sufficient enough to be a deciding factor in the camera format I use. I shoot mostly portraits, and I'm usually seeking a pleasing background, not necessarily maximum background blur. And if I do venture into other fields, I'm rarely shooting wide open, anyway. Your needs might vary.
FWIW, when I purchased my first FF camera, it was after years of reading posts from people proclaiming the depth of field benefits. I was a little underwhelmed. (Although, very happy with the improvements in noise.)
With ISO, how do you know that Canon/Nikon/Sony aren't 2 EV too light? Anyways, does it even matter? Under the current standard, ISO is just a number that the manufacturers can choose themselves given other shooting parameters. It is the number that works for that camera to get the correct exposure. There's no intention for cameras to be similar. As long as a camera's meter is working correctly and you get the desired exposure for the settings that you've dialled in, isn't that all you want?
FWIW, when I purchased my first FF camera, it was after years of reading posts from people proclaiming the depth of field benefits. I was a little underwhelmed. (Although, very happy with the improvements in noise.)
With ISO, how do you know that Canon/Nikon/Sony aren't 2 EV too light? Anyways, does it even matter? Under the current standard, ISO is just a number that the manufacturers can choose themselves given other shooting parameters. It is the number that works for that camera to get the correct exposure. There's no intention for cameras to be similar. As long as a camera's meter is working correctly and you get the desired exposure for the settings that you've dialled in, isn't that all you want?
Upvote
0
Made in China. Trumps new proposed tariffs, which could be implemented at the end of August, would include cameras made in China. So, U.S. prices could be headed higher.
Upvote
0
I shoot mostly portraits too, but the difference is worth the money for me. (I'm now using Sony 85/1.4, Canon 200/2, Sony 70-200/2.8 almost all the time wide open, because AF on a Eye is spot on and if I can not control position / distance of my subject, I appreciate every bit of blurring background I can get.)Hillsilly said:
DOF is dependent on the same variables as background blur, thus many forum users use the term interchangeable. But it is different quality and the main difference in DOF is caused by aperture and maximum background blur difference is caused by using different FL. So the ideal result is the whole subject in focus and big background blur, but it usually can not be achieved thus I prefer bigger BG blur and smaller DOF.Hillsilly said:
I've seen comparison table for equivalent ISOs for X-T2. And the direction of deviation is defined by flash / light meters (Minolta/Gossen/Sekonic) calibration which is spot on on Canon/Nikon/Sony cameras.Hillsilly said:
Correct exposure defined by camera metering is OK if you have enough light for desired aperture and shutter speed. But if the light is falling of and I'd like to use open aperture and shutter speed 1/320s (or shorter) which cause need for ISO 6400 on C/N/S the noise is far more worse on Fuji camera set ISO to 25600. (Assuming using the same aperture number on both systems.)
Upvote
0
Similar threads
