We should move away from the megapixel red herring into a sensor-size-based metric instead. I'd like to know the size of the sensor in this camera, because that's what's going to make a difference in your photo, and not how many millions of noise pixels the camera can give you, but that information is absent from the article.
Funny they do compare it with the Canon 6D which is a full frame camera. Does not make any sense to compare them since they are not in the same category at all.
> It managed to pull me away from the Canon 6D I’d used before, and I haven’t looked back
Well, if the comparison is that way I guess it's valid. Of course, a comparison like »Well, it take pretty pictures, but our Hasselblad here at the office still is better« is pretty bogus.
In what way are they not the same category? They cost the same, are used to the same thing and target much of the same audience. The only difference is they make slightly different design trade offs when it comes to viewfinder and sensors.
They probably forgot to mention because all Fuji X-series mirrorless cameras are APS-C. There is also a rumor that Fuji will release medium format mirrorless cameras soon...
Medium format is very relative. The size of the captor is probably going to be 4x5 like the new Hasselblad, which is far from a real medium format like 6x7... And it's going to be mighty expensive too, the SONY sensor used in Hasselblad is said to cost 4K USD alone.
With APS-C you can shoot usable photos today up to 12.8k (XT2, A6300, D7200) and in smaller print sizes clean photos at 6.4k, DR and colors are fine with 6.4k too.
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"
For the situations when you can't use longer shutter time or a flash, more sensitivity is always welcome, without an upper bound. As long as the images don't get too noisy or have distracting noise reduction artefacts.
It allows you to use shorter shutter time when needed. Like sports, nature, in a moving vehicle, etc.
Same goes for dynamic range, although that's often something you can control when shooting. Although it does give you more options and lowers the chance of burning highlights or having noisy shadows.
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.)
Sensor size (full frame or crop) is a matter of preference for SLRs now. Nikon does a pro crop sensor camera, even.
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.
What's the point of this post? My two year old smartphone has a superb camera with equal spec. My years old DSLR too.
@downvoters: I know the technical differences (sensor size, mirrorless vs DSLR) - but what's so newsworthy about that mirrorless camera - when other products of the same category and other DSLR with same sensor size provide higher spec...? It smells like an advertisement.
I think we both know the technical differences. The question is why is the news about a 24mpx camera with 4k video newsworthy in mid 2016. A mirrorless camera is cheaper to build than a DSLR. And as higher spec DSLR (with various sensor sizes) are already available I would I just like to know what's so outstanding about this particular camera.
With the great innovation going on the APS-C area, I'm wondering if it's finally time to say goodbye to my micro four thirds equipment and do the switch. Opinions?
If you can live with the slightly bigger (and more expensive) bodies and lenses then the Fuji X series is pretty amazing and a significant upgrade from M43. The interesting question is whether or not to go full frame SLR with a Nikon D610 or Canon 6D for basically the same price.
That being said a small m43 body with a pancake lens will give you pretty amazing pictures in a much more portable package.
Mirrorless APS-C cameras and lenses are getting larger and larger.
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.
I didn't stick with micro four thirds for too long. I felt that while it was clearly superior to my tiny point and shoot sensor, it was miles behind APS-C for low light performance, depth of field and clarity. Those ultra-high resolution MFTs can only go so far - a small sensor is still a small sensor.
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.
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?
On the subject of medium format, there are rumors that Fuji may be about to announce a medium format mirrorless camera in the next few months[1]. This wouldn't surprise me at all - Fuji have experience with various sizes of medium format going back 40+ years[2], they have manufactured medium format cameras for other brands (including Hasselblad[3]), and recently discontinued their last remaining medium format film cameras[4].
The question remains as to how big the medium format sensor will be, as other manufacturers have continually claimed "full frame" sensors when medium format generally means "anything larger than 35mm but smaller than large format". So it could be medium format but not that much bigger than 35mm.
The second question is how much will it cost? If it's "affordable" it could take a lot of the wind out of Hasselblad's recent X1D announcement[5].
How do Fuji lenses stack up to Nikons? I've debated making the switch to mirrorless, but Nikons offering is lacking and I'm not too keen on trading out my lenses for a new brand.
I've read about adapters and such, but that is really only a short term solution.
I have not tried Nikon's mirrorless efforts, but I have been using the Nikon F system for two decades and change now. Also, I've spent quite a lot of time with various Fuji lenses (For the G690 and GX680 MF cameras and lately also X system)
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.
My telephoto is the 70-300 f/4.5 VR. It has done great with wild life and moon pictures. I also have a Tokina wide angle, but my other lenses are standard Nikons. I'll have to take a look at the Fuji stuff.
After my last vacation, lugging around lenses and the camera I started looking at how to lower the weight. Mirrorless cameras seem like a possible option, but good lenses always have weight regardless of the body they are attached.
Good lenses always have weight, but having to illuminate a smaller image circle definitely helps; the G690 normal lens (A 100mm f/3.5) weighs in at 750g or so; the X Fujinon 35mm f/2? Less than a quarter of the 100mm f/3,5, while still being built like a tank - and probably outperforming the bigger lens in all aspects.
Another major benefit of the X series (IMHO) is that Fuji insist on providing proper dials for the most important functions; a proper aperture ring; dials for shutter speeds, mode select and exposure comp. Most appreciated.
(Call me a luddite if you will, but I much prefer an aperture ring to twisting a dial.)
It just takes a few shots to adjust when going from SLR/mirrorless to rangefinders - my rangefinder lenses have the aperture ring in front of the focus ring, whereas it is the other way around with just about anything else I've ever tried. (And the less is spoken of the confusion when using a lens with a leaf shutter (where the shutter speed, too, is set by a ring), the better. :-)
Super zoom cameras are an interesting category. You can do lots of cool things with small sensors and you get a lot of reach with a very compact lens. (If you only have to focus the image on a very small area you don’t need a lot of glass to make far things appear close.)
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.
UI design thoughts: I'm not sure that I like all those mechanical dials on top for changing settings. One great advantage of Canon's top-line series over the years is that to change modes and exposure components you just press one or two small buttons on top and then turn one of the two finger-wheels.
For example to change ISO my finger presses the ISO button just ahead of the trigger and then my thumb spins the thumb wheel, all without looking away from the viewfinder or lifting either hand off the body. Exposure bracketing: two buttons on top-left, then spin the top finger-wheel.
With this Fuji I'd have to physically move my left hand up above the camera, grab the ISO dial and click it around to where I need it. Plus every mechanical dial is another conduit for rain and moisture to enter the camera.
I'm the exact opposite. Put all of the common functionality on dials (like fuji does), so I can instantly see what the settings are at a glance instead of clicking through 4 different menus with tiny buttons on a screen that you can't see in bright sunlight.
40 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 98.0 ms ] thread> It managed to pull me away from the Canon 6D I’d used before, and I haven’t looked back
In any case, that review didn't really contain enough _technical_ detail to make the comparison to the 6D seem fair. Heck, even dpreview's first impressions contain more information: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t2-first-impressi...
In what way are they not the same category? They cost the same, are used to the same thing and target much of the same audience. The only difference is they make slightly different design trade offs when it comes to viewfinder and sensors.
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.
It allows you to use shorter shutter time when needed. Like sports, nature, in a moving vehicle, etc.
Same goes for dynamic range, although that's often something you can control when shooting. Although it does give you more options and lowers the chance of burning highlights or having noisy shadows.
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.
@downvoters: I know the technical differences (sensor size, mirrorless vs DSLR) - but what's so newsworthy about that mirrorless camera - when other products of the same category and other DSLR with same sensor size provide higher spec...? It smells like an advertisement.
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?
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.
Smells like an advertisement to me.
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?
The question remains as to how big the medium format sensor will be, as other manufacturers have continually claimed "full frame" sensors when medium format generally means "anything larger than 35mm but smaller than large format". So it could be medium format but not that much bigger than 35mm.
The second question is how much will it cost? If it's "affordable" it could take a lot of the wind out of Hasselblad's recent X1D announcement[5].
[1] http://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm-medium-format-more-afford...
[2] http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Fuji (Medium format section)
[3] https://luminous-landscape.com/hasselblad-xpan/
[4] http://petapixel.com/2014/08/25/fujifilm-to-discontinue-its-...
[5] https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/07/06/hasselblad-x1d-early-i...
I've read about adapters and such, but that is really only a short term solution.
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.
They have the 10-24 mm zoom which is pretty good if you want to go wide, but I agree that I'd love a ~10mm prime.
After my last vacation, lugging around lenses and the camera I started looking at how to lower the weight. Mirrorless cameras seem like a possible option, but good lenses always have weight regardless of the body they are attached.
Another major benefit of the X series (IMHO) is that Fuji insist on providing proper dials for the most important functions; a proper aperture ring; dials for shutter speeds, mode select and exposure comp. Most appreciated.
Worth noting that Fuji have started to make some cheaper lenses without a proper aperture ring.
(Call me a luddite if you will, but I much prefer an aperture ring to twisting a dial.)
It just takes a few shots to adjust when going from SLR/mirrorless to rangefinders - my rangefinder lenses have the aperture ring in front of the focus ring, whereas it is the other way around with just about anything else I've ever tried. (And the less is spoken of the confusion when using a lens with a leaf shutter (where the shutter speed, too, is set by a ring), the better. :-)
It's all about optical zoom now.
[1] http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2015-superzoom-camera-roundu...
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.
For example to change ISO my finger presses the ISO button just ahead of the trigger and then my thumb spins the thumb wheel, all without looking away from the viewfinder or lifting either hand off the body. Exposure bracketing: two buttons on top-left, then spin the top finger-wheel.
With this Fuji I'd have to physically move my left hand up above the camera, grab the ISO dial and click it around to where I need it. Plus every mechanical dial is another conduit for rain and moisture to enter the camera.