# Picked up Fuji Xt1 - was blown away - where is Canon?



## koolman (Apr 12, 2015)

I just picked up a fuji Xt1 - borrowed from a relative for a few hours. WOW. I shoot a canon t2i. Both are crop.

The fuji is another league all together. The overall innards of the camera seem to be much more advanced? Where is canon ? The images as far as out of camera jpg - are vastly cleaner and superior on the Fuji ?


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 12, 2015)

Well in your case Canon is stuck in early 2010 whereas your friend has moved on to 2014 

Find a friend with a 70D and try that.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 12, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Well in your case Canon is stuck in early 2010 whereas your friend has moved on to 2014  Find a friend with a 70D and try that.



And don't forget to try a Nikon d7200 for good measure as a comprison to current midrange Canon crop :->

But generally, no doubt the competition is faster at stuffing innovations and features into their products. Canon has some goodies like dual pixel af and radio flashes, but if you want "value" as in "features per cent" look elsewhere. That being said, Canon has nice ergonomics and probably some very competitive lenses if you are ready to pay top dollar for these premium L products.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2015)

Where is Canon? On sales charts for MILCs, it's a struggle to find Fuji. The EOS M outsells the Fuji brand. Even Rikoh (who are they??) outsells Fuji. 

But if the X-T1 meets your needs, that's great and you should get one (assuming a body costing double that of a Canon entry-level APS-C is in budget, and don't forget some lenses...).


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 12, 2015)

koolman said:


> I just picked up a fuji Xt1 - borrowed from a relative for a few hours. WOW. I shoot a canon t2i. Both are crop.
> 
> The fuji is another league all together. The overall innards of the camera seem to be much more advanced? Where is canon ? The images as far as out of camera jpg - are vastly cleaner and superior on the Fuji ?



Fuji is coming out with a budget version of the XT1 this year (supposedly summer), I'll be looking closely at that.

The reason Fuji jpegs look good is they're highly processed, you should compare with the in camera noise reduction on a T6i, chances are you're going to get similar performance.
I think the only reason people boast about jpeg performance is a lack of RAW support, but the reviews I've seen say the software Fuji includes does as good a job at RAW development as anything, it's just not integrated into Light room.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2015)

9VIII said:


> I think the only reason people boast about jpeg performance is a lack of RAW support...



Can you push JPGs by 5-stops in post??


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Apr 12, 2015)

While I own and love my xt1, it is definitely an unfair comparison considering how many generations past the t2i is. Like marsu said, the 70d would probably be a more even comparison based on pricepoint and age. That being said, I still prefer the xt1 as I've owned both. 

Re raw and JPEG files, the in cam jpegs from the Fuji are definitely cooked. However, I happen to only shoot raw and the files are demosaiced quite well in recent versions of Lightroom when understanding the sharpening techniques for the xtrans files. Personally, I have moved over completely to Capture One Pro for my editing software which yields even better results. So the issues of old for processing Fuji raw are no longer the case as there are ample choices for post processing available. 

I've also owned the 70d and a t5i for short periods as they were both dumped after a month. The xt1 works way better for my needs and yielded much better results. 

I love my canon gear and have for a long time. But the xt1 rocks even against canon's current apsc offerings sans the 7dii.


----------



## sanj (Apr 12, 2015)

I so agree. The Fuji XT1 is a fantastic camera - right from the looks - features - to IQ. I used to have the X100 but sold it as it did not fit in the pocket. If I am going to hand a camera around my shoulders it will be the no compromise 5d3. 
Now for my go camera - which fits in my pocket - I have the wonderful Sony x100 3.


----------



## gsealy (Apr 12, 2015)

9VIII said:


> koolman said:
> 
> 
> > I just picked up a fuji Xt1 - borrowed from a relative for a few hours. WOW. I shoot a canon t2i. Both are crop.
> ...



I have a Fuji X100T which came out in November 2014. LR 5.7 supports RAW for this camera. I bought this camera mostly for street shooting. It is quiet and small, and takes great photos. It also does in camera JPG processing. A lot of street photographers don't even fool around with RAW when using this camera. Here is picture of the desert I took with this camera.


----------



## TeT (Apr 12, 2015)

fuji XT1 v. just about anything made in 2010 canon or otherwize XT1 should win hands down. It is a good camera. As mentioned above though, find some apples to test it against, not your orange.


----------



## TeT (Apr 12, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Well in your case Canon is stuck in early 2010 whereas your friend has moved on to 2014  Find a friend with a 70D and try that.
> ...



Call the 7200 by its official name please "super awesome greatness with frosting on top"


----------



## deletemyaccount (Apr 12, 2015)

Seems to me just another troll thread created by the OP. I wish all the trolls would just leave. They do nothing but cause disruption. I so seldom post here because of the competition fanboys dissing everyone and everything Canon.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 12, 2015)

it doesn't matter how many units Canon sell, they still have an _inferior_ sensor system that's now as much as 3 stops disadvantaged comparing the latest competition.

It would be nice to see some properly done (dxomark) tests on Fuji so we can really compare and figure out how they process their image data.

The last few years has seen a number of raw processing alternatives come out that can do a good job extracting the benefits of the Xtrans sensor.
Iridient Developer v3, Photo Ninja, Capture One, and even LR with a different sharpening method all produce very good results.

I haven't tred C1 but v3 of Iridient has made a big improvement in processing the raw files of my older xe1 cameras. They're now comparable to the xt1 output.

Fuji rocks! Canon balks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2015)

Aglet said:


> it doesn't matter how many units Canon sell, they still have an _inferior_ sensor system that's now as much as 3 stops disadvantaged comparing the latest competition.



It matters to Canon, and it matters to Fuji. People use *camera systems* to take pictures, not sensors.


----------



## dak723 (Apr 12, 2015)

camerabug said:


> Seems to me just another troll thread created by the OP. I wish all the trolls would just leave. They do nothing but cause disruption. I so seldom post here because of the competition fanboys dissing everyone and everything Canon.



Agreed. Maybe if others would stop feeding the trolls they will go away. I would guess that the vast majority of members on a Canon forum are users that are happy with their equipment. Those that are unhappy should buy what they think is better and go participate on those company's forums. All they do is ruin this forum with their constant criticisms. Yes, other companies make good cameras - maybe even better than Canon. So what? Unless you are completely incompetent, your Canon DSLR (any model from day one) is good enough to create beautiful, professional, photos.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 12, 2015)

camerabug said:


> Seems to me just another troll thread created by the OP. I wish all the trolls would just leave. They do nothing but cause disruption. I so seldom post here because of the competition fanboys dissing everyone and everything Canon.



I feel OP is not trying to create "disruption", just his/her expression toward the gear. 

I do agree with others, his comparison is not really apple vs apple.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 12, 2015)

sanj said:


> I so agree. The Fuji XT1 is a fantastic camera - right from the looks - features - to IQ. I used to have the X100 but sold it as it did not fit in the pocket. If I am going to hand a camera around my shoulders it will be the no compromise 5d3.
> Now for my go camera - which fits in my pocket - I have the wonderful Sony x100 3.



All I want is 35mm sensor in that XT1 body style


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 12, 2015)

dak723 said:


> camerabug said:
> 
> 
> > Seems to me just another troll thread created by the OP. I wish all the trolls would just leave. They do nothing but cause disruption. I so seldom post here because of the competition fanboys dissing everyone and everything Canon.
> ...



I don't think this is really intended as trolling; the OP is genuinely concerned as to why his early 2010 intro / budget level camera from Canon is not feeling, or the end result not looking, as good as Fuij's top of the line model from mid 2014, which costs about twice as much. 

He's entitled to an explanation........


Using simple words.


----------



## sanj (Apr 12, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I so agree. The Fuji XT1 is a fantastic camera - right from the looks - features - to IQ. I used to have the X100 but sold it as it did not fit in the pocket. If I am going to hand a camera around my shoulders it will be the no compromise 5d3.
> ...


That would be a dream come true


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 12, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I so agree. The Fuji XT1 is a fantastic camera - right from the looks - features - to IQ. I used to have the X100 but sold it as it did not fit in the pocket. If I am going to hand a camera around my shoulders it will be the no compromise 5d3.
> ...



So true.
In this way you can see how as much as people tout the technology advancements of other manufacturers over Canon, everyone knows that all the newcomers still have a long way to go before being considered equals.
Fuji is miles away from making a 1Dx competitor, so is Sony, and Nikon is probably a lot closer to fitting into that category than anyone wants to admit.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 12, 2015)

.
Thanks. I get a lot of enjoyment watching the psychological machinations of these kinds of threads.


----------



## zlatko (Apr 12, 2015)

koolman said:


> I just picked up a fuji Xt1 - borrowed from a relative for a few hours. WOW. I shoot a canon t2i. Both are crop.
> 
> The fuji is another league all together. The overall innards of the camera seem to be much more advanced? Where is canon ? The images as far as out of camera jpg - are vastly cleaner and superior on the Fuji ?



Where is Canon? Canon is in my hands and in my camera bag. I really tried to like the X-T1, but ultimately could not get along with it. Too bad because the body size is ideal. Here are a few Fuji quirks that reviewers of the X-T1 don't seem to tell you about:

You can lock shooting without a lens, but can’t lock shooting without a card. Good thing the camera will thoughtfully prevent you from shooting without a LENS! But you can very easily get caught shooting without a memory card. When you turn the camera on, the camera gives a 3-second "no card" warning in the viewfinder. Good luck spotting that if the viewfinder is not up to your eye in the 3 seconds after you turn the camera on. Fuji has brought back the age-old embarrassment of shooting with no film in the camera, now "updated" to digital.

In drive mode S (single frame), the sluggish blackout time makes it seem like every shot is taken at 1/30th second, even when the shutter speed is much faster. 

In the continuous drive modes (CL and CH) you get a brief playback of the image even if playback is set to OFF. So playback "off" doesn't actually mean OFF. Good luck capturing brief moments with the EVF stuttering through still images you've just taken.

In drive modes CL and CH, it is almost impossible to take just one photo; even in CL the minimum is 2.

The menus don’t remember where you were and require an extra button push to get into the settings tabs (can’t get to settings with continuous wheel scrolling through the tabs). Olympus gets this wrong too; the menu system always starts where it wants to rather than where the user left it.

The drive mode can’t lock, and can easily slip into bracketing or, worse, into double exposures, which means you're shooting double-exposure jpegs even if you set the camera to Raw.

Silent mode is mis-named so that it trips up user after user. It turns off the flash!

Canon is in another league in terms of ergonomics and refinement, not to mention great system features like radio flash. Current generation Canon image quality is as good as current generation Fuji image quality in every way that matters to me. 

What Canon lacks is a set of small APS-C primes, as small as Fuji's 35/1.4. But despite excellent optics, Fuji's 35/1.4 is one of the noisiest lenses I've ever used. It makes one noise to focus and another noise to stop down the aperture. So there's lots of chatter with this lens. And there's no place to get a good grip on it when removing it from the camera.


----------



## sdsr (Apr 13, 2015)

koolman said:


> I just picked up a fuji Xt1 - borrowed from a relative for a few hours. WOW. I shoot a canon t2i. Both are crop.
> 
> The fuji is another league all together. The overall innards of the camera seem to be much more advanced? Where is canon ? The images as far as out of camera jpg - are vastly cleaner and superior on the Fuji ?



If you think "a few hours" is long enough to evaluate a camera, prefer the JPEGs a Fuji APS-C camera makes to the JPEGs your Rebel makes for the sort of photos you take, and prefer whatever it is that you mean by its "innards", go for it. It's all a matter of taste, of course, but I prefer Rebel images (do you find the smeariness of the green tumbleweed - or whatever they are - bushes in the photo posted in this thread appealing? I don't); and I can't help pointing out that for the price of an XT1 you can buy (in no particular order) a full-frame Sony a7; or at least two Sony a6000s; or two Olympus OM-D em5s; or a new Olympus OM-D em5II and a lens; or a Canon 70D and a lens - and they all have rather impressive innards too....


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 13, 2015)

Hmmm,

Let me see, 

XT-1 body $1,200, general lens for XT-1 another $1,200. T2i kit with lens $350.

OOC jpeg, just use the free Picture Styles Editor software that came free with your camera to make all your T2i images look identical to the Fuji ones. For free........


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Apr 13, 2015)

sdsr said:


> koolman said:
> 
> 
> > I just picked up a fuji Xt1 - borrowed from a relative for a few hours. WOW. I shoot a canon t2i. Both are crop.
> ...



Agreed.....for the most part. You definitely wouldn't be able to make such conclusions in such a short time period (and comparing to something ancient).

As far as the sample image that was provided, no offense to the poster, but it was not a very good example. Also not sure what processing engine was used, but my greens never look like that.

Re the Sony stuff. It's Sony stuff. I had my four months with the a7r and 55/1.8 and hated it while I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that love Sony stuff. All a matter of preference in the end. 

My reasons for loving the xt1 however involve the form factor, UI, evf features, the dedicated fast apsc lenses, and the electronic shutter that allows me to shoot up to 1/32000th. For me, it is a tool that provides me access to some unique things NO ONE else provides. All of my manual lenses and all of my TSEs work beautifully on it.

The proof, for me is always in the pudding. In this case, the pudding is the images and I have plenty of stuff I love out of it.

Again, this is not a diss on my Canon gear as I still own and love all of it still. But the fact remains, the xt1 is a winner for a lot of people.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Apr 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Hmmm,
> 
> Let me see,
> 
> ...



Not sure which general lens you're referring to at $1200, but was curious to know. The kit 18-55 f2.8-4 is excellent and runs an extra $400.

And the files are most definitely not in the same league (at least in RAW).

On another note, to the OP or any other person potentially interested in the xt1, only way to find out is to buy or rent. Don't just be the guy that reads about stuff all day or listens to others who on the interwebs who haven't walked the walk.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 13, 2015)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm,
> ...


Just look in the lenses tab.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1025328-REG/fujifilm_x_t1_mirrorless_digital_camera.html

Or compare the XF-27mm f2.8 @ $449 to the Canon EF-S 24mm f2.8 for $149. Or the XF10-24 f4 at $999 to the Canon EF-s 10-22 f3.5-4.5 for $599 and you will see the disparity of the comparison. Or go to your 18-55 kit lens for $400, compared to the 18-55 EF-s kit lens included for $350.

The XT-1 might well be a great camera, there are many out there that are and they certainly don't need a Canon badge, but is there really any point in trying to draw comparisons between it and a T2i?


----------



## zlatko (Apr 13, 2015)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> My reasons for loving the xt1 however involve the form factor, UI, evf features, the dedicated fast apsc lenses, and the electronic shutter that allows me to shoot up to 1/32000th. For me, it is a tool that provides me access to some unique things NO ONE else provides. All of my manual lenses and all of my TSEs work beautifully on it.



The dedicated fast APS-C lenses are a big plus for the Fuji X system. Canon would do well to build some of those for its APS-C cameras. The X-T1 does have a lot going for it. Fuji got a lot of things right and gave the camera a pretty perfect size & shape — the form factor is sweet. However, I did not get along with the UI or the EVF. I feel that Canon have mastered the art of UI, while most others don't really get the fine points of UI. I'm disappointed that reviewers generally don't seem to notice Fuji's design quirks.

The electronic shutter is interesting, but not for actually photographing anything in motion. 1/32000th is a measure of light gathering, not the speed of the shutter. The actual electronic shutter speed works out to something like 1/15th. So it's useful for wide aperture portraits in bright sun as you won't need an ND filter, but moving subjects will easily blur.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Apr 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Agreed regarding the comparison as I've stated previously. 

Also agree regarding the pricing of SOME of the lenses. FWIW, the kit zoom starts at 2.8 and also sports a significantly better IS. The Fuji zoom also performs significantly better (for me) than any of the canon kit zooms I've ever owned.

I only own the 23/1.4, 56/1.2, and the kit zoom. All three are stellar but I can't vouch for any of the others.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Apr 13, 2015)

gsealy said:


> I have a Fuji X100T which came out in November 2014. LR 5.7 supports RAW for this camera. I bought this camera mostly for street shooting. It is quiet and small, and takes great photos. It also does in camera JPG processing. A lot of street photographers don't even fool around with RAW when using this camera. Here is picture of the desert I took with this camera.



I spy Picacho Peak and Casa grande.


----------



## koolman (Apr 13, 2015)

Thank you all for your feedback. I first wish to clarify that - no - I am not a "troll" out to create some kind of empty discussion.

My post expressed frustration - at how what I perceived as a "toy" (the fuji) produced such outstanding jpg's.

I understand that the Fuji jpg's are "cooked" - but for many of us who just want to shoot and use the out of camera jpg - this is certainly fine. The canon can have a "cooked" mode - or a "real" mode - and the user can choose.

My comments by the way - did not refer to the business of marketing and selling cameras - in which Fuji is way way behind canon - as canon is a full system that is time tested and been in place for many years.


----------



## quod (Apr 13, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Find a friend with a 70D and try that.


I have shot the 7D2 extensively. I only shoot RAW. My X100S RAWs have less noise and more DR than the 7D2. The IQ is close to my 5D3, although the Fuji has cleaner shadows and more DR.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 13, 2015)

koolman said:


> Thank you all for your feedback. I first wish to clarify that - no - I am not a "troll" out to create some kind of empty discussion.



Yeah, righ`t, but isn't exactly what a troll would say  ?



koolman said:


> My post expressed frustration - at how what I perceived as a "toy" (the fuji) produced such outstanding jpg's.



You have to understand that with you being critical with Canon, that's trolling by default over here :->


----------



## davidmurray (Apr 13, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Canon has nice ergonomics and probably some very competitive lenses if you are ready to pay top dollar for these premium L products.



The reason I chose to buy a Canon camera is because of the quality of the L lenses. I realized that camera bodies come and go, but an investment in the best quality lenses (without going over-the-top) will mean my investment will continue to produce good quality images no matter which full frame camera body I currently own.

Since purchasing the 5D I have to say I really like the way the buttons are laid out on the camera.


----------



## gsealy (Apr 13, 2015)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> gsealy said:
> 
> 
> > I have a Fuji X100T which came out in November 2014. LR 5.7 supports RAW for this camera. I bought this camera mostly for street shooting. It is quiet and small, and takes great photos. It also does in camera JPG processing. A lot of street photographers don't even fool around with RAW when using this camera. Here is picture of the desert I took with this camera.
> ...



Your 'intelligence' is spot on.


----------



## e17paul (Apr 14, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I so agree. The Fuji XT1 is a fantastic camera - right from the looks - features - to IQ. I used to have the X100 but sold it as it did not fit in the pocket. If I am going to hand a camera around my shoulders it will be the no compromise 5d3.
> ...



I was at a photography club exhibition on Sunday, and the Fuji images displayed by one photographer certainly punched abobve the weight of other crop camera photos. It migt be worth trying the XT-1.

In case anyone is interested in next year, or is local and wants to get involved:
http://www.sxpf.org.uk/events/chichester-spring-photographic-exhibition/#prettyPhoto


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 14, 2015)

If you brought a Fuji and you are happy with it, that's fantastic. It is a good camera. The best camera is the one that best for you and your individual style of photography. 

However, when you come here, a canon fan site, and make the post that you did, what kind of response did you anticipate?


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 14, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> a canon fan site



Is it? It seems I've overlooked something in the fine print, my understanding is that this is a canon _rumors_ site. And if the rumor is the competitions' sensors stay ahead for the time being (and what will/can Canon do about it), that's an as valid rumor as "great new products in the pipeline".


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 14, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > a canon fan site
> ...



Just read any thread when anyone says anything good about a non-Canon product and watch the people who feel it necessary to "defend" Canon.

Not saying that everyone here is a fanboy, but we have our share. Not surprising as this is a manufacturer specific site so naturally Canon fans would be more attracted to this site.


----------



## crashpc (Apr 26, 2015)

AcutancePhotography
It´s not really productive to continue in this debate. Keep in mind that many users have Canon because they like its output best. So it is not that while I have Canon, I have to defend it. It´s most common BS of attacks like this.
If Fuji was so superior, I would be the first one to get it. Didn´t happen for a reason. The reason is personal, the same as personal reasons of Fuji people. No need to bash any brand.


----------



## koolman (Apr 28, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> If you brought a Fuji and you are happy with it, that's fantastic. It is a good camera. The best camera is the one that best for you and your individual style of photography.
> 
> However, when you come here, a canon fan site, and make the post that you did, what kind of response did you anticipate?



It is BECAUSE I am a Canon fan - that I am frustrated - I feel my "team" is not reading the writing on the wall = the "rebel" consumers of the past - now want small light high quality bodies with premium prime options - that where designed for crops (not super expensive FF L lenses). High ISO and in camera processing are the way to go. Killer Auto WB and Colors that make almost anything look super. This seems to describe the competition !


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 28, 2015)

koolman said:


> It is BECAUSE I am a Canon fan - that I am frustrated - I feel my "team" is not reading the writing on the wall = the "rebel" consumers of the past - now want small light high quality bodies with premium prime options - that where designed for crops (not super expensive FF L lenses). High ISO and in camera processing are the way to go. Killer Auto WB and Colors that make almost anything look super. This seems to describe the competition !



Yes, clearly you have your finger on the pulse of _exactly_ what the "Rebel" consumers want, and as you aptly point out, that's precisely what Fuji delivers. That explains the meteoric rise of Fuji's market share. The way the numbers are trending, they'll eclipse Canon and Nikon sometime soon after pigs fly over snowbanks in hell.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 28, 2015)

koolman said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > If you brought a Fuji and you are happy with it, that's fantastic. It is a good camera. The best camera is the one that best for you and your individual style of photography.
> ...



Keep in mind, Fuji lenses are NOT cheap compared to L lenses


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 28, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> Keep in mind, Fuji lenses are NOT cheap compared to L lenses



Good point there, switching to a rather exotic system should be considered unless you purchase a complete kit right away.

Personally, I'd rather go for a system with other advantages than mainly the sensor and gimmicks - i.e. Pentax with superior sealing - or a brand that has the usual suspect's 3rtd party products (i.e. Nikon or Sony with Sigma and whatnot).


----------



## Finn M (Apr 28, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> Keep in mind, Fuji lenses are NOT cheap compared to L lenses



Fuji lenses are actually cheap compared to Canons L-lenses. 
I own both a Canon EOS 5D mk.III for work and a Fujifilm XT-1 for family use. For Fuji I own three lenses: Fuji XF 56/1,2 and XF 23/1,4 which are less than half the price (and also less than half the weight) to the Canon EF 85/1,2L and EF 35/1,4L. I also own both the Fuji XF 10-24/4 OIS and Canon EF 16-35/4L IS which are about similar in price. 

Both Canon and Fuji produce brilliant lenses, but it is something special to get back the aperature ring on the lens: it gives me flashback to Canons FD lenses, it is simply fantastic for manual use. Both cameras have their strenghts and weaknesses, but I'm surprised to say that I'm using the Fuji camera more than I thought I would. The Canon camera is now used only when I'm going to make big enlargements at work.

But the new Canon EF 100-400/4,5-5,6L IS II is a beauty: very sharp and a very effective stabilizer (IS). The best I have ever used!


----------



## applecider (Apr 28, 2015)

I just did a night photography workshop and two of the six participants were using the xt1. There images we're surprisingly good. I used a 5Diii and also an SL 1 which I really like. For hiking especially at night the lighter gear has some appeal. Of course carrying L lenses defeats the light weight idea. 

I'm hoping the next SL1 has a one stop better high ISO sensor and a bit more DR so it meets or beats the fuji. Unfortunately arches national park was cloudy for the three nights I had there.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> That explains the meteoric rise of Fuji's market share. The way the numbers are trending, they'll eclipse Canon and Nikon sometime soon after pigs fly over snowbanks in hell.



By that logic, the cheeseburger at a four-star restaurant will never be as good as a cheeseburger at McDonalds because of sales numbers. Mercedes automobiles will never attain the soaring heights of Toyota. One day soon the world will recognize the value and dominance of mediocrity.

My observations the past year suggest people who are moving to Fuji are heavily weighted toward images, i.e. the final product is more important that the equipment. People hanging with the big DSLR sellers seem to value equipment more for equipment sake. As I've said before it was a tough pill to swallow when I realized my $5k Canon setup (lens & body) was producing less pleasing results than my $1300 Fuji X100S. The folks seriously interested in photographs will never equal the volume of gadget collectors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2015)

distant.star said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > That explains the meteoric rise of Fuji's market share. The way the numbers are trending, they'll eclipse Canon and Nikon sometime soon after pigs fly over snowbanks in hell.
> ...



It depends on how you define good. Toyota automobiles have gotten more people to and from work so they can feed their families than Mercedes automobiles. 




distant.star said:


> My observations the past year suggest people who are moving to Fuji are heavily weighted toward images, i.e. the final product is more important that the equipment.



I shoot small birds from distances >30 feet. I shoot architecture in urban settings where an ultrawide FoV, orthogonal perspective and lack of keystoning are important. I care about the final product. What Fuji camera and lenses should I use?


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Not only lens selections, ergonomic should also be considered as well. I do enjoy shooting with a7 and small primes, but can't stand their FE zooms. The balance is off.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> It depends on how you define good. Toyota automobiles have gotten more people to and from work so they can feed their families than Mercedes automobiles.
> 
> I shoot small birds from distances >30 feet. I shoot architecture in urban settings where an ultrawide FoV, orthogonal perspective and lack of keystoning are important. I care about the final product. What Fuji camera and lenses should I use?



You're the one who defined "good" -- sales volume. Now you want to change that? Now it's total number of pictures taken by DSLR cameras vs number taken by mirrorless?

Given your needs, I suggest you do not use Fujifilm cameras and lenses. Just keep doing what you're doing, and you'll be quite happy.


----------



## dpc (Apr 29, 2015)

My observations the past year suggest people who are moving to Fuji are heavily weighted toward images, i.e. the final product is more important that the equipment. People hanging with the big DSLR sellers seem to value equipment more for equipment sake. As I've said before it was a tough pill to swallow when I realized my $5k Canon setup (lens & body) was producing less pleasing results than my $1300 Fuji X100S. The folks seriously interested in photographs will never equal the volume of gadget collectors.
[/quote]

I find the above quote rather condescending. I own a Fujifilm X100. I also own a 5D Mark II and a 7D with assorted lenses for both. The Fuji files are very, very good indeed (I only shoot RAW). So are the Canon files. I'm interested in the cameras for what I can do with them. You shouldn't assume that anyone "hanging with the big DSLR sellers seem to value equipment more for equipment's sake." That is decidedly not the case with me and I rather doubt it is true of many other photographers. Different people favour different camera systems for different reasons. Frankly I find this thread rather pointless. It reminds me of a hamster spinning in its wheel. It's moving after a fashion but isn't going anywhere. 8)


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 29, 2015)

distant.star said:


> My observations the past year suggest people who are moving to Fuji are heavily weighted toward images, i.e. the final product is more important that the equipment. People hanging with the big DSLR sellers seem to value equipment more for equipment sake. As I've said before it was a tough pill to swallow when I realized my $5k Canon setup (lens & body) was producing less pleasing results than my $1300 Fuji X100S. The folks seriously interested in photographs will never equal the volume of gadget collectors.



What a condescending load of garbage. What happens when you want a different fov than your X100S gives you? That your image creation is so small minded is not our issue, I'd wager there is nothing you can do with your $1,300 X100S that I couldn't do with my $200 EOS-M and 22mm either.

If your image creation is limited to a fixed lens rangefinder then all power to you, a Canon DSLR is not the tool best suited for you, they were 50 years ago when they made cutting edge rangefinders, but most of us have moved on a little since then and find far broader imaging possibilities in systems with much greater flexibility and options.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 29, 2015)

.
I seem to have struck a nerve.

Opinions vary.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2015)

distant.star said:


> You're the one who defined "good"



Actually, I didn't. You are the one who brought "good" into the discussion, and now your attributing it to me? Canon's position as market leader means their products meet the needs of more people then products from their competitors, whatever those needs are. We each decide what products best meet our own needs, and we define "good" for ourselves. There's no objective way to define good or best, but unit sales can be counted. 

Personally, I take pictures with gear made by the dSLR market leader. As for the fast food market leader, I've probably had three of their cheeseburgers in my life, and the most recent was ~30 years ago.


----------



## sanj (Apr 29, 2015)

koolman said:


> Thank you all for your feedback. I first wish to clarify that - no - I am not a "troll" out to create some kind of empty discussion.
> 
> My post expressed frustration - at how what I perceived as a "toy" (the fuji) produced such outstanding jpg's.
> 
> ...



You are not a troll.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Apr 29, 2015)

Finn M said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Keep in mind, Fuji lenses are NOT cheap compared to L lenses
> ...


I love canon lenses and own some "L" lenses but, I also have a tiny Sony a6000 when I don't want to carry the FF+lenses for family trips. If I want to get high quality glasses for my Sony I have to pay big premiun and price of some Sony-Zeiss lenses are almost the same as Canon counterparts. If your bet is for mirrorless, what you are saving is weight because the cheap lenses (for mirrorless) are not yet offering high quality.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I shoot small birds from distances >30 feet. I shoot architecture in urban settings where an ultrawide FoV, orthogonal perspective and lack of keystoning are important. I care about the final product. What Fuji camera and lenses should I use?



any of them, if you combine some skill and imagination


----------



## sanj (Apr 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > You're the one who defined "good"
> ...



Not to me. I feel sales figures do not reflect quality. Sales figures do reflect consumer's herd mentality to buy what is selling, the advertising, the placement of the product in shops; the sales person's easy way out. Note: Am not saying Canon is bad. No no. Am saying this about sales figures in general. I would be the last consumer to believe a product is great because of numbers sold. A rebel is not better than 1d because it sells more. Canon is not better than Nikon because it sells more. Nikon is not better than Fuji because it sells more. 

And am glad you not eating the bad for health, bland burgers. Me neither. During filming sometimes we have to have a quick meal on the roads and unit rushes to get these burgers. I starve.


----------



## stefang (Apr 29, 2015)

Finn M said:


> Fuji lenses are actually cheap compared to Canons L-lenses.
> I own both a Canon EOS 5D mk.III for work and a Fujifilm XT-1 for family use. For Fuji I own three lenses: Fuji XF 56/1,2 and XF 23/1,4 which are less than half the price (and also less than half the weight) to the Canon EF 85/1,2L and EF 35/1,4L. I also own both the Fuji XF 10-24/4 OIS and Canon EF 16-35/4L IS which are about similar in price.


That may be true, but from an optical perspective, the 56/1.2 must be compared to the 85/1.8, the 23/1.4 to the 35/2.0 and the 10-24/4 to an imaginary 16-35/6.4.


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 29, 2015)

While Fuji don't seem to be expanding that much in terms of sale they are producing very good equipment.
The form factor is nice and compact and relatively light.
They produce very good lens.
Their menus are a pain, the thing you want is usually buried in the menu.
The XTi and the X100s are pretty cameras.
They are using design to get higher prices for their gear than a comparitive Canon.
I've no idea if they are profitable doing what they are doing.
I think they have found a nice niche though.
Their cameras are nice to work with. I like the Optical View Finder they have.

Canon are clever and know their market.
Beautiful but expensive cameras they must reckon won't be as profitable as their current APS-C models.
Canon has some beautiful classic cameras it could transform into an APS-C camera.
I'd love if the modelled some of the lens on classic style lens to with an aperture ring.
I personally like the way Fuji have incorporated this in the X100s.

What got Canon here may not keep Canon on top.
They have to evolve and find new niches.
As technology makes cameras cheaper and advances start to peter out design will be an important factor in the future.
There will be a premium for beautiful looking cameras with good design, small form and good glass.
Hopefully Canon will make a thing of beauty one day or they may have worked out already it won't pay for them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> Canon has some beautiful classic cameras it could transform into an APS-C camera.
> 
> There will be a premium for beautiful looking cameras with good design, small form and good glass.
> Hopefully Canon will make a thing of beauty one day...


----------



## rbielefeld (Apr 29, 2015)

distant.star said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > That explains the meteoric rise of Fuji's market share. The way the numbers are trending, they'll eclipse Canon and Nikon sometime soon after pigs fly over snowbanks in hell.
> ...



This is my first post here, although I have been a reader for several years. I just had to respond. The final product, the image, is all I care about. I would use whatever body and lens necessary to capture the best images on the most consistent basis. Your statement does not take into account the myriad of different types of photography people are undertaking. There is no way the Fuji could capture the types of images I focus on obtaining as consistently as my current Canon gear. I shoot almost exclusively birds in flight. I can't speak for anyone else, but I "hang" with a big DSLR because it gives me the best opportunity to capture the images I am after.


----------



## sanj (Apr 29, 2015)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I "hang" with a big DSLR because it gives me the best opportunity to capture the images I am after. 
[/quote]

Awesome photos. Do stick around, this forum is lots of fun. I would love to see more of your photos.

But everyone is not after flying birds.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 29, 2015)

sanj said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > distant.star said:
> ...



The herd mentality argument may apply for low-end gear, but it seems a stretch for more expensive gear. "Quality" is largely subjective, reflecting use cases, size, weight and balance of optical characteristics. E.g. I've seen a number of comments in this forum from people who love the optics of the 200-400L, but don't want to hassle with the size/weight, etc. The sales argument (as relates to non entry level gear) is the closest measure we have for whether lenses meet the needs of a large number of people. In that sense they do offer an approximation of "quality."

Another thought to consider: does Canon have a monopoly on marketing? Why are other companies unable to compete with Canon (sales figures) despite their superior products? I wish they would offer more competition so we consumers would benefit.


----------



## rbielefeld (Apr 29, 2015)

sanj said:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but I "hang" with a big DSLR because it gives me the best opportunity to capture the images I am after.



Awesome photos. Do stick around, this forum is lots of fun. I would love to see more of your photos.

But everyone is not after flying birds. 
[/quote]

Thanks, sanj. I will stick around. I realize not everyone is after flying birds, that is why I stated I cannot speak for anyone else but myself. However, there are a lot of us "Bird People" out here and we a lot of us use the big DSLRs because cameras like the Fuji just can't consistently capture the subject matter we are after.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2015)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot small birds from distances >30 feet. I shoot architecture in urban settings where an ultrawide FoV, orthogonal perspective and lack of keystoning are important. I care about the final product. What Fuji camera and lenses should I use?
> ...





rbielefeld said:


> This is my first post here, although I have been a reader for several years. I just had to respond. The final product, the image, is all I care about. I would use whatever body and lens necessary to capture the best images on the most consistent basis. Your statement does not take into account the myriad of different types of photography people are undertaking. There is no way the Fuji could capture the types of images I focus on obtaining as consistently as my current Canon gear. I shoot almost exclusively birds in flight. I can't speak for anyone else, but I "hang" with a big DSLR because it gives me the best opportunity to capture the images I am after.



Clearly shots like yours could easily have been captured with a Fuji XT1 and 27mm f/2.8 lens, if only you knew how to combine some skill and imagination. : : </sarcasm>

Seriously, welcome to the forum and thanks for sharing those amazing images!


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 29, 2015)

rbielefeld said:


> This is my first post here, ...


Hello and welcome to the forum. Have fun in participating.

Quite outstanding pictures, esp. the "CACA flight with duck egg". 
I really would like to see that one in higher resolution. 
Maybe that's worth a second post in the BIF thread


----------



## rbielefeld (Apr 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Thanks, neuro. I do find this forum educational at times and often times very entertaining.


----------



## rbielefeld (Apr 29, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> rbielefeld said:
> 
> 
> > This is my first post here, ...
> ...



Thanks Max...


----------



## fragilesi (Apr 29, 2015)

sanj said:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but I "hang" with a big DSLR because it gives me the best opportunity to capture the images I am after.



Well I wish you had a Fuji XT-1 then your photos wouldn't be better than mine 

Seriously, good photos! Do try out the BIF thread if you haven't already, they'd make great additions.


----------



## sanj (Apr 29, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I can't speak for anyone else, but I "hang" with a big DSLR because it gives me the best opportunity to capture the images I am after.
> ...


----------



## gsealy (Apr 29, 2015)

For me, it's not a matter of brand loyalty, and in this case, Fuji vs Canon. It's a matter of using a tool I feel comfortable with in a given situation. I own 7 (gulp!) Canon cameras and camcorders for doing still photography and video work. (And lots of lenses too.) Every one of them has a special place and use in my mind. When I plan for what I want to accomplish on a particular day then I configure my equipment for that purpose. I get myself into the goal knowing and feeling confident about what I am doing. I know my limitations and options. Looking ahead I am watching the 4K technology advances and doing research about the various product offerings. I might just buy a BMD URSA Mini or a Canon product, I don't know yet. 

I bought a Fuji X100T because I like to do street photography for fun and the challenge of it. I noticed several photos on G+ that were shot with the X100 and X100S (I never knew anything about that camera previously). The photos just stood out for some reason. Then I read that this camera series is a favorite of lots of street photographers, many of whom are really well respected and known. So that got my interest going. I was using my t4i with the 40mm EF pancake because that was the smallest and least conspicuous configuration I could achieve. It produced good photos. But like many people the itch to try what other people were using successfully was too much to ignore. So I went for it. I am glad I did. I very much like the X100T for that particular situation over the t4i for a lot of reasons. 

The thing I am saying is that I believe that using the right equipment for a given situation for a particular person is what it is all about. If you want to achieve the results you want, then it is really important to gather the tools to do that job, regardless of brand, and then feeling totally comfortable, knowing everything, and being excited about getting it done. 

It is also healthy and not a disservice to Canon to discuss other brands in this forum. I find such discussions interesting and they round out my knowledge. I seriously don't think we have to be concerned about Canon's viability and future. They are not going anywhere. It is important to know though the limitations and product features they do have so that we can make logical and good choices for our needs. We are seeing Canon segment the market even further as evidenced by the new 5Ds and 5DsR cameras. At prices in the $3700 range we best make good decisions.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 29, 2015)

rbielefeld said:


> This is my first post here, although I have been a reader for several years. I just had to respond. The final product, the image, is all I care about. I would use whatever body and lens necessary to capture the best images on the most consistent basis. Your statement does not take into account the myriad of different types of photography people are undertaking. There is no way the Fuji could capture the types of images I focus on obtaining as consistently as my current Canon gear. I shoot almost exclusively birds in flight. I can't speak for anyone else, but I "hang" with a big DSLR because it gives me the best opportunity to capture the images I am after.



Happy to see my contributions to the discussion have dragged a good photographer and thoughtful poster out of the woodwork.

Nice images, and I hope you post a lot more. Thanks.


----------



## fragilesi (Apr 29, 2015)

sanj said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



Scratches head . . .


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Apr 29, 2015)

Aglet said:


> it doesn't matter how many units Canon sell, they still have an _inferior_ sensor system that's now as much as 3 stops disadvantaged comparing the latest competition.



You've got that completely arse backwards. 

It _does_ matter how many units Canon sells, because it proves that what _doesn't_ matter is this supposed sensor superiority, which is a "disadvantage" _only_ in the minds of whiny malcontents on internet forums.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 30, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> It _does_ matter how many units Canon sells, because it proves that what _doesn't_ matter is this supposed sensor superiority, which is a "disadvantage" _only_ in the minds of whiny malcontents on internet forums.



"Whiny malcontents," that's funny.

Pixelated: Why are you in prison, dog?

Fstop: Oh, that damn Canon, you know, homey.

Pixelated: You shot somebody?

Fstop: Yeah, I shot a lot of folks, but I told too many people my Canon wasn't working good enough. Other guys in the gang got pissed about it.

Pixelated: They rat you out?

Fstop: Yeah, damn judge gave me 25-to-life -- said I was a whiny malcontent and deserved it.

Pixelated: Damn, dog, with life you can't even get family visits!

Fstop: Yeah, thanks to Canon, I may never have sex again!


----------



## sdsr (Apr 30, 2015)

distant.star said:


> My observations the past year suggest people who are moving to Fuji are heavily weighted toward images, i.e. the final product is more important that the equipment. People hanging with the big DSLR sellers seem to value equipment more for equipment sake. As I've said before it was a tough pill to swallow when I realized my $5k Canon setup (lens & body) was producing less pleasing results than my $1300 Fuji X100S. The folks seriously interested in photographs will never equal the volume of gadget collectors.



Really? While it's obviously the case that many like the images Fuji cameras make, I rather get the impression that the appeal of Fuji is rather heavily weighted towards the equipment itself, notably the somewhat retro, old-school-lots-of-external-controls, aesthetics of the camera bodies and how they feel and handle. From that point of view their appeal seems pretty obvious, and that's what made me want to like them too; but I didn't like the "final product", so I stayed with Olympus and Canon and added Sony instead. 

I also think it's a bit misleading to suggest some sort of incompatibility between enjoying the equipment qua equipment and caring about the resulting images. I would have thought that enjoying using your equipment more results in better photos. It's certainly true in my case - much as I like the images my Canon and Olympus equipment let me make, most of the time I much prefer the process of using legacy manual lenses on mirrorless bodies, a process I find enjoyable in itself; and I think the results are better too. (Not for everyone, of course....)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2015)

sdsr said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > My observations the past year suggest people who are moving to Fuji are heavily weighted toward images, i.e. the final product is more important that the equipment. People hanging with the big DSLR sellers seem to value equipment more for equipment sake. As I've said before it was a tough pill to swallow when I realized my $5k Canon setup (lens & body) was producing less pleasing results than my $1300 Fuji X100S. The folks seriously interested in photographs will never equal the volume of gadget collectors.
> ...



Indeed. I initially let his irony slide, but since you bring it up, here's what Fuji has to say about their X-T1:

[quote author=Fuji]
The FUJIFILM X-T1 is a precision instrument, but one that's combined with a functional beauty. 
...
In pursuit of classic styling and the age when cameras had their own unique refinements, a leading-edge, multi-layer coating has been added to the original FUJIFILM X-T1 body, creating a camera to thrill photographers with an eye for beauty.
[/quote]

I don't seem to recall Canon waxing poetic about the aesthetic beauty of their cameras. Canon puts multilayer coatings on their optics to improve the functionality, not on their camera bodies to improve their looks. :

So...who is pushing their cameras for the sake of the equipment not the results? Fuji. But as I stated previously, it's not exactly garnering them Canon's market share...


----------



## distant.star (Apr 30, 2015)

.
I agree with you, sdsr. You have a good point that I've thought a lot about. Lots of folks are attracted to the Fuji cameras for aesthetics, "retro" nonesense, etc. I never pass a day without some stranger telling me what a good looking camera the X100S is. Since I'm a function over form type, I don't really care.

My conclusion about my observations are purely anecdotal. No meaningful conclusions can be drawn; it's solely what I believe I've seen. And I'm as aware as anyone that we humans generally see what we want to see. I don't think my opinion is worth a lot of discussion -- just one more potato in the stew.




sdsr said:


> Really? While it's obviously the case that many like the images Fuji cameras make, I rather get the impression that the appeal of Fuji is rather heavily weighted towards the equipment itself, notably the somewhat retro, old-school-lots-of-external-controls, aesthetics of the camera bodies and how they feel and handle. From that point of view their appeal seems pretty obvious, and that's what made me want to like them too; but I didn't like the "final product", so I stayed with Olympus and Canon and added Sony instead.
> 
> I also think it's a bit misleading to suggest some sort of incompatibility between enjoying the equipment qua equipment and caring about the resulting images. I would have thought that enjoying using your equipment more results in better photos. It's certainly true in my case - much as I like the images my Canon and Olympus equipment let me make, most of the time I much prefer the process of using legacy manual lenses on mirrorless bodies, a process I find enjoyable in itself; and I think the results are better too. (Not for everyone, of course....)


----------



## distant.star (Apr 30, 2015)

.
Thanks, Big Brain, I appreciate you letting the irony slide. I initially caught a big break there! What a relief.

Seriously, you are stepping on weak footings quoting marketing BS, especially where Canon is concerned. They pay more people to pump out more ridiculous BS than anyone. Come to think of it, maybe there's a correlation between that and their market share!



neuroanatomist said:


> Indeed. I initially let his irony slide, but since you bring it up, here's what Fuji has to say about their X-T1:
> 
> [quote author=Fuji]
> The FUJIFILM X-T1 is a precision instrument, but one that's combined with a functional beauty.
> ...



I don't seem to recall Canon waxing poetic about the aesthetic beauty of their cameras. Canon puts multilayer coatings on their optics to improve the functionality, not on their camera bodies to improve their looks. :

So...who is pushing their cameras for the sake of the equipment not the results? Fuji. But as I stated previously, it's not exactly garnering them Canon's market share...
[/quote]


----------



## sanj (Apr 30, 2015)

A camera is bad because it looks good?? What is the world coming to....


----------



## Aglet (Apr 30, 2015)

If someone were to say that Canon DSLRs had the least amount of aesthetic appeal, I'd have to heartily agree with them.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 30, 2015)

Aglet said:


> If someone were to say that Canon DSLRs had the least amount of aesthetic appeal, I'd have to heartily agree with them.



Then you would be ignoring the influence of Luigi Colani and the seminal T90 design that is the birthplace of EOS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Colani


----------



## sanj (Apr 30, 2015)

Aglet said:


> If someone were to say that Canon DSLRs had the least amount of aesthetic appeal, I'd have to heartily agree with them.



It can be argued that aesthetic appeal is personal, but I would heartily agree too. Not that I find Nikon cameras aesthetic either. Except perhaps one. ;D


----------



## sanj (Apr 30, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> If you brought a Fuji and you are happy with it, that's fantastic. It is a good camera. The best camera is the one that best for you and your individual style of photography.
> 
> However, when you come here, a canon fan site, and make the post that you did, what kind of response did you anticipate?



Fanatic.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 30, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > If someone were to say that Canon DSLRs had the least amount of aesthetic appeal, I'd have to heartily agree with them.
> ...


And it seems obvious that either the design or the functionality was so exceptional that almost any other SLR manufacturer did copy it. The only thing about this could be that the Minolta 7000 was the first but rather edged approach on the new design.

I'd prefer the more ergonomic eos design over an A1 or Nikon DF at all times.

And I can remember the enthusiastic reaction back in 1986 when the T90 was released.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 30, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



this was about the era of early _mechatronics_ where microprocessors and electronic control of mechanical systems would allow designers more freedom to move things around for better ergonomics. A shutter release could go anywhere for quite a while but a lever and mechanicals needed to line up to move mirrors and shutters that could now be cocked with a motor, etc.



> I'd prefer the more ergonomic eos design over an A1 or Nikon DF at all times.



ditto, but I like _looking_ at an A1 or DF more than I like looking at the more ergonomic and well arranged EOS body we have available today, which just kinda looks like a big dark lump with some shiny bits on opposing sides.

altho, I had no complaints about the layout of my A1, which I still have. It's still nicer to use than a DF.
Or the FE I just ran some film thru.



> And I can remember the enthusiastic reaction back in 1986 when the T90 was released.



alas, I don't. I was quite happy with my A1 at the time and didn't pay attention. A couple well-worn ones passed thru my hands as part of some larger acquisitions much later and I remember thinking they were very plastic-icky compared to my A1 and I passed them along without even trying them.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 30, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > it doesn't matter how many units Canon sell, they still have an _inferior_ sensor system that's now as much as 3 stops disadvantaged comparing the latest competition.
> ...



Nuthin _supposed_ about it.
I will direct a Canon shooter to the handicapped parking area.


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I shoot architecture in urban settings where an ultrawide FoV, orthogonal perspective and lack of keystoning are important. I care about the final product. What Fuji camera and lenses should I use?



If you were to use an 8x10 (or even 4x5) view camera for your architectural shots, there are a wide variety of Fuji lenses that will work perfectly. Or, if you were heartset on using a Fuji camera and lens combo, the GX680 is a good option (Plus you can easily add a digital back). You could also use Fuji film to capture the image on (realistically, Fuji is your only choice if you wanted to shoot colour transparencies). You could then print the image using a Fuji enlarging lens. If you "care about the final product", Fuji has you covered on this one.

Of course, if Canon's "amateur" full frame format is providing sufficient image quality in your eyes, well.......


----------



## sanj (Apr 30, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot architecture in urban settings where an ultrawide FoV, orthogonal perspective and lack of keystoning are important. I care about the final product. What Fuji camera and lenses should I use?
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot architecture in urban settings where an ultrawide FoV, orthogonal perspective and lack of keystoning are important. I care about the final product. What Fuji camera and lenses should I use?
> ...



I stand corrected. Time to get out the masking tape and black foam core, and turn one of the bathrooms into a darkroom again.


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 30, 2015)

Also, it seems a given here that the "best" camera is the best selling camera.

And the best selling camera in the world is...

drum roll please...

The Fuji Instax.

(at least, assuming you don't call the GoPro or the iPhone a camera)

Go Fuji!!!

Canon cameras must be pretty bad if they can't produce a model which even gets close to Instax sales. Personally, I blame the poor sensor and bad DR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> Also, it seems a given here that the "best" camera is the best selling camera.



Sorry, but no, No...a thousand times *NO*! The appropriate correlate of sales volume is that higher sales means the camera meets the needs of more people.




Hillsilly said:


> And the best selling camera in the world is...
> 
> drum roll please...
> 
> The Fuji Instax.



Taken together with iPhone sales (I read somewhere recently that 80% of iPhone users say the camera is their most used feature), what that says is most people need/want the ability to instantly share their images, whether physically or electronically. Canon obviously knows this, thus the inclusion of Wi-Fi in consumer models (and more recently, NFC).


----------



## sanj (Apr 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > Also, it seems a given here that the "best" camera is the best selling camera.
> ...



Nope not to me. It correlates to the advertising strategy, security of consumers in the company, faith in the product because others are buying it. How many people that buy cameras, including the top end models, actually know why they are buying it?? How can they when they do not even fully know their needs? They buy it because it is the thing to do. Buying Canon is the thing to do by many. Of course this thinking does not apply to actual photographers. "Best Selling" is the term herd mentality consumers love to go by. 
Canon over time have created the aura in the general masses that they are the best and reaping the harvest. 
Note: I am not putting down Canon in any manner or not saying that 1dx is not the best DSLR there is for sports photographers but questioning if largest selling is actually the best. 'Meets need' is not appropriate either as most don't know their needs and buy because friends or salesman says so.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 30, 2015)

"Meets need' is not appropriate either as most don't know their needs and buy because friends or salesman says so"

What an incredibly logically-flawed A$$umption. No need commenting further on that one.

I also am amazed at how little knowledge people really do have of DR. To say a sensor has "poor dynamic range" doesn't make the slightest bit of sense since DR changes with ISO. Maybe it's the lack of physics knowledge. Canon has top DR at higher ISO's. So I could argue the D800 has very poor DR. Because at 3200 and above it absolutely SUCKS whereas the 1Dx still maintains 9.7 stops. 

Who cares if a camera has 13 or 14 or 15 stops of DR at ISO 100? You have plenty of light if you are shooting at ISO 100 so why do you need that many stops?? I need all the DR I can get at higher ISO's (where it makes sense) and actually Canon is very, very good in that regard.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Who cares if a camera has 13 or 14 or 15 stops of DR at ISO 100? You have plenty of light if you are shooting at ISO 100 so why do you need that many stops?? I need all the DR I can get at higher ISO's (where it makes sense) and actually Canon is very, very good in that regard.



You just don't care about maximum image quality. If you did, you'd shoot at ISO 100 on a tripod. It doesn't matter if the subject is a blurry due to motion, as long as you have maximum IQ the shot is perfect.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares if a camera has 13 or 14 or 15 stops of DR at ISO 100? You have plenty of light if you are shooting at ISO 100 so why do you need that many stops?? I need all the DR I can get at higher ISO's (where it makes sense) and actually Canon is very, very good in that regard.
> ...



I've had many photos rejected from many schools. Reason: Not enough DR.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Apr 30, 2015)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Whilst many continue to make big statements from the comfort of their home or office, most have not walked the walk.

Before knocking anything, go get your hands on whatever it is for a few weeks. Talk is cheap. Go find out for yourselves how good or bad something is. Then we can resume conversation. 

Conjecture and opinions based on some BS you read online are like @$$holes, everyones got one. 

I for one can tell you based on ownership experience with numerous Canon bodies/lenses, the Sony a7r/55mm, and multiple Fuji bodies/lenses how each performs in my hands. I also have images as proof of what each of those rigs can be made to do in my hands. Because of this, I find it laughable when people draw conclusions about equipment based on their never having used them. 

You can knock Fuji all day, but do so after you have owned one or had one in use in your possession for a while. Otherwise, you are just measurebating or doing guesswork based on someone else's opinions from the interwebs.

As a final note, this in no way takes away from the fact that all of these different systems have different qualities to offer over the others respectively. It is because of this that I still have about 20k in my Canon kit, a very much loved Fuji kit, and no more Sony kit.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 30, 2015)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again. Whilst many continue to make big statements from the comfort of their home or office, most have not walked the walk.
> 
> Before knocking anything, go get your hands on whatever it is for a few weeks. Talk is cheap. Go find out for yourselves how good or bad something is. Then we can resume conversation.
> 
> ...



I wonder how Fuji can help me to continue to shoots sports and make MONEY. All the other crap, I don't really care. It goes both ways. People applaud Fuji for more DR this that and the other and Canon sucks. DR at low ISO is such a small, small part, and quite frankly absolutely useless aspect, to me. Wonder how many Fuji cameras will be at the Division I outdoor track meet this year in Eugene? I wonder how many 1Dx/400 f/2.8 combos there will be. Yes talk is cheap. That's why I get the gear that makes me MONEY while others just make incredibly stupid blanket statements that Fuji is better than Canon or Fuji has more DR than Canon. I'm switching to Fuji if Canon doesn't offer me 15 stops of DR at ISO 50! Most of us are just so sick of this crap it's hard to even visit a CANON rumors site anymore.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Apr 30, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> I wonder how Fuji can help me to continue to shoots sports and make MONEY. All the other crap, I don't really care. It goes both ways. People applaud Fuji for more DR this that and the other and Canon sucks. DR at low ISO is such a small, small part, and quite frankly absolutely useless aspect, to me. Wonder how many Fuji cameras will be at the Division I outdoor track meet this year in Eugene? I wonder how many 1Dx/400 f/2.8 combos there will be. Yes talk is cheap. That's why I get the gear that makes me MONEY while others just make incredibly stupid blanket statements that Fuji is better than Canon or Fuji has more DR than Canon. I'm switching to Fuji if Canon doesn't offer me 15 stops of DR at ISO 50! Most of us are just so sick of this crap it's hard to even visit a CANON rumors site anymore.



I don't disagree with you on the need for the Canon rig for what it currently does best which is precisely why I still have most of my money locked up in my Canon kit. I have no real complaints about it as it gets the job done when I need it to. Still doesn't change the fact that for everything else, I generally reach for the Fuji.

At the moment, Fuji will indeed not help you get sport shots. That was in no way any part of what I was getting at. My issue is with people knocking the system before they have used it.

And for the record, I've done plenty of sport/action shooting with the Fuji when I didn't have another rig with me or needed to go light weight and it did just fine. I wouldn't try to do BIF over my Canon rigs, but it is by no means incapable as an action shooter.

You wonder how many Fujis will be at the track this year? My guess, zero. That still doesn't validate some of the negative statements some forum members have had about the Fuji system as they have no idea what it is like (hence have no idea what they're talking about).

For the record, I don't believe the Fuji is better because it has more DR or anything of the sort. I personally like it because it has high IQ while remaining compact, electronic shutter up to 1/32000th, completely silent shooting, great EVF (also huge for MF lenses), tilting LCD, fast live view operation, and operates very well single-handed for my uses.

Also for the record, I've never once stated Fuji > Canon as that makes zero sense to try and simplify any comparison in such a manner.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 30, 2015)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Before knocking anything, go get your hands on whatever it is for a few weeks. Talk is cheap. Go find out for yourselves how good or bad something is. Then we can resume conversation.


I don't think anyone is knocking Fuji for what it is. Whether it meets your needs depends on what you shoot and the thickness of your wallet. You can afford more than one kit, I can't. I would very much like to borrow someone's Fuji kit for a weekend to try, but I'm not going to buy into a new system unless I see clear reason to do so.

I hope Fuji is as good as you say: a bit more competition would be good for the customers.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Apr 30, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> I don't think anyone is knocking Fuji for what it is. Whether it meets your needs depends on what you shoot and the thickness of your wallet. You can afford more than one kit, I can't. I would very much like to borrow someone's Fuji kit for a weekend to try, but I'm not going to buy into a new system unless I see clear reason to do so.
> 
> I hope Fuji is as good as you say: a bit more competition would be good for the customers.



Absolutely agree with equipment meeting needs and taking budget into account.

If you are serious about trying, rental is an option. Or you could just buy from a large retailer and try it out for a couple weeks and return if it doesn't work out for you (not as kosher, but if you have no other options...).

At this juncture, there is no need to sit here and make claims about the IQ being better or worse. In all honesty, both of my main systems have their pros and cons. But one thing is certain, I have taken about 15k images with the xt1 over the past year and about 5k with my Canon. And I can say with certainty that in most cases, I am thoroughly pleased with what the Fuji brings to the table for me (while still recognizing that there are instances where I NEED my Canon rig).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 30, 2015)

I definitely didn't mean you yourself were making those claims. And I agree that it is use-case and blanket statements don't make much sense.


----------



## Aglet (May 1, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> "Meets need' is not appropriate either as most don't know their needs and buy because friends or salesman says so"
> 
> What an incredibly logically-flawed A$$umption. No need commenting further on that one.
> 
> ...



What's incredibly flawed is your argument.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 1, 2015)

Aglet said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I also am amazed at how little knowledge people really do have of DR. [...] Maybe it's the lack of physics knowledge. Canon has top DR at higher ISO's. [...] *You have plenty of light if you are shooting at ISO 100 so why do you need that many stops??*
> ...



No idea  ... but he compensates lack of logic with an abundance of self-confidence :->


----------



## Hillsilly (May 1, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> I wonder how Fuji can help me to continue to shoots sports and make MONEY.


Come the 11th of May when the X-T1's get their version 4 firmware update, everyone's going be dropping their Canon cameras and picking up the Fuji. This firmware upgrade is codenamed "autofocus TURBO BOOST". The X-T1 already boasts the world's fastest autofocus when coupled with their 14mm lens. This firmware update will take things to a completely new level (we're talking Samsung type performance!). I'd get the X-T1 now before the other pros find out.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 1, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how Fuji can help me to continue to shoots sports and make MONEY.
> ...



Too funny!


----------



## Sporgon (May 1, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> Come the 11th of May when the X-T1's get their version 4 firmware update, everyone's going be dropping their Canon cameras and picking up the Fuji.



;D ;D

Think you must have added an H, an I and two Ls to your nickname by mistake


----------



## distant.star (May 1, 2015)

.
Question...

I've been doing this Internet thing since the 1980s, but lately I haven't kept up so well. For example, I'm just recently coming to terms with the concept of "troll."

Surely there must be a name for a poster who boarishly comments to one person about another person without addressing that third person. At a cocktail party, that would be rude behavior indeed. Not so here in the keyboard world?






Marsu42 said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 1, 2015)

Why do you need 13.4 stops instead of 11.5? Seems like every single shooting situation you're in there JUST wasn't enough stops of DR!


----------



## Marsu42 (May 1, 2015)

distant.star said:


> Question... I've been doing this Internet thing since the 1980s, but lately I haven't kept up so well. For example, I'm just recently coming to terms with the concept of "troll."



Answer ... if someone trolls himself, i.e. boldly argues that everybody not having his opinion lacks physics knowledge, it is perfectly alright not to address such a weird post directly - esp. if the poster obviously lacks said knowledge himself, stating that you don't need high dr on iso 100 because there's plenty of light (sic).



distant.star said:


> At a cocktail party, that would be rude behavior indeed. Not so here in the keyboard world?



I'm more than happy to provide guidance on your tip to the Internet world. Think of someone dropping his trousers and urinating on the table while attending a cocktail party. If a 2nd person makes a comment, it is proper etiquette to reply to that 2nd person alone w/o addressing the 1st person, esp. if he doesn't seem to see anything improper about what he's undertaking. Much better to let 1st person go on, in the Internet world that's called "don't feed the troll".



bdunbar79 said:


> Why do you need 13.4 stops instead of 11.5? Seems like every single shooting situation you're in there JUST wasn't enough stops of DR!



These numbers aren't mere arbitrary numerics, they do relate to real life shooting. In my experience (with Magic Lantern's dual iso which goes up a bit above 14.5ev) shooting against the sun with movement on sunrise/sunset qualifies as just that. Same goes for cloudy sky w/o blowing the bright parts, as well for general noon daylight shadows - though for the latter it can be argued this type of lighting doesn't look very beautiful in any case.

I'd say anthing more than 15ev (optimally in a 16bit file) is rarer, but very "nice to have" as your exposure doesn't need to be spot-on which is always difficult to do in changing light and little time to get it right.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 1, 2015)

If you say so. I suppose since I shoot at higher ISO's I could then just say the DR on the D800 is poor right? Because my 1Dx has more. So according to the blanket statements that Canon's DR is poor (even though it's just at low ISO) I could just say that. I guess personally I'd rather have it in higher ISO situations. It's much handier to me to have 9.7 stops at ISO 6400 than 8.3 vs. the 11.5 to 13.4 at ISO 100. That's all I meant about ISO relation; people conveniently leave it out and think we all shoot at ISO 100 on a tripod, weighted down, with IS.


----------



## Aglet (May 1, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> If you say so. I suppose since I shoot at higher ISO's I could then just say the DR on the D800 is poor right? Because my 1Dx has more. So according to the blanket statements that Canon's DR is poor (even though it's just at low ISO) I could just say that. I guess personally I'd rather have it in higher ISO situations. It's much handier to me to have 9.7 stops at ISO 6400 than 8.3 vs. the 11.5 to 13.4 at ISO 100. That's all I meant about ISO relation; people conveniently leave it out and think we all shoot at ISO 100 on a tripod, weighted down, with IS.


There are still a couple types of camera systems, by both major players, that are tailored to specific markets.
FWIW, D8x0 spanks your 1DX up to a moderate ISO range, which isn't bad at all considering its tiny pixels are designed for detail rather than speed and low light.
If you want to compare your 1DX numbers to its more direct competition, like a D4 or D4s, you'll find they're very similar across the board with a slight hi ISO edge to the Nik until you get to the extremes where it's debateable how useful such levels of sensitivity really are.
Maybe the 1dx2 will be a bigger winner; the current version has too much FPN for a pro body unless you are pro-plaid.


----------



## distant.star (May 2, 2015)

.
Well, I hope that made you feel better.




Marsu42 said:


> Answer ... if someone trolls himself, i.e. boldly argues that everybody not having his opinion lacks physics knowledge, it is perfectly alright not to address such a weird post directly - esp. if the poster obviously lacks said knowledge himself, stating that you don't need high dr on iso 100 because there's plenty of light (sic).


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 2, 2015)

RickSpringfield said:


> Odd that the government 2 party system has extended to consumer products (Canon / Nikon) as the only true options for those who are serious. Not my opinion, but folks certainly talk about it that way.
> 
> Fuji has a place.



So does the Green Party.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 2, 2015)

Thanks, and isn't that what the Internet is all about?



distant.star said:


> Well, I hope that made you feel better.
> 
> 
> Marsu42 said:
> ...


----------

