Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fujifilm X-T2 review: for the love of photography

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 69 posts

Re: Fujifilm X-T2 review: for the love of photography

#51

Post by Lio »

dagw wrote: post #31
dmark3 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The raw specs on the Sony are better, but the actual feel and handling of the Fuji X series is vastly superior. BTW, the Provia and Velvia film simulations are stunning, IMHO.

Agreed. I own an A7 and an X100s, and while the A7 is certainly a better and more versatile camera according just about any spec you care to use, the Fuji is the camera I grab before heading out 19 times out of 20.

The X100 is a very special/quirky camera and that's easy to love despite any imperfections because it will let you do things other cameras can't. E.g. sync flash at > 1/1000

There's not many other cameras that will allow you to overpower day light if you don't want to lug a monoblock or multiple flash guns with you.

Re: Fujifilm X-T2 review: for the love of photography

#52

Post by yesimahuman »

rplst8 wrote: post #50
yesimahuman wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I own an X-E2S and I think that model is even over priced. However, Fuji is becoming the Apple of cameras for consumers, and frankly their audience is happy to pay a bit more for a camera that fits the aesthetic they want while still being high quality and reputable. If I was a pro, I'd be shooting Canon or Nikon, I don't think the Fujifilm line is worth switching to given that the slight benefits of a mirrorless don…

> I own an X-E2S and I think that model is even over priced. > I love my Fujifilm and take it everywhere. It's a leica without leica cost, and that's exactly what I wanted. I don't know how you can rectify those two statements. P.S. Leica is the Apple of the photography world.

Leica is leica, there's not really an analog in the tech world. I can't remember the last time I dropped $10k on a starter computer system or device, Apple or otherwise (which would be a Lieca M body with Leica glass today).

Fujifilm price points are much more Apple-like.

Re: Fujifilm X-T2 review: for the love of photography

#53

Post by rodgerd »

KaiserPro wrote: post #46
pizlonator wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on what is important to you. I like good UI and I will pay a premium for it. Fuji has the best UI - physical knobs for everything. Even ISO has a physical control. I find that UI makes a big difference for my workflow and makes it easier for me to take good pictures, so the price is worth it. Also, I happen to use an X-Pro2 not the X-T2, but I think similar arguments apply.

If you're a photographer you'll be needing maybe 5 controls: ISO Aperture shutter speed Metering mode Autofocus point placement Shutter and aperture might be automated away with different shooting mode. Even on Canons which I don't use often, I can bend it to my will, even if the buttons are in a "funny" place. I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor. Everythin…

> I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor.

One of the more spectacularly ignorant and stupid things I've read on HN, which is saying a lot.

> but you get deep depth of field.

Oh, right you don't actually know what you're talking about, you're just parroting talking points you read somewhere.

Re: Fujifilm X-T2 review: for the love of photography

#54

Post by rodgerd »

hanklazard wrote: post #21
imaginenore wrote: post #18

I'm a semi-pro photographer, do commercial work from time to time, get flown to shoot weddings across the globe. $1600 is a ridiculous amount of money for this camera, considering the competition. $1600-1700 buys you a used Sony A7s, the king of low light photography and video (if you don't count the new prototype from Canon), and it's full frame, unlike X-T2. $1650 buys you a used Canon 5D mark III, which is also fu…

Agreed, the price is way too high for this decent crop sensor camera. Many people like the aesthetic of the Fujis, including myself (I have an XT-1). In the end, the low-light performance and build quality of this great little camera just wasn't good enough and I got a refurb 5Diii body for about the price of this new model. While certainly more limited than the selection for Canon, Fuji does have some really nice le…

> Agreed, the price is way too high for this decent crop sensor camera.

The price is lower than a 7D Mark II or a D500 (in my market).

The fixation with sensor size if ludicrous. I mean, if you want to spend as much on a 6D and deal with its bulk and shitty autofocus while trying to convince yourself you have a better camera, don't let me stop you. But you're in la-la land.

(And I don't even own, or want to own, a Fuji.)

Re: Fujifilm X-T2 review: for the love of photography

#55

Post by rodgerd »

desireco42 wrote: post #3

While definitely great camera, I don't think it compares favorably with Sony's offering. A6000 and A7 (II) series. Previous model of this Fujifilm camera also got raving reviews from Verge and was mocked in photography circles. The review, not the camera.

> mocked in photography circles.

I have yet to see Fuji mocked in "photography circles".

Re: Fujifilm X-T2 review: for the love of photography

#56

Post by rplst8 »

xzez wrote: post #22
imaginenore wrote: post #18

I'm a semi-pro photographer, do commercial work from time to time, get flown to shoot weddings across the globe. $1600 is a ridiculous amount of money for this camera, considering the competition. $1600-1700 buys you a used Sony A7s, the king of low light photography and video (if you don't count the new prototype from Canon), and it's full frame, unlike X-T2. $1650 buys you a used Canon 5D mark III, which is also fu…

My sentiments exactly. I used a fuji X-E1 before I picked up my A7. I really enjoy the Fuji X series, but the prices are so close to the Sony A7 series that the extra expense is more than worth it for the clearly superior Sony FE system. I mean, the X-T2 is pretty much the same price as an A7ii. I do love the build and feel of the Fuji XF lenses though, particularly the lenses that have the aperture ring.

You might be right about the price. But for a lot less you can pick up a used X-E2 or X-T1 which are still fine cameras. The best part about any of them (including the X-T2) is you get access do Fujifilm's superior glass.

Their lenses are truly high quality lenses, on par with much more expensive stuff, though not the cheapest either.

Re: Fujifilm X-T2 review: for the love of photography

#57

Post by philliphaydon »

pizlonator wrote: post #32
coldtea wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Previous model of this Fujifilm camera also got raving reviews from Verge and was mocked in photography circles. I've found "photography circles" to be ignorant pixel peepers, who wouldn't appreciate good ergonomics or know how to take an actual good picture even if their live depended on it. (Have worked, among other odd jobs, as a freelance human interest/travel photographer back in the day).

Totally agree. Pros do use Fuji cameras. It depends on the job. Remember, it's the photographer who takes the picture. The camera is just a tool, and if the photog wants to use a Fuji because it makes him happy and his pictures are bomb as fuck then who is to complain.

I've never known any 'pro' to use anything other than Nikon, Canon, and Sony. But I know plenty of amateur's who use Fuji.

Regardless its a great camera, but I honestly prefer my A7.

Re: Fujifilm X-T2 review: for the love of photography

#58

Post by pkulak »

rplst8 wrote: post #4

I up-voted this because I think the Fujifilm X series cameras need more love than they currently get. I have an X-E2 and I love it, but I'm very curious to see if they release an X-E3 and what features of the X-T2 and X-Pro2 it will incorporate. The whole X series is a pretty great system IMO. The designs are simple, bodies offer fully manual control, the lenses are extremely high quality, and certain models of lense…

Fuji is one of the few companies out there that is very good at building lenses and does not offer a full-frame camera. I'm a big fan of smaller-than-full-frame sensors for a bunch of reasons I won't go into here, but I still love shooting with really good glass. This leaves out Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc because they put their best glass on full-frame only. Hopefully Fuji doesn't abandon APS-C in favor of their new medium-format system!

Re: Fujifilm X-T2 review: for the love of photography

#59

Post by pkulak »

jotjotzzz8 wrote: post #16

I own and love the Fuji X100 (older version). Loved the pictures it took and brought it during many vacations. I also own the Sony A6000, and have used manual old lenses -- and the pictures I took with it are amazing as well. However, the last couple of vacations, I am now leaning more towards just using the phone I have at all times. My iPhone! I think this is the predicament of all SLRs. As smartphones improve thei…

My phone takes great shots... at 28mm. That's about my most-hated focal length. Not wide enough to really be interesting and not nearly long enough to take a photo of a single human being, animal, object, etc.

When I bring my camera with me, I like always having a second wide-angle camera in my pocket though! I feel like one of those wedding photographers with two bodies hanging off them at all times. :D

Re: Fujifilm X-T2 review: for the love of photography

#60

Post by KaiserPro »

rodgerd wrote: post #53
KaiserPro wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're a photographer you'll be needing maybe 5 controls: ISO Aperture shutter speed Metering mode Autofocus point placement Shutter and aperture might be automated away with different shooting mode. Even on Canons which I don't use often, I can bend it to my will, even if the buttons are in a "funny" place. I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor. Everythin…

> I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor. One of the more spectacularly ignorant and stupid things I've read on HN, which is saying a lot. > but you get deep depth of field. Oh, right you don't actually know what you're talking about, you're just parroting talking points you read somewhere.

It is as they say, hyperbole.

Of course aps-c isn't a phone sensor, because making a monolith lens thin enough isn't worth it. (a lenticular array, maybe. But then who outside of VFX wants light field pictures?)

You are of course aware that sensor size and focal length directly affect the depth of field. Smaller sensor for the same focal length yields a wider depth of field. Yadda yadda field of view. This is why the stock lens 35 mm, because its about the same field of view as 50mm lens on a 35 mm sensor. (or why medium formats have ~80mm lens)

However, of course I'm just parroting that "from else where". Yup, no sir, no first hand experience at all.

Post reply on HN