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

61–69 of 69 posts

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

#61

Post by lb1lf »

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…

For most of the history of photography, you only had two (and a half) of those five at your disposal - shutter and aperture, the half being iso, which you effectively changed by using different films or pushing/pulling the exposure.

As others have already stated, the Fujis score big in UX - I'd like to add that their lenses are second to none.

As a long-term luddite (I own two digital cameras (A Nikon DSLR and a Fuji X100), but most of my shooting is done using either Fuji or Leica analog cameras), IMHO the camera is secondary - it is merely a light-tight box where you affix a lens at one end and the film at the other - the lenses are what matters.

Fuji makes some wonderful lenses. Resolution is awesome, contrast excellent and colour rendition best-in-business for those who care (I don't, I am colour blind - the last point is just parroting) - all in a (for the current mirrorless crop) in a very compact package (my GX680 lenses are somewhat less portable).

Fuji's current range can probably be accurately described as photographer's cameras - they've, just like Leica, distilled photography to its essentials and made their way to the front of that niche. Kudos!

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

#62

Post by PetitPrince »

rodgerd wrote: post #55
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".

> The review, not the camera.

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

#63

Post by lb1lf »

yesimahuman wrote: post #52
rplst8 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Leica, IMHO, is pretty much the Rolex of the camera world.

While arguably 'the best' if you choose your criteria narrowly enough, their strongest selling point nowadays is the Veblen factor - they are seen as something special, the pinnacle, the yardstick competitors are measured against. Same goes for Rolex - while making excellent watches, there's hardly any denying that the competition is just as competent at a vastly less unreasonable price point.

(Full disclosure - I am a long-time Leica enthusiast, but I've long abandoned their cameras for (to me) more sensible options - I use a Zeiss Ikon ZM (Made by Cosina) with Leica lenses. The ZM is more rugged, arguably has a better rangefinder and is less idiosyncratic than any Leica body. Just try loading a film in an ZM versus a Leica, for starters)

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

#64

Post by coldtea »

philliphaydon wrote: post #57
pizlonator wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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.

How many do you know? Pros range from portrait and wedding photographers, to travel photographers, photojournalists, sports photographers, product photographers, professional fine arts photographers, etc.

Sports photographers and journalists did switch to Canon at some point because of the faster/more automated autofocus system, but they bounced back to Nikon circa the D3, and people use stuff all over the map now.

And of course back in the film days (pre 2000-2005) tons of pros used Minolta, Leica, Olympus, Pentax and other brands, and lots of them kept their brand loyalty.

Also most really well paid pros in fashion and product photography used medium formats such as Hasselblad. And with news and wedding photographers transitioning to video, lately Canon (which started promisingly) and Nikon have been seen as big jokes compared to Sony and even Panasonic.

Here's a Fuji guy: http://ideasandimages.co.uk/gallery/commercial/

Heck, here's a pro (and a magnum photographer at that) using Olympus compacts: http://www.robgalbraith.com/multi_page8c1c.html?cid=7-6468-7... (Olympus compacts)

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

#65

Post by rodgerd »

KaiserPro wrote: post #60
rodgerd wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> It is as they say, hyperbole.

Was it a social experiment, as well?

> You are of course aware that sensor size and focal length directly affect the depth of field.

Yes, but it doesn't make it deeper on larger sensors, which is what you asserted.

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

#66

Post by KaiserPro »

lb1lf wrote: post #61
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…

For most of the history of photography, you only had two (and a half) of those five at your disposal - shutter and aperture, the half being iso, which you effectively changed by using different films or pushing/pulling the exposure. As others have already stated, the Fujis score big in UX - I'd like to add that their lenses are second to none. As a long-term luddite (I own two digital cameras (A Nikon DSLR and a Fuji…

Gotcha.

Now this is an argument that I was expecting. I was very seriously looking at the x100 when it came out. Precisely because it was styled to be a manual rangefinder.

I tried it, but I just didn't like the compromises. It felt like the rangefinder was a bit of a gimmick. The manual focus grid was non existent.

I loved that it was compact, but the quality wasn't quite up to the full frame, similar priced breatheren.

The only argument for it was the weight and compactness, which to me didn't matter all that much.

What I really wanted was a CCD insert for my olympus rangefinder (35 rd, poor man's noisy leica) However I suspect that ship has sailed.

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

#67

Post by jrockway »

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.

It's 21.3 iPhone 6 sensors. (Full frame is about 2 APS-C sensors.)

> Not only that its full frame you can use real lens, but you get deep depth of field.

Technically, cropping has absolutely nothing to do with depth of field. It's a depth-of-field to angle-of-view you're thinking about.

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

#68

Post by KaiserPro »

jrockway wrote: post #67
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. It's 21.3 iPhone 6 sensors. (Full frame is about 2 APS-C sensors.) > Not only that its full frame you can use real lens, but you get deep depth of field. Technically, cropping has absolutely nothing to do with depth of field. It's a depth-of-field to angle-of-view you're thinking about.

Depth of field is directly tied to focal length. The smaller the sensor, the smaller the focal length. Smaller focal length means deeper depth of field (ie more of the subject is in focus at a given f stop)

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

#69

Post by lb1lf »

KaiserPro wrote: post #66
lb1lf wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For most of the history of photography, you only had two (and a half) of those five at your disposal - shutter and aperture, the half being iso, which you effectively changed by using different films or pushing/pulling the exposure. As others have already stated, the Fujis score big in UX - I'd like to add that their lenses are second to none. As a long-term luddite (I own two digital cameras (A Nikon DSLR and a Fuji…

Gotcha. Now this is an argument that I was expecting. I was very seriously looking at the x100 when it came out. Precisely because it was styled to be a manual rangefinder. I tried it, but I just didn't like the compromises. It felt like the rangefinder was a bit of a gimmick. The manual focus grid was non existent. I loved that it was compact, but the quality wasn't quite up to the full frame, similar priced breathe…

-Agreed on the X100; I tried one (An -s)for a few weeks, but found myself constantly comparing it to a 'real' rangefinder, probably not fair to the poor little thing, which IMHO is an excellent little camera, though a bit lacking in the manual focus department.

I've found - to my surprise - that I much prefer Sony's focus peaking when it comes to digital manual focus aids. It is responsive, accurate and much less obtrusive than I initially thought it would be. Still no beating a proper rangefinder, though (IMHO).

Oh well. It is my day off, it is lovely autumn weather outside and I've got a few rolls of Tri-X and Portra to expose. (In the Texas Leica - google the Fujica G690BL for a chuckle if you're not familiar with it)

Would love a CCD insert too, btw. :)

Post reply on HN