I’m About Too...

Sell off my Canon gear and move to the Fuji mirrorless system. Currently shooting a 5D Mk III with a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 L II. I like my rig save the weight in my bag when shooting landscapes and lugging it around music festivals.

I’m very close to buying into a Fuji kit (X-T2, 50-140 f/2.8) that a friend would sell me for a steal and both are in fantastic shape. To that I would add a 16-55 f/2.8. Wanna talk me out of it? Anyone consistently shooting live music or comparable low light situations have any info to share about the X-T2’s performance in low light?

Help a brother out....

No need to talk you out of it; I recently made a very similar change. The XT-2 is a very fine camera, the 50-140 a fine lens. The recent price drop allowed me to add an XH-1 to the kit. While there is a bit of a learning curve (at least there was for me), photography is once a gain a lot of fun, and carrying 2 bodies is doable thanks to a much more efficient use of size and weight.

I've been a Canon user since the late 1970's, and the change was a difficult decision. But it did help me realize that there are many, many fine camera's around (and Canon is outstanding). Having the equipment that you enjoy using is far more important than the brand name. My best guess is that you will be well served and very happy with the Fujifilm gear.

Something you may want to consider is sensor flare & grid artifacts appearing in backlit images on the XT2. It showed up in several images of mine using a rental XT2.

If you're frequently shooting festivals & events with rear stage lights or outdoor backlit scenes it may be something to think about as some of the artifacts can't really be dealt with in post. How noticeable it is depends on the image. You can change the angle you're shooting at to avoid or minimize the effect although that could be a challenge to keep in mind when shooting concerts etc. YMMV.

It's not reproducible on the XT3. I ended up purchasing an XT3 over the XT2 partly for that reason.

See
https://www.dpreview.c​om/forums/thread/40803​28
https://petapixel.com …urple-flaregrid-artifact/
https://www.mirrorless​ons.com …lm-x-pro2-grid-artefacts/

XT2/XT3 Comparison (ctrl-f for sensor flare)
https://mirrorlesscomp​arison.com …xt2-vs-xt3/#Image-quality

The other thing is application support. If you're using an older standalone version of LR it may not support XT2. I'm using CaptureOne 12 Fujifilm for my XT3 and to be honest, despite it's increasing popularity, I seriously dislike C1 compared to LR.

The XT2 is a great camera. Produces amazing images.

Not sure I'd replace the 5D3 outright with it though. Try using the two together and see how it goes. XT2 AF does have a tendency to hunt in low light, more so than my 5D3 & 2.8 zooms do. Again YMMV.

Here is a test shot from the rental XT2. An extreme example but illustrates the problem.

1. Full

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Moving from the 5dmk3 to the X-t2 you'll probably find the colour retention in the Sony sensor (Xt2) does a better job than older school canon FF sensor in low light.

If you were using a 5dmk4 and use to the sensor performance and image quality from the 70-200L f/2.8mk2 dof you won't be thrilled with the Fuji 50-140mm. You might as well start using a 70-200 f/4IS mk1 for the dof you'll get with the aps-c. ……When I put the effort in lugging a larger lens I'd rather use a slightly heavier Canon 70-200 f/2.8mk2 or my Gmaster 70-200 f/2.8 over the 50-140mm I owned. Using primes was the only lenses that equalized my justification of owning the Fuji aps-c sensor. For events I just get more pop factor and extreme versatility using an f/2.8 full frame system zoom vs an aps-c f/2.8 zoom providing me f/4 dof. This is all up to your tolerance, acceptance and preference with your style of photography.

I have a good share of friends that I converted to Fuji as they owned aps-c Canon and Nikon consumer grade bodies. They are extremely happy. As I covert them I sold all of my Fuji gear and moved on.

The Fuji 16-55 is a great lens. On the heavier side of the "small form factor" system but it's a great performer.

You are the one in control of gear acquisition. If I wanted a light versatile kit I know use sony. No stomach turning for me when low light shooting is involved. In my situation the X-t2 did not meet my needs but my Sony A73 has surpassed my expectation in what a camera can do in the dark.

The Fuji system has got to be considered childs play when it comes to editing files. Fuji has done a fantastic job in having robust RAW files that is ridiculously easy to look great with little post processing.

In live concerts in many occasions the spot lights is more than enough to land clean shots using low iso. Using an old Canon 5dmk2 would be good enough... If you use an older Fuji xt1 that would be more than enough to get great images for concerts.

As I owned the X-T2 it was an excellent camera for a lot of my applications. I will say it's been a great experience shooting Fuji. The best thing for you to do is to buy a Fuji while keeping the Canon gear in your cabinet/gearbag. Test and see for yourself. I have much more confidence landing clean images in majority of my situations with my Sony A73. This is not fanboy justification as I buy gear and judge myself. Unlikely I will ever buy Fuji again due to physical sensor limitations, unless I buy into GFX. On the same note my friends are beyond thrilled with the Fuji aps-c system.

Weight factor? The 8-16mm, 16-55, 50-140mm is not super light weight or small but definitely smaller and lighter than the 5d3/glass combo.

If you bounce flash a lot using your Canon....You will miss your mirrored body!!!! Mirrorless tends to hunt in low light as the sensor tech does not fully utilize red focus assist like the mirrored body cameras. I can shoot an event with my 5dmk3/4 and almost never experience focus hunting but my Sony and Fuji I sometimes feel like throwing it against the wall in disgust. I'm being a bit dramatic but Canon mirrored to me is absolutely rock solid in AF when I use red focus assist with the flash. Mirrorless on the other hand eliminates the use of micro adjusting lenses so this is a huge bonus. Give and take...…

Test Fuji before you dump Canon. I did that and cannot let my Canon gear go because it's mirrored and superior in landing AF in low light with red focus assist. On the same note I heavily invested in Sony and do not use Fuji aps-c now. Owning two camera worlds I find my kit fantastic.

I sold my Canon gear and went full in on Fuji and so far I love it. I've even come back to PotN from a 6 year hiatus. Fuji is a creative experience vs a technical one, so if you're just as interested in specs as photography you'll probably be better off with Sony if you want to go mirrorless. Sony loves those paper spec sheets.

I tested the waters with an X-E3 and 35mmF2 and fell in love instantly. Then I got the X-H1 for IBIS/OIS combo and I'm regularly taking 1s photos hand-held without issue - and I have shaky hands. If not for IBIS I probably would have just gotten the X-T3 though. I can't recommend Fuji enough... unless you do sports, night, or wildlife photography. The fast lenses Fuji makes are great, but it's the sensor size that holds it back. Full frame camera's will have slightly better IQ/noise profiles. Not enough for me, but if you're going to do night venues I would probably stay with Canon and maybe get a Fuji for fun on the weekends. The X100F is a fantastic camera for that purpose. Tracking on the Fuji system is OK, and improved on the X-T3 over the other systems, but it misses more than Sony.

What makes Fuji different is the fit and feel of their cameras. They really are the new Leica. Fuji has made their limitations strengths. The Pro3 is an example of that philosophy. The Fuji menu system is odd and tedious, so SAVE your setups just in case your batteries run dry. It will take you a good week of tweaking, looking up menu names, and figuring out what's important for MyMenu, but thank goodness once you're done you don't have to mess with it again. For example, if you set your OVF to Natural you'll chew threw batteries fast because the camera will try to keep compensating light by changing the aperture until the very last millisecond when you release the shutter. That constant change is a power hog. Another example are grayed out menu items. It doesn't tell you why they are grayed out. This is one of the biggest issues with people's complaints and frustrations. But, this all serves to actually make you a better photographer because you have to learn why it's doing what it's doing. You'll know your camera better than you've probably ever have.

Good luck with your choice!

I would recommend staying with Canon. I have years of familiarity with the brand and Canon hasn't let me down yet.

I too use to shoot with Canon 5D3's, in 2015 I added in a X-T1 with the 16-55/2.8 and that was great in IQ but missing in some other ways. In early Jan of 2016 I was lucky enough to get an X-PRO2 & even with it non final firmware I was pleased with how much more it was offering, both in build and speed, AF and generally much better. After using that I listed all of my Canon gear and went all in with Fuji, I haven't regretted that decision once & still have that X-PRO2 [I keeping it] I've also had an X-T2 and have X-T3's now, the new cam is very good in the AF department in low light as it focuses with PDAF to -6EV [So no need to rely on any IR assist with it's limited range and beam angle] & that is really very dark. I've not encountered the sensor flair issue myself, I read about it at the time but I always have the lens hoods fitted so don't know if that helps or not. Some here will tell you the lenses like the [amazing] 8-16 are heavy but they are only reading stats and have no real clue, it's a short lens and feels in balance on the camera perfectly good. They are metal and built to take a good knocking but you can judge how they feel for yourself of course. The 50-140 is a good zoom workhorse, the f/2.8 lets in good light and the OIS is super if you match that with the 16-55/2.8 you'll have a great all round range pair of lenses. My favourite lenses are the 35/1.4 and the 18/2 either are prefect but they both have something that is special so if you do get the Fuji and you see and good deals grab them and enjoy. The 18/2 is glued to my X-PRO2 most days.

In concerts there is usually enough like to not stress the cameras out at all, I cut my teeth shooting gigs in the early 90's where ISO3200 film was a push even with manual focus f/2.4 primes available at the time, so usually shot ISO800 and just allowed 2 stops of push as needed. We have it so easy today, and shooting gigs I usually find my ISO can be set pretty low unless you are shooting small Venus like pubs as they just don't light those well.

Plenty in google: https://www.google.com …s&as_filetype=&​as_rights=

If weight is not an issue going from 5d3 to 5dmk4 is a substantial jump.

This is where I have much more piece of mind using the 5dmk4 over aps-c simply because as a fact images are cleaner in all environment. I have always felt iffy using my xt2 with 16mm f1.4 vs 5dmk4 with canon 24L f1.4mk2 as my files did not fall apart like my Fuji in any lighting conditions. One reason why I shoot Sony now as it replaced all of my Fuji gear simply due to overall improvements across the board from eye af, incredible low light performance to battery life.

You eliminate the “what if” the light is real bad. My canon and Sony simply and effortlessly delivers with little compromise.

Until you test gear you will not know if Fuji works for you. I no longer use Fuji and Somy excels in my demands. As you can see I do not dump my canon gear either as it is superior in af using bounced flash / red focus assist with little to no af hunt.

Do not rely on others chiming in “performance” use your personal demands and see what delivers.

I really dislike the render of the Fuji 50-140mm vs my full frame GMaster 70-200 or canon mk2 f2.8 due to more shallow dof and cleaner Giles when light is challenging. I couldn’t compromise. Some Fuji shooters love that 50-140mm lens and because they have no choice. I did not know until I bought the 50-140mm but aps-c f2.8 at f4 dof just didn’t meet my needs for versatility.

Stage lighting is usually easy so you can get away with even an older consumer grade canon aps-c body. BUT if the light is brutally poor a 5dmk4 will retain the edge in performance with cleaner files.

I'd hope the new Canon 5D4 would be better with its bigger sensor, it costs twice as much (as an X-T3) after all...

Not that you could tell what camera took what image if I put two of them up here, I did that with a shot from the X-PRO2 and one from the IQ3100mp before and no one could say for sure what camera took what shot. Take that for what it's worth. Most people seem to agree that the X-T2 is good for shooting concerts, there is a good facebook group if you want to ask people who actually use Fuji for work shooting concerts, they'll surely give you the right idea and post images showing what they mean, rather then relying on secondhand info from some in a form. This is a link to the FB group just ask the question

I have always been a Canon user... film to digital, 1DsIII was my favorite body. Last digital was 5DIII for weight savings. I switched to Fuji 2 years ago... X-T1, X-T2, and X-T3. I’m in the process of switching back to Canon, Canon EOS R.

I love Fuji. Their regular firmware upgrades keep the bodies up to date. They release new features, fix bugs, etc. The lens are great and generally affordable. The bodies are a joy to use.

So why?

Full-frame. Maybe it doesn’t matter to you but after 2 years, I just found my images lacking that bokeh pop. Yes, I know that you can get the same look if you get the right lens. But the lenses aren’t available. A 23mm f/1.4 which I have and love won’t get the same blur as it’s equivalent is 35mm f/2.8. Yes, it will equal that aperture LOOK but won’t under that. The limited lenses is ultimately what is driving me back.

Also, the perspective is not exactly the same with the crop bodies. I’ve been testing an EOS R with my favorite lens of all time, the v1 Canon 35L. My wife looked at a photo of her and said: that camera makes me look better.

It’s killing me to get rid of my X-T3 though... it’s been a lot of fun to use, carry, and travel with.

About the topic of perspective, and my response to your wife's comment that you looked better in one camera then with the other...
Perspective is all based upon the camera position. Focal length has nothing to do with it. Sensor size has nothing to do with it. If she had set the focal length of each camera to frame the same area with both cameras AND stood at a fixed position, you would look the same. I can shoot an eidetic of perspective photo with a 4/3 camera and with a 35 mm camera and with a 4x5 camera... From a single camera position.

Faces are better portrayed with a slightly telephoto photo length than the same face with a wide-angle lens simply because you have to stand with the camera far far closer with a wide-angle lens,. And that is what makes the perspective difference.

Yes... I hear you. Let me expand. The photo OF my wife was shot with the Canon 35L @ f/2.0. It gave a more pleasing bokeh with less distracting background. So there were more factors.

Anyway... I tried for 2 years to convince myself that the crop factor didn’t matter. I read every article, watched every YouTube video. But when I picked up a full frame again... I was like UGH. I want this back.

That’s my personal experience. YMMV.

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18961588
I'd hope the new Canon 5D4 would be better with its bigger sensor, it costs twice as much (as an X-T3) after all...

Not that you could tell what camera took what image if I put two of them up here, I did that with a shot from the X-PRO2 and one from the IQ3100mp before and no one could say for sure what camera took what shot. Take that for what it's worth. Most people seem to agree that the X-T2 is good for shooting concerts, there is a good facebook group if you want to ask people who actually use Fuji for work shooting concerts, they'll surely give you the right idea and post images showing what they mean, rather then relying on secondhand info from some in a form. This is a link to the FB group just ask the question

The 5dmk4 is more expensive but in reality it's one of those choices one makes. $2499 USD is like a giveaway price at the moment. That's about $3300 Canadian dollars compared to my $4500CDN I happily spent before tax for my 5dmk4.

Kim you're a former 5dmk3 user. If you had a folder filled wit 5dmk4 files you'd see an extremely noticeable difference in IQ improvements in the newer sensor and slightly more pixels. The difference between my old 5dmk2 vs 5dmk3 were virtually identical except the 5dmk3 was better in low light and less magenta when uplifting shadows.

More confidence lugging a 5dmk4 vs my former X-t2 when it comes to RAW files "NOT" falling apart when I push the iso numbers. That alone is what makes the extra $$$ worth it. This is not a matter of a personal experience but based of facts verified by physical size of sensor and specs.

I grew tired of raw files that did not meet my standards and now I almost never get a negative experience looking at my Sony A73 and 5dmk4 files in Lightroom even when I push my high iso numbers while shooting natural light. I also did not feel I was required to the purchase Capture 1 program to maximize the post processing of Fuji files. Free version of Capture 1 is not appealing to me.

OP, if you shoot concerts you have a good chance "most" of your lighting will be easy with an X-t2, X-t3. If you shoot an EOS R, 5dmk4, 1dxmk2 you will increase your chances of cleaner photos due to the fact that modern sensor tech that is physically larger will capture the image better in low light. Photogs seem to have all kinds of tolerance. If you have a tonne of noise using a smaller sensor some can say it's "good enough" or some will simply use other gear that performs better in capturing images.

1dxmk2, 5dmk4, D800/850, A9, A73 shooter will not fiercely defend the sensor performance because it's just an obvious known fact. A skilled shooter having a poorly exposed image will have poor results but with an aps-c, M43 sensor it would be even worst.

OP if you had extensive experience with the 5dmk4 you would fully understand that the Fuji X-t2, Xt3 is not on par. Most certainly bouncing flash with red focus assist with Canon is bullet proof unlike mirrorless technology. My Canon never misses a beat bouncing flash but my Fuji or Sony even when using a godox flash with red focus grid is not even close in performance. Both Fuji and Sony hunts in the most brutal situations. If my Canon 5dmk4 hunts in low light shooting available light, the mirrorless will be just as "bad". The red focus assist crutch is priceless when you are shooting with bounced flash with old school mirrored bodies for incredible and reliable AF acquisition.

As I mentioned earlier. Test Fuji to see for yourself. You can always rent and most shops will use the "rent fee" as a part of payment for new gear purchases. At this moment I cannot consider Fuji aps-c even though I like the images when I do not need to push in low light. Zero stomach turning for me when I use my aging 5dmk4 and Sony gear regardless of light conditions.

aaronlam wrote in post #18961616
Yes... I hear you. Let me expand. The photo OF my wife was shot with the Canon 35L @ f/2.0. It gave a more pleasing bokeh with less distracting background. So there were more factors.

Anyway... I tried for 2 years to convince myself that the crop factor didn’t matter. I read every article, watched every YouTube video. But when I picked up a full frame again... I was like UGH. I want this back.

That’s my personal experience. YMMV.

I'm extremely familiar and have expectations when I shoot with a 70-200 f/2.8 with full frame. When I used my Canon 80D immediately can see the difference and it just misses my expectations. When i used my former X-t2 with a brand new 50-140mm I observed many fuji shooters will rave about this lens. Granted for the price point and quality it's a good lens for an aps-c and only alternative. I used it long enough to realize that I had to sell it as the f4 dof "look" using large bulky fuji f/2.8 aps-c zooms just didn't meet my demands. Lugging more weight with my Gmaster 70-200 with my Sony A73 is well worth the extra little effort with substantially better results in pop factor.

I've borrowed a fuji 16-55 f/2.8 and if I compared the images to a Sony A73 with super light Tamron 28-75mm or my 5dmk3/4 with 24-70L f/2.8Mk2 I can notice immediately the "almost prime lens" pop factor look with the versatility of using a zoom. The Fuji 16-55 f/2.8 provides the similar dof look as if I used a 24-70 f/4 canon zoom which isn't worth my time while shooting events. In reality I'd rather use a Canon slower 24-105 f/4IS zoom while bouncing flash since it would provide more range while being supplemented with flash. Recently tested a Sony 24-105 f/4 stabilized lens and it's ridiculously sharp, fast AF and incredibly versatile. I will dive into EOS R and RF glass in due time......

AlanU wrote in post #18961670
The 5dmk4 is more expensive but in reality it's one of those choices one makes. $2499 USD is like a giveaway price at the moment. That's about $3300 Canadian dollars compared to my $4500CDN I happily spent before tax for my 5dmk4.

Kim you're a former 5dmk3 user. If you had a folder filled wit 5dmk4 files you'd see an extremely noticeable difference in IQ improvements in the newer sensor and slightly more pixels. The difference between my old 5dmk2 vs 5dmk3 were virtually identical except the 5dmk3 was better in low light and less magenta when uplifting shadows.

More confidence lugging a 5dmk4 vs my former X-t2 when it comes to RAW files "NOT" falling apart when I push the iso numbers. That alone is what makes the extra $$$ worth it. This is not a matter of a personal experience but based of facts verified by physical size of sensor and specs.

I grew tired of raw files that did not meet my standards and now I almost never get a negative experience looking at my Sony A73 and 5dmk4 files in Lightroom even when I push my high iso numbers while shooting natural light. I also did not feel I was required to the purchase Capture 1 program to maximize the post processing of Fuji files. Free version of Capture 1 is not appealing to me.

OP, if you shoot concerts you have a good chance "most" of your lighting will be easy with an X-t2, X-t3. If you shoot an EOS R, 5dmk4, 1dxmk2 you will increase your chances of cleaner photos due to the fact that modern sensor tech that is physically larger will capture the image better in low light. Photogs seem to have all kinds of tolerance. If you have a tonne of noise using a smaller sensor some can say it's "good enough" or some will simply use other gear that performs better in capturing images.

1dxmk2, 5dmk4, D800/850, A9, A73 shooter will not fiercely defend the sensor performance because it's just an obvious known fact. A skilled shooter having a poorly exposed image will have poor results but with an aps-c, M43 sensor it would be even worst.

OP if you had extensive experience with the 5dmk4 you would fully understand that the Fuji X-t2, Xt3 is not on par. Most certainly bouncing flash with red focus assist with Canon is bullet proof unlike mirrorless technology. My Canon never misses a beat bouncing flash but my Fuji or Sony even when using a godox flash with red focus grid is not even close in performance. Both Fuji and Sony hunts in the most brutal situations. If my Canon 5dmk4 hunts in low light shooting available light, the mirrorless will be just as "bad". The red focus assist crutch is priceless when you are shooting with bounced flash with old school mirrored bodies for incredible and reliable AF acquisition.

As I mentioned earlier. Test Fuji to see for yourself. You can always rent and most shops will use the "rent fee" as a part of payment for new gear purchases. At this moment I cannot consider Fuji aps-c even though I like the images when I do not need to push in low light. Zero stomach turning for me when I use my aging 5dmk4 and Sony gear regardless of light conditions.

Well each to their own and all that. You mention having to use Capture One for Fuji, you don't, there are lots of different apps out there, even Lightroom has it better these days [Still a dog for speed IMO though]. And what is it in the free version of Capture one that 'wasn't appealing' for you? I think it does everything you need, unless you want to work in layers or tether to a camera (a must for me so I use the full version, as I have for years), it's pretty much the full version only costs nothing...

I guess if you spend your time pixel peeping into your images and want the absolute best in IQ then it's easy to look down your nose at some cameras or find that they are not for your particular analysing every image needs - I feel like that sometimes too after a day of shooting with a proper full frame camera with it's 54x43mm sensor, but I still prefer using the Fuji cameras, the X-PRO2 is my favourite day to day as I like the feel of them and in reality no client of mine has questioned my choice of gear once. Like I said each to their own but perhaps I'm lucky with the photography I get to do.

Andrew did you get to play with the X-T2 and 50-140 yet?