STICKY:  Fuji Users Unite - Post your comments, questions and images here

AlanU wrote in post #18884561
Even the proclaimed slightest difference in performance counts. A 1dxmk2, Nikon d5/d850, A9 would have an advantage for the 24hrs Le Mans environment especially in the low light.

In the end people look at the images. The average person looks at the composition and has no idea what camera you are shooting with. Some observations will be noted in the realism of the image or if it looks cartoon. It's a matter of how people post process but also hardware that is used.

Honestly, it's very difficult to follow your train of thought. I can't figure out whether you're trying to say that gear matters or that it doesn't. But I'm getting a sense that you're really more into gear than you're into photography.

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18884613
56/1.2 is all you need, good enough has nothing to do with it. If you can zoom in to 400% and have this detail out of camera what more could you need that the slight improvement in the 135mm sensor offers? I mean really, what?

Hosted photo: posted by Two Hot Shoes in
./showthread.php?p=188​84613&i=i4071525
forum: Fuji Digital Cameras

Here are LeMans shots all done on the Fujifilm cameras. [Goes to a Facebook gallery]


It'd be great is Fuji developed something like a 90/1.2 like they have with the 33/1 but then all those you go on about how Fuji should do this or that just end up spouting off about how big or front heavy a lens like that is.

Even you Alan talking up the 105/1.4 ( no doubt a stunning lens ) on the small Sony A73 - where it all the talk of the front heavy? That thing weighs in a whopping 1.6Kg - just for the lens. Remember you complaining about the 806g (as in half the weight) XF8-16/2.8 as being too heavy and unbalanced.

Of course the GFX100s somewhat changes up the whole IQ Vs. usability thing. Yea I'm still thinking strongly of getting one but will stick to the other big camera for now as the little Fuji crops are great in the field. But then again the GFX100s just about does what the X-T3 can do in the real world, except it's waaaay better at filling up SD cads

The Sigma 105mm f/1.4 is a compromise. I knew I'd buy it one day. Indeed it's a heavy lens and it's marginally worst than using my GMaster 70-200 f/2.8. There are times I will happily use heavy gear as I'm assured it takes care of the IQ and I compose my images. My 5dmk4 and 70-200 is a different weight class as well

The logic of owning the 8-16mm for me did not make sense. I could use my little Sony A73 with GMaster 16-35mm f/2.8 and achieve better bokeh due to thinner dof from an UWA, excellent optics just like the Fuji 8-16mm and reap the benefits as a general use lens/camera combo with human/animal eye AF, blazing fast AF, adequate fps, better performance in low light and battery capacity and better grip ergonomics than my X-t2. Weight factor is a wash as both Fuji and Sony are very similar in weight. Next time grab a Fuji/8-16mm (1.8 lbs lens) combo and then an A73 with Gmaster 16-35mm (1.5 lbs). You'll notice the difference in weight balance, Sony being less front heavy.

I'm anticipating the upcoming A7Rmk4 in the future. It should have similar performance like a baby A9 but with high resolution and most importantly no different lenses required. More than enough resolution in most cases for me. Push the button and have crop 1.5x factor and change of FOV with less megapixels. Current A7Rmk3 has about 18MP in crop mode. This is quite appealing if you are too lazy to post process/crop but obtain the composition you like with a smaller raw file.

Entertained the thought of going GFX100 since I'm considering on selling all of my Canon gear and Fuji. GFX lenses are a tad spendy but the high resolution mega pixels is way too much for me. I will definitely benefit little from an expensive body and usability. Definitely niche!!

Yes the $899 USD 56mm f/1.2 is very sharp. The 600USD Sony 85mm f/1.8 is a razor lens too.

Fuji shooters should get over the fallacy of small / light form factor. If you need fast glass it comes at a cost. Being brand agnostic there are simply offerings from different brands that are obtainable and on the shelf.

I think Fuji is fully capable of delivering products that are faster than f/1.4 for aps-c. Since they do not exist it's easy to simply use different tools that are offered outside of Fuji. I'd rather shoot Gmaster 85 f/1.4 or even Canon 85L f/1.4IS over my 56mm due to the iq differences. If I was only in the Fuji realm I'd have no alternative but the 56mm f/1.2. This is where Fuji aps-c has no equivalence of 105 f/1.4 or even 135mm f/1.8. No worries...get a different tool!

For the sake of demanding a certain look or performance there is a need for FF and larger formats if one desires. Just so happens the nature of the product can potentially have benefits in high iso performance.

OoDee wrote in post #18884635
Honestly, it's very difficult to follow your train of thought. I can't figure out whether you're trying to say that gear matters or that it doesn't. But I'm getting a sense that you're really more into gear than you're into photography.

More into gear? Actually the opposite. As a former auto tech gear/tools is everything when you have the skills/knowledge. Photography is no different.

Having a tool and being able to apply what it offers is all about growing in photographic style.

The discussion of "PRO" use is based on the photogs wallet as well having the gift in his eye in composition. If tools works for your style and IQ demands that's all that counts.

Gear totally matters but so does skills and style of photography.

What a pro uses is meaningless to others. The final image is what counts but gear is still part of the equation. A contributing factor is style and how a lens render and camera body performance. Using a 55-200 at this Le Mans event would not be ideal due to low light challenges. It's a combo of everything really. However if you cannot afford to get some gear this may hinder your image quality to the client but your composition and style will be there.

Going from a 50mm, 85mm to 135mm the compression is different. Different tools will have an effect on the image.

The Le mans events photographer can happily use cheaper Fuji gear vs Sony. It just works with for him. in his case it's a no brainer. He just benefits with perks of being an X-photographer.

Dang it Jeff Hanson... now I can't read those posts without hearing Dustin Hoffman

Alan beat this.

At f1.0

AlanU wrote in post #18884680
More into gear? Actually the opposite. As a former auto tech gear/tools is everything when you have the skills/knowledge. Photography is no different..

The fact that you're comparing photography to auto tech speaks volumes.

No, it's actually the exact opposite. The more skills you have the less you need to rely on gear.

Sure your 600 buck lens is sharp, sure... especially on your $2K camera. En Alan

X-T3's AF is pretty good & ICGAF about animal eye AF, the Fuji'e eye AF on the X-T3 works a treat now, happy out. I didn't find the 8-16 front heavy at all, probably because it's not I guess. Also I'm sure your 16-35 lens is a 'beast' until you realise that you need to shoot wide, like 121º wide and then it's simply a waste of space in your bag. Show me the Sony 12-24/2.8 and lets compare, Eh, Eh... Also from an optical point the 8-16 is one of the best lenses I used in the wide range, the way it keeps things wide without loosing the depth bends my brain. Think I posted a shot describing that just before it was launched.

A73 is better, mmmmmm now let me see.....

Slow FPS? Check
Crapy EVF? Check
Bad video bit rate? Check
No 4K/60? Check
No DCI 4K? Check
Less than 100% AF coverage? Check
Slow SD card slot? Check
Blackout when shoot continuous? Check
Rear Screen under 1,000,000 dots of resolution? Check
Didn't include charger? Check
Electronic shutter capped at 1/8000? Check
No 10bit 4:2:2 out? check
No left had mode dial? Check
No portrait tilt on rear screen? Check
Slow EVF refresh rate? Check

Yep the Sony looks like the right machine alright.
I'm sure there are many many more 'features' to list but It's been a long day of editing and I'm going out for a beer now.

OoDee wrote in post #18884699
The fact that you're comparing photography to auto tech speaks volumes.

No, it's actually the exact opposite. The more skills you have the less you need to rely on gear.

I'm not certain your background but please speak to any certified auto tech. You'd require many specialty equipment and knowledge to be a competent tech. It's about tools and capabilities of using it.

You cannot get the effects of the 56 f/1.2 with a Fuji 16-50 kit lens. Even at 50mm on the long end at f/5.6 it will not match a 56mm at f/1.2.

Using a single focal length Fuji x100 will not provide the same portrait image from a 90mm f/2. If you do not have gear it will limit you based on missing the focal length and speed of glass.

It's a combo of hardware and skills. In photography you cannot do one without the other. If you are lacking in one....it'll display some deficiencies.

bobbyz wrote in post #18884692
Alan beat this.

At f1.0

I see side by side shots from Sony, Nikon, and Canon all the time now as I am teaching more and more classes at my work place. Fuji GFX beats them hands down.

Bobby...that's a stunning image!!

It's all about what you demand. My aging 85L f/1.2 mk2 on my 5dmk4 does a nice job but not that kinda render.

I haven't had my 105mm f/1.4 long enough to have a lot of camera time. So far I did a large family studio light/ outdoor session and daughter's graduation. Not enough time in the day!

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18884690
Dang it Jeff Hanson... now I can't not read those posts without hearing Dustin Hoffman

Sorry about that, but at least now I'm not the only one

AlanU wrote in post #18884715
I'm not certain your background but please speak to any certified auto tech. You'd require many specialty equipment and knowledge to be a competent tech. It's about tools and capabilities of using it.

You cannot get the effects of the 56 f/1.2 with a Fuji 16-50 kit lens. Even at 50mm on the long end at f/5.6 it will not match a 56mm at f/1.2.

Using a single focal length Fuji x100 will not provide the same portrait image from a 90mm f/2. If you do not have gear it will limit you based on missing the focal length and speed of glass.

It's a combo of hardware and skills. In photography you cannot do one without the other. If you are lacking in one....it'll display some deficiencies.

Use your x100. Shoot in jpg and apply the digital zoom at 70mm (equivalent). Then crop the image a bit and you'll have an image which can get close to what you might with a 90mm/f2.

But the fact that for you the differences lie in bokeh, iso, and the rest of specs still tells me you're overly focused on tech and not photography. Photography is not about bokeh. It's about making content.

If you want a sensible analogy, take musical instruments. Lots of tech go into guitars, pedals and amps, for example. But the more skills you have, the better you'll be able to play a variety of songs with almost any gear that's thrown at you. Because you know how to work with limitations and get around restrictions, and still can produce a good performance.

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18884700
Sure your 600 buck lens is sharp, sure... especially on your $2K camera. En Alan

X-T3's AF is pretty good & ICGAF about animal eye AF, the Fuji'e eye AF on the X-T3 works a treat now, happy out. I didn't find the 8-16 front heavy at all, probably because it's not I guess. Also I'm sure your 16-35 lens is a 'beast' until you realise that you need to shoot wide, like 121º wide and then it's simply a waste of space in your bag. Show me the Sony 12-24/2.8 and lets compare, Eh, Eh... Also from an optical point the 8-16 is one of the best lenses I used in the wide range, the way it keeps things wide without loosing the depth bends my brain. Think I posted a shot describing that just before it was launched.

A73 is better, mmmmmm now let me see.....

Slow FPS? Check
Crapy EVF? Check
Bad video bit rate? Check
No 4K/60? Check
No DCI 4K? Check
Less than 100% AF coverage? Check
Slow SD card slot? Check
Blackout when shoot continuous? Check
Rear Screen under 1,000,000 dots of resolution? Check
Didn't include charger? Check
Electronic shutter capped at 1/8000? Check
No 10bit 4:2:2 out? check
No left had mode dial? Check
No portrait tilt on rear screen? Check
Slow EVF refresh rate? Check

Yep the Sony looks like the right machine alright.
I'm sure there are many many more 'features' to list but It's been a long day of editing and I'm going out for a beer now.

All of the video features you can scrub out as they are really meaningless to me. I only use camera's video function for School volunteer purposes and casual family documentation. Your a video guy so that may matter to you more.

I think your comparing the new X-t3 that I do not own. I suppose I could go to a camera shop after work an buy one Then I can be a rock star in your books

My X-t2 is by far lacking in power vs the single X-t3 you use. Where's your redundancy ? ohh I forgot you use Sony for your video rigs with your boss

The benefits I've listed on #10279 is bare essentials. I'm not a sports shooter or Birder. I would have just bought an A9 if that was the case. I am still deciding if I really need an A9 so I held back and bought another A73 as it fits the bill for my needs and saved around $3500. My only real negatives I have with the A73 is I'm lacking reliable non banding silent shutter and faster e shutter speeds.

Kim I hope your having fun in this thread.....the Fuji thread was getting rather boring lately :P

Alan is definitely into gear more, he has 3 camera systems and is “anticipating” the A7R4. There is nothing wrong with that though so please don’t take it the wrong way.

OoDee wrote in post #18884724
Use your x100. Shoot in jpg and apply the digital zoom at 70mm (equivalent). Then crop the image a bit and you'll have an image which can get close to what you might with a 90mm/f2.

But the fact for you the differences lie in bokeh, iso, and the rest of specs still tells me you're overly focused on tech and not photography. Photography is not about specific bokeh. It's about making content.

If you want a sensible analogy, take musical instruments. Lots of tech go into guitars, pedals and amps, for example. But the more skills you have, the better you'll be able to play a variety of songs. Because you know how to work with limitations and get around restrictions, and still produce a good performance.

If you own an 18-55 Fuji kit lens how do you go around it's limitations? Even an inexpensive 50 f/2 would have more impact for an outdoor portrait. What would close the gap is if you shoot smaller aperture with studio environment.


If you're generating copious amounts of revenue from photography I commend you and you're one of the lucky rare few. If photography is a hobby ….it's just to pass time. Making "content" or documenting photo journalistic, photography is capturing light. I'm actually going out more to enjoy photography, be it arts fartsy to accepting a request to document events/family sessions and personal projects. I'm more focused on having fun buying carefully selected gear to get the images I want.....win, win!

Most Fuji shooters here are hobbyist anyways.....

Osa713 wrote in post #18884741
Alan is definitely into gear more, he has 3 camera systems and is “anticipating” the A7R4. There is nothing wrong with that though so please don’t take it the wrong way.

As of recent I'm over the moon into photography.

There's deficiencies in Sony, Canon and Fuji I own. No system is perfect by any means. I have zero problems disclosing such a statement as I'm no fanboy to any