Slowly moving from Canon to Fuji and liking it so far

Update, I am having some issues with one of the top wheels where I can't easily change shutter speed. I have heard other folks having similar issue with different top dials. Maybe the teeth or whatever mechanism they have inside is not robust enough. I haven't yet sent in my camera but I might need to as when shooting baseball I shoot in manual exposure mode.

I'd move to Fuji in a heartbeat if it wasn't for AF/High ISO IQ.

The fact I can move to Fuji and keep all my "equal" glass. What is nice is the new 16mm F1.4 lens.

I could literally have all my same glass in a smaller format. The problem is I wouldn't really be saving any money. Would cost just as much for me.

Talley wrote in post #17551777
I'd move to Fuji in a heartbeat if it wasn't for AF/High ISO IQ.

don't think it's fair to compare it with a mirror FF 5D3...

HyperYagami wrote in post #17551848
don't think it's fair to compare it with a mirror FF 5D3...

I wasn't... thats the problem though. I don't fee like owning more gear either so 5D3 it is.

AF is quite good once you configure the camera. I would even say better than 6d. And new 4.0 firmware is going to be out to improve it further.

bobbyz wrote in post #17552061
AF is quite good once you configure the camera. I would even say better than 6d. And new 4.0 firmware is going to be out to improve it further.

Well yes, I've seen this and I'm watching closely.

IQ at ISO at or above 6400 is the next hurdle.

Yup, I use mine max IS3200 but this shot was at IS6400, 1/25, f1.2.

Straight jpeg from the camera.

You have to factor in Fuji's 'fudging' of ISO numbers and the higher implicit chroma NR in their demosaicing process when making any kind of high ISO noise comparison with other brands.

I personally haven't been able to replicate the Fuji high ISO fudging. There's enough documentation on the internet that I do believe something may be up, but I've tried to test this against my Canon SL1, and they seem to expose very similarly.

I have a Fuji X100s and haven't been able to test out the latest gen APS-C sensors (such as in the 7d Mark II), but the Fuji does give me the best high ISO performance I've personally seen from an APS-C sensor. Chroma noise in particular seems really well controlled.

Another interesting thing is even though RAW tops out at ISO 6400, I generally find that if I underexpose a RAW file by 1 stop and push in PP, I still get better results than ISO 12800 in JPEG. Anyone else try this out? ISO 25,600 is basically unuseable for me in either method.

Weird, I've checked it a few times by use similar exposure settings (compared to a few other camera bodies 5D3/1DX/A7R) and then adjusting until histograms match. Which lens/lenses have you tested with? Using the 18-55 and 50-230, I've found that it's something less than a full stop but more than a half stop; I don't know that my methodology can offer any more precision than that though.

I haven't done scientific tests but comparing 5dmk3/35L against XT1/23mm lens I saw fuji was 1/2 stop under-exposed. Will do more serious tests if I can find some extra time.

I've tried the 18-55 STM and the 24mm STM. Exposed VERY similarly. I think Canon wanted 1/20 SS, Fuji wanted 1/25, and the exposures were almost a dead match when I looked on LR.

I've seen much more scientific "tests" that have shown the Fuji fudging issues, so I'm not really sure what to believe.

All I can say is in real life shooting, with my X100s and the relatively fast f/2 lens and also the leaf shutter that lets me use slower shutter speeds (although IS would be preferred I think), I rarely need to go over ISO 6400, so there's that as well.

I looked through my metadata and found so little of the shots above 6400 that it negated the ISO argument. AF is pretty good, nothing like the AF on the 5D3 but not bad at all ( I have small kids who move erratically to test these things on). But the Fuji is so much more than the paper or numbers. It has something about it. I'm keeping my FF gear and I'm adding a new tool to the box.

I've paired down my Canon EF kit to a 6D, 24-70ii, 50mm 1.8, and 85mm 1.8. The 6D is basically an event shooting camera at this point, and I might also break it out for family shooting. I rarely use anything other than the 24-70, so I'm tempted to eventually sell off the 85mm 1.8. The 50mm 1.8 is just there cause it's so cheap and no worth selling imo.

I also have an SL1 with 3 EF-S lenses - 18-55, 55-250, and 24mm pancake. That's my travel camera. And a Fuji X100s I use for daily carrying around and street photography.

I am kind of on the hunt for a camera that I could possibly dump the above 3 for in favor of just 1 with a handful of essential lenses. Basically cut my gear down a bit. So for the last 2 weeks I've rented and tried out a Sony A7, Fuji X-T1, and Oly OMD-EM10, I know the EM-10 is considered a "lower" camera than the other 2, but that's really the only OMD I was considering as the EM1 is a bit too pricey for my liking.

I definitely enjoyed the Fuji X-T1 the most. IQ wasn't much of a differentiator tbh. I thought all 3 cameras produced really great images (esp the A7). The Fuji and Oly definitely produced better JPEGs, my personal preference going a bit towards the Fuji (esp with the CC film simulation). I was absolutely loving the electronic shutter for silent operation, esp when street shooting. That alone made me prefer the X-T1 over the A7, the A7's relatively loud shutter was a bit too conspicuous for street shooting for me. I thought AF was pretty snappy, even with the 35mm 1.4 I was using. And I loved using the dials.

That being said I came to the conclusion none of the 3 cameras I was testing could replace my 6D + 24-70 combo for the specific purposes I use that setup for. I am still considering picking up the X-T1 and replacing the SL1 and X100s with it, but still a bit on the fence.

I have to say though, if I had no cameras, and someone said I could only own either the X-T1 or the 6D, I'd probably go with the X-T1, for me it would be a much more versatile shooter.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #17552520
I personally haven't been able to replicate the Fuji high ISO fudging. There's enough documentation on the internet that I do believe something may be up, but I've tried to test this against my Canon SL1, and they seem to expose very similarly.

I have a Fuji X100s and haven't been able to test out the latest gen APS-C sensors (such as in the 7d Mark II), but the Fuji does give me the best high ISO performance I've personally seen from an APS-C sensor. Chroma noise in particular seems really well controlled.

Another interesting thing is even though RAW tops out at ISO 6400, I generally find that if I underexpose a RAW file by 1 stop and push in PP, I still get better results than ISO 12800 in JPEG. Anyone else try this out? ISO 25,600 is basically unuseable for me in either method.

This was my experience with my X-E1 too. The exposures between my other cameras and it were always insignificant changes (1/3 a stop at most), definitely not the full stop most places I've seen claim. I also felt that it's high-ISO noise handling was much more pleasing than my EOS M or T2i.