Reading mode: Light Dark

Fujifilm = poor value?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Go to last post
N

Nikita66

Senior Member
Messages
1,062
Solutions
1
Reaction score
396
Location
Moscow, RU
So I was thinking X-T3 over Nikon D7500 for its lighter, smaller size. But the Fuji system is hugely more expensive.

D7500, 18-140, Tokina 11-20 2.8 = $1920 (current B&H prices).

X-T3, xf 18-135, xf 8-16 2.8 = $4350 !!

Really, over twice as much?

And the body may be smaller but the comparable lenses are basically the same size/weight.

$2000 for the 8-16 (with a useless zoom range) is FOUR times more than the Tokina 11-20; granted not as wide but four times more?.

(Annoyingly, no one makes an UWA APS-C prime, like a rectilinear 10mm 2.8.)

Fuji seems like such a poor value I've given up this idea.
 
Nikita66 said:
So I was thinking X-T3 over Nikon D7500 for its lighter, smaller size. But the Fuji system is hugely more expensive.

D7500, 18-140, Tokina 11-20 2.8 = $1920 (current B&H prices).

X-T3, xf 18-135, xf 8-16 2.8 = $4350 !!

Really, over twice as much?

And the body may be smaller but the comparable lenses are basically the same size/weight.

$2000 for the 8-16 (with a useless zoom range) is FOUR times more than the Tokina 11-20; granted not as wide but four times more?.

(Annoyingly, no one makes an UWA APS-C prime, like a rectilinear 10mm 2.8.)

Fuji seems like such a poor value I've given up this idea.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input. Why did you post this at all? Thorough research is important in these decisions.... Your's is somewhat flawed.

--
I am an amateur, not a hobbyist.
 
Last edited:
We all have to size these things up for ourselves.
 
I would just suggest you build a solid documentation using serious reviews about bodies and lenses, you might then have a modified judgment
 
Nikita66 said:
So I was thinking X-T3 over Nikon D7500 for its lighter, smaller size. But the Fuji system is hugely more expensive.

D7500, 18-140, Tokina 11-20 2.8 = $1920 (current B&H prices).

X-T3, xf 18-135, xf 8-16 2.8 = $4350 !!

Really, over twice as much?

And the body may be smaller but the comparable lenses are basically the same size/weight.

$2000 for the 8-16 (with a useless zoom range) is FOUR times more than the Tokina 11-20; granted not as wide but four times more?.

(Annoyingly, no one makes an UWA APS-C prime, like a rectilinear 10mm 2.8.)

Fuji seems like such a poor value I've given up this idea.
Click to expand...
Coming to this forum and taking the time to start a thread about something you have given up on a classic buying signal. Rather than have others talk you in to purchasing the Fuji, it might be far more useful to try both cameras yourself and see which is more fun to shoot.

Sal
 
Not sure that I’d budget $2000 for something I considered useless, but to each their own.

Changing the 8-16 for a 10-24 and considering the X-T2 will significantly lower your price estimate. Otherwise the Nikon is also capable of taking nice photographs. Good luck!
 
I'm struggling to figure out whether you decided to post this in order to collect different opinions and see if your decision logic is flawed or simply to troll the forum. It's really hard not to interpret your post as out and out trolling since you must know that the forum consists of a lot of people who are strong Fujifilm proponents. If you had laid out your concerns and asked for feedback and advice, then I would have no issues. However, since your decision is made, why bother stirring the pot and sharing your decision? I doubt many people here would agree with it.

I will hold off on locking the thread for the time being and see if any useful dialog can come out of it. However, I'm going to guess that it will end up getting locked and thrown onto the trolling trash heap. Let's see if folks can prove me wrong.

Meanwhile, just know that posts like this can lead to your getting quickly banned from forums or even DPR as a whole. You might rethink your posting style in whatever DPR forum you end up in with your new gear. Just a suggestion from someone who's been in this rodeo for a lot of years.
 
There a lot more to cameras and lenses than price.
 
In any system, you'll find some bargains, especially on older bodies and lenses which don't sell well or third party lenses (like the example you mentioned)

If those suit your shooting then swell, get them , it's all good

I can also argue than some MFT combos cost more than Fuji equivalent

C'est la vie

Fuji pricing on bodies is not outrageous, especially the XT3 (no wonder they're hard to find today)

Some of their lens prices may be on the high side due to the fact that Fuji doesn't sell as many as FF

If you still want to enter Fuji arena and cannot afford the price of entry I suggest you look at the second hand market

Cheers,
 
Nikita66 said:
So I was thinking X-T3 over Nikon D7500 for its lighter, smaller size. But the Fuji system is hugely more expensive.

D7500, 18-140, Tokina 11-20 2.8 = $1920 (current B&H prices).

X-T3, xf 18-135, xf 8-16 2.8 = $4350 !!

Really, over twice as much?

And the body may be smaller but the comparable lenses are basically the same size/weight.

$2000 for the 8-16 (with a useless zoom range) is FOUR times more than the Tokina 11-20; granted not as wide but four times more?.

(Annoyingly, no one makes an UWA APS-C prime, like a rectilinear 10mm 2.8.)

Fuji seems like such a poor value I've given up this idea.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you gave up....hopefully it means we won't have to endure your trolling any further.
 
Nikita66 said:
Wow, this is a sensitive group.

I'm looking for a smaller lighter alternative for travel, without going too far down in sensor size. I guess I'm frustrated that it doesn't really exist.

Please see my response above. You're too quick to label me a troll.
Click to expand...
Not sensitive at all. We just find comparisons like your ridiculous and uninformed on many levels. Put some thought into valid comparisons and you will receive responses that may be a little more enlightening to you. As it stands right now, your comparison in ridiculous.
 
If you were seriously considering the Fujifilm XT3, then you'd already know why people would rather have it than the Nikon.
 
Nikita66 said:
So I was thinking X-T3 over Nikon D7500 for its lighter, smaller size. But the Fuji system is hugely more expensive.

D7500, 18-140, Tokina 11-20 2.8 = $1920 (current B&H prices).

X-T3, xf 18-135, xf 8-16 2.8 = $4350 !!

Really, over twice as much?

And the body may be smaller but the comparable lenses are basically the same size/weight.

$2000 for the 8-16 (with a useless zoom range) is FOUR times more than the Tokina 11-20; granted not as wide but four times more?.

(Annoyingly, no one makes an UWA APS-C prime, like a rectilinear 10mm 2.8.)

Fuji seems like such a poor value I've given up this idea.
Click to expand...


You’re welcome. :)





a527d8c555194f4096a8f8ba060724ef.jpg.png
 
I've been monitoring Fuji's progress for awhile, and they're looking appealing. Personally, I'm looking forward to the X-H2. I have some fine Canon lenses, and will be able to continue using them with a Fringer EF-FX Pro adapter, though I'd like to pick up some Fuji glass as well. Their film sims and jpeg quality are also appealing. I also love the interface with the classic dials. I feel like I'm returning to my Canon F-1 with all the advantages of digital. It's hard to put a price on that feeling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top