The Pros and Cons of shooting Fuji (thoughts after 1,5 years)

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
rsn48 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,755
Re: The Pros and Cons of shooting Fuji (thoughts after 1,5 years)

I'm not familiar with your camera model so I can't comment about its strengths and short comings but the title of your thread is Fuji in general.

First I am an old fart, first into SLR's (film) - two systems - then into digital - two systems. My first camera was purchased in 1974. I have lost count of how many lenses I have owned and currently owned but I'm guessing around thirty over the years, this brings me to lens cleaning. In all those years, I have cleaned lenses with tissue and fluid about 20 times spread out over 46 years. Most clean their lenses more than they need to be cleaned. What I normally use is a lens pen, first the brush to get anything off that will scratch the lens, then the "pen" end to polish up the surface. The coatings on the end of the accessible glass has a history of being a wee bit fragile, they are better now than in the past. But if it isn't broke, don't fix it especially applies to lens cleaning.

The history of ISO's has been interesting. Back in the film/slide days, one photographed at 100 (ASA/ISO) or lowered about 99 % of the time. I remember when the first 400 ASA film became available, it was considered newbie amateur stuff, everyone knew serious photographers were shooting slides (roughly around 64 ASA). Even into digital, my first original Canon had ISO that was really only usable to maybe 400 possibly 800. Then my second Rebel could go to 800 and sometimes into 1200.

With camera's with today's technology, ISO accomplishments are growing by leaps and bounds. But something that most don't think about, they get into the more megapixels is better game, but don't realize that bigger is better in the size of megapixels. Bigger ones collect more light faster than smaller ones. So when Canon released its full frame 5D mk 4 (one of my systems), the pixel count was 30.4 many whined and complained, which then drove Canon to release alternate models of its 5D to humour the high pixel count folks, so now a model with 50. But the 50 doesn't have as decent a high ISO performance as the 30.4, bigger is better with light collecting. This is my long winded way to say the ISO performance of your camera is pretty decent all things considered.

Most people newer to photography get into their first camera system without really considering - what system for the style of photography is best for me? So if you want to do landscape, the medium format Fuji with 100 megapixels is the one for you. Want to do BIFs then a Canon top of the line, great burst rate full frame camera is the one for you. It is easier to track birds through a full frame optical view finder. And Canon has some terrific lenses for BIFs and most importantly 3rd party lenses when they first release, always orient to the Canon market first, so great 3rd party zoom telephoto lenses out their for that system.

One of the benefits of third party support is the competition it forces a manufacture into and Fujifilm isn't quite there yet. Fuji is a niche market so the lens manufactures may eventually get there but not quite yet.

So why do I have two systems? Well for street and travel photography, I want a camera and fixed lens that is small and pocketable. When I'm out and about, I don't want to be carrying any kind of bag. So I will wear looser pants with larger pockets, ditto shorts, that will accept my X 100f. When I want to shoot quick and dirty, using only JPEGs in some film simulation mode (translation: I don't want to muck about in photo software working an image), I use my X T1. I also take this camera and a few lenses out with me when I am biking shooting landscape stuff in my immediate surroundings riding a bike. If I go down on the bike, I'll be upset if I wreck my X T1, but I don't even want to think about wrecking my Canon 5D mk4.

My Canon system is mostly for "serious" work whether landscape or BIF's or even night shots I hope to market. I want the potential of high ISO results that are decent, not excellent just decent - "good enough." I want to crop deeply without the image falling apart. I want third party lenses at the long zoom end that are affordable (sort, something like my Sigma 150 - 600 sport tank.

I have edited this in, Camera manufactures lie all the time - sadly. So for example, a very well known Canon lens - 100 to 400 (original) - didn't go to 400, it really went to roughly 385. My Sigma 50 lens is really more like a 48 lens. And ISO's are lied about all the time, and Fuji is one of the conspirators. This is my way to say, don't believe everything you read about high ISO's with phone cameras particularly what ISO they work at. I will link this Tony Northrup video on ISO lies:

The manufacturers could be more honest by just listing the ISO's usable from 1 through 10, 1 being the slowest and 10 being the fastest. Let the decent reviewers figure out the ISO equivalencies. ISO is a standardization organization but in the current photography industry there is no ISO standardization.  A company may say their camera goes to ....(fill in the blank)... but compare it to another companies same ISO and you will they don't agree at all on sensitivity.

-- hide signature --

According to Manny Faber, there are "termite artists" who shoot in obscurity pursuing an inner vision others can't see (think Vivian Maier). And there are "white elephant artists" who shout out with technique and vision for all to see (think Ansel Adams). Which one you are doesn't matter, both have produced fine art.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow