Thinking of buying into Fuji X system - few concerns

Hi forum, I'm weighing my choices for a new MILC after years of sticking to the Nikon 1 series. I will be using it for city, street, nature, and portrait photography. I value affordability and uniqueness.

Vs other systems: Nikon Z is too expensive, M4/3rds seem to not offer much of a bump in terms of DOF control, Canon's IQ and sensor size is weaker than other APS-Cs(without offering any equivalent advantage that I am aware of). Sony's modern milcs are still expensive on the used market, and their lenses seem a lot more expensive than other systems.

I've owned Fuji small cameras before, and was impressed with the quality and value.

However, I recall the size of the raw files was much larger than Nikon's- NEFs average 1Mb/1MP, RAFs were at least 15Mb/MP. That matters for a lot of reasons. Has the efficiency of RAFs improved in the last several years?

The Fuji system seems to have a lot of really good native lenses at lower average prices than other systems. Is there something I'm missing? A f1.2 56mm portrait lens new for $800? That's cheaper than the equivalent lens in the Nikon 1 system was!

Anything else to be aware of?

I'm looking at picking up a used X-A7 due to its portability and price, but the X-E4 is a close 2nd. Other ideas and suggestions welcome!

newby mcnewberstein said:

The Fuji system seems to have a lot of really good native lenses at lower average prices than other systems. Is there something I'm missing? A f1.2 56mm portrait lens new for $800? That's cheaper than the equivalent lens in the Nikon 1 system was!

Click to expand...

An 85/1.8 on a FF body does the same thing for you. Same DOF and similar noise if you bump the ISO to maintain shutter speed.

newby mcnewberstein said:

Anything else to be aware of?

Click to expand...

It's a great system for primes.
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

While I had XM and XT10 earlier, and I don't recall if they offered lossless compressed raw or not, all the current bodies I have XT20, XH1, XT3, XE3 offer a compressed lossless raw. The uncompressed on the XT3 is like 56 meg, the compressed is on the order of 27 meg per shot, which is on a par with most other cameras of similar megapixels raw modes. Sony a6000, and Lumix G9, and Canon 7D2. As I recall Canon 6D files were in the 20 meg range as well....5D mk1 were around 13 meg.

Dennis said:

newby mcnewberstein said:

The Fuji system seems to have a lot of really good native lenses at lower average prices than other systems. Is there something I'm missing? A f1.2 56mm portrait lens new for $800? That's cheaper than the equivalent lens in the Nikon 1 system was!

Click to expand...

An 85/1.8 on a FF body does the same thing for you. Same DOF and similar noise if you bump the ISO to maintain shutter speed.

Dennis said:

Anything else to be aware of?

Click to expand...

It's a great system for primes.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware. A modern FF Milc with a native 85mm f1/8 lens costs much more and is probably much less portable though.

newby mcnewberstein said:

Vs other systems: Nikon Z is too expensive

The Fuji system seems to have a lot of really good native lenses at lower average prices than other systems. Is there something I'm missing? A f1.2 56mm portrait lens new for $800? That's cheaper than the equivalent lens in the Nikon 1 system was!

Click to expand...

The Nikon Z 85mm is actually $100 cheaper than the Fuji 56 at normal prices. I ended up buying the Nikon Z 35mm because the new Fuji 23mm was more expensive.

I don't think anything is wrong with the 56. The main complaint is probably video autofocus speed and noise. More people are shooting video.

There are a lot of reasons to like Fuji but price and size of their top line primes is probably not the main factor.

I have the Nikon Z 2.8 trinity and many of the S primes but I like Fuji because you have the potential to build a small kit. Some of Fuji's lenses are the same size as full frame but there are definitely small ones. And second it has a lot of the Z9 video specs in a smaller body and more capabilities than something like a Z6II.

I also do a lot of telephoto for wildlife while hiking, etc. Nikon can't beat the reach of the 70-300 plus TC without going to something like the 100-400. The 100-400 has better image quality but it's twice the weight.

newby mcnewberstein said:

I'm looking at picking up a used X-A7 due to its portability and price, but the X-E4 is a close 2nd. Other ideas and suggestions welcome!

Click to expand...

Interesting shortlist, as they’re two very different cameras…

newby mcnewberstein said:

Dennis said:

newby mcnewberstein said:

The Fuji system seems to have a lot of really good native lenses at lower average prices than other systems. Is there something I'm missing? A f1.2 56mm portrait lens new for $800? That's cheaper than the equivalent lens in the Nikon 1 system was!

Click to expand...

An 85/1.8 on a FF body does the same thing for you. Same DOF and similar noise if you bump the ISO to maintain shutter speed.

newby mcnewberstein said:

Anything else to be aware of?

Click to expand...

It's a great system for primes.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware. A modern FF Milc with a native 85mm f1/8 lens costs much more and is probably much less portable though.

Click to expand...

Depends on the cameras ... if you're looking at smaller Fuji bodies, then they can't be matched (maybe the Sony A7c but the VF on that is so awful, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone). But there are plenty of bigger APS-C bodies (XT4 with a grip or XH-x) and those cost more than something like a Z5. My point was more about the lenses, though - where you seemed to be suggesting that a 56/1.2 for $800 is a great bargain, but is easily matched with FF equivalents. The Z version 30mm longer and 65g heavier; noticeable, but whether it's significant is up to you. (Personally, I'd save more money, size and weight and go for the Sigma 56/1.4 for Fuji if I were to stick with the system).

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

newby mcnewberstein said:

However, I recall the size of the raw files was much larger than Nikon's- NEFs average 1Mb/1MP, RAFs were at least 15Mb/MP. That matters for a lot of reasons. Has the efficiency of RAFs improved in the last several years?

Click to expand...

The short answer is no.

newby mcnewberstein said:

Hi forum, I'm weighing my choices for a new MILC after years of sticking to the Nikon 1 series. I will be using it for city, street, nature, and portrait photography. I value affordability and uniqueness.

Vs other systems: Nikon Z is too expensive, M4/3rds seem to not offer much of a bump in terms of DOF control, Canon's IQ and sensor size is weaker than other APS-Cs(without offering any equivalent advantage that I am aware of). Sony's modern milcs are still expensive on the used market, and their lenses seem a lot more expensive than other systems.

I've owned Fuji small cameras before, and was impressed with the quality and value.

However, I recall the size of the raw files was much larger than Nikon's- NEFs average 1Mb/1MP, RAFs were at least 15Mb/MP. That matters for a lot of reasons. Has the efficiency of RAFs improved in the last several years?

The Fuji system seems to have a lot of really good native lenses at lower average prices than other systems. Is there something I'm missing? A f1.2 56mm portrait lens new for $800? That's cheaper than the equivalent lens in the Nikon 1 system was!

Anything else to be aware of?

I'm looking at picking up a used X-A7 due to its portability and price, but the X-E4 is a close 2nd. Other ideas and suggestions welcome!

Click to expand...

X-E3 is also a good camera to start with - perhaps more traditional UI than E4.

E3 with 56f1,2 is great for portraits , pocketable with 23f2 and flexible with some zoom like 18-55 or 16-80

John Gellings said:

newby mcnewberstein said:

However, I recall the size of the raw files was much larger than Nikon's- NEFs average 1Mb/1MP, RAFs were at least 15Mb/MP. That matters for a lot of reasons. Has the efficiency of RAFs improved in the last several years?

Click to expand...

The short answer is no.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what you mean by "last several years."

• The 16-megapixel models offered only uncompressed Raw files. These are necessarily 2 bytes per pixel, plus overhead items like the preview JPEG. Typical RAF size is 50 MB.
• Back in 2016, the 24-megapixel models added optional lossless compression. RAF size varies depending on image content, but might be 30 MB or so.
• Back in 2020, the 26-megapixel models (except X-Pro3) added optional lossy compression. RAF size varies depending on image content, but might be 20 MB or so.

Doug Pardee said:

John Gellings said:

newby mcnewberstein said:

However, I recall the size of the raw files was much larger than Nikon's- NEFs average 1Mb/1MP, RAFs were at least 15Mb/MP. That matters for a lot of reasons. Has the efficiency of RAFs improved in the last several years?

Click to expand...

The short answer is no.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what you mean by "last several years."

• The 16-megapixel models offered only uncompressed Raw files. These are necessarily 2 bytes per pixel, plus overhead items like the preview JPEG. Typical RAF size is 50 MB.
• Back in 2016, the 24-megapixel models added optional lossless compression. RAF size varies depending on image content, but might be 30 MB or so.
• Back in 2020, the 26-megapixel models (except X-Pro3) added optional lossy compression. RAF size varies depending on image content, but might be 20 MB or so.

Click to expand...

Excellent. Thanks for the info. Glancing at the RAW sizes in the studio comparison tool, the sizes are pretty huge... I hope those are the uncompressed sizes for the A7 and E4.

newby mcnewberstein said:

Doug Pardee said:

John Gellings said:

newby mcnewberstein said:

However, I recall the size of the raw files was much larger than Nikon's- NEFs average 1Mb/1MP, RAFs were at least 15Mb/MP. That matters for a lot of reasons. Has the efficiency of RAFs improved in the last several years?

Click to expand...

The short answer is no.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what you mean by "last several years."

• The 16-megapixel models offered only uncompressed Raw files. These are necessarily 2 bytes per pixel, plus overhead items like the preview JPEG. Typical RAF size is 50 MB.
• Back in 2016, the 24-megapixel models added optional lossless compression. RAF size varies depending on image content, but might be 30 MB or so.
• Back in 2020, the 26-megapixel models (except X-Pro3) added optional lossy compression. RAF size varies depending on image content, but might be 20 MB or so.

Click to expand...

Excellent. Thanks for the info. Glancing at the RAW sizes in the studio comparison tool, the sizes are pretty huge... I hope those are the uncompressed sizes for the A7 and E4.

Click to expand...

It absolutely is. Im looking at a raw+jpg 26mp from my X-E4 that’s only 14.8mb when I moved it over to my iPad.

Also for portraits, don’t just look at the 56/1.2. The 90/2 is very highly regarded and the 60/2.4 was the original portrait lens for a reason with how well it renders objects both in and out of focus.

X-E4 has same sensor and CPU as high end models at half the cost. And the f/2 primes are a good reason to shoot Fujifilm.

newby mcnewberstein said:

Hi forum, I'm weighing my choices for a new MILC after years of sticking to the Nikon 1 series. I will be using it for city, street, nature, and portrait photography. I value affordability and uniqueness.

Vs other systems: Nikon Z is too expensive, M4/3rds seem to not offer much of a bump in terms of DOF control, Canon's IQ and sensor size is weaker than other APS-Cs(without offering any equivalent advantage that I am aware of). Sony's modern milcs are still expensive on the used market, and their lenses seem a lot more expensive than other systems.

I've owned Fuji small cameras before, and was impressed with the quality and value.

However, I recall the size of the raw files was much larger than Nikon's- NEFs average 1Mb/1MP, RAFs were at least 15Mb/MP. That matters for a lot of reasons. Has the efficiency of RAFs improved in the last several years?

Click to expand...

No. But you can select between compressed and uncompressed. And does size really matter, given how much space is available today to store the files? After all, these are 24/26MB sensors sp the file size is not too large.

newby mcnewberstein said:

The Fuji system seems to have a lot of really good native lenses at lower average prices than other systems. Is there something I'm missing? A f1.2 56mm portrait lens new for $800? That's cheaper than the equivalent lens in the Nikon 1 system was!

Click to expand...

My reason to join Fui was the f2.8/f2 set of primes. Small, yet very capable. The 90f2 is large but a must. If you are after maximum bokeh, then the f1.4 are probably on your list. I find the too large and expensive. But I hear they are great. There is gap in small, not so fast short tele primes (like 75 or 85) - like the Sigma 90f2.8. And Fuji needs to update its standard 18-55 zoom. But the 14f2.8, 16f2.8, 23f2, 35f2, 50f2 and 90f2 will give you most everything you need in a small package (if you don't count the 90f2).

newby mcnewberstein said:

Anything else to be aware of?

Click to expand...

Yes. Fuji AF is not at the same level as for example Sony AF. That is in regard to locking on a subject and tracking it as well as overall accuracy. It depends on the lenses, not so much the the bodies. Older lenses and WA lenses are more likely to miss-focus (and in particular focussing beyond infintiy). There are strategies to work around it and to make sure to catch those moments where the AF gets it wrong. But it is different from Sony, where with the a7c you lock on a subject and that is it.

newby mcnewberstein said:

I'm looking at picking up a used X-A7 due to its portability and price, but the X-E4 is a close 2nd. Other ideas and suggestions welcome!

Click to expand...

Strongly suggest an X-E3. For me the best camera in the X-E line. All the controls as they should be, nice handling. The X-T3 is bigger but for me is the best camera in the X-T line. Both cameras you can buy used and I've got both my X-E3 cameras for €330 and €400 in almost mint condition. The used X-T3 was €700.

Watch some videos on X-Ex spec and body comparisons before shelling out for the X-E4. They removed a bunch of physical controls vs the X-E3 and even X-E2, and it makes it an overall more annoying experience if you're menu averse.

I think you otherwise nailed your brand summary. Nikon's Z pricing is absurd for a system that leads the market in nothing. M43 sucks for landscapes because it's just so noisy and the high crop factor is both tougher to work with if you like shallow DOF shooting and limits the usefulness of normal and telephotos vintage lenses if you're into that. Sony's fast lenses are mostly overpriced and IMO nearly all equivalent Fuji lenses decimate the non-Zeiss branded Sony lenses if you care about things like 3D pop more than 9000% corner crop sharpness.

Keep in mind that unlike most other brands these days, Fuji is lacking IBIS in most bodies. I never realized how much I'd come to rely on it until I didn't have it.

As for the 56mm f1.2 - f1.2 is f1.2. There might be some crop factor DOF equivalence, but it's still f1.2 worth of light and after shooting with Sony for many years, I too was surprised how cheap Fuji lenses seemed - but of course that's comparing FF to APS, which isn't really a fair comparison.

Personally, I wouldn't leave Sony for paid work because the AF is just too good and the cameras are truly soulless money printing appliances that fade out of consciousness when you use them (which is what you want for paid work), but I've found Fuji to be more fun (read: more work) to shoot casually and can't wait to collect some more bodies.

Personally I do own XT-3, it is a fine camera. However I do suggest you to consider XS-10 which has in-body stabilization. Paired with some small non-IS prime lenses you are good to go.

newby mcnewberstein said:

Hi forum, I'm weighing my choices for a new MILC after years of sticking to the Nikon 1 series. I will be using it for city, street, nature, and portrait photography. I value affordability and uniqueness.

Vs other systems: Nikon Z is too expensive, M4/3rds seem to not offer much of a bump in terms of DOF control, Canon's IQ and sensor size is weaker than other APS-Cs(without offering any equivalent advantage that I am aware of). Sony's modern milcs are still expensive on the used market, and their lenses seem a lot more expensive than other systems.

I've owned Fuji small cameras before, and was impressed with the quality and value.

However, I recall the size of the raw files was much larger than Nikon's- NEFs average 1Mb/1MP, RAFs were at least 15Mb/MP. That matters for a lot of reasons. Has the efficiency of RAFs improved in the last several years?

The Fuji system seems to have a lot of really good native lenses at lower average prices than other systems. Is there something I'm missing? A f1.2 56mm portrait lens new for $800? That's cheaper than the equivalent lens in the Nikon 1 system was!

Anything else to be aware of?

I'm looking at picking up a used X-A7 due to its portability and price, but the X-E4 is a close 2nd. Other ideas and suggestions welcome!

Click to expand...

I’d say avoid the X-AXXX and X-T100 and X-T200 series if you are really after the unique fuji experience. Go with the ANY X-E series. The 4 is harder to find. Go with a 3 or 2s. Or a Xt20, Xt30, or x100f

rla1022 said:

newby mcnewberstein said:

Hi forum, I'm weighing my choices for a new MILC after years of sticking to the Nikon 1 series. I will be using it for city, street, nature, and portrait photography. I value affordability and uniqueness.

Vs other systems: Nikon Z is too expensive, M4/3rds seem to not offer much of a bump in terms of DOF control, Canon's IQ and sensor size is weaker than other APS-Cs(without offering any equivalent advantage that I am aware of). Sony's modern milcs are still expensive on the used market, and their lenses seem a lot more expensive than other systems.

I've owned Fuji small cameras before, and was impressed with the quality and value.

However, I recall the size of the raw files was much larger than Nikon's- NEFs average 1Mb/1MP, RAFs were at least 15Mb/MP. That matters for a lot of reasons. Has the efficiency of RAFs improved in the last several years?

The Fuji system seems to have a lot of really good native lenses at lower average prices than other systems. Is there something I'm missing? A f1.2 56mm portrait lens new for $800? That's cheaper than the equivalent lens in the Nikon 1 system was!

Anything else to be aware of?

I'm looking at picking up a used X-A7 due to its portability and price, but the X-E4 is a close 2nd. Other ideas and suggestions welcome!

Click to expand...

I’d say avoid the X-AXXX and X-T100 and X-T200 series if you are really after the unique fuji experience. Go with the ANY X-E series. The 4 is harder to find. Go with a 3 or 2s. Or a Xt20, Xt30, or x100f

Click to expand...

Dear rla 1022,

Don't mean to challenge your comments on X-AXXX, XT100 & XT-200 series but please enlighten me as to why they are best avoided if we are after unique Fuji experience. Is there something undesirable in the mentioned series?

hwchiu said:

rla1022 said:

newby mcnewberstein said:

Hi forum, I'm weighing my choices for a new MILC after years of sticking to the Nikon 1 series. I will be using it for city, street, nature, and portrait photography. I value affordability and uniqueness.

Vs other systems: Nikon Z is too expensive, M4/3rds seem to not offer much of a bump in terms of DOF control, Canon's IQ and sensor size is weaker than other APS-Cs(without offering any equivalent advantage that I am aware of). Sony's modern milcs are still expensive on the used market, and their lenses seem a lot more expensive than other systems.

I've owned Fuji small cameras before, and was impressed with the quality and value.

However, I recall the size of the raw files was much larger than Nikon's- NEFs average 1Mb/1MP, RAFs were at least 15Mb/MP. That matters for a lot of reasons. Has the efficiency of RAFs improved in the last several years?

The Fuji system seems to have a lot of really good native lenses at lower average prices than other systems. Is there something I'm missing? A f1.2 56mm portrait lens new for $800? That's cheaper than the equivalent lens in the Nikon 1 system was!

Anything else to be aware of?

I'm looking at picking up a used X-A7 due to its portability and price, but the X-E4 is a close 2nd. Other ideas and suggestions welcome!

Click to expand...

I’d say avoid the X-AXXX and X-T100 and X-T200 series if you are really after the unique fuji experience. Go with the ANY X-E series. The 4 is harder to find. Go with a 3 or 2s. Or a Xt20, Xt30, or x100f

Click to expand...

Dear rla 1022,

Don't mean to challenge your comments on X-AXXX, XT100 & XT-200 series but please enlighten me as to why they are best avoided if we are after unique Fuji experience. Is there something undesirable in the mentioned series?

Click to expand...

All my thoughts are based on using a xa5 and a xt200. Both were to be second bodies to my xt2. They are entry level cameras that look like Fuji but have none of the charm of Fuji. Different sensors , slower cameras, different firmwares and different settings and so on.

They’ve been discontinued and for the same price you can find a stellar xt2,xt20, xe2/s etc. For 1k new there are MUCH better cameras used in Fujis lineup.

newby mcnewberstein said:

Dennis said:

newby mcnewberstein said:

The Fuji system seems to have a lot of really good native lenses at lower average prices than other systems. Is there something I'm missing? A f1.2 56mm portrait lens new for $800? That's cheaper than the equivalent lens in the Nikon 1 system was!

Click to expand...

An 85/1.8 on a FF body does the same thing for you. Same DOF and similar noise if you bump the ISO to maintain shutter speed.

newby mcnewberstein said:

Anything else to be aware of?

Click to expand...

It's a great system for primes.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware. A modern FF Milc with a native 85mm f1/8 lens costs much more and is probably much less portable though.

Click to expand...

I have and love the Viltrox 85mm f1.8 and use it on my xpro3 and xe4. Definitely carry and heavy but awesome.