The Fujifilm X-E5 - What do you think so far?

JohnV2 said:

Don't like focusing aids, too unreliable. The only focusing aid which is a bit useful is the magnification view, and even then, again, it's through a 2 mDot .62x display which is like a peep hole to me. There's a reason why I use my X-T3 a whole lot more.

Click to expand...

I agree that the magnified view is the only really reliable aid. And yes, the larger finder in the X-Tx series is siginificantly better, for sure.

JohnV2 said:

And, a 40 mpixel sensor is going to be tougher to get the focus right. If a 2 mDot .62x display is good enough for you, great. For someone else, I would whole heartedly urge them to try it before they buy it.

Click to expand...

There’s certainly subjectivity is what constitutes adequate size and resolution of the viewfinder. I’ve found, even wearing glasses (which makes for a far worse experience with just about any viewfinder), that the X-E viewfinders have all been adequate, but I guess not everyone will necessarily agree.

I think the sensor resolution is fairly objectively inconsequential, though. I’ve focused manually on anything and pretty much everything from 10MP to 100MP, and none of them are easier or harder than the others, largely because with the higher resolution sensors you can magnify more, so the focusing experience is the same. And, because you’re magnifying more, you actually get more accurate focus for a given print size.

Don’t overlook the benefits of IBIS, either. It makes a huge difference to how easy it is to focus with the magnified view.

JohnV2 said:

And, a 40 mpixel sensor is going to be tougher to get the focus right.

Click to expand...

Why do you think so?

robert1955 said:

JohnV2 said:

And, a 40 mpixel sensor is going to be tougher to get the focus right.

Click to expand...

Why do you think so?

Click to expand...

Google "camera focusing circle of confusion sensor resolution" and read more about it.

JohnV2 said:

robert1955 said:

JohnV2 said:

And, a 40 mpixel sensor is going to be tougher to get the focus right.

Click to expand...

Why do you think so?

Click to expand...

Google "camera focusing circle of confusion sensor resolution" and read more about it.

Click to expand...

Sorry no. Your claim, your substantiation. COC seems like a diversion anyway

Jeff Biscuits said:

JohnV2 said:

Don't like focusing aids, too unreliable. The only focusing aid which is a bit useful is the magnification view, and even then, again, it's through a 2 mDot .62x display which is like a peep hole to me. There's a reason why I use my X-T3 a whole lot more.

Click to expand...

I agree that the magnified view is the only really reliable aid. And yes, the larger finder in the X-Tx series is siginificantly better, for sure.

Jeff Biscuits said:

And, a 40 mpixel sensor is going to be tougher to get the focus right. If a 2 mDot .62x display is good enough for you, great. For someone else, I would whole heartedly urge them to try it before they buy it.

Click to expand...

There’s certainly subjectivity is what constitutes adequate size and resolution of the viewfinder. I’ve found, even wearing glasses (which makes for a far worse experience with just about any viewfinder), that the X-E viewfinders have all been adequate, but I guess not everyone will necessarily agree.

I think the sensor resolution is fairly objectively inconsequential, though. I

Click to expand...

Google "camera focusing circle of confusion sensor resolution" on why with a 40mpix sensor will be tougher to focus manually vs 16 mpix (X-E1).

Jeff Biscuits said:

’ve focused manually on anything and pretty much everything from 10MP to 100MP, and none of them are easier or harder than the others, largely because with the higher resolution sensors you can magnify more, so the focusing experience is the same.

Click to expand...

First, bet the 100mp camera did not have a 2 MDot .62x display. Second, we're talking taking a display from a 16 mpix sensor (X-E1) and now using it on a 40 mpixel sensor.

Jeff Biscuits said:

And, because you’re magnifying more, you actually get more accurate focus for a given print size.

Click to expand...

So after reading all this, I did it and broke out my X-E1 out of the closet, put on a 60mm macro lens on, went to the back yard, threw the X-E1 into manual focus mode with that "zebra" pattern and used the magnifier view, just to see if it was something I overlooked.

End result? Nope still don't like the 2Mdot .62x EVF, much rather use my X-T3.

But I'm sure others will be taking plenty of pictures with the X-E5, just not me.

Jeff Biscuits said:

Don’t overlook the benefits of IBIS, either. It makes a huge difference to how easy it is to focus with the magnified view.

Click to expand...

IBIS has nothing to do with focusing, just hand held camera shake.

robert1955 said:

JohnV2 said:

robert1955 said:

JohnV2 said:

And, a 40 mpixel sensor is going to be tougher to get the focus right.

Click to expand...

Why do you think so?

Click to expand...

Google "camera focusing circle of confusion sensor resolution" and read more about it.

Click to expand...

Sorry no. Your claim, your substantiation. COC seems like a diversion anyway

Click to expand...

When you focus, the lens is taking the light in and bending it into a theoretical "point" which represents one small point of a picture. Because of lens imperfections, how the lens physically changes that focus point, etc etc etc, that "point" is actually a circular area. If that area is larger than the sensor cell size, then it looks out of focus. The cell size of the 40 mpix sensor (X-E5) is smaller than the 16 mpix sensor (X-E1), so all those things which focus the light into a point will become more critical. So all the things which go into focusing (lens focus mechanism, focus display, how good the lens is, etc) all will make focusing on a 40mpix sensor tougher. Still reject my claim, then go see on this forum how many posts of people complaining about soft pictures on other 40mpx cameras.

jhorse said:

JohnV2 said:

I think the X-E5 is like taking an X-E1 and slapping a 40mPix sensor and IBS on it. Maybe plus a film simulation dial on it.

Click to expand...

Well tech has moved on in the last 13 years, as have many people's approach to digital photography and social media influences.

Click to expand...

The arrow of time is always moving forward. Those that fall behind the arrow - don't fair that well.

jhorse said:

jhorse said:

What I was hoping for was Fuji taking an X100VI and being able to change the lens on it. That apparently didn't happen.

Click to expand...

Why? Would this not become a product line differentiation issue for Fuji? Actually, I think it is pretty close to the X100VI less the OVF, particularly with the 23/f2.8.

jhorse said:

First, having a 2 MDot .62x EVF display makes focusing manual focus lenses just about impossible with a 40 megapixel sensor. From personal experience (since 2012) with the X-E1, focusing manually for 16 MPix was difficult even with aids. Screen itself was useless.

Click to expand...

The target audience is probably one where the majority of people now a days use AF exclusively or use AF on a rare basis (I am in this group. I doubt optimising the design and configuration had MF as a high priority relative to the target audience.

Fuji, to my knowledge, does not make manual focus lenses, so today, some 13 years after the XE1, I doubt there is an internal commercial emphasis on optimising MF. That said, on the few occasions I use MF, such as photographing a bird in a nest surrounded by branches, I find it fine, albeit conceding that my XT5/X100VI VF is better.

Click to expand...

Today I expect that very small subset of users use MF and even a smaller subset of them use strictly MF. There are certain situations where MF to assist AF (like birds hidden in trees) is one such use for tuning AF with MF. A company would be crazy to take significant resources on developing and tuning AF technology and devote them to improving MF. Even prior to the mirrorless revolution, camera companies were removing the best MF aid in SLR's - that being the split image focusing screen. My Nikon F2 had far better MF aids for al situations with interchangeable focusing screens camera today. Fuji has sufficient MF aids on par with other companies. Fuji needs some improvement of their AF compared to others so it make sense Fuji prioritize AF. .

jhorse said:

jhorse said:

Anyone who says "well Fuji just makes auto-focus lenses" ignores Fuji history where Fuji pushed the idea of the X-E series as a "rangefinder like" camera and early on made an adapter specifically for manual focus M-mount rangefinder lenses (with a website specifically listing manual focus lenses the X series supports). If Fuji never intended to support manual focus lenses, please explain the purpose of the M adapter then. With the X-E5, Fuji functionally abandoned people who invested in manual focus lenses for the X-E with the 2 MDot display on a 40 megapixel sensor.

Click to expand...

History moves on; companies that do not change can decline. Fuji has excelled in its chosen market by combining a traditional approach to photography and its camera designs, hence the dials, with innovative technologies, such as the OVF and film sims.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. Fuji has made great strides since I picked my my XPro2 in 2016. I own two XH2's but haven't used a Fuji since 2020. My wife uses both XH2's. When I picked up my new Fuji, GFX100RF, I was absolutely amazed how far the AF had come. I see the wild life images from the XH2S and they are on par with those I can get from my Z8 for the most part. The subject detection and face/eye tracking in the new Fuji AF algorithm set is quite good and lightyears ahead of the XPro2. This is where they are putting their resources, this is where they should be putting their resources since this is what the majority of the market wants. It's paying off.

jhorse said:

jhorse said:

One cannot also dismiss putting a better EVF in the X-E5 by saying well compromises had to be made to fit it in the small package. Please explain then how they were able to fit it in the X100VI with a 3.69 Mdot display AND IBIS AND a 40Mpixel sensor in a X-E5 size. I would have been OK even if the resulting camera was a bit wider or longer.

Click to expand...

I suspect this had more to do with product differentiation than technology, particularly if a XPro4 is in development (at this time we do not know).

Click to expand...

Yup, the X-E5 is not an XPro replacement. All companies differentiate their produces - more technology at a higher price point. One does not walk in to a car dealership and demand leather seats, the most powerful engine, 8 speed transmission, biggest display on the cheapest car. No different here.

jhorse said:

jhorse said:

There doesn't appear to be an ISO dial on the body, meaning you probably have to go through a menu and multiple button clicks to change ISO. I hated the ISO change in menu in the X-E1 and welcomed the dedicated dial in the X-T3. The X100VI has a ISO dial like the old school film 35mm cameras like the Nikon FM2 which is OK with me. So for X-E5, back to the old X-E1 clunky ISO change.

Click to expand...

Interesting point. One of the benefits of a digital camera is being able to change ISO for every shot to optimise the desired look and exposure. On my XT5 and X100VI I think there is a faster, easier and more convenient way to change ISO than using the dedicated dial on the XT5 or the dual dial on the X100VI. Neither necessitates having to make a change to ISO in the menu/Q menu or associated clicking. I set the ISO dial to 'C" and map ISO to the front command dial. Then, while looking through the view finder, both EVF and OVF in the case of the X100VI, I can change ISO by turning the front dial on the fly: easy, fast, convenient. No menu dive, no taking the camera away from my eye to change ISO.

Click to expand...

That's the way I always configured Fuji X cameras. That's the way I have my Z8 configured. That's the way my Q2M was configured and the way my GFX100RF is configured. The other option is Auto ISO. However, after using it a bit on my XPro2, I decided it was I, the brains behind the camera, that needed to control it - not leave up to a rudimentary set of rules in the camera. A quick look in the VF or screen I can balance the shutter speed and aperture by using the dial to get the lowest ISO where I can get the DOF I want with sufficient shutter speed to mitigate subject motion. I can even make the decision to underexpose the image using Raw and judicially lift it in post. I'm a lot better at it than any Auto ISO I have seen and not much slower. The only part of this that requires a "menu dive" is when ISO is assigned to the front dial.

jhorse said:

jhorse said:

LOL and then there's the film simulation dial. The X-T3 already allows you to re-render a RAW with a new "film" setting after the fact. When I'm taking a picture I'm focusing (so to speak) on exposure, not what film type should I be using. Totally useless feature for anyone who is taking pictures, not snapshots.

Click to expand...

It's an innovative trial. I like it. In my opinion, for those who like to change film simulations a lot or use recipes, it is a better design choice than that on the XT50.

jhorse said:

I really don't get when people type "the X-E5 is more of a photographers camera". Really? Define what a photographer is, because a lot of the basic things a photographer would normally do to take pictures are not supported in the X-E5. It's more of a point and shoot snapshot device. OK great, but the problem with that is cell phones already cornered the market with taking snapshots.

Click to expand...

Apart from optimising manual focus, you say there are a lot of basic things not supported. What are these other things?

I'd offer a different view. yes, the XE5 can be set to act as a point and shoot (so can my X100VI), but it can also be set full manual or aperture or shutter priority with ISO being either manual or auto. So, why is a XE5 not a photog's camera?

Yes, my phone can take snap shots and some good ones too and I use it for snap shots on rare occasions, but for me there is little joy in doing so. Hence, I prefer a camera like the X100VI and before it a XE4.

jhorse said:

If I'm going to have to sell or not purchase manual focus lenses and rely on auto-focus, might as well switch to Sony A7CR, their auto focus is way more solid than Fuji. Just search on this forum for auto focus issues with Fuji cameras.

LOL whew I guess I made my point...

Click to expand...

Yup, and I have offered some differing views. For me a company that has product lines needs to balance three aspects: technology; product differentiation, within which I include technical configuration and cost/price; and market segmentation. Balancing the three to conceive a successful, profitable product is never easy, but I am sure that Fuji, like all camera companies, will have spent many hours in working sessions to discuss these three aspects and settle on a design that balances them as best they can to meet their commercial strategies and priorities.

This is one of those intriguing discussions best continued over a pint in a beer garden!

Click to expand...

I'll drink to that.

JohnV2 said:

Google "camera focusing circle of confusion sensor resolution" on why with a 40mpix sensor will be tougher to focus manually vs 16 mpix (X-E1).

Click to expand...

I know about circles of confusion but there are two important aspects that I’ve already stated.

One is that with the increased resolution comes increased magnification, so you are focusing at the same pixel level, meaning you achieve the same pixel level sharpness no matter the sensor resolution.

The other is that because you are achieving the same pixel level sharpness at focusing, and the pixels are smaller in the final image, you achieve better focus at any given print size.

If you were trying to focus a higher-resolution sensor at the same level of magnification as with a lower resolution sensor then the net result would be the same image level performance (since you’d be focusing the same image area) but worse pixel level performance (since you’d be focus at a lower pixel magnification). But since you get hugger magnification while focusing, that’s not the case: you get the same pixel level performance (since the pixel magnification is the same) but improved image level performance (since you’re now focusing using a smaller and more well-defined area of the image).

JohnV2 said:

First, bet the 100mp camera did not have a 2 MDot .62x display.

Click to expand...

True.

JohnV2 said:

Second, we're talking taking a display from a 16 mpix sensor (X-E1) and now using it on a 40 mpixel sensor.

Click to expand...

But as I’ve explained, that’s not actually a problem.

JohnV2 said:

End result? Nope still don't like the 2Mdot .62x EVF, much rather use my X-T3.

Click to expand...

That’s fine. What is it isn’t usable is a totally subjective thing. But I think within reason it can be objectively said that the fact that a higher resolution sensor combined with higher magnification focusing does not, all else being equal, make it harder to achieve focus.

JohnV2 said:

IBIS has nothing to do with focusing, just hand held camera shake.

Click to expand...

And that most certainly does affect ease of focusing! Try using magnification to manually focusing a telephoto lens, especially in a breeze, without stabilisation.

JohnV2w said:

When you focus, the lens is taking the light in and bending it into a theoretical "point" which represents one small point of a picture. Because of lens imperfections, how the lens physically changes that focus point, etc etc etc, that "point" is actually a circular area. If that area is larger than the sensor cell size, then it looks out of focus.

Click to expand...

…when you pixel peep.

JohnV2 said:

The cell size of the 40 mpix sensor (X-E5) is smaller than the 16 mpix sensor (X-E1), so all those things which focus the light into a point will become more critical.

Click to expand...

Only if you are viewing the image at more than the limit of the usual human eyeball, which is about 300dpi under the closest inspection that said eyeball can manage, and progressively less at increased distance.

JohnV2 said:

So all the things which go into focusing (lens focus mechanism, focus display, how good the lens is, etc) all will make focusing on a 40mpix sensor tougher. Still reject my claim, then go see on this forum how many posts of people complaining about soft pictures on other 40mpx cameras.

Click to expand...

Almost all of whom are viewing isolated parts of the image by zooming in to 100% or 200% on their screens, ie zooming in far more within a higher resolution image than a lower resolution one.

This is all a red herring anyway, partly because what you’re referencing is the comparison of lens acuity rather that focusing ability, but more pertinently because zooming to a constant pixel magnification is exactly what the magnified view does.

In other words, the feature that supports manual focusing follows hand in glove with the ability to view ever more detail at the pixel level. They are the same. And in both cases the net result is never, ever worse once you cease poring over ever smaller isolated parts of the image and instead consider the image as a whole.

stratman1976 said:

In that case you can’t buy any electronically device.

Click to expand...

You try to make a balanced judgement on the likelihood that the manufacturer will continue to make or support the product since it is more important with software driven devices. These products are expensive and not disposable. Like computers for example. I buy laptops from manufacturers that are likely to be around (in this case Apple, but it could be Microsoft or Dell) and even then they only last around 5 to 7 years. I do not buy hardware from Google who have a habit of making them obsolete when they get tired of supporting them.

We have been at a cross over point where we have moved from cameras that last for 50 years or more to ones that last, maybe, 10 years or so. And that is due to the fact that they are very sophisticated computers with specialized hardware. Software has bugs that need fixing, specialized hardware needs parts supplies etc.

I know many people who can repair a 40 year old SLR camera but cannot get near to fixing a 15 year old DSLR camera with its circuit boards and sensors etc. I have a perfectly functioning Canon A1 that is the better part of 45 years old which performs as well as it always has done (because it can still be serviced) and a 20 year old Canon EOS 20D that is scrap because it cannot be repaired as well as being hopelessly out of date with an 8.2 MP sensor. And that is not to mention the fact that it cost ~$2K with its kit lens when first released, a fortune in today's terms (around $3,400 in today's money). Today's cameras become obsolete much more quickly and require more support than older mechanical SLR cameras and we need to be sure that they do not become orphans in our world of ever changing technology as best we can.

We do our best or we end up where you are suggesting by not buying anything....

Sorry, did not mean to take a question about the X E5 into the weeds like this as it is not really relevant. BTW I think I will probably end up keeping the OM 1 and X T5 and just deal with the context switch when I move from one to the other as I do now (OM 1 to X T5 to Sony A 7RV and back ) . I was hoping to simplify my life. Bottom line is I have an X E5 on order and look forward to it becoming my 'grab and go' camera. We will see.

JohnV2 said:

robert1955 said:

JohnV2 said:

robert1955 said:

JohnV2 said:

And, a 40 mpixel sensor is going to be tougher to get the focus right.

Click to expand...

Why do you think so?

Click to expand...

Google "camera focusing circle of confusion sensor resolution" and read more about it.

Click to expand...

Sorry no. Your claim, your substantiation. COC seems like a diversion anyway

Click to expand...

When you focus, the lens is taking the light in and bending it into a theoretical "point" which represents one small point of a picture. Because of lens imperfections, how the lens physically changes that focus point, etc etc etc, that "point" is actually a circular area. If that area is larger than the sensor cell size, then it looks out of focus. The cell size of the 40 mpix sensor (X-E5) is smaller than the 16 mpix sensor (X-E1), so all those things which focus the light into a point will become more critical. So all the things which go into focusing (lens focus mechanism, focus display, how good the lens is, etc) all will make focusing on a 40mpix sensor tougher. Still reject my claim, then go see on this forum how many posts of people complaining about soft pictures on other 40mpx cameras.

Click to expand...

What you are not taking into account is that with an EVF you are not looking at those [apparently intimidating] 40 MP but at small size rendering.

Jeff Biscuits said:

Tapper123 said:

Although I do sometimes wish I could change the lens, the XE5 feels like a bad value to me since it has a worse EVF, no WR, and obviously no built-in lens, but costs more.

Click to expand...

Looking outside the US, though, in the UK the X-E5 23mm kit is £200 less than the X100VI.

It’s the closest Fujifilm have come yet to my ideal street/EDC camera. Not only have I ordered one, I think it will replace my GFX100RF (which I now wish had taken a week or two longer to arrive!). So I guess I like it.

Click to expand...

in Canada the XE5 kit is $100 cad more than X100vi. I ordered one. I also own the X100vi as well.

unceunce said:

Jeff Biscuits said:

Tapper123 said:

Although I do sometimes wish I could change the lens, the XE5 feels like a bad value to me since it has a worse EVF, no WR, and obviously no built-in lens, but costs more.

Click to expand...

Looking outside the US, though, in the UK the X-E5 23mm kit is £200 less than the X100VI.

It’s the closest Fujifilm have come yet to my ideal street/EDC camera. Not only have I ordered one, I think it will replace my GFX100RF (which I now wish had taken a week or two longer to arrive!). So I guess I like it.

Click to expand...

in Canada the XE5 kit is $100 cad more than X100vi. I ordered one. I also own the X100vi as well.

Click to expand...

I will not buy XE5. Too many negatives, f/2.8 lens vs f/2.0, screen and evf resolution, etc. I will keep my XE4 and wait for XE6 or XPro4.

Jeff Biscuits said:

Not only have I ordered one, I think it will replace my GFX100RF (which I now wish had taken a week or two longer to arrive!). So I guess I like it.

Click to expand...

Well, that happened today. Sold the 100RF back to the shop that I bought it from. Being a week outside their return policy cost me a slightly eye-watering amount of money (certainly the most expensive couple of dozen exposures I’ve ever made), but it left me better off than selling it later, let alone keeping it, so it was a case of cutting my losses. Chalked it up to experience, then went a couple of streets away to another shop that had a 35/1.4 and bought that to console myself Planning on slimming down to four lenses: the 27 and 23 pancakes, plus the 18/2 and 35/1.4. Roll on the X-E5.

e268 said:

unceunce said:

Jeff Biscuits said:

Tapper123 said:

Although I do sometimes wish I could change the lens, the XE5 feels like a bad value to me since it has a worse EVF, no WR, and obviously no built-in lens, but costs more.

Click to expand...

Looking outside the US, though, in the UK the X-E5 23mm kit is £200 less than the X100VI.

It’s the closest Fujifilm have come yet to my ideal street/EDC camera. Not only have I ordered one, I think it will replace my GFX100RF (which I now wish had taken a week or two longer to arrive!). So I guess I like it.

Click to expand...

in Canada the XE5 kit is $100 cad more than X100vi. I ordered one. I also own the X100vi as well.

Click to expand...

I will not buy XE5. Too many negatives, f/2.8 lens vs f/2.0, screen and evf resolution, etc. I will keep my XE4 and wait for XE6 or XPro4.

Click to expand...

Your comment about the lens aperture is confusing in relation to the rest of what you posted.

Jeff Biscuits said:

... a 35/1.4 and bought that to console myself Planning on slimming down to four lenses: the 27 and 23 pancakes, plus the 18/2 and 35/1.4. Roll on the X-E5.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a great set! Ouchie on the 100rf, though.

I'm going for a similar 18-23 pancake combo but adding a 35/f2. And I will most certainly try the X-E5 with my 16-55 mkii!

Minolta TC-1 said:

Jeff Biscuits said:

... a 35/1.4 and bought that to console myself Planning on slimming down to four lenses: the 27 and 23 pancakes, plus the 18/2 and 35/1.4. Roll on the X-E5.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a great set! Ouchie on the 100rf, though.

I'm going for a similar 18-23 pancake combo but adding a 35/f2. And I will most certainly try the X-E5 with my 16-55 mkii!

Click to expand...

hell ya, gonna try that pairing too with 16-55mkii. how are you liking the 16-55 right now?

unceunce said:

Minolta TC-1 said:

Jeff Biscuits said:

... a 35/1.4 and bought that to console myself Planning on slimming down to four lenses: the 27 and 23 pancakes, plus the 18/2 and 35/1.4. Roll on the X-E5.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a great set! Ouchie on the 100rf, though.

I'm going for a similar 18-23 pancake combo but adding a 35/f2. And I will most certainly try the X-E5 with my 16-55 mkii!

Click to expand...

hell ya, gonna try that pairing too with 16-55mkii. how are you liking the 16-55 right now?

Click to expand...

I use it with my X-S20 and it's a brilliant combo to work with. I've always got a wrist strap on it just to be sure, but I can easily hold it with 2 fingers and a thumb. Of course, the X-S20's grip is much larger than the X-E5's, but how it's going to feel is something that I can only find out by trying it.

The 16-55mkii is, as they say, a bag full of primes. It's brilliant. I used the mki before and loved it, except for weight and size. The mkii fixes that. It's both smaller and lighter than, for example, the xf90mm. So yeah, super flexible and incredible quality in one lens. What more do you want?

Minolta TC-1 said:

unceunce said:

Minolta TC-1 said:

Jeff Biscuits said:

... a 35/1.4 and bought that to console myself Planning on slimming down to four lenses: the 27 and 23 pancakes, plus the 18/2 and 35/1.4. Roll on the X-E5.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a great set! Ouchie on the 100rf, though.

I'm going for a similar 18-23 pancake combo but adding a 35/f2. And I will most certainly try the X-E5 with my 16-55 mkii!

Click to expand...

hell ya, gonna try that pairing too with 16-55mkii. how are you liking the 16-55 right now?

Click to expand...

I use it with my X-S20 and it's a brilliant combo to work with. I've always got a wrist strap on it just to be sure, but I can easily hold it with 2 fingers and a thumb. Of course, the X-S20's grip is much larger than the X-E5's, but how it's going to feel is something that I can only find out by trying it.

The 16-55mkii is, as they say, a bag full of primes. It's brilliant. I used the mki before and loved it, except for weight and size. The mkii fixes that. It's both smaller and lighter than, for example, the xf90mm. So yeah, super flexible and incredible quality in one lens. What more do you want?

Click to expand...

Excellent. I had the XE4 and used the 16-80 on it, I use a thumbgrip and it felt fine. You will definitely need a thumbgrip for XE5 as well. I sold the sigma 18-50 because I really want the wider end.

Life just got a little more complicated for me, in a pleasant way, in that B & H just notified me that an X 100IV I ordered on 5 June, when Fuji announced the Japanese sourced model, has shipped.

I must admit to not expecting this and I ordered the X -E5 when I thought it might ship first. Now I will get the X 100VI first, so which will I keep? Nice problem to have and it will be nice to compare them, assuming the X -E5 ships when promised, which is not a given these days. I do like the interchangeable lens aspect of the E5 but not the viewfinder specification and lack of even cursory weather sealing.