Thanks for your input. I ended up getting a Fujifilm X-T50. I rented an X-T5 and while I liked it, the X-T50 provides the same sensor&processor in a smaller/lighter package. I plan to keep the Z6III and am deciding whether or not to keep the Z50ii.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Best APSC Camera?
- Thread starter jpnwdc
- Start date
sirhawkeye64
Forum Pro
While I don't need one, I'm on the fence about grabbing the XT30 II before t goes out of production. While it lacks many of the features of the newer XT50 it would fill a bit of a "void" for me (I had Fuji's in the past, but sold them off to move to the Z cameras, but I always came back around to wishing I had kept them so I might grab it for $999 before it's gone). It won't replace my Nikons, but just be that "extra" camera for when I want to change things up a bit.
Before I moved from my D7500 to a Z5, I dabbled with APS-C mirrorless. I had Sony (A6500 and a couple lenses) before trying out Fuji (X-T20 briefly then X-S10).
The Sony cameras are very small and capable. The control layout isn't the greatest; mostly due to the lack of a second "real" control dial (not counting the fiddly dial on the back next to the LCD). They finally added a front control dial on the A6700. Corner VF is kind of small & low res for my tastes, certainly if it were my primary camera. And there are lots of lenses available.
Fuji was "scratching an itch" I'd had since the X-T1. I tried the retro thing with the X-T20 and it didn't take hold. The X-S10 was a nicer body. A couple of control issues bugged me, but mostly, I decided it was a dead end because the lenses didn't suit my needs. The 16-80 has a reputation for being soft in the corners at the wide end. I actually bought one to try for myself and didn't like wide angle scenic photos taken with it. Corners weren't just "unsharp" but unpleasant. The X-T5 isn't a small camera - smaller than the Z6 but not small enough that I'd consider spending the money.
How much benefit do you expect from APS-C to justify a second system? After dabbling with APS-C for years (I bought a Sony NEX-5 early on and later, an A6000 before the A6500) I finally decided that the smaller options weren't so small that I was more likely to carry it than my FF Z5. I decided that a camera is either compact (like an RX100) or it's not. That's not some kind of universal truth - just how it works for me. Sometimes I toy with the idea of a z50 with the kit zoom as a compact alternative to my Z5, but then when I see one in person, it's not so small that it fits in the tiny belt pouch I carry my RX100 in. It might fit some jacket pockets, not others. So I'd need a bag or a wrist strap and at that point, I might as well carry my Z5. If I were really going to go for a compact option, I'd list the lenses I'd want, then compare Fuji, Sony and m43 with all the lenses to see which kit is really compact (and affordable). Part of the problem is that FF appears to be taking over and crop systems are taking a back seat. Sony doesn't seem to be doing much (but benefits from having built up a big ecosystem). OM doesn't seem to be doing much (rehashing existing gear). Panasonic is pushing FF and neglecting m43. Nikon and Canon appear to have minimal plans for APS-C. Fuji is likeable but I didn't find a compact set of lenses that interested me (or a set that would allow me to make it my primary system).
MJ_Photo38
Veteran Member
If you only compare the camera body, yes this is generally true. But you also need to consider the lenses.
Typically, my Olympus E-M1 mark II is basically the size of my Z6. But when I'm packing for a trip and I have limited volume available, then the much smaller micro four thirds lenses allow me to pack much more in the same volume, even if the camera body itself isn't smaller or lighter.
It also works when looking at the size of the lenses while in use : my small 20mm f/1.7 is less than half the size of my 40mm f/2 on Nikon, yet I wouldn't consider the Nikon lens to be very big. In practice it means that the lens is barey longer than the grip and as a result, I can fit it in a much tighter space in my shoulder bag, while I would need to compromise the space given to everyday stuff if was carrying my Z6 + 40mm lens instead.
It's not a large lense, and for full frame it's a pretty small lens. But compared to APS-C or MFT glass, full frame tends to be larger, heavier and more cumbersome to carry around because of the longer focal length you need to accomodate the larger sensor.
There are really nice and compact Fujifilm lenses, though it really depends what you like. If you're more of a zoom person, there isn't really anything worthy, all zoom lenses are pretty big.
For primes however, all the small fujicrons f/2 and f/2.8 primes are a great example of small lenses that allow a wide variety of usecases while only carrying small lenses. Though I will admit that it's still not matching the micro four thirds options in that regard. There is nothing in Fuji that would match the 14mm f/2.5, 20mm f/1.7, 12-32mm kit zoom, 35-100mm f/4-5.6 (this lens gives you 70-200mm equivalent in a package size the size of a small 35mm prime lens on Fuji) or even the 45mm f/1.8.
I decided to get the Fujifilm X-T50 with the 16-50mm kit lens. I like the fact that the X-T50 has IBIS, and there are many lens choices from Fujifilm and third parties. If I am walking around a city and want to take street shots, I like a smaller, less conspicuous camera kit. Fujifilm has a 27mm f/2.8 pancake lens that looks ideal for street. I doubt I will be getting any long zooms for the X-T50. I'll leave that for the Nikon Z6iii.
MJ_Photo38
Veteran Member
The EVF in the X-T50 is tha exact same EVF that you'll find in other X-Tx0 cameras, like the X-T30 or X-T20.
The resolution itself isn't the issue, I've had 2.36M dot viewfinders that I'm extremely happy with (like in my X-T1 / X-T2 or in my Olympus E-M1 mark II). Those EVFs display a good enough amount of detail in my opinion to the point that you don't really need a higher res (it's always nice, but you're entering diminishing returns territory).
The biggest thing about EVFs is their size. The EVF in my X-T2 was great because it was large and you could see the details clearly. The EVF in the X-T50 is pretty small, and it's one of the smallest of its class (if not THE smallest...) and I have no idea why Fujifilm didn't try to update it for cameras like the X-T50 or X-E5 that are higher price camers than the X-T30 and X-E4.
MyReality
Veteran Member
Strange, you rejected Fuji which has the smallest APS-C bodies and largest number of APS-C lenses available, all the way from the XT30 II(still available new) to the X-T50. Some of Fuji's older is better than what Olympus has to offer with the exception of the OM-1.
The OP didn't reject Fuji. See post above (I Got the X-T50) by the original poster
I was looking at Fuji for two reasons:
1. Possible mirrorless upgrade from my APS-C DSLR
2. If not (1) then possible compact alternative to whatever I chose for (1)
I rejected it as a replacement for my DSLR simply because the lens lineup didn't suit me. I also ran across a couple usability quirks that bugged me a little.
As for (2) I just ended up rejecting the idea of a more compact ILC system. Even though the X-S10, 27/2.8 and 18-55 were noticeably more compact than my DSLR or the Z5-based kit I ended up with, they weren't more compact in a way that was meaningful to me. (And I'd used small Sony bodies and lenses before and had pretty much the same experience).
Anyway, if I were looking to buy a substantially smaller, lighter ILC, I'd have to take a serious look at OM and Sony and revisit Fuji lenses. In the end it all boils down to who has what that satisfies any given photographers needs.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum