Fuji X-T3 or Panasonic G9 ?

[Mzk]

Hi

I wanted to ask people who actually used both of those cameras for real life experiences as I am really torn. Now I am shooting Fuji X-E3 + 35 1.4 but I have couple of problems with this camera. There is no 4k60p which is a must for me now as I started to do more video. There is no IBIS and although my footage with Crane Plus is really smooth, I don't know if I want to carry this thing for my next holiday with wife and kid. Prime 35 1.4 although takes fantastic portrait shots plus Fuji's skin rendering is really brilliant, but it lacks AF-C speed for my running kid. Landscape shots really require Iridient Developer to bring max detail from this sensor and it's still not as detailed as Panasonic from my observation.

Therefore I am questioning myself if G9 will fit my needs better, as it seems a really good hybrid. I know I will probably sacrifice some high ISO and AF-C. My main questions are:

1. Is AFC with lenses like 42.5 1.2 capable of good, fast tracking running kid ? Any other suggestions for portrait lens with shallow DOF ? If it's faster than my current slow focusing 35 f1.4 then it's already good for me.

2. How is the low light difference. I know that there is about 1 stop gap between m 4/3 and APS-C but when we take into account Fuji's different ISO approach (aka ISO "cheating") is there still significant gap between them ? I don't pixel peep, I don't print very large so please take this into account as well.

3. How is Eye AF working ? Is it capable of fast AFC tracking like Fuji ?

I guess those are my biggest questions. Maybe you can add some additional feelings after the transition from Fuji to G9 or maybe the other way. With Panasonic I would also benefit from better macro options and better zoom options for wildlife.

Thanks in advance

 

[Advent1sam]

Hi

I wanted to ask people who actually used both of those cameras for real life experiences as I am really torn. Now I am shooting Fuji X-E3 + 35 1.4 but I have couple of problems with this camera. There is no 4k60p which is a must for me now as I started to do more video. There is no IBIS and although my footage with Crane Plus is really smooth, I don't know if I want to carry this thing for my next holiday with wife and kid. Prime 35 1.4 although takes fantastic portrait shots plus Fuji's skin rendering is really brilliant, but it lacks AF-C speed for my running kid. Landscape shots really require Iridient Developer to bring max detail from this sensor and it's still not as detailed as Panasonic from my observation.

Therefore I am questioning myself if G9 will fit my needs better, as it seems a really good hybrid. I know I will probably sacrifice some high ISO and AF-C. My main questions are:

1. Is AFC with lenses like 42.5 1.2 capable of good, fast tracking running kid ? Any other suggestions for portrait lens with shallow DOF ? If it's faster than my current slow focusing 35 f1.4 then it's already good for me.

2. How is the low light difference. I know that there is about 1 stop gap between m 4/3 and APS-C but when we take into account Fuji's different ISO approach (aka ISO "cheating") is there still significant gap between them ? I don't pixel peep, I don't print very large so please take this into account as well.

3. How is Eye AF working ? Is it capable of fast AFC tracking like Fuji ?

I guess those are my biggest questions. Maybe you can add some additional feelings after the transition from Fuji to G9 or maybe the other way. With Panasonic I would also benefit from better macro options and better zoom options for wildlife.

Thanks in advance

My current thoughts on video in a camera dslr/milc is that video af has never really been that successful or reliable, then when you add in the applicable lenses to achieve video af and limitations like ois/ibis or lack of or then you need gimbal is that it has to be a personal choice of what compromises you are prepared to take. For video from the Fuji stable, probably the x-h1 is the most flexible, with ibis and the various flat video profiles etc etc. Is 4k60 even necessary, plenty of great video from Sony/Canon using 24/25/30p 4k? 4k/60p will really test your computer and memory too! I had the G9 and as a stills camera and c-af I am not convinced with dfd, my little x-t100 seems far better at c-af to the G9, no joke! If I was doing 50/50 video/stills and wanted video af I think Sony/Canon are the best solutions, but Canon crop the sensor a lot, Sony is better, also think about the Nikon z6 but the banding in those cameras is off-putting and the c-af in stills is too. Overall for a hybrid experience as much as it hurts me to say it but Sony a7iii is the way to go!

 

[Mzk]

Hi

I wanted to ask people who actually used both of those cameras for real life experiences as I am really torn. Now I am shooting Fuji X-E3 + 35 1.4 but I have couple of problems with this camera. There is no 4k60p which is a must for me now as I started to do more video. There is no IBIS and although my footage with Crane Plus is really smooth, I don't know if I want to carry this thing for my next holiday with wife and kid. Prime 35 1.4 although takes fantastic portrait shots plus Fuji's skin rendering is really brilliant, but it lacks AF-C speed for my running kid. Landscape shots really require Iridient Developer to bring max detail from this sensor and it's still not as detailed as Panasonic from my observation.

Therefore I am questioning myself if G9 will fit my needs better, as it seems a really good hybrid. I know I will probably sacrifice some high ISO and AF-C. My main questions are:

1. Is AFC with lenses like 42.5 1.2 capable of good, fast tracking running kid ? Any other suggestions for portrait lens with shallow DOF ? If it's faster than my current slow focusing 35 f1.4 then it's already good for me.

2. How is the low light difference. I know that there is about 1 stop gap between m 4/3 and APS-C but when we take into account Fuji's different ISO approach (aka ISO "cheating") is there still significant gap between them ? I don't pixel peep, I don't print very large so please take this into account as well.

3. How is Eye AF working ? Is it capable of fast AFC tracking like Fuji ?

I guess those are my biggest questions. Maybe you can add some additional feelings after the transition from Fuji to G9 or maybe the other way. With Panasonic I would also benefit from better macro options and better zoom options for wildlife.

Thanks in advance

My current thoughts on video in a camera dslr/milc is that video af has never really been that successful or reliable, then when you add in the applicable lenses to achieve video af and limitations like ois/ibis or lack of or then you need gimbal is that it has to be a personal choice of what compromises you are prepared to take. For video from the Fuji stable, probably the x-h1 is the most flexible, with ibis and the various flat video profiles etc etc. Is 4k60 even necessary, plenty of great video from Sony/Canon using 24/25/30p 4k? 4k/60p will really test your computer and memory too! I had the G9 and as a stills camera and c-af I am not convinced with dfd, my little x-t100 seems far better at c-af to the G9, no joke! If I was doing 50/50 video/stills and wanted video af I think Sony/Canon are the best solutions, but Canon crop the sensor a lot, Sony is better, also think about the Nikon z6 but the banding in those cameras is off-putting and the c-af in stills is too. Overall for a hybrid experience as much as it hurts me to say it but Sony a7iii is the way to go!

Thats a bummer to hear that AF-C is not improved. I saw the tests after the latest firmware update for G9 and in video it seems ok now. I know it's not Canon level but even X-T3 with f2 prime is not ideal, so for video work I guess AFC would do fine for me in X-T3 and G9. Photo side I guess is where Panasonic lacks

Sony, Nikon and Canon are out of the question for me. I wanted to gather one WA zoom for landscapes and most of my video work, one good prime for shallow DOF work and video, one long zoom for wildlife and one lens for macro. In this setup all Full Frames are too expensive and too bulky for my travels. I agree Sony is close to perfect , but I like to slow down 4k sometimes, so 60p is a must for me, as 30p slowed down with tricks in Premiere is not that smooth. IBIS in Sony is not that great for video work so still gimbal required, and colors although much improved are still lacking, and I am trying to avoid spending hours on color grading in post.

I was hoping that G9s AFC was not that far away from Fuji and other competition. By the way which lens did you used on G9 ? Because I heard that it has big impact on AF speed. How was the ISO in comparison to you Fuji ?

 

[tokumeino]

While developing FF, Sony stopped developping APSC lenses. I'm afraid Panasonic will do the same because doubling R&D is expensive (even if for now, they deny, just as as Sony used to). So IMO, Panasonic M43 will decline and I would not invest in that department. About M43 in general, there is also Olympus but their strategy seems to develop always larger and more expensive gear, which will soon lead them to death. So I wouldn't go into M43 right now. I used to be involved in M43 but when it made more sense but that time is past.

So I think that M43 will decline and that Fuji will stay the only serious crop mirrorless system available (except Sony but lens development is almost stopped while it would need a refresh). So there is a chance that Fuji has a future despite the growing FF-yet-relatively-small-and-afordable trend, and I would go Fuji.

However, while I'm fine with a single Fuji f/1.0 lens, it would be much better if Fuji don't spend too many efforts to develop a full line just to pretend beeing FF equivalent. A few very fast lenses are OK, but if it were a strategy, Fuji would follow Olympus in a dead end.



To illustrate the Olympus strategy (or lack of), imagine that you're after a regular 35mm/1.8 (in terms of FF equivalence). Would you buy the camera on the right with a small sensor and a higher base ISO, or the Nikon just on its left, with much much cleaner base ISO ? There are possibly advantages of M43 over Z, but you'll have to explain and it will be much more difficult to sell. It makes more sense with the Fuji since the size difference is still sensible - for a comparable light gathering ability (and obvious when it comes to 50mm/1.8 equivalency). And if you don't need 35mm/1.8 but if one stop slower is OK for you, then you still have a smaller option, as in M43, just better. Do I need to develop the same argumentation with standard zooms ? I can't because M43 just don't offer an equivalent for a FF f/4 zoom.

 

[david8732]

I have no experience with either, I'm here because I am researching getting an X-T2 (the price is crazily low here in the UK for what is still a beautiful camera).

But.. I would consider more than anything how the rear LCD functions. On the G9 you have a flip out screen and on the X-T2 you have the tilt screen which does have some portrait functionality.
Ergonomics is massive and as someone who uses an X-E3 you obviously consider functionality and ergonomics lots and these two cameras are very different.

For me, I would never even contemplate buying a G9 as I dislike the flip out screen for my work, as it is far too slow and obtrusive, for others it may be an advantage (I can't think of any however).
As an eminent Nat Geo photographer recently wrote on his blog when reviewing the Panasonic GX9 - " That flippy screen. I’m a mild-mannered kind of guy, but any stills photographer who thinks a twisty screen is better than a flippy screen should be lined up and shot. With one finger you can instantly pull out the GX9’s screen and have a discreet, private view to whatever’s in front of you. During the old days of the GX8 I cannot count the number of times I went to reach for the screen but ran out of time for the pull & twist needed to get it into position."

Good luck with your choice, but I would 100% stay with Fujifilm for lots of reasons.

 

[Advent1sam]

Hi

I wanted to ask people who actually used both of those cameras for real life experiences as I am really torn. Now I am shooting Fuji X-E3 + 35 1.4 but I have couple of problems with this camera. There is no 4k60p which is a must for me now as I started to do more video. There is no IBIS and although my footage with Crane Plus is really smooth, I don't know if I want to carry this thing for my next holiday with wife and kid. Prime 35 1.4 although takes fantastic portrait shots plus Fuji's skin rendering is really brilliant, but it lacks AF-C speed for my running kid. Landscape shots really require Iridient Developer to bring max detail from this sensor and it's still not as detailed as Panasonic from my observation.

Therefore I am questioning myself if G9 will fit my needs better, as it seems a really good hybrid. I know I will probably sacrifice some high ISO and AF-C. My main questions are:

1. Is AFC with lenses like 42.5 1.2 capable of good, fast tracking running kid ? Any other suggestions for portrait lens with shallow DOF ? If it's faster than my current slow focusing 35 f1.4 then it's already good for me.

2. How is the low light difference. I know that there is about 1 stop gap between m 4/3 and APS-C but when we take into account Fuji's different ISO approach (aka ISO "cheating") is there still significant gap between them ? I don't pixel peep, I don't print very large so please take this into account as well.

3. How is Eye AF working ? Is it capable of fast AFC tracking like Fuji ?

I guess those are my biggest questions. Maybe you can add some additional feelings after the transition from Fuji to G9 or maybe the other way. With Panasonic I would also benefit from better macro options and better zoom options for wildlife.

Thanks in advance

My current thoughts on video in a camera dslr/milc is that video af has never really been that successful or reliable, then when you add in the applicable lenses to achieve video af and limitations like ois/ibis or lack of or then you need gimbal is that it has to be a personal choice of what compromises you are prepared to take. For video from the Fuji stable, probably the x-h1 is the most flexible, with ibis and the various flat video profiles etc etc. Is 4k60 even necessary, plenty of great video from Sony/Canon using 24/25/30p 4k? 4k/60p will really test your computer and memory too! I had the G9 and as a stills camera and c-af I am not convinced with dfd, my little x-t100 seems far better at c-af to the G9, no joke! If I was doing 50/50 video/stills and wanted video af I think Sony/Canon are the best solutions, but Canon crop the sensor a lot, Sony is better, also think about the Nikon z6 but the banding in those cameras is off-putting and the c-af in stills is too. Overall for a hybrid experience as much as it hurts me to say it but Sony a7iii is the way to go!

Thats a bummer to hear that AF-C is not improved. I saw the tests after the latest firmware update for G9 and in video it seems ok now. I know it's not Canon level but even X-T3 with f2 prime is not ideal, so for video work I guess AFC would do fine for me in X-T3 and G9. Photo side I guess is where Panasonic lacks

Sony, Nikon and Canon are out of the question for me. I wanted to gather one WA zoom for landscapes and most of my video work, one good prime for shallow DOF work and video, one long zoom for wildlife and one lens for macro. In this setup all Full Frames are too expensive and too bulky for my travels. I agree Sony is close to perfect , but I like to slow down 4k sometimes, so 60p is a must for me, as 30p slowed down with tricks in Premiere is not that smooth. IBIS in Sony is not that great for video work so still gimbal required, and colors although much improved are still lacking, and I am trying to avoid spending hours on color grading in post.

I was hoping that G9s AFC was not that far away from Fuji and other competition. By the way which lens did you used on G9 ? Because I heard that it has big impact on AF speed. How was the ISO in comparison to you Fuji ?

i had, sold now , 8-18 2.8-4, 12-60 2.8-4, 100-300, 100-400 and 60mm macor(oly) and 17.5 1.8(oly) and 8mm 1.8 fe. But in the past I've had many more lenses, 12-35 2.8, 35-100 2.8, 45 2.8 macro , 14 2.5 etc etc.

For Sony, the 16-35 f4 for landscape looks very small, light affordable, for a prime, especially for video you have the 28 f2 and 50 1.8 , and the 70-300 for wildlife and or the new Tamron 28-75 2.8c, all reasonably light, fast and affordable. I am still on the fence with this set-up too You could add the 100-400 later, I think Tamron will release a matching 2.8 mid tele soon too

i'd probably start a7iii and tam 28-75 2.8, sony 28 f2 for light compact indoor as needed. Add the 16-35 f4, although I'd prefer the 12-24 the 16-35 will be more practical. Then add a wildlife and mid prime later?

 

[dht]

I had a GH5 rather than G9, but in this thread I gave my comparison:

Trying to decide between Panasonic G9 and X-T3

So I recently sold my G85 and have been planning on getting a G9 for a few months now. I liked the G85 but wasn't sold on its autofocus in video and wanted a bit more than 16 mp. I wouldn't say I'm invested in the M43 system since I only have 2 lenses as of now, the pana-leica 25mm (great lens)...

www.dpreview.com

In short, if you value ergonomics and features over everything else, go for the G9. If you value image quality and autofocus performance, I'd give an edge to the X-T3. That said, in most situations, the quality with not be very discernible between either.

 

[dv312]

Hi

I wanted to ask people who actually used both of those cameras for real life experiences as I am really torn. Now I am shooting Fuji X-E3 + 35 1.4 but I have couple of problems with this camera. There is no 4k60p which is a must for me now as I started to do more video. There is no IBIS and although my footage with Crane Plus is really smooth, I don't know if I want to carry this thing for my next holiday with wife and kid. Prime 35 1.4 although takes fantastic portrait shots plus Fuji's skin rendering is really brilliant, but it lacks AF-C speed for my running kid. Landscape shots really require Iridient Developer to bring max detail from this sensor and it's still not as detailed as Panasonic from my observation.

Can you live with no IBIS or will you be OK with a Gimbal?

Therefore I am questioning myself if G9 will fit my needs better, as it seems a really good hybrid. I know I will probably sacrifice some high ISO and AF-C. My main questions are:

1. Is AFC with lenses like 42.5 1.2 capable of good, fast tracking running kid ? Any other suggestions for portrait lens with shallow DOF ? If it's faster than my current slow focusing 35 f1.4 then it's already good for me.

XT3 has PDAF on sensor and AF is better than G9 I'm sure (DFD can never compete with PDAF as far as AFC is concerned)

2. How is the low light difference. I know that there is about 1 stop gap between m 4/3 and APS-C but when we take into account Fuji's different ISO approach (aka ISO "cheating") is there still significant gap between them ? I don't pixel peep, I don't print very large so please take this into account as well.

I used MFT before and IQ is not up to par with Fuji at any ISO . Main reason for me to switch

3. How is Eye AF working ? Is it capable of fast AFC tracking like Fuji ?

XT3 is excellent, close to Sony A9, the best AF on any camera

I guess those are my biggest questions. Maybe you can add some additional feelings after the transition from Fuji to G9 or maybe the other way. With Panasonic I would also benefit from better macro options and better zoom options for wildlife.

Thanks in advance

XT3 is my recommendation if you ask me

There's no comparison between APSC and MFT, PDAF and DFD, Fuji lenses vs Lumix

Think long term, think system, don't just think of 1 body

 

[tokumeino]

2. How is the low light difference. I know that there is about 1 stop gap between m 4/3 and APS-C but when we take into account Fuji's different ISO approach (aka ISO "cheating") is there still significant gap between them ? I don't pixel peep, I don't print very large so please take this into account as well.

I fully understand you concern about the 35mm AF speed for the 35mm, as well as the convenience of IBIS when it comes to stabilize video (as a former M43 user, this point was really impressoive IMO).

But about your "Fuji Cheating" concern, you should read this thread : https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55451071 (and in particular, this post : https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55451272)

There is a special tag in the RAF files (0x9650), indicating an exposure shift to be applied to the RAW data values so as to get a correctly exposed JPEG at the end (all this is performed "behind the scene" since the tag is an instruction to the RAW converter). RAW files are actually underexposed at capture time (less analog gain) and then brightened by the same amount during conversion. The exposure shift depends on ISO and on a XE2, the policy is the following (it could be different for another camera) :

• 200 : -0.72 EV
• 400 : -0.72 EV
• 800 : -0.72 EV
• 1600 : -0.72 EV
• 3200 : -1.26 EV
• 6400 : -2.26 EV

... which means that when you dial ISO 6400 and shoot, the sensor is anolog-amped just as a Sony would be for ISO3200 and thus, the stored RAW values are roughly the same as if you would have shot darker at 3200 ISO (underexposed but not by the means of SS or aperture : rather by using a lesser analog amplification). That's why you'll need to push brightness afterwards to get equivalent JPEG values and the correct brightness. Provided that sensors are close to invariant, it is OK and it appears to me more like a highlight-conservative approach rather than a "cheat".

It's like if Fuji forced you to enable something like Canon's Highlight Tone Priority. With HTP enabled (D+ option), the lowest possible ISO becomes 100 instead of 200. But it is only an option here, that you may disable. So, the Fuji issue is not at high ISO but rather at base ISO. Indeed, at base ISO 200 (dialed), Fuji is so conservative that it amps the sensort as if it was ISO 125 (so the RAW values are smaller/darker) but then brightens the picture back. What you loose is not high ISO efficiency, but a native cleaner ISO 125. So it's not a "cheat" but rather an over highlight protection. At high ISO, the sensors are currently invariant enugh that it doesn't change anything in practice.

 

[dht]

Hi

I wanted to ask people who actually used both of those cameras for real life experiences as I am really torn. Now I am shooting Fuji X-E3 + 35 1.4 but I have couple of problems with this camera. There is no 4k60p which is a must for me now as I started to do more video. There is no IBIS and although my footage with Crane Plus is really smooth, I don't know if I want to carry this thing for my next holiday with wife and kid. Prime 35 1.4 although takes fantastic portrait shots plus Fuji's skin rendering is really brilliant, but it lacks AF-C speed for my running kid. Landscape shots really require Iridient Developer to bring max detail from this sensor and it's still not as detailed as Panasonic from my observation.

Can you live with no IBIS or will you be OK with a Gimbal?

Therefore I am questioning myself if G9 will fit my needs better, as it seems a really good hybrid. I know I will probably sacrifice some high ISO and AF-C. My main questions are:

1. Is AFC with lenses like 42.5 1.2 capable of good, fast tracking running kid ? Any other suggestions for portrait lens with shallow DOF ? If it's faster than my current slow focusing 35 f1.4 then it's already good for me.

XT3 has PDAF on sensor and AF is better than G9 I'm sure (DFD can never compete with PDAF as far as AFC is concerned)

I must say that DFD in single shot autofocus for stills is exceptional. Its focused almost as fast as you can push the shutter button. In continuous PDAF is better, although with new firmware the Panasonic cameras have made great strides to the point I believe they are totally usable. If you really need precision in focus for video, it probably calls for manual focus on any camera.

2. How is the low light difference. I know that there is about 1 stop gap between m 4/3 and APS-C but when we take into account Fuji's different ISO approach (aka ISO "cheating") is there still significant gap between them ? I don't pixel peep, I don't print very large so please take this into account as well.

I used MFT before and IQ is not up to par with Fuji at any ISO . Main reason for me to switch

In good light, I think you'd be hard pressed to see the difference. Even in dimmer conditions, the Fuji is better, but its not a blow out by any means

3. How is Eye AF working ? Is it capable of fast AFC tracking like Fuji ?

XT3 is excellent, close to Sony A9, the best AF on any camera

I guess those are my biggest questions. Maybe you can add some additional feelings after the transition from Fuji to G9 or maybe the other way. With Panasonic I would also benefit from better macro options and better zoom options for wildlife.

Thanks in advance

XT3 is my recommendation if you ask me

There's no comparison between APSC and MFT, PDAF and DFD, Fuji lenses vs Lumix

Think long term, think system, don't just think of 1 body

The micro 4/3 system has several great lenses (as does Fuji). While I do favor the Fuji overall for my own usage, I do think that its a close comparison, and if my needs were different, I could definitely see going with the G9

 

[Mzk]

Thank you for all the replies. Those are really helpful, and this ISO thing is also a great read. I think I made up my mind and I will buy Fuji X-T3 , and wait for X-H2 which will solve most of my current concerns.

For other people I will write the reasoning why I decided to go this route.

1. I know that this is pure speculation but as now Panasonic is entering FF game there is a risk that they will slowly start to ditch MFT, but still something to consider in the long term.

2. Fuji magic colors are really beatiful straigh out of camera. I remember the days when I was spending much more time editing Sony files, and although end results were great then, but Fuji requires less time to reach that goal. For video this is really big, as I am no pro in color grading.

3. With Panasonic I would have to buy expensive and bulky 1.2 lenses , with Fuji I will buy 56 1.2 which will give me even better DOF control.

4. Image quality, tonality and high ISO are a little bit better on Fuji looking at samples from web.

5. I will leave my X-E3 as B camera for tiny package which is great for street.

6. Better AF-C and Eye AF which is big for me.

7. Full frame Canon, Nikon and Sony as tempting as they are I would have to deal with high cost and weight, Fuji seems like a nice middle ground. There are setups with Sony that will be similar weight but not with lenses that I am considering.

I will sacrifice IBIS and will deal with gimbal until X-H2 is released and I will sacrifice long zooms for wildlife. Fujis 100-400 is really great but big, heavy and expensive. Maybe I will add G85 along the way just for macro and wildlife work.

 

[dv312]

1. I know that this is pure speculation but as now Panasonic is entering FF game there is a risk that they will slowly start to ditch MFT, but still something to consider in the long term.

Good thinking ...MFT is getting larger with every iteration , both in body size + lenses

Prices are getting up there too

For no gain in IQ since who knows when? (the 20MP Sony sensor?)

2. Fuji magic colors are really beatiful straigh out of camera. I remember the days when I was spending much more time editing Sony files, and although end results were great then, but Fuji requires less time to reach that goal. For video this is really big, as I am no pro in color grading.

You bet, less time in the lab, use JPG more often rather than RAW

Eterna is great for video (watch Dpreview videos)

3. With Panasonic I would have to buy expensive and bulky 1.2 lenses , with Fuji I will buy 56 1.2 which will give me even better DOF control.

Noted

Add 90 f2 , 50-140 f2.8 to the list

4. Image quality, tonality and high ISO are a little bit better on Fuji looking at samples from web.

I did compare them side by side at one time when I owned both

Simple decision: MFT trails in sharpness as well as noise (the higher ISO the worse it gets) -> it had to go

5. I will leave my X-E3 as B camera for tiny package which is great for street.

Nice and compact , better than GX line or Olympus Pen

6. Better AF-C and Eye AF which is big for me.

XT3 AF-S and AFC are rated among the best in the industry right now (close to Sony A9)

7. Full frame Canon, Nikon and Sony as tempting as they are I would have to deal with high cost and weight, Fuji seems like a nice middle ground. There are setups with Sony that will be similar weight but not with lenses that I am considering.

FF is still better in DR and noise and DOF control at a cost (size and price)

I will sacrifice IBIS and will deal with gimbal until X-H2 is released and I will sacrifice long zooms for wildlife. Fujis 100-400 is really great but big, heavy and expensive. Maybe I will add G85 along the way just for macro and wildlife work.

The 100-400 is large but it's the best lens in the APSC world for birding and wildlife

The Lumix 100-400 I used to have cannot compete with it

Have not tried the Olympus 300mm but it costs more than the Fuji 100-400 and is not as versatile

Shooting birds with primes is limiting sometimes (or most of the time) IMHO

Best of luck,

 

[tokumeino]

Thank you for all the replies. Those are really helpful, and this ISO thing is also a great read.

Welcome !

I think I made up my mind and I will buy Fuji X-T3 , and wait for X-H2 which will solve most of my current concerns.

For other people I will write the reasoning why I decided to go this route.

1. I know that this is pure speculation but as now Panasonic is entering FF game there is a risk that they will slowly start to ditch MFT, but still something to consider in the long term.

I think that this is totally right. If your point is to buy more than one lens, then you should "invest" in a system with a future.

2. Fuji magic colors are really beatiful straigh out of camera. I remember the days when I was spending much more time editing Sony files, and although end results were great then, but Fuji requires less time to reach that goal. For video this is really big, as I am no pro in color grading.

3. With Panasonic I would have to buy expensive and bulky 1.2 lenses , with Fuji I will buy 56 1.2 which will give me even better DOF control.

A MFT f/1.2 gatters less light than a much smaller and cheaper Fuji f/1.4 lens. That's for light gathering. For AF though, I have to admit that my 35mm/1.4 is the slowest focussing lens I've ever owned. But as you it's mounted on a XE3. It's possibly better with a XT3. You should ask.

4. Image quality, tonality and high ISO are a little bit better on Fuji looking at samples from web.

Probably but honestly, I don't think that once printed or reduced to a 4K screen, you'll be able to tell.

5. I will leave my X-E3 as B camera for tiny package which is great for street.

6. Better AF-C and Eye AF which is big for me.

7. Full frame Canon, Nikon and Sony as tempting as they are I would have to deal with high cost and weight, Fuji seems like a nice middle ground. There are setups with Sony that will be similar weight but not with lenses that I am considering.

I will sacrifice IBIS and will deal with gimbal until X-H2 is released and I will sacrifice long zooms for wildlife. Fujis 100-400 is really great but big, heavy and expensive. Maybe I will add G85 along the way just for macro and wildlife work.

There is one last - but not least - point that is very important IMO. So important that it's been the main motivation for my switch from M43 to Fuji. It's about control. With Fuji, no PASM and everybody doesn't like that. I guess you know since you already own a Fuji, so your choice is educated. But for others, it's worth to mention.

 

[rponiarski]

I actually transitioned the other way recently. I was a long time m43 shooter and had the G9 with a few Panasonic-Leica lenses. I now have an XH-1 and am enjoying it more. The weight is about the same as the G9, the IBIS works well and the lenses have a much better feel. Not that the Pana-Leica lenses were bad, but even the 18-55mm kit lens feels solid, better than the 12-60mm I had. Yes, there is a 55-200mm (110-400mm) and the 100-400mm (200-800mm) and if reach is what you need, then it isn't a bad way to go. Both are heavy for m43 lenses and costly as well, and the Fuji 100-400mm should work just as well for your needs.

Of course YMMV, but I would look at an XH-1 and think about the big Fuji telephoto zooms.

 

[Yannis1976]

Hi

I wanted to ask people who actually used both of those cameras for real life experiences as I am really torn. Now I am shooting Fuji X-E3 + 35 1.4 but I have couple of problems with this camera. There is no 4k60p which is a must for me now as I started to do more video. There is no IBIS and although my footage with Crane Plus is really smooth, I don't know if I want to carry this thing for my next holiday with wife and kid. Prime 35 1.4 although takes fantastic portrait shots plus Fuji's skin rendering is really brilliant, but it lacks AF-C speed for my running kid. Landscape shots really require Iridient Developer to bring max detail from this sensor and it's still not as detailed as Panasonic from my observation.

Therefore I am questioning myself if G9 will fit my needs better, as it seems a really good hybrid. I know I will probably sacrifice some high ISO and AF-C. My main questions are:

1. Is AFC with lenses like 42.5 1.2 capable of good, fast tracking running kid ? Any other suggestions for portrait lens with shallow DOF ? If it's faster than my current slow focusing 35 f1.4 then it's already good for me.

I have the GX8 which had a previous version of DFD. AFC and Eye Detect when trying to capture my nephews is not bad. Certainly not 100% but if you you put the camera at mid burst speed with face tracking you can certainly get some keepers! Check the 1st image in that post to get a sense of the GX8 + 25mm/1.4:

Loving m43 and the PL25/1.4 (is this street photography?)

Hi, During my 4 years "marriage" with m43 I like a lot about it and complained mainly about the low light performance (ISO 3200 and above), especially when trying to shoot children inside the house or during going out at night. Well, I recently exchanged my GM1 for a used 25mm/1.4and I think I...

www.dpreview.com

2. How is the low light difference. I know that there is about 1 stop gap between m 4/3 and APS-C but when we take into account Fuji's different ISO approach (aka ISO "cheating") is there still significant gap between them ? I don't pixel peep, I don't print very large so please take this into account as well.

Well here is the largest difference I can see between the two systems, especially in the JPG noise processing. Both my XE1 and X-A10 get nicer shots at ISO 6400! However the G9 is a camera with a newer processor (but same sensor) so maybe high ISO might be slightly better.

Sensors Comparison Part II

Hi, I always had the curiosity to check a Fuji sensor and how this performs vs the m43 in both high ISO and WB/colors. I recently found a used XE1 (2012 body, 150€) and decided to grab it and use it with my manual Nikon E lenses. Please be aware, this is not a system comparison, just a sensor...

www.dpreview.com

3. How is Eye AF working ? Is it capable of fast AFC tracking like Fuji ?

I guess those are my biggest questions. Maybe you can add some additional feelings after the transition from Fuji to G9 or maybe the other way. With Panasonic I would also benefit from better macro options and better zoom options for wildlife.

Thanks in advance

Personally I would stick to the XE3 and get a faster AF lens maybe.

 

[Mzk]

Probably but honestly, I don't think that once printed or reduced to a 4K screen, you'll be able to tell.

1. I will leave my X-E3 as B camera for tiny package which is great for street.
2. Better AF-C and Eye AF which is big for me.
3. Full frame Canon, Nikon and Sony as tempting as they are I would have to deal with high cost and weight, Fuji seems like a nice middle ground. There are setups with Sony that will be similar weight but not with lenses that I am considering.

I will sacrifice IBIS and will deal with gimbal until X-H2 is released and I will sacrifice long zooms for wildlife. Fujis 100-400 is really great but big, heavy and expensive. Maybe I will add G85 along the way just for macro and wildlife work.

There is one last - but not least - point that is very important IMO. So important that it's been the main motivation for my switch from M43 to Fuji. It's about control. With Fuji, no PASM and everybody doesn't like that. I guess you know since you already own a Fuji, so your choice is educated. But for others, it's worth to mention.

You are totally right. When I healed myself from pixelpeeping then I realised that those differences are really really hard to tell even when comparing to full frame. Of course when ISO climbs then it's easier to tell, but on base ISO it's really hard. Aside from that I must say that I am able to see the FF magic. I don't know how to describe it...there is something special how light , shadows and tonal transitions are drawn, but for me this was especially visible during my ooold Nikon F5 usage

And the controls that you mention...this is the point I forgot to add, but there is something with Fuji. The most enjoyable system for me was Nikon, then Sony A7 was ok, I learned it and didn't have any major complaints. Now shooting with Fuji, it's not maybe the fastest way but for sure there is some special enjoyment, shooting photos is fun again with all those oldskool dials.

 

[Mzk]

Maybe some day there will be a Full frame camera that will deliver Nikon's handling, Fuji's color and video capabilities, Sonys AF-C, ISO, DR and DOF, Panasonic's fantastic IBIS, macro lenses and low light zoom lenses. All this in reasonable weight and price please

 

[tokumeino]

Maybe some day there will be a Full frame camera that will deliver Nikon's handling, Fuji's color and video capabilities, Sonys AF-C, ISO, DR and DOF, Panasonic's fantastic IBIS, macro lenses and low light zoom lenses. All this in reasonable weight and price please

Yes. And when it comes, please tell me, so I don't miss it !