Upgrading to xt3 or switch to z6

[csnite]

I've been shooting with a xt20 for the last 18 months or so after upgrading from an xe2. I have primarily shot with the 23 f2, 35 f1.4, 16-50 kit or 55-200. I have never loved the ergo of the xt20. It also has 2 primary issues that make me want to upgrade. First is weather sealing. I will leave the camera home sometimes because of beach sand or inclement weather. Second is stabilization. The 16-50 is adequate for stabilization, but it is quite slow. The primes, where I would love to shoot low light stabilised scenes don't have it.

So, I have been thinking about switching to the xt3, but it doesn't solve the stabilization issue for primes, and there is no standard zoom with VR and weather sealing. So I have been considering the xh1, but the lens issue is still there's unless I want to for over for the brick. I believe the xt3 is a significant upgrade over the xh1 but I am not really sure how much would affect me. I am primarily a afs shooter and don't shoot much video. How much better is the bsi sensor in the xt3 for low light than my xt20/xh1. I could see being happy with the brick and xh1. That would cost me around $2200 us right now.

If I went with the xt3, I would probably pick up the 18-135, which would give me reach, ws, and VR, but I believe the lens is significantly inferior to the brick. That would be around $2300.

Then comes the Nikon z6. I could get the 24-70 f4 which is by all accounts a very good lens, replace my 35 f1.4 with the 50 1.8, and have weather sealing and Ibis. I lose a stop to the brick, but gain significant high iso improvement over the xh1. I lose Fuji jpg colors, but I already develop from raw most of the time anyway. I shoot almost no telephoto, so that's not really a huge lack for me with Nikon right now. I will also pick up a wide angle manual prime for either system, the Rokinon 12 for Fuji or the irix 15mm for Nikon. Next lens would be a portrait prime, the 56 f1.2 for Fuji or 85 F1.8 for Nikon. I can always pick up a cheap 70-300 for Nikon. If I got the z6 I would get the adapter bundle.

Final decision is between the xh1, brick, 35 1.4, 56 1.2, Rokinon 12 for $3900

Xt3, 18-135, 35,56,12 for right at $4000

Z6, 24-70, 15,50,85 for 4300.

That's a large chunk of change for any of the three and I'm sure I would be happy with any, but I am feeling the brick or Nikon 24-70 would be better suited to daily walk around for me, and the Nikon is significantly lighter and smaller than the xh1/brick combo. I would love to hear your thoughts.

 

[dv312]

Based on the criteria you mentioned

The Z system will have more native lenses

In the meantime you can still use the large plethora of Nikkor lenses with an adapter

If the Z6 AFC is as good as the XT3 I'd have scooped 1 up in a flash

It's currently the 'best' and most promising FF system to buy into IMHO

(Sony is better is some aspects but I never like their ergo , nor lens lineup)

Cheers,

 

[Iuvenis]

I've been shooting with a xt20 for the last 18 months or so after upgrading from an xe2. I have primarily shot with the 23 f2, 35 f1.4, 16-50 kit or 55-200. I have never loved the ergo of the xt20. It also has 2 primary issues that make me want to upgrade. First is weather sealing. I will leave the camera home sometimes because of beach sand or inclement weather. Second is stabilization. The 16-50 is adequate for stabilization, but it is quite slow. The primes, where I would love to shoot low light stabilised scenes don't have it.

So, I have been thinking about switching to the xt3, but it doesn't solve the stabilization issue for primes, and there is no standard zoom with VR and weather sealing. So I have been considering the xh1, but the lens issue is still there's unless I want to for over for the brick. I believe the xt3 is a significant upgrade over the xh1 but I am not really sure how much would affect me. I am primarily a afs shooter and don't shoot much video. How much better is the bsi sensor in the xt3 for low light than my xt20/xh1. I could see being happy with the brick and xh1. That would cost me around $2200 us right now.

If I went with the xt3, I would probably pick up the 18-135, which would give me reach, ws, and VR, but I believe the lens is significantly inferior to the brick. That would be around $2300.

You might want to wait for the 16-80 that's to be released this year, if that's the way you're going. It will give you wr and ois, but no other specs have been released yet. I expect it will be better than the 18-135, and is faster where it tends to matter most.

Also, have you considered the X-T2? If you don't need C-AF, the X-T3 is a bit of a waste. The x-t2 is cheap enough that you could buy a used one for now for little more than your x-t20 will fetch, then sell it on if you find it doesn't work for you.

Then comes the Nikon z6. I could get the 24-70 f4 which is by all accounts a very good lens, replace my 35 f1.4 with the 50 1.8, and have weather sealing and Ibis. I lose a stop to the brick, but gain significant high iso improvement over the xh1. I lose Fuji jpg colors, but I already develop from raw most of the time anyway. I shoot almost no telephoto, so that's not really a huge lack for me with Nikon right now. I will also pick up a wide angle manual prime for either system, the Rokinon 12 for Fuji or the irix 15mm for Nikon. Next lens would be a portrait prime, the 56 f1.2 for Fuji or 85 F1.8 for Nikon. I can always pick up a cheap 70-300 for Nikon. If I got the z6 I would get the adapter bundle.

Final decision is between the xh1, brick, 35 1.4, 56 1.2, Rokinon 12 for $3900

This price seems off? 2200 USD for the body and lens, 750 for the 56 at B&H, you have the 35, and the 12 f2 normally goes for £200 in the UK, so surely not 950 USD?

Xt3, 18-135, 35,56,12 for right at $4000

Z6, 24-70, 15,50,85 for 4300.

That's a large chunk of change for any of the three and I'm sure I would be happy with any, but I am feeling the brick or Nikon 24-70 would be better suited to daily walk around for me, and the Nikon is significantly lighter and smaller than the xh1/brick combo.

I'm not sure I'd say significantly lighter and smaller. The Z6 and 24-70 are about 150g lighter, but also offer less reach, and give you no low light advantage. The X-H1 kit you mention above is lighter and smaller than the Z6 kit (as is the X-t3 kit, naturally)

I would love to hear your thoughts.

A couple of other comments:

1. You're moving from a very small kit, to a much larger kit, whichever way you go. Are you sure you won't ever want a smaller lighter option? Maybe you'll miss the x-t20 and 35 f1.4 or even 16-50, just to slip in a bag? If you don't want a lighter option and don't want telephoto, you're losing two of the main advantages to apsc, so that may point you towards an FF system.

2. It's hard to know what way the Z system is going, as it's still early days. The 24-70 and 14-30 look (relatively) small and light. However, the primes are rather large, and given they're the f1.8 versions, I doubt there will be smaller ones coming out soon. If I was looking at a new system now, I'd probably wait to see what's coming up the rails.

 

[Chris Sargent]

It's a difficult call at this time. The X-T3 and 16-55mm is a very strong combo.. unless lack of IS is an issue.

Ideally wait a year and see if Nikon iterates on their initial mirrorless offering (or wait for XH2 - although this may not be this year!)

NOTE: I have X-T3 and 16-55mm so I will naturally have a bias... to recommend this option

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

You might want to consider the XT2 or XH1, both on sale now. The X-T3 is actually not quite as good in low light, and if you don’t require the latest wizz-bang video or AF, you would be better served with a cheaper body and better lens. If your low light photography includes moving subjects, OIS or IBIS aren’t what will save the day, fast glass and a higher ISO will. I shoot in low light quite often and love my XT2/16-55 combo. If you need IBIS, consider the XH1.

 

[Advent1sam]

I've been shooting with a xt20 for the last 18 months or so after upgrading from an xe2. I have primarily shot with the 23 f2, 35 f1.4, 16-50 kit or 55-200. I have never loved the ergo of the xt20. It also has 2 primary issues that make me want to upgrade. First is weather sealing. I will leave the camera home sometimes because of beach sand or inclement weather. Second is stabilization. The 16-50 is adequate for stabilization, but it is quite slow. The primes, where I would love to shoot low light stabilised scenes don't have it.

So, I have been thinking about switching to the xt3, but it doesn't solve the stabilization issue for primes, and there is no standard zoom with VR and weather sealing. So I have been considering the xh1, but the lens issue is still there's unless I want to for over for the brick. I believe the xt3 is a significant upgrade over the xh1 but I am not really sure how much would affect me. I am primarily a afs shooter and don't shoot much video. How much better is the bsi sensor in the xt3 for low light than my xt20/xh1. I could see being happy with the brick and xh1. That would cost me around $2200 us right now.

If I went with the xt3, I would probably pick up the 18-135, which would give me reach, ws, and VR, but I believe the lens is significantly inferior to the brick. That would be around $2300.

Then comes the Nikon z6. I could get the 24-70 f4 which is by all accounts a very good lens, replace my 35 f1.4 with the 50 1.8, and have weather sealing and Ibis. I lose a stop to the brick, but gain significant high iso improvement over the xh1. I lose Fuji jpg colors, but I already develop from raw most of the time anyway. I shoot almost no telephoto, so that's not really a huge lack for me with Nikon right now. I will also pick up a wide angle manual prime for either system, the Rokinon 12 for Fuji or the irix 15mm for Nikon. Next lens would be a portrait prime, the 56 f1.2 for Fuji or 85 F1.8 for Nikon. I can always pick up a cheap 70-300 for Nikon. If I got the z6 I would get the adapter bundle.

Final decision is between the xh1, brick, 35 1.4, 56 1.2, Rokinon 12 for $3900

Xt3, 18-135, 35,56,12 for right at $4000

Z6, 24-70, 15,50,85 for 4300.

That's a large chunk of change for any of the three and I'm sure I would be happy with any, but I am feeling the brick or Nikon 24-70 would be better suited to daily walk around for me, and the Nikon is significantly lighter and smaller than the xh1/brick combo. I would love to hear your thoughts.

1) My honest opinion after lots of looking at images, high iso etc is the X-H1 is still Fuji's finest. Note, it isn't just an x-t2, it does read the pixels slightly different to the x-t2 so is an improvement, as big as the x-t3 possibly not reading the reviews but good enough, I believe so and better than the z6 by some which has lots of issues with banding/(shadows) and the ae-lock during bursts in c-af. I am sure z6 is a nice camera but I am not convinced its as good as the x-h1, same goes for x-t3.

2)The 16-80 is just around the corner, the 18-135 I had was nothing special and if you look around you will see its not that great either.

3)Adapting lens to native lens is never ideal, so as good as the z6 adapter might be in the future you are going to swap to native lenses, at least Nikon is hoping so, so why not just start with native lens now.

4)You really can't go wrong with x-h1, 16-55 and 50-140 or (hopefully) 16-80 and 50-140 (1.4x) which gives constant f2.8 or f4 shooting. Add in the 56 1.2 and maybe another prime or in my case I have the 10-24 and 18-55-50-140 and Fuji really is a great system.

 

[Cream17]

I was a long time Nikon shooter and had been shooting in parallel since the Fuji XE1 came out.

I've ditched Nikon and gone Fuji having debated what to do for a long time. I wasn't a fan of using my F mount lenses with an adapter as there would always be a want to have native glass. By all accounts the lenses don't work as well as native Z mount.

Having moved to the XT3 I have no regrets as I was using my Nikon D800 less and less. Image wise I have no issues, in fact I see it as better (bar resolution).

I genuinely think that the Fuji glass is better and the whole shooting experience more refined with the XT3. In my mind Nikon has an up hill battle with new glass and it's entry into mirrorless.

 

[VisuallyOriented]

I used to shoot Nikon full-frame, I switched to Fuji for the typical reasons.

If I ever switch to Nikon mirrorless it will be after they have iterated a few times. Just like Fuji needed a few generations to perfect the X-T series I figure the 3rd generation of the Z6/Z7 will be just about perfect.

 

[csnite]

I've just about decided to go with the xh1, 16-55, 10-24, and 90 f2. I still have the 35mm f1.4 if I want to go smaller. I know it's not going to be xt20 small, but I don't usually need a pocketable camera, and if I do, I'll use my phone or grab an older Sony rx100. In the end, I agree that the images from the Z6 won't really be much better, and all of the primes are going to be hefty judging by the 50 and 35 currently available. They are also pretty expensive already. I haven't ordered yet, but this is probably the kit I will end up with. I may swap the 55-200 for the 90 for a little more flexibility. Thanks for all the input.

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

...I lose a stop to the brick, but gain significant high iso improvement over the xh1.

Full frame has around one stop less noise when compared to APSC.

Aperture gathers the same amount of light regardless of sensor size, but sensor size affects how much noise you see.

So the one stop less noise advantage the z6 gives you is negated by the one stop more light the Fuji f2.8 zoom gathers. So you wont really see an advantage with the Z6 in that regard. Now when comparing the f1.4/f1.8 prims you will see an advantage in low light with the Z6.

--
www.darngoodphotos.com

 

[Advent1sam]

I've just about decided to go with the xh1, 16-55, 10-24, and 90 f2. I still have the 35mm f1.4 if I want to go smaller. I know it's not going to be xt20 small, but I don't usually need a pocketable camera, and if I do, I'll use my phone or grab an older Sony rx100. In the end, I agree that the images from the Z6 won't really be much better, and all of the primes are going to be hefty judging by the 50 and 35 currently available. They are also pretty expensive already. I haven't ordered yet, but this is probably the kit I will end up with. I may swap the 55-200 for the 90 for a little more flexibility. Thanks for all the input.

X-h1 ticks a lot of boxes on paper, looking forward to testing mine out this week

 

[Morris0]

These cameras handle very differently. I suggest you visit a local retailer and try them both. My vote with my funds was the X-T3 which I quite like. I sold off a bunch of Nikon gear to change.

You need to try and decide. Renting or purchasing with the ability to return are other options.

Morris

 

[chimphappyhour]

Regarding "weather sealing", I will give a refined version of my standard answer I give anytime someone brings this up. Unless you're using a sealed and rated housing, all the PR labels in the world don't mean squat! Ignore the term weather sealing, it's meaningless unless the manufacturer is willing to back it up with a standardized rating. Even then, you need to assess whether all the claims of weather resistance and warranties thereof will calm you when you're out in the field trying to get that once in a lifetime shot when all of a sudden, you find yourself in need of using that warranty. Manufacturing defects do happen. Design defects do happen. Engineers sometimes get a little too overboard and introduce new issues.

I've had it happen to me with a camera that was known to be very hardy and now I treat all my gear as if it weren't sealed. The sealing failed and I was in a foreign country looking at missing my once in a lifetime shooting opportunity. The camera company warranty was useless as the whole country was on holiday even if I were able to find an office there. It's best to protect your tools as best as you can and treat them as if they were fragile.

 

[Deak]

Good advice... they ARE fragile!

 

[biza43]

The primes, where I would love to shoot low light stabilised scenes don't have it.

Unless you have very shaky hands, you probably don't need IS to shoot with those primes. And if you do need some stabilization, a mini tripod or small monopod is a lot cheaper than changing systems

As for lack of WR, I have shot regularly (still do) for decades on beaches and even some deserts, with different systems, no problem. Simply exercise common sense. Unless you are a paid pro and need to get the shot under hurricane conditions, or shoot a model on the beach in the wave zone

Even gear without WR can withstand a few drops of rain. And mind you, all those nice adverts and photos of cameras and lenses dripping with rain water: if you do the same, the warranty does not cover it...

IMO, no reason to change systems.

 

[lewiedude2]

It's a difficult call at this time. The X-T3 and 16-55mm is a very strong combo.. unless lack of IS is an issue.

Ideally wait a year and see if Nikon iterates on their initial mirrorless offering (or wait for XH2 - although this may not be this year!)

NOTE: I have X-T3 and 16-55mm so I will naturally have a bias... to recommend this option

I agree and I would wait for v2 if any completely new offering (z6 or z7), unless you had a ton of FF Nikon lenses.

T3 or H1 plus the 16-55 is a great combo no matter how you look at it.

 

[decaf14]

If you don't care about telephoto, fast action, or video, then it sounds like the Z6 is your best bet.

It has IBIS, good weather sealing, and great image quality. Additionally, you don't really lose a stop compared to the brick, because you must account for the sensor gathering more light. You have mentioned high ISO improvement though, so I think you understand this. The brick is basically equivalent to an F/4 lens on full frame.

They're both excellent cameras, though. The x-t3 excels at video and action shots whereas the Z6 is more centered around dynamic range improvements and still shots (IBIS).

I use a 18-135 with the X-T3 and love it, but I shoot action and video.

 

[Advent1sam]

If you don't care about telephoto, fast action, or video, then it sounds like the Z6 is your best bet.

z6 seems to be as responsive as the d500, why don't you see the z6 as suitable for fast action exactly? I am sure Nikon do, it's weakness is the ae-lock it makes during c-af, which they will probably solve. The main issue for me is the typical FF issues, which generally boil down to size of lens, and also the fact that both of these bodies z6/z7 appear to have banding issues, therefore for any post processing its always going to be there hidden but sure to appear at any time.

It has IBIS, good weather sealing, and great image quality.

So does the x-h1?

Additionally, you don't really lose a stop compared to the brick, because you must account for the sensor gathering more light. You have mentioned high ISO improvement though, so I think you understand this. The brick is basically equivalent to an F/4 lens on full frame.

So the x-h1 and 16-55 is going to be as good/better as its 83mm focal length ie 24-80 in reality f4 FF.

They're both excellent cameras, though. The x-t3 excels at video and action shots whereas the Z6 is more centered around dynamic range improvements and still shots (IBIS).

I use a 18-135 with the X-T3 and love it, but I shoot action and video.

The improvements of the x-t3 over the x-h1/z6/a9/a73/d500 are very very small, you are talking milli-seconds differences between them all, so the impact of the person/evf/lens are the limiting factors not the camera bodies.

 

[csnite]

Well, I had basically decided what to do, then I started thinking. That's always a bad thing. I went through my lightroom catalog and looked at focal lengths of all of my zooms over the last 10 years. What came back strongly is that I shoot wide much more than I thought. To be exact, if I had a 24 equivalent available, I used it a ton. Also, I used around the 50mm equivalent a lot. Very little in between.

The second observation I made is that camera shake blur made up a very tiny fraction of the missed shots I have regardless of focal length. I would say there are very few shots in my portfolio that would have been better because of 2 stops of VR or IBIS.

I also prefer fast lenses when I have access to them. If I have a prime or a zoom option, even on family outings, I would rather take the prime, or 2.

So with all that having been said, I am now leaning toward the X-t3, 16 f1.4, swapping my 35 f1.4 for the f2 weather sealed version, and adding the 18-55 and 55-200 zooms for when I really want or need zoom/reach.

I think this is the best kit for both my shooting styles, cost, and size.

I could not justify the x-h1 16-50 because the size is larger than the Z6 with the 24-70 or A7iii with the tamron 28-75. There would be no appreciable benefit to me from the fuji in this case. i couldn't justify the Sony or Nikon because the cost is significantly more and the primes will all be larger and more expensive.

For weather days, I will just take the 16 and 35. For family outings, I can take the two zooms. I would love to see a 70mm f2.8 or something along those lines as a 105mm equiv to round out something longer in the prime department, but that's not a huge requirement for me. I might eventually pick up the 80 macro as a longer prime.

Thank you all for your invaluable comments.

 

[justin_time]

You may shot at 16mm & 50 mm a lot because they are the extreme of the zoom range of your current lens.

In your position I would still consider the 16-80mm f4 WR OIS if you can wait until autumn? this year. So if 16mm is your favourite FL, it means you are not constantly swapping between 16mm f1.4 & 18-55. You could then add 14mm f2.8 - cracking little lens IMO to go wider.

I have thought about moving to Nikon FF mirror-less and my current plan is sticky with Fuji. Wrt the Z6 - its 24mp very similar to Z-T3 resolution and so I expect for similar size/weight package the overall IQ/DOF control is not too different. To get the "full frame advantage" the lenses will be bigger (lets see size/weight of the 24-70 f2.8 S lens to be released in next few weeks).

Moving to a Z-7 (rather than Z-6) was more tempting for me. Better resolution for landscapes, etc. Plus for wildlife I could use a 300mm f4 PF lens +/- 1.4TC. No zoom but the 46mp FF sensor gives scope for cropping. For APS-C I think zoom is better option.

But as of now I am sticking with Fuji - IQ is good enough and I really enjoy shooting with marked aperture lenses!