Your precious and honest opinions about differences between Fujifilm and others (Sony, Canon, Nikon)

Hi everyone!

I am into photography world around 6 years. I had some friends who were professional photographers. I had my first camera around 10 years ago, but didn't take much photos, maybe I have used it for a 1-2 months and that's all. But 6 years ago, thanks to my friends, I started to be interested in photography again. At that time, when I asked them which camera and lens I should buy, they told me that I should get a small aps-c camera that i can bring it with myself everywhere and try to shoot as many as I can.

I searched, watched videos and decided to buy my first Fujifilm camera. It was small, compact and retro design was perfect for my taste. Year by year, I almost tried every lenses, I switched my cameras to x-t2, x-t3, x-t4, x-pro3, x100f, x100v and so on. I have now x100v and x-t4 which I wanted to switch it with x-t5.

Of course, in these years I have searched other brands and cameras as well. I wanted to try full frame cameras but that mean was changing all system. Beside this, I love fuji cameras and lenses so I didn't want to change brand at all.

In years, I became more professional, I mean much amateur than before Some people wanted me to buy my shots, some of them want me to shoot their portraits for money. Of course not too professional way like studio or for a magazine.

I asked to my photographer friends that I should change my system to full frame or not, they all the time told me that there is no necessary, your eyes is taking picture not your camera and so on. You heard these sentences too I think But interestingly all of them are using full frames for their jobs such as Sony a7iv, a7riv, Nikon z6ii, Nikon z7ii, canon r5,r6 and so on. For me its really strange thing that they are offering something but doing another thing. In YouTube videos as well, when you watch reviews for Fujifilm aps-c cameras, they all say perfect things and these cameras can be used for professional works too but most of them are using full frames.

I don't know if I will be professional photographer, I mean if I ll do it for living or not, but being limited annoys me. I mean, I feel like professional photographers don't say their honest opinions about cameras. Yes, your eyes are taking photos, yes photography is different thing from cameras, yes our time is kind of marketing time but why all these people say something but doing another thing? For all of them Fujifilm is great, so why then full frame on their hands all the time? what is this professional works that Fujifilm can't do?

For example if you tell me that Sony's autofocus is better and I m sport photographer, I understand it completely. Or if you tell me that this camera has this function but Fujifilm doesn't, I understand it too. But all we know that its about image quality, FOV, more bokeh or playing more deeply with raw files. I think that's why all photographers have ff or medium format, but for 'photography' they are saying classic phrases. your eyes, your brain, la la la

That's why I want to ask you, not my friends please tell me what really differs between Fujifilm aps-c cameras and canon r5,r6, Nikon z6,z7, Sony a7iv, v and so on? For which reasons I should have full frame camera? how much percent professional works I can do with my x-t5 and new brands? 70,80,90? or not at all?

If you have both systems, what are differences for you? Why do you have 2 systems? Why Fujifilm can't be enough for everything? Low light, night photography really different among full frame and aps-c?

And why all professional photographers are using best and last full frame equipments but suggesting as aps-c and other ones?

I hope I made myself clear about it and thank you in advance for your precious answers.

Hi,

My honest opinion? If you buy all those Fuji cameras, why not buy or rent a full frame? You can only find out for yourself imo.

The difference between a professional photographer and a photography enthusiast is how they make there living, not the equipment they use.  Some professionals use very expensive equipment while others have more moderate equipment.  You will find professional photographers using every brand.  Some decided on the brad they use many years ago and as you have discovered once you have a lens collection, it becomes expensive to change so they stick with the brand also because they are facular with the cameras.

You will find Professional photographers posting on this forum that switched to Fuji for various reasons.  There work is top notch and they are making a living and published regularly.  My work has been published and I've won many contests.  Photography has never been my primary income yet I've had offers that would have made my primary income photography.  I've been using Fuji for 3 years after switching from Nikon to reduce the weight of my equipment after an injury.  That has worked well for me.  I shot film before digital and when digital SLRs came out they were all APS-C bodies.  I liked the fact that my lenses got longer as I do a lot of wildlife work.  I've tried full frame cameras and there is nothing magical about them.  It is the person behind the camera that makes the biggest difference regarding photo quality.

You have been using Fuji gear and producing images that people like.  How will changing your equipment change this?

Morris

I'm not a professional and i'm not trying to be...

I think many professionals use FF cameras because there is some traditiona/ old l reason  to do so. Some have started with 35m film cameras and they had old lenses when digital SLR cameras came to market.

APS-C sensor is in a way more modern invention.

My first DSLR was APS C Canon 40D... later 7D and 80D and so on. I bought also some lenses for FF cameras - like 100-400L   And at some point i could buy a 5DMkIV when the price was low- because i gad the long great lens i enjoyed using it and bought later R6 - and some lenses

I bought X-E1 because it was portable and especially for travelling, like x-T1 . Later a couple of lenses and a X-H1 when it was a bargain.

I can imagine that FF is better for some professionals who PRINT big prints and some picture editors like FF files better (???)

I can not see any reason why you should start investing in FF cameras and expensive lenses  - APS C cameras are god enough for almost everything

To me, the big difference is the shooting experience of using a camera with dials and a live aperture ring rather than the ho hum dual control wheel system you have to use with almost all other cameras short of a Leica. I know dual wheels work perfectly well-- I have a Pentax KP and an Olympus E-M10II and enjoy them both-- but there's something deeply satisfying about shooting with my Fujis.

The jpegs are great too.

I am an amateur shooting purely to scratch my own artistic itch and my gear needs are very simple, so having the latest and greatest technology is not important to me at all. I might well be interested in trying a larger sensor, but not if I have to spend a lot of money on a boring camera to do it. I have one more to try-- the Panasonic S5-- before I conclude that there is no FF mirrorless option that interests me. I might add a Nikon Df (not mirrorless, but very much not boring) to my stable or just stick with my X-T2.

There is absolute physical truth about full frame.  The sensor is bigger, hence more data, bigger or more pixels etc.  I think this makes a difference at the extremes.  If you have Porsche, you have the capability to go very fast, but you don’t have to all the time.  If you have Honda, you don’t have that capability, even though, you likely don’t need it.  Some people work at the limits of the sensor much of the time.  But mostly I think the motivation for full frame is having the options at the extreme.  For me those options were not enough to give up the specific characteristics offered by Fuji; ie, compact size, lower price, quality lenses, ergonomics, and color profiles.  If Fuji offered a FF, all the rest being the same, I would go for it in an instant.

nemendes wrote:

That's why I want to ask you, not my friends please tell me what really differs between Fujifilm aps-c cameras and canon r5,r6, Nikon z6,z7, Sony a7iv, v and so on? For which reasons I should have full frame camera? how much percent professional works I can do with my x-t5 and new brands? 70,80,90? or not at all?

A considerable amount of professional photographers have to work non-stop to make ends meet. Therefore their gear gets used non-stop as well. They take tens of thousands of pictures generally for wide range of clients.

For this model to work, their gear must not only be very reliable and built with the needs of professionals in mind.

Their gear must have an ecosystem of lenses and accessories that are necessary for them to reliably and swiftly deliver images.

Lastly, pro photographers must also have access to reliable professional support in case something goes wrong with their gear.

If your camera breaks down and you have to wait a few weeks or months for it to come back from servicing you're dead in the water.

That is why Nikon and Canon have build a global chain of representatives that will offer professional photographers extensive support.

Imagine your camera or lens breaks down and you have an important shoot the next day. Well Nikon or Canon professional services will immediately ship you a loaner unit overnight so that you can proceed as planned.

This sort of stuff really makes the difference for professionals and really creates brand loyalty.

Sony has also made large investments to develop their Pro support chain, since their bodies have been hugely popular.

Fujifilm has also recently launched their professional services for some X-series and GFX cameras and lenses in some countries.

To answer your question: Fuji's X-system has matured quite a bit since it was first introduced. There's a ton of great lenses available and Fujis are compatible with most accessories one may think of

Is it suitable for the sort of pro work you intend to do? I don't know what you shoot and how you shoot it so its tough to tell. Perhaps you could expand on that.

I just came back from a trip to Turkey with the XH2S. It's a wonderful travel camera. Maybe a little big but it can do it all. I could do handheld 4k slow motion of seagulls flying in front of Sulimaniye's mosque as well as normal stills. The one thing I had an issue with Fuji was night photographer but switching to 1.2 and 1.4 lenses seems to have solved the issue. I was previously using 2.8 or higher. The XH2S also seems to have more "3d pop" than I remember on my XT4.

What I don't like is there are some focus misses. I used subject detection on a cat in an ancient Roman city with columns in the background. The camera said it got the head but nothing was really in focus. Some of my food shots were just blurry. The focus peaking is great but the definition of in focus is too liberal. It's not a big deal for travel to make sure to take some extra shots but I'm sticking to the Nikon Z9 for wildlife. Nikon has a better selection of lenses and when it confirms focus it's got it.

I have a Z6II and I'd probably prefer it over the XT4 but not the XH2S. Slow motion video at 4k is amazing with waterfalls or whatnot. Also I need a wide prime and the 20mm is just too slightly too tall and forces me to use a gigantic camera cube. Sony's A7IV does not do 4k 120p so I am guessing the next generation of Nikon will not either. I might switch to Nikon fully if they can match the XH2S and have more lens options but Nikon is a slow conservative company and that could be 5 years from now.

I miss the joy of shooting a compact prime on an XE body with one hand. It's too much work to keep two types of batteries on a trip. Might look into the slimmed down XT5.

I'm sure this is a masterpiece but I finally figured out how to get night photos on Fuji at a quality level acceptable for myself

Thomas Hegna wrote:

I use a Canon R6 in my day job as a photographer and video creator. I produce all sorts of content for many different customers. Both for web, youtube and other social media platforms.
In my spare time I use a Fujifilm X-E4 and more recently an X-T3.
My lenses are. Fuji 14mm, fuji 18-55, fuji 27mm and fuji 50mm F/2.
Not the most expensive lenses, but they work. For canon I use the expensive 2,8 lenses.

This is better with Canon:
-Canon R6 i faster to work with, in general.
-Canon menus are more intuitive and easier, but still, fuji has some possibilities that lack with canon.
-Fuji menu system reverts back to "my menu" every time. I hate that.
-PASM is faster to work with. End of story. Top wheel for shutter, back top wheel for ISO, and back dial for aputure. (With fuji I find that I have to unlock the wheels(xt3) wich takes time)
-Touch screen is way better with canon (at least compared to X-E4 and X-t3)
-It just works. Reliable.
-AF might be better, but still not perfect
-You can map a button to pause AF during video. (subject walks out of frame)
-The R6 20mpx with 24-70 have better details when comparing to the 26mpx on fuji. I guess FF and APS-C kicks in. (It might also be my lack of expensive XF glass)
-Far lower ISO noise on the R6 compared to the x-trans IV sensor.

What I don't like about Canon:
-Big, heavy and expensive
-No third party lens support
-Canon cribble-hammer (with pp is banned)

This is better with Fujifilm:
-I find the raw files easier to work with. It is easier to get nice colors with fuji. The colors seem better straight out of camera. Still canon has more detail. FF vs crop.
-The film simulations are really fun. And you can make your own. I really like this.
-The cameras are more fun. The canon is just a tool. The fujifilm have soul.
-Small, easy to carry around. I would never bring my R6 and 24-70 going hiking. Just too heavy.
-Cheaper
-

Probably many more small things... That I don't remember.

I use R6 and X-E3 …. So, i can not disagree.

New Fuji cameras like H2 are getting heavy and expensive. H2s with a lens like f2,8 16-55 compared to R6 with RF24-105f4 L is an interesting pair. H2 with this lens is expensive and heavy - i would choose R6 (again) I did not pay very much for my H1 and i like - but should i buy H2s if i have R6. XT5looks like a nice camera , but i will use what i have. E3 is still very usable and pocketable .

If i go out with more lenses and gear I take a backpack - a couple of hundred grams has no meaning. IMO Fuji should not forget the smaller models - T1 and E3 are good examples of competitive portable cameras.

For the vast bulk of subjects and settings you will be very hard pressed to see any modern system is better than any other if you look at the finished images and view them as whole images - the way normal people consume their photography.  They are all capable of excellent images and all of them have numerous users who sell their images.

Bigger sensors enable you to restrict depth of field and have better high ISO performance BUT all modern systems have excellent performance at any reasonably commonly used ISO.  Smaller sensors give you more depth of field which is just as much an advantage and will often allow a slower ISO for the same result.

So it really boils down to personal preference.  What system you like in the hand and to shoot with.  Full frame does have advantages, but they are rather modest.  The rest of it is marketing and collective desire.  Nikon and Canon lead this because of their huge installed base of full frame lenses.  Sony kept up - even if they were ahead in full frame mirrorless it was this trend that drove it.  So having full frame makes people feel good about being a photographer.

So don't worry.  Choose the stuff you like.  Sony, Canon, Nikon and in fourth place Fuji if you want to follow the buying trends.

Take it step by step. The baseline is that any system today, starting from micro-4/3, can be used to make a professional living from photography. Then, you need to identify if your current system is hindering you from progressing your photographic goals. What do you need, as opposed to want, that your current system can not provide?

Many professionals use Canon and Nikon, because that is what they used before. They value that the systems deliver what they need, of course, but also that the menus and operability of the gear does not change significantly. After all, they can not afford to miss a shot if they need to find out how function A works in the new camera, when they new how it worked in the older camera. They value familiarity very much.

Keep in mind that Fuji is relatively small compared to Canon, Nikon and Sony. Also, their X-Trans line of cameras has only been around for 10 years.  Switching a complete system would be expensive for professional photographers and they would need a compelling reason to do so.

It's a long way from friends and family liking your photos and even asking you to take photos for them and being able to support yourself with photography. I have a degree in photography and worked as a full-time professional photographer for a couple of decades back in the film days.  Very few photographers made a decent living back then and changes in technology and the market make it even harder to be a full-time photographer.   I saw the direction the industry was heading and went back to school and earned a computer science degree.

While I enjoyed my time as a full-time pro, I've never been happier with photography now it is my avocation, not my vocation. If you are happy with Fuji, stick with Fuji.  Enjoy yourself. Don't worry about what equipment others use. Enthusiasts don't appreciate the true luxury of taking only the photos you want to take, when you want to take them.

Not reading all the comments.  Just giving you my opinion.

Note that I have been a full time pro for 35 years.  Shot large format doing commercial work.  Medium format when I started portraiture 25 years ago.  Still shoot some portraits but mostly corporate events.  Just laying this out so you know I come from a pretty diverse background and might know a few things.  lol!

My first digital was the Nikon D1X.  only 5.6(?)MP.  I shot A LOT of portraits with that.  Printed and sold mostly up to 8x10.  Those prints looked great.

I switched to Canon because I did some wedding work and like the CMOS sensor over the then CCD sensor.  I guess I was right since all sensors are now CMOS.

But I like Canon.  Used them for years.  My last was a 6D.

I was intrigued by Fuji and I picked up a X-T1 and used it along side my 6D.  For "my" work as a corporate even shooter and seeing 98% of the images went not bigger than a computer screen, I started using it more and more.  Yeah, a little noisy with the higher ISO's but again, at the size it was being used, I didn't have problem with it.

Then I got the X-H1.  And also an X-T3.  Sold all my Canon gear.

I work with about 5 other associates covering corporate events.  They all shoot Sony.  Our studio has a few editors that finish the work we shoot.  I have never had one complaint about quality.  In fact, when we do headshots, our lead editor told me this past week that I an the only one that gets the color right.  I'm sure Sony cameras get it right as well and some of our shooters may need some more education but it just tells me that the camera really doesn't matter.  AND, we only shoot jpeg.  Raw if were doing large groups of people or if the client requests it.  Jpegs are where Fuji shines.

I also shoot very high end classic portraits for a private studio.  They love the images I send them.  No moire patterns in clothing.  No problems printing large if need be.  I shoot raw for them.

My point is Fuji has become a great camera company.  The glass was always there.  They have been making lenses for a long time.  As a professional, I have no worries shooting with Fuji.  I prefer the lighter weight of the camera and lenses.  I have thought of switching now that Nikon and Canon have a good selection but I talk myself out of it.

I just don't think FF will change anything. For me.  Not for the size these images are used.  If I shot landscapes or made 30x40 prints ALL the time, sure.  I'd use FF.  Or probably go with the GFX line from Fuji.  But for now, I'm happy with the results I get and will probably pick up the X-T5 here shortly.

Why nobody speaks about one of most important thing, what makes Fuji system unique: color science, (skin tones) , film simulations +recipes

But then again.. I recently "discovered" Nikkor 58/1.4 G and I simply fall in love instantly. Rendering from this prime is most pleasing to my eyes, I've ever seen so far (and I've seen quite a lot). This lens is what starts me thinking about switching to Nikon for real.

So yeah, here You go: Fuji with superb color science, relatively small and light gear, unrealible AF (compared to Sony and Canon). Nikon with unique Nikkor 58/1.4 that is my top wanted lens right now Nice colors, small lens selection, good AF etc. Sony with crappy color science, but superior AF and absolutely domination in lens selection. Canon with very good color science, top notch AF, small lens selection (closed bayonet), and absurd prices. Panasonic? Not sure in terms of their future (same as Olympus, sorry OM Systems)