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

I spent a long time looking at Fuji standard zoom reviews and sample images before buying a 16-55/2.8. The 18-55 isn't as good, but a lot of the comparisons were closer than one might think, it certainly wasn't a simple and obvious choice. Some examples of the 18-55 seemed to be very much below par, others really OK. The other Fuji offerings and the independents too still have not come up with an obvious choice. I should probably have kept the 16-50 that came with my X-M1 which was actually pretty good.

BeatX wrote:

Can You give me link to FM forum with thread you mentioned? Thx in advice, and sorry for OT!

Sure, I found the thread, it's huge. But I've read it all back then! It's worth it, it's full of great photos.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1253369

I would just like to mention that professionals often have very different requirements from non-professionals.

They often value, robustness, professional service support, compatabilty, cost more than hobby/amateur photographers.

Many press photographers, for example, have no interest in pixel count but need something that will work day in, day out in the pouring rain without a hiccup and often only produce Jpegs. I have plenty with very battered equipment no amateur would be seen dead with.

The again, a studio-based pro doesn't care about weather sealing and may only focus on image quality at any price, going for a Phase One.

Almost any modern camera today can produce results we could only dream of 20 years ago, other than LF. They are all good. Have digital images improved much since the Canon 5D MkII? On a computer, yes, in real world use, no.

One factor not mentioned by others is the psychological impact of using a large camera (with lens).

On paid shoots, clients (who paid big money to get you there) prefer to see photographers use big cameras with long lenses because psychologically, they unconsciously want to get "what their moneys worth".

If a professional photographer shows up with a "dinky" little camera or maybe even just a phone, then clients will probably complain.

a_c_skinner wrote:

You have highlighted what I think is Fuji's most trying problem with is a "standard" zoom. Some people report both those lenses as excellent, others repeat your experience. Some examples of the 18-55 are reported as not very good at all, but many early reviews said as a kit zoom it was peerless.

I bought my first Fujifilm camera with 18-55 in march 2013. I did read some tests then in 2013 and this was one of the first (OpticalLimits) :

"In a nutshell - you can't go wrong with the Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS ... if you can get a good sample."

They tested 5 and two of them had some issues...

I'm still using my lens which probably is one of those good ones - compared to some primes i have it is quite good for big prints.

One of the problems in March 2013 was the Apple Aperture i used then - it did not support RAF files... it took some months before it could.

One of the first X-E1 images with kit lens 18-55

Jose Rocha wrote:

BeatX wrote:

Can You give me link to FM forum with thread you mentioned? Thx in advice, and sorry for OT!

Sure, I found the thread, it's huge. But I've read it all back then! It's worth it, it's full of great photos.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1253369

Thank You Jose
I'm lookin at this thread, currently Im only on page 4.
But still, even on beginning of this thread, I allready pick up some cherrys, like:

or this:

Not to mention, about this picture which is simply jaw dropping. Best 3D pop I've seen from long, long time. I do allready has this picture as a wallpaper on my laptop and Im about to write PM via flicker to ask if I can buy this shot in full res (artist: this lady: https://www.flickr.com/photos/liltuki/ )

Sorry for completly offtopic, but I just simply cannot resist.
I mean.. There is no way, to replicate such organic/three dimensional pictures from any Fujifilm glass (medium format included, too modern rendering, to clinical).
Even so called "magical" XF 35/1.4 even dont stand close compared to Nikkor 58/1.4 in terms to create such deep 3D pop.
To be honest, Im not sure if there is glass on any system who can match Nikkor 58/1.4 in terms of such way of rendering.
Moderns top lenses are corrected in every way, simply optical perfection - what in final result gives flat, lifeless image (vide Fujifilm XF 18/1.4, Sony GM 24-70/2.8 II, Canon RF 50/1.2 L etc)
So yeah, couple of my 3 cents about diffirances in camera systems

BeatX wrote:

Jose Rocha wrote:

BeatX wrote:

Can You give me link to FM forum with thread you mentioned? Thx in advice, and sorry for OT!

Sure, I found the thread, it's huge. But I've read it all back then! It's worth it, it's full of great photos.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1253369

Thank You Jose
I'm lookin at this thread, currently Im only on page 4.
But still, even on beginning of this thread, I allready pick up some cherrys, like:

or this:

Not to mention, about this picture which is simply jaw dropping. Best 3D pop I've seen from long, long time. I do allready has this picture as a wallpaper on my laptop and Im about to write PM via flicker to ask if I can buy this shot in full res (artist: this lady: https://www.flickr.com/photos/liltuki/ )

Sorry for completly offtopic, but I just simply cannot resist.
I mean.. There is no way, to replicate such organic/three dimensional pictures from any Fujifilm glass (medium format included, too modern rendering, to clinical).
Even so called "magical" XF 35/1.4 even dont stand close compared to Nikkor 58/1.4
To be honest, Im not sure if there is glass on any system who can match Nikkor 58/1.4 in terms of such way of rendering.
Moderns top lenses are corrected in every way, simply optical perfection - what in final result gives flat, lifeless image (vide Fujifilm XF 18/1.4)
So yeah, couple of my 3 cents about diffirances in camera systems

Yup, off topic indeed. And I’m sure Nikon appreciated the advert.

Frankly, so this could be truly relevant to the Fuji forum you posted it in, I’d be much more interested in seeing direct comparisons between the two brands/cameras which might better illustrate the “organic, 3D… etc.” advantages you talk about here. Ideally, same (or very similar) FL, aperture, and the same compositions. All the terms used here (organic, 3D, rendering, clinical) etc. I see all the time here, but there’s nothing like an apples-to-apples comparison with the same or similar FOV to support your assertions. Otherwise, it’s very subjective and subject to interpretation.

Jerry-astro wrote:

BeatX wrote:

Jose Rocha wrote:

BeatX wrote:

Can You give me link to FM forum with thread you mentioned? Thx in advice, and sorry for OT!

Sure, I found the thread, it's huge. But I've read it all back then! It's worth it, it's full of great photos.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1253369

Thank You Jose
I'm lookin at this thread, currently Im only on page 4.
But still, even on beginning of this thread, I allready pick up some cherrys, like:

or this:

Not to mention, about this picture which is simply jaw dropping. Best 3D pop I've seen from long, long time. I do allready has this picture as a wallpaper on my laptop and Im about to write PM via flicker to ask if I can buy this shot in full res (artist: this lady: https://www.flickr.com/photos/liltuki/ )

Sorry for completly offtopic, but I just simply cannot resist.
I mean.. There is no way, to replicate such organic/three dimensional pictures from any Fujifilm glass (medium format included, too modern rendering, to clinical).
Even so called "magical" XF 35/1.4 even dont stand close compared to Nikkor 58/1.4
To be honest, Im not sure if there is glass on any system who can match Nikkor 58/1.4 in terms of such way of rendering.
Moderns top lenses are corrected in every way, simply optical perfection - what in final result gives flat, lifeless image (vide Fujifilm XF 18/1.4)
So yeah, couple of my 3 cents about diffirances in camera systems

Yup, off topic indeed. And I’m sure Nikon appreciated the advert.

Frankly, so this could be truly relevant to the Fuji forum you posted it in, I’d be much more interested in seeing direct comparisons between the two cameras which might better illustrate the “organic, 3D… etc.” advantages you talk about here. Ideally, same (or very similar) FL, aperture, and the same compositions. All the terms used here (organic, 3D, rendering, clinical) etc. I see all the time here, but there’s nothing like an apples-to-apples comparison with the same or similar FOV to support your assertion here. Otherwise, it’s very subjective and subject to interpretation.

Hi Jerry I would rally like to find You such comparsion. There isnt any, because 99,9% photographers only cares about sharpness and CA. Sad but true. So noone focus on most important part of lens: way how it renders in widest apertures, and how final images looks on large format prints or on 4k big screens without pixel peeping.
I know im too crazy about 3D pop/organic rendering in every imaging, to simply just walk by and not being intrigued when I do see very unique look.
So, when some lens catch my attention to the point that I cannot restist to hide my impressions, I guarantee all of You that its worth further investigate
Im serious. Take a picture of some nicely light landscape shot with newest iPhone and duplicate it (same angle, FOV, composition and lets say DOF), from top dog like Sony GM 24-70/2.8 ver II, then print it to 40x60cm, and try to tell which gives less flat image (viewed from at least 1 meter or more),
Is there will be almost any diffirance (?) IMO They both will look flat, lifeless (Im not talking about DR, noise levels, colors etc - just "organic" rendering"), They will look basically identically - when viewing in such terms as above, which is 99,9% times in normal viewing of photography.

Maybe some day /I do hope so/ I will get Nikon 58/1.4 + some Nikon FF body so I can do first in the world comparsion of Nikkor 58/1.4 vs ... (?). Yeah, vs what lens beside MF Voigtländer 58/1.4 ?
Such combination of FL, aperture and character has no substitute in any M4/3, aps-c, and FF system, beside small medium format Fuji GFX 80/1.7
But like I said, for my taste GFX 80/1.7 is too clinical, to "modern", to digital compared to Nikkor 58/1.4 (not to mention about size, weight and size diffirance)
https://www.flickr.com/groups/fujinon_gf80mm/
So even I wish, I dont know how I can prepare direct comparsion.

Jerry-astro wrote:

BeatX wrote:

Jose Rocha wrote:

BeatX wrote:

Can You give me link to FM forum with thread you mentioned? Thx in advice, and sorry for OT!

Sure, I found the thread, it's huge. But I've read it all back then! It's worth it, it's full of great photos.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1253369

Thank You Jose
I'm lookin at this thread, currently Im only on page 4.
But still, even on beginning of this thread, I allready pick up some cherrys, like:

or this:

Not to mention, about this picture which is simply jaw dropping. Best 3D pop I've seen from long, long time. I do allready has this picture as a wallpaper on my laptop and Im about to write PM via flicker to ask if I can buy this shot in full res (artist: this lady: https://www.flickr.com/photos/liltuki/ )

Sorry for completly offtopic, but I just simply cannot resist.
I mean.. There is no way, to replicate such organic/three dimensional pictures from any Fujifilm glass (medium format included, too modern rendering, to clinical).
Even so called "magical" XF 35/1.4 even dont stand close compared to Nikkor 58/1.4
To be honest, Im not sure if there is glass on any system who can match Nikkor 58/1.4 in terms of such way of rendering.
Moderns top lenses are corrected in every way, simply optical perfection - what in final result gives flat, lifeless image (vide Fujifilm XF 18/1.4)
So yeah, couple of my 3 cents about diffirances in camera systems

Yup, off topic indeed. And I’m sure Nikon appreciated the advert.

Frankly, so this could be truly relevant to the Fuji forum you posted it in, I’d be much more interested in seeing direct comparisons between the two brands/cameras which might better illustrate the “organic, 3D… etc.” advantages you talk about here. Ideally, same (or very similar) FL, aperture, and the same compositions. All the terms used here (organic, 3D, rendering, clinical) etc. I see all the time here, but there’s nothing like an apples-to-apples comparison with the same or similar FOV to support your assertions. Otherwise, it’s very subjective and subject to interpretation.

Maybe I'm the only one, but I think that circular bokeh background in the portrait looks freakish. Just because a lens can, doesn't always mean it should.

9/10 times lenses create a swirly/circular bokeh shape (Fujinon lenses included)

ju2au wrote:

One factor not mentioned by others is the psychological impact of using a large camera (with lens).

On paid shoots, clients (who paid big money to get you there) prefer to see photographers use big cameras with long lenses because psychologically, they unconsciously want to get "what their moneys worth".

If a professional photographer shows up with a "dinky" little camera or maybe even just a phone, then clients will probably complain.

Agree with this. The psychological impact can go both ways. I know photographers who would never show up without their heavy artillery because it's an image thing for the photographer as well.

For me, I grew up on Canon. When I look at Canon, Nikon and Sony, there eco systems are setup for every possible scenario. Hypothetically, if you were to shoot a wedding a 12:00 and then an NFL game at 7:00 pm, what camera, lenses would you take? The R5 would be capable of both with appropriate lenses. Ask the same question if you only had a Fuji camera.

I love my X-S10, getting ready to buy an X-T5 and/or X-H2s. I love the Fuji experience.

I think your friends are telling you for image quality you are good. However, for all the different circumstances a Pro can find themselves in, best to go with an eco system where all needs can be met. That's my take.