Considering a change as a hobbyist after some self analysis

[Rmwk]

Hi everyone,

I’ve been reflecting on my photography over the past 6 years, and I’d appreciate some input and advice

Photography is a hobby for me—something I enjoy sharing with close friends and family (I like to print my work, though I’m running out of wall space). I’m not aiming to go pro nor do I honestly consider myself honestly good; it’s just something I do for fun.

I have been using a Fuji X-T4 for the last 4 years which has been a fantastic camera for me. But after some thinking and self analysis about “What I thought I would be interested in” vs “What I actually do”, and some frictions in my setup, I’m starting to wonder if switching systems (maybe to full-frame) might be the right next step.

I’d love some advice on options, as this is not honestly a G.A.S scenario, just the thoughts of a 40-something guy considering alternatives after some self-reflection.

Expectations VS actual use:

When I started to be more thoughtful about photography I expected to do a lot of landscape and nature , which are the types I tend to appreciate more. But as it turns out, 70-80% of my photography really falls under "travel", which (at least in my case) means a mix of landscape, architecture, wildlife, and portrait, but with one main difference: spontaneity. I take photos “while” I’m traveling, which means the flow of the travel tends to take priority, and there’s only so much I can stall myself (an others) to take a picture. It doesn’t mean I don’t go out of my way to take them or plan trips specifically for that since some of my friends also love photography, It is rather how many trips or times are specifically planning to take pictures vs. how many pictures I take while I am traveling.

All in all, while I do still enjoy that "slow and methodical" feel, the reality is that unless is a landscape trip, I often shoot in aperture priority with some exposure compensation—pretty straightforward, with more focus on being in the moment and capturing the moment. The kind of spontaneity than doesn’t make use of the stronger points of the fuji, with the autofocus shenanigans (specially at wildlife or in low light scenarios) sometimes fighting against you (although is not something precisely critical)

Let me share a couple of photos just for the sake of it

















Those may not be great, but I like them, and enjoyed quite a lot taking them. Apologies for the lack of portraits but I’m not fond of sharing close one’s face’s though.

I also thought I would be way more interested in video, but after all this time, the reality is that … not really. I do find myself way more interested in wildlife than I expected though, which was a surprise.

What I expected to value more… but not really:

• OOC JPGs: I thought Fuji’s out-of-camera JPGs and film simulations would be awesome. And to be fair, they absolutely are, but after some review, almost all photos go through C1 (quick edits, mind you). I do use the film simulations as base (Provia, Velvia, Pro Neg. Std as base most of the time) with other very small adjustments, but RAW at the end of the day. This was quite the surprise for me as I don’t enjoy a complicated process that much, although it is probably because I can fix some of my own limitations in post though. (Side comment: I should really learn way more about post processing)
• Video: When I got the X-T4 I had the idea of getting a camera that was capable of image & video, to learn a bit more about it. Reality is, the interest in video didn’t really appear, and I find myself bothered by a flippy screen way more than I expected, to the point of probably not taking some photos I liked because “bah, I need to deal with it”.
• Old school dials: I really expected to use them way more than I do, and to a point, I appreciate a lot the tactile feel of having all available. But most often than not, as I said, the dials I really care about are the aperture ring and the exposure compensation, or replace aperture with shutter speed if required. ISO is pretty much always either autoISO(custom defined) or minimum. At the end of the day I use it as if was a PASM most of the time. You can’t beat the gorgeous look of the camera though.

What I actually value in retrospect:

• Depth of Field and Dynamic Range: From the bunch of lens I have, in my bag there’s always there, my 18-55 (hard to beat that convenience) and my 33mm 1.4f which I absolutely adore, and in fact the usual situation is “18-55 by default but change to the 33mm the moment I see a really good one”. The bokeh and sharpness of that less is absolutely fantastic. Again that doesn’t quite match my initial expectation of “all I need is sharpness and f8”. All I’ll say about DR is that I’m low light way more than initially expected.
• Autofocus Confidence: I’d love a more reliable AF system to capture spontaneous moments, whether people or wildlife. Is not that I can’t make it work or is a huge pain point, but sometimes it feels like swimming against the current. This isn’t essential for me as a hobbyist (is not like I’m getting paid for this), but having the confidence to get those “in-the-moment” shots would be a very nice plus. I think I’ve held back from shooting certain moments because of this.
• Compactness and Weight: The X-T4 is near the upper limit of what I want to carry around all day, especially for travel. If I do switch systems, being able to keep things somewhat compact and lightweight would be. Not sure about the compactness of FF lenses, but seems there are more options that I initially expected. There’s wiggle room of course, but is something I want to keep in mind.
• IBIS: Not relying on a tripod is something I’ve come to really appreciate, and IBIS has been a huge help. I’d hate to lose that if I switched systems.
  Viewfinder Use: I use the viewfinder 80-90% of the time, it is plainly personal preference as I just enjoy the feel way more than the screen, so I’m not sure if a camera without a good one would be a good fit unless it really checks a lot of boxes. This might be a personal quirk, but it adds a lot to my enjoyment.

So, what should I consider?

I honestly would love some suggestions here. This is a Fuji forum so there is bias to be expected, but I also guess this is a familiar situation for other people with this system.

Should I go full frame, and if so, which cameras/systems would suit me best? Would upgrading to the xt5 be the best balance? Should I do nothing as I’m in a better good sweet spot than I feel?

The only options I’m not really considering is M43 after trying it a bit (friend lent me his Olympus) the size and weight are fantastic, but I’m not really convinced by the sensor size and image feel from it.

I intent to rent and test out some alternatives if you have some. My budget is not really set in stone, but probably spending more than 2500€ in a body+lens is not the wisest financial choice for just a hobby (although I could be persuaded if worth it enough)

Thank you all for your time and thoughts

 

[AndyGordon]

Thanks for your insight Andy

Jumping from APS-C to FF would be for better DR or DOF capabilities, but I take by your post that DR can be matched by the new gen of the 40mp fuji sensors (at least, for me), and the DOF is a tradeoff of better lenses / size (at the end of the day, is 1 step). Which may mean that it would not be worth the hassle.

You will see minimal difference tbh. I've got a couple off the viltrox f1.2 lenses for that, and to be fair DOF is based on circle of confusion and distance to background - pretty much any camera can create that thin dof look

Regarding better (or more reliable) autofocus, as far as I know the T5/H2 line is a step up, and I wonder if that's enough.

Contrary to what the internet says, my X-H2 focusses just fine for me

If you don't mind, given what I explained, if what I considered was just upgrading the body, what would be your recommendation? I understand that is a highly subjective thing, but I would welcome your feedback.

If you like the form factor of the X-T series, the X-T5 the obvious candidate, I had both an X-T5 and X-H2, sold the X-T5 as I preferred in the end the synergies between the X-H2 and GFX50sii ergonomics wise

As a side note: Truman mentioned that the C1 can be a bit cumbersome, and you mentioned DXO. What would be your opinion in post-processing software without going the Adobe route?

Post processing software is a bit of a personal choice. I am not in the adobe camp, I've never really got on with LR from its beta days pre v1. C1 is fine as is DXO. I'm leaning more towards DXO as it is more based on a file system rather than catalogue. Processing wise I recently tried LR vs C1 vs DXO and thought that DXO for the 40mp fuji files was a better option, just a bit better than C1, and C1 was just a bit better than LR, but to be fair there's plenty of LR Fuji users so might have been more me than LR

Thanks a lot

 

[Joachim Gerstl]

Hi,

I would not go full frame because you already mention that the X-T4 is the upper limit of what you want to carry. In your case I would replace the 18-55 with the new 16-55/2.8. I think that this would be a huge step in image quality and flexibility. The 18-55 is holding your camera back. The 16-55 is much closer to your 33/1.4.

Full frame can be compact but then the lenses are compromised. There are some small zooms or pancake lenses but they are far from the best lenses the manufacturers offer. When you look at f2.8 zooms it gets big and heavy quickly.

 

[Rmwk]

Thanks all for chiming in and the responses, I did not expect this many! I truly appreciate it.

Let me take a moment to respond to each of you :

Morris:

A different camera will not change the way you see things. Seeings pictures is what separates the great photographers from the rest. Everyone misses shots both because of human error and/or the equipment failing to perform[...]

You might have to refine your technique to shoot at 400mm yet I think you would enjoy the extra reach and adding a 1.4x TC would probably be something that you would enjoy when needed.

I appreciate your comments on the overall topic, x-h2s and 100-400. I'll keep those in mind.

Krummj:

If you value compact and lightweight, and also DR, it's tough. Fuji is actually pretty well positioned for that. Frankly, the XT50 is probably good. 428 grams with a battery. IBIS. 40mp sensor. Decent DR (not full frame, but top level aspc). Plus Fuji's selection of small, good lenses.

That was my conclusion at the time when choosing the x-t4, and by the looks of it, it is still a valid conclusion (again, for me).

Not quite fond of the XT50 to be honest though, size seems fantastic but that film simulation dial is completely lost on me. Not so different to the x-t5 and I'll rather have its benefits.

Alan:

I was in much the same situation last year when I really wasn't 'getting on' with my Canon M series. Lovely and light but didn't feed my creative instincts.

I changed TO Fuji with the X-T5 and have never regretted it.

You have some good lenses in your list - it would be a shame to lose them for no apparent increase in quality.

Looking at the pictures you've taken, you should do well with the X-T5. It covers all your bases, is not too heavy and I have no issues with the AF (but I am not taking pictures of fast moving objects).

If you want a light and good lens, look at the new 16-50. This is a picture I took today with that lens.

Thanks for your take and that image. You and some others have suggested that related to DR&DOF the best thing I could do is take a look at that lens.

Oregon:

What about the Sony A6700? That would give you Sony autofocus in an APS-C body, although I"m not familiar with Sony lenses.[...]

I find APS-C to be a sweet spot. I shot Nikon for many years (I'm an old dawg) and changed to Fuji for the APS-C lenses and a more compact system. Nikon DX falls far short of Fuji in this regard, and I wanted to downsize from my Nikon FX gear. As a hobbyist it wasn't worth it to me to lug it around, but that's just me. Plenty of people aren't bothered by heavy gear in the least, it's very much a personal and subjective decision. It depends on what you need the gear to do, if you really want that thin DOF, then full frame is a good call. And so, maybe dual system makes sense. Keep Fuji and some smaller lenses for travel, and a Full Frame camera with a fast prime for DOF and more deliberate shooting.

This is where I landed after using a lot of different Fuji lenses, I currently have the X-T5 with the 35/f2 and the new 16-50. I really like it for my usage. Prior I used the 16-80/70-300/33 1.4, and all those lenses were also great, but I wanted to lower the size/weight of my kit. My current kit is contained in a bag that weighs a grand total of 5 pounds. I've not used the "red badge" lenses, but the new 16-55 f/2.8 weighs less than the 16-80 and could be a really nice travel lens combined with the 33 f/1.4 that you have. I previously owned the X-T4 and currently have the X-T5, and it was worth the upgrade for me. It's a bit more compact and weighs a bit less. I like the pull out LCD better. The 40mp is useful and good quality. But you need to figure out what you need of course, especially Autofocus and DOF based on what you wrote. Good luck!

Thanks Oregon. That's another vote for the "APS-C is the goldilocks option, consider the 16-50 and a new body of the line" for my scenario. The A6700 alternative is interesting, I'll explore how much I could gain from that VS lose, and how much worth it would given the lens replacement.

Not sure if I'm really interested in maintaining two systems. I could consider having a dedicated camera for astro, but that's about it for me.

I appreciate your response

Arthur:

My opinion regarding old school interface is similar. Despite X-T3 is my favorite camera body, it turned out I use ISO and SS dial hardly ever (or even not at all)[...]

There are lot of good lenses for X-mount, so I think everyone can find something interesting: For maximum portability I would pick F2 fujicrons or the latest XF16-50, but I would rather take bigger but better lenses (XF8-16, XF16-55 or Viltrox 27&75, no problems with ~2kg Sigma S70-200/2.8 as well)[...]

AF is the Achilles's heel of X-system cameras, however I use it for wildlife and it's doable.

It's up to you, I have chosen APSC as perfect balance between size and quality (most of good FF lenses is bigger than APSC equivalents, despite XF16-55 or XF8-16 are not small).

General consensus I take from this is that fuji has more than enough quality glass, and yes, the AF is the weak point. Another vote for the 16-55 (or 16-50 now)

Andy:

You will see minimal difference tbh. I've got a couple off the viltrox f1.2 lenses for that, and to be fair DOF is based on circle of confusion and distance to background - pretty much any camera can create that thin dof look[...]

Contrary to what the internet says, my X-H2 focusses just fine for me[...]

If you like the form factor of the X-T series, the X-T5 the obvious candidate, I had both an X-T5 and X-H2, sold the X-T5 as I preferred in the end the synergies between the X-H2 and GFX50sii ergonomics wise

Thanks for your take Andy. I like my X-T4 but I wonder if a PASM dial is not a better option. That said, is not like you cannot configure it to behave as such.

Joachim:

I would not go full frame because you already mention that the X-T4 is the upper limit of what you want to carry. In your case I would replace the 18-55 with the new 16-55/2.8. I think that this would be a huge step in image quality and flexibility. The 18-55 is holding your camera back. The 16-55 is much closer to your 33/1.4.

I appreciate your take Joachim.

All in all, the general feedback I gather from you based on your opinions is:

• APS-C is a good middle ground for IQ vs Size/Weight, and fuji is a good system for that. FF becomes a tad too big very fast.
• Take a look at the new 16-50mm
• Consider upgrading the body to one of the new ones: Test the X-H2s for the form factor & autofocus performance, weight it against the X-T5 form factor and ...well, weight (x-s20 and x-h2 were also mentioned and should be considered, but those two seemed like the two options to explore)

Seems I have some potential options to evaluate. I'll keep reading all answers, as this still is not a thing to do overnight.

This was extremely helpful, I appreciate the time you all took.

I could use some opinions about the bodies, since as some of you said, renting them for a couple of days doesn't quite give you a complete idea.

 

[Oregon Dawg]

Great summary! You're being very thoughtful. I will share a similar sentiment about the X-T50 or X-S20 in that the viewfinder is important to me, and so those smaller cameras would not work for me. The large, bright viewfinders of the X-T4 or X-T5 are essential for me.

Good luck!

 

[ddtan]

You sound a lot like me in your photography preferences. What I have come to in terms of my solution is to really make clear in my own mind, the intent of any particular outing. Some outings are simply fun and I want to document my experiences. For these situations I use my phone. There are some situations that I feel that the extra IQ is important to my experience, then I will bring the equipment. These would be more serious photography trips. Generally, trips that involve wildlife would necessitate the longer lenses, and I appreciate the AF abilities of my X-T5. If I think that the subject would benefit from the larger file size, and RAW capabilities then the big guns come out.

In general, I don't have problems with AF in spontaneous situations, I like using the touch screen AF shot for quick and discreet shooting. The Fuji color and look are a big reason I am not tempted at all with other systems. For me APS-C is plenty, especially with Topaz and Iridient. I think that the recommendations to try the 16-55 f2.8 MkII are good. I would love a smaller lighter kit, and for many situations, there's nothing smaller or lighter than my iPhone. YMMV

 

[Bill Ferris]

• What I actually value in retrospect:

• Depth of Field and Dynamic Range: From the bunch of lens I have, in my bag there’s always there, my 18-55 (hard to beat that convenience) and my 33mm 1.4f which I absolutely adore, and in fact the usual situation is “18-55 by default but change to the 33mm the moment I see a really good one”. The bokeh and sharpness of that less is absolutely fantastic. Again that doesn’t quite match my initial expectation of “all I need is sharpness and f8”. All I’ll say about DR is that I’m low light way more than initially expected.
• Autofocus Confidence: I’d love a more reliable AF system to capture spontaneous moments, whether people or wildlife. Is not that I can’t make it work or is a huge pain point, but sometimes it feels like swimming against the current. This isn’t essential for me as a hobbyist (is not like I’m getting paid for this), but having the confidence to get those “in-the-moment” shots would be a very nice plus. I think I’ve held back from shooting certain moments because of this.
• Compactness and Weight: The X-T4 is near the upper limit of what I want to carry around all day, especially for travel. If I do switch systems, being able to keep things somewhat compact and lightweight would be. Not sure about the compactness of FF lenses, but seems there are more options that I initially expected. There’s wiggle room of course, but is something I want to keep in mind.
• IBIS: Not relying on a tripod is something I’ve come to really appreciate, and IBIS has been a huge help. I’d hate to lose that if I switched systems.
  Viewfinder Use: I use the viewfinder 80-90% of the time, it is plainly personal preference as I just enjoy the feel way more than the screen, so I’m not sure if a camera without a good one would be a good fit unless it really checks a lot of boxes. This might be a personal quirk, but it adds a lot to my enjoyment.

So, what should I consider?

I honestly would love some suggestions here. This is a Fuji forum so there is bias to be expected, but I also guess this is a familiar situation for other people with this system.

Should I go full frame, and if so, which cameras/systems would suit me best? Would upgrading to the xt5 be the best balance? Should I do nothing as I’m in a better good sweet spot than I feel?

The only options I’m not really considering is M43 after trying it a bit (friend lent me his Olympus) the size and weight are fantastic, but I’m not really convinced by the sensor size and image feel from it.

I intent to rent and test out some alternatives if you have some. My budget is not really set in stone, but probably spending more than 2500€ in a body+lens is not the wisest financial choice for just a hobby (although I could be persuaded if worth it enough)

Thank you all for your time and thoughts

Given your preference for a compact system, I'd advise against full-frame. While there are relatively lightweight full-frame options available, most are much heavier than your 600g X-T4. Those that are in the ballpark (e.g. Nikon Z5) won't necessarily perform as well as or better than the X-T4 in some areas. The Z5's autofocus, for example, won't be an upgrade.

I do recommend making the available lenses with whichever body you choose a priority. Again based on what you've written, you appear to like a system that is both relatively compact & lightweight while also offering shallow depth of field, good light-gathering and image quality. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 S is roughly equivalent to the 33mm f/1.4 but weighs 2 oz. more. A couple of ounces may not seem like much but it adds up. If the camera, lens, and shoulder bag are all just a skosh larger or heavier, combined the new system might be bulky enough to not be a good fit with your shooting style.

While micro four thirds might be interesting from a size & weight standpoint, there will be an image quality hit, especially in low light situations. Also, I'm not convinced about the long term future of the format.

Renting is a great way to test drive a system you're seriously considering. If you have friends who shoot other brands or formats, you might be able to swap gear some afternoon to get a feel for the competition. Are there any reputable camera stores within a reasonable distance of where you live or an upcoming travel destination. A visit to a store may afford an opportunity to at least hold another system in your hands...get a feel for the gear, controls and menus.

A feature you've not mentioned is weather resistance and durability. The single-digit X-series bodies are well-built and weather resistant. That adds to their size & weight. Is that something you really need? I ask because I've had an X-T20 since 2017. I love its compactness for travel, including backpacking in rugged backcountry areas.

The X-T50 would be lighter, more compact, and a bit less expensive than an X-T5. It would also have the same sensor and processor, and be compatible with all the same lenses as the higher end body. You've mentioned liking to shoot using a film simulation in the field and process that to taste. The X-T50 makes film sims more readily available with the dedicated dial. You might find it fun to experiment with different sims as a starting point for your eventual final version of the image.

Finally, the X-S20 is built around a PASM user interface. That seems a better fit with your preferred shooting style. It's also a bit heavier than the X-T50 and has the lower res 26MP sensor.

Here's a link to a page on the Fujifilm site comparing the X-T5, X-T50 and X-S20: https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/produc...ameras[]=x-t5&cameras[]=x-t50&cameras[]=x-s20

Good luck with your choice.

 

[GreatOceanSoftware]

The XT5 has the two-way tilt, is a bit smaller and lighter weight.

I have to admit that even though I love the control dials, 90% of my photos are in full auto, and I use program shift and exposure compensation, freeing me to concentrate on composition a bit more rather than fiddling with the camera. The other 10% is full manual where the direct controls really shine. I rarely use anything in between.

(BTW, I don’t hear anyone mention this, but it seems like cameras of the past only had program shift of one or two stops. Now you can pretty much run the whole range of the lens’ aperture.)

As for DOF, I think you might reconsider your lenses, or I frequently apply an Orton filter to my backgrounds if I want further separation of subject.

For AF, I mostly stick with AF-S, which is as snappy as any other brand, and AF-C with subject detection for BIF. Morris provided the settings that actually work. Substantial improvement over what I was using.

Finding a camera that ticks all the boxes is difficult. I think the tilt screen is the most limiting factor. I’ve softened my stance on the flippy screens a bit. I see their usefulness in landscapes and macro, but absolutely rubs me the wrong way for most travel situations and street photography.

Good luck and post back whatever you decide.

--
Randy

 

[jhorse]

Thanks all for chiming in and the responses, I did not expect this many! I truly appreciate it.

General consensus I take from this is that fuji has more than enough quality glass, and yes, the AF is the weak point. Another vote for the 16-55 (or 16-50 now)

You have same excellent advice above, especially from, as usual, Morris. I am going to go out on a limb, which means that many people will disagree with me, and say that I do not find the current Fuji AF a weakness, unless that means it is inhibiting for one's type of photography (bar one aspect, see below).

I had a XT4, which was fine and now use a XT5. The inconvenient truth is twofold: people just expect all AF systems to function 100% reliably out of the box (I have spoken to Sony users who challenge that); and many people do not take the trouble to understand the technology, set it up optimally (suggest you research and use Morris's settings) or train/practice in its use against representative subjects (for the avoidance of doubt, this is a generalisation - not suggesting you fall into this group).

I say this from two perspectives. First, I was trained in the military to optimise the use of equipment where the second point above applies. Second, I use my XT5 (and 16-55 and 70-300) for general, hiking, travel and sports. In sport, my subjects are high gaol polo where polo ponies (a misnomer as most are retrained racehorses) are doing 25+MPH, my son's kite surfing and daughter's cycle racing. When I bought the XT5 I was weighing it up with the XH2S and spoke with a technician in Fuji’s House of Photography (London). He said that the XT5, XH2 and XH2S used the same AF system but the XH models had much larger buffers so are able to clear them faster, which is a clear advantage for long sequences. In the end, I preferred the body of the XT over the XH hence opting for the XT5. Shooting RAW/JPEG Fine and 7fps, I have not found the XT5 to be limiting in polo runs of play of 15-20 seconds.

The only caveat to the Fuji AF system concerns subject detection. I think, but cannot be certain, that the computing power need is large and I found in the early days of using it that it was both laggy and slow. I soon switched it off and rely on tracking with single point AF, or sometimes wide/tracking, which, with the right set up and practice, I find more reliable and faster.

Finally, I'd add my name to those suggesting take a look at the new Fuji 16-55 f2.8 MkII, which hits the shelves later this year (I have one on pre-order).

Hope that helps.

 

[Rakosky]

I think that for hobby you needn't a FF and if you like to take pics of wildlife using Aps-c you can keep the size of tele lenses very low respect to FF. Maybe your best choice could be x-t5 or xh-2s

 

[ernest56]

I indeed failed to list my equipment but since the post was getting a bit too long already, decided against it, even if that should have been a important piece of info. My current lens are:

• fuji 18-55mm kit lens
• fuji 33mm 1.4f prime
• viltrox 13 1.4f prime
• fuji 70-300 (plus 1.4TC)
• tamron 18-300

From that list the 18-55 and 33 are indeed the ones I use the most after reviewing all this time. The 70-300 appear when I know I'll need more reach, same (but the opposite) scenario with the viltrox's 13, although that last one is usually for astro, if I'm being honest.

I am a hobbyist and I shot with an XT2 for 7 years with the 16-55mm being my most used lens. The 16-55mm f2.8 is an excellent lens with great IQ.

As already mentioned in another post the 18-55 lens is holding you back. I found the 16-55 IQ was way better than my 18-55. If you stayed with Fuji I would put my money towards the 16-55 f2.8 MK II lens if you wanted to save a little weight, otherwise the 16-55 f2.8 mk I is excellent.

If you feel the urge to upgrade your camera body then XT5 or XH2 is down to personal preference. One needs to hold each camera body to see which fits before deciding The XH series are Fuji's Pro APS-C bodies.

XH2/XH2s

1. EVF 5.76 million dots
2. UHS-II SD and CFexpress Type B card slot
3. 500,000 shutter actuations
4. 79 weather-sealed points

XT5

1. EVF 3.69 million dots
2. two SD card slots
3. 56 weather-sealed points

Not sure if I'm really interested in maintaining two systems. I could consider having a dedicated camera for astro, but that's about it for me.

I would keep the XT4 for your "astro" body. The XT4 with a 26mp sensor would have a slight edge over a 40mp sensor for light gathering.

• XT4 26mp sensor pixel pitch of 3.76µm
• XH2/XT5 40mp sensor pixel pitch of 3.04µm

As for AF, an update is coming this month for the XH2/XH2s with an update for the XT5 to follow shortly.

 

[SmokeAndMirrorless]

You have an excellent eye and have captured some great images. As a hobbyist, you only have to make yourself happy. Focus on what makes you want to take photos.

Consider your lenses first and foremost. The camera is secondary. None of your images show metadata of exactly what lens was used. You originally mentioned the small 18-55 and 33mm lenses. If you want a less "retro" styled camera and favor standard primes, you could go in several directions. An OM-1 (I or II) with 20mm f/1.4 and 40-150mm f/2.8 would be one way. A Sony a7C (probably Mk II) with 40mm f/2.5 and Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 would be another. Either setup would be very compact to carry and cover the range of subjects you favor.

I've used both of the aforementioned combos and currently have the OM-1. So there's my vote.

 

[Rmwk]

Oregon:

Great summary! You're being very thoughtful. I will share a similar sentiment about the X-T50 or X-S20 in that the viewfinder is important to me, and so those smaller cameras would not work for me. The large, bright viewfinders of the X-T4 or X-T5 are essential for me.

Thanks for that tidbit Oregon! A good viewfinder experience is important, and based on the T50 and S20 are a bit of a step down in viewfinder, I probably would not enjoy that.

ddtan:

You sound a lot like me in your photography preferences. What I have come to in terms of my solution is to really make clear in my own mind, the intent of any particular outing. Some outings are simply fun and I want to document my experiences. For these situations I use my phone.

I think that the recommendations to try the 16-55 f2.8 MkII are good

Interestingly, when I want to record something, I just grab my iphone and that's that. I may be more inclined to record wildlife, but that's probably the extent of my interest in video right now.

Noted the 16-55 f2.8 MkII recommendation. If I take just one thing from the whole tread, is "try this lens before doing anything else".

Bill:

Given your preference for a compact system, I'd advise against full-frame. While there are relatively lightweight full-frame options available, most are much heavier than your 600g X-T4. Those that are in the ballpark (e.g. Nikon Z5) won't necessarily perform as well as or better than the X-T4 in some areas. The Z5's autofocus, for example, won't be an upgrade

Thanks for your overall thoughts Bill. There is clearly a consensus here.

GreatOceanSoftware:

The XT5 has the two-way tilt, is a bit smaller and lighter weight.

I have to admit that even though I love the control dials, 90% of my photos are in full auto, and I use program shift and exposure compensation, freeing me to concentrate on composition a bit more rather than fiddling with the camera. The other 10% is full manual where the direct controls really shine. I rarely use anything in between.[...]

Finding a camera that ticks all the boxes is difficult. I think the tilt screen is the most limiting factor. I’ve softened my stance on the flippy screens a bit. I see their usefulness in landscapes and macro, but absolutely rubs me the wrong way for most travel situations and street photography

I love the look of the control dials, but in reality is exactly as you said, don't make use of them that much for the types of things I tend to do.

The tilt screen is one thing. To be honest, aside from the 16-55 f2.8 MkII, this is going to be a toss between the x-t5 and the x-h2s as potential body upgrades, but choosing between them is going to be hard.

jhorse:

I had a XT4, which was fine and now use a XT5. The inconvenient truth is twofold: people just expect all AF systems to function 100% reliably out of the box (I have spoken to Sony users who challenge that); and many people do not take the trouble to understand the technology, set it up optimally (suggest you research and use Morris's settings) or train/practice in its use against representative subjects (for the avoidance of doubt, this is a generalisation - not suggesting you fall into this group).[...]

Finally, I'd add my name to those suggesting take a look at the new Fuji 16-55 f2.8 MkII, which hits the shelves later this year (I have one on pre-order).

My grip with autofocus is that I'm aware of the situations it's not that reliable, and as a result, don't pursue them that much. But at the same time, I have become more and more aware that I quite enjoy shooting from the hip if the situation requires a fast one. Again, better lens and/or the new bodies could give me the edge I feel I need for those specific situations without being a complete change.

Absolutely unanimous 16-55 f2.8 MkII feedback again. I appreciate it.

Rakosky:

I think that for hobby you needn't a FF and if you like to take pics of wildlife using Aps-c you can keep the size of tele lenses very low respect to FF. Maybe your best choice could be x-t5 or xh-2s

It is looking more and more like this is going to be the option.

Ernest56:

I am a hobbyist and I shot with an XT2 for 7 years with the 16-55mm being my most used lens. The 16-55mm f2.8 is an excellent lens with great IQ.

As already mentioned in another post the 18-55 lens is holding you back. I found the 16-55 IQ was way better than my 18-55. If you stayed with Fuji I would put my money towards the 16-55 f2.8 MK II lens if you wanted to save a little weight, otherwise the 16-55 f2.8 mk I is excellent.

If you feel the urge to upgrade your camera body then XT5 or XH2 is down to personal preference. One needs to hold each camera body to see which fits before deciding The XH series are Fuji's Pro APS-C bodies.[...]

I would keep the XT4 for your "astro" body. The XT4 with a 26mp sensor would have a slight edge over a 40mp sensor for light gathering.

• XT4 26mp sensor pixel pitch of 3.76µm
• XH2/XT5 40mp sensor pixel pitch of 3.04µm

Same as before, seems the 16-55 is the way to go. Regarding the body... I'll need to rent or at least test out both to see what fits me best, but seems is going to be one of them

Keeping the XT4 is not something I had considered for astro, to be honest, I'll mull over it. On the one hand, having a specific astro camera is something I had in mind, but was thinking along the lines of a cheaper FF just for that. But on the other hand, having a second body "just in case" for a photo centric trip sounds advisable.

Thank you Ernest, you gave me some food for thought there.

SmokeAndMirrorless:

You have an excellent eye and have captured some great images. As a hobbyist, you only have to make yourself happy. Focus on what makes you want to take photos.

Consider your lenses first and foremost. The camera is secondary. None of your images show metadata of exactly what lens was used. You originally mentioned the small 18-55 and 33mm lenses. If you want a less "retro" styled camera and favor standard primes, you could go in several directions. An OM-1 (I or II) with 20mm f/1.4 and 40-150mm f/2.8 would be one way. A Sony a7C (probably Mk II) with 40mm f/2.5 and Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 would be another. Either setup would be very compact to carry and cover the range of subjects you favor.

I've used both of the aforementioned combos and currently have the OM-1. So there's my vote.

I appreciate your kindness, I'm glad you liked the images.

I tested a MFT system that a friend lent me for a bit, and while the size (and equivalent reach) is absolutely fantastic, I was not convinced of the overall tradeoffs. If changing bodies I was considering other APS-C or moving to FF.

The a7C II is a very interesting alternative. The viewfinder doesn't quite convince me if I'm honest, and while the body is fantastically small, lens for my prefered focal distances seem to be a "bit too big" for it (the tamron, for example, based on camerasize at least). Yet, the size and AF tradeoffs, for my interests, are very convincing. If I moved to FF it would be definitely an option.

Btw, on this:

Morris:

One other feature that is important to me is weather resistance. I go out in all sorts of conditions and not having to use a rain cover makes working in all sorts of weather a lot easier

Somehow I skipped this part, and while wasn't in the list I explained, it is indeed something I take into consideration highly. I have grown accustomed to it and losing that would be more bothersome that I could probably expect.

All in all, I think that the next steps I'll take will be:

• Get my hands on the 16-55 f2.8 MkII . There's only so many positive comments you can consider before it really picks your curiosity, and all in all, Lens are everything.
• Test or rent a X-HS2 and X-T5. That's going to be about AF & PASM vs Size, screen & crop (and if AF is enough on this one). But in all honestly, it will probably be about feel.

Thank you all for the time you took to help me. I really appreciate it.

 

[ernest56]

Keeping the XT4 is not something I had considered for astro, to be honest, I'll mull over it. On the one hand, having a specific astro camera is something I had in mind, but was thinking along the lines of a cheaper FF just for that. But on the other hand, having a second body "just in case" for a photo centric trip sounds advisable.

A few things you might want to consider in keeping the XT4 for astro and to use as a second body for photo centric trips

• Not having to change lenses in the field
• The same set of batteries and charger for both camera bodies
• Familiar with the Fuji menu system
• Backup body

For sure FF has an advantage over APS-C for astro. How often do you shoot astro? Is the cost of having a second FF entry level body, lens, different batteries and charger worth the investment to you just for astro? Nikon Z5 plus Viltrox 16mm f1.8 is approximately 1800€ (sale price). Are you not happy with the XT4 and Viltrox 13mm f1.4 for astro?

 

[Northern_Amateur]

I don’t envy you trying to pick between the X-T5 and the X-H2S. I bought my X-H2S to use for birding, but then took it out with an 18mm 1.4 lens to do some night photography and an illuminated indoor event. Loved using it, even took some street and video, neither of which I normally do. Liked it so much, and was delighted with the night street especially, and thought of swapping my X-T5 for an X-H2 to have two bodies with the same feel.

A couple of nights later I went to the same event again, but took the X-T5 (with the same lens). Loved using the X-T5 and got great results again (although didn’t have time to try night street again). I took more video that second night and found the X-T5 also produced great results. If anything it had handling advantages when holding above my head.

I’ve also gone the opposide way, from wide angle indoors and at night, and used my X-T5 with a 150-600 before I got the X-H2S. I can see the different benefits of both bodies with that lens.

The X-HS2 certainly has the better viewfinder, but you only really notice when switching between the two. The X-HS2 is built like a tank, is a bit more comfortable with large lenses, and you can protect the rear screen, but the flippy screen makes it feel more vulnerable and is also inconvenient at times. The PASM controls have advantages - until they don’t!

Best of luck with your choices, all the detail above really says is that both bodies are great and have slightly different merits. I’d find it really hard to choose one over the other unless I was specialising in one genre.

 

[Rmwk]

A few things you might want to consider in keeping the XT4 for astro and to use as a second body for photo centric trips

• Not having to change lenses in the field
• The same set of batteries and charger for both camera bodies
• Familiar with the Fuji menu system
• Backup body

For sure FF has an advantage over APS-C for astro. How often do you shoot astro? Is the cost of having a second FF entry level body, lens, different batteries and charger worth the investment to you just for astro? Nikon Z5 plus Viltrox 16mm f1.8 is approximately 1800€ (sale price). Are you not happy with the XT4 and Viltrox 13mm f1.4 for astro?

Very convincing argument, what can I say. I'll probably follow that advice.

And yes, I'm honestly quite happy with my XT4 and the viltrox 13mm, no need to upgrade for the sake of upgrade. I do astro very occasionally, and light pollution would be a bigger issue than the limits of the lens.

Leodis:

I don’t envy you trying to pick between the X-T5 and the X-H2S. I bought my X-H2S to use for birding, but then took it out with an 18mm 1.4 lens to do some night photography and an illuminated indoor event. Loved using it, even took some street and video, neither of which I normally do. Liked it so much, and was delighted with the night street especially, and thought of swapping my X-T5 for an X-H2 to have two bodies with the same feel.[...]

Best of luck with your choices, all the detail above really says is that both bodies are great and have slightly different merits. I’d find it really hard to choose one over the other unless I was specialising in one genre.

I think the best course of action is rent them or test them in a store when I have access to the 16-55 to compare how they feel and focus, since based on my preferences, that lens would shape as my main one unless I want to go long and would the one that stays "glued to the body for the most part".

Thanks for your insight, the pros and cons of each are quite clear (on paper at least), so all is left is to actually test them myself I think

 

[jhunna]

I just spent the last 3 years going through this and I ended up with the Sony A7CR. If you can rent it try out the a7cr and 2450G. It solved the following problems:

1. Depth of field
2. Auto focus accuracy
3. Dynamic range
4. Weather proof

Possible compromises:

1. Cost
2. EVF (I think it is fine and you should try it before believing the bad reviews)
3. Flippy screen
4. File sizes but that can be dealt with.

Additions

1. Incredible detail.
2. Lots of options
3. Apsc mode keys you use smaller lenses when needed

Options

1. Smaller glass 2860 24,40,50G lenses
2. A7c or A7c2 save money
3. 50GM f1.2 expensive but man is it worth it

If the cost is acceptable this is a no regret system.

 

[Rmwk]

I just spent the last 3 years going through this and I ended up with the Sony A7CR. If you can rent it try out the a7cr and 2450G. It solved the following problems:

1. Depth of field
2. Auto focus accuracy
3. Dynamic range
4. Weather proof

Possible compromises:

1. Cost
2. EVF (I think it is fine and you should try it before believing the bad reviews)
3. Flippy screen
4. File sizes but that can be dealt with.

Additions

1. Incredible detail.
2. Lots of options
3. Apsc mode keys you use smaller lenses when needed

Options

1. Smaller glass 2860 24,40,50G lenses
2. A7c or A7c2 save money
3. 50GM f1.2 expensive but man is it worth it

If the cost is acceptable this is a no regret system.

From all other alternatives in a FF scenario, and at least on paper, it would probably be either the A7IV, A7CII or A7CR, as it seems they have the best balance between AF capabilities and body&lens size options.

Specially the A7C family appear to check most boxes, although the uncentered and lower resolution viewfinder it's something I would need to test myself. Also, flippy screen.

That said, the A7CR is about 3k€, which is quite the ask (for me).

I'll probably test the 16-55 first, and potentially new body as first option, but if that doesn't end clicking for me, I think I'll follow your advice.

Thanks a lot

 

[jhunna]

I just spent the last 3 years going through this and I ended up with the Sony A7CR. If you can rent it try out the a7cr and 2450G. It solved the following problems:

1. Depth of field
2. Auto focus accuracy
3. Dynamic range
4. Weather proof

Possible compromises:

1. Cost
2. EVF (I think it is fine and you should try it before believing the bad reviews)
3. Flippy screen
4. File sizes but that can be dealt with.

Additions

1. Incredible detail.
2. Lots of options
3. Apsc mode keys you use smaller lenses when needed

Options

1. Smaller glass 2860 24,40,50G lenses
2. A7c or A7c2 save money
3. 50GM f1.2 expensive but man is it worth it

If the cost is acceptable this is a no regret system.

From all other alternatives in a FF scenario, and at least on paper, it would probably be either the A7IV, A7CII or A7CR, as it seems they have the best balance between AF capabilities and body&lens size options.

Specially the A7C family appear to check most boxes, although the uncentered and lower resolution viewfinder it's something I would need to test myself. Also, flippy screen.

That said, the A7CR is about 3k€, which is quite the ask (for me).

I bought mine for about $2500 when they first came out. I sold other equipment to help finance it. Even though it was a sacrifice, there have been no regrets or any desire to buy anything else.

I'll probably test the 16-55 first, and potentially new body as first option, but if that doesn't end clicking for me, I think I'll follow your advice.

Sony's apsc lineup has a 1655 lens that is remarkable, and smaller than the Fuji version. The a6700 and 16-55G would come in around $2500 new and is a remarkable pairing.

Thanks a lot

My pleasure and good luck on your journey.

 

[KariP]

Hi everyone,

I’ve been reflecting on my photography over the past 6 years, and I’d appreciate some input and advice

Photography is a hobby for me—something I enjoy sharing with close friends and family (I like to print my work, though I’m running out of wall space). I’m not aiming to go pro nor do I honestly consider myself honestly good; it’s just something I do for fun.

I have been using a Fuji X-T4 for the last 4 years which has been a fantastic camera for me. But after some thinking and self analysis about “What I thought I would be interested in” vs “What I actually do”, and some frictions in my setup, I’m starting to wonder if switching systems (maybe to full-frame) might be the right next step.

I’d love some advice on options, as this is not honestly a G.A.S scenario, just the thoughts of a 40-something guy considering alternatives after some self-reflection.

Expectations VS actual use:

When I started to be more thoughtful about photography I expected to do a lot of landscape and nature , which are the types I tend to appreciate more. But as it turns out, 70-80% of my photography really falls under "travel", which (at least in my case) means a mix of landscape, architecture, wildlife, and portrait, but with one main difference: spontaneity. I take photos “while” I’m traveling, which means the flow of the travel tends to take priority, and there’s only so much I can stall myself (an others) to take a picture. It doesn’t mean I don’t go out of my way to take them or plan trips specifically for that since some of my friends also love photography, It is rather how many trips or times are specifically planning to take pictures vs. how many pictures I take while I am traveling.

All in all, while I do still enjoy that "slow and methodical" feel, the reality is that unless is a landscape trip, I often shoot in aperture priority with some exposure compensation—pretty straightforward, with more focus on being in the moment and capturing the moment. The kind of spontaneity than doesn’t make use of the stronger points of the fuji, with the autofocus shenanigans (specially at wildlife or in low light scenarios) sometimes fighting against you (although is not something precisely critical)

Let me share a couple of photos just for the sake of it

















Those may not be great, but I like them, and enjoyed quite a lot taking them. Apologies for the lack of portraits but I’m not fond of sharing close one’s face’s though.

I also thought I would be way more interested in video, but after all this time, the reality is that … not really. I do find myself way more interested in wildlife than I expected though, which was a surprise.

What I expected to value more… but not really:

• OOC JPGs: I thought Fuji’s out-of-camera JPGs and film simulations would be awesome. And to be fair, they absolutely are, but after some review, almost all photos go through C1 (quick edits, mind you). I do use the film simulations as base (Provia, Velvia, Pro Neg. Std as base most of the time) with other very small adjustments, but RAW at the end of the day. This was quite the surprise for me as I don’t enjoy a complicated process that much, although it is probably because I can fix some of my own limitations in post though. (Side comment: I should really learn way more about post processing)
• Video: When I got the X-T4 I had the idea of getting a camera that was capable of image & video, to learn a bit more about it. Reality is, the interest in video didn’t really appear, and I find myself bothered by a flippy screen way more than I expected, to the point of probably not taking some photos I liked because “bah, I need to deal with it”.
• Old school dials: I really expected to use them way more than I do, and to a point, I appreciate a lot the tactile feel of having all available. But most often than not, as I said, the dials I really care about are the aperture ring and the exposure compensation, or replace aperture with shutter speed if required. ISO is pretty much always either autoISO(custom defined) or minimum. At the end of the day I use it as if was a PASM most of the time. You can’t beat the gorgeous look of the camera though.

What I actually value in retrospect:

• Depth of Field and Dynamic Range: From the bunch of lens I have, in my bag there’s always there, my 18-55 (hard to beat that convenience) and my 33mm 1.4f which I absolutely adore, and in fact the usual situation is “18-55 by default but change to the 33mm the moment I see a really good one”. The bokeh and sharpness of that less is absolutely fantastic. Again that doesn’t quite match my initial expectation of “all I need is sharpness and f8”. All I’ll say about DR is that I’m low light way more than initially expected.
• Autofocus Confidence: I’d love a more reliable AF system to capture spontaneous moments, whether people or wildlife. Is not that I can’t make it work or is a huge pain point, but sometimes it feels like swimming against the current. This isn’t essential for me as a hobbyist (is not like I’m getting paid for this), but having the confidence to get those “in-the-moment” shots would be a very nice plus. I think I’ve held back from shooting certain moments because of this.
• Compactness and Weight: The X-T4 is near the upper limit of what I want to carry around all day, especially for travel. If I do switch systems, being able to keep things somewhat compact and lightweight would be. Not sure about the compactness of FF lenses, but seems there are more options that I initially expected. There’s wiggle room of course, but is something I want to keep in mind.
• IBIS: Not relying on a tripod is something I’ve come to really appreciate, and IBIS has been a huge help. I’d hate to lose that if I switched systems.
  Viewfinder Use: I use the viewfinder 80-90% of the time, it is plainly personal preference as I just enjoy the feel way more than the screen, so I’m not sure if a camera without a good one would be a good fit unless it really checks a lot of boxes. This might be a personal quirk, but it adds a lot to my enjoyment.

So, what should I consider?

I honestly would love some suggestions here. This is a Fuji forum so there is bias to be expected, but I also guess this is a familiar situation for other people with this system.

Should I go full frame, and if so, which cameras/systems would suit me best? Would upgrading to the xt5 be the best balance? Should I do nothing as I’m in a better good sweet spot than I feel?

The only options I’m not really considering is M43 after trying it a bit (friend lent me his Olympus) the size and weight are fantastic, but I’m not really convinced by the sensor size and image feel from it.

I intent to rent and test out some alternatives if you have some. My budget is not really set in stone, but probably spending more than 2500€ in a body+lens is not the wisest financial choice for just a hobby (although I could be persuaded if worth it enough)

Thank you all for your time and thoughts

Buying a new FF camera does not make wonders happen...

It can just be a time for a new attitude ;-) Perhaps it is not just the gear, but the thing 12cm behind the viewfinder . That is usually the problem. I recommend reading some book by Guy Tal - for example " Be extraordinary" . After that you can meditate the gear dilemma.

Cameras are different and camera brands have their own philosophy of the logic of the user interface. This is just my brains, but ... Canon cameras have a better menu system and a well planned user interface with suitable amount of buttons and dials. Fuji has an own style, but lately I have found out that I use Canon cameras in a really different way. More natural to me. Fujifilm looks like more traditional with controls that are more like from a traditional mechanical camera - but Fujifilm cameras ( I have X-E3 and X-H1) are great cameras in many ways , but not so fast tools.

A FF camera vs APS C is a useless dilemma. Do you print big ? or do you show your images in some net site? Big sensor has not so much meaning if you do not print big images.

I personally use Canon FF gear and I have some lenses ( Canon lenses are better)

At the moment the size of XH1 irritates me - weight and size are in the same class with R-5 !

E3. does not have IBIS , but it is almost pocketable and with 18-55 OIS it works in rather low light. It was a great traveling companion ... Perhaps a E5 with IBIS and a better LCD is published some day. I bought my first Fuji ILC because it was small ...

I have once tried a Sony camera, but the menu-system and user interface are IMO rather incomprehensible ( my brains...)

Anyway ! perhaps you should rent a Canon R6 with a 24-105 and spend some time with it.

--
Kari
I started SLR film photography in 1968. Now two systems: Fujifilm X-H1 + X-E3 and Canon FF gear R5 + R6

 

[Rmwk]

Buying a new FF camera does not make wonders happen...

It can just be a time for a new attitude ;-) Perhaps it is not just the gear, but the thing 12cm behind the viewfinder . That is usually the problem. I recommend reading some book by Guy Tal - for example " Be extraordinary" . After that you can meditate the gear dilemma.

Hello Kari.

This is more or less the question I'm asking here. All in all, after some thought, what I valued the most when I choose fuji 4 years ago is not the same I value right now, and thus I'm asking myself if the strengths and weakness of the system are currently a good fit for me.

Is not about taking "better gear", but how well it works for me. To briefly highlight some frictions:

1. XT style dials were something I valued at the time, but right now reality is that I don't make extensive use of them

2. DOF&DR. A FF camera has better DR and the equivalent of an additional step for DOF.

3. Fuji AF is not exactly know how it performs in AF-C and moving targets or low light (or both), something I have experienced first hand in multiple occasions. Given that I find myself increasingly interested in areas that could benefit from that, I'm questioning the fit.

Again, at the end of the day I'm just a hobbyist, so nothing here is really critical nor I can work around (well, maybe the AF is the complicated one), but I wanted some insights on this mismatch and the potential value of just moving to another system that better suits me right now.

A FF camera vs APS C is a useless dilemma. Do you print big ? or do you show your images in some net site? Big sensor has not so much meaning if you do not print big images.

Is not about printing big or having a big megapixel count, but about point 2

I personally use Canon FF gear and I have some lenses ( Canon lenses are better)

Friend of mine uses canon RF gear. I myself had a m50 (still have it, wife uses it from time to time). Canon colors are nice, and the AF is definitely a step up.

At the moment the size of XH1 irritates me - weight and size are in the same class with R-5 !

that was one of my observations in camerasize. X-H body line is pretty much the same size to a canon R6 mrkII. Now, lens are a different conversation.

E3. does not have IBIS , but it is almost pocketable and with 18-55 OIS it works in rather low light. It was a great traveling companion ... Perhaps a E5 with IBIS and a better LCD is published some day. I bought my first Fuji ILC because it was small ...

I have once tried a Sony camera, but the menu-system and user interface are IMO rather incomprehensible ( my brains...)

Anyway ! perhaps you should rent a Canon R6 with a 24-105 and spend some time with it.

Thanks for your thoughts Kari