Fujifilm X-T3 Review

"If you are very serious about video, you can get a budget gimbal no problem (2 to 4 hundred dollars)."

The entire point of the original post was to say for the average user, not a video nut, IBIS means you do not need to do that nor carry it.

If you are that serious about video to go an buy, carry and use a gimbal then maybe the T3 is not what you should be buying anyway. It's very good at video according the review but it's not the ultimate video tool.

Well... my point was also that for the average user there are plenty of image stabilized lenses as well.

Most of Fuji zooms have OIS, and most average users do have a zoom. Following the 1/30 or 1/60 shutter speed rules for video you generally won’t run into needing a f1.8 prime or so (for the average user).

Sure IBIS would be handy. But the lack of it isnt the end of the world. Basically only an issue of you have to record with a prime. I would argue that generally a zoom is handier for the average user.

Cheers

Historically we've considered IBIS and OIS to be comparably useful.

However, for video, correcting roll to keep your horizons straight is important, and that's something OIS can't do. As such, the lack of IBIS will be mentioned as a Con in future reviews (That's what I meant by "A tripod or gimbal is needed to get the best of the camera's video" in this review).

We'll be publishing an article explaining the change of position soon.

@Bozze. I don’t always have the time to play with raw for family or travel pictures. So if the JPEG is close to ma taste in terms of colours then I save time.

I’m getting the Canon 6d Mark II. It’s at a very attractive price right now. I own several Fuji’s but they can’t beat Canon color science and ergonomics. I don’t care about 4K video 😉

Sure, from a tripod. OIS is 2 axis correction (pitch and yaw only), and it's mostly geared to low-amplitude correction such as mild hand tremor or camera movement due to pressing shutter button. IBIS is 5 degrees of freedom: pitch, yaw, roll, x translation and y translation, and it can correct much greater amplitude, up to mild telephoto.

I have yet to shoot video using a tripod.

For IBIS you will have to wait for the X-H2 sometime by late 2019. Fuji is not going to cannibalize sales of the X-H1.

they are doing the old holding back
trick which helped allow smart phones to
be THE most used cameras, wait for E-T5

Honestly Jeffjeab, what was the point of that comment?
Do you feel bigger/better now?

Below is some video I shot with the X-T3 a couple of weeks ago at a college football game. Video was shot using AF-C. As you can see, the AF-C is excellent with no "wobbling."

https://vimeo.com/296302651

racin06, I can see effect of OIS quite a bit (jumping). Which lens were you using? The zooming is quite smooth actually.

Continued...

As I said, DPR does heap praise on the camera and I hope that users of it find it enjoyable.

But the limited lens selection and some of the pricing on lenses plus the feature set of other cameras certainly leads me to believe that for macro photographers, sports, wildlife, action, astrophotography and people with certain budgets might be better suited with other gear.

It’s reallt bad at mowing the grass too.

And, compared to Canikony there's exactly zero third party AF lens options. AFAIK.

@Digital, Zeiss made three Touit lenses for Fuji X. They are readily available used (in USA, not sure about other markets). The 12mm is spectacular.

Yes, there are the Zeiss lenses. The 12mm is reviewed as being pretty good but not spectacular.(3.5 stars out of five).
http://www.opticallimits.com/fuji_x/869-zeiss12f28?start=1
Of course three lenses when the lineup this thin doesn’t really change things much.

No 70-200 2.8 ? Really ?
How about this
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1080892-REG/fujifilm_16443060_xf_50_140mm_f_2_8_r.html

There are not as many lenses as the canon line up which has of course been developing for decades but at least Fuji now produces bodies that are worth putting the lenses on
Can’t bear people who clearly have no idea throwing grenades over the fence. Try using the line up and then see how acutely you may (not) miss the breadth of Canon’s lens range. For the vast majority of indications there are more than enough lenses in their line up
How many lenses do you need to produce outstanding images ? I take about 95% of my images now on 3 lenses.

Look, I will take the bait and respond to what you claimed
‘No 70-200 2.8’
I have already sent you the link to their 50-140 f2.8 which equates to a FF equiv length of about 70-200

No prime longer than 200 mm and no zoom longer than 400 mm
You know full well that at FF equiv the 200 prime equates to a 300 mm lens and the 100-400 maxs out at the equivalent of 600mm

Looking at you posts it is clear that you are a perpetual antagonist. Stop whining and get out and take some shots. And perhaps stop canning a system you clearly just don’t understand

Paul JM:

I know exactly what I am talking about. And I am clearly not talking about FF equivalence.

I talked about 60 and 80 mm macros not 90 and 120. If I were talking about FF equivalence I would have said 90 and 120.

Everything I talked about was clearly not FF equivalence.

So no, none of those lenses exist for Fuji. And yes, I do realize that some people use only a few lenses. Median income in the US is 61K. Most people can not afford the $15000 in photo gear you have and they get by with sometimes only the kit lens.

And I do take pictures. Take a look at my profile. I looked at your profile and in nearly 15 years you have not uploaded any to this website.

I upload elsewhere for my own use and audience. Most of it is wreck diving.
To DPR ? Never. Because it is full of argumentative flogs like you who are here simply to try and appear clever. But then fail

Blade, a 16-80 f4 is due out next year which satisfies your 17-70 requirement.

I have an always running 6 year old that never stops and xt3 has best af for him. It never misses. Better than my d500 for it.

Alistar it would not be relevant if fujii itself
Did not make it relevant by being the only
Camera
Company that proudly and in big letters wrote MADE IN JAPAN
On the back of its cameras. Fuji did not have
To do
It but they kept doing it. Canon rebels
And 5d are also made in Japan but they don’t make
A
Big deal
Out of
It, just listing it on the bottom in small
Letters. Fuji did make
A big deal out of
It. That’s why the buzz when
Fuji made
The switch

@Alistair-h i don't own an iphone but my phone is made in China. "Made in ..." matters not for the quality of the final product but for what kind of world order you want (in few decades), what kind of country you give money to. Think 50yrs from now, not just over the lifecycle of current digital cameras. And in the case of Fuji, I couldn't put it any better than @Absolutic. If Fuji was a person, he would be a hypocrite. And yes, for equal spec'd camera but a bit higher price, if i had the choice I'd go for the Japanese worker assembled item. Fuji X-T3 very aggressive price is definitely not so low solely because it's made in China, fuji's profit margin on the X-T3 is likely quite thin. But I'm sure they have a solid business plan!

I know it’s a tired thing to say but deserves to be repeated. What makes a person an exceptional photographer is not their gears. It’s their vision and creativity. This is not by all means saying that gear doesn’t matter. Gears matter, but only when the vision and creativity of photographer demands it. So, what are you usually shooting? Why do you think you need a FF camera? Do you print your work for a billboard or poster? If all you do is sharing your photos on internet, then you never need a FF camera. If you can’t get a professional photo to publish on a website from a camera like the XT3, it’s more about you as a photographer than the camera it self.

Too bad you can't do serious photography with your FF gear because, you know, medium format is so much better.

Sensors come in all sorts of sizes and the idea that the old 35mm film size is somehow optimal in a very special way for digital also would be a big coincidence.
Full frame is optimal for marketing in that it is full and other sensors are crop sensors but it results in massive expensive optics and you have to wonder who in this day and age really needs to lug all that stuff all around. Of course cost is not really a concept that many of those left posting in DPR really understand and probably means little to reviewers.
You have to wonder with FF frame we are talking about the same brain cells activating that make it necessary for some to buy the largest SUV possible in some inner city to take the children on the 3 mile journey to school every day and put the lowest profile tyres possible on it to add to the comedy.
Full frame may just a current retro fad that will disappear in the course of time. Nothing is certain in the camera world now.

True.

Guys don't be so harsh. I am professional photographer and things there is very simple. Every pixel is counting, every skin pore, every detail in hair or eyelash. There is no APS-C sensor that can match FF in that regards. Also bokeh quality, light sensitivity, dynamic range becomes better with bigger sensors. That is not manufacturer ability to make something extraordinary - that is physics.

Fuji according to many other aspects promising very nice and capable system but for now it is only useful for mostly amateur photographers.

@KeepCalm look at any portrait taken with FF and APS-C and good lens of course. Anyone who can't see there significant difference in details need ophthalmologist more than any camera ;)

And YES... MF... of course. Too big, too AF sloppy and to expensive according to IQ difference.

Just want to see what Fuji can do in FF class. Nothing else ;)

@DuxX
But there are masses of full frame options around now so let us amateurs have a few aps-c systems to play with. Your post is very much geared to the elimination of one of the few aps-c systems available by saying it is a serious flaw.
Currently with Nikon £2,700 is entry level in mirrorless so if it becomes the format of choice heaven help us casual camera users.

Would it make using this camera more enjoyably for you if you knew Fuji would be the top selling brand?

Why so obsessed with full frame or 35 equivalent.?
Fuji has medium format at the best price in the market.
It’s a marketing hype to say full 35mm equivalents are better is just buying into the Hype

@Alistair-h
After I had switched to FF back in 2009 I immediately realized that image quality has changed to something that pleased me soo much. I can't say APS-C IQ was wrong, but what was most strange for me all my FF lenses started to show better performance (better colours, image definition and corner2corner sharpness) than on APS-C before. I was (and still is) a fan of shallow dof when needed and with FF I can have it using simple and cheap 1.8 lenses.

Of sure
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1433713-REG/canon_rf_28_70mm_f_2l_usm.html
1.5 kg of standard zoom
Sweet spot for weight lifters
And that horrible new canon mirror less FF crops the FF advantage away down to 1.7 when you shoot video
Sorry, at the same available sensor area cf apsc for video at three time the size and weight whose sweet spot is that touching ?

Something I have been saying for ages. Fuji need full frame.

Well, I’m one Fujifilm user who doesn’t believe any advantage of FF other than perhaps better low light/high ISO performance. As a landscape and product photographer using a tripod for all commercial work, I can obtain images with equal or better sharpness and detail rendition than FF...and especially so when employing focus stacking. As I only shoot at or near base ISO (160), I happily forego the extra weight and cost of a FF System. To each his own, I guess, right? Have fun with whatever gear you use.

Believe or not, if you look closely at any base iso portrait for example, difference is more than clear. APS-C simply can't match FF IQ. That's why Fuji need to have OPTION for their customers who wish to go on that way.
You know... bigger sensor is no matter of manufacturer or personal preference. It's a mater of physics.

DuxX, that is why they are trying to improve their MF lineup, why would I go FF if the price of a MF are close with the FF Mirrorless cameras?

Edit you mean foliage not footage.

Either way it's a strange thing to say.

Links to your claims?

Go to the samples and if you don't see it, just skip my comment. There are plenty of people who had issues with how XTrans captures color and fine color details, manifested in different ways. GFX uses Bayer filter array for a reason. If you don't have a problem with XTrans, then this is not your battle.

“curly foliage”?? Please don’t make such generalizations...I am obtaining very sharp, high-definition foliage in my landscape images, using the X-T3 plus stellar XF lenses, a solid tripod, and good exposure and post process technique. Perhaps if you experiment with a different image processor app (I use Affinity and Photoshop), and a good, solid tripod, you’ll get better results. Good luck and have fun!

The DOF is greater on APS-C
What you mean, ist the capability to isolate a subject.

But I don't see a miss here and I don't know if you ever shot a 85mm f1.2? You might have seen images on the internet, but I can tell you that one needs experience to produce images with it that work and are not just a soup of blur with a razor thin DOF. And mostly, you will shot a lens like this stepped down and that's were I come in: a 56mm f1.2 might be less able to blurr the background in direct comparison, but that does not really matter USING the lens.
and for the 24mm FOV: does it matter?

There might be situations, where you need a stop better separation both on 24mm as well as 85mm FOV yes. and if your style depends on that, then you need a larger sensor and larger lenses.
but for me: I don't mind "missing" out on the upper spectrum. Instead, I am really happy about smaller lenses while having shallow enough DOF (honestly, it is often still too thin for me)

@Guigui2890 Yes, It is weather resistant. Thanks for pointing that out.

"If you're not a pro..."

With this logic all pros should be using medium format.

A "pro" can deliver results with a M43, apsc, full frame, etc... What's your excuse?

@kreislauf That’s the second mistake I made in that post. I meant ‘greater’ thanks :o) I think you put more eloquently what I was trying to say.

How often do you think a “pro” photographer use F1.2 on an F1.2 lens? Just because the maximum aperture is 1.2 doesn’t mean it’s being used the most. In fact, I rarely see an image that won the prize shot at anything wider than F2. You can hop on Flickr and browse through recommended photos, 80% of them shot with >F4.

@D_Gunman Very shallow dof is just a tool that a pro has at his/her disposal should they decide to use it. That’s why a pro might buy a 1.2 lens on a full frame, to have that option. Do amateurs really need that option?

as was said above .... any cam from m 43 to mf can do pro work in the hands of a good shooter

below m43 [ 1 inch sensor] and below can nail a great shot, but would inhibit a real pro for a host of reasons

And also, if you ARE a “Pro”, at least a landscape and product photographer, the Fuji X-T3 makes sense as well.

do you guy remember when pros only shot film?

This is exactly why I recommend people to shoot with m43 very similar to apsc sensor size but with better lenses and much cheaper. 🤓

No reason to chose D500. There is no better wheather sealing proven and no better aF. Contrary, if you want an ultrawide lens for D500,Do you use the ultra plastic 10-20?

@bergat

D500 is essentially an APSC D5, so I’m inclined to think that it has better af and a more robust construction.

oh boy, brains are switched off today, huh bergat?

just because there is a ultra plastic 10-20mm that you don't like doesn't mean anything in regards to a whole system...

if you try to ridicule a D500 in regards of quality or usability and point blank tell that fuji is better, you really sound like a fanboy without any sane arguments except that "my brand is better than yours!"

of course there are reasons to chose a D500 for Christs sake.
in fact, there are many and they are complex because the requirements and situations of photographers can be very different.

But I guess, you invested some of your hard earned money into the fuji system and now think that that your way is superior to every body else?

@Kreislauf

You seem to be a little defensive. Why would someone invest all their hard-earned money in a new system unless they thought it was better than the alternatives?

You may disagree, but that's only because you invested all your money in something else.

^^ He was talking to bergat. What bergat said deserved such a response. Bergat seems like a typical obnoxious fanboy that talks down other systems without knowing much.

@Slouch Hooligan
Although pretty old by now, a black X20/X30 compact (not to be confused by XT-20) seems to match what you described. You can get a really cheap 2nd hand.

I still enjoy my X20 a lot as a light, versatile, discreet street shooter. I carry with me all the time in backpack.

Check out Andy Mumford on YouTube. He is an excellent photographer (one of the very few talented photographers on YouTube) who shoots amazing landscape on fuji x-series!

@seanleephoto Yes I've seen some of Mumford's videos but he admits he is a Fuji X Photographer and a brand ambassador for Fujifilm in Portugal, where he is based. I would prefer impartial advice. I don't know a single independent landscape photographer that uses Fuji.

Landscape photography review of the XT-3 from a guy who mainly uses Canon:
https://youtu.be/Yc7evXFjvRY

Seriously a 6d2 wow.
If you want a landscape camera maybe look at the seriously slow and feature lacking Pentax.
Amazing landscape camera though.

FF has proveen to be excellent for enthusiast, but with today competition for IQ and affordable pricing of MF bodies, MF is just better at this level, particularly in not so good light.

@Iacikuss I work with APSC at pro level for portraits and weddings no problem. I find it much better to work with than FF, and thats bull about it not being good in low light. The difference is hardly noticeable.

JPatrick that is exactly what I meant as I have FF, APSC, 1" and 1/2.3" so I know the limits of each one depending on the available light and I enjoy all of them.

I have both an APS-C and FF body and quite frankly, I don't think about sensor size for 90% of my photography. I just pick the camera that feels appropriate for the task (street photography: I'll use my XT2; for Landscapes, I'll use either my Nikon D750 or the Fuji XT2). The only time I reach for my D750 specifically is for astro photography because of its high ISO / low-light capabilities but beyond that, I just use whatever I think fits the need, not which ever one has the biggest sensor.

Well said, Bilbo! I certainly agree. Most folks don’t need the marginally better low light/high ISO performance “advantage” of FF. When viewed online at low resolution, I find zero difference in overall image quality, and indeed, I can print sharp, detail-rich poster size (20”x30”) prints with the Fuji X-T3 and the stellar Fujinon lenses. IMHO, the allure of FF originated in marketing hype, before the quality and sensor improvements in APS-C format systems. That “issue”, like the “Made in China” concern, should be put to bed. Thanks!

IBIS never stopped any subject, so yes, in most caes it's useless but it's the new Dynamic Range. If you can't add 6 stops, the sensor is subject to hate from trolls. I would not like to be ca cameradeveloper these days...

@jayngu
Naturally IBIS can't freeze movement , this is the counter argument repeated ad nauseam , now try shooting night cityscapes no tripod with lens stopped down because of nasty lights , or inside of museums / art galleries , or cathedrals where flash is forbidden , you'll be happy to have IBIS , even if you're above 1/20 or 1/30 sec . i was happy to have IBIS for this one, among many others : https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9301240652/photos/3796774/vram926-1200str