Fujifilm X-T3 Review

Use Capture One and you’ll be fine.

I mean let's say that Ferrari decides to move their factory to China and build it exactly the same. Would it still leave the same impression for fans?

So you're saying it's about brand perception, rather than any material difference?

Yes, I suppose so. If you want to taste the world's greatest sushi, you wouldn't travel to Korea, would you? You'd go to Japan because that's where it originated from. You'd want to taste the sushi where it originated from wouldn't you?

I guess the same can be applied to Leica. I can't afford it but I can see why people respect the brand. German engineering, German made and German Origin. Fans would be in an uproar if Leica were to move their facility to China. I like and purchase Xiaomi & DJI products and respect the fact that they originated from China.

I'd argue sushi preparation is a more skilled task, perhaps a skill more easily acquired in a culture where that skill is more widely-held and taught, which is not really the way manufacturing processes work.

But talk of Leica does reinforce the idea of brand perception (given they draw much more attention to the work done in Germany than the bits made in Portugal).

VERY flawed logic by Deinien.

Barf.

Would you buy an iPhone if you found out that it was made in China, or would you refrain and buy a Huawei instead?

In the broadest terms, yes. In our experience it's a little faster to recognise its subject and a little stickier at staying on it (when asking the camera to track the subject).

Bullet-points and nuance are awkward bedfellows.

Men, comparing a $1400 dollar camera to a $3000. It's a real win in T3.

"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.

@Dave Oddie, regarding you telling people to use a gimbal, my research shows that a decent gimbal weights over 1kg, which is a big deal when travelling, especially if I'm already travelling with a tripod and extra lens.

For me, I'm waiting for the X-T4 to get IBIS, and meanwhile I'm getting great images with the X-T2 but hankering for the improved eye-AF of the X-T3.

@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.

"Obviously, sports, action and wildlife photographers are impacted by the lack of long and fast lenses."

Not me...the 80mm f/2.8, 50-140 f/2.8, 100-400 and 1.4TC have me covered. The big prime glass is overrated in shooting sports and wildlife. I see plenty of sports and wildlife being shot with the lenses I own above.

So yes, you can do sports, action, wildlife with any camera and gear combo but it does not mean it is the best choice. I was at Yellowstone last year and it made it very clear to me what sort of gear is needed for the best work. And Fuji's very limited lineup makes that problematic and/or expensive.

As for other types of photography, Fuji's limited range of focal lengths for macro means there are better choices. Other cameras have feature sets for macro, landscape, still life, product and astrophotography that make them better choices.

Many portrait photographers like a 70-200 2.8 and Fuji doesn't have that. And the 200mm is a F2.0 and has a price that is typical for an OEM lens at that speed and makes it an unaffordable option for the overwhelming majority of users.

Fuji's limited selection of stabilized lenses also puts limitations on users that put an emphasis on those types of lenses.

continued;
As mentioned in the review, Fuji is a jack of all trades and has good video. Certainly, I would think it would be a good street photography camera and that is one of the few areas where the lens lineup is good for that.

But for sports, wildlife, action, macro, landscape, still life, product, portraits, astrophotography and for people interested in a range of stabilized lenses there are better choices. Plus, some of Fuji's lineup (18-135, 80mm macro, the kit lenses, the 10-24, etc) are comparatively pricey. (Now you may not find them pricey but median US income is 61K a year and the overwhelming majority of people can not afford the thousands and thousands of dollars you spend on gear).

If you are street photographer, a videographer, have no particular area of photography you want to emphasize and you have the unusual amounts of money to afford some of the gear it is a great choice.

But the other category of photographers I detailed above should probably look elsewhere.