Fujifilm X-T30 review

The 16-80mm is 440g. Not that bad.

Hi Steve. I do know what you mean, but others may not. Dual IBIS is a bit incongruent. I think you mean Dual IS, ie. IBIS and lens stabilization. Correct? 😊

and yet we all hand held for so many years sticking to basic rules and got sharp pictures without IBIS. reminds me of the shutter shock thoughts.. never had these problem with film!

With an Audi at least, you are not going to a car repair every two weeks....

Week this is your experience and I have nothing to say against that. For my part, I got rid of all Fuji’s because the xt10/20/30 are too small to be kept comfortably in the hand, some lenses are so big and expensive that I decided to invest into Sony, keeping some m43 just for small travels, getting rid of all my too big and heavy Nikon at the same time. . Sony fits perfectly in my hands, af is always accurate (not so with Fuji unfortunately) and exposure is also more reliable. There is just one problem with Sony, they have no equivalent for the very good 18-55 Fuji. Their 24-70 f4 is weird, the f2,8 is too heavy and I do not like the 24-105 which has huge vignetting.

If you can't get better photo out of the xt-30 vs an iPhone. The. You should probably just stick to your iPhone.

My 5 year old Samsung Note4 beats all Iphones hands down in any photo comparison.

Pinocchio

@wwwuser - Agreed. I don't know what the DPR staff see that i don't. Pictures are flat and colors look somewhat artificiall. And then there are the usual 'worm'-like artifacts, which is a trade mark of the xtrans-CFA. The amount of 'worms' in the cherry(?) trees is nothing but stunning.

Big cameras like the ones you say disipate more heat and can record longer videos with large batteries.
But I don´t like a big and heavy camera as those, and most people don´t need 4K.

@CaPi. Or just use a camera that doesn't overheat at all. Like the A6400.

Wow you own a lot of loser camera! Lol

Yeah, I've wanted the DVR/DPR separation for quite sometime now. The rating system is worthless when combining a STILLS camera's video capabilities into the rating. But the rating number and the Silver Award or higher that everything under the sun gets (unless it's just horribly horrible) can easily be dismissed. The reviews get muddied though when fusing photo and video capabilities.

IBIS is the most overhyped feature of the decade, usually from users of systems that have it towards products that don't (note: I am a m43 user).

IBIS only works on still subjects, it doesn't work on anything else. Portraits, wildlife, sports, action, children, family...nope. Doesn't work.

So not having IBIS, all of a sudden, doesn't make the product unworthy or even a "minus". It just doesn't feature it. Period. Take it or leave it, your personal call but not everyone's.

I quess you dont use a camera with IBIS?

@vallhall

Oh, miss the "I'm a m43 user" comment, did you??

Yes, my cameras have IBIS. And it's STILL vastly overrated, again by users who have it and want to bludgeon others regarding it; I'm sorry that I take pictures of more than permanently stationary objects.

Video, yes!

Stills? The world went on for a century without it.

@dinoSnake, we get it, you don’t care about IBIS but it does come in handy when a tripod isn’t allowed in some places especially in low light. Stationary subjects might not be your thing but it is for a lot for other photographers. So IBIS might be “overhyped” to you but that’s just your irrelevant opinion based on your own style.

ikaika777
Thanks. Well, IBIS is completely irrelevant for portrait work, and of limited use for landscapes any time there is even the hint of a breeze. You can't use it with any activities such as airshows, dog shows, any sports or the like - it is useful for low light static street scenes and a few other situations and a real bonus for video work.

What are you guys talking about? Ibis not useful for portraits or when the wind is blowing? Completely ridiculous.

Go to a concert and shoot with a short telephoto without any kind of IS. Many of your shots will be blurry. Now add in image stabilization and only the ones with rapid movement will be blurry. Your hand shakes much faster than people or things move in most cases. For example, 1/20 of a second is often fast enough to get sharp pictures of people from a distance as they move between poses. It is not fast enough to get sharp photos with a 85mm+ lens.

"It is not fast enough to get sharp photos with a 85mm+ lens."

So you contradicted yourself. What focal lengths are most commonly used for portraiture?

85mm+

The case has not been argued against, actually just reinforced.

I only contradicted myself if you add in your own editorial subtext to my rapidly written reply.

Of course I mean "It [1/20s] is not fast enough to get sharp photos with a 85mm+ lens [without image stabilization]."

Again, 1/20s only works with image stabilization. That's the point. Otherwise even the photos where the subject is moving slowly enough are blurry from camera movement.

Those who say IBIS is overrated have not used it with unstabilized lenses in low light or just aren't very observant.

And have you actually ever taken a portrait with a 85mm+ lens at 1/20, up to even 1/60 in some circumstances?

Because if you really did you'd know that, at those shutter speeds, IBIS is irrelevant because of *subject* movement. And, while at 1/20 a photograph *will* be captured, the finest details like eyebrows and eyelashes will end up blurred and lacking in finest definition. Not to mention the fact that, if you are at 1/20 with IBIS on a 85mm+ portrait lens doing a classic portrait crop, you are almost certainly wide-open to get up to that shutter speed in the first place and you'll have a serious negation in depth of field, with a paper-thin rendering plane.

So saying that you can get a portrait with IBIS at 1/20 is absolutely true...as long as you don't mention the serious sacrifice in output quality that accompanies it.

@dinoSnake: Portraits, wildlife, sports, children, family... All of those can be helped with IBIS. Firstly, portraits (including those of family, and including any children who are not at full gallop) tend to be still. Wildlife is often still also (standing giraffe, bird on a branch), but at a great distance, which requires a long lens and stabilization. For sports, you often want a smooth pan without jittery vertical movement, and certain systems aid with that and are preferable to no stabilization at all, which introduces vibrations while panning.

The false information about IBIS not being effective with slow shutter speeds of subjects that move slightly, simply isn’t true. Slow moving subjects won’t really be as affected as one may think, a dancer in a momentary pose, someone who shifts from different positions during s portrait session, owls roosting on a nest late in the day, a quick street portrait while walking the city...many examples. One well known reviewer has mentioned this limitation of ibis as well, and with all due respect, I disagree!

That's true, especially if owners buy stabilised lenses. I would not, at least initially. So for me it's important. Very important for videos, indoor shooting.. considering the price I don't see why I should not have these advantages

I might be willing to switch to Fuji if their primes had image stabilization. I don’t need something amazing (apparently Panasonic and Olympus have incredible IS), I just need something to get rid of microjitters for video. Fuji seems to weatherproof their primes, while Sony tends to OSS their primes. It would be nice if the brands had three options of each — weather resistant, IS, or both.

@mrfabio, I’m a Fuji user and I agree with you. It blows my mind that Ricoh can put 3-axis IBIS in their small GRIII and Fuji can’t figure out how to implement IBIS past the X-H1. That tells me they don’t care about being competitive in 2019 and that’s a wrong move in my opinion. Maybe Fuji should hire the engineers from Ricoh and Olympus to show them how it’s done.

Gentlemen, gentlemen,
Yes xt-30 with image stabilization is possible to make and sell for only $1499

What I want is the same XT-30 with zero video capabilities at $450-499 instead.

So let’s ask for two versions, a lite and a complete one 👌 I have a E-M5 II since four years with powerful IBIS, for much less than 1499...where it’s written that btw?? IBIS is not only for video, and I am not into it too but sometimes it happens you may need it if you use the camera like travel camera. Also Dpreview wrote recently that all the new cameras should have IBIS..

Btw I also wear glasses and think the EVF just takes some time to get used to

What limited support for Fuji raw files? Even Adobe Lightroom has their brand new “enhance” feature for Fuji raf files now. There’s no excuse now.

Would be Great if it would do any good. Waste of processing power in my experience

EVF is much, much better on the X-T3. Unfortunately the X-T3 is a substantially bigger body (leaving weight out of it) and attracts similar attention as a DSLR.

being used to the pricing of FF lenses I thought the F2 WR lenses to be a bargain (Fuji). They are plenty good

I know GX9 is a good cam, and i have the GX8!, Why would you need FF if you use a 1.7 lens or faster? . I have taken good pics in almost total darkness with my slow 12-35 2.8

Specifically for static subjects? Yes, the GX9 will be much better. If you are using lenses with the same f-number on both the X-T30 and the GX9, the GX9 will be about 3 stops better, due to the IBIS.

And dont forget Fuji is actually a stop lower due to their own cheating ISO measurements (ISO1600 is really ISO800 etc) so Panasonic is an additional stop faster.

Eh, let's not go nuts. Fuji has reined in their ISO overstating since they introduced the 24MP sensor, and regardless it's not particularly relevant to the situation here.

APS-C sensors ARE bigger than M4/3 sensors. They let in about 2/3 EV more light. And the technology levels are pretty similar, so that will translate to about 2/3 EV better RAW noise performance, regardless of how the camera determines ISO.

...but the GX9's IBIS should be good for at least 3-4 stops, do it still ends up 3 stops better on the balance.

Sony APS-C and Canon APS-C still perform a stop faster than Fuji at the same ISO setting. Compared to m43 they have even more of an advantage than What Fuji should be getting due to their false ISO readings.

If we ignore the fact that there are OIS lenses

Wats0n - the condescension is unbecoming, and frankly a little bit embarrassing while the rest of us are having adult conversations about legitimate pros and cons.

You are better off with a tripod

...you mean the 2/3 stop (0.7 EV) advantage of the larger Fuji sensor.

If that comment was intended for me, I intentionally overstated just to avoid the inevitable X-Trans superiority comments, because even then the IBIS of M43 offsets, so wasn't too important to my argument.

Who the heck measures low light capability by IBIS stops? Does no one shoot action any more? IBIS does not stop movement and IBIS leaves most frames just slightly blurry (unless you shoot five or six of them and pick the best).

Night still lifes: If you want to shoot really good low light still lifes, what you want is a tripod and not IBIS. A tripod gives you 15 stops not 2.5.

@UncoyDP. For moving subjects mft offers plenty of fast, and already fully open, perfectly sharp lenses which compensate for the 0.7 stop advantage of the slightly bigger sensor. And don't forget the dof advantage of fully open mft glass for moving subjects (in this case more dof is better!) i.e. a 25mm f1.4 fully open on mft might work but a 35mm f1.4 on apsc might have to thin a dof for moving subjects. An equation with a number of variables🤔...... and surprise, surprise, the "inferior" sensor equipped camera might put up a good fight as part of a system.

I had the xt10...loved it, ergonomics included.

Really? The X-T3 has less noise than a 7M3 at low ISO??? Wow, I'm REALLY surprised to hear that! Do you mean for video? Or stills and video?

Nah, IBS is ok, but not necessary. The Fuji offers so much more than other brands and that’s why it gets the gold award.

It's not just IBIS. It's camera with a lot of nice features, and output which some will go for, maybe some won't. But to get a Gold you really ought to at least equal the opposition on nearly everything, and be a clear leader on significant features.

Take the G90/G95. It offers IBIS, weather sealing, better ergonomics, a better EVF, and a good 24-120 equivalent kit lens as opposed to a 27-83 kit lens. The X-T30 bests the G90/G95 on some features but loses out on significant ones. It's a Silver at most.

Agreed.

The weighting is very strange on this award. It seems almost entirely to be towards pure image quality, and substantially weighted towards video quality, especially.

As you say, the G95 will definitely only get a Silver Award, despite being significantly better than the X-T30 in a broad number of ways.

When it is Fuji or Sony, almost all negatives are neglected. If this was a Canon or Panasonic, it'd get a much lower point.

Specs on paper don't matter a lot. Most android phones have superior specs than iPhone and yet perform far worse. The usability, design and performance is what matters. The X-T30 apparently excelled on those aspects.

...literally no one is talking about specs on paper, here.

Sorry m4/3rds fans...I'll take the APS-C sensor any day over IBIS. It's only helpful for static low light shots where you can go slow on the shutter speed. Over-rated feature IMO and useless for me. Low light for means either people who tend to move, or nightscape or astro where you need a tripod.

That's a fairly narrow, reductive way to look at a feature with extremely broad applicability.

The ability to hike into the backcountry with no tripod and easily take a photo like this when the opportunity and the composition presents itself has value to me. Maybe not to you.

https://i.imgur.com/W7wu12k.jpg

This isn't low light, but is a shot where it is totally impossible to substitute a larger sensor for good stabilization. Just as IBIS doesn't help with low-light where you need fast shutter speeds, neither does a big sensor help with situations where you want slow shutter speeds intentionally.

...As an aside, we'll ignore the fact that APS-C sensors are only slightly bigger than M4/3. It's not like there's a major difference in low light performance in the real world...

@Androole - I like your shot, thanks for the link. I like to hike and take pics too. Once you are outdoors during the day, a zoom lens with OIS can do effectively the same thing. Fuji's 18-55 with built-in OIS is good for shots like that. It's still f/2.8 at 18mm.

This debate goes round and round...I'm just in the IBIS is "no big deal camp" but am biased by the type of photography I like and only into video very casually.

I would agree with your 3rd point and can understand the many photographers where the 4/3rd sensor works for them, it is a negative to many, however. I've been in the APS-C camp for a long time, its my comfort zone so I rate it fairly high, but that's only an opinion. It's why with talk about marking cameras down for not having IBIS, I would mark them down for a 4/3rd sensor, especially something very expensive like the OMD E-M1X.

Yep, I can get behind all that.

"It's why with talk about marking cameras down for not having IBIS, I would mark them down for a 4/3rd sensor, especially something very expensive like the OMD E-M1X."

In fairness, I think both already do happen in the reviews here. I don't think even the most ardent M4/3 boosters (well, maybe some of them...) will deny the compromises associated the smaller sensor size. I certainly know the tradeoffs I'm making!

Thanks for the compliment, and thanks for having a civil conversation! I hope I didn't come across too harshly, I feel like it's too easy to end up in a bit of a mean spirited conversation on here, since so many people don't seem to want to engage in good faith (or at the very least, can't see other people's points of view and what is informing their choices).

The image you posted @Androole is mushy (like most long exposure IBIS) and lacks sharp definition. What you need here is a better sensor and a tripod, even a mini-tripod. Rollei makes a good one which weighs all of 800g with panoramic ballhead.

For $900, X-T30 and A6400 should both get the gold award for so many other pro features they give you.

Yeah, it should have IBIS.

Even if just so that you can shoot 1-stop lower ISO. That's a pretty big difference. Afterall, the difference in noise between APS-C and FF (from the same manufacturer) is just a little more than a stop. Fuji could have included IBIS at this price...

“Fuji offers much more than others so deserves the gold award”
... lol. Like 10minutes 4K
:)

Gimbal or tripod, very handy.... No thanks!
Cost you more also. IBIS should be standard in a (compact) camera these days!

I absolutely agree that IBIS should be standard. It's a wonderful feature that vastly extends the shooting envelope and allows you to get shots that are impossible to get without it (even with big sensors).

... But that still doesn't change the fact that your initial statement was unhelpful hyperbole.

You can buy a $5 monopod that would look better on video than IBIS. There's so much jello-ing that happens with IBIS. it doesn't make for good video. Yeah it helps if you're shooting on a shoulder rig or a monopod but you shouldn't be using IBIS just by itself. That's some super lazy filmmaking right there. Fuiji and Panasonic understand this, and leave it out of their MILC's geared towards video.

When it is Fujifilm, no issue is biggie. If it is Canon or Panasonic, all issues are exaggerated to sky high limits.

I thought the video sample reel, half of which is handheld using a stabilized lens, actually looked quite good without IBIS. Of course, a nonstabilized lens would look much worse, but the readout speed of this sensor is so fast that you get much less wobbly/jello effect than some other options at this price point.

The Fuji XF 18-55mm f2.8-4 OIS is far better than Sony IBIS (tested head to head against A7 III) and equals MFT IBIS (depends on camera). For stabilised video you need one zoom with OIS as shooting handheld video at f2 is just not on (won't be in focus). For shots with very shallow depth of field you'll want support.

This IBIS argument is tedious and shallow.

I get the argument for using a tripod or monopod. It's valid. Buuut... the reality is that most people don't want to carry support around with them or go through the pain/restriction of being in a not-immediately-adjustable position that supports tie you to. I have 6 (i think) tripods and a monopod, and i almost never use any of them. Of course, when i need them they're indispensable. But without specific need for them, I'm all about VR or IBIS.

Different strokes... 🙂

UncoyDP. I think you are not getting what IBIS is. Stop comparing IBIS to tripods people. They don’t really compensate for each other.
Ibis will eventually be standard in every camera soon. Ones without it are simply short or late on technology. Ibis allows you to use all kinds of lenses stabilized. You don’t carry around heavier lenses because each lens having ois. let alone carrying tripod for every shoot is stupid. Tripods will be soon crutches for handicapped cameras only.
Lens technology must continue for smaller sharper and better rendering glass, while stabilization must be handled in the body. Get used to it.

Many brands figured this out, including Fuji but not able to bring it down to xt-30. Short on technology.

Mike, did you fail to read the whole comment – Fuji's kit lens beats Sony IBIS hands down and gives the best MFT IBIS a run for its money. So Fuji has video stabilisation sorted for its clients ahead of time (kit lens with great stabilisation and image quality which exceeds 4K).

The X-T30 includes an APS-C size sensor in a 300g body. No there's no space in a mid-size sensor body that small to add IBIS. The Sony A6500 is a beefy 650g.

The Panasonic GH5S does not include IBIS – IBIS has its uses but mainly IBIS is a weak crutch for poor technique and a tool to take poor photos (low light still lifes at high ISO with 1/4 second exposure and wide open aperture is of limited photographic merit regardless of framing. That low light still life calls out for f8 15 second exposure at ISO 100.

UncoyDP, there is no way Fuji 18-55 matches or beats m43 Ibis. No way. You have clearly not used any m43 camera in the last 3-4 years. Even an "old" GX85 has better IBIS than Fujifilm 18-55 OIS. And with Dual IBIS it is way better.
And that is normal because OIS in 18-55 is old. I used it with XH1 and XT3, and clearly it is inferior in photos and videos. Otherwise it is a good lens.
Compared to EM1 II and 12-100mm, 18-55mm loses big time by the way.

Wetsleet it has nothing to do with digital, DSLR viewfinders had gotten crappier with the onset of autofocus, slow lenses and cost cutting. Generally DSLRs have viewfinders comparable to AF film cameras of the same class. D70's OVF isn't any worse than F75's. And it just got better from there.

Manual focus cameras are a completely different beast. If you mount a f/3.5-5.6 zoom on FE2, you wouldn't even see anything in the viewfinder.

I do agree though that a good viewfinder is among the most important features of a camera. I don't care if it has 4k or unacnny AF, if the camera isn't fun to use or I have problems distinguishing what I'm looking at, I'm not gonna use it. So of course I'd "send it back", why spend money on something you don't like?

@samfan "of course I'd "send it back", why spend money on something you don't like?" Exactly my point - if you don't like something *listed in the spec* then why spend money on it (only to send it back and trash the product in reviews)?

My beef is not with buying a product and finding it does not live up to its promises (then, yes, send it back). My beef is with those who send a product back for living up to a promise, one that they already (should have) knew they did not like.

Anyway, I did have an F100 (autofocus film SLR) between the FE2 and the D70, its viewfinder was big enough. The D70 was the shock with its tunnel effect view of the world. It was very much to do with the move to digital, because that ushered in smaller formats into SLRs, and the viewfinder optics did not seem to compensate for the reduced image size. At least that is my understanding.

The importance of the viewfinder experience (both optical and electronic) has consistently been underplayed in the consumer press for many years in my opinion. Unfortunately, this has contributed to the current situation, where in order to get a decent viewfinder, you have to pay top dollar for tons of features you don't need and just clutter up the picture taking interface (in my case that includes all things AF- and video- related).