@TORN, you obviously don't understand how production works if you think manufacturing a new product in China with no sacrifice to quality is suddenly cheap. And even if it was, you do realize you can't just move the production line, right? You need to establish it anew in another country which adds more expenses.

Moving the production to China will pay off in long term, but it doesn't magically and immediately increase their margin in any significant way. I wouldn't be surprised if their margin was actually lower for this product and they were simply confident enough that it would sell well.

Are you talking about the 1.17x crop at 60p? Or is there another one I missed?

but it is considered a small crop compared to the competition no?

I had Canon 7D and 6D. On Fuji Now XT20 and thinking XT-2 or XT-3. Just got The 16-55, also have 10-24 and 100-400 very happy so far

I did and I switched more travel photography to Fuji. At present for landscape and fast action Nikon is my choice I have D850 and D800

Weird how so many Nikon and Canon (fanboys albeit) users criticized the A7 ergonomics (grip size too small) but you don’t see that regarding the XT series which actually has an even smaller (almost non-existent) grip.

I researched for months with the obsession of finding the highest IQ in the most portable and functional package while keeping the price reasonable (rx1 and Leica were out of reach). One of my main desires was to find the smallest prime (35-50mm range) body combo for walk around and all scenario usage. The a7iii with the Sony/Zeiss 35/2.8 has been the best solution for me. I used aps-c from Fuji and Sony as well but the IQ doesn’t compare.

Here is the body size comparison of the xt-3 with the a7iii:
https://camerasize.com/compare/#800,777

Check out all of the different views. The two bodies are very close in size - almost no advantage in choosing the Fuji for size reasons if IQ is still the highest priority. Almost the same size yet the Sony has ibis.

I have an issue with the Sony grips. Even more so with their APS-C offerings, but although with the A7 line. On the A7 line my knuckles rub against the wider lenses because there is so limited space between grip and camera and because the grip is slim compared to a DSLR so that the fingers do not sit tight. This is especially the case when I have the camera in my hand hanging down with like the 16-35 when walking around.

The Nikon Z is unfortunately pretty similar in that respect.

The Fuji T avoids this issue by having a smaller grip. At the same time the camera and an average 100-300g lens can be hold just fine with this smaller grip.

The R does it differently. It feels like a Canon DSLR in your hands and as the only camera in this group it has room enough for ALL my fingers on the grip. With a lighter Fuji setup a floating pinky is not that bad but when the camera and lenses get bigger...

It's impossible to convey the nuance of a 12-page review in bullet-points.

It's easy to pick at bullet points if you're trying to point-score. All I'd ask is that you read them as they're intended: pieces of information that would-be buyers might benefit from knowing, not necessarily problems that are unique to this camera.

i'm not about to give up the a9 for this x-t3, but Fuji gets huge props for delivering real 4kp60.

x-t3 really shows what a fail the ff eos-r is, in particular.

it's also a big nail in the m4/3 coffin.

“O,k, for for casual use.”
Damned with faint praise....sheesh.

There is always a Fuji fanboy believing the X-T3 has better (or similar) IQ than full frame cameras.

Hey MILC,
If you owned an A9 you know it does NOT do 4K 60p video.
And the T3 is about 1/3rd the price.

The good news is with ML, the Canon should soon shoot full sensor readout 4K RAW video.

Image quality isn't everything. I'd take X-T3 over A7iii any day. Menus, 4K60. 10bit. Smaller lens. Cheaper. Only thing I wish it had is IBIS.

If image quality wasn't my top priority I would still shoot with a Leica Digilux 2...

MILC man is right, this is another nail in the Sony coffin.
They barely held a 13% market share last year, and now are faced with 3 strong competitors in the one segment where they did well.

For the past 3 years they've lost out to Canon APSC mirrorless in their home country!!!! And last year they fell to 3rd in mirrorless camera sales with Canon expanding their lead over Sony. (Oly lead with 26.8% followed by Canon 18.6% - though Canonsays they passed Oly this year).

Now they have Fuji making great progress. I don't think M43 is a direct competitor, but if Fuji joins Canon surpassing surpassing Sony in APSC, and Nikon and Canon catch Sony in FF mirrorless, Sony is in major trouble.
Canon and Nikon have it made. They have DSLRs to their own (sorry Pentax) and DSLRs will remain 50% of ILCs for a few years. Mirrorless is getting crowded and Canon has proven they can dominate with out really trying.

I came from FF and bah humbug. Casual use? Get over FF arrogance already--the 2% of to time that IQ strengths of FF best a camera this well rounded is not a complete substitute for how enjoyable significant strengths are 100% of the time for both casual and serious use.

If you can't do professional works with XT3 then it's more of you being amateur than the camera.

Fujifilm second hand cameras do not keep a high value compared to other cameras. Therefore it is a much cheaper investment to make to get into X-system, when you don't mind to buy used equipment. I have much more trust in used Fujifilm gear, than in used Sony gear.

APS-C is no substitute for full frame. I have an X-H1, an A6300 and a 5D Mark III to prove it after an entire summer shooting almost exclusively APS-C. Even my 5D offers much better image quality than the X-H1 or A6300, particularly at ISO 1600 and up. APS-C image quality hasn't really improved since the NEX 5T (yes, I owned one and shot it as my carry camera for four years with the excellent FE 35mm f/2.8 Sonnar).

I'm giving up shooting APS-C in earnest after shooting sports for a month on all my cameras. Full frame results are in another category.

You'll be able to pick out the X-H1 pictures here without any trouble (after Iridient Developer to coax everything possible out of the RAF files). And that's at only ISO 1600 and 3200 (not 6400 and 12800). Fuji gets rid of the chroma noise by almost completely desaturating the file (with jpegs they cleverly add some colour back in but heavy electronic processing kills detail).

https://www.facebook.com/aleckinnear/posts/559187397853056

I agree. I am sure the Fuji is a great APS-C camera. But I also have given up shooting APS-C since getting the A7III. Full frame results are in another category in more than sports.

I rented an A7RIII as a backup body this past week, and while I clearly see the difference in a cropped 42mp and a 24mp sensor image, you really need to crop tight routinely to compensate for the slower performance.

LOL, the A7iii overheats and has numerous other issues. It is not even weather sealed.

And who wants to pay $2400 for the 70-200mm zoom. Oh, you use the F4 version? Then most APSC cameras are getting better IQ than you, LOL!!!!

Not all raws are the same

You're joking, right?

There are plenty of pros out there shooting portraits with Fujifilm. Perhaps you should take off the blinders. Seriously?

Benjamin Kanarek has used the X-T2/X-T3 for portraits and pro work for Vogue and Harper's Bazaar. But SETI says "no way". 🤣

@herrMartin - Agree. A lot of magazine inserts and covers are being done with film. Another confirmation that it is the photographer not the equipment. David Boubilet recently did a cover for Conde Naste Traveler magazine with Velvia 50. He sometimes shoots with, (of all things, a Contax T2.

@ozy92, @badi - A lot of portraits are now being done in studio with Canon 50S(R) and larger, because of wide tonal range due to many mpix.
Agree, badi. The same magazine I mention above has the cover and an inside article shot with the Pizel 3.

SO because you say he is a "paid ambassador" that means all the portraits he takes with his Fuji cameras don't exist?

Stay with 7100. You can't see any improvement.

Go D750 if you care about image quality at medium or high ISO. Here's a mixed gallery of 5D, 5DIII and X-H1 from this weekend.

https://www.facebook.com/aleckinnear/posts/559187397853056

Cloudy day but I wanted very high shutter speeds to stop motion so most shots at 1600 to 3200 ISO. The X-H1 sticks out like a sore thumb, even with my best attempts to pull its RAW files up to scratch in Iridient Developer.

This was last my attempt to shoot sports on an APS-C (Sony A6300 is no better in terms of high ISO IQ). Mirror fell out on the 5D (a pity as it was killing it with my old EF 80-200mm f/2.8) so a 6D and a 5DS R are on their way now to replace the X-H1 and the 5D (I want microfocus adjustment as my only telephoto which is accurate on the 5D is the 80-200mm which was calibrated to the body).

APS-C should be reserved for daylight birding and travel cameras for most people. The Fuji cameras are great video machines though and wonderful carry cameras.

I say, go to D750 for better IQ of the FF.

If you're getting into APS-C for the first time, and shoot a good amount of video that requires 4K 60fps, then this is a good choice.

The real question is. Do you want mirrorless and all the advantages that come with it. If so. The Xt3 is a great choice. Especially since AF is no longer an issue.
I have a D7200 next to my Xt3 and I'm seriously considering selling it to buy more fuji glass. If you also do video, and have used eye detect AF, it's almost a no brainer. Tack sharp eyes with this much ease is just wonderful.

Did you read the review? There is no crop for majority of the video modes, the camera uses the full width of the sensor. For some video modes where the data readout is extreme there is a modest 1.18x crop. 1.29x only on 120fps ..like stated in the review. For extreme long clips the camera can be powered by USB, a power bank through USB or by 3 batteries by using the battery grip.

If you are filming non-stop for 8 hours/day, battery life is the least of your concern. Where are you doing to store and edit all that footage? And who is going to do all the editing?

I feel that you have very demanding video need and it is unrealistic to expect a sub $2000 do-it all camera to do it well with a couple of batteries. You probably need more equipment than that.

X-T3 has no crop at 4K@30p and only 1.18x crop at 4K@60p. Only the 120 fps mode has the crop you mention.

We use Fujifilm for all of our videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/benjaminkanarek

I would say that the use of my Nikon and Fujifilm systems are close to evenly split. When I want anything longer than 90mm, I go with Nikon in general, as I have the DC 135, 180 and 300 mm leses which I have grown very close to over the last few years.

I am not sponsored nor am I an Ambassador of Fujifilm. I have never been offered that priviledge. :-)

It's already a classic, the X-E1. ;)

I have an X-M1 and just love it. I respect and admire my X-H1 for its power and flexibility but love the straightforward simplicity of the X-M1, its small size and its very decent image quality.

Xe1 + 7artisan lens would be good for portraits 🤔

The problem is the dedicated wheels and switches (iso, exposure comp, af and especially speed/aperture), which if could be overridden with custom setting would arguably generate some confusion.

I don't find that to be a problem, there is an Auto mode on each of those wheels. The problem is that we are unable to store many /software/ settings, and assign separate software settings to diverse positions on the physical switches, such as focus mode, video etc...

@Relaxed For now A6xxx series is more of a backup body to FF users. But Sigma has some cheap and sharp primes like 16, 30, 56 that costs more on Fuji side.

Relaxed that assertion is simply false.

See 28 lenses for Fuji http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/xf_lens/roadmap/

See 46 Sony made E mount lenses https://www.sony.com/electronics/lenses/t/camera-lenses?cameramount=e-mount

There are 5 Batis AF lenses, There are 6 native E mount Sigma lenses, There is one Tamron lens, There are 5 Samyang lenses. There are 11 or so Sigma full frame lenses. There is 2 Tokina lenses announced one of which made and sold. 3 Zeiss Touit lesnes

Total Af lenses avaiallbel to E mount user is 46 + 5 + 6 + 1 + 5 + 2 + 3 = 68 !!!!

Sony offer 40 A mount lens types today all these work on A6500.

So we are at a 100 models supported by Sony!

..and there is much more when we start with adapters......

Fuji is designing high quality APS-C lenses. Sony's high-end lenses are all designed for FF with size, weight and price that reflect this. Their APS-C lenses are kind of "meh". I don't pay much attention to the third-party glass. Roger Cicala (owner of LensRentals), who has more experience than any of us, has suggested that their reliability isn't at the same level as OEM lenses.

I disagree. Fuji has more lenses. There are basically very few aps-c sony lenses, and the others you mention are third-party lenses, with a third-party experience. I do wish Fuji had some of the sigma lenses, but I don't count these as e-mount lenses since they're also available on micro four thirds and may someday(?) be available on fuji.

That's got changed somewhere in the editing process. It originally read "We suspect many photographers will find Fujifilm's range of lenses more attractive, too."

It's not about number, it's about which lenses exist and how much they cost. It'll be up to each individual to consider their shooting needs and work out which system looks more attractive to them.

I've changed the phrasing, though. It should never have said Fujifilm had more lenses.

"highest levels" is obviously referring to:

1) the 1.29x or whatever crop that it has at the highest fps rates.
2) only getting 12-13fps with constant af-c and some lenses, in real-world sports shooting: https://youtu.be/-oXHiORuRk0?t=9m57s

use the a9 and it'll all become much clearer... sony fe lenses are rated at 15-20fps, with constant af-c, and the lenses really deliver that on the a9... even the mc-11 and supported sigma glass will have constant af-c at 13-15fps on some lenses... no Nikon camera do that, either.

regardless, the x-t3 looks like a huge step up for Fuji, and it's really boxed sony into a crop corner; the new a7000 will need to finally give us 4kp60, and real advanced fps rates.

the advantage for sony there, tho, is the xlnt stable of 15-20fps capable fe lenses, that neither Fuji nor Nikon nor any other camera company on the planet has anything comparable to.

I've never had any issues shooting high ISO sports with Fujifilm cameras, including ISO 8000 and 10000.

https://flic.kr/s/aHskK1saMX

@racin06 Thanks for the example links. Great action shots but the image quality of your sports photos feature exactly the kind of noisy, desaturated, strange paste colour I was talking about. Example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/30161756@N00/30867989124/in/album-72157674129204573/

Compare with Canon full frame. The first shot in that Facebook post linked above I believe is a Canon 5D from ten years ago shot at ISO 3200 (not at my main computer so I don't have ISO information).

@Hauxon2 - "All of the a9 still frames shown in the video are using this lens. It's $16,000 for body and lens."

you sound a bit confused about sony, despite reading what I posted.

there are 16 sony fe lenses that will all do 20fps with continuous af-c on the a9: http://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/www/support/ilc/products/ilce9/continuousshooting/en/index.html?id=spt

and another 26 fe lenses that will do 15fps with continuous af-c.

as i stated earlier, Fuji has nothing comparable to that, and neither does any other camera company... sony was thinking of the future, with those lens designs that can do 15-20fps with continuous af-c, it was a conscious design goal.

Fuji, canikon, etc., are all laboring against old lens designs, many of which can't provide a high fps rate.

@racin06 - "https://flic.kr/s/aHskK1saMX"

that's a nice action set, shot in difficult circumstances.

i would suggest shooting at wide-open aperture, instead of f/4, in part because ospdaf can take advantage of wider apertures, unlike dslrs:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6884391759/sony-alpha-7r-ii-can-match-or-beat-dslr-low-light-af-performance

EM1.2 is just a showcase
even today price after 2 years , olympus not really trying to sell it
it is just there for show
same for g9

one day when new model come it will be sold at bargain bin price, just wait

i bet most mft sold today in both units and dollars are still 16mp

don't know what to say
many said 16mp enough
enough for what
one can say 1/2.3 12mp in my tg-5 enough

right now i have no confidence in mft
can it survove as a casual system people only willing to paid $500-600?
maybe, hard to say

look at yi m1 price, can still have profit for $500-600?

No IBIS and not a D500 killer per AF-C tracking just cannot score X-T3 at 90% or more :-) Hope that spot will leave to rumored A7000, a true ML D500 killer - BSI stacked-sensor (26 or more mp), even better AF than A7 III and A9, Z battery, no blackout EVF, 20fps and similar 230-RAW buffer, of course IBIS and improved DR and high ISO, at least 4K/30p (personally video is not my top priority with that camera). So FE 100-400 GM will become FF eq 150-600mm FL as 400mm on A9 is not long enough while A9 doesn't have sufficient pixel density if cropping out.

Richard, do you already have an A7000 beta in playing? Sure you will not disclose :-)

you can keep on waiting but the thing is these companies are bound to leapfrog each other. don't base your system decision on a single body, whether it is an existing one or a rumoured one.

I think the best hybrid is the G9 or the Gh5. The IQ on both is very good in every way and they both have excellent IBIS which is where the Xt3 is lacking. But the XT3 is one heck of a cam for sure.

It's even more, Richard. Into Germany, the Body (not from some mysterious amazon 3rd party Seller) costs 2290-2299 EUR, the A7 III, whileas the X-T3 costs 1499 EUR - so it is some whopping 800 EUR, which means ~917 $ more expensive, the Sony A7 III vs the X-T3 Fujifilm. That's a hell lot more.

Good Light!

The real trouble with the a7 line only starts when you also want native lenses on par or at least close to Fuji X lenses. Then it gets much more expensive (and heavy) quickly... ;-)

Like with 55 1.8 or 85 1.8? On the wide end you get all the Voigtländers and Zeiss lenses for Sony with optical qualities I am severely missing with my Fuji. Manual lenses, but that does not matter much @ 10/12/15/18/21.

Real trouble for me is to find the ibis in the T3 for all my primes. Still, it is a great option. But with a growing number of alternatives, decision is getting harder.

to be honest if $700 means the difference between affordable vs not, a new ILC body might not be for you. buy used.

In the US if you get the body+kit lens the difference is only $300.

Only US$450 more to get the A7iii where I am. Just over 25% higher price for a full frame camera. What’s going on in Europe?

Maybe one is $1500 and the other is $2400. 🤷 But we'll just stick to Canon fanboys narrative, DPR is Bias!!.

I would imagine that the Fuji being nearly 1k dollars cheaper than the Canon has something to do with it.

It still does not have Ibis which is a pity with all the nice Fuji primes. X-h1 is a last generation camera, especially in respect to AF and it is bulky.

I think one of the biggest question is when and whether IBIS will ever filter down from the XH1... I would've thought that would start to happen with the X-T3 but apparently not.

The lack of X-Trans tech doesn't make the sensors "lesser." The real issue is simply that their lower end cameras that happen to have Bayer sensors (X-A5 and X-T100) use outdated processors, meaning they can't handle the data required for modern AF or video capabilities.

Otherwise, though, Fuji has been pretty good about filtering their higher-end sensors into their less expensive cameras. The X-T20's image quality is just as good as the X-T2, X-Pro2 or X-H1. Since that line has performed so well for Fuji, I imagine that eventually there will be an X-T30 as well. Really, an X-T200 with a better processor and Bayer sensor at a lower price point would be even better, but Fuji likes to create the artificial distinction of X-Trans = high-end, Bayer = low-end because it reinforces their marketing.

Yup, don't care about AF or FPS, as a nightscape & timelapse photographer, but I DEFINITELY miss weather sealing when it is removed. However, if it makes the camera that much cheaper and lighter, I'm still happy to have a flagship sensor in a compact, affordable body.

Speaking of "giving things away", Pentax had a long-standing tradition of putting weather sealing in even their most entry-level cameras. I don't know if that tradition still stands, but it was a selling point for them.

It really depends on what the company itself chooses to prioritize, based in who it thinks its strongest user base is. For example, Sony has made sure to put IBIS in every single full-frame body it makes, for video shooters, and now dual card slots for working pros too. Pentax has a large user base that love outdoor photography. Fuji has a solid user base, but I'm not exactly sure if they fall into one specific genre...

Indeed, the simple truth is that we have gotten to a point in sensor technology where an APS-C sensor is entirely capable of professional results, at any ISO or in any shooting condition that a full-frame camera is capable of professional results.

Yeah, full-frame might have a slight advantage here or there with image quality, but having a slight advantage is different from the simple fact that BOTH sensors are, like I said, "professionally acceptable". In other words, if you nail your exposures on this camera, you're probably actually doing better than anyone who "shoots sloppy" on a full-frame camera, and just tells themselves "I'll just fix it in post"...

So, the joke is on you, all you full-frame fankids, unless you're nailing every single image you take to within a 1/3-2/3 EV of "perfect".

But if the XT3 guy and the FF guy both nail their shots, I guess the FF shot will be better, and there's not escape from that fact. I love both formats, by the way.

@mxx, of course, but let's be honest here, both shooters /might/ "nail", and miss, an equal number of shots. So, the point is sort of moot.

I simply wanted to point out that you CAN do better than a full-frame camera, on average, if you work harder to nail MORE shots than the average shooter.

@Androole,
I'm not assuming anything, just pointing out the possibility, and I'm encouraging anyone who has a "smaller" sensor to focus on nailing their shots.

Then again, you also help to prove my point by mentioning that users of smaller sensors do indeed tend to be more mindful of this stuff. It's not an "advantage", of course, to have to be more concerned about image quality. However, it turns into a superior overall final result, if you've trained yourself to do better than the "average" shooter.

Kinda like how shooting with a prime can teach you to pay closer attention to your framing and composition...

All X-Trans Fujifilm DSLM doesn't have an AA Filter.

I don't have a X-T3, but I just got a X-E3, I barely have to sharpen at all in PP!

"The joke's on you buddy. The X-T3 doesn't have an AA filter at all."

Well if the shots seems unsharp, and the camera does not have an AA filter, then the joke is of course not on the OP.

I agree, the X-T3 images look soft and washed out, raw and jpeg. Compare it to the A6500, night and day difference.

And it's also durable. My copy has been everywhere with me, and still it is tack sharp.