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

@OrangesAndApples

I have both cameras.

The Fujifilm X-T series (1 and 2) was never known suitable for high-speed /sports photography. Fujifilm changed that with the X-T3.

If I find a published comparison of auto-focus speed and accuracy of the above cameras, I will post it in time.

From specs alone, the Fujifilm has far more focus points of the phase-detect type and AF coverage area than the Olympus. Adding the fact that the X-T3 comes to the market two years later than the E-M1II, it is not surprising that the X-T3 is superior. The AF performance bar is much higher now.

All formats are a balance of factors (or compromise, if you're trying to be negative).

Generally it's a size/price/image quality balance. There is no 'right' answer. The larger the sensor, the greater the potential image quality (assuming you can find a fast enough lens to take advantage of it).

Yes I would have gladly taken an affordable 70-300

The A6500 is a brilliant camera but the xt3 has something much better which is a complete lens line up. Sony really needs to launch many more lenses for the APS c line up.

The Sony a6500 is a computer that take pictures, the Fuji is a camera.

Sony is a computer “ “Fuji is a camera” did the retro design and dials led you to this conclusion?

Ah much better :)

Well Sigma has launched a few nice E mount lenses like the 16mm f1.4, 30mm f1.4 and 56mm f1.4 which are great and Sony has a few nice primes like the 35mm f1.8 OSS and the 50mm f1.8 OSS.

For zooms yes there is a bit of vacuum for good lenses but the 18-135mm and 18-105 are quite nice lenses. The tele lens side is lacking of course but the rest of the line up if you consider the Sigma lenses is reasonably compelling.

The 16mm f1,4, 30mm f1.4 and 56mm f1.4 lenses alone are very inexpensive and not available on any other APS-C system.

like the 16mm f1.4, 30mm f1.4 and 56mm f1.4

cover the most important 24mm-84mm
enough for most
actually sigma 60mm f2.8 also good
so 24-90mm cover
beyond that, not sure if FE 85 f1.8 is good on APS-C
if so coverage extend to 128mm

these are all good IQ budget price lens, not available in fuji
not to mention x-trans not support by DXO
i won't go fuji

Also the 18-55/2.8-4 is a superb lens. It is expensive new and on it's own, but being bundled with most bodies it is easily available in good condition and reasonably priced either second hand or with a new body.

I used to shoot the most with the Canon 17-55/2.8 EFS lens, and that is a nice and big lens for APSC. I can say that the tiny 18-55 Fuji is on par with it, optically, as an walk around lens.

Fuji lenses are not cheap. Granted. But nobody really has to buy Fuji lenses at full price. As I can tell Fuji is the only camera maker which offers cash back promotions virtually all year round. You should really check Fujis promotion webpage.

i suspect is x-trans
fight ensure, many never admit x-trans can be a problem

no x-trans for me

It is not the lenses (nearly all are good optically and some are even superb; some lack features like fast AF or WR).

This is how Adobe handles Fuji files. Other converters can pull out more detail. However, if you are set to Adobe tools, it is a valid question why you put that much money in to get slightly less convincing results.

On print or on screen this is not a big issue but that is true for lesser cameras as well...

"but I really don't understand the hype."

Actually the hype in not about IQ. The new sensor is about the same as the old one (in this regard), and quite on par with all ASPC sensors on market. Give it or leave it 1/3-1/2 of a stop here and there.
The big improvements it brings, and those are everybody excited about, are the functionality - while Fuji was always so-so in areas like AF, video and tracking - which are much more important then half a stop of ISO performance, the new T3 seems to bring it up there with the best on all areas. All except IBIS :)

Assessing my level of knowledge of a camera by arguing with bullet points is just a touch reductive. The 'What we don't like' list is a list of factors a would-be buyer might want to be aware of. They're not necessarily damning criticisms.

There is a slight noise different. It's slight and described as such. You might not care.

Several design decisions mean that some XF lenses (primarily the F1.4s) don't focus very fast. It's unusual to see this kind of discrepancy: for most systems you can be fairly certain that modern lenses will perform quickly. Would-be buyers might want to know this. If you know it already, ignore it.

I'm fully aware that there's a higher performance/lower battery life mode. However, people I've shown the camera have commented on it being a slow, dark preview, so I thought I should explain that this happens. It's not a problem, it's a factor to be aware of.

Having made four 'Pros' about video, I thought it was worth pointing out that you'll need to consider...

...some kind of support or stabilization to get the best from that side of it. The team had a long discussion about this, since we don't usually 'take sides' on the OIS/IBIS debate for stills. But, given this is one of the best video cameras we've tested, we decided we'd mention it.

In the name of fairness, I added the same Con to the GH5S review (feel free to add 'every serious videographer knows this' comments on that review.

Finally, no, you cannot toggle Face/Eye Detection on and off. You can press a button to pull up the option list (as listed on page 4), but you can't toggle it.

It's all great fun to try to point-score by nit-picking at bullet points, but it's not great use of anyone's time.

If you think I've got something wrong in the review, I'm happy to discuss it. But the points you criticise are there because I believe they'd be useful to potential buyers.

@kodachromeguy - I know, right? And why is everyone going on and on and on about this newfangled "autofocus!" Who the heck needs a camera to focus their lenses for them! Does no one have hands and eyes anymore?

And don't get me started on this "matrix metering" garbage. If you can't look at a scene and determine the precise Sunny 16 exposure value, why are you even taking a photo in the first place?

I'm with you all the way. Some people, really!

Androole, lol 😂 fanboys will say anything to protect their brand of choice, it’s pretty sad.

Some of them may be paid to post certain things.

Mostly Sony FF fanboys. In fact they spread anger and hate under every topic.
I own an A7 III and I am ashamed because of them.

for most as a hobby
APS-C IQ is too good
even old 16MP MFT maybe enough

most never understands or forget
lens is key to IQ not just sensor

full frame lens, forget it
half decent full frame lens are heavy like tank and price only money making professional can afford

recent FE 24 $1400, what, are u serious
many don't make a cent in photography, just a hobby

Most fast Fuji primes are $800+ a pop as well.

Well some people believe FF is the best way to go and they’re entitled to their opinion. I thought the same when I bought my first FF DSLR. Then I tried an XT1. Too much fun to care about FF! Great pictures, great lenses.

"Where are the optically excellent zooms with OIS and not as big or bigger than equivalent FF zooms?"

Why should Fujis zoom lenses not be as big as equivalent FF zooms?

High optical performance and big apertures don't come first free.

dloop, nope not scared but just certain of what he wants or needs.