Fujifilm X-T3 Review

No. Sony color has never been good enough for me.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Mateus1

If you want more sharpness in your jpgs images set sharpness in Fuji camera on the highest level and you will bit even Phase One IQ1.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

BIOGONS

Look the sharpness, the color can be improved in PS...

Oct 8, 2018permalink

IamJF

Sony A7iii was rated as the most precise colour reproduction (XT3 was not tested).
So it's okay if you prefer other colour fingerprints- but it's not a problem with the camera...

Oct 8, 2018permalink

dansclic

Dual12
I used to have Fuji cameras. I now have Sony ff and must say Sony colors are much much more accurate and better than Fuji colors. I also dropped Fuji because by dull weather, Fuji colors are so so. Probably due to weaker contrast .

Oct 9, 2018permalink

StopTheGAS

I actually hated the Fuji colors for landscape. The greens are very distinct and have a bad transition from blueish greens to warmer ones. Foliage looks rather bad especially with X-trans post-processing limitations.

Oct 22, 2018permalink

davev8

if this was a new canon MILC there would be an avalanche of comments about no IBIS

Oct 8, 2018permalink

CanonSharpShooter

Let’s not pretend that the XH1 doesn’t exist in Fujifilm’s lineup. Where as for Canon you don’t have any options available. 👎🏻

Oct 8, 2018permalink

ozturert

CanonSharpShooter, this is about XT3.
There is a stupid trend to bash all Canon bodies here in DPReview comments. Just focus on negatives about Canon cameras. Quite disturbing for me, a long time Sony and Olympus user.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

It's valid - academically - a review does need to point out image quality at all settings.
However -
if dpReview is willing to go the extra mile to also use Capture One, along with a pre-release version of Adobe Camera RAW -
it would also be informative/educational to use Fuji's own:
RAW FILE CONVERTER EX 3.0 powered by SILKYPIX (Ver.8.0.0.0)
http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/myfinepix_studio/rfc/
which is a full production release that supports the X-T3, and anyone who buys the X-T3 would have a copy.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

Yup, you (DPR) guys should have just stuck with ACR ;)

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Sometimes you just can't win.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Lone Stranger

This is a good point, though, maybe not for this particular review, but maybe someone who owns an X-T3 and Adobe Raw could produce a comparison of that with SilkyPix?

Oct 8, 2018permalink

PF511

@Richard - You haven't done anything wrong. As usual, the comments and social media are the problems, not DPReview. Keep doing what you're doing.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

Don't need to own an X-T3 as the RAW FILE CONVERTER EX 3.0 powered by SILKYPIX (Ver.8.0.0.0) is freely available for download.

Downloaded the ISO51200 RAW with simulated daylight lighting: DSCF2835.RAF and ran it through the Fuji RAW file converter 3.0 -
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7858448340/albums/fuji-x-t3-highiso-51200-raw
Two versions -
default setting -
XT3_51200_DSCF2835.JPG
custom setting with every parameter to do with noise reduction set to 0 -
XT3_51200_DSCF2835_NR0_95.JPG

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

FWIW - I've also added the <<X-T2>> ISO51200 RAW conversions for comparison to the same gallery album
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7858448340/albums/fuji-x-t3-highiso-51200-raw

Oct 9, 2018permalink

DrewRick

For those of us reading on mobile, what is the outcome of your conversion in comparison to acr?

Oct 25, 2018permalink

Sorry, this is extremely difficult to answer, if you cannot see the conversions posted.
It seems the latest Fuji/SilkyPix RAW file converter does manage to reduce noise more - even when every setting to do with NR is set to zero - so the resulting conversion looks noticeably better (noise-wise than the ARC), at pixel level the Fuji/SilkyPix conversion does not look as sharp - I don't think is lower resolution, but actutance which can easily be recovered by careful sharpening. eg: the ACR noise/grain looks sharper which may hint at sharpening by ACR(?)

BUT there is a bit of a wrinkle - when I just re-reviewed the images - unannounced dpReview have changed the RAW images at ISO51200 (and ISO25600) -
the ISO51200 versions I worked on were:
DSCF2835.RAF and DSCF2835.acr.jpg (dpReview's ACR conversions)
the current images are:
DSCF5352.RAF and DSCF5352.acr.jpg
the current/later versions seem to show lower noise.

Oct 25, 2018*permalink

Expat Nomad

@DPR, since you are presenting Capture One Express outcomes for high ISO, can you please present the whole ISO series using that software, and/or compare vs. Adobe products as this site has in the past.

Given historical processing outcomes, and that Capture One Express is now free, I don't know whether it's a correct assertion that Adobe products are the most widely used by Fujifilm users.

You have the RAW images, but more importantly, the platform.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

BlueBomberTurbo

Zero NR is zero NR. Capture One uses different colors and tone curves than Adobe, though, along with different sharpening.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

The one feature I was sort of hoping for (not that I had much intentions to upgrade from the XT2) was a base ISO of 100, like Sony and many other cameras (DSLRs at least; and maybe there's a technological limitations that prevents or makes this hard to do, I don't know). Granted the low-noise at ISO 200 is still quite good, I would have preferred even lower base ISO, but they're making improvements (now down to a base of 160 so maybe in the XT4 we can see ISO 100 or ISO125 as a base, not boosted).

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

IamJF

Since Fuji counts ISO differently you need iso 160 anyway to match iso 100 exposure of other manufacturer 😉

Oct 8, 2018permalink

xeriwthe

thanks internet sleuths and keen sighted photograph professionals you've justified not upgrading from my x-t2!

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Hugo808

I've been caning my XT2 for two years and it still feels like it will last forever so there's really no need to upgrade. In fact, I like to shoot gigs so a better performance in low light suits me.

I did have a go on a 3 and it does feel like everything has been tightened up a bit but not enough to leave me wanting.

My main reason not to upgrade is because I'd have to subscribe to Adobe Lr and I thoroughly object to that as I've already paid for it. My camera is going to have to last a long time....

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Kharan

And *this* is the reason for the rumored stacked sensor on the next Sony APS-C body - it'll be more expensive, but probably won't suffer from the extreme ISO hit of the X-T3.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Stacked sensors increase readout speed at the expense of dynamic range so I'm not sure your theory holds up.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

BIOGONS

And the new stacked sensors reduce the rolling-shutter effect, mainly in video recording!

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Kharan

The Sony A9 has a slightly lower DR for reasons most likely unrelated to the stacked sensor - no such thing is visible on the 1" models, for one thing.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

BlueBomberTurbo

@Kharan

Sensor size plays a huge role when its FF vs 1". The bigger the sensor, the more data is recorded for each pixel. The RX100 has very tiny pixels, and only shoots 11+7-bit RAW, so there wasn't enough DR recorded to be impacted in the first place.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Kharan

Or you could look at this the other way around - the 20MP of the 1" sensor doesn't produce a substantially lower amount of data than the 24MP chip on the A9, which means that both pipelines probably aren't that far apart. Bit depth and compression occur at a stage later than sensor readout, so that's definitely out of the scope of this analysis.
Also, cameras don't have pixel "sizes" - those are sensels or photosites. It's usually irrelevant, but not for this discussion. The size and physical distribution of the photosites probably bears no weight for this issue, since reading out a 35mm or 1/2.3" sensor is exactly the same if the number of sites to be read is equal.
Finally, what makes you think that the 1" sensors wouldn't suffer from said DR loss *more*, if it were real and caused by sensor stacking (which is not true, BTW)? Smaller chips have more gains to make from a BSI process or better cooling, for example.

Oct 9, 2018permalink

Autriche78

Next up: a spirited discussion of which car we should buy, based on how much the OEM spare tire improves a car's handling....while it's in the trunk.

If you're into extreme low light shooting, buy something else then. But for 99% of all photographers, the much faster and more reliable AF and face/eye detect are a much more compelling and intelligent reason to upgrade.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

I don't know who your comment is addressed to but DPR is simply reporting their results. People are free to apply the results to their individual use cases. I too find the full PDAF coverage and usable face/eye AF compelling reasons to upgrade. That said, for me, the faster read speed at the cost of going backwards in high ISO quality is a poor trade off but not a deal killer.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

retr01976

DPReview and it's forum folks are at the very extreme end of the photography spectrum. If it doesn't have IBS, 4K and you can't lift shadows by 5 stops, it's simply no good here, the rest of the world would strongly disagree. If you can't make amazing pictures with even an old Canon 18 megapixel sensor, than the problem is in the mirror right in front of you. The best photographers on the planet don't need these features, but today's photogs can't seem to cope without them. We stopped judging cameras on how they operate in the field a long time ago. Thanks to DXO and youtube, you can just read the specifications on the box, look at some test charts and viola you have your review...

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

BlueBomberTurbo

Take the spare out and put a can of Fix A Flat and an AAA card in its place. Weight reduction is your friend.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

ogl

Not bad, but less contrast, less details and sharpness than Pentax KP.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

I've never shot anything at ISO 51,200 and never will. Moreover, even if I did, I wouldn't blow it up to 100%. This analysis is beyond silly.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

The X-T3 is so good that reviewers desperately seek something to complain about. There's noise at ISO51200 oh noooo! BTW, Cartier-Bresson did just fine without IBIS.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

The Name is Bond

Everything is relative. It's not good compared to Sony FF.

What's newsworthy, I think, is the retrograde step. Usually these things improve.

And it could be pertinent to a low-lighter. when I had an XPro 1, I found jpeg 6400 the acceptable limit (I'm a jpeg shooter). Had the next gen been retrograde I would not have updated. Which is effectively what happened, as XPro2 had weird and unusable jpeg skin smoothing from ISO1600 and up. I eventually switched systems. Though I still have an XA2.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

Samaistuin

No, you are the silly one. I don't shoot at such a high ISO either, but since the setting is there, why would you not want to assess its performance ? Because you're afraid of objective testings which could tarnish the street cred of your brand ? Don't be such a fanboy.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Dr Blackjack

It is a minor issue for most people but an issue nonetheless. Just because I don't go rain shooting doesn't make me say weather sealing is a silly analysis.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Dr Blackjack, an ISO 51,200 comparison at 100% is useful only to fools.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

BlackJack, anybody who is serious about Image Quality, doesn't shoot with an APS-C, neither FF Camera at ISO 51200 - it's ridiculous. </facepalm>

Some Reviews onto the Web (google it!) already stated, that the X-T3 is currently *the Best* APS-C Camera out there into 2018 - and i don't see a reason, why it shouldn't be this way. Why is DPR splitting hairs here?! I can't remember, for as long as back into 1999 - that there was a post like that from DPR about any other camera, and ISO 51200. I do like the Website really, but it's pretty clear, DPR Stuff is somehow biased against Pentax, and into the near past, there is some shift against Fujifilm, too...it seems....not a good, neutral development, if one would ask me....

The X-T3 have subtle, neglible HighISO performance compared to the X-T2 - OMG, 1st world problems! The AF & every other feature is being optimized, a whole new camera, and being better than the great X-T2, also.

Good Light!

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

MyReality

@marc petzold - They are simply comparing one variable in two different cameras, because of all the talk about it on this forum.
I do not think DPR is biased. If Pentax comes out with a new camera, I think their will be a lot of talk about it on this forum and maybe a test.
I have seen too much paranoia on this forum.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

AbrasiveReducer

Someone actually wrote "but since it's there, why wouldn't you want to use it?" And there is the problem. Or the solution seeking a problem. My kitchen has better specs than the neighbors' because I have a fire extinguisher. It's a nice feature to have but I don't plan on using it.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

That isn't a problem - other-wise one can bash any other camera onto the market, for not having technical clean ISO at 51200 - and simply, there isn't one, not even the A7S II, not any FF or even MF Camera on the market into 2018. <busted> Horses for courses.

Again, shooting at that high ISO is more than a joke. People should keep the church into the village, instead complaining about useless rubbish. Even with Fullframe, ISO 51200 is ridiculous in terms of image noise.

If people are complaing about noise at these high ISO speeds, they should seek out for another hobby, no offense. Gosh, what would Ansel Adams say about ISO 51200? Imagine that...or Alfred Stieglitz? Get a Life, guys! Get out, and make pictures - instead of complaining about silly things.

Good Evening!

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

@marc If I encounter a compelling scene where the choice is shooting at ISO 51200 or not getting the shot I will shoot at 51200. One of my more popular images, taken at night from a boat on the Ganges, was shot this way. This high ISO analysis is not irrelevant.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

dko22

just reading the commentary here made me think -- hang on 51k is unusable anyway so what are dpr thinking about in going on about it! At 25k, using the dark scene which is much more useful for getting a representative result, I do (using C1 11.3 Pro) see a bit more grain but the X-T3 is both brighter, more contrasty and detailed which is probably more valuable overall. Up to 12.8k the T3 seems to me better overall and the value of having a backlit sensor is clearly shown.

Although there's no actual harm perhaps in mentioning the fact that the X-T3 loses its marbles at the highest extended setting, such a comparison should really come with a health warning that this is in fact irrelevant in the real world. Perhaps this setting can be used in black and white but in that case, the extra grain might even be seen as a bonus.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

CanonSharpShooter

Let’s not forget this practice is applied fairly to all cameras not just your favorite brand you feel the need to protect. 🤡

Oct 8, 2018permalink

DPReview has always looked at 100% and has always looked at all ISOs.

The only reason I've given more attention to these highest ISOs is because these were the areas where the X-T3 seemed to fall behind its predecessor. I'm not saying it's a problem, I'm mainly testing whether it's just a side-effect of using Adobe's raw converter. Which it isn't.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

ozturert

No IBIS no buy!
...
...
...
Sorry I thought this was a Canon camera...
Go Fuji!

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Thanks for this clearification, Richard. Much appreciated.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

...just compared the good old Canon 5D Mark III against the Fuji X-T3 and it's *WAY* better in RAW ISO 51200. So much for the "can compete with fullframe". Physics can't be tricked.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

I couldn't possibly care less about ISO 51200 or 25600.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

That's exactly what i was telling on DR discussions a few years ago... it always depends on the shootingstyle. That's also why I never upgraded to a Mark IV (ok, second, first was the ridiculous price) and I'm still very happy with the "messy" Canon 5DM3 sensor. It's good for *my* work. But some people need more and Fuji wants to compete with full frame. So the judgement is that hard.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

@vdsc: It's hard to use those lovely little Fuji lenses on the Canon body though. And at the most used ISO:s the Canon seems to be steam-rolled by the Fuji...

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

@Sndosasd
Do you have the same dpreview-site as I do? Just enter "RAW" and "ISO 51200" then Canon 5D Mark III, Fuji X-T3 and compare. You would be surprised, Fuji is nothing steem-rolling, it's already flat on the street. 3-4 year old fullframe sensor crush the X-T3.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

@vdsc: I prefer to look at measurements, any camera is bad at those ISO:s:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,FujiFilm%20X-T3,Nikon%20D5

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

Dr Blackjack

Yup, you can't trick physics. And saying that the XT3 is better or just as good as FF in all aspects is silly. But your assertion that it can't compete with FF is also silly, since you ignore the massive speed and video improvements among other merits the XT3 holds that no Canon DSLR can touch.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Samaistuin

@vscd : "Just enter "RAW" and "ISO 51200" then Canon 5D Mark III, Fuji X-T3 and compare."

I just did this and the difference is surprisingly low - which is a compliment to the X-T3. So yes, based on this the X-T3 is certainly competitive relative to the 5DIII. The real gap (for both cameras) is with the Nikon D850.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

lawny13

@vscd

There is not steam rolling of the XT-3 over the 5DIII. As @Samaistuin suggested rather than looking st charts look at the produced images instead. For example as seen in the comparison between the z7 and the A7RIII one could say they are on par in teams of DR but one does see more Color splotching in the Sony. End of the day it is about the images produced right?

With raw setting one can see that the xt3 is on par with the 6 years older 5III. I remember hearing some where that sensor tech gains you about 1/5 stop per year. That seems about right here.

HOWEVER, it doesn’t and never will remove ten fact that APS-c to FF is a 1 stop different all tech the same. These is the physics you can’t get around.

So while the Xt3 is on par with the 5D3, it is most definitely not better or even close to the D850... in fact it is about 1 stop behind it... go figure.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

@vscd As a former user of a 5D3, I would never use that sensor as the basis of an argument in favor if FF—unless you like pattern noise and red shadows. If we're talking DOF, physics is immutable. If we're talking sensor noise and DR, superior tech can close the gap.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

@tlinn,
In banding you're right.The 5DM3 sensor is not the show-of for a fullframe. You are also correct in shadows and so on. I second that. *BUT*, noise on high ISO is defintely better. And the sensor is 3-4 years old now, the difference from a X-T3 to a recent Nikon/Sony/5DM4 is even higher...without the drawbacks of the older 5DM3 technology in it.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

PF511

Ironically, the 5D Mark III is about the same at that ISO as the X-T2. It's also double the weight, double the size, and loses the exposure preview of mirrorless. That being said, use whatever tool works best for you.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

lawny13

Nothing ironic about it. Comparing a sensor from 2012 to one from 2016 is just silly, especially when people are trying to justify that crop is at the level of FF. By the same logic I can say that camera in the iphone X is just as good as FF (from the year XXXX).

The constant argument people seem to keep having is how crop is catching up and the FF is meaningless. However that has never changed. Having a car that is behind another one by 1 car length, and they are both traveling at exactly the same speed in a straight line literally means the one that is behind will never catch up.

All tech the same. FF has 2x the sensor area as a crop sensor. That literally means that it has 2x the area for total light gathering, and is thus ALWAYS 1 stop better. That is it.

Now when you get to talking about lenses, DOF, FOV, complexity of a FF system vs crop, things get a little more complicated.

That said. At this point they are both just as good depending on what you want/need.

Oct 9, 2018permalink

lawny13

CONT:

Seeing the fuji files, it is obvious that when it comes to actual pictures technology has advanced far enough that a regular client won't care what camera you took the image with when it comes to IQ.

However, there are obvious physics oriented advantage to FF when it comes to the look of images, and that is DOF. No matter how you slice it a FF sensor will give you shallower DOF (or at least the potential to do so).

However, the crop sensor will give you more reach. It is far easier to have zoom lenses with longer ranges. They tend to be cheaper to produce, same for the lenses, and they tend to be lighter. Once you go for the fast lenses to try to match the FF DOF advantage you hit high costs, size and weight. Lastly, because they are easier to produce we see that certain technological advancements are better for them, such as 4k video since the sensor size allows for faster over all read out etc.

Oct 9, 2018permalink

elefteriadis alexandros

Best of all in this comparison is Nikon D500.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

zzzxtreme

D500 is something special

Oct 8, 2018permalink

ogl

No. Pentax KP is better and sharper.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

I was actually impressed by the detail retained in the Sony JPEGs...

Oct 8, 2018permalink

matt_nnn

To my eyes the Nikon D500 has less noise but uses more noise reduction. I think the difference is neglidgible.
However the choice of lenses is different for me (as a Nikon D500 owner):
3rd party lens choice is still a little better for Nikon, but that might change,
and APS-C lens choice from Fuji is much better than from Nikon!

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Battersea

Pixel peeping is reaching it's peak. In similar class cameras differences are meaningless enough to not worry about it much. One camera is better at low ISO one is better at high. No doubt Sony makes sweet sensors and Ferrari makes sweet engines, McLaren cars are just as fast or sometimes faster. Do you prefer the wild looks of Lamborghini, the heritage of Porsche, the engineering of McLaren or the cachet of Ferrari? Really we are dealing with super car performance when it comes to modern cameras especially IQ. Focus and lens quality are my priorities now.
BTW I think Fujifilm cameras are really cool and I like their film simulations.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Battersea

Especially when I look over at the right hand column and see "Orchid Spray" by Mond. That is a beautiful artistic photo and nobody cares what camera was used.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Rachik

Why DPreview are not saying anything about the bad metering system on the camera. On less dynamic range scene, its always underexpose. XT1 did a way better job.
I saw topics on that since the fuji XT2 came out, and shutdown by fuji fans comments ( by the way I am fuji lover, but I am transparent)
@DPreview, I can provide pictures to prove it :)

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Probably because they don't agree with you about the metering.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Rachik

You can say your message differently, without hurting anyone. On top of that what is your purpose to answer like that ? That said :
The metering system of the XT2 and XT3 always underexpose in low dynamic range scene, yes, the metering master is the photographer, but 100% of those pictures need at least 2/3 extra stop. What is the purpose of fuji? we dont know exactly? Some are saying, its a way to have better score compared to ISO, some are calling it "highlight priority mode" that fuji did on purpose to save the highlight ... but no word by dpreview
If we don't open topics like that, fuji will not change anything.
But if one time, dpreview, fujirumors, or other big players just mention it, fuji will explain the strategy of metering they are using and adapt if needed.
Have a nice end of day my friend dual12

Oct 9, 2018permalink

Rachik

------
interesting article and topics :
https://photographylife.com/does-fuji-cheat-with-its-sensors
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4107316
https://www.fujix-forum.com/threads/consistent-underexposure-problem.28751/
https://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/4346-xt2-problem-correct-exposure/
https://www.reddit.com/r/fujix/comments/64jt7d/fuji_xt2_underexposing/
....

Oct 9, 2018permalink

kristwi

I have both cameras but what nobody ever mentions is that the camera has less false colors at higher ISOs...

But then again such high ISOs are irrelevant to me.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

IdM photography

More noise at high ISO... Did they change provider for the sensor? Not anymore Sony?

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Well, there is now phase detection and (as the article presumes) likely increased read noise from the faster hardware (which is way over my head but I'll go with it). Probably still a Sony sensor.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Canon 6D Mark 2 sensor was also worse for that. Same hate on Canon. Just fair? ;)

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

"With noise reduction minimized, the X-T3 still exhibits more noise than the X-T2. Not quite as dramatically as in ACR, but the difference is still there."

To me, the difference looks *way more pronounced* in Capture One than ACR.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Worse quality than predecessor? Hmm, reminds me of the Canon 6D mark II, but this time there are less haters....

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Yeah right, have you seen the EVF specs, the video capabilities or the 30 fps shooting? there are other factors than noise at ISO 51,200.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

TimGlowik

I think it's biggest improvement is the AF and the burst rate .. I really appreciate a fast AF - but I really don't need a higher burst rate .. IQ should have been more important to the developers of the X-T3 :-( - but at least it has 2 Card Slots ;)
Canon forgot the 2nd one in all of it's recent cameras ..

So if I had to pick between Canon EOS R (or 6DM2), Nikon Z6/7 or X-T3 - I would pick the X-T3 for sure ...

Oct 8, 2018permalink

rawdinal

@ZeBebito
...has anyone seen DPAF, new features, GPS, NFC, Tiltscreen, WLAN and WAY better Autofocus on the Canon 6DM2? The hate was immense for a few specs... what do you expect? The laughings and hate from Fujiusers was high back then.
The knife cuts on both sides... now you see how ridiculous the fanboys of the other side of the river can be.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

@Rawdinal Part of the issue with the Canon 6D2 is the fact that Canon's sensors are class trailing to begin with. They should be closing the gap with Sony; not going backwards.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

CanonSharpShooter

Please let the 6Dm2 Rest In Peace, we don’t need to drag it out for another round of trashing.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Even though the NIkons can go to ISO 100, I still think they need to compare apples to apples, and use ISO 160 or ISO 200 as a base, since the XT2 only goes to 200 (lowest unboosted minimum ISO), and the XT3 to 160. Just my opinion. May not make much of a difference in the lab tests or real world performance,.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

James Stirling

Why handicap the camera with the more preferable lower base ISO ? If you are shooting both systems for their maximum image quality those are the setting you would be using.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

Are we really going to have a flame war about increased noise at ISOs 25,600 and above? Because that sounds kind of silly, but it looks like the torches and pitchforks are coming out already.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

ISO is the DR of 2018. And Fuji even "cheats" on ISO... mostly it's one stop less than displayed (f.e. Take manual mode and the same time and f-stop on a Nikon/Sony/Canon and on Fuji - compare the pictures) Fuji is roughly 1/2-1 stop darker.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

Jon555

In fairness Black Cat owners who use coal-fired central heating systems do have an interest here... especially if they don't get off-shift until after 11pm...

Oct 8, 2018permalink

UncoyDP

I've carefully measured the exposure vs ISO on a Fuji X-H1, Canon 5D III and a Sony A6300 against the same scene, in the same light with the same lens (a Canon 24-70 f4) with the identical framing.

The difference is 1/2 stop when brightening to match in Iridient Developer. Sony and Canon are very close. So let's not carried away with the full stop nonsense.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Imager of

So iPhone X still the king!

Oct 8, 2018permalink

bluevellet

I'll take better low ISO IQ over better high ISO IQ any day.

But I can hardly tell the difference between the low ISO pics between the X-T2 and X-T3...

Oct 8, 2018permalink

I think for those who have an XT2 the upgrade to an XT3 is marginal (you gain about 2MP and about 1/3 of a stop in terms of ISO). I don't think things like 4k have been improved at all (still think it's at 10-20 min max without battery grip.) And i think generally on the low ISO side, there isn't much of a difference, but the higher end there probably is and I think that's where many mfrs tend to focus on the most in newer revisions of bodies.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

Sounds like Foveon might be for you :)

Oct 8, 2018permalink

@sirhawkeye64 - I always wonder why people reply to say, an Amazon product question with "I don't know, I don't own this model." Similarly, I don't know why people comment on things they clearly have no knowledge of (other than to spread disinformation, I suppose).

There are significant upgrades across the board for video in the X-T3:
https://imgur.com/CGzUrj7

And no, the grip's not required for any of it.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

OK you have a point, but the specs given in that screen shot are not entirely accurate as well. Take the 4k for example. In some circumstances, it can do a 30 minute video, if you do something like 24p, but 30p, which most people would probably prefer, seems to cap out at 20min. This info is directly on the XT3 sales brochure. Yes for example it can record 30 minute videos, but at a lower frame rate). The 20min cap for 4k30 is a bit longer than the XT2's 10 or 15 minutes, but only by 5 minutes.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

PankajDubey

Interesting, looking at non patterned ones and RAW , Sony A6000 is actually sharper than XT3 .

Oct 8, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

The increase in high-ISO noise would not bother me personally. I spend much more time at low ISOs than high ones, and have literally never used 25,600 or above. It may matter a lot to others, though.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Simon97

I agree with this. I never shot above 6400 and it looks fine there and below.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Yes, with a fast lens ISO 800-1600 is more than enough.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

..if you *GET* a fast lens. If you only use 200mm or smaller it's no problem. If you want more it's a big problem. Fuji want to compete with the large Canon/Nikon/Sony so it should also compete with daily workhorses @ISO12800-51200 for sportphotography. Period.

(for enthusiats it's ok, I like my X100S)

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

SheepStar

@Zebebito

Maybe for you. I regularly hit 12,800, but I shoot FX so it's really not that unheard of.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Yes, for me. If your lenses have a maximum aperture of f8, yes I can understand that you need 12,800. With f1.4 glass, I can easily shoot at night at ISO 640 with no problems at all. I am not a sports photographer if that's your thing.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

@ZeBebito
Fuji X-T3 want to compete with Fullframe, on fullframe ISO12800 is nothing unusual. Physically the APS-C is always one stop worse, but that's like sayin "JEHOVA" in Fujiforums. Why? I think the Fuji performs *terrific* but it's not up to a fullframe D810 or 5DM4. The problem is not that they can't compete, the problem is that they think they can...

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Where does Fuji say the X-T3 can compete with full frame exactly? In high ISO, no, it can't. In video is WAY better, and in overall user's experience is way better too. There are more things around photographs or video besides a one-stop noisier sensor.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

It's the marketing from Fuji itself (X-trans) and a religion on fujirumours.com or other fanbased sided. Yes, it's ridiculous. But they pray it again and again.
Results now prove them wrong.

Videowise the XT3 is a *monster*, I was shocked how much better the video from depreview on the X-T3 was than the one from the EOS-R. Fully Admitted. But I'm a photographer, no vlogger, I couln't care less about 4k than having my cam in red/yellow color.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

If the ONLY parameter to judge if a camera can compete with another is high-ISO noise, then yes, it can't compete. For me, there are a few other factors in the equation.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

SheepStar

Price? Some Fuji models are priced near FX/FF Nikon and Canon bodies. Price is a major indicator of what part of the market you want to compete in.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

SheepStar

"Yes, for me. If your lenses have a maximum aperture of f8, yes I can understand that you need 12,800. With f1.4 glass, I can easily shoot at night at ISO 640 with no problems at all. I am not a sports photographer if that's your thing."

Even with F1.8 lenses and F2.8 zooms. I shoot concerts every so often, and some venues don't have great lighting. If you want to freeze action, or have your lenses perform better (my wide angle is F4, and I prefer shooting it at F5.6) you need to make up that light somewhere.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

ShaiKhulud

>Capture One Fujifilm

I hope you'll develop future A7s III and othe Sony shots with CO too. It's so much better and accurate than with ACR.

P.S. Please, fix the gallery upload :(

Oct 8, 2018permalink

DPR, I'm afraid you've opened a can of worms here...

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

We only used Capture One in this instance to check whether it was Adobe's processing that was making the X-T3 look noisier than the X-T2. It isn't.

It is simply not practical for us to process every camera with multiple converters. We provide the Raws specifically so that you can test with your own preferred software.

In terms of gallery uploads, I believe we are working on a non-Flash uploader.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

UncoyDP

Richard, it's absolutely fantastic you used an alternative RAW converter to test significant differences in a camera line for which Adobe is known to be a poor choice.

Iridient Developer offers controls even closer to the RAW data (EVF slider which precisely reflects EVF). You might enjoy working more with Iridient Developer for your technical RAW checks (a second opinion processor) as there's a lot less interface fluff and hidden processing going on with ID. For better and worse, ID is like being in a digital darkroom. You can almost smell the chemicals and see the bath timers.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Mortal Lion

Are you saying it really sucks at high ISO?

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Well, it looks like the T3 at 25.600 ISO is roughly identical to the T2 at 512.000 ISO. So, i guess you could say that.

But then again, up to ISO 1600, the image from the T3 does tend to look better ... finer detail, about the same noise level. Also it has ISO 160 available.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

Lars

We live in glorious times when pixel peeping at ISO 25600 is worth an article. And I agree with some other posters - resolution actually looks better, even at those extreme ISOs. I wonder why dpreview staff only looks at noise?

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Because it't not really true, what you say.
Up to ISO 1600 the T3 looks better (finer details, about same noise level), at 3200 they look about the same, and from there on the T3 start to loose... as i said before, between T3@25.600 and T2@512.000 there is virtually no difference (in RAW comparison).

For one, i prefer the gaining in low ISO ... so i kind of welcome the change. But if you plan to shoot ISO 6400 and up, it is an actual fact you should consider objectively. Anyway, you should probably go FF anyway if that is the case :)

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

user "Causio" noted in a post below something interesting: this quite changes if you switch to "low light" illumination.

In this case it seems to be little difference bewteen the T2 and T3. And it also looks at about the same level as the D500 and A6500... interesting...

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

TomCodyPleasedToMeetYa

So many photographers have only taken this up since the digital era, so they don't realise that anything over ISO 400 is pretty cool, coming from an era where 100, 200 or 400 were your standard choices.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

@User9362470513
well... whatever, in the early days of cars 70km/h was considered racing speed. Today legal speed in most countries on highways is 130km/h. Should we drive around 50km/h and pretend that faster is just for these new kids with their new toys? :))

Oct 9, 2018permalink

ozturert

"Impressive image quality at low ISOs".
Hmmmm....

Oct 8, 2018permalink

It's been noticed many times how in the dpreview tests here, the noise looks better in low light shots rather than normal light. The X-T3 seems to benefit particularly from this, becoming equal if not better than X-T2 and even 5D mk III (whereas it's worse in normal light). The normal light images have ridiculous speeds (1/2500s at iso 6400? How often is that required?) and I wonder if that's one reason of this difference. On the other side, low light have very low speed (iso 3200 = 1/10s). At least in my case, if I need high iso for higher speed I never need to go faster than 1/500s. All in all, I wonder if it makes sense to use the same light for all ISO values at all.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

Very, very interesting observation! Thank you!

It seems that not even DPR is looking at that comparison... they should have mentioned it in the article, as in that lighting i don't see much of a difference between the 4 cameras at high ISOs.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

@Causio
I think it wasn't neccessary to shoot 1/2500 at ISO6400, but HOW should they show ISO6400 elseway? I think IT WAS THE AIM to show how it performs in HIGH ISO, so you have to use the corresponding times for that, even if they make no sense to you.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

It's not a matter of making sense to me. It's just an unlikely way of shooting. I guess they're stuck with the parameters they defined many years ago, when Iso 3200 and above were barely a viable option for any camera. The test shot lighting is definitely not set up for three iso values.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

Maybe dpreview can clearify. I atleast expect to see pictures from baseISO up to highest ISO on a review-site. Even if it makes no sense in that specific picture...

Oct 8, 2018permalink

That's exactly why we shoot the scene twice, in two very different lighting conditions.

I chose to re-process the daylight scene because it's easier to get a consistent result in Capture One than with the heavy colour cast of the low light images. If you think the low light scene will show a significantly different result, all the Raws are available for you to download and check for yourself.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

I'm not sure how likely would be to shoot 1/10s @iso 3200 in low light (stabilized lens? maybe. Tripod? You'd likely shoot lower speed with lower iso) but anyway, it's understandable that changing speed/aperture at any shot would introduce more variables in the outcome. I just wanted to point out that higher shutter speed apparently can increase the noise (in fact, normally a brighter image shows less noise but this tests pushed to extreme, sort of unlikely conditions show the opposite) and we'll have to live with shutter speeds varying from 1/1250s to 1/10 sec for the same iso.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

@Richard - yes, you are correct. However you only treat in the article the good light situation. As i said, the low light comparison seems to show no significant difference between the T2 & T3 & D500 & A6500 (on very careful inspection i would still say the D500 is still the winner, but... at first look they are really, really close)

That would make the good light super-high ISO more of a curiosity than an actual camera under-performance in high ISO, don't you think?
Also, don't you think it worth adding that info in the article?

Oct 9, 2018*permalink

runbei99

Good grief, shouldn't DPR test Fuji's native RAW processing through Fujifilm X-RAW Studio? Fuji cameras are at their best when using Fuji software and lenses.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Wouldn't that output the same jpegs as the camera itself? You have them here already.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

(unknown member)

DPR uses Adobe Camera Raw because it provides a consistent standard across different camera brands and is by far the most commonly used engine for RAW processing. They went above and beyond in this particular article by including Capture One as well, since it is also quite popular and many people prefer it for X-Trans. Almost nobody uses manufacturers' supplied software because it is always garbage.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

runbei99

Madness to try to achieve uniformity; far better, I would think, to achieve the very best results a camera is capable of producing. I understand your point re camera makers' software - I've tried Nikon's, Canon's, and Fuji's so far, and I have to say, Fuji's is way beyond Canikon's. It delivers wonderful results that reflect what I'm seeing in the best jpegs SOOC. Fuji's color science is unique - the subtle tonal gradations are very hard to reproduce in LR or Capture One. I'm giving Capture One a trial because they're now officially aligned with Fuji, but so far I've seen nothing to persuade me that it improves on Fuji's own X-RAW Studio in real-world, unprejudiced trials.

Nov 2, 2018*permalink

In some instances, the supplied software just mimics the JPEGs, in other instances (such as Capture One for Fujifilm, it doesn't). But the idea of 'trying to achieve the very best' is a fools errand.

It would make the result dependent on which of us processed the images and ensure eternal complaints about the particular settings we use in each case. "Oh, this camera is better than DPR has made it look because they chose this setting instead of...."

Trying to achieve a level playing field is the least-bad option.

Nov 2, 2018permalink

thx1138

Well if you go to photons to photos by Bill Claff and check the read-noise curves we see X-T3 does indeed have higher read noise than the X-T2 at high ISO. Similar to the Sony A9, having higher read noise than the A7RIII/A7III due to the much higher clocked ADC's. However, A9 high ISO barely look worse than the A7III since it's read noise is only significantly worse at ISO's below 640. It's sort of the opposite of the XT-3, which has lower read noise at low ISOs than the XT-2 but higher at high ISO's. However, what Idon't understand is the X-T3 DR is higher at all ISO than the X-T2 yet read noise is worse at high ISO. Does this mean the X-T3 has more highlight latitude that outweighs effects of read noise at high ISO?

Oct 8, 2018permalink

The conclusion should be that the X-T3 has slightly higher noise at higher ISO but still show more DETAILS. Not sure how Dpreview can miss that fact? And also, 100% crop comparisons corresponds to a huge print size, tell us how large a print with good quality you can make at ISO25600 instead. From my own tests, I know it will be enough for most needs, even professional. And how often do you shoot at ISO25600 btw?

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

Exactly. I don't care if it gets noisy at ISO 51200, the files show more detail and less waxy effect. Besides, even in low light a fast lens and IS0 1600 is plenty enough.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

How fast is your 500mm? f5.6? Or don#t you even have one?

Oct 8, 2018permalink

@vscd: With the 200/2 + TC or 100-400mm you can get to a similar focal length and f-stop. But this thread is not about lenses...

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Infact, it is *exactly* about lenses because the ISO depends heavily on your f-stop and you asked how often we shoot ISO25600. I don't shoot more than ISO12800 regularly but the sportsphotographers I know use ISO 51200 very often. Try to shoot fast Motorsports with a 500mm f4 or TC 2x @f8.... any you will notice ISO6400 is *NOTHING* in real life.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

For me fast 28, 35, 50 and 85mm are my weapons of choice, so no need for a 500mm. So your f5.6 is 4 stops slower than my 1.4 lenses, which means I never need more than ISO 1600.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

KoolKool

"one example of why crop formats are not dead yet."

why do you want crop sensor die?

Oct 8, 2018permalink

SmilerGrogan

Lot of dudes do. Using an APS-C camera is a lot like the humiliating feeling you get when driving a safe, reliable, versatile Honda Civic hatchback when you just know that chicks would dig you so much more and men would finally respect you if you drove a Dodge Hellcat.
How do I know? I drove a 1993 Corolla station wagon for 10 years, talk about humiliating. The only upside was I saved enough by avoiding car payments to buy a D810 and a few very nice lenses. And I’ve upgraded my ride too, I’m now rolling in a car that was built in 2001.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Chuckmet

Chick's love my 7D mkiii and Sigma150-600 lens. Their eye's bulge every time I zoom it out!!

Oct 8, 2018permalink

agrek

Awful! Terrible! The noise is mind boggling 😱 What a disaster for pixel-peepers and photo-technicians!

Oct 8, 2018permalink

It's time for Fuji to face useless crap from forums, this time it's not DR for Canon ;) haters gonna hate.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

CE3

Images look a bit soft and mushy to me, even at low ISOs. Probably not something most would notice in real world use, but when I compare the studio scene to the cameras I own (A6500 & A7rii) I see the difference in sharpness.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

CE3

The Fuji seems to do a better job with color noise at high ISOs, though.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

(unknown member)

Thanks DPR.
Indeed, a little worse after ISO 25k... Identical or better at lower ISO. Very informative. It's ok for me..

Good that CaptureOne (and in the future others) RAW convertors are taken in account.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Oh there is grain at ISO 51,200!! Shame because I only use lenses with maximum aperture of f22.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

f.e. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4058619

Ask sportsphotographers. ISO10000 is crucial, 20000 normal. 51200 should be at least useable. But they use very long lenses where f5.6 sometimes is very fast ;)

X-T3 wants to rival the big ones, now it has to deliver. That's life.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

colurb

On paper this camera had everything I was looking for. In fact it provided more than that I was looking for.

I made the relatively long trek to a store that sold it.

I saw it in the window. It looked beautiful. How I think a camera should look.

I went in and held it my hands only for my heart to sink.

For me, the ergonomics are wrong:

I like to use back button focus but the buttons I could assign to this to are so small and with very little feedback.

It's impossible to move the exposure compensation dial while looking through the view finder. It's so stiff it needs two fingers to move it.

The control wheels are usable but I still feel too small.

Sadly it just doesn't feel right in my hand. I still think this is a great camera. Just not a great camera for me.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Mateus1

"I like to use back button focus but the buttons I could assign to this to are so small and with very little feedback".

I agree only with this statement. True, Fujis buttons size, shape and often also placement is one of the worst I experienced. Expecially the back AF-on button.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

Samaistuin

@Elonlukatski Still better than geek cool 1990's and 2010's designs which scream "look how many functions I can cram in these thumb wheels and touch screens !".

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Silly Elonlukatski, these cameras can't be made for the hipsters. Their beard hairs and waxed mustachery would get all caught up in the dials and aperture rings.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

makofoto

When is DpReview going to reprocess their Studio IQ RAW tests ?

Oct 5, 2018permalink

At the risk of answering a question with another question:

What have you heard that leads you to think we'd get a different outcome?

Oct 6, 2018permalink

I'd like to see samples from the X-T3 converted via Capture One Pro, or Iridient X-Transformer, or -Developer, if you guys are on the Apple Platform. ACR from PS or Lightroom (with built-in ACR) doesn't handle X-trans Files still not that great into 2018 - whileas Fujifilm X-Trans tech Sensors have been around since 2012, it started with the X-Pro1 & X-E1.

Good Light!

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

kiwiwi

The most disappointing in the release of the X-T3 are all the statements whose sole purpose is to tell how stupid the others are. But that's how it should be?

Oct 1, 2018permalink

Bueche

Still waiting for a camera that can match my old Canon 5D when it comes to iq.

Sep 29, 2018permalink

There is only one Classic.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

StraightShoot

Timelapse?

Sep 28, 2018permalink

Timelapse recording: Yes

Sep 28, 2018permalink

thoth22

Once they get rid of xtrans I will consider.

Sep 27, 2018permalink

Aleks7

and I won't be interested anymore

Oct 5, 2018permalink

dpcane

I hope Fuji is aware of this?

Oct 8, 2018permalink

sunhorse

I'm sure Fuji is tracking all of thoth22's likes and dislikes.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Robert Garcia NYC

Seems great but I’d skip it this time and wait for the next model.

Sep 25, 2018permalink

Better wait for the X-T5, oh wait the X-T6 will be even better, but wait there is the X-T7...

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Right, no possible way to get any sort of picture out of those APS-C sensors. SMH

Oct 8, 2018permalink

jackspra

I like the design of the back and top but front on is not so attractive.Photo quality,it’s a Fuji and they no what they are doing.

Sep 21, 2018permalink

I completely disagree. especially the top is awe-full and looks NOTHING LIKE A XPRO3...

Sep 26, 2018permalink

jackspra

Why do you refer to a xpro 3?

Sep 26, 2018permalink

skanter

Re family videos: I took hundreds of my son, from baby to adolescent - I did videography professionally so I had a pro vidcam - they were very well done, and creative. We were harried parents, never had time to look at them so i put the DV tapes in a drawer.

When he went to college we decided to look at them. It was surprising. - seeing ourselves 20 years ago and our son as a baby and toddler had such an emotional affect on us that we could not watch after one or two. They went back in the drawer. Maybe we will try again, maybe not.

Lesson: perhaps documenting your kids growing up is not always a good idea! Of course, YMMV.

Sep 28, 2018permalink

Rob890

So much about video this and video that but where are these videos being shown? What caused this sudden influx of hybrid-shooter because they all can't be music and wedding video makers?

Sep 21, 2018permalink

Frankton

seriously. I dont understand this video fad. I like my cameras to be able to take photos.

Sep 21, 2018permalink

HenryDJP

Youtube videos are perhaps the most popular videos to make. Many successful YouTubers are shooting their videos with DSLRs and mirrorless. The world is shifting. You need to go along or be left behind. Heck, people aren't buying iPhones to make a simple call anymore.

Sep 21, 2018permalink

40daystogo

I've been serious on stills photography for many decades, but nowadays when making visual records of family, I entirely take videos. I feel that videos help capture family memories much better than photos.

So, for me, I cannot understand the very many photographers who express confusion about the need for video in these top cameras.

Sep 25, 2018permalink

man, it wouldn't hurt society to disable video functionality on stills cameras for a couple of years to reduce that mountain of content-trash and click bait nonsense...

Sep 26, 2018permalink

HenryDJP

@kreislauf Actually it would hurt society. Video recording is even more valuable today than capturing stills. Let's just say you're right. In the future if you ever get into a car accident in the broad public and it was 100% the other driver's fault, I suppose someone on the street could use their Sony A7RIII to capture a still of the accident, which may not prove who's at fault. On the flip side, they may just be capturing video on the street and serendipitously filmed your accident, which could really help your case. You might wanna put some thought into that.

Sep 29, 2018*permalink

Yeah, you're all correct... This whole notion about motion pictures will never take off...

Oct 8, 2018permalink

So you can buy a dashcam... or just expect the streets to be lined with former stills shooters that now shoot Sony video of public roadways for ...reasons.

Recording video is hardly a new ability, today it's just done on different hardware. People have had whole libraries of video tapes sitting on shelves for decades, and the more of it there is, the less they watch it. Now we've got this ability to create hours and hours of video and invisibly stockpile it on drives in quantities that will preclude people from ever being able to consume it.

Video's not unimportant, but let's keep some perspective about what's "hurting society" and what's just people walking around video taping hours of useless footage never to be seen again.

Oct 8, 2018*permalink

user061018

No IBIS

Sep 20, 2018permalink

Tomasz_Wk

Wait for X-H2

Sep 21, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

OK, so? Or what are you trying to say?

Sep 21, 2018permalink

Tomasz_Wk

X-H2 is going to be superior to X-t3 and has IBIS.

Sep 21, 2018permalink

Thank you for the information.

Sep 21, 2018permalink

cosinaphile

or as they say on the subway ..... "there is another train right behind this one "

Sep 21, 2018permalink

philo123

Wait for the X-T7. It'll have IBIS and 200 new features that haven't been invented yet

Sep 21, 2018permalink

Rob890

NO NO man wait for the X-H3 it'll have everything

Sep 21, 2018permalink

GetaGrip

It doesn't make coffee also...No buy

Sep 21, 2018permalink

we don't know that coffee thing for sure yet, do we?
also, sony coffee is very bad.
and if you drop your SD card in nikons coffee, you don't have a second one!

Sep 26, 2018*permalink

How did we ever manage to produce anything before IBIS?

Oct 8, 2018permalink

People can't comprehend the concept of multiple lines of camera for different targeted users. This is a stills camera that just happens to have video features, folks. Not every camera has to be everything to everyone. Your minivan doesn't need scissor doors and your McLaren doesn't need a trailer hitch.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

cosinaphile

feature sets are named sets for a reason ... what is the alternative every model is exactly the same?

Oct 9, 2018permalink

Arizona Sunset

Shame not to stabilize all those lovely Fuji primes... If his had X-H1 level stabilization I would have considered it.

Sep 20, 2018permalink

Rob890

dam right...too many shaky hands have ruined photography

Sep 21, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

Indeed, there has been an epidemic of shaky handitis around the world. It may be an offshoot of big throat diameter-itis reported among "photographers" suffering from the full frame syndrome.

Sep 21, 2018permalink

jackspra

That guy with the small hands is to blame.

Sep 21, 2018permalink

Sezano

I love me some shaky hands

Sep 21, 2018permalink

maybe if you wouldn't try to hold the heavy primes at 1/25th second only to shoot closer to ISO200

Sep 26, 2018*permalink

dpcane

"if it had every last photographic ability, I was right there...."

Oct 8, 2018permalink

agrek

Kodachromeguy

Very funny 😄 You nailed it! 👍

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Arizona Sunset

Nah, he didn’t nail anything.

It would have made sense leaving it out of the X-Pro3.

This is their hybrid flagship, and like the GH5, E-M1 II, Z6/7, and A7X III, IBIS is now a minimum specification for a mirrorless system camera.

Oct 8, 2018permalink

@Arizona - What are you talking about? Their hybrid flagship is the X-H series, not X-T...

Oct 8, 2018permalink

Fergus Ferguson

It is so pretty. I would just sit and hold it. Especially the silver.

Sep 20, 2018permalink