Fujifilm X-S10 sample gallery

I hoped to use it for news; right now I'm looking for a new camera (and lenses), no system preference. I really hoped that I could pick a Fuji instead of a random full-frame; JPEG would be essential, as for at least half the time there's no room for massaging RAWs.
Of course, I'll first rent whatever equipment gets shortlisted and test in my own free time, but it still doesn't look good...

Yeah, I suppose you are both right :))

Till now Fuji was indeed a bit in a world of their own, but these days it is more of a preference to go with them. Purely technically there is no advantage (or disadvantage, in my view) in choosing a X-T4 with say a 16-55/2.8 over a Z6 II with the 24-70/4.
But, as Platinumkid said, a 18-55 (or 16-80) and the F2 zooms make a super package, still without direct competition on the market.

I considered that, but realised I couldn’t get the same capability. For instance, my XT3 was 799 UK pounds, used. The RP and Canon R even used were 1000 and 1500 or so. Even these cameras, they don’t offer 4k60, dont shoot at 11 FPS with continuous AF, dont shoot blackout free (i think only the A9 does this, not sure if still true). So I found that whilst FF are similar in price and size in some ways, you dont get that capability. As shown by the Canon R6, for that capability, you pay much much more than an XT3 or even XT4 cost.
And in terms of photography not requiring that level of speed, such as say travel and portraits, the fuji primes make it really compact as a setup.

My claims above were in regards to ergos (which you love or hate), and of course the ability to pair those very sharp, very light (albeit not cheap) fujicrons to a Fuji body. Try the 23/2 or 50/2 with an XT30, and you practically have a wonderfully capable APSC body that can take on any FF under a $1000. It is a different approach than any other camera line.

The XT4 is still my preferred tool of choice, I also own Sony FFs (A9, A7m3). I typically prefer using the Fuji.

Maybe. But I use the default settings which the company is recommending. Would you share your suggestions settings if you don't mind.

Its jpegs are "overcooked" nonetheless you have purchased 3 of their cameras.

You must either be quite happy with overcooked jpegs, or you're not shooting jpeg.

I would not buy Fuji for landscape, especially green. No better colors for people or mixed lighting.

Ours might need to be sent in / inspected. I've pulled the images from the gallery.

Well this has the biggest grip of all Fuji’s and as for feature set is one of two current models with IBIS. Also does away with useless full stop dials.

@CTMRIGuy
You cannot describe a camera by sensor size alone. Lenses matter. And as AKH said the Fuji 18-135 might not be the best example at F3.5-F5.6 on APS-C that is comparable to F2-F3 on 1" compacts. So the comparison is not really far fetched.

And while Fuji users will defend the Fuji lens lineup, even they have to admit that the 18-135 from Fuji doesn't have the best reputation.

18-55 doesn't live up to it's reputation as well

The humble, made mostly of metal Fuji 18-55 punches way above its 'kit zoom' weight. Even in FF equivalent terms its 2.8-4 aperture is the same as the f4-5.6 kits (with faster capture) and it optically bests a lot of the plastic kit toys that vendors often bundle with their cameras.

There are a number of good Fuji zooms.

My thoughts precisely. I would be interested in how the camera behaves with XF 18-55mm.

Maybe they should sell that lens with safety glasses?

“ The humble, made mostly of metal Fuji 18-55 punches way above its 'kit zoom' weight. Even in FF equivalent terms its 2.8-4 aperture is the same as the f4-5.6 kits (with faster capture) and it optically bests a lot of the plastic kit toys that vendors often bundle with their cameras.”

It’s not better than Sony 28-60, Nikon 24-50, Canon 24-105 STM or Panasonic 20-60. All of which are also weather sealed. So no.

Panther fan : I'm a Fuji fan and the 18-135 is absolutely their worst performing lens. No argument there. Rather drag around the sublime 16-55 and 50-140 all day.

It is better than the Sony. And the Nikon 24-50 is what.. f4 to f6.3? So it's *actually full frame equivalent* a full stop slower throughout its range, a stop and a half at the long end-and it's the same $400 more or less. The Panasonic 20-60 is the same speed but it's $200 more *and nine years newer.*

I stand by my assessment of the Fuji 18-55, and even tho it's not weather sealed my dog-eared copy has been through six years of bike rides in every weather condition and it's still tack sharp in all but the longest FL, and there it is more than adequate. Its focusing is still quick and smooth.

@Brownie every copy of the Fuji 16-80 comes with a Pixies Retrospective 2 CD box set.

Here's a review of the 28-60 Sony. With 100 percent crops. @Elisam this lens isn't better than the Fuji. It isn't a whole lot worse, except it's made of plastic.. but no, it can't do anything my Fuji cannot-except capture a stop dimmer. And some mm shorter, since we're talking equivalence here.

And this is a Sony-friendly site, too.

https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_fe_28_60mm_f4_5_6_review/sharpness_2

So first to make it clear I am not anti Fuji. Fuji has the best native first party APS-C lens selection out there. Their first party primes are far better than the Sony first party APS-C primes and other APS-C systems are not even competing. They also have the most complete APS-C lineup and a well integrated system.

That said their zooms are slacking. Especially in the "normal" range. Their 18-55 was a good kit lens when it was released. But now in 2020 every system has a good kit lens. Some with far more interesting focal ranges, like the Panasonic and Canon. And some like the Sony 28-60 capable of resolving well on even high res bodies: https://dustinabbott.net/2020/11/sony-fe-28-60mm-f4-5-6-review/
And most importantly those are all still kit lenses. A great start but not the real endgoal for IQ.
-Their 18-135 is arguably their worst zoom and to add insult to injury it is also much bigger and heavier than the better Canon/ Sony competition.

-The 16-80 F4 got a lukewarm reception as it fails to deliver decent sharpness across the frame at both ends of the focal range even stopped down
-And while their 16-55 F2.8 is great optically, it is cumbersomly large compared to the competition.

In terms of zooms both the APS-C competition by Sony/Canon/Tamron and the FF competition by Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Sony, Tamron and Sigma looks more compelling.

If you want to talk full frame equivalent, then talk full frame equivalent. The Nikon is not a full stop dimmer, it’s 1/3 stop dimmer. The Sony is no stops dimmer. The Sony does well on 61MP. The Fuji didn’t handle the transition from 16MP to 24MP. Wanna tell me the Fuji is better again? It’s also bigger and has no weather resistance. Some metal (it’s not full metal) or not it is not optically up to modern FF kit zoom standard. It’s a fine budget lens with a bit faster aperture than most similar APS-C lenses that usually come in kit form, but that’s about it. It’s being better than other kit lenses may have been true when it came out, but not any longer.

Not only is it bigger than the Sony, it weighs nearly twice as much.

Actually in equivalent terms the Fuji is an f/4.2-6, so slower than the Sony and only marginally faster than the Nikon.

Mr Bolton

While this discussion is pedantic FF and APS-C are not exactly one stop apart. A sensor that would be one stop apart would have half the surface area, so a crop factor of 1.41, or in other words be slightly larger than APS-C.

That means instead of the common simplification

FF
- 1 stop
APS-C
-1 stop
M43

In reality that is closer to

FF
-7/6 stop
APS-C
-5/6 stop
M43

That said it will be very different to spot 1/6th of a stop. So saying they are one stop apart is a good simplification. Especially as t-stop and vignetting are far more important for light transmission in that range