The camera has some downsides in terms of video, but on the other side it has a new 40mp sensor and keeps the same great ergonomics it the x-T3.

I paid $1699.00 for a new X-T3 in 2019 with the 18-55mm. I just paid $1699.00 for the X.T5 for the body only.
While I didn't get a lens I already own, I gained a 40mp sensor, a better grip, a better battery, better autofocus, IBIS, a base ISO of 125 instead of 160, much higher max shutter speed, much faster processor, hardly any weight penalty over the X-T3 body, back to a photo centric tilt screen, etc.
This isn't accounting for the cost of everything being much higher than 3 years ago.It's unfortunate you're disappointed. What should all of those enhancements cost?

I prefer the XT5 screen to that of the XT4, which I used to have. Indeed, part of my upgrade decision was to get back the tilt screen that I used to have on my XT3. I applaud the move to being a more photo orientate camera. They produce a video orientated camera in the form of the XH2, so there is a choice. Each to their own.

For me it is an improvement
Like this screen …. like its less bloated ….
But then I do very little video

It’s useful for identifying DPRTV videos from amongst the others on my homepage. “Chris” (aka DPRTV) is hardly unique in this practice — it’s common for YouTube channels/brands.

That’s fine, but I own a Fuji so whatever Olympus has is irrelevant to me.

@Delph12 it says something more about Olympus IBIS than Fuji's- it is lightyears ahead of everyone else.

Fuji's is at least as good as everyone else except Olympus.

Mine caught me reading this review - looked pretty mournful… Used the money I saved by not upgrading on the new 56mm f1.2 WR, which is lovely!

Fortunately there is now a plethora of models available at similar price points (perhaps an X-Pro soon, as well?) that everyone gets at least something close to what they like. Until the day we can get cameras made to order like we can cars.

When the X-T4 came out, reviewers were like, "You are not allowed to hate the flippy screen. Besides, it is better for video." (They never explained how the presence of such a screen might produce better video images.) Now, the party line is that "the titling screen is a welcome return to form." Whatever sells cameras.

Have people still not learned to use their post-processing software properly ten years later? The darktable xtrans module came out in 2014, folks, and lightroom users need to use amount and not detail, as 100% of serious xtrans users know.

Btw "detail" in reality does not do what it says, it is a selector for which algorithm is used, so there is no harm in leaving it all the way to the left.

@DrewRick - it's not post processing -- it's the X-Trans files themselves just don't have as much detail in them, especially with contrasting colors. I was able to get some of the clarity back in CaptureOne or DXO PhotoLab, but it still lagged behind what I can get with similar side-by-side shots with my Bayer sensor cameras.

Some types of photography doesn't really need absolute sharpness. But I shoot a lot of landscape stuff living here in CO, and it was apparent from my first outing with my X-S10 that things like foliage and branches just look... muddy. Something that I never really had much of an issue with when shooting Canon and my first few days with a Nikon Z5 are also extremely detailed and sharp.

I think the problem for Fuji is twofold at this point:
1 - X-trans offers almost zero real world benefits at 26+ MP and creates more issues than it solves.
2 - Some of their lenses are getting long in the tooth and a few of the popular ones have too much copy-to-copy variations.

It's not the problem of the x-trans sensor. You can try Fuji camera with Bayer. There are few of them available. The results from Fuji Bayer is close and even a bit less detailed. But I understand what are you talking about. Canon and Nikon look a bit more contrasty at 100%. My theory is that it's some post processing applied to RAW. You can use dpreview image comparison tool to compare that canon raw files with some high end gear (I used phase one and Leica q2) to see that this contrast is not coming from the scene.

@Eugene -- Take a look at the below. To me, it goes from best to worst - Lecia - Nikon, Fuji XA7 (Bayer), Fuji XT4. You can see the detail differences in a few different areas like on the feather, hair, etc. The X Trans just isn't as sharp and lacks clarity. It's been pretty well documented on many threads here and on other websites.

Again, for a lot of people, it doesn't matter. It's just clear to me in the 2 months I've had my X-S10 that I'm not as happy with the image quality as I am with Canon's APS-C at standard ISO ranges.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xt4&attr13_1=nikon_zfc_studio&attr13_2=leica_q116&attr13_3=fujifilm_xa7&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=200&attr16_3=200&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.3215246458482402&y=0.5272820414216884

@musicmaster

Using that tool to compare detail is useless seeing as you have no idea how they're processed.

Download the raws and if you're using LRC use Enhance detail on the Fuji raw or use Capture One to process.

I don't use Fuji anymore as I've moved to FF but anyone who says they lack detail haven't really put any effort into getting the most out of their files.

I would buy the crap out of OP's camera but I'm 100% sure we'll see the 40MP sensor down the line this generation.

Please didn't forget Larger 2.36M-dot EVF

@DrewRick - I'm not seeing that exposure stepping on my X-H2 even when intentionally trying to trigger it in either auto-ISO or auto-aperture mode. Just the smooth transitions one might hope for: https://youtu.be/ddgWjzuvLXE

I haven't handled the lens myself but hear it happens when zooming while recording but once again this is second hand information, happy to be proven wrong

A lot of the YouTube tests of this lens (the few that exist, that is) seem to have been made with either the XT-3 or X-T4 (supported, but known to have Fuji's old auto-ISO 1/3-stepping behavior) or even the X-T2 which does not have support for this lens at all. I think this has contributed to a certain amount of confusion around this lens. Folks that have actually shot something with this lens seem to like it https://nofilmschool.com/killer-feature-fujifilm-x-h2-line

As far as I know, this is the first electronic aperture XF lens that Fuji has explicitly marketed as "stepless". Their MK cine zooms are "clickless" but are not electronically controlled. In order to take advantage of this lens's electronic stepless aperture, the firmware logic for controlling the aperture in auto-aperture mode would need to be updated, and I'm not sure if that has been done for all cameras in their line or not. The auto-ISO 1/3-stepping behavior has always been something Fuji could've smoothed out in firmware, I suspect.

Under it?

Everybody limbo!

Where do they go from here? How about a better autofocusing system for their new X-mount cameras.? Or a really useful articulating screen like the Sony A7R V or Nikon Z9 has? Not the retread they were too lazy to replace from the X T-3.

"Not the retread they were too lazy to replace from the X T-3."

They changed that with the X T-4 but went back to the old way with the X T-5 due to popular demand.

Not everyone shares your taste.

@PeterjmTim
Perhaps, you're unfamiliar with the articulating rear screens of the Sony A7R V or the Nikon Z9. My sentence says more like those. It couldn't be clearer what I meant. Had Fuji been forward thinking they would've figured out a similarly clever system as the A7R V and Z9 have. Got it? Being a X T-4 owner I made no reference to the T-4 though that said, its screen never bothered me. Its AF system does however.

But you could say the same of any new camera. Why use a X-T3 instead of a X-T1?to me it's about use cases. IBIS is interesting for night shots, the 40mp are interesting in case you need more reach (two TC modes are available 1.4x and 2x). It won't make me a better photographer but it covers more use cases I might encounter.

Oh wow, there's a 1.4x and 2x crop mode in Fuji bodies? I've long wanted something besides 1.5x on my FF Sony (1.25x & 2x would be ideal), I know some Leica compacts have a whole bunch of crop modes to simulate different FLs and I think Ricohs might too but I didn't know of an ILC with that, neat!

@Curtis80 - "Better technology" like IBIS and higher resolution improve the quality of my photos, thus making me a better photographer. It's great if your own work is so undemanding that these things don't matter, but any technology that improves the objective quality of one's photos and increases the number of scenarios where one can make photographs does indeed make one a better photographer.

A new car won't make you a better driver. But most people still want a new one once in a while.

I guess I am on the extreme and still uses an 15years old 500D, as I can't quite afford a new camera. But I've learned to live with its limits and focus on shooting what it enables me to do. Yea, from time to time I long for night shots or starlights but that's for future. :)

@Simon Says Nothing wrong with your camera in my opinion. If my Canon 7D didn't broke down I wouldn't have bought my XT3 and I still would use my 7D. Also never felt the urge of buying the 7D MkII when my 7D was alive.

@RickRick To play Devil's advocate - new cars have A LOT of safety features like lane keep, automatic cruise control / safe distance follow, and automatic emergency breaking.

While these features don't make the individual driving a better driver if they didn't have these, they do greatly make that driver "better" while those features are active in the sense that the outcome is improved. Having a hard time putting it into words so not sure if that really drove my point across.

Well, if you don't care much about video the z6ii is better in most ways for photography. So is the s5 or s5ii.

It's a bit bigger and 200g heavier with the 35mm f1.8 but the image quality will be way better in both low light and during the day.

The S5 and S5ii with the Sigma 35mm F2 is comparable in size and will also have better IQ.

https://pxlmag.com/db/camera-size-comparison/ad5ac42f_aab2f605-80545e80_8a5c7dce-t60

I doubt the image quality will be better in good light.

Comparing apsc and fullframe makes no sense. I would never change a full frame 35mm f1.4 against an aps-c. Get me a sharp 24 f1.0 on apsc and we can talk...

Zinch: Equivalents on E-mount:

Fuji 23mm 1.4: Sony FE 35mm 1.8, Sigma 35mm F2, Samyang 35mm 1.8
Fuji 56mm 1.2: Sony 85mm 1.8, Samyang 75mm F1.8

These are around the same size as those Fuji lenses, some are a little larger, some are a bit smaller. And the new versions of the Fuji lenses are actually larger. So I don't see anything special in terms of compactness of your setup. What stands out to me is how expensive those Fuji lenses are compared to FF alternatives.

As for the body, I think the Sony A7IV or A7RIII are the best comparisons. Very close in size to the X-T5, though a bit heavier. My A7C is significantly smaller and lighter than the X-T5, but lacks the resolution, obviously. In any case, your setup does not seem especially compact to me.

I don't think you look hard enough. There are a few FF set ups with 35mm and 85mm lenses with similar size and weight to your kit. Yes, it might have 40mp but also has not the best iso noise and pretty bad rolling shutter.

@Andyyy and what about in “bad” light?

Of course we can spend hours comparing systems. I am considering selling my A7c now that I have the X-T5. The excellent low light performance and somewhat better AF make me hesitate, but overall it's a more pleasing experience with the X-T5.

Canon's equivalent:

RF 35/1.8 IS, 305g, $500 (vs. 375g for the Fuji, $750)
RF 85/2 IS macro, 500g, $500 (vs. 405g for the Fuji, $700)

J A C S

Also minimum focus should be considered...

The old Fuji 23mm only focus at 30cm and the 56mm at a lame 70cm. The Canon 35mm focus at 15cm and the 85mm at 30cm.

Rawdinal swear on your Mum's life you actually use FF at f1.4. The DoF is impossibly thin, verging on useless.

"The DoF is impossibly thin, verging on useless." This does not even make sense. The DOF depends on the distance to the subject, among the rest.

Apart from the rehashed equivalence discussion, there is more that Fuji offers in their bodies. What same-priced FF offers 1/8000s shutter and 1/180000s ES? The various manual focus aids? The many buttons that can be reassingned? The video bitrates? In-camera raw editing? Silent shutter? Silver finish bodies that look great? Weather sealing? There is a lot to like.

Weird... some people manage to get sharp pictures with full-frame at f1.0... 🤨

I'd posit that for that photo, setting f1.4 was an oversight. Run a high pass filter over that one and you'll see almost all of that image falls outside the focal plane. Still doesn't really help the case of the other guy who apparently isn't interested in any system unless it offers f1.4 FF equivalent.

Impulses with no focal length context given, surely you'd assume standard focal length (in the region of 43-50mm), and upwards? Mr Rawdinar won't go anywhere near Fuji APS-C system until they have an f1 lens. I doubt I believe that statement comes from experience over vanity.

Ah, I read that as 35mm as in the sensor size, not focal length. Anyway, daft reason to dismiss a system.

"Why are you comparing f1.4 fuji lens with f2 sigma?"

Because F1.4 on APS-C is equivalent to to F2.1 on FF. So that F2 lens will produce similar images in terms depth-of-field and noise as the Fujifilm F1.4 lens. An FF F1.4 lens will have more shallow DoF (wide open) and less noise, more like an F1 lens on APS-C.

People are into equivalence, because it's a useful framework to compare expected results on different formats based on physics. In this case, equivalence tells you that if you find a FF F1.4 lens too large and you are willing to sacrifice a stop of noise and shallow DoF, then you can either use an APS-C sensor with an F1.4 lens, or stay with FF but use an F2 lens. Exposure parameters will be different, but final results will be very similar. Bragging about how smaller is an F1.4 lens on APS-C compared to FF makes no sense.

Also, DoF certainly matters for more than just niche applications when very shallow DoF is required. If you need certain depth-of-field, e.g. to keep vital elements of the picture in focus, you need to set the f-number one stop higher on FF, compared to APS-C. On the other hand, setting the f-number too high will soften the image by diffraction, which occurs, as equivalence tells you, one stop sooner on APS-C than FF, because of equivalent DoF.

For example, F2.8 on my RX100VII (1" sensor) is no way equivalent to F2.8 on my FF A7C. It has much deeper DoF and much more noise (at the same SS). Indeed, the results look like F8 on FF. Also, it would be an error to set F8 on the RX100 VII as I am used to do on FF, e.g. for a landscape, as the image would be softened by diffraction. Equivalence tells me to shoot wide open at F2.8 to obtain a similar image.

I have posted examples, not mine, where Fuji at equivalent settings has deeper DOF despite equivalence. An f/1.4 lens at f/2 has lower vignetting and is substantially better than f/1.4 on crop, including bokeh.

BTW, your Fuji kit is much larger than my phone at settings equivalent to my phone.

Eugene L: you are of course correct that the aperture diameter is not the sole determinant of the size of lenses. It's pretty clear that Nikon's priority with its line of F1.8 S primes was not very compact size, so they are generally larger than FF primes from other manufacturers, not just Fujifilm F1.4 lenses. Examples from Sony, Canon and Sigma were given above. But Nikon can produce very small FF lenses as well, just look at the 40mm F2, or the new 26mm F2.8, which is almost as small as the Fuji 27mm F2.8. In fact, Fujifilm themselves went for larger designs for their updated lenses, so the new 23mm F1.4 or 56mm F1.2 are significantly larger than their predecessors, not that much smaller that Nikon's S primes.

As for the 27mm/2.8, yes, it's the smallest Fuji lens available, and indeed smaller than any FF E-mount lens, including the Sony 40mm F2.5 G, which is small, but not that tiny. So if 40mm eq. is your focal length and you search for the smallest possible lens for it, then X-mount has this attractive option. But if you say are more interested in 35mm equivalent, than the E-mount options (Sony 35mm/2.8 or Samyang 35mm/2.8) are actually smaller than the Fuji lens (23mm F2). So one should evaluate this on a case by case basis and I don't think APS-C (or even M43) primes are that much smaller in general. Where I think is a real difference is at the telephoto range, and I agree here with what Impulses writes above, that there's less overlap and less direct equivalents there, so the APS-C telephoto and super zooms are generally smaller because of being slower in equivalent terms.

All this started by Zinch challenging people to "show me an equivalent FF kit to my walkaround kit of X-T5 + 23mm f1.4 + 56mm f1.2 (old ones) that is not bigger and heavier", which is not that hard, really. If one is choosing a system, then that's a different task, and of course, other factors beyond just finding the smallest equivalent lens might be important.

"On average, lenses for FF have more difficulties correcting vignetting compared to APS-C lenses. "

Wrong.

Full frame f1.4 and 1/4000 is such a weird setting for a landscape shot with no discernible motion.

Yes, I shot at f1.4, wide open, with my 35mm.and I mean the focal length, not the sensor size. Where is the problem? It gives a depth of field of 62cm in a distance auf 3 metres... The perfect distance for reportage or wedding shots inside smaller rooms. And it's great for keep the bride on focus and not the priest behind her... Is this so unbelievable for aps-c fanatics? Wow. I rather would use 35mm with f1.2 if I could. And yes, I can swear this by my mother.. But this would be meaningless because I don't believe in God. So.. Useless try to flame...

even better, medium format film camera

They call it medium format. In fact it's not even close to the smallest of them, 645. But the larger cameras are superb, just the glass isn't very fast. I don't understand why they can't do f2 lenses for the new "medium format". We had f2.8 for real 645 back then..

Medium Format was defined as 'anything larger than 35mm' in which case 44 x 33 is medium format (it's 70% larger than full-frame).

It's not the same as the smallest medium format film, but that's not especially relevant, as it doesn't use film. The economics and practicalities of making large expanses of silicon are not the same as those of making large sheets of film (though you can use the sensor more than once). At which point there's zero sense in demanding that digital and film have to match dimensions (the exception being where there is a significant ecosystem of still-current lenses available, which is the only reason the 36 x 24 format exists in both).

Digital sensors capture more light and generally produce better image quality, per area, than film, so you can get comparable quality from a smaller sensor. Again, obviating the need to use the same formats.

I've never understood whether this 'it's not real medium format' nonsense (incorrectly treating the words 'real' and 'film' as synonymous) stems from nostalgia, snobbery or the sense that the speaker possesses some special knowledge that the rest of us might not be aware of. But it doesn't stand up to logic.

The digital medium formats are

• 44 x 33mm
• 55 x 41mm (645)

Irrespective of what was common practice in the film era.

I'm pretty sure the 110mm is an F2. And the 80mm is an F1.7.

f1.9? Mamaiya mia!!!

@Richard Butler
With all your big words *YOU* define what medium format means? After I used it for 25 years? Give me a link to an official definition or leave us alone. For me the medium format was defined a long time ago. The phase one even had a sensor coming close to 645 now fuji gives us this MF-C thingy and you set the new standard lower just to fit again? Wow. The fuji cams are great, no doubt, but a definition of sensor sizes and are not coming from you. Sorry mister.

I'm not personally defining anything, I'm merely using the most commonly repeated definition I've encountered. There is no body or organization that can 'officially' define the use of photographic terminology or English usage.

Wikipedia quotes a the book 'The medium format advantage, Wildi, Ernst (2001),' to make a similar definition.

Your definition of 'approaching 645' is the less common one, from what I've seen.

For me it's the smallest one to call it medium format. I would define it even higher at 6x8. A full stop is adequate for a new "format" in my opinion. In all directions.

'For me' being the key phrase is that statement. But congratulations on resolving the format wars by deciding that Four Thirds and APS-C are the same thing.

Again, you're talking about film.

Since you can't sensibly make 6x6 or 6x7 silicon sensors, it seems senseless to use those as your benchmarks in establishing a contemporary perspective.

Per my earlier comment, the only reason digital need match film formats is if you're trying to use a substantial (or, more to the point, still current) range of lenses, hence the persistence/re-emergence of full-frame. APS-C is the only format I can think of literally named after a film format (medium format not being a specific film but a whole class of 'greater than 35mm' formats).

As to why here and now? Because we're all as bad as each other. I suspect we should both just move on.

Richard, since we’re taking about digital/film connections, I find my Fuji as easy to load as APS C film. :-D

(lol) Try again. Olympus has one of the best track records on quality and durability. Never had a problem over the years. BTW, it is now OM.

But I like both. Fuji has great looking classic physical dials. And they have some of the same classy innovation that Olympus had.

Have to agree Oceanvista. Fuji’s lens lineup is what keeps me away too (and in m43). Fuji needs to redo the 16-80 f/4 with something sharper throughout the range. Also make the 16-55 f/2.8 smaller and lighter like Sony did with theirs.

Oly/OM PRO lenses are a lot of what keeps me in m43. Built solid and every single lens is sharp as can be throughout the frame across its whole range. Sets the bar high, and feels like Fuji should really do better.

The center sharpness of the 16-80 is already close to the 16-55. In the range ~18-55 the corners aren't bad either and are still within the ranges for a kitlens.

The corners at the extremes leave room for improvement, but i still don't hesitate to use 16mm on mine. The vignetting bothers me more. The softer 80mm is actually useful for portraits. But let's not make a flaw a feature.

@Revenant

Exactly.

Look at B&H's or KEH's top 10 best selling cameras. You'll find one Fuji at an 8th place on the former and none on the latter.

Fujifilm makes their cash from their Instax stuff, not their xf or gfx camera systems.

The reason KEH isn’t selling Fujis is that the good models are not available even used.

That’s why a used x100v fetches $2k nowadays.

Those willing to sell their X100Vs these days are only looking for the big profit, not because they want to switch gear.

The X100V shortage and price spike is because it became TikTok famous and caused a run on them, new or used.

It does seem like it's a mix of production issues as well as demand, the X100 has become trendy in the past and I've been tempted to get one even so that doesn't surprise me, heck they were struggling to keep their latest Instax camera (the EVO Mini Hybrid) in stock thru the holidays as well.

Instax is fun, and a good way to float the whole digital side of the division, I'd never knock it. I like my Instax printers and when the SP-3 up and died out of warranty they offered to replace it for $75, decent deal IMO.

@Artem Ch
DPreview tend to not post raw files from pre-production cameras. Which is mostly what Fujifilm saying that they are sending to reviewers. They are pretty much the only company that does that for some reason.

There was an issue with the RAFs. All the images should now have Raw files attached. Thanks for bring this to my attention.

At $1600USD (body only at B&H) you wont find any camera from any other manufacturer than FujiFilm that offers 40MP even if you go up to $2000USD. The closest will be the Canon R with its 30MP sensor. All other are restricted to around 24MP (or 20MP for the m4/3) in that price range.

I used the X-H2 (same sensor) as the X-T5 haven't made it into the comparison tool yet, to make a comparison to your X-T4 and two 24MP FF cameras in the same price range.
All done at ISO 6400 in RAW as that is my personal limit.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xh2&attr13_1=fujifilm_xt4&attr13_2=sony_a7iii&attr13_3=panasonic_dcs5&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr126_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.06705202312138739&y=0.548880240634482

You be the judge. Can you live with that amount of grain now that we are having such powerful noice reduction software.

"The closest will be the Canon R with its 30MP sensor". No, the closest is the R7, with its 32.5MP sensor. A terrific camera.

Alastair Norcross
Oh, didn't think of that as OP asked about FF, but you are right, that would be a good comparison too so here it is, along with the best (newest) m4/3 has to offer.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xh2&attr13_1=canon_eosr7&attr13_2=panasonic_dcgh6&attr13_3=omsystem_om1&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.0762341053566901&y=0.5613778342414834

NB: Cameras chosen from B&H, body only, price range $1000-2000usd.
Can see I made a mistake, as the X-T5 is $1700 and not $1600 as I first wrote.

@HJVN

If you actually care about resolution that much a used Z7 is about the same price and will blow the XT5/XH2 away in regards to IQ.

@Alastair Norcross
The Canon R7 a "terrific camera"? Perhaps. But there's no way Canon's APS-C lens ecosystem can match that of the Fuji and it is doubtful that it ever will. Forcing people to buy FF glass at their eyewatering prices for an APS-C sensor camera is the definition of hubris.

Its a similar size and heavier (by about 70-80g) than the RP or R8. The Canons both have deeper grip, whereas the Fuji is thicker in the rest of the body. Very similar width and height generally.

Quite different cameras though...

Yeah, no offense or making fun of brands but XT3 look small in pictures but actually quite big for apsc

@Alam - Fuji generally has two sizes of each type of ILC camera they make X-H2/X-S10, X-T5/X-T30, and X-Pro3/X-E4.

Regardless of the body size, the Fuji lenses are where you really see the size difference.

@brian711 Remember that DPreview TV content is complementary content to the normal written reviews. It's just added content that you otherwise wouldn't have.

DPRTV content is also handled by different staff in an entirely different country and they've always worked faster than those handling the written review that usually includes added testing. No matter how many times it's repeated it seems to cause consternation tho... 🙄

Or the one-of GX8... Maybe someday they'll put a decent EVF again into the GX7/GX85/GX9 replacement.

@tedolf, I like my GX9. But Panasonic could improve the grip and EVF.

The GX9 is nice but do not have the same analogue feel as any of the Fujis, including the XE4 or XPro.

@foskito,

Bingo. I don't know why m4/3 can't steal some of Fuji's thunder by making one compact RF style model with the Fuji analog style control system. People are begging for something like an GM-5. Maybe just a little bigger, IBIS, optical VF and manual controls.

Tedolph

I have a GX9 and GM5. I use both, depending on the situation, with some overlap in the lenses. I've been an m4/3 shooter ever since I bought my Lumix G1 as soon as it came out and stopped shooting film and spending nights in the darkroom. The Fujifilm cameras are very impressive. If I had to start my digital journey over again I might go Fuji but they are more expensive than Lumix. Here's hoping for a GX10. And I treat my GM5 with kid gloves, as it is probably the end of that line. But my mid-1950s Zeiss-Ikon Nettar 6x6 that my grandfather taught me to shoot with still works, so I'll give my GM5 to a grandchild if/when I have one.

I guess most consumers do not care about the "rangefinder or old school style" cameras, probably that's why there is little interest in brands to produce them.

The only relatively close effort to that in recent years besides Fuji is the Zfc.

> Maybe people just like using Fuji?

Yep. Guilty as charged.

Find me a 40mpixel m4/3rds.

So if there is no difference in "size, cost, and image quality in comparison to today's full frame offerings" then why would you need full frame? All things being equal I go with a camera that I have more fun with.

The advantages are the classic controls, 3-way tilt screen, and line of compact lenses in addition to their larger lenses (it doesn't matter if the A7 is the same size when you cant take photos without a lens, and full frame cameras+lenses are larger and heavier than the xt5 with one of their compact lenses). Which current Sony, Canon, or Nikon with a similarly high res sensor is close to the same price?

You don't buy a Fuji camera for its size, you bought it because you like to use them.

And as others have said, you need to take lenses into consideration. What's the point of cameras like the Sigma LP with terrible ergonomics, no grip, and no EVF (for the sake of making them "small") when you need to pair it with several accessories and huge lenses?

There's a lot of small FF lenses these days, Samyang's 24/35/75 f1.8 are pretty small and the 45/1.8 & 18/2.8 are as small or smaller than many Fuji & M4/3 primes.

Ditto the Sigma 24/35/65 f2 and their smaller 24/3.5 & 45/90 f2.8; or Sony's 28/2, 35/1.8, 24/2.8, and 40/50 f2.5, or Nikon's 28/2.8 & 40/2 along with that upcoming 26/2.8 pancake. RF has some relatively small ones too (tho with no sealing, unlike many of the aforementioned).

The lens size advantage for smaller formats seems to be eroding a lot for primes at UWA thru normal FLs, but there's still some obvious advantages with longer range zooms, tele zooms, and short primes like the Sigma 56/1.4 (and I assume some of Fuji's around that FL, not so much at 85/90mm).

The other side of that coin is the availability of different/smaller varieties of bodies within the same system, which Fuji is handling better than most.

I'm a fan of fuji and own M43. They offer real advantages in terms of size and weight of lenses, and cost. The OM 40-150 2.8, for example, is considerably cheaper, smaller and much lighter than a Canon 70-200 2.8, and offers 50% more reach. This is generally the case throughout the lens line. Given the superiority of all sensors these days, I chose smaller for these advantages.

The "maybe people just like Fuji" hits it on the head.

As for the person above that suggested small FF lenses, no one is arguing that small lenses don't exist. However, despite what camera forums softest, aperture and depth of field aren't the only things that effect image quality. The Fuji f2 primes are tiny and have really excellent image quality. Nice color rendering, low chromatic aberration and great resolution. Sure, you can usually get a narrower DoF with FF, but many applications don't require narrow DoF.

Also, while a Fuji 23mm 1.4 may cost roughly the same as a Nikon 35mm 1.8S for a similar DoF and image quality, an XT-5 with its excellent sensor costs less than a previous generation Z6 while shooting faster, having better AF (including subject detection), not having a pointless and expensive XQD slot (you get dual card slots with X-T5), better video features, etc.

Dang, I don't even shoot Fuji. Maybe I should!

"They've already eliminated Kaizen"??
I've had an X-T3 for three and a half years and just last month got my nineteenth firmware update. Yes, some of them are minor but there have also been real improvements and features added in those three and a half years.
So do all the other makers do more? If that doesn't demonstrate Kaizen, what does?

I agree. Something about the color changed. I prefer generation I and II color science.

I can't tell much difference from JPEGs but I prefer my X-T3 over my old X-T1 slightly. The contrast and saturation settings were made finer between these generations. The highlights are handled better. Also, I can imagine the AWB setting being responsible for a good part of how the "color science" is being perceived. I always use a fixed 5600K white balance. Auto white balance and Daylight tend to result cool in Fuji. The daylight setting often uses 4700-5100 K where the target should be 5200 K.

The X-H2 is better if you care a lot about video, then again if you care a lot about video you should just stump up for the X-H2S. I don't which is why I bought the X-T5.