Zed all the way! <- *all* the other English speakers on planet Earth.

Even Nikon backed-down on that one.

Nope. Fuji is more versatile. You can put heavy or smaller lens. I don’t think FF can’t match Fuji APSC with f2 series lenses in term of size. Compare to the Nikon Zeds, better speed, better video features, and more SD card slots. A whole package that XT3 offers, smoked the nikon.

@PaulProz: Zed all the way and not only for Englsih speakers!

I had the minimoog. Supercool analog synt...

Pear-t, with an accute... it's a huguenot thing

It's not a claim. Look it up. It is "Pier-T".

Come on Chris, get with the program. lol!

If it's on the internet then it must be true...

The 100-400mm and the 18-55mm both have OIS. Just wondering how not having image stabilization is a blocker for hiking photos. Certainly you'll be using a tripod for wide angle shots anyway.

Using Fuji is especially fun with small and/or fast primes. Having them all stabilized (without buying a huge camera - aka X-Hx) would be beneficial to a lot of people.

Don't start on 'with IBIS the cameras become huge'. No, they don't as nearly all other vendors demonstrate. Canon and Fuji are the only ones left without IBIS and Canon at least has some stabilized primes.

This is not a good time for excuses in camera business. IBIS would have been a great argument to upgrade to an X-T3 and to draw new customers in.

I wish people would stop saying that one only benefits from IBIS if one has poor handholding technique. First off, technique and IBIS are additive—the benefits don't cancel each other out, they stack. Second, one isn't always in a position to stand with feet shoulder-width apart, brace the camera against one's face, and tuck one's elbows into one's chest for stability. I shoot a lot of mushrooms and wildflowers and the like, which often ends up with me bent over in a weird crouch, holding the camera with one hand and composing on the rear screen in order to get the angle that I want. With stabilization, that works. Without it, it doesn't. Also, I'm not interested in paying for stabilization with every lens that I buy, or having to limit my choices to only stabilized lenses. Just put it in the camera body and be done with it.

These people saying that, simply have no clue, or have never shot video without a gimbal. The benefits of stabilization are huge, especially for handheld video, and low-light and/or zoom photography. It's all about versatility.

Sure, a podcast could be good, but it would be pretty entertaining to see your expressions as you read some of the hilarious comments from this website. It's cool either way though.

You don't have to read the comments if you don't want to. But to summarize, if it's your favorite brand, and the review is favorable, that's an outstanding review. If the review finds serious flaws (highly unlikely, but possible) it's unfair and biased. In short, if you were planning to buy the camera anyway, your choice was a wise one.

I read it as he was being sarcastic, and prefers the written article. As do I.

I hope we're not waiting 18 months for the X-H2 then...

It gets much worse when you're old.

my x-t2 feels like a brand new camera it's so fast! no seriously i can't believe this is a 2+ year old GEEZER

I'm looking forward to the X-E4

I sort of agree and sort of disagree. I agree that advancements in sensor tech can apply to all sizes but I disagree that one format won't ever push into another. Cell phone cameras are a classic example. The quality of the basic image became good enough that sensors below 1" got pushed into obscurity. It doesn't make too much economic sense to produce a 1/2.3" or 1/1.7" sensor like before. Makes me wonder the same about the 1" and micro-4/3 sensors.

You assume way too much in your opening statement. Sony doesn't run a rubber stamp sensor factory for each sensor size. That's not how business works! Nikon asks for the mass market sensor from older generation fabrication for products like the d3400. Olympus for super fast readout and lower noise sensor for m4/3 in the EM1 mark II. Yup for smaller sensor size the EM1 has better overall noise performance than d3400! No soul is lost with the larger design m43 products. I get you can find the compact point and shoot lens in bigger camera formats. If your shooting wide open at night stars you need better glass! Fuji older big glass in standard focal lengths is so-so in that regard. Stay small? X-T3 looks awkward and an ergonomic hell with that f2.8 standard zoom lens. Sorry, there is plenty of room for m43 and APS-C. Would like to see more APS-H options. By the way, so many more linear autofocus lens from cheap to expense in the m43 land than Fuji.

@KInfinity just select 3:2 aspect ratio and it's all the same (unless you want a depth of field not reachable by any M4/3 lens, that is)

Unfortunately, most work on a budget. If we had a working budget of 3k, the X-T3 would give you more options lens wise to lessen the difference between full frame and crop. A lot of people I see end up being lens poor, when buying an expensive body. Give me more options that are cost effective for different FOV in a kit and I'd be happy.

I would take an A7iii over it.
IBIS, best Eye AF, battery,... but I don't need 60p video.

I've thought about it and I almost agree. If it had IBIS, I would fully agree—the combination of price, image quality, video featureset, AF performance, value, build quality, camera size, and lens selection is pretty compelling. The lack of IBIS holds it back as a walking-around camera though; IBIS enables a lot of spontaneous shots that are otherwise ungettable.

Yeah, but the A7iii isn't for fast action AF shooting like the Fuji X-T3.

Hä - how do you come to that conclusion? It has an incredible AF system, close to the A9.

10fps is about what top sports bodies where able to do only a few years ago. But if someone needs more there are plenty of options now - the X-T3 is fore sure one of them.

I have 24fps on the RX10 IV, but I rarely use it. Even for action, it generally generates more photos than I care to sort through. I typically set it for 10 and find that to be plenty.

No camera with no IBIS is the best all-around anything.

Hautedawg, apparently 15 others and myself disagree with you. It's laughable to think that a camera needs IBIS to be the best all-round camera. As matter of fact, I just sold my X-H1 and purchased the X-T3. However, I do own the 18-55, 80mm macro, 50-140 and 100-400 lenses...all with OIS.

No - thank you for taking time out to respond.
Really appreciate it. And again, superb production value.

If you plan to manually focus, the Fuji lenses can be an issue as the majority are still focus by wire, though they made a big step forward adding linear focus. Optically, the Fujinon glass is excellent, but it does tend to breath (zoom slightly when making large shifts in focus distance).
If I were to go to a Fujifilm body as my primary camera, I would primarily use an adapted Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 (my favourite zoom for video work), and a native wide angle like the forthcoming XF 16mm F2.8 for autofocus on a gimbal. Of course my ideal setup would be a pair of the stunning MK zooms, but that's a pretty huge investment.

It’s a differentiation that just confuses their potential customers. There should be no more than 3 offerings/price points and the top 2 need IBIS.

Obviously with more pixels the original purpose of X-trans is gone, the reason Fuji also didn't use X-trans on its MF.

If they ditch X-trans they'll just be like everyone else. I don't get why everyone thinks it's a pain in the ass just a bit more to learn vis sharpening and you're done.

@PWPhotography - Fuji has always said the reason their MF camera shipped without x-trans was due to lack of processing power. X-trans takes more processing power in camera. It will be interesting to see if the new 100MP MF camera comes with it. Processors have come a long way and it seems that in many other ways they are bringing parity from their APSC cameras.

Fuji will still be unique without X-Trans. They have great designs and unlike Canon they care about video and want to produce competitive cameras. I really don’t think there’s any noticeable advrange to X-Trans, only downsides.

@photogeek: Many appreciate the advantages of X-Trans technology....Stop whining and get over with

@HatWearingFool Then wondering that extra processing power could be used to further improve AF, buffer cleaning speed, preserve battery longer and more friendly with RAW converter software. Arguably x-trans offers any IQ advantage over Bayer-sensor based, at least is controversial.

@The Fat Fish
"The X-Trans is the one thing stopping me ordering the X-T3. It ultimately led to me selling my X-E3"

You are quiet funny speaking about that

Personally I can't say as I care about X-Trans one way or the other. I've seen fantastic photos taken with both X-Trans and Bayer sensors, and honestly without knowing ahead of time I generally would not be able to tell the difference. X-Trans is a little bit gimmicky and maybe you have to change your sharpening methodology a little if you use Lightroom (use the Detail slider rather than the Sharpening slider) but otherwise I just don't care.

@The Fat Fish I tend to side with the ditch X-Trans camp. I believe that the advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages. But there are advantages, particularly in terms of moire reduction.

"I don't get why everyone thinks it's a pain in the ass just a bit more to learn vis sharpening and you're done."

You can’t add detail that isn't there in the first place. X-Trans images have an odd and unnatural softness to them. You can tell that Fujinon lenses are typically sharp, but they are they are hampered by that odd and unnatural softness.

Ditch the X-Trans Fujifilm. You'll have more customers and you'll still have an advantage for producing perhaps the most attractive JPGs, so long as you go easy on the noise reduction.

I know a lot of people on here don’t like xtrans but I prefer it’s rendering, especially for portraits. I think it has much nicer rendering in the focus fall off areas compared to fuji’s cameras with bayer sensors. And I’ve never noticed a lack of detail on any print. So I hope they keep at least one line going with xtrans for people like rendering of their files.

No thanks, Xtrans-fan. Keep it and improve on it.

No, the advantage of X-Trans is not gone at 24+ MP. Look at the DPReview image quality comparison tool at X-T100 and X-T3/Samsung NX1/Sony A6000+ etc. Note how in the high-frequency alternating black and white pattern sections there's still a fair amount of moire in 24-29MP Bayer sensors. Note how X-Trans doesn't have it. Resolution is overall higher as a result.

I just got X-T100 today. It's most definitely not night-and-day difference from my X-T1 and a [briefly owned] X100F in terms of resolution. I definitely notice more patchy noise pattern and also some moire in fine details, which is not normally there with my X-Trans cameras.

One of the things I don't like about X-T100 is that noise reduction seems more aggressive than necessary on it at the lowest NR setting for JPEGs.

@PhilDunn
"Ditch the X-Trans Fujifilm. You'll have more customers and you'll still have an advantage for producing perhaps the most attractive JPGs, so long as you go easy on the noise reduction."

Tough choice between the A7iii and XT3. I am much more vested in m4/3 and Fuji. But I also have a couple of Sony FE lenses that I kept after selling the original A7.

X-H2 is going to have all this with IBIS. You know it can't be that far away.

It won't be quite as pretty though. Best looking camera on the market bar none is the X-T series

On one hand, Sony has more third-party lens offerings, third party or OEM, budget or professional. Combined with the larger sensor and super 35 mode (allowing you to use aps-c E lenses) the system is very flexible.
On the other hand, Fuji will be the hands-down winner in the aps-c market until the a6700 comes out.

@4sofnature its the lack of lenses that will put Sony behind Fuji no matter what Sony puts inside their 6xxx line

@Hellraiser a6xxx series may have less robust lens selection than Fuji, it is still better than EOS-M. Sony's third-party lens support is actually better than Fuji, plus adapted lenses. Sigma offers affordable fast 1.4 native AF primes like 16, 30, 56; Rokinon offers fast MF primes. The only downside are the fast zooms like 8-16, 16-55, 50-140. Forward compatibility with FE lenses gives users room for upgrade. But I agree that Fuji gives users more photographic joy than Sony does.

The Sigma 16mm/1.4, 30mm/1.4 and the new 56mm/1.4 are APS-C lenses. Check them out.

Fuji has an awesome and growing line up of top class lenses. Whilst choice is good, realistically most people only use a handful of lenses in their workflow. So personally speaking, I'm incredibly happy with what Fuji has.

A bit more noise, but A LOT more detail at higher ISO. Noise can be corrected, but you cannot retrieve details which aren't there. Hence, rather a bit more noise as a trade of for a lot more detail (vs the XT2) :)

To be honest i would have been even happier if they went full ISO 100, even if they lost even more at the high ISO ... They offer reasonable fast glass for low light shooting, and up to ISO 3200 it's amazing anyway...

Any reason why Fuji cannot have a native ISO 100 as Canon/Nikon/Sony also did in their APS-C models?

PWP: Yeah, because then their higher ISO images would be noisier. That is the game m4/3 and Fuji play. Personally, for what I do I would far, far prefer native ISO 100, but I am sure the marketing departments know what they are doing, and most people prefer it the way it is, or it makes people more inclined to buy these systems.

PWPhotography, it's because they don't lie. Loosely, base ISO is sensor size dependent.

Do you suggest Canon/Nikon/Sony lie in their APS-C base ISO that are not native but boosted? Never heard any reports their ISO 100 is not native.

@mosc: Not true. Nikon D810 and D850 have native ISO 64.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D850-versus-Nikon-D810___1177_963

@mosc Proof? and What cost? So Nikon ISO 64 in D850/D810 is also cooked? Actually heard more speculation in Fuji x-tran RAW cooking :-)