6 ms·

I'm a semi-pro photographer, do commercial work from time to time, get flown to shoot weddings across the globe. $1600 is a ridiculous amount of money for this

I'm a semi-pro photographer, do commercial work from time to time, get flown to shoot weddings across the globe. $1600 is a ridiculous amount of money for this camera, considering the competition. $1600-1700 buys you a used Sony A7s, the king of low light photography and video (if you don't count the new prototype from Canon), and it's full frame, unlike X-T2. $1650 buys you a used Canon 5D mark III, which is also full frame, and is a great photo camera, which can also shoot RAW video with custom firmware.

hanklazard 10y ago
Agreed, the price is way too high for this decent crop sensor camera. Many people like the aesthetic of the Fujis, including myself (I have an XT-1). In the end, the low-light performance and build quality of this great little camera just wasn't good enough and I got a refurb 5Diii body for about the price of this new model. While certainly more limited than the selection for Canon, Fuji does have some really nice lenses for these X series cameras. The 23mm 1.4 (=35mm FF) is truly fantastic.
- rodgerd 10y ago
  > Agreed, the price is way too high for this decent crop sensor camera. The price is lower than a 7D Mark II or a D500 (in my market). The fixation with sensor size if ludicrous. I mean, if you want to spend as much on a 6D and deal with its bulk and shitty autofocus while trying to convince yourself you have a better camera, don't let me stop you. But you're in la-la land. (And I don't even own, or want to own, a Fuji.)
xzez 10y ago
My sentiments exactly. I used a fuji X-E1 before I picked up my A7. I really enjoy the Fuji X series, but the prices are so close to the Sony A7 series that the extra expense is more than worth it for the clearly superior Sony FE system. I mean, the X-T2 is pretty much the same price as an A7ii. I do love the build and feel of the Fuji XF lenses though, particularly the lenses that have the aperture ring.
- rplst8 10y ago
  You might be right about the price. But for a lot less you can pick up a used X-E2 or X-T1 which are still fine cameras. The best part about any of them (including the X-T2) is you get access do Fujifilm's superior glass. Their lenses are truly high quality lenses, on par with much more expensive stuff, though not the cheapest either.
dmark3 10y ago
The raw specs on the Sony are better, but the actual feel and handling of the Fuji X series is vastly superior. BTW, the Provia and Velvia film simulations are stunning, IMHO.
- xzez 10y ago
  The raw specs are objective can be clearly stated as superior. Handling and ergo is a subjective and largely personal preference. I'll agree that the Fuji X-T* has some better ergo, but to me the difference over the A7 is marginal and not at all vastly superior.
- dagw 10y ago
  Agreed. I own an A7 and an X100s, and while the A7 is certainly a better and more versatile camera according just about any spec you care to use, the Fuji is the camera I grab before heading out 19 times out of 20.
  - Lio 10y ago
    The X100 is a very special/quirky camera and that's easy to love despite any imperfections because it will let you do things other cameras can't. E.g. sync flash at > 1/1000 There's not many other cameras that will allow you to overpower day light if you don't want to lug a monoblock or multiple flash guns with you.
pizlonator 10y ago
It depends on what is important to you. I like good UI and I will pay a premium for it. Fuji has the best UI - physical knobs for everything. Even ISO has a physical control. I find that UI makes a big difference for my workflow and makes it easier for me to take good pictures, so the price is worth it. Also, I happen to use an X-Pro2 not the X-T2, but I think similar arguments apply.
- potatolicious 10y ago
  Agree - also an X-Pro 2 user, and the camera was worth every penny because ultimately (at least in this case) UX trumps technical capability. The A7s is the undisputed low-light boss, but IMO Sony's UX is convoluted and too many features are buried behind too many menus. At this point I see few reasons to worry much about spec sheets - every single camera, even small-sensor point-and-shoots - made right now are lightyears ahead of even the best 135 film cameras with the most exotic film back in the day. Every modern crop-sensor body can shoot clean RAWs at ISO 6400, many shoot cleanly up to ISO 12,800. And what point do we accept these capabilities and focus on things that make it easier to get better photos? The joystick on the back of the X-Pro 2 and X-T2 is a game changer, as are the advances in AF speed. I can nail shots purely by muscle memory, and that's great. The camera feels less like a thing I have to operate and more like an extension of my brain.
- KaiserPro 10y ago
  If you're a photographer you'll be needing maybe 5 controls: ISO Aperture shutter speed Metering mode Autofocus point placement Shutter and aperture might be automated away with different shooting mode. Even on Canons which I don't use often, I can bend it to my will, even if the buttons are in a "funny" place. I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor. Everything else is literally noise. The nikon d800, and canon or sony equivalent is the same price point. Not only that its full frame you can use real lens, but you get deep depth of field.
  - rplst8 10y ago
    > I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor. A repackaged phone sensor??? I think you need to take another look at Fujifilm's APS-C sensor tech and image quality.
wepple 10y ago
> I'm a semi-pro photographer, do commercial work from time to time, get flown to shoot weddings across the globe. I think this differentiates you fairly significantly from the target market of this camera. By way of example, I'd take an X100T over your above suggestions, despite it being less expensive and not full-frame and having a few annoying quirks. I consider the way a camera integrates into your image-making process more important than low-light capability, pixel count, and couldn't give any less cares about video.
jrockway 10y ago
I think the idea is that Fuji is specializing in smaller cameras. It's APS-C, so you get a smaller body and smaller lenses. If your primary mission is to photograph something, it doesn't really matter how big the camera is and the decision on what camera to use is all about semiconductor yield for the sensors ("full frame" is tiny, but easy to manufacture profitably). It's your primary mission so you'll bring whatever equipment you need to get the job done. This is a niche in the photography world; the vast majority of photographs are spur-of-the-moment cell phone photos, after all. Fujifilm sees more money in that market than specialist applications. This camera isn't going to prevent the user from taking serious photographs. APS-C is big enough to capture plenty of data. I have a "1 inch" camera and really all 21 megapixels are usable at base ISO. The small size trades off the flexibility that an 8x10" camera gives you, but is easier to carry around. (It's harder to carry around than a phone, though, but provides vastly better images.) As soon as you start moving into certain specialties in photography, certain models start making more sense. Wedding photography is about creating fine-art shots in a sports photography environment, so the professionals are using high-end "enthusiast" cameras to great effect. The autofocus gets almost every shot. The metering is always correct. Those cameras don't trade off speed for detail, so you can still make nice 8x10" enlargements that look fantastic (but maybe not take 30fps bursts as sports/photojournalism cameras might). Other specialties are cost-constrained right now. Nobody wants to take their macro shots with a DSLR, but Phase One backs are $33,000 for your $10,000 view camera, and hobbyists don't have that much money. (It's even expensive for the pros, very much a pricing based on semiconductor yield rather than the time cost of not having one.) Hence they compromise by spending 8 hours in photoshop working around the limitations of their camera, or just use film. If you don't care enough about the results to do either and are only going to buy one camera, an X-T2 is just as good as anything else. Carry it around to take excellent spur-of-the-moment shots, snap that nice landscape, use it at home to take some pictures of that bug you just killed. It's as good as anything else. (Upgrade to a D810 for a few more pixels and a lighter wallet.)
et-al 10y ago
It's a niche camera. I wouldn't recommend it for anyone starting out in photography, but for someone who values the ergonomics of film cameras, I think Fujis may suit their needs better than the Sony or Canon you mentioned. It's like buying a Subaru BR-Z in 2016. There are other cars that perform better, but sometimes it's the experience of using something in a particular fashion that brings the most joy.
yesimahuman 10y ago
I own an X-E2S and I think that model is even over priced. However, Fuji is becoming the Apple of cameras for consumers, and frankly their audience is happy to pay a bit more for a camera that fits the aesthetic they want while still being high quality and reputable. If I was a pro, I'd be shooting Canon or Nikon, I don't think the Fujifilm line is worth switching to given that the slight benefits of a mirrorless don't make up for the drawbacks for pros, but I know many pros are very successful with them, so what do I know. That being said, I love my Fujifilm and take it everywhere. It's a leica without leica cost, and that's exactly what I wanted.
- rplst8 10y ago
  > I own an X-E2S and I think that model is even over priced. > I love my Fujifilm and take it everywhere. It's a leica without leica cost, and that's exactly what I wanted. I don't know how you can rectify those two statements. P.S. Leica is the Apple of the photography world.
  - yesimahuman 10y ago
    Leica is leica, there's not really an analog in the tech world. I can't remember the last time I dropped $10k on a starter computer system or device, Apple or otherwise (which would be a Lieca M body with Leica glass today). Fujifilm price points are much more Apple-like.
    - lb1lf 10y ago
      Leica, IMHO, is pretty much the Rolex of the camera world. While arguably 'the best' if you choose your criteria narrowly enough, their strongest selling point nowadays is the Veblen factor - they are seen as something special, the pinnacle, the yardstick competitors are measured against. Same goes for Rolex - while making excellent watches, there's hardly any denying that the competition is just as competent at a vastly less unreasonable price point. (Full disclosure - I am a long-time Leica enthusiast, but I've long abandoned their cameras for (to me) more sensible options - I use a Zeiss Ikon ZM (Made by Cosina) with Leica lenses. The ZM is more rugged, arguably has a better rangefinder and is less idiosyncratic than any Leica body. Just try loading a film in an ZM versus a Leica, for starters)

hanklazard 10y ago

Agreed, the price is way too high for this decent crop sensor camera. Many people like the aesthetic of the Fujis, including myself (I have an XT-1). In the end, the low-light performance and build quality of this great little camera just wasn't good enough and I got a refurb 5Diii body for about the price of this new model. While certainly more limited than the selection for Canon, Fuji does have some really nice lenses for these X series cameras. The 23mm 1.4 (=35mm FF) is truly fantastic.

rodgerd 10y ago
> Agreed, the price is way too high for this decent crop sensor camera. The price is lower than a 7D Mark II or a D500 (in my market). The fixation with sensor size if ludicrous. I mean, if you want to spend as much on a 6D and deal with its bulk and shitty autofocus while trying to convince yourself you have a better camera, don't let me stop you. But you're in la-la land. (And I don't even own, or want to own, a Fuji.)

xzez 10y ago

My sentiments exactly. I used a fuji X-E1 before I picked up my A7. I really enjoy the Fuji X series, but the prices are so close to the Sony A7 series that the extra expense is more than worth it for the clearly superior Sony FE system. I mean, the X-T2 is pretty much the same price as an A7ii. I do love the build and feel of the Fuji XF lenses though, particularly the lenses that have the aperture ring.

rplst8 10y ago
You might be right about the price. But for a lot less you can pick up a used X-E2 or X-T1 which are still fine cameras. The best part about any of them (including the X-T2) is you get access do Fujifilm's superior glass. Their lenses are truly high quality lenses, on par with much more expensive stuff, though not the cheapest either.

dmark3 10y ago

The raw specs on the Sony are better, but the actual feel and handling of the Fuji X series is vastly superior. BTW, the Provia and Velvia film simulations are stunning, IMHO.

xzez 10y ago
The raw specs are objective can be clearly stated as superior. Handling and ergo is a subjective and largely personal preference. I'll agree that the Fuji X-T* has some better ergo, but to me the difference over the A7 is marginal and not at all vastly superior.
dagw 10y ago
Agreed. I own an A7 and an X100s, and while the A7 is certainly a better and more versatile camera according just about any spec you care to use, the Fuji is the camera I grab before heading out 19 times out of 20.
- Lio 10y ago
  The X100 is a very special/quirky camera and that's easy to love despite any imperfections because it will let you do things other cameras can't. E.g. sync flash at > 1/1000 There's not many other cameras that will allow you to overpower day light if you don't want to lug a monoblock or multiple flash guns with you.

pizlonator 10y ago

It depends on what is important to you. I like good UI and I will pay a premium for it. Fuji has the best UI - physical knobs for everything. Even ISO has a physical control. I find that UI makes a big difference for my workflow and makes it easier for me to take good pictures, so the price is worth it. Also, I happen to use an X-Pro2 not the X-T2, but I think similar arguments apply.

potatolicious 10y ago
Agree - also an X-Pro 2 user, and the camera was worth every penny because ultimately (at least in this case) UX trumps technical capability. The A7s is the undisputed low-light boss, but IMO Sony's UX is convoluted and too many features are buried behind too many menus. At this point I see few reasons to worry much about spec sheets - every single camera, even small-sensor point-and-shoots - made right now are lightyears ahead of even the best 135 film cameras with the most exotic film back in the day. Every modern crop-sensor body can shoot clean RAWs at ISO 6400, many shoot cleanly up to ISO 12,800. And what point do we accept these capabilities and focus on things that make it easier to get better photos? The joystick on the back of the X-Pro 2 and X-T2 is a game changer, as are the advances in AF speed. I can nail shots purely by muscle memory, and that's great. The camera feels less like a thing I have to operate and more like an extension of my brain.
KaiserPro 10y ago
If you're a photographer you'll be needing maybe 5 controls: ISO Aperture shutter speed Metering mode Autofocus point placement Shutter and aperture might be automated away with different shooting mode. Even on Canons which I don't use often, I can bend it to my will, even if the buttons are in a "funny" place. I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor. Everything else is literally noise. The nikon d800, and canon or sony equivalent is the same price point. Not only that its full frame you can use real lens, but you get deep depth of field.
- rplst8 10y ago
  > I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor. A repackaged phone sensor??? I think you need to take another look at Fujifilm's APS-C sensor tech and image quality.

wepple 10y ago

> I'm a semi-pro photographer, do commercial work from time to time, get flown to shoot weddings across the globe. I think this differentiates you fairly significantly from the target market of this camera. By way of example, I'd take an X100T over your above suggestions, despite it being less expensive and not full-frame and having a few annoying quirks. I consider the way a camera integrates into your image-making process more important than low-light capability, pixel count, and couldn't give any less cares about video.

jrockway 10y ago

I think the idea is that Fuji is specializing in smaller cameras. It's APS-C, so you get a smaller body and smaller lenses. If your primary mission is to photograph something, it doesn't really matter how big the camera is and the decision on what camera to use is all about semiconductor yield for the sensors ("full frame" is tiny, but easy to manufacture profitably). It's your primary mission so you'll bring whatever equipment you need to get the job done. This is a niche in the photography world; the vast majority of photographs are spur-of-the-moment cell phone photos, after all. Fujifilm sees more money in that market than specialist applications. This camera isn't going to prevent the user from taking serious photographs. APS-C is big enough to capture plenty of data. I have a "1 inch" camera and really all 21 megapixels are usable at base ISO. The small size trades off the flexibility that an 8x10" camera gives you, but is easier to carry around. (It's harder to carry around than a phone, though, but provides vastly better images.) As soon as you start moving into certain specialties in photography, certain models start making more sense. Wedding photography is about creating fine-art shots in a sports photography environment, so the professionals are using high-end "enthusiast" cameras to great effect. The autofocus gets almost every shot. The metering is always correct. Those cameras don't trade off speed for detail, so you can still make nice 8x10" enlargements that look fantastic (but maybe not take 30fps bursts as sports/photojournalism cameras might). Other specialties are cost-constrained right now. Nobody wants to take their macro shots with a DSLR, but Phase One backs are $33,000 for your $10,000 view camera, and hobbyists don't have that much money. (It's even expensive for the pros, very much a pricing based on semiconductor yield rather than the time cost of not having one.) Hence they compromise by spending 8 hours in photoshop working around the limitations of their camera, or just use film. If you don't care enough about the results to do either and are only going to buy one camera, an X-T2 is just as good as anything else. Carry it around to take excellent spur-of-the-moment shots, snap that nice landscape, use it at home to take some pictures of that bug you just killed. It's as good as anything else. (Upgrade to a D810 for a few more pixels and a lighter wallet.)

et-al 10y ago

It's a niche camera. I wouldn't recommend it for anyone starting out in photography, but for someone who values the ergonomics of film cameras, I think Fujis may suit their needs better than the Sony or Canon you mentioned. It's like buying a Subaru BR-Z in 2016. There are other cars that perform better, but sometimes it's the experience of using something in a particular fashion that brings the most joy.

yesimahuman 10y ago

I own an X-E2S and I think that model is even over priced. However, Fuji is becoming the Apple of cameras for consumers, and frankly their audience is happy to pay a bit more for a camera that fits the aesthetic they want while still being high quality and reputable. If I was a pro, I'd be shooting Canon or Nikon, I don't think the Fujifilm line is worth switching to given that the slight benefits of a mirrorless don't make up for the drawbacks for pros, but I know many pros are very successful with them, so what do I know. That being said, I love my Fujifilm and take it everywhere. It's a leica without leica cost, and that's exactly what I wanted.

rplst8 10y ago
> I own an X-E2S and I think that model is even over priced. > I love my Fujifilm and take it everywhere. It's a leica without leica cost, and that's exactly what I wanted. I don't know how you can rectify those two statements. P.S. Leica is the Apple of the photography world.
- yesimahuman 10y ago
  Leica is leica, there's not really an analog in the tech world. I can't remember the last time I dropped $10k on a starter computer system or device, Apple or otherwise (which would be a Lieca M body with Leica glass today). Fujifilm price points are much more Apple-like.
  - lb1lf 10y ago
    Leica, IMHO, is pretty much the Rolex of the camera world. While arguably 'the best' if you choose your criteria narrowly enough, their strongest selling point nowadays is the Veblen factor - they are seen as something special, the pinnacle, the yardstick competitors are measured against. Same goes for Rolex - while making excellent watches, there's hardly any denying that the competition is just as competent at a vastly less unreasonable price point. (Full disclosure - I am a long-time Leica enthusiast, but I've long abandoned their cameras for (to me) more sensible options - I use a Zeiss Ikon ZM (Made by Cosina) with Leica lenses. The ZM is more rugged, arguably has a better rangefinder and is less idiosyncratic than any Leica body. Just try loading a film in an ZM versus a Leica, for starters)