5 ms·

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 phy

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.
- rodgerd 10y ago
  > I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor. One of the more spectacularly ignorant and stupid things I've read on HN, which is saying a lot. > but you get deep depth of field. Oh, right you don't actually know what you're talking about, you're just parroting talking points you read somewhere.
  - KaiserPro 10y ago
    It is as they say, hyperbole. Of course aps-c isn't a phone sensor, because making a monolith lens thin enough isn't worth it. (a lenticular array, maybe. But then who outside of VFX wants light field pictures?) You are of course aware that sensor size and focal length directly affect the depth of field. Smaller sensor for the same focal length yields a wider depth of field. Yadda yadda field of view. This is why the stock lens 35 mm, because its about the same field of view as 50mm lens on a 35 mm sensor. (or why medium formats have ~80mm lens) However, of course I'm just parroting that "from else where". Yup, no sir, no first hand experience at all.
    - rodgerd 10y ago
      > It is as they say, hyperbole. Was it a social experiment, as well? > You are of course aware that sensor size and focal length directly affect the depth of field. Yes, but it doesn't make it deeper on larger sensors, which is what you asserted.
- lb1lf 10y ago
  For most of the history of photography, you only had two (and a half) of those five at your disposal - shutter and aperture, the half being iso, which you effectively changed by using different films or pushing/pulling the exposure. As others have already stated, the Fujis score big in UX - I'd like to add that their lenses are second to none. As a long-term luddite (I own two digital cameras (A Nikon DSLR and a Fuji X100), but most of my shooting is done using either Fuji or Leica analog cameras), IMHO the camera is secondary - it is merely a light-tight box where you affix a lens at one end and the film at the other - the lenses are what matters. Fuji makes some wonderful lenses. Resolution is awesome, contrast excellent and colour rendition best-in-business for those who care (I don't, I am colour blind - the last point is just parroting) - all in a (for the current mirrorless crop) in a very compact package (my GX680 lenses are somewhat less portable). Fuji's current range can probably be accurately described as photographer's cameras - they've, just like Leica, distilled photography to its essentials and made their way to the front of that niche. Kudos!

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.
rodgerd 10y ago
> I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor. One of the more spectacularly ignorant and stupid things I've read on HN, which is saying a lot. > but you get deep depth of field. Oh, right you don't actually know what you're talking about, you're just parroting talking points you read somewhere.
- KaiserPro 10y ago
  It is as they say, hyperbole. Of course aps-c isn't a phone sensor, because making a monolith lens thin enough isn't worth it. (a lenticular array, maybe. But then who outside of VFX wants light field pictures?) You are of course aware that sensor size and focal length directly affect the depth of field. Smaller sensor for the same focal length yields a wider depth of field. Yadda yadda field of view. This is why the stock lens 35 mm, because its about the same field of view as 50mm lens on a 35 mm sensor. (or why medium formats have ~80mm lens) However, of course I'm just parroting that "from else where". Yup, no sir, no first hand experience at all.
  - rodgerd 10y ago
    > It is as they say, hyperbole. Was it a social experiment, as well? > You are of course aware that sensor size and focal length directly affect the depth of field. Yes, but it doesn't make it deeper on larger sensors, which is what you asserted.
lb1lf 10y ago
For most of the history of photography, you only had two (and a half) of those five at your disposal - shutter and aperture, the half being iso, which you effectively changed by using different films or pushing/pulling the exposure. As others have already stated, the Fujis score big in UX - I'd like to add that their lenses are second to none. As a long-term luddite (I own two digital cameras (A Nikon DSLR and a Fuji X100), but most of my shooting is done using either Fuji or Leica analog cameras), IMHO the camera is secondary - it is merely a light-tight box where you affix a lens at one end and the film at the other - the lenses are what matters. Fuji makes some wonderful lenses. Resolution is awesome, contrast excellent and colour rendition best-in-business for those who care (I don't, I am colour blind - the last point is just parroting) - all in a (for the current mirrorless crop) in a very compact package (my GX680 lenses are somewhat less portable). Fuji's current range can probably be accurately described as photographer's cameras - they've, just like Leica, distilled photography to its essentials and made their way to the front of that niche. Kudos!