
Fujifilm's new X-T2 camera has 24 megapixels, 4K video, and great controls - Tomte
http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/7/12115084/fujifilm-xt2-camera-preview-pricing-release-date
======
matwood
How do Fuji lenses stack up to Nikons? I've debated making the switch to
mirrorless, but Nikons offering is lacking and I'm not too keen on trading out
my lenses for a new brand.

I've read about adapters and such, but that is really only a short term
solution.

~~~
lb1lf
I have not tried Nikon's mirrorless efforts, but I have been using the Nikon F
system for two decades and change now. Also, I've spent quite a lot of time
with various Fuji lenses (For the G690 and GX680 MF cameras and lately also X
system)

Nikkor lenses are overall very good, but IMHO the Fuji mirrorless ones mostly
have them beat in both resolution, contrast and aberration control. (Much of
the reason probably being that overall, it is less hard to get excellent
optical quality when you do not have to design around the huge mirror box
sitting between your lens and sensor!)

I'll definitely keep my medium format (film) cameras, but as for digital, I am
seriously considering offloading two decades' worth of Nikkor lenses and
switch allegiance to Fuji X - once they come up with a wider wide angle lens
than the current 14mm offering. (When doing landscapes, I often find myself
reaching for the 17mm end of my widest lens - equivalent to 11mm or so in
APS-C. The difference between 11mm and 14mm is much, much larger than one
would expect!

tl;dr: Fujinon lenses are excellent. You are not likely to be disappointed
unless you need extreme wide angle or telephoto lenses.

~~~
matwood
My telephoto is the 70-300 f/4.5 VR. It has done great with wild life and moon
pictures. I also have a Tokina wide angle, but my other lenses are standard
Nikons. I'll have to take a look at the Fuji stuff.

After my last vacation, lugging around lenses and the camera I started looking
at how to lower the weight. Mirrorless cameras seem like a possible option,
but good lenses always have weight regardless of the body they are attached.

~~~
lb1lf
Good lenses always have weight, but having to illuminate a smaller image
circle definitely helps; the G690 normal lens (A 100mm f/3.5) weighs in at
750g or so; the X Fujinon 35mm f/2? Less than a quarter of the 100mm f/3,5,
while still being built like a tank - and probably outperforming the bigger
lens in all aspects.

Another major benefit of the X series (IMHO) is that Fuji insist on providing
proper dials for the most important functions; a proper aperture ring; dials
for shutter speeds, mode select and exposure comp. Most appreciated.

~~~
dagw
_Fuji insist on providing proper dials for the most important functions; a
proper aperture ring_

Worth noting that Fuji have started to make some cheaper lenses without a
proper aperture ring.

~~~
lb1lf
-I didn't know that; thank you!

(Call me a luddite if you will, but I much prefer an aperture ring to twisting
a dial.)

It just takes a few shots to adjust when going from SLR/mirrorless to
rangefinders - my rangefinder lenses have the aperture ring in front of the
focus ring, whereas it is the other way around with just about anything else
I've ever tried. (And the less is spoken of the confusion when using a lens
with a leaf shutter (where the shutter speed, too, is set by a ring), the
better. :-)

------
vardump
Another APS-C camera, what's so special about this that it deserves to be on
HN front page?

Smells like an advertisement to me.

~~~
Tomte
Simple. It got upvoted.

If people aren't interested, they won't upvote.

And the interest doesn't necessarily lie in the camera itself. Maybe we'll get
a discussion about APS-C. Maybe about some cool medium format cameras. Maybe
about aquarell paintings. Who knows?

~~~
leejo
On the subject of medium format, there are rumors that Fuji may be about to
announce a medium format mirrorless camera in the next few months[1]. This
wouldn't surprise me at all - Fuji have experience with various sizes of
medium format going back 40+ years[2], they have manufactured medium format
cameras for _other_ brands (including Hasselblad[3]), and recently
discontinued their last remaining medium format film cameras[4].

The question remains as to how big the medium format sensor will be, as other
manufacturers have continually claimed "full frame" sensors when medium format
generally means "anything larger than 35mm but smaller than large format". So
it could be medium format but not that much bigger than 35mm.

The second question is how much will it cost? If it's "affordable" it could
take a lot of the wind out of Hasselblad's recent X1D announcement[5].

[1] [http://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm-medium-format-more-
afford...](http://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm-medium-format-more-affordable-
than-hasselblad-x1d/)

[2]
[http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Fuji](http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Fuji)
(Medium format section)

[3] [https://luminous-landscape.com/hasselblad-xpan/](https://luminous-
landscape.com/hasselblad-xpan/)

[4] [http://petapixel.com/2014/08/25/fujifilm-to-discontinue-
its-...](http://petapixel.com/2014/08/25/fujifilm-to-discontinue-its-medium-
format-gf670-folding-rangefinder/)

[5]
[https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/07/06/hasselblad-x1d-early-i...](https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/07/06/hasselblad-x1d-early-
impressions-with-samples/)

------
StavrosK
We should move away from the megapixel red herring into a sensor-size-based
metric instead. I'd like to know the size of the sensor in this camera,
because that's what's going to make a difference in your photo, and not how
many millions of noise pixels the camera can give you, but that information is
absent from the article.

~~~
JoeCamel
They probably forgot to mention because all Fuji X-series mirrorless cameras
are APS-C. There is also a rumor that Fuji will release medium format
mirrorless cameras soon...

~~~
ekianjo
Medium format is very relative. The size of the captor is probably going to be
4x5 like the new Hasselblad, which is far from a real medium format like
6x7... And it's going to be mighty expensive too, the SONY sensor used in
Hasselblad is said to cost 4K USD alone.

------
dingaling
UI design thoughts: I'm not sure that I like all those mechanical dials on top
for changing settings. One great advantage of Canon's top-line series over the
years is that to change modes and exposure components you just press one or
two small buttons on top and then turn one of the two finger-wheels.

For example to change ISO my finger presses the ISO button just ahead of the
trigger and then my thumb spins the thumb wheel, all without looking away from
the viewfinder or lifting either hand off the body. Exposure bracketing: two
buttons on top-left, then spin the top finger-wheel.

With this Fuji I'd have to physically move my left hand up above the camera,
grab the ISO dial and click it around to where I need it. Plus every
mechanical dial is another conduit for rain and moisture to enter the camera.

~~~
malyk
I'm the exact opposite. Put all of the common functionality on dials (like
fuji does), so I can instantly see what the settings are at a glance instead
of clicking through 4 different menus with tiny buttons on a screen that you
can't see in bright sunlight.

------
davedx
Newsflash: the megapixel war is over [1]

It's all about optical zoom now.

[1] [http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2015-superzoom-camera-
roundu...](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2015-superzoom-camera-roundup)

~~~
arrrg
Super zoom cameras are an interesting category. You can do lots of cool things
with small sensors and you get a lot of reach with a very compact lens. (If
you only have to focus the image on a very small area you don’t need a lot of
glass to make far things appear close.)

Super zooms are in a way embracing the positive traits of small sensors. But
there is more than one kind of camera. Small sensors will still have trouble
in low light (since their area is smaller they capture less light) or
resolution (if you want to make them capture more light you could make the
pixels larger, trading off resolution, but potential noise in low light also
reduces resolution).

Cameras are and always have been about capturing light and the tradeoffs
involved with that. As such it is absurd to claim that “optical zoom” is what
it’s all about. It was and always will be a delicate interplay of optics,
light and technology (whether film emulsion or digital sensors) and there is
more than one way too solve this problem.

The sensor this camera used to have was widely hailed as excellent and had
moderate 16MP. 24MP isn’t such a great jump (and really not that special for
an APS-C sensor), but this sensor could conceivably deliver that additional
resolution with no cost in low light performance. And that would be brilliant.
(But there is more than one camera in this category.)

But in a way I agree with you. Not about super zooms, that’s just silly. But
about tools fit for the job. I have the X-T100 (no weather proofing, fewer
control points, less solid build, identical 16MP sensor as the X-T1, cheaper)
and if the X-T2 had ditched the control scheme of the X-T1/T100 I don’t think
I would even consider it, even if it had 48MP. Or 96MP. I don’t need that. I
need a camera that’s pleasant to use and that delivers great photos. I don’t
need a megapixel monster. I need a camera I love to take in my hand. Handling,
to me, is much more important than nearly anything else, beyond a certain
baseline of image quality and performance.

------
_Codemonkeyism
Got Fuji as a second system for the wonderful, wonderful 56/1.2 and the film
colors.

------
dvcrn
With the great innovation going on the APS-C area, I'm wondering if it's
finally time to say goodbye to my micro four thirds equipment and do the
switch. Opinions?

~~~
davb
I didn't stick with micro four thirds for too long. I felt that while it was
clearly superior to my tiny point and shoot sensor, it was miles behind APS-C
for low light performance, depth of field and clarity. Those ultra-high
resolution MFTs can only go so far - a small sensor is still a small sensor.

A couple of years back, I bought a Sony A6000 (they're up to A6300 now) and
love it.

Mirrorless APS-Cs occupy a really interesting space.

Small and light enough to carry around all the time (unlike even the lighter
DSLRs I've tried). Big enough sensor to (potentially, depending on the
body/lens) offer great low light performance, clarity, and reasonably good DOF
control. Depending on the shutter type, blazingly fast continuous drive (the
11fps on the A6000 is incredible).

I still have my Nikon D90 (APS-C DSLR) but it doesn't see as much use these
days. The portability and convenience of the A6000 (micro USB charging, wifi
transfer of photos to my phone) make it my go-to. The lenses I have for the
Nikon, however, are superior. The format (Nikon F mount) has been around for a
very long time, and really high quality lenses are really affordable these
days.

I definitely think it's a move worth making.

------
frik
What's the point of this post? My two year old smartphone has a superb camera
with equal spec. My years old DSLR too.

@downvoters: I know the technical differences (sensor size, mirrorless vs
DSLR) - but what's so newsworthy about that mirrorless camera - when other
products of the same category and other DSLR with same sensor size provide
higher spec...? It smells like an advertisement.

~~~
4ad
> What's the point of this post?

The same point as every other post here. People are interested and upvote it.

> My two year old smartphone has a superb camera with equal spec.

No it doesn't. Your smartphone does not have an APS-C sized sensor, nor phase-
detection focus.

> My years old DSLR too.

A DSLR is not a mirrorless camera.

~~~
frik
I think we both know the technical differences. The question is why is the
news about a 24mpx camera with 4k video newsworthy in mid 2016. A mirrorless
camera is cheaper to build than a DSLR. And as higher spec DSLR (with various
sensor sizes) are already available I would I just like to know what's so
outstanding about this particular camera.

~~~
rikkus
Perhaps it's because it sounds like it could replace your DSLR. Even for
lower-end 'pro' work, such as weddings.

