Fuji Fuji XT-1 - new top dog Fuji X or over-festooned retro?

Many will have followed the Fuji rumours around the just-announced Fuji XT-1, and I'm curious to see what the Fuji shooters on SC think of this new direction for Fuji.

On first glance, it looks like it offers the manual control many claim to prefer, with what seems like a killer EVF. Guess someone here will be shooting with it soon enough...

Double word score, btw, for "festooned".
 
I'd been watching this one closely, having divested myself of my Fuji gear but missing the operational aspects of the cameras. The X-T1 is certainly interesting, but when I saw the 1/4000sec top shutter and 1/180sec flash sync it killed it for me. Now that we know that mirrorless is capable of more in those areas, I was disappointed in Fuji. Maybe it will be available on the X-Pro2. The EVF looks great though and as a portrait shooter I like that Fuji is now offering face detection on their higher end cameras.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
For anything longer than 90mm equivalent, I'd still favor m43 for lens selection, size, and performance, but two of those three should improve with time...

I've seen you mention this a couple of times (I've been a lurker), and I"m a little confused. Everything I've read says that telephoto is the m43 weak point, yet you are sticking with it for that very reason. Are you an ex-4/3 user, and have some old lenses? What lenses are you using that you like so much on m43?

paul
 
I've seen you mention this a couple of times (I've been a lurker), and I"m a little confused. Everything I've read says that telephoto is the m43 weak point, yet you are sticking with it for that very reason. Are you an ex-4/3 user, and have some old lenses? What lenses are you using that you like so much on m43?

paul

I guess in terms of really fast looooong glass it may be a weak point. For shoter to mid range though, I'd say it's very very good and that's where I mostly shoot when I go with longer lenses. The 75mm f1.8 is one of the nicest lenses I've used in any format, the 35-100 f2.8 is a fine and fast lens that's as long as I'd usually need, and I have an Oly 75-300 for the rare occasion I want to shoot something REALLY long. The 75-300 is not a fast lens and I only use it in pretty good light. I might sell it if it had any real value anymore, but every now and then I'm glad to have it. But even the 75-300 is smaller than lenses with half the reach in APS (Fuji 55-200) and the 75 and 35-100 are tiny compared to anything comparable in APS, let alone full frame. No way I'd want to haul a big honkin' DSLR tele around.

If I was a hard core birder or sports photographer or even paparazzi I might want those big guns, but I'm not. This is where m43's size advantage is most pronounced. I also haven't seen any face detection work as well as Olympus', so that's another reason I prefer m43 for these portrait and longer lenses.

-Ray
 
It definitely sounds nice and I look forward to reading some reviews. But I think its funny how it seems like everyone is copying Olympus in their camera design. First Nikon with the Df and now Fuji.
 
It definitely sounds nice and I look forward to reading some reviews. But I think its funny how it seems like everyone is copying Olympus in their camera design. First Nikon with the Df and now Fuji.

I don't think anyone is really copying Olympus. I think Fuji really started this whole full-retro thing with the X100. Yeah, the EP1 started it a little bit, but in terms of retro controls as well as a retro look, the X100 really started it. The EM5 has a semi retro look but thoroughly modern controls and the EM1 is more modern yet in both respects - the EM5 came out a year after the X100. The Df seems to call up the old SLR much like the X100 and subsequent Fujis calls on the old rangefinder. So, if anything they're copying Fuji, but only in general approach. In terms of specific design cues I think they're more trying to copy themselves, as Fuji was copying Leica.

-Ray
 
Since the OP is looking for Fuji owner's thoughts, here's mine. I already have an X100 and xe1, 14, 18, 27, 35, 18-55 (my wife and I split the lens pool) and some legacy Nikon Ai lenses. I shot Nikon for over 30 years, expect to shoot a Fuji for decades as well. Endlessly jumping around from one system to another is not my style, 5 to 10 years on an ILC body is normal.

For my style of shooting, the evf is my biggest issue with the xe1. Its tiny and the refresh rate is abysmal. I looked at the xt1, saw no worts, saw a few improvements I could use, wanted the evf, ordered one. That's about it. It looks like a good upgrade. I could care less about how it looks or the multitude of near gimmicks some seem to need to take good pictures. Its a tool and should be a good one at that. If I don't realize excellent finished product from this camera, its certainly not going to be the camera's fault.

For emotional attachment -- which I can't see any developing with the xt1 -- I have the X100.
 
Ok,

I gotta admit, Kai's review got me interested, specially for the EVF and the dual screen for manual focusing plus the portrait orientation whistle

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/8N1-obUC7Ms" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

But I still dont trust the Xtrans sensor with Lightroom.
 
I do not want my cameras to look retro. I am not a pastiche lover, and so I am happier if they look modern (I like the OMD1 design, for example). What I like, though, is a camera which handles like my old ones, with an aperture ring and external dials for main controls; a nice viewfinder; good lenses; and small size and weight. The Fuji X-T1 seems to be what I was hoping Nikon did - so that I could go back to using all my FM2 lenses. I am leaving my D7000 at home most of the time because I find it too big and heavy for my taste. I shall probably buy the X-T1- not as a replacement for my Panasonic GX1, but as a replacement for my D7000.
Incidentally, I wonder why Nikon does not make a D7100 in a D5300 body: just (1) add a depth of field preview button, and external flash control, (2) move the image zoom control to the rear wheel, thus freeing two buttons for other functions, such as ISO, and (3) if possible, increase the viewfinder size a little bit.
 
The thing about the design cues and layouts today called "retro" is that they evolved over many years and are rewardingly tactile, offering the photographer physical and emotional feedback. Far more than multiple button stabs and - shudder - a touch-screen. The importance of the feel of a camera in the hand - the heft, the ability to alter key settings by touch before raising it to your eye - is much under-estimated. What some call "retro" I think of as "human-friendly"

Sent from another Galaxy
 
The thing about the design cues and layouts today called "retro" is that they evolved over many years and are rewardingly tactile, offering the photographer physical and emotional feedback. Far more than multiple button stabs and - shudder - a touch-screen. The importance of the feel of a camera in the hand - the heft, the ability to alter key settings by touch before raising it to your eye - is much under-estimated. What some call "retro" I think of as "human-friendly"

Sent from another Galaxy

This.

These Fujis aren't wearing parachute pants for god's sake. They have metal, tactile controls for the most often-used parameter changes, all placed right where they make the most sense. It's as if common sense were a fashion fad.
 
you know, ive read the 'this is what i was hoping nikon would do' seemingly scores of times re this fuji camera. what kinda blows me away is no one really has seen results from the camera. sure, a few here and there, certainly nothing to draw IQ conclusions about. so i ask, WTF?

honestly, we've had opportunity to review Df images. we have noted SC members posting impressive photos. the high iso rendering of the Df iobjectively--and i specifically use that word--leaves every other SC in the dust. not just better, IN THE DUST. the regular iso shots are outstanding. it is backward compatible with some of the best lenses ever made in the last 3 generations! leica R can be easily adapted to it, and zeiss zf lenses work too! seriously, WTF does everyone want from that camera?

look, this seems a nice hardware advance for fuji folk, ive no problem with that. but please, this is not what nikon shoulda done. its apsc, not FF, okay? counting the 100s its the fifth iteration of the same sensor in the ol' grandad xp1, ok? as it is, nikon did pretty freaking good (and ive never used nikon!, love and use fuji) with the Df--in many IQ ways its state of the art. if this fuji comes close in IQ i'd be very, and pleasantly, surprised. but can we please get off nikons back until a camera can actually produce better?

sorry for the rant, but the p@&$ing on this camera takes is just not warranted by its results. no offense intended to anyone.
 
I think most of your argument there is based on the sensor differences, right? Whereas the comments I've seen about what Nikon "should've done" seemed more about the form factor and peripherals on the Fuji being better executed. Specifically the dials, the (apparently) incredible EVF, the overall size (not really fair given the FF sensor in the Nikon but still, I keep reading that the Df is big), and probably more that I've missed. I don't think anyone is actually saying "Nikon should've gone with APSC," but that's sorta what you're implying up there. No APSC sensor is going to out-render any FF sensor. Fairly sure you won't find anyone dumb enough to claim otherwise. Knife at a gun fight.
 
There's a LOT of size tolerance just under the surface of questions like "Df vs XT1" and there are absolutely no right or wrong answers. Modern full frame sensors are better than modern APS sensors. Hard to say exactly how much (depends on which ones you're comparing) it's roughly speaking about a stop or a bit more than a stop. Whether the larger size of the Df is worth that extra stop or so over the Fuji sensor is an individual call. I'm wrestling with that right now - I'm OK with the size of the Df body but I'm only OK with it if I limit myself to relatively small, cheap, and slower prime lenses. Faster full frame lenses, at least in the DSLR world, are much larger and much more expensive than Fuji's excellent lens lineup. And I'm not willing to either pay for or carry those lenses with the Df. Whether a full frame DSLR is even something I'd call a serious compact is a highly debatable point. It's an awesome camera and my tolerance for it is higher than I thought it would be, but it's the biggest camera I've ever shot with, so that's a real consideration.

I think lens size / performance / cost ultimately become where the tradeoffs live. Smaller full frame bodies are clearly possible as Sony is demonstrating with the A7. But the lenses then get a lot trickier. Sony's 35mm f2.8 is pretty small but it's only a pretty good lens (unlike the larger exceptional one on the RX1, much of which is buried inside the camera body). The 55 f1.8 seems to be exceptional and reasonable sized, but it's getting pretty long, and 55mm isn't exactly the most challenging focal length to pull off a fast lens. Whether Sony can come up with good, fast, smallish lenses when they start playing around the edges of longer and wider focal lengths is a big question. Fuji seems to be showing you can built QUALITY fast glass for relatively reasonable amounts for APS. They're not small lenses like m43, but they're not bad either, easily handleable. They seem willing to sacrifice some on size for quality, but APS lets you do a lot more with a given size than full frame. Look at the 56mm f1.2 that Fuji's bringing out - it's not a small lens, but it looks pretty well handled on the XT1. Imagine what a similar 85 f1.2 or 1.4 would look like on the Df. I've played with a Nikon 85 f1.8 and it's not too bad, but it's pretty much at the far end of my personal tolerance range for Df lenses. Similarly, Fuji's 23mm f1.4 is a great lens at a reasonable price. In the full frame DSLR world, you can do quite well with a 35mm f2.0, but the attempts to get to f1.4 then get very expensive and quite a bit larger. Similar at 28mm where I'm using a Nikon at f2.8 and the Fuji's comparable 18mm is similarly priced at f2.0 and is nearly a pancake. Neither are stellar lenses, but both are really nice working lenses for those who don't spend too much time pixel peeping the corners wide open. And to get to a notably faster and better 28mm for the Nikon, both the size and price go up quite a bit. Never mind the telephoto and ultra-wide lenses where full frame get huge, APS get's pretty big, and m43 starts looking better and better.

So, on balance, to stay within my size and price considerations, I'm buying lenses about a stop or more slower for the Df than I would be with Fuji. Depth of field is close enough for my purposes and so I get back the stop or so from the sensor with lens selection in the Fuji world. So where I'd be shooting at 12,800 on the Df, I'm shooting at 6400 on one of the Fujis with a one stop faster lens. And realistically, as nice as it is to have, I don't shoot at 12,800 much on the Df and I wouldn't shoot at 6400 very much with the fastest Fuji glass. I'd probably shoot a lot more at 6400 on the Nikon and 3200 on the Fuji, which are pretty close from a quality standpoint.

So, obviously I'm wrestling with this a lot at the moment because I've sold my RX1 and I'm shooting with a Df that I'm contemplating buying. But I'm also thinking about jumping back into Fuji instead because their lens lineup has really matured lately and I could envision a kit I'd be really happy with, keeping the EM1 around for focal lengths longer than 90mm and maybe the ultra-wide end. The XT1 is a notably smaller body than the Df. I'm fine with the Df's body size, but that doesn't mean I might not prefer something smaller. And the bottom line is that sensors are likely to continue to improve, probably a lot. But the laws of physics that govern lens design are only gonna be bent so far. So there's a chance I go back to APS and m43 instead of full frame and m43. I don't know yet, but it's a real question.

So, no, the Fuji sensor doesn't stack up to the Df, but the system as a whole may very well. There are a lot of tradeoffs involved. I'd say Fuji's sensor, even at the ripe old age of two years, is still pulling it's weight. I'm not one of those big time Fuji guys who think it's better than any other APS sensor, but I think it's roughly as good as any, and that's pretty damn good.

-Ray
 
For me a camera is more than the sum of it's parts, and what appears to be a single standout component on paper may not be enough if the rest of the package isn't to your liking, or indeed may not prove to be such an advantage in the context of how it works within that package.
 
There's a LOT of size tolerance just under the surface of questions like "Df vs XT1" and there are absolutely no right or wrong answers. Modern full frame sensors are better than modern APS sensors. Hard to say exactly how much (depends on which ones you're comparing) it's roughly speaking about a stop or a bit more than a stop. Whether the larger size of the Df is worth that extra stop or so over the Fuji sensor is an individual call. I'm wrestling with that right now - I'm OK with the size of the Df body but I'm only OK with it if I limit myself to relatively small, cheap, and slower prime lenses. Faster full frame lenses, at least in the DSLR world, are much larger and much more expensive than Fuji's excellent lens lineup. And I'm not willing to either pay for or carry those lenses with the Df. Whether a full frame DSLR is even something I'd call a serious compact is a highly debatable point. It's an awesome camera and my tolerance for it is higher than I thought it would be, but it's the biggest camera I've ever shot with, so that's a real consideration.

I think lens size / performance / cost ultimately become where the tradeoffs live. Smaller full frame bodies are clearly possible as Sony is demonstrating with the A7. But the lenses then get a lot trickier. Sony's 35mm f2.8 is pretty small but it's only a pretty good lens (unlike the larger exceptional one on the RX1, much of which is buried inside the camera body). The 55 f1.8 seems to be exceptional and reasonable sized, but it's getting pretty long, and 55mm isn't exactly the most challenging focal length to pull off a fast lens. Whether Sony can come up with good, fast, smallish lenses when they start playing around the edges of longer and wider focal lengths is a big question. Fuji seems to be showing you can built QUALITY fast glass for relatively reasonable amounts for APS. They're not small lenses like m43, but they're not bad either, easily handleable. They seem willing to sacrifice some on size for quality, but APS lets you do a lot more with a given size than full frame. Look at the 56mm f1.2 that Fuji's bringing out - it's not a small lens, but it looks pretty well handled on the XT1. Imagine what a similar 85 f1.2 or 1.4 would look like on the Df. I've played with a Nikon 85 f1.8 and it's not too bad, but it's pretty much at the far end of my personal tolerance range for Df lenses. Similarly, Fuji's 23mm f1.4 is a great lens at a reasonable price. In the full frame DSLR world, you can do quite well with a 35mm f2.0, but the attempts to get to f1.4 then get very expensive and quite a bit larger. Similar at 28mm where I'm using a Nikon at f2.8 and the Fuji's comparable 18mm is similarly priced at f2.0 and is nearly a pancake. Neither are stellar lenses, but both are really nice working lenses for those who don't spend too much time pixel peeping the corners wide open. And to get to a notably faster and better 28mm for the Nikon, both the size and price go up quite a bit. Never mind the telephoto and ultra-wide lenses where full frame get huge, APS get's pretty big, and m43 starts looking better and better.

So, on balance, to stay within my size and price considerations, I'm buying lenses about a stop or more slower for the Df than I would be with Fuji. Depth of field is close enough for my purposes and so I get back the stop or so from the sensor with lens selection in the Fuji world. So where I'd be shooting at 12,800 on the Df, I'm shooting at 6400 on one of the Fujis with a one stop faster lens. And realistically, as nice as it is to have, I don't shoot at 12,800 much on the Df and I wouldn't shoot at 6400 very much with the fastest Fuji glass. I'd probably shoot a lot more at 6400 on the Nikon and 3200 on the Fuji, which are pretty close from a quality standpoint.

So, obviously I'm wrestling with this a lot at the moment because I've sold my RX1 and I'm shooting with a Df that I'm contemplating buying. But I'm also thinking about jumping back into Fuji instead because their lens lineup has really matured lately and I could envision a kit I'd be really happy with, keeping the EM1 around for focal lengths longer than 90mm and maybe the ultra-wide end. The XT1 is a notably smaller body than the Df. I'm fine with the Df's body size, but that doesn't mean I might not prefer something smaller. And the bottom line is that sensors are likely to continue to improve, probably a lot. But the laws of physics that govern lens design are only gonna be bent so far. So there's a chance I go back to APS and m43 instead of full frame and m43. I don't know yet, but it's a real question.

So, no, the Fuji sensor doesn't stack up to the Df, but the system as a whole may very well. There are a lot of tradeoffs involved. I'd say Fuji's sensor, even at the ripe old age of two years, is still pulling it's weight. I'm not one of those big time Fuji guys who think it's better than any other APS sensor, but I think it's roughly as good as any, and that's pretty damn good.

-Ray

Very nice analysis as usual Ray; you are very good at describing these trade-offs which I'm sure assists many readers here. I am admittedly new to m43, but already am hooked on some of the instant feedback you get with a decent EVF, especially party tricks like visible under/over exposure and focus assist. So for a travel outfit I can see gradually growing my m43 - I like to compose with longer FL more than wide, and as Ray has noted many times, m43 has a real size/practicality advantage here. But for nearer home shooting or where I want richer files, I can see the Fuji system replacing my Pentax kit in time, likely focused on faster lenses and not the zooms.
 
Back
Top