I’m getting great results, especially in terms of colors, from the little Fujifilm. The files look impressively sharp, and are easier to process, at least for me, than the ones from the A7r.At this point I’m seriously thinking to get rid of the Sony, because shooting the Fuji fits more my style and is more enjoyable in general. Yes, with the Sony you can go on and on, but when it was the last time that you printed something more than 150cm across? However, not having shot the same scenes with both cameras at the same time I wanted to be sure I wasn’t “seeing things”.So I decided to put them one against the other taking identical shots few seconds apart. You can see below the results, shown as a set of unedited (barring white balance and sharpening) twin crops…..
A casual glance at the Fujifilm X-T2 and the Sony A7 II could lead you to believe that there isn’t much that sets these two high-end mirrorless cameras apart. In addition to having a weather-resistant SLR-like body and a large centrally-placed electronic viewfinder, both models incorporate a 24MP sensor with a 14-bit uncompressed RAW option and a hybrid autofocus system with contrast and phase detection points.However, if we dig a little deeper, we soon discover that they target fairly different markets, as evidenced by the X-T2’s advanced autofocus and video capabilities and the A7 II’s large sensor and in-body stabilisation……
There’s still some confusion for photographers that are looking to buy one of these 35mm lenses from Fujifilm. On paper, just based on the specs the f1.4 version seems like it would be the clear winner. But specs aren’t everything. I hope this video gives you the kind of information you need to help you decide which lens would be best for you. Here are low res versions of the photos in the video. To download the full res versions click here to download a zip file of all the original JPEG files, straight out of camera. (files are in the same order as the video – f2 version @f2, f1.4 version @f2, f1.4 version @f1.4)………
When it comes to competitions, there’s typically not much entertainment in seeing one side totally dominate the other. Because of how long it’s been since the X-Pro1 has been released, or even received a firmware update,1 that’s sort of the situation we’re in with this comparison. We know the end result going into it, but seeing just how much the second iteration of the X-Pro line of bodies has improved over its predecessor should still at least be of some interest. I felt compelled to include this comparison for the posterity of the X-Pro, if nothing else. We’ll kick things of with a Specifications table that should have a lot of green in one side…..
In the X-T2 and X-Pro2, Fujifilm offers two flagship cameras that have a lot in common, but are designed for slightly different purposes. So which one should you buy? We’ve broken down the key differences. Let’s get probably the biggest differentiator out of the way right up front – the X-T2 offers 4K video, while the X-Pro2 makes do with standard HD. The addition of 4K to the X-T2 surprised us a little when we first saw it on the spec sheet, but it’s clear that Fujifilm sees this feature as an important ‚must have‘ in a camera as versatile as the X-T2. The X-T2 can record video in clips up to 10min duration, or 30min when the optional power booster grip is attached. The X-Pro2, on the other hand, is meant for a different kind of photographer – one who is more stills-oriented, and more likely to shoot with prime lenses than zooms. The addition of 4K to the X-Pro2 would have certainly increased its cost – and the engineers tell us that it would also have increased its size and weight as a consequence of the necessity for a beefed-up heat sink. So if you need 4K, the X-T2 is the camera for you….
It’s been a long time coming but Fujifilm’s two flagship cameras finally have a successor each: the X-Pro1, the camera that started it all nearly five years ago, has been replaced by the X-Pro2, and Fujifilm’s best-selling mirrorless model to date, the X-T1, must now give way to its more powerful sibling, the X-T2.Although the two cameras have much in common, including the latest 24MP X-Trans III APS-C sensor, X-Processor Pro image processor, advanced hybrid autofocus system, various film simulation modes, maximum ISO sensitivity of 51200 and weather resistance to name a few, there are a number of characteristics that set them apart. Let’s have a look at them now…..
While we wait for the announcement of the XF35mm f/2 WR from Messrs. Fuji, what to do if you want the occasional burst of 35mm-equivalent Fuji X goodness? In effect at the moment you have three viable options: a) The excellent but enormous 23mm f1.4, b) The X100T (and it’s predecessors), or c) The X-Mount Filter Lens… I have written of this last one before and, unless you live either in Japan or have read that previous article, you may be forgiven for a degree of confusion at this point. To recap (pun intended) the optic to which I refer is a Japanese-market only, body-cap/toy lens that offers a field of view of 24mm and a fixed aperture of f/8. The XM-FL is made of plastic, has no means of focusing and is really not meant to be taken too seriously…….
There are many differences between the Sony a6300 and the Fujifilm X-Pro2 but two of the most important characteristics actually perform in a more similar manner than you’d think. Both cameras sport new APS-C sensors that can be considered a reference at the time of writing this article, and they also have the two best autofocus systems I’ve had the chance to use. So even though price, build quality, additional features and target user are all different, there is actually a valid reason to compare these two cameras! The X-Pro2 inaugurates a new generation of X series cameras for Fujifilm. It is highly probable that we will see other products in the future with the same 24MP sensor, hopefully at a lower price, which means that the competition for the a6300 will increase. On the other hand, the Sony camera is likely to become the newest “best bang for the buck” which is exactly what happened to the a6000 before it. In this article, I’ll be sharing an in-depth comparison of the image quality and autofocus performance…….
I was intrigued when Fujifilm announced the X70 in January. The press release touted it as a premium fixed-lens compact camera. Design wise, clearly it’s the baby brother to the X100T. However, its specs indicate the X70’s primary mission is to compete with the Ricoh GR II. Having shot almost exclusively with the GR and GR II for the past three years, as well as shooting film several times a year with the GR-1v, you could say I’m a devotee of Ricoh’s compact camera design philosophy. Knowing this, Tony Rose of Popflash Photo loaned me one of his first X70’s and asked me to see how the X70 compared with the GR. After shooting with the X70 for two months, I have a few thoughts about the X70 as a GR competitor and why Fujifilm entered this niche market…….
In an earlier comparison between the Fujifilm X70 and the Ricoh GR II, I suggested that the X70 and X100T are, in many ways, cut from the same cloth. In addition to both being premium fixed-lens compacts from Fujifilm, they also incorporate the same 16MP APS-C X-Trans II CMOS sensor and feature a very similar design. You may be wondering: are there enough differences to merit a comparison? Even though the image quality is the basically identical, I would say that there are. The most salient differences are the field of view and optical quality of their respective fixed lenses, followed by the small gap between their autofocus systems. The remaining differences mostly regard the body, such as the size and weight, viewfinder (or lack thereof) and LCD screen……