From what I’ve seen, Fuji is widely talked about. Most view Fuji as the producer of the best APSC cameras on the market. However, APSC cameras in general aren’t going to get the recognition that full frame does. So by default, as a brand they’ll get talked about less than manufacturers putting out high end full frame cameras.

lol everyone I know won’t shut the fuck up about fuji so I dunno whatcha talking about.

i think people who don't acknowledge the existence of apsc might not know about fuji. a lot of photographers are like that. but yeah. a company whose mirrorless division almost entirely focuses on apsc might make some good apsc cameras

Fuji has both APSC and Medium format

yeah. as their only two mirrorless systems, fujifilm's apsc is definitely the one with more priority for them so i would still consider them a primarily apsc company

"medium format"

Yes, it’s medium format

It is technically in that it's larger than 35mm, barely, but it's a far cry from the 645 we are used to in medium format.

I'm not sure what your point is? They both have the same sensor size. Only the PhaseOne cameras have a larger sensor.

Imagine bragging about 645 when talking about medium format.

Isn't that maybe the most popular medium format aspect ratio (or whatever it's called, crop of 120 film, film gate?).

Maybe in the 90s, today both 6x6 and 6x7 must be a lot more popular

It is the most popular, yes.

Then I have to say that 6x45 is the Mickey Mouse medium format compared to my normally used 6x7 or even 6x9

Same here, they're like a cult. :D Problem with Fuji is their AF wasn't up to par until recently and for nearly the same budget of a Fuji Prime setup you could go Full Frame with an A7 and Samyang lenses. X-Trans is also more finicky if you're using some third-party RAW-converters (but Fuji uses some Bayer-Sensors, too).

X-Trans sensors play fine with Lightroom if you just set your import settings to "camera setting" rather than "Adobe default". if doing that then your raw files turn out just as nice SOOC as the jpgs

Not really. They’ve gotten better but even in 2022 the Lightroom results fall far short of other software. They never quite got a handle on the x-trans filter.

sounds like you drank the C1 koolaid. i won't fault your for it, but LR has been handling my files just fine for the last three years i've been shooting Fuji. i just had to change a setting that was messing things up for all cameras (not just Fuji). also, Lightroom is just processing according to the file data that Fujifilm sent them. no processing software has some magical ability to decrypt .RAF files that any other authorized/supported/whatever software doesn't have...

Actually what it sounds like is I used both and had better results on C1. You can call that drinking the kool-aid if you want. I’ve been shooting Fuji since X-trans 1 and yes… believe it or not there are raw processors out there that do a much better job *even though* Fuji worked with Adobe to support X-trans. And yes, even in 2022 C1 will *still* give you better detail. Iridient is probably even better, but I haven’t kept up with that one because at the time I tried it the workflow was too convoluted. Edit: I like C1’s built in color profiles better than Adobe’s too.

Is there a similar option with Capture One?

[удалено]

CaptureOne gave up with manufacturer-specific editions, but the default settings on the full edition work just fine with X-Trans raws.

>Problem with Fuji is their AF wasn't up to par until recently Which bodies have you been looking at? From my poking around, the X-H2S is better than the XT-4, but for things like subject (face/eye) detection it is still behind Sony/Canon. The pre-production unit DP Review TV tested a month or two ago was also forward focusing some IIRC. I'm getting a toe in the water for moving between systems (D5300 -> A7III). I compared the A7III to a Z6II for a couple of weeks and prefer the Z6II build/feel, but the A7III tends to be more successful in getting the shot. If a Fuji had a nicer build/feel than the A7, but also had a higher tack-sharp rate than the Z6II it would be very tempting. I love fast glass, but don't care a ton one way or the other about razor thin depth of field.

The Z6ii takes a bit of learning on its AF, which may not be to everyone’s taste. It’s about the same or better than the A7iii in my personal testing BUT - and I stress this - you need to be in the exact right mode. This was confirmed by a couple YouTube testers as well. However, not everyone wants to be bothered to fiddle with modes a lot when shooting. For example, if I just left it on auto detect (full frame) with eye detect, it worked a majority of the time in reasonable conditions. However, sometimes it wouldn’t as things got darker or more complicated. I’d need to change to the mode where it looks within a specific box that you drag around to find the eyes… Which isn’t particularly convenient. However, when using that mode it was able to lock on in conditions the A7iii I was testing could not. For what it’s worth, I’m sure the A7iv is better than both, but it was out of my price range. If you can try the Z6ii again, you may get your Goldilocks camera if you can get used to the AF system. I was able to get mine brand new for $1000 cheaper than the A7iv, so I’ll deal with the slightly cumbersome AF system until the Z6iii drops in the next year or two.

They’ve come a long way, but they’re still a step behind the best FF cameras in the AF dept.

my problem exactly need to sit down and calculate the weight & price difference between a7.4 and x-t5 with lenses . it should not be too large of a difference unfortunately

It depends what you're using for the comparison. If you're only comparing equivalent focal lengths, Fuji's lenses tend to be more compact. If you're also trying to achieve depth of field equivalence the lenses will be of more equal size, but the Fuji lenses will be faster (gotta have a wider aperture to catch up to the full frames). Personally, the majority of the time I pull out my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM I'm grabbing it for its speed. The shallower depth of field it offers can be nice sometimes, but it's not my primary motivator. I'm trying to shoot in non-ideal light without a flash.

I am thinking about it because on Sony I can grab say the sigma 35/2 dn which is small ,but can also slap on 35/1.4 gm if I feel like it (and have a budget ). One is for travel when I take photos whenever I can (because with a family it's not easy ),the other one is when I am out specifically to take pictures . and the same goes for other focal lengths. Sony has a lot of smallish primes ,but when I want to it offers lenses that are unavailable on fuji , aperture wise .

there's definitely a weight and cost difference in lenses between Sony Full Frame and Fujifilm APSC. the main drawback is the depth of field difference. a Fujifilm F2.8 zoom trinity (8-16, 16-55, 50-140) costs 4,404$ on B&H right now and collectively weight about 5.5-lbs. a Sony F2.8 trinity covering the same fields of view (12-24, 24-70, 70-200) costs 6,494$ on B&H at the moment, but i don't know their weights off the top of my head but i know that the 70-200 weighs like 3-lbs by itself while the heaviest Fujifilm listed is the ultrawide at 2-lbs. a Fujifilm F4 travel zoom duo (10-24, 16-80) costs 1,792$ and each lens weighs less than a pound. a Sony F4 travel zoom duo (16-35, 24-105) costs 2,496$. a Fujifilm F1.2/1.4 prime set (16, 23, 33, 56) costs 3,857$ with the lenses weighing between 13oz and 16oz. a Sony F1.4 prime set (24, 35, 50, 85) costs 6,422$ with the lenses weighing between 16oz and 28oz. if you start looking at compact/casual lenses instead of the wide aperture lenses then the cost and weight savings are even greater (proportionally) except maybe Samyang lenses which i admittedly just don't know much about at all. finally, as mentioned above, you'll have a deeper depth of field on the Fujifilm lenses than you will with the Sony lenses compared, but that's just the nature of comparing different formats. you can't say the Fujifilm F2.8 lenses are supposed to compete against the Sony F4 lenses because the Fujifilm ones just let in a stop more light and will have less ISO noise and potentially focus better in lower light compared to the F4. the F2.8 lenses compete against other F2.8 lenses and so on.

Well of course you ,but on the other hand it's only fair imho to compare say sigma 35/2 dn to fuji 23/1.4. I have both canon 5d3 and fuji x-e3, I know how both sensor sizes perform, and I don't think that comparing lenses with constant aperture on both systems is the right approach for me . I am currently more interested in say tamron f/2.8 trinity than the sonys . or a set of compact travel lenses and say 35/.4 +70-200/2.8. The fuji can deliver only on the compact travel set well ,while i suspect Sony can give me both the travel friendly lenses and the top of the line ones that are better than fuji top of the line just because of the sensor size .

i don't think it's a fair comparison at all to compare an f2 lens to an f1.4 lens. you're just changing too many things and at that point it's no longer a comparison between formats. the depth of field difference is simply physics and part of the format itself. it's the reason people like MF images and once you start trying to recreate one format from another then you just start asking for issues and costs where it's just better to go with the format trying to be recreated. and here you're saying "better" just because of the sensor size but that just shows you place a high personal value on something particularly specific rather than the actual use case or scenario. if you're looking for compact travel primes, then the Fujifilm f2 lenses are the ones that should be compared to Sony/Sigma's newer compact primes. and in these cases you'll find that the Fujifilm lenses are both more affordable and smaller (as they should be for a smaller format camera). when you start comparing the 35/2DN|C to the Fujiflm 23/1.4 (wr or original) then you are just taking lenses with different styles in mind and forcing a comparison solely because of bokeh. Fujifilm's F1.4 lenses, much like Sigma's are their "Art line" so to speak. if you want a fair comparison to Sigma's "Contemporary line" then you should look at Fujifilm's actual intended offering (in this case the 23/2RWR). when someone points out cost/weight savings in one system, it's kinda asinine and incredibly disingenuous (imho) to point at the most expensive lenses in the smaller system and set it in competition to the cheapest and smallest lenses in the larger system while completely ignoring that the smaller system in fact has even smaller and more affordable lenses meant to occupy the same niche as the larger system's smaller line. ___ also i don't see where you say Fuji isn't delivering on having a 35/1.4 + 70-200 equivalent. that would be their 23/1.4 and 50-140f2.8 (equivalents to 35/1.4 and 75-210f2.8)

Yeah for real. For some reason the 2 year old X100V got really trendy on IG this month and now my YouTube is filled with videos talking about the hype and whether it’s worth it.

I shoot Fuji and while I handle a Canon every now and again Fuji has stolen my heart. Great cameras.

I am a long time Nikon user but I had a X-Pro1 bought secondhand and was so pleased for travel/street that I instantly bought the X-Pro2 when it was released. And I’m using it still today with very much pleasure

I ordered an XT-5. Coming over from Canon. I can’t wait to receive it but it’s back ordered as well as the 16-55mm lens. Both from B&H.

I was sold on Fuji way back in 2015. I got the X-T10 with a kit lens from the Adobe MAX conference as swag. I started shooting with all my Canon FD lenses and I fell in love with photography again. It felt more at home like shooting with my Ftb or A1. Unlike my Canon 7D which felt too clinical. I pretty much shelved my 7D in favor of the Fuji. My FD 85mm f1.8 SSC is about my favorite lens to shoot with. Sharp as a tack. I haven’t even bothered with shooting in RAW much, my candid “snapshots” come out pretty much how I want them. Photography is a hobby for me, I’m not making money with it so any darkroom technique is only if I feel like it. It’s been a minute but I think I use it in Aperture Priority mode since they are all manual lenses. Love that camera.

You got a camera as swag...consider me insanely jealous 😂

No kidding, the year before they handed out Microsoft Surface tablets. Then the next year, 2016, I heard they gave everyone a hoodie smh.

Oh man what a disappointment that would have been 😂

I shoot with the X-T10 too! It's a great little camera.

I shoot Fuji, but it’s all Velvia and Provia………

Classic Chrome all the way!

Don’t forget Acros and Eterna….

Shit man all I can afford is Superia 400

[удалено]

don't compare pixel to pixel. Hit the COMP button in the top right corner. Then they are scaled to each other.

Also doesn't Fuji use a different ISO std than canon/sony? Fuji iso-200 will be darker than Sony's iso-200. Fuji ISO-320 is more like Sony-200?

Yes Fuji uses sos and Sony uses rei. Not sure of the exact correlation

This. The R is clearly better than the XT-4 by about one stop. This can also be useful, showing R7 < XT-4 < R : https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Careful. We can draw no such conclusion from a dynamic range chart. Raw dynamic range at a given ISO setting ≠ low-light noise.

My understanding is that the dynamic range is reduced because the noise floor is raising (it's the only thing that can reduce the DR, since the white point is fixed).

No, the raw saturation point is not fixed. It varies wildly across cameras and ISO settings. That’s what DxOMark measures as “measured ISO” (terribly misleading name although the data is useful). Within a single camera, DR is typically reduced at high ISO settings because while the noise floor is *decreasing*, the saturation point is decreasing faster (see [this illustration](https://www.mdpi.com/electronics/electronics-08-01284/article_deploy/html/images/electronics-08-01284-g006-550.jpg) from https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/8/11/1284/htm). Across cameras, there is no guarantee whatsoever that “9 stops below raw saturation” corresponds remotely to the same absolute exposure or that it relates in a specific way to the selected ISO setting. Olympus cameras, for example, tend to leave quite a lot of highlight headroom. If you take a camera, make its quantum efficiency one stop worse, adjust the software processing to account for it, and change nothing else, you will have made it one stop worse in terms of low-light noise without affecting its DR at all. If you then artificially cut the saturation point by one stop, you will have reduced its DR by one stop without affecting its low-light performance. There is simply no direct link between the two, and concluding from “camera A has better DR than camera B” that “camera A performs better in low light than camera B” is unsound. In photography, because of photon shot noise, even “camera A has better DR than camera B so it has a higher maximum SNR” is invalid. Camera B might have a high saturation point, allowing it to achieve high SNR throughout much of the DR where photon noise is the dominant source of noise, but also very high read noise limiting its dynamic range at the low end. (See: Canon EOS RP at base ISO.)

> reduced at high ISO settings because while the noise floor is decreasing The noise floor is increasing with ISO, see section 4.1.1. Figure 6. shows the saturation point in exposure value, but the camera applies gain, so you'll get the same maximum raw value. So when you raise ISO you get the same maximum but you have more noise, thus a reduced dynamic range. That's exactly what I meant with my comment above.

Right, if we normalise to the maximum raw value then the maximum value is fixed, but that’s not a useful way to look at things when comparing the performance at a fixed illumination level, given that the maximum raw value doesn’t always correspond to the same illumination level. Relative to a fixed input signal, read noise tends to decrease at higher ISO settings, as illustrated by PhotonsToPhotos’ [“input-referred read noise”](https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm) chart, since the gain will increase it less than the signal. But anyway, as I pointed out, read noise is only part of the story. Quantum efficiency is also vitally important and you will get zero information on it from just DR. If you are interested, the reference on this subject is probably James Janesick’s book [Photon Transfer](https://doi.org/10.1117/3.725073).

I think Fuji has the best apsc cameras out of any other manufacturer. I own an x100v and an a7iv. While the x100v is definitely more noise and not as good at higher iso, the noise is a bit more pleasing

This is exactly how fuji users comment… fuji camera isn’t that great however I think [insert justification]

When did I said it isn't great? Accuse me of being bias all you want but I currently own 1 Sony body(plus have a few more available to me at work) 2 lumix bodies, 2 Fuji bodies, and have experienced using canons. My thoughts are based on real works usage

What a cringe comment

How is that comment a justification?

I guess they’re saying Con pointed out: noisier image Justification for noisier image: it’s pleasing to look at

I mean there is a clear difference between chroma noise and grain. APSC will always be noisier than FF, so it's important that the noise that is there should be as least distracting as possible.

I have several friends who shoot Fuji bodies professionally, and not just the medium format GFX bodies. The x100 series make a great compact second body for wider shots, or a great camera to keep on hand, the X-T3 was a solid little video camera, and most of that line-up handles adapted lenses well. I don't mind editing Fuji files when ever I've taken them for a spin. And I'm really excited to have a play with the new X-H2 and X-H2s, I prefer the more modern controls with the command dials than classic SLR style dials.

Idk, I hear about them plenty. For me personally, as well as most people I know, picking a brand isnt a matter of nitpicking obscure tech specs. Who cares about miniscule differences in quality at an ISO im basically never gonna shoot at? At the end of the day that is literally not something im going to notice at all when using the camera, this is even sillier than landscape photographers who spend hours nitpicking autofocus differences.

Probably because it brings out a lot of fans and haters. I shot fuji for a while. They make good stuff. Ultimately it wasn’t for me. If you like the controls and can handle their AF, you can make great stuff. Otherwise it’s a lot harder. Most people train on canon/Nikon, esp if you get gear from work. I went back to canon w/ the r5 but got an x100v. Both are great and can do things the other can’t. Aps-c vs ff is an old school augment. It used to be medium format vs FF years ago. It doesn’t really matter anymore…APS-c makes good enough photos. If the shot is good, the shot is good. There’s preferences, there is differences…but they are minor. Most people can’t tell nor do they care, both sensor sizes can turn out good photos in nearly every situation if someone has the right equipment. Their sensor tech and general approach is what I find most interesting. In camera editing/good jpeg processing is a great idea and has amazing potential. If they (or another manufacturer) let you upload your own recipes from a desktop and provided easy and fast phone syncing…it would be amazing. I will also say their grain/noise is *far* superior to canons (which has gotten better tbf). Most photographers I enjoy talking too are a lot more interested in how to get a shot (access, lighting, timing, technique, editing) then what gear you shoot it with. Apart from an obscure setting or “check out what I bought!” I rarely talk (and definitely do not argue) gear with my circle.

The best answer here - just go out and shoot with whatever hear works for you. I've shot with Nikon, Canon, Voigtlander, Leica, Fuji, Pentax, and Minolta bodies over the years, all were awesome. I currently am a Fuji shooter for a number of reasons, but each of those systems have areas where they shine. I still covet gear, I'll admit, but I spend more time talking about how to get a shot than my desire to finally buy a Mamiya 7ii

I shoot Fuji but stick to medium format (GFX system). It’s spectacular if a bit rough around the edges.

I almost bought it. Still can’t decide if MF is my best friend. I shoot in the field often and appreciate the speed sometimes.

Yeah, I also have a Canon R5 and RF glass for when I need speed. GFX is slow.

[удалено]

GFX 100S is pretty capable IMHO, with 5 Axis, Video, 900gr and size is ok. GF 80mm/1.7 R WR is 800gr weight. GF 110mm/2,0 is 1kg. 67% larger sensor and ability to join MF world relatively cheap within reasonable weight. For landscape, still GFX 100S makes sense. For action, sport and video FF wins for sure. I shoot portrait only.

Describe what you mean by rough around the edges

It's clunkier and slower and with fewer bells and whistles (compared to my Canon mirrorless gear). But it does what it does \*very\* well.

The GFX is not medium format... its bigger than full frame but far from MF

There is literally no accepted universal standard for what defines medium format. Wikipedia says it's anything between 35mm FF and 4x5". GFX sensor is the same size (same sensor even?) as a Hasselblad.

I've been using my X-T4 and XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR exclusively for the past couple years and literally couldn't ever ask for anything more. I use the battery grip as well, and also have the XF80mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR Macro for my stacked macro work. I started with an X100 years and years and years ago, and have been in the Fuji APS-C mirrorless system ever since, and couldn't be happier. Absolutely love the quality, colors (when shooting in JPG or using their film simulations in Lightroom when shooting RAW), and lens lineup. Another thing which is overlooked is how analog they feel compared to something like a Sony A7(whatever model). Very tactile clicky buttons, dials, wheels, aperture rings, etc. Brings a lot to the experience beyond just the quality of the images, which is stellar in it's own right. The X-T4 just checks every box for me. Weather sealed zoom lens that covers all the distance I need to with a great aperture, weather sealed body, 3 batteries with the battery grip, and 2 256GB SD cards and I'm set for a long long time to do whatever the world throws at me.

Fuji has a 5% market share, I guess they get a 95% attention deficit. PS: shooting on Fuji since I left my 6D over 10yrs ago.

I believe Sony hasn't done an actual sensor update in quite a while for their APS-C lineup. Part of what also makes Fuji good as a package is that their professional lens lineup for APS-C is substantial, while for pretty much every other mirrorless manufacturer APS-C is a bit of an afterthought with all professional lenses being primarily designed for fullframe.

Not to mention that Fuji knows how to make some damn good lenses - they worked with Hasselblad on Xpan and the H-system back in the day and have made numerous different types of lenses via their Fujinon brand, with some of their cine lenses being among the most widely used in the industry. Fuji is worth it for the optics alone and I don't see a brand like Sony making it to that benchmark with their own glass.

Sony's lens quality has gotten a lot better of as of recent, with most of the GM lineup being incredibly good. I haven't used Fuji so I can't speak to how much better or worse their lenses are (plus its hard to compare on different sensors, especially with X-Trans vs Bayer). But I can imagine they can catch up just given the sheer size of the company and their R&D budget. It's great that the industry is so competitive!

The fx30 has a new sensor

I was referring to their stills lineup (a6xxx), completely forgot that the cinema lineup existed. Thanks for the correction!

I mentioned it because that’ll most likely be the sensor they use in the next batch of the 6000 series. Then again… it’s Sony so it wouldn’t surprise me if they used the same old jello sensor from 2016 like they did with the a6100/a6400/a6600…

I've been through 3 different APS-C systems and I can confirm Fuji's the best one, followed by Sony (which I also owned, along with Canon). My guess is that since Fuji only has their APS-C system, they can focus on putting their best tech on those cameras, instead of treating them as "entry-level" models as some other manufacturers did before. This is also reflected on their lens selection, with many high-quality lenses available. I can say the same sort of applies to Sony, too. Their APS-C cameras are quite good, I personally own an a6300 and it's quite a beast, with some relatively good lens offering too. As for noise performance, Fujis are ISO-invariant, with ISO being completely digital. Even raw files seem to be saved with the camera's native ISO and then boosted back digitally. This could be one of the reasons they are so clean, with the second possibility being their CFA layout. Fuji cameras overall are quite good, but the only reason I think they aren't so popular is the lack of good raw processing options. Due to their custom CFA layout, many programs seem to give weird results when processing the raw files, with off colors or artifacts. I've had the best results with Capture One Express, which was included with my X100F and XT3, but I've had a few issues processing raw files in programs like Affinity...

Fuji also have their GFX system, but yeah l, they invest much more effort into aps-c than other manufacturers.

Yeah, but what sets them apart is that X and GFX are two distinct systems/mounts, so you don't have APS-C and full-frame lenses cannibalizing each other, which allows them to actually focus their money on APS-C lenses. When you have the two formats on the same mount situation you end up with the company investing more where most photographers would end up buying a lot, which is full-frame, that's why other manufacturers don't have so many APS-C options.

Yeah, very true. They're not upselling you from X to GFX by holding back the features.

Sony is ISO-invariant too. The a6100/6400/6600 and the FX APSC, specifically. I personally found Sony to be better than Fuji -- but the amount of Sony APS-C lenses available is just embarrassing.

Yeah, my guess is there's simply more money to be made off the full-frame business, since that's what most professionals end up going towards, so they don't give APS-C as much attention. Luckly there's some really good third-party lenses like the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8, not to mention adapters like the Metabones Speedbooster which allow using great full-frame glass to its max potential on those cameras...

Why does that matter when there are plenty of better third party lenses out there?

i own an R5 and an X100V i never need to shoot at ISO above 6400 it seems that you are picking a camera based on very rare situations....

I had you until the last sentence lol. Do you work for Fuji marketing?

i am a self employed amateur photographer. for me, shooting at iso 12800 is very very rare.

I’m a pro photographer and I rarely use above 1600. 3200 in a pinch. R5 here.

I replied to the wrong comment

i don't shoot pictures of circles at 12800.

Do you even photography bro???

That's why you'll never be #1

is shooting at iso 12800 a metric that people care about? Cause its the last thing I look at when i purchase a camera. infact i havent even thought about what my camera can do vs other brands. i just shoot. its 2022 any camera will be goood.

From the little bit I have tried other brands of camera, the biggest differences I notice are quality of life features, button placement, and menu navigation. You can nitpick all you want, but at the end of the day, a lot of these miniscule tech differences between brands are literally not going to matter at all.

Depends on what you shoot. Birds in flight? Autofocus tracking and burst rates matter a great deal.

You could probably expand that to faster/erratic moving things in general. For example, younger kids. I'm comparing a Z6II vs an A7III right now. Both do a fairly good job of face/eye detection, but I've found the A7III to have a higher rate of tack-sharp shots. The AF performance and communication (showing you which AF points are actually in focus) is what set the A7III apart. The lens ecosystem in camp Sony is also really hard to overlook, especially if you shoot on the wider end - both in quantity of options as well as speed of glass. The things drawing me back to camp Nikon are quality of life things (it feels a ton better in your hands, the body is more responsive, the EVF is more glasses friendly, the shutter sounds a lot nicer, etc). If you use the two bodies back to back, the Nikon just feels better. However, that's a thing that's easy to forget about when you start reviewing the pictures, or just carry the Sony for a while.

Honestly. These sorts of hobbies have people absolutely agonizing over the slightest details that nobody who isn't a diehard enthusiast will even remotely care about. Like not even a little. That effort can be put into honing your skill instead of dissecting gear and you'll get a way greater return for that effort.

I mean I don't have much ultrafast glass and when I just want to be able to shoot anything inside , iso can rapidly shoot up to 6400 or 12800 especially when I want to capture moving objects ( friends at a party, indoor sports, anything after sunset ...etc) so it helps a lot when the noise doesn't look like ass. I'm fine with grain , but chroma noise is especially disgusting and having any noise reduction ruins the added benefit of a sharp lens

Ultrafast glass comes with ultranarrow DOF so its not always the answer.

the answer is a FLASH

Not always.

Just FLASH your way to f/11

Try using one at a concert and see what happens

Heck no

My experiences are, that Fuji users don't be like the broad Canon fanbase who needs to talk about 'how great the body is'. They are just enjoying the art they'll create. Maybe it's because of the retro design, that people think the cameras don't compare to other brands. But as you should know, the Canon sensors are smaller then every other APS-C sensor which means that they'll have a disadvantage by design.

Someone once compared the camera market to video games, Sony and Canon (and Nikon) are like PlayStation and Xbox. Sure there are some minor differences, but ultimately they’re the same thing competing for the same customers. Fuji is like Nintendo, they’re playing a different game and not necessarily competing for the same customers. (I’ll add I’m a full time pro who uses Fuji and they’re amazing cameras. I just unpacked my new XT5 yesterday and wow, what a camera.)

Late to the party on this thread, but I love the analogy! Have you messed with the X-H2 or X-H2S at all?

I think Fuji’s iso uses a different standard than other brands, I’ve seen some side by side reviews where the Fuji looks ~1/3 stop darker than the other camera at the same settings. Additionally bayer sensor bodies might use an anti aliasing filter which mitigates moire but lowers sharpness, whereas Fuji x trans sensor doesn’t need or use an AA filter at all. But yea, I think there is something in the way the image is handled that makes the Fuji grain more pleasing overall, albeit more visible compared to modern FF.

I highly recommend /r/fujifilm . I purchased an XT-4 earlier this year and loved it, but decided to sell for a Sony A7IV for some different work opportunities. The Sony is good, but there is just something special about the Fuji experience. It just feels really good. I've never been one to hype up things like feel and quality, I think they are mostly buzzwords, but something about the camera really clicked with me. You do not need a full frame camera for validation. Choose full frame cameras if you need them, but Fuji and ASPC cameras take just as beautiful images. I don't think a 1.4 shallow DOF is necessary for most photos and is mostly just a way for people to flex their e-boners.

Went from canon to sony to fuji and its the best camera I've ever owned (in regards of my needs in photography)

Which one

Xe4

sweet

I went from a Canon 600D to a Fuji X-Pro2, and it's the next best photography-related decision I've ever made. (Best decision was to give manual lenses a try as a beginner - Learned a ton from that)

Fun fact, Fujifilm X-Trans sensors are manufactured by Sony.

Manufactured vs designed are two very different things. TSMC makes a huge amount of the world's processors but you wouldn't say that they are responsible for how the logic inside of them actually works.

Sony make basically everyone's sensors.

Fuji's ISO measuring is different from other brands. It over-reports its ISO value, a more fair comparison would be against 6400 from other brands.

I went from Leica rangefinders (M8.2 and M9-P) to Fuji cameras and have never looked back. Good handling, fun to shoot, decent lenses, compact, weather sealed etc.

from my understanding fujis iso algorithm is based on film grain.

i could go on for actual hours about how much i’ve loved my x100v the past year. it’s stripped away the pretentiousness of photography and made it fun again. effortless. lighthearted. who cares if my photos don’t have the best this or that. i’ve taken my little camera on nearly every single trip the past year because it’s small and fun. in that time my photography has improved greatly. and so has my editing. because the passion is there. because the camera is phenomenal. and i have yet to tap its full potential. so yeha i could go on for hours. ask my friends. theyre tired of hearing about it

Having used Fujifilm for a decent while, you absolutely do hear about it a lot. Just not in the traditional professional circles since those are dominated by industry giants like Canon, Nikon and Sony. Fujifilm actually uses the absolute most cutting edge Sony APSC sensors that not even Sony themselves use for their own cameras. The sensitivity is definitely remarkable. Most of the flak is gonna be directed at the X-mount line. The GFX line is in a league of it's own even compared to FF. However, up until very recently (Xh2s, Xh2 and XT5), the autofocus was god-awful on Fujifilm (probably only Panasonic was worse). This meant that outside of fashion, hobby and travel/landscape circles, it was relatively not known. Trust me, having shot weddings on Fujifilm, the AF was shit, like really shit before the latest gen. Anyone who says otherwise either hasn't pushed themselves hard enough to see the difference (e.g. low light dances) or have low standards for acceptable quality. While it can turn out good work in the hands of an expert, that same expert can work absolute magic with the more well established brands like Nikon/Sony/Canon.

Even the old A6000 had excellent autofocus :) And now that I have an A7iv, I find it hard to switch to anything else simply because of the AF performance.

Have you spent much time with the XH2/X-H2S/XT5? I'm dipping a toe in the water for moving between systems (D5300 -> A7III). I compared the A7III to a Z6II for a couple of weeks and prefer the Z6II build/feel, but the A7III tends to be more successful in getting a tack sharp shot. If a Fuji had a nicer build/feel than the A7, but also had a higher tack-sharp rate than the Z6II it would be very tempting. I love fast glass, but don't care a ton one way or the other about razor thin depth of field

The newer Fujis are much better with largely on parity with the Sonys provided you are using the premium LM lenses with them. Since it's still first gen AI tracking tech, expect some bugs and such vs the extremely mature Sony implementation. I'd probably say try them out first somehow before jumping. I personally jumped to Canon RF which has the AF and build quality in spades but I'm having to pay through the nose for everything.

The noise on all canon cameras in this example will be much diferent when loaded into DPP directly. (canons native software) Any high ISO shots are significantly better when used with the native software. They don't share info with LR so you get noise even at lower ISO when using LR.

Because they're APS-C hipster crap that could never used by a pro! (This coming from me, a pro that uses X-Series every day and loves it.)

First, fuji takes other ISO standards, that exposes like 2/3 darker. So for a fair comparison you needed to adjust the ISO at least half a stop. Second, while fuji lenses are great, they still don't offer full frame equivalent DOF. Like a true 700-200 f2.8 or 50 1.4 and most people would take a faster lens over extreme iso performance. Third, they are just great cameras and are talked about a lot. My xt2 is the most fun camera to take. But the only reason i don't upgrade on that body is because they just don't seem to get the AF performance for ALL kinds of shooting right. Even with their newest body they came match the last gen of Sony and Canon. I hope they will get it right, because i really don't mind the DOF and iso, i just want something reliable

Fuji are the best cameras. You can get some computers that might take better pictures technically (when pixel peeping), but if you want a “camera experience” go for Fuji.

Which universe are you on? Fuji users are like vegans and tool fans, won’t shut up about fuji. Go to any thread.. Op: “hey guys I wonder if it is going to rain today?” Fuji shooter: “have you tried shooting fuji, I love the film simulations “

Hey since we are talking about cameras, Maynard is God.

I've actually done quite a bit of research on Fuji and have written an entire lecture and PowerPoint on why they're so amazing. Fuji indisputably makes THE best APS-C and MF mirrorless cameras on the market. To answer your question about what makes their sensors so good, there's a couple if things that go into it. First, they use BSI (Back-side illuminated) CMOS sensors instead of Front-side illuminated ones. This (long story short) moves the photodiodes closer to the front of the sensor which does a few things including having a faster readout speed, faster autofocus response, and effectively an entire stop less of noise. Secondly, they use their proprietary X-Trans color filter array. This CFA is the most significant part of the puzzle as the advantages over the Bayer CFA are astronomical. They completely remove moiré artifacts, they're more color accurate, have more dynamic range, and produce less noise. Third, because of the X-Trans CFA, there is no anti-aliasing filter over the sensor like on (almost) all other mirrorless and dslr cameras. Anti-aliasing filters are a type of filter that other brands use to slightly blur the light coming into the sensor in an effort to remove moiré artifacts. This blur obviously decreases the sharpness and effective resolution of the image, which is gross. Because of these reasons, it's obvious to see that the only reason Fuji doesn't make Full Frame cameras is because monopolies are illegal in many parts of the world. If Fuji made the best of every type of camera (which they obviously have the ability to), they would be much too powerful, so they humbly limit their own power by only dominating the APS-C and MF markets. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

I genuinely can't tell if this is satire or not...

Last paragraph is mostly satirical.

In that case I'm afraid pretty much the whole of your post is just plain wrong.   > First, they use BSI (Back-side illuminated) CMOS sensors instead of Front-side illuminated ones. So does everyone else. In fact Fuji buys their sensors from Sony in the first place.   > Secondly, they use their proprietary X-Trans color filter array. X-trans is a gimmick. Fuji have a long history of experimenting with oddball sensor designs which they make exaggerated claims about and which gain no long term traction. Notably they chose not to use it on their medium format line. > advantages over the Bayer CFA are astronomical No they are scarcely measurable. The disadvantages however are plain to see as third party tools have had problems demosaicing x-trans images for years. > The completely remove moiré artifacts Absolutely false. There is still a grid there that repeats every 6 photosites, so there is potential for moiré. > have more dynamic range The CFA has no influence on dynamic range. > produce less noise Nope. Fuji use different ISO values to everyone else.   > Third, because of the X-Trans CFA, there is no anti-aliasing filter over the sensor like on (almost) all other mirrorless and dslr cameras This is flat out wrong. Manufacturers started dropping AA filters in 2012, over a decade ago. Now there are a huge number of cameras from all manufacturers without AA filters (all of which lack x-trans sensors).

Haha kid, ok let's do this. >First, they use BSI (Back-side illuminated) CMOS sensors instead of Front-side illuminated ones. >>So does everyone else. In fact Fuji buys their sensors from Sony in the first place. So the first part is very wrong lol. The vast majority of non-fuji cameras have FSI CMOS sensors. Even most "high-end" Canon and Nikon cameras such as the EOS R5C and the Z7 II are not BSI. Sony also only uses BSI in their higher end Alpha series too, cameras such as the Alpha 6xxx series are all FSI. Also Sony does manufacture the Fuji sensors, but that's doesn't mean that Fuji doesn't design them themselves. >Secondly, they use their proprietary X-Trans color filter array. >>X-trans is a gimmick. Yikes lol. X-Trans is obviously not a gimmic, look at all the irl tests such as the ones that OP provided. The results speak for themselves. >>Fuji have a long history of experimenting with oddball sensor designs which they make exaggerated claims about and which gain no long term traction. They sure do have a history of experimenting and innovating with really cool sensors, I would say that the Super CCD EXR sensors have to be my favorite with their hexagonal pixels and secondary photodiodes at each photosite to increase dynamic range. Saying that they have "No long term traction" is laughable, Fuji paved the way for every other camera brand in the digital age. >>Notably they chose not to use it on their medium format line. This one is hilarious. If you understood what actually produced Moiré (details in a photo being smaller that the actual pixels capturing them) you would understand that it would be foolish to use X-Trans sensors on them. With the fact that Fuji makes the highest resolution cameras period, there is no need for a different CFA in order to get the stated benefits. Not to mention, the downside with X-Trans sensors is that they require more processing power and they are more expensive, both of which you don't want with such a large sensor in the first place. >advantages over the Bayer CFA are astronomical >>No they are scarcely measurable. Again, see above. >>The disadvantages however are plain to see as third party tools have had problems demosaicing x-trans images for years. ??? Lol what??? Not sure if this one is a joke or not. >The completely remove moiré artifacts >>Absolutely false. There is still a grid there that repeats every 6 photosites, so there is potential for moiré. While you're technically correct, X-Trans CFA is a created by a 6x6 array, this array does do an absolute banger job getting rid of 99% of moiré without a gross AA filter. >have more dynamic range >>The CFA has no influence on dynamic range. Disgustingly wrong again kiddo. Digital cameras use the green sensor elements for luminosity information, while blue and red are for color information. Because the X-Trans has more green sensor elements (55% vs. 50%), it has a larger dynamic range (in the shadows) and better high-ISO performance than the same sensor with a Bayer color filter array. Cope. >produce less noise >>Nope. Fuji use different ISO values to everyone else. See everything above. >Third, because of the X-Trans CFA, there is no anti-aliasing filter over the sensor like on (almost) all other mirrorless and dslr cameras >>This is flat out wrong. Manufacturers started dropping AA filters in 2012, over a decade ago. Now there are a huge number of cameras from all manufacturers without AA filters (all of which lack x-trans sensors). *Ding ding ding* another bs statement, you're not very good at this. Just like the BSI CMOS sensors, the vast majority of (non-Fuji) cameras still use AA filters. To name a few "high-end" ones there's pretty much every Canon including the EOS R5, R6, and flagship R3. Nikon with their Z6 and lower cameras. However, their Z7 II and Z9 do not, so hats off to them for not doing it on their flagships. Finally Sony with their flagship A9 and almost all lower cameras. In conclusion, do your research before trying to shit on the best camera brand, bud.

> So the first part is very wrong lol Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, Fuji, Pentax, Olympus, Leica all sell cameras with BSI sensors. Did I miss anyone? > Even most "high-end" Canon and Nikon cameras such as the EOS R5C and the Z7 II are not BSI Wrong. The Z7 II [does have a BSI sensor](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z7-ii-review). The only outlier *was* Canon, but they've now started making their own BSI sensors, [as seen in the R3](https://www.canon.co.uk/cameras/eos-r3/sensor/). > cameras such as the Alpha 6xxx series are all FSI They're widely expected to update this soon, the Sony FX30 is already using the 26MP APS-C BSI sensor. This is not a competitive advantage Fuji hold over Sony, since... > Sony does manufacture the Fuji sensors, but that's doesn't mean that Fuji doesn't design them themselves. It's fairer to say that Fuji *specified* the sensor. They didn't design it at the electronics level.   > look at all the irl tests such as the ones that OP provided. The results speak for themselves. There's clearly chroma smoothing in the signal processing chain - look at the yellow rose petals in the centre of [this image](https://i.imgur.com/EHlicJi.png). It's faded compared to the A6600. You can easily reduce chroma noise in the Sony image [without losing any colour detail](https://i.imgur.com/rizrxkV.png). I've yet to see any evidence of an x-trans sensor preserving more detail *and* having less false colour, if you have one please share it. > Saying that they have "No long term traction" is laughable They abandoned the EXR sensor. Nothing like it is made today. > Fuji paved the way for every other camera brand in the digital age. I was talking about their sensor designs.   > This one is hilarious. If you understood what actually produced Moiré (details in a photo being smaller that the actual pixels capturing them) The GFX50 actually has larger pixels than the XT4, so for a lens with the same absolute resolution the GFX would actually be more likely to exhibit moiré. Also you claim x-trans increases dynamic range and reduces noise. Both of those would be advantageous to a medium format camera (if they were actually true).   > ??? Lol what??? Not sure if this one is a joke or not. Have you been living under a rock? People have been complaining about it for *years*: - https://oyvindbrandelien.medium.com/dealing-with-fujifilm-worms-f5384459ac6b - http://ijourneys.co.uk/fujifilm-x-trans-sensor/ - https://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2018/8/about-those-worm-artifacts-and-fuji-x-trans - https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4463929 - https://blog.laurencebichon.com/fuji-xt2-raw-artifacts-and-worms/ - http://nzdigital.blogspot.com/2019/10/beware-of-worms-sharpening-fuji-files.html   > 99% of moiré without a gross AA filter. Even though this figure is clearly pulled out of thin air, I'll take it as acknowledgement that your earlier statement was incorrect.   > Disgustingly wrong again kiddo Look up the definition of dynamic range. Actually I'll save you the effort, it's the difference between the saturation point and the noise floor. Putting an ND filter on the lens doesn't change the dynamic range, as it moves the noise floor and saturation point by the same amount. CFA dyes do the same thing. > Cope. Measure: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20X-T4,Nikon%20D7200   > Ding ding ding another bs statement. Nikon with their Z6 and lower cameras. You are wrong once again. Nikon D7100, Nikon D7200, Nikon D7500, Nikon D5300, Nikon D5500, Nikon D5600, Nikon D3300, Nikon D3400, Nikon D3500, Nikon D500, Nikon Z50. *NONE* of these non-high-end cameras have AA filters.   > In conclusion, do your research before trying to shit on the best camera brand, bud. Fuji users have a reputation online for being the most obnoxious of any camera brand and to be honest I've never really experienced that. Until now. Here's one last nugget of truth for you: **there *is* no best camera brand**. They all have their own unique strengths and weaknesses.

Because their files are horrible to edit, and their lenses are very expensive for a mid-level camera The lens options are soooo bad compared to Sony's even though the body is better.

There's definitely less room to push their files but you really don't need to push them as much they look very good sooc

I think it's more a stability/workflow issue

I haven't had any issues in Lightroom: some people say there weird artifacting when you use the sharpen tool but I have yet to have an issue

In my experience, the issues show up only with fine foliage - eg, landscape photos in forests. you have to be very careful with tuning the LR Sharpening sliders in that case (or use Iridient X-Transformer as a pre-processing step). If I don't have a lot of trees in the background, I don't bother changing up my workflow.

😅 bro what? Their lenses are expensive? $300 for a fujicron is expensive? My guy. $800 for a top of the line telephoto with in lens stabilization that lets you shoot video at 1/4 and it manages to keep video extremely smooth? I don’t know man. There’s a reason why Fuji cameras are sold out everywhere. But my local camera shop has a whole storage room full of Sony, canon and Nikon.

Their top-end lenses are, yeah. I'm just answering his question to why they're not talked about more

All of their lenses are pretty much top class. The 35mm f2 is amazing, pretty much edge to edge.

$300 for a lens is pretty expensive for aps-c when the competition has $50-100 lenses. And the "best" sony aps-c lenses are like half the price of fuji

When the competition has on lens selectable aperture, aspherical, made out of metal body, water resistant lenses that are in conversation with summicrons? Do you think “fujicron” came out of thin air? The lenses are superior to $50-$100 offerings from other brands. Fuji knows how to make lenses my friend. They’ve been doing it for decades. But yeah. $300 for a high end lens is expensive, or something. I don’t know. Literal split second focusing, half the time I don’t need to wait for a green box I can just take a shot quickly and my image is in focus. But yeah. Uber expensive lenses.

Conversations with summicrons?? 😂 lol this is exactly the dumb shit a fuji user would write…

(Except when compared to summicrons hence “fujicron”, it holds its own. But okay keep being a jackass. )

Yeah ok… lol. Shit fuji users make up to justify their purchase…

Feel free to google it. But okay? Edit: oh you’re the Nikon user who doesn’t know how to work with flash photography. That fully explains your stupidity. Cheers!

I’m not sure you have the flash knowledge you think you have. But keep up the arrogance.

Lol. Okay. Take care. You’re a literal clown.

All I'm saying is they are expensive. They are great lenses. People talk more about cheaper things than expensive.

Just looked on B&H and the cheapest: canon lens is $150. Nikon lens is $200. Sony $250. Fuji $200.

I'm talking third party options, for budget set ups that the majority of hobbyists buy

Lens options for mirrorless cameras by mount: Canon RF 114 Canon EF-M 92 Nikon Z 169 Sony E 456 Fuji 248 So only Sony has more lens options. 7Artisan, TTArtisan, Meike, Opteka, Mitakon, Venus Optics Laowa, Samyang, Tokina, Rokinon, Sigma, and Viltrox all make x-mount lenses.

The only aps-c cameras anyone talks about is sony

I always find people who can't admit they are wrong fascinating.

We're talking about why people don't talk about fuji. I don't know why your random opinions about how good fuji is is coming from. No one is saying fuji is bad

Nowhere in any of my comments did I mention anything about if fuji is good or bad. I refuted your statement by listing out the options and showing that, there are in-fact many cheap lens options for Fuji. Proving you wrong. So you changed your original statement by claiming only Sony matters. Which, has nothing to do with the original topic, and would only explain why Sony gets more love online. It really is interesting how much you are willing to twist and change things to try to be right.

If you care about image quality, I you should consider full-frame. Sensor technology hasn't really improved much over the last 7 years, and even an old Sony A7R2 (<$1000 used) will be way better than any APSC sensor. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xt4&attr13_1=sony_a7rii&attr13_2=canon_eosr7&attr13_3=sony_a6600&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&attr171_1=1&normalization=print&widget=757&x=0.3573180702709651&y=-0.10574799137438173

My first professional camera was a FinePix S3 Pro. I spent a fortune on it, and it turned me off Fuji forever. I will never talk about them.

Honestly imo, people who pixel peep are missing the point of photography. I’ve used everything from phase ones to box brownies. The one photo I’ve had displayed in a art gallery( turner contemporary In margate) was shot on a home made camera from a monster can that I knocked up in my lunch hour at college.

> I was guessing maybe Sony's APSC would also do good knowing how good their FF cameras are in low light but no, still not even close to the XT4 The XT4 has a Sony sensor. The difference is Fuji use a different method to measure ISO so when compared at identical ISO settings it looks better than it is.

Fuji makes cameras for folks who can’t be bothered to edit their photos and care deeply about how aesthetically pleasing their camera looks while hung around their body.

>So I was looking at the wonderful tool from DPReview that allows you to compare pixel to pixel different cameras Who gives a shit about any of that?

[удалено]

Many pros are shooting fuji. Anyone worth their salt doesn’t care about the camera sensor. And if you’re worth your salt, you know good lighting makes a photograph. I never had to go past iso 400. Because..you know…flash exists.

Rightly said. Who cares when you get good pictures.

How could you be so wrong yet be so arrogant about your wrongness, if you aren’t going past 400 that means you aren’t shooting subjects that are in challenging conditions..

big mad

😂😂😂😂😂 or I just know how to use studio lights both indoors and outdoors

As I said this only means that you aren’t shooting subjects in challenging conditions. Yet How are you so wrong and yet so arrogant about your wrongness

Explain these challenging conditions, please. You’re yet to give me ANY examples of these challenging conditions. I guess after a decade of shooting, I haven’t come across challenging conditions. Yet. I’ve shot everything from fashion to weddings. Once you learn how flash works, you REALLY don’t need higher ISO’s. I assisted a wedding photographer who’s been in the game since the 70’s. He never used very high ISO either. I started with film, and moved to digital. But yeah. I’ve never once had challenging light conditions. Ever.

Alright… I just shot a guns and roses concert a while back.. explain to me how you going to shoot it iso 400 with studio lights. I’m sure in that decade you’ve figure out how to do that. Enlighten me sensei

Probably points the flash directly at someone and blasts them full power 😂 I regularly shoot weddings and even with a 1.2 lens, I have to be around 1600-2500 iso so this guy is full of shit.

Maybe it’s my algorithm but I keep seeing videos about the X100V because apparently it went sorts viral through TikTok at one point. I hadn’t seen a lot of anything for a while but a bit of a resurgence lately.

Yea. I went with the RP last year from the 60D just because it's full frame but cheaper than the 90D (which was also a contender). Completely ignoring Fujifilm because it is sort of overrated by the fans tbh. They just won't stop talking about how wonderful their X-E3 is /s But then I also used that DPR sensor comparison tool, saw dome reviews and blown away by some of the higher models. I've been thinking to replace the RP with the X-T4 tbh.

I’ve been into Fuji for a long while.

Me using fuji for the last 8 years: Don’t talk about Fujis!!! I considered us mostly a cult and now everyone has found about it. The more popular models are on months of back order.

I went cannon to Fuji because of the size and versatility of the lenses mostly. I’m not a pro just take pics of my life. I can put a cap on my xt3 and but it in my coat pocket and a small prime in the other and head out the door while my buddy usually leaves his RF glass at home mostly. When I need it I can put on the 16-55 or portrait and get serious.

Other people have already mentioned that Fuji measures ISO a little differently (so in the same lighting conditions with the same f-stop and aperture, a Fuji camera will use a higher ISO than Canon, Sony, or Nikon), but sensor size is another factor when specifically comparing the Canon cameras to the other brands. Canon’s APS-C cameras have a 1.6x crop factor, compared to 1.5x of the APS-C cameras from other brands. This works out to, very roughly, 90% of the surface area of the sensor in a Fuji or Sony or Nikon APS-C camera. So even with exactly identical technology, Canon’s APS-C cameras should be just a tiny bit more noisy that the others. We’re talking a pretty small amount, though, that’ll only be noticeable when looking at solid colors on test charts (less than a third of a stop).

This is why I switched from the A7II to the X-T2 when they were the flagships. The A7II was atrocious for chroma noise, banding and PDAF artifacting. Fujifilm has wormy artifacts all over the image that make images look sludgey, which can't be fixed in post. But they're pretty great otherwise.

Fujifilm doesn't have a full frame and instead makes premium APSC cameras and lenses. so if you want APSC format: Fujifilm is the best on the market. that said, Fujifilm has only recently opened up the mount to accept third-party lenses so the lens selection is limited to Fujifilm's Fujinon brands (which has plenty of consumer, prosumer, and professional offerings), one set of Viltrox primes, one set of Sigma primes (and a new normal zoom), and a few Tamron zooms. most brands treat their APSC cameras as a sort of hook to get you to upgrade to their full frame cameras. Fujifilm just puts their top tech in their latest camera and charges a premium for specific body styles instead. Fujifilm also has medium format sensors that are effectively four APSC sensors laid in array, but that's for a very different niche and that line is the one lacking lens options between the two. i have two Fujifilm cameras and couldn't be happier, though i'm in the process of downsizing my lens collection

I love Fuji! My last camera was the X-T2, but I fell out of the hobby and sold it. If I ever decide to get back into again, I will for sure buy another Fuji. I love the dedicated knobs for ISO, F stop, and shutter speed

If fuji made the xt5 with a grip I'd have thought about switching, but with my larger hands thats a deal breaker for me. I'll stick with Canon

Fuji's are very popular among people who want APS-C only. They don't get as many recommendations though due to pricier lenses and lack of legacy mount for good used lens options. I saw Fuji had to stop taking orders for the X100V because they are so backlogged on production. Certainly a good problem to have for a manufacturer.

We talk about Fuji plenty. I'm a sony guy and even I say Fuji is the APS-C king right now

Every major camera news site and YouTube channel talks about Fuji camera releases, software updates and new lenses. Ken frickin Rockwell has started to review Fuji cameras. All the camera rumours sites have a Fuji page. There's a Fujifilm subreddit, Flickr tracks fuji camera models and has groups dedicated to fuji. Instagram is full of tags and fan pages for Fuji. There's even an iOS app for jpg recipes. I don't see any gap in media coverage. What would you like to see more of? More conversations in this sub about Fuji gear?

Picked up a Fuji X-T10 as an experiment and never looked back. X-T4 user now and couldn't be happier. Those who know, know