• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Fujifilm announcements ...


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,353 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 07 September 2017 - 10:22 AM

The long awaited medium tele macro - XF 80mm f/2.8 R LM OIS WR macro

http://fujifilm-x.co...m-ois-wr-macro/

 

The X-E3

http://fujifilm-x.com/cameras/x-e3/

 

And a new medium format lens 45mm f/2.8:

http://www.fujifilm....n170907_04.html

 


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#2 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,663 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 07 September 2017 - 11:25 AM

A nice lens for the system, 45mm f2.8. That is equivalent to a 36mm f2.2 lens on FF. With 11 elements not a lightweight (490 grams) eventhough Fuji claims that, the equivalent Canon EF 35mm f2 IS USM (10 elements) weighing in at 335 grams, the equivalent Nikkor AF-S 35mm f1.8 (11 elements) weighing in at 305 grams and the equivalent Tamron SP 35mm f1.8 VC USD (10 elements) weighing in at 480 grams. And that with the Fuji not having a mirrorbox to consider in the design.



#3 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,663 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 07 September 2017 - 11:38 AM

So the 45mm f2.8 is not lightweight. The Fuji marketing department says the 80mm macro has "high resolving power at the focus point and beautiful bokeh", and they post two images which show it NOT to have beautiful bokeh. 



#4 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 07 September 2017 - 11:43 AM

The Macro appears to be a cool product. I don't agree fully to "beautiful bokeh", but sharpness and bokeh are not exactly friends together.

 

The E3 however - if someone has a better idea than my "yaawwwn", please let it out :)



#5 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,353 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 07 September 2017 - 11:45 AM

I've to admit that the differentiation in the Fujifilm X-camera lineup is a bit unclear to me.

In terms of AF performance and image quality - is there any difference between the X-Pro2/T2/T20/E3 ?

Of course, there are differences (viewfinder, weather-sealing, shutter) but why should I go for the top models really? It's like gaining 10-20% over the T20/E3.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#6 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 07 September 2017 - 12:11 PM

...and the bottom (opposite of top)-models come with a touchscreen. Do you think, Fuji has also an idea of "top-models" or flaships? Somehow I think, not. One who wants a touchscreen and an optical viewfinder (for whatever reasons) has no model, one who wants fast speed and a toucscreen, the same. I had much higher expectations for the X-T2, when I look back. thxbb12 already tried to convince me of getting an X-T10 over an X-T1.

 

If someone whould ask me which one to choose, I'd shrug. My advice would be "try to rent what you have in mind" - specs are one thing but getting them to work another.



#7 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,353 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 07 September 2017 - 12:22 PM

Well, from a pricing perspective Fuji has clearly a 3 level strategy:

- X-A3

- T-20/E-3

- T-2/X-Pro 2

 

The A3 is different at least but the rest ...

 

I'd probably go for the T-20 in this system.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#8 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 07 September 2017 - 12:42 PM

I think, it's the best value for money. Missed features everybody else has (like user setttings, more flexibility to dedicate functions to Fn-buttons, remote app which just sucks, no GPS, big fight between software options an hardware dials and switches, mostly useless front-dial) are the same for all Fujis in all price regions.



#9 giulio

giulio

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 07 September 2017 - 01:08 PM

I've to admit that the differentiation in the Fujifilm X-camera lineup is a bit unclear to me.

In terms of AF performance and image quality - is there any difference between the X-Pro2/T2/T20/E3 ?

Of course, there are differences (viewfinder, weather-sealing, shutter) but why should I go for the top models really? It's like gaining 10-20% over the T20/E3.

 

The evf is 0.5 inches on the T2, and 0.39 in the E3 and T20, that makes imho quite a big difference, together with the tilting lcd.

 

I don't like that much the X-E3, at least on paper, with less direct controls than XE2 (iso and wb for example only with touch or with the Q button), no tiltable lcd and no integrated flash.

 

And also i'm starting to have doubts with Fuji sensors and dust... just gained a dust spot that seems not cleanable on my X-M1 that otherwise i consider a good camera and a great one for the price, seems sandwiched between the sensor and the filter :( . I've read also many XE2 had this problem...

 

And another thing i don't like that much is the sync speed only 1/180s, but maybe faster in real world (i have tried my x-m1 goes iirc to 1/200s or even 1/250s), and limited exposure bracketing.



#10 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 07 September 2017 - 01:15 PM

1/180 or 1/250, at some point it's always time to consider highspeed sync, no?

 

To me, my X-E2 came around 500€ per piece. The new one - in my eyes - doesn't justify double price.



#11 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 07 September 2017 - 04:42 PM

Although Fuji fanboys over at Fuji rumours are drooling like hell about these lenses - I would not think about getting one.

 

Fuji mirrorless is a nice concept and benefits a lot of not much weight and compact size. But for ultra-wide angle it is the wrong concept, the lens will cost a fortune and it still remains APS-C. Personal preference, but the wider the angle the bigger and better the sensor - otherwise I feel pictures lacking of detail.

 

And this monster 200/2... I'm already afraid with the 100-400 when I hold the camera down to do some setup or only check the playback button. I'm afraid it will wear the little mount. Maybe not rip it out of the camera, but ... well, not a great feeling in my gutts.

 

Why didn't they do a lens like the 300/4 PF E from Nikon. I just checked, it's about half the weight of the 100-400 (755 vs. 1375 grams). This 200/2... well, the Nikon FF verison has just about 3 kg - and then there's a big body behind with a good grip - while the tiny Fuji bodies just look out of place.

 

While I was cross-checking some prices, weights and sizes, I found kind of a surprising value: A Fuji X-T2 with a 100-400 costs a little bit more than a D500 with a Tamron 150-600 G2. And the latter has

  • more reach
  • more reliable AF-C, in 3D mode as well
  • about same speed (without a booster grip - that is not in the equation)
  • no bloody focus by wire
  • a touchscreen

Yes, the X-T20 has a touchscreen - it's just still not as available as it should be. And it shares the very same slow AF-C technique with the X-T2.



#12 Sammy

Sammy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 498 posts

Posted 07 September 2017 - 08:14 PM

The E3 however - if someone has a better idea than my "yaawwwn", please let it out :)

 

... and not even an articulated screen - fail!
 



#13 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 08 September 2017 - 09:50 AM

The 8-16/2.8, when it appears, is going to be a sweet lens. As wide as it gets - short of dishing out $3000 for the Canon 11-24 - and f/2.8 (vs the f/4.5-5.6 of the Sigma). Sort of a lens to change systems for (or to adopt a second system after all).

#14 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 550 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 08 September 2017 - 09:51 AM

So the 45mm f2.8 is not lightweight. The Fuji marketing department says the 80mm macro has "high resolving power at the focus point and beautiful bokeh", and they post two images which show it NOT to have beautiful bokeh. 

 

Indeed, especially the one of the mantis taken at f11... Who would choose to display such pictures to advertise a product? A bunch of non-photographers idiots, surely.


--Florent

Flickr Page


#15 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 550 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 08 September 2017 - 09:52 AM

The Macro appears to be a cool product. I don't agree fully to "beautiful bokeh", but sharpness and bokeh are not exactly friends together.

 

The E3 however - if someone has a better idea than my "yaawwwn", please let it out :)

 

 

Most macro lenses usually feature a very smooth bokeh. I have to say I'm quite disappointed by this XF 80 in this regard.


--Florent

Flickr Page


#16 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 550 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 08 September 2017 - 09:54 AM

...and the bottom (opposite of top)-models come with a touchscreen. Do you think, Fuji has also an idea of "top-models" or flaships? Somehow I think, not. One who wants a touchscreen and an optical viewfinder (for whatever reasons) has no model, one who wants fast speed and a toucscreen, the same. I had much higher expectations for the X-T2, when I look back. thxbb12 already tried to convince me of getting an X-T10 over an X-T1.

 

If someone whould ask me which one to choose, I'd shrug. My advice would be "try to rent what you have in mind" - specs are one thing but getting them to work another.

 

Yeah, I still think the X-T10 is a better value than the X-T1. The same applies to the X-T20 vs the X-T2.

To me, the main differentiator is the EVF. The ones in the X-T10 and X-T20 are too small for my taste.


--Florent

Flickr Page


#17 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 550 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 08 September 2017 - 09:57 AM

Although Fuji fanboys over at Fuji rumours are drooling like hell about these lenses - I would not think about getting one.

 

Fuji mirrorless is a nice concept and benefits a lot of not much weight and compact size. But for ultra-wide angle it is the wrong concept, the lens will cost a fortune and it still remains APS-C. Personal preference, but the wider the angle the bigger and better the sensor - otherwise I feel pictures lacking of detail.

 

And this monster 200/2... I'm already afraid with the 100-400 when I hold the camera down to do some setup or only check the playback button. I'm afraid it will wear the little mount. Maybe not rip it out of the camera, but ... well, not a great feeling in my gutts.

 

Why didn't they do a lens like the 300/4 PF E from Nikon. I just checked, it's about half the weight of the 100-400 (755 vs. 1375 grams). This 200/2... well, the Nikon FF verison has just about 3 kg - and then there's a big body behind with a good grip - while the tiny Fuji bodies just look out of place.

 

While I was cross-checking some prices, weights and sizes, I found kind of a surprising value: A Fuji X-T2 with a 100-400 costs a little bit more than a D500 with a Tamron 150-600 G2. And the latter has

  • more reach
  • more reliable AF-C, in 3D mode as well
  • about same speed (without a booster grip - that is not in the equation)
  • no bloody focus by wire
  • a touchscreen

Yes, the X-T20 has a touchscreen - it's just still not as available as it should be. And it shares the very same slow AF-C technique with the X-T2.

 

I disagree with the claim that's the wrong concept for UWA. The 14mm is stellar and quite compact. The Fuji 10-24 f4 is pretty damn good compared to what's available elsewhere (DSLR or mirrorless).


--Florent

Flickr Page


#18 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 08 September 2017 - 10:02 AM

The 8-16/2.8, when it appears, is going to be a sweet lens. As wide as it gets - short of dishing out $3000 for the Canon 11-24 - and f/2.8 (vs the f/4.5-5.6 of the Sigma). Sort of a lens to change systems for (or to adopt a second system after all).

 

Updating your Sigma caatlog: 12-24/4, around 1600  ;)


  • Brightcolours likes this

#19 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 550 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 08 September 2017 - 10:03 AM

Regarding hte X-E3, I like it very much. The only downside is the smallish EVF (same size as X-T10/X-T20).

I much prefer the rangefinder type of body vs the DSLR type.

I've always found the X-E2 too bulky and I'm glad they reduced the size a bit with the X-E3.

Of course, it's a matter of preference.

 

From the early reviews I've read, it seems the camera is very fun to operate despite the reduction of buttons (d-pad notably).

Over the X-T20, you gain the joystick which renders the d-pad quite redundant and useless.

Plus, you can move the AF point using the touchscreen which is something great (works very well on Panasonic cameras, better than a d-pad IMO).

Comparted to the X-T20, the X-E3 features a more convenient form factor without the silly useless protruding bump of the non existent OVF (it's something that I've always found silly : with mirrorless there is zero reason to keep this silly bump).


--Florent

Flickr Page


#20 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 08 September 2017 - 10:04 AM

Most macro lenses usually feature a very smooth bokeh. I have to say I'm quite disappointed by this XF 80 in this regard.

 

Me too. In aspect of smooth bokeh the 100-400 also falls short.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de