Last lap in weight reduction? Switch to Fuji XT-5 ...

My conclusion to weight is that lenses are the maim problem. There are plenty of full frame bodies available that do not weigh a lot more than the quality smaller sensor body options. So my travel and walk about option is a Z8 with the 28-400mm lens. It's a high ISO vs heavy fast lens and higher ISO wins for weight saving. For an even lighter combo a Z50 (DX) with the kit lenses.

At this point I don't believe the weight savings of other systems are sufficient for me to abandon the option of using a big heavy FF (FX) quality lens when absolutely needed.

No, I was not aware of that - thanks for letting me know David.

I checked it out David. If I have read the information correctly it applies to in-camera processing of jpeg images and I process my images from the camera as RAF files, so it's a good idea that does not fit with my workflow, but thanks for letting me know about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pnodrog

My conclusion to weight is that lenses are the maim problem. There are plenty of full frame bodies available that do not weigh a lot more than the quality smaller sensor body options. So my travel and walk about option is a Z8 with the 28-400mm lens. It's a high ISO vs heavy fast lens and higher ISO wins for weight saving. For an even lighter combo a Z50 (DX) with the kit lenses.

At this point I don't believe the weight savings of other systems are sufficient for me to abandon the option of using a big heavy FF (FX) quality lens when absolutely needed.

---

What you say is essentially correct Paul - the main culprit is indeed lens weight and there are lighter Nikon bodies but ... I don't do anything that needs a big heavy FX lens or body any more, and I was somewhat seduced by my interactions with the 3 Fuji X users in the camera club, 1 former Canon, 1 former Nikon and one don't know. Bottom line is I'm more than happy and got a reasonable rebate in the trade in deal (as in getting rid of a number if items that I haven't used in ages)..

Paul is spot on with his comments.

My medium format, 102 MP, Fujifilm GFX100s ii body (883g) weighs less than the full frame, 46 MP, Nikon Z8 (910g), both including memory card and battery. Add the lens and those weight savings are right out the window, as the larger image circle requires larger optical and mechanical elements. That is of course, why I am primarily using it as a studio camera.

Like Paul, my needs are not satisfied by an mFT or APS-C sensor, due to the large gallery sized prints I make. I find that the smaller cameras have too many other trade-offs that do not meet my needs, in fact, even full-frame was not where I needed to go.

I just got back from hauling my D810 with the 28 - 300mm and the 24mm shift-tilt lens around England and Ireland for three weeks. I also had my flash and large tripod with me. I did use all my gear.

Horses for courses!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billtils

Horses for courses!

---

Of course.

I know a number of people that have gone the lighter camera route at two of the photography clubs I belong to. Somewhere around 2/3 to 3/4 were happy with their decision to downsize. The demographics of both clubs is older people, over age 60, with the mean age in the 70s.

The remainder were not and either went back to their original systems or an upgrade of their larger cameras. The issues, so far as I can tell, were performance related, either image quality or they did not like the way the smaller camera bodies handled (ergonomics).

I also have been on this merry-go-round. And am now happy having hopped off it...

I'm now 77, still healthy and quite active bu feeling the weight of camera gear when I travel.

In 2020 I decided to put my Nikon FF DSLRs in moth balls and bought into Fujis. At first I wanted a secondhand Xpro1 or 2, but I ended up with two XT1s (for self and SO) and two lenses, both traded for an XT2 and two more Fuji lenses. Then an XE2 bought from a friend. Last October I snared an Xpro2 at a decent price.

Truly, a merry-go-round. I blame it all on a COVID stress reaction, but I suspect a near-terminal GAS attack was the culprit.

My Fujinon lenses - 14/2.8, 18/2.0, two 18-55s (please don't ask), 23/1.4, 35/2.0 - are as good as any other brand lenses I've ever used. But the cameras, oi! All the XTs gave inconsistent exposure and contrast problems, excepting the XE which makes quite acceptable colors on sunny days, if not quite equal to my Nikon D700 and D800.

On good days my XE2 can almost approximate the FF Nikon images I made during my past travels. At other times it's all either blues or greens and muddy dark tones. I've tired and tried endless variations to get around this, but so far no luck.

All my Fuji cameras were secondhand, but this seems unlikely to be the problem, as all the inconsistencies have been consistent in all but the XE2. The Xpro2 is as new, secondhand with <2000 exposures. These now sell for kidney prices in Australia but I got mine for AUD $300 less than the going rate, so it was a rare find, a truly good deal.

I'm a retired architect. Last November I photographed six colonial sites in SE Asia for a book publisher. Sent 200 images and had them returned by the art director who cited too much variation in colors and contrast. They were good about it, I was asked to reshoot with a small payment for my expenses. I redid everything with a Nikon D800 and my XE2 as a backup, set on B&W Across with yellow (those images came out nothing like the old film Across, but those are for my own use, so not a worry). All fine from the Nikon, okay enough from the XE2. It was good to have the work done well, but with travel expenses and my time factored in I've lost money on this.

Xpro2 prices in Australia are high as the camera has acquired a legend all its own. Reluctantly, I've decided that I'm done with Fuji, at least with the Xpro2. I will probably keep the XE2 as a travel diary camera as it isn't wort much in resale or as a trade. I may put the Pro on ice for a year or two and hope prices keep going up, but with the global economy seemingly headed for a big downturn I may be best off just trading it in with three of my Fujinons.

This year I plan to travel to Japan and Taiwan (where my two sons live) and I don't want to run the risk of poor exposures or colors with my Fujis. So the Nikons - which I already own - are a more acceptable option for me.

Selling my Fuji gear will inevitably bring a loss of AUD $1500-$2000, which I can bear but I'm not really happy about that. Still, it was my decision to buy into the Fuji mirrorless playground and I accept the responsibility. An expensive lesson for me, but we live and we learn.

I'm retired and on a budget, my spending is cautious and I won't be dumping my Fuji kit on the resale market in the immediate future. But in almost all ways I can say I'm disappointed with my experiences with the brand.

What I will likely do, what I'm considering now, is to have my two D800s CLA'd and travel with those until I drop or they give up the ghost, whichever comes first. My Nikon kit in the past was a 28/2.8, a 60/2.8 and an 85/1.8, with a backup 180/2.8 and at home a 300/4.0 someone gave me. All D lenses, old as the hills but still producing the goods I (and my image buyers) want.

I do wonder at times if the 'problems' I've had with my Fujis are due to me or gear-related. Not so much problems as they really do not satisfy my needs/wants in architectural photography. Unfortunately, as I'm the only one I know who is doing my genre of photography (colonial architecture), I'm unable to share impressions with other like-minded Fuji photographers. Maybe someone here has similar experiences and could help to guide me along.

G'day Dann

An interesting read and not at all what I encountered on switching from Nikon to Fuji. I don't "do" architecture but one of the first things I did with my new XT-5 was shoot a couple of street scenes in the small town where I live - this one is of the long unused cinema which I also photogaphed several year ago with my D750. It's not a perfect comparison as one was shot in the early morning and the other in the afternoon, but here they are anyway:



D750:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...c858cdd2_b.jpg


X-T5

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...32dc2a8e_b.jpg


These days I mainly shoot portraits. I'm just a wee bit older than you and a not too long drive to a (mainly) indoor location suits me fine, but here's one from the Z6ii and one from the X-T5 (different model and lighting).

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...045d8de0_b.jpg


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...3604d00e_b.jpg



From what I've read it took Fuji a few iterations to get the X series sensor right and there was also a RAW develoment issue which meant that until recently Capture One was the preferred engine but LR is OK now - these were processed in Capture One but very recently I've used LR and it works perfectly fine.


We'll be visiting my daughter and family in WA in a couple of months so looking forward to adding some more Oz shots to the collection.


Bill

Dann - As a Nikon and Fujifilm shooter, I find your post an interesting read. My Nikon is full-frame and the Fujifilm is medium format.

In my experience colour and contrast difference are 100% the result of the lighting conditions during the shoot. Both can relatively easy to fix in post-processing, especially if you shoot in raw. The only exception is when the light is too hard, something all to common on sunny days; that cannot be fixed and reshooting can be the only way to fix this. For architecture, I prefer shooting on an overcast day as the light is very even and the details come out beautifully.

These issues are independent of the actual cameras system you are using.

It would be interesting to see what the issue is. Would you mind posting a few of the "bad" images from the Fujis and the "good" images from the Nikons. Frankly, I don't love the colour science that Fuji uses with their various film simulation modes. From what I have seen, the only two cameras that have really good colour science in their JPEG output are Leica and Hasselblad.

If you want to see some beautifully consistent architectural work (albeit in B&W), take a look at the images of water towers, grain silos and mine head-frames shot by the husband and wife team of conceptual photographers, Bernd and Hilla Becher. Much of their work was done in the 1950s - 1980s.

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/...-bechers#none6

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manfred M

Frankly, I don't love the colour science that Fuji uses with their various film simulation modes.

---

Not quite sure what you are getting at here Manfred. Using the film simulations is an optional step. For example if I choose Capture One to develop a RAF file it will use "Fujiflm X-T5" as the ICC profile along with "Auto" for the Curve setting and it is only if I click on "Curve" that the film simulations pop up.

As it happens, the default is Provia Standard which I find perfectly acceptable as a starting point but I can choose others including DNG File Neutral which looks identical to the Fuji default.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billtils

Not quite sure what you are getting at here Manfred. Using the film simulations is an optional step. For example if I choose Capture One to develop a RAF file it will use "Fujiflm X-T5" as the ICC profile along with "Auto" for the Curve setting and it is only if I click on "Curve" that the film simulations pop up.

As it happens, the default is Provia Standard which I find perfectly acceptable as a starting point but I can choose others including DNG File Neutral which looks identical to the Fuji default.

---

In my case, I like a neutral image in the viewfinder, so the images from the various film simulations are not quite the way I like them. As I shoot raw and generally use Adobe Camera Raw for my raw processor, with a custom ICC profile I made for the GFX 100s ii.

I was never a fan of the Fuji colour film looks and primarily shot Kodacolor and Agfacolor print films and Kodachrome 25 and 64 slide films. Pro Negative Standard seems to be as close to what I am looking for as I can get. I am used to shooting with a (D) SLR where this was never an issue.

Thanks for the update Manfred It would be a dull world if we all had the same tastes :cool:

When I had the Fuji X100IV I used to use Provia or Velvia as the base and then further tweaked the pics in Lightroom.

I never used Adobe Color or Standard back then.

Now with my Sony it's Camera Standard as the base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billtils

Thanks for the update Manfred It would be a dull world if we all had the same tastes :cool:

---

I agree 100%. When I shoot, I pretty well always have an idea as to how I want to treat the shot in post. That view is based on what I saw before I put my camera up to my eye to photograph. I find the difference between what I see in the viewfinder versus what I actually see a bit disconcerting.

Manfred, an afterthought stimulated by your input to this dicussion.

My starting point was it doesn't matter to me which Fujifilm option is set in the camera as it can be changed in post and leaving it at the default of Provia/standard was fine as the files are just as editable with it as any of the other options. However, as I am moving more and more to portraits as my main genre I'm considering changing the camera defaut to Astia/soft as a better starting point and a better guide at the time of shooting.

As I say, just a thought and one of little or no consequence but worth exploring.


Bill

Am I missing something here ? As I understand it, the film simulations in the Fuji X-t5 only affect the .jpg, the RAW file is just that, unadulterated sensor output. So... when treating the RAF file in Capture 1 you would not see a colour profile 'cos there isn't one.

I think what Manfred was getting at is the image you see in the camera viewfinder is a (temporary) jpeg and so will reflect the fuji film simulation that you have set as normal in camera. This only applies to the in-camera image, you are in control of the RAF conversion in out of camera post-processing.

+1 to Bill's comment - I prefer having "clean" images to look at while shooting and the film simulations add changes to the base image that I would prefer to not have. In the DSLR days, my view of the scene would be through the viewfinder, but with the mirrorless cameras, the images I see are processed when I look through the viewfinder or on the back display..

Every camera manufacturer does this with their own profiles, but Fujifilm is especially "bad" with the various film simulations.

I agree, this does not have to carry over into processing the raw files, but I like completely neutral images to look at during the shoot. I guess I will get used to it...

Talking about Fuji, I regret a lot that I sold my X100F. At that time it was collecting dust in my bookshelf so I thought why not sell it and use the money for something else!

Now I've set aside some money and I want to buy the X100VI, but it's never been available at any big, reputable store.

I've thought about the rumored GFX100RF but I feel disappointed in Fujifilm the company because of the above experience. Now I feel like avoiding the company at all cost, just like I'm avoiding a certain EV company :D