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

[billtils]

Over the past 2 or 3 years I've been shedding my heavier gear and am now looking to go all the way and trade my Z6ii, 105 Macro, 24-70 and 55 -200 for a T-5 and 16-80 (and do my best to resist adding any heavier glass)

Any thoughts/advice?

For some probably irrational reason I don't want to go micro 4/3 and for a slightly more rational reason the big added value to the Fuji is to get away from complex menu to simple dial settings.

[DanK]

Sigh. I went through this 2 years ago and am still ambivalent.

I don't think it's irrational to be hesitant to go with MFT. If the OM-1 had been APS-C, that's what I would have gone with. MFT was a step too far for me, given 12- rather than 14-bit capture and poorer low-light performance. It also provides less shallow DOF at a given aperture, but given how light MFT lenses are, I figured I could offset half of that difference by replacing my FF f/4 glass with MFT f/2.8 glass.

What held me back from going with Fuji was two things. the bigger one was the remaining controversy about ACT/LR's processing of Fuji raw files. It seemed clear at that time that it had improved, but there were still arguments among Fuji users about whether the problems remained to some degree. I have no idea where that argument stands after the additional two years. Manfred might know, since he just switched to Fuji. (I assume that the medium format Fuji is also X-trans.)

The other, more minor reason is that 40 MPX is pretty dense for an APS-C sensor. According to Photons to Photos, Fuji managed the change from the XT-4 to the XT-5 with only a minor hit (about half a stop) in dynamic range. I don't know what happened to low-light performance, but I'm sure there reviews that answer that. Also, higher pixel density means that diffraction limitation starts at a wider aperture, but frankly, I think the effects of a diffusion over the first few stops are overstated.

That said, as much as I love my R6 II, when I pack a substantial amount of gear, I still wonder whether I made a mistake and should have gone with either the OM-1 or the XT-5. A few days ago, I put my old EF 100-400 plus adapter on my R6 and added a monopod to try to get some action shots of one of my grandkids playing soccer. My first reaction when I picked it up is that I'm too old for this. I may still change my mind and go with Fuji or OM Systems.

For what it's worth, I know lots of very enthusiastic Fuji shooters, although most have Xt-4s or XT-3s. However, some enthusiastic Fuji shooters were recommending back then switching raw processing software, and I wasn't willing to do that. Perhaps that's no longer an issue.

Good luck sorting this out. I'm very interested in what you find. I won't blame you if it leads me to buy an XT-5

Dan

[Manfred M]

Fortunately, the GFX series (medium format (MF)) of Fujifilm cameras use a standard Bayer array, so there are none of the issues associated with the X-Trans sensor. So far as I can tell, the main raw converters handle that colour filter array fairly well, but there can be delays in the implementation. I have read that DxO Photolab 8 is shipping now, but the x-Trans modules are not, so people are going to have to use Photolab 7 for the time being. I'm not sure what the case is for ACR / Lightroom or Capture One, but believe they are probably fine.

The one thing I still don't love about Fujifilm is their colour science. They push their film simulation mode for both JPEG and it is available in ACR and Lightroom for RAW conversion, so far as I can tell. I didn't particularly like the Fuji colour films when I was a film shooter, and that has not changed. As all of my MF work is shot raw, I don't use any of the Fuji film simulations, so it really isn't an issue for me, but I probably would not consider a Fuji APS-C camera for that reason alone. That being said, the only two brands that have their colour science down really well are Hasselblad and Leica, in my view.

I have the same issues with mFT as you and Dan do. Shot noise has always been a problem with the smaller sensors and mFT is going to make that worse. APS-C is going to be worse than Full Frame, but only you can decide whether or not you can live with it. Fortunately, the current crop of raw converter do a really good job at cleaning up digital noise.

In terms of camera weight, my medium format GFX 100s ii weighs LESS than the full frame Nikon Z8. Unfortunately, the lenses more than compensate as they are quite large.

I know a number of happy Fuji X users as well as a number of folks that like mFT. I'm still using my ancient D810 with the 28 - 300mm lens as my travel gear (although I also have my 24mm f/3.5 PC-E (shift - tilt) lens with me on my current trip.

[DanK]

So far as I can tell, the main raw converters handle that colour filter array fairly well,

Not Adobe, at least not in the past. Just search "Lightroom e-trans worm" without the quotes. Some years ago, people recommended using a different rendering software package, I forget which, and then importing a TIFF into LR. Over time, I read that the problem got somewhat better, and apparently, if you take the time to run Adobe's enhance image on the raw files, that largely takes care of the problem. However, you will see a lot of argument about it, and the sources I looked at are all a couple of years old. The problem may have been solved since.

I recommend looking for postings about this that include actual images illustrating the issue.

This was never an issue with x-trans JPEGs.

I've done quite a bit of work with APS-C cameras, and I think they can be in principle a reasonable compromise for people who want to lessen weight. However, other than Fuji, manufacturers seem to be treating APS-C as a consumer level sideline. There aren't many good options. And to save appreciable weight with APS-C, you need lenses designed for the smaller sensor, and the pickings are so far quite limited. E.g., Canon has yet to release any high-end RF-S lenses, that is, R-mount lenses for APS-C.

MFT has lots of drawbacks, but it has two big positives. The first is that the lenses are very small and light. I no longer have the details, but at the time, I figured that an OM Systems package comparable to my current FF gear would weigh about half as much. The second is that there are a couple of manufacturers that are focusing on that format. The OM-1 Mark II is a spectacular camera, if you can live with the MFT format.

For now, I'm going to stick with my FF gear, but I'll keep my eyes open as I get older. I'd definitely want to know if Adobe has finally solved its X-Trans problem.

[Geotheo]

Went from Nikon FX to Fuji X nine years ago and haven’t looked back. Started with X-T1 and now own 2-X-T5’s and an X-T30 converted to IR. Yes - full frame is great but, as I got into my eighties with back issues, carrying all that weight ceased to be fun.

[Manfred M]

Dan - I spend a fair bit of time on Fujifilm forums now that I own a Fujifilm camera.

I have read that at a high level, Adobe fixed the issues with the x-Trans sensors about 4 years ago and that seems to have satisfied most people. It seems that under certain conditions, especially (aggressive) sharpening, artifacts can still sneak in. There seem to be solid work arounds, for instance Adobe's "Enhance" functionality seems to work really well to eliminate this problem and a plugin called X-Transformer works almost as well as Enhance.

For those who are confused by this post, the x-Trans sensor uses a different approach from the traditional Bayer array in how the R-G-G-B filter is arranged. Fuji suggests that their approach handles Morai better than Bayer, but I have almost never had any morai issues in my own work. Using a non-standard filter means that the demosaicing process is different between the two approaches, and ideally requires a customized approach.

[billtils]

Thanks for these responses folks.

There are 3 XT-5 users in my camera club, none has reported development issues, one nearly beat me in the club championship last year (but I'm not sure what her workflow is), and one of them is a long-standing member with whom I have discussed the development issue and he changed to Capture One and has no problems. I was a long term (over 10 years) C1 user but switched to LrC a few months ago but still have a copy with a perpetual licence so there should be no problems other than the minor one of adding a step in the workflow.

I think the body decision is likely to be a "Yes", next step is what lens(es) ...

[DanK]

Manfred and I both noted that there are workarounds for Lightroom users, but as of 2022, Adobe hadn't fixed the problem with simply rendering X-trans captures as you would any other. Iridient X-Transformer is the other rendering app I was referring to, but I had two details wrong: it can be run as a LR plug-in, as Manfred noted, and it produces DNG files, not TIFF. It's not expensive: US$40.

I have no idea what improvements Adobe has made since 2022. The Enhance option that both Manfred and I mentioned apparently works well, although it takes time and produces larger files. Since it's AI based, no one can say precisely what it is doing.

When I was plowing through a lot of the stuff online and talking with Fuji users, one online poster struck me as particularly evenhanded and well-informed: Thomas Fitzgerald. Most people posting were either in the 'there is nothing at all wrong with Adobe rendering of X-Trans files' camp or the 'the problem is so bad you shouldn't buy Fuji' camp. Fitzgerald is neither: he clearly is committed to the Fuji platform but is well informed and frank about the issues.

I recommend that you read this post from two years ago: https://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotogr...best-solutions. It's a clear explanation of the pros and cons of the alternatives as of two years ago.

Again, I have no idea what's changed since then and would be interested to learn, as my gear isn't getting lighter as I get older. Fuji still appeals to me, apart from the Adobe issue and the apparently klutzy menu system. (I'm spoiled in this regard. Canon's menu systems have always been good and have been getting progressively better with every new generation of camera. The system on my R6 II is intuitive and very easy to navigate, and it allows you to create your own custom menu system to supplement the native one. I have almost everything I ever use on three or four pages of my custom menu and rarely have to go back to the main ones, other than to deal with the many AF settings.)

[The amateur]

Hey guys,

Here I am again, at least for a little while. We'll see how things go with me !

I’ve been using my Olympus lenses with the modest Olympus 5II (or something similar—I can’t quite remember). But after making the jump to Sony, I’ve noticed a significant improvement in image quality, probably due to the better sensor or some other factors like lenses.

I'm planning a trip to South America soon and will be bringing along two lenses and my trusty old Sony A7III, mainly because I want to capture sharp, stunning, and beautiful shots.

That said, it’s not that the Olympus camera and lenses don’t produce sharp images—they certainly do. But there’s just that certain "je ne sais quoi" that makes the two brands feel different. I may be wrong of course, because I’ve taken some really nice shots with the Olympus too, but that’s how I feel right now.

I hope I’m not hijacking the conversation, but I just wanted to pop in and share this. Thanks for your understanding!
Never tried Fuji BTW

Cheers !

[billtils]

The deed is (almost) done. X-T5 ordered with trade in of my Nikon gear, and should be with me early next week. The Fuji was an open box one with the kit lens but it (the lens) will do until I get familiar with the rig.

[rpcrowe]

Hey guys,

Here I am again, at least for a little while. We'll see how things go with me !

I’ve been using my Olympus lenses with the modest Olympus 5II (or something similar—I can’t quite remember). But after making the jump to Sony, I’ve noticed a significant improvement in image quality, probably due to the better sensor or some other factors like lenses.

I'm planning a trip to South America soon and will be bringing along two lenses and my trusty old Sony A7III, mainly because I want to capture sharp, stunning, and beautiful shots.

That said, it’s not that the Olympus camera and lenses don’t produce sharp images—they certainly do. But there’s just that certain "je ne sais quoi" that makes the two brands feel different. I may be wrong of course, because I’ve taken some really nice shots with the Olympus too, but that’s how I feel right now.

I hope I’m not hijacking the conversation, but I just wanted to pop in and share this. Thanks for your understanding!
Never tried Fuji BTW

Cheers !

I would be quite happy traveling with my A7iii plus the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and Sony 70-200mm f/4 lenses.

Another very lightweight combination would be my Sony A6600 plus Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and Sony 70-200mm f/4 lenses. I'd probably throw in my Sony A6400 body...

Either of those combos would suit me fine for general travel photography,

I traveled all over the world with a pair of Canon Crop frame cameras and the 17-55mm f/2.8 and Sony 70-200mm lenses. The Sony A6600 combo would be a lot like my Canon set-up but, quite a bit lighter in weight.

My second Canon body saved a trip once when I fell climbing a ridge in Alaska and broke one of the Canon camera bodies. I was on a trip to China when a fellow traveling companion fell in front of the Xian City walls and broke his camera. No photography for him until the tour reached Hong Kong a week later.

[DanK]

keep us posted about your experience with the Fuji.

[Chataignier]

I'll be interested to hear how you get on. The Fuji 16-80mm f4 is my walkabout lens too and I'm very pleased with it, however, I still go to prime lenses when quality REALLY matters. As for the alleged issues with LR/PS, it is history. I print regularly at 30x45cm and now and then at 60x40cm and the results are impeccable, quite a few sold recently.

[billtils]

Thanks David. Next step is probably the 60mm prime for portrait and close up work and I have one to try (the 80mm is far too heavy). Will post results when available (and a Fuji user in the local camera club who purchased Capture One in the early days of his Fuji ownership confirms that Lightroom is fine now).

[billtils]

OK, the transition is complete (for now with the addition of the 60mm prime macro (for portrait and general close-up work, not any serious macro). Early impressions: Love it, (bought the "Silver" version) weight reduction achieved, the "all physical dials" operation turned out to be a bit more complex than expected but getting there. Very impressed with the build quality right down to the solid lens caps. No problems with the RAF files and LrC, super colours SOOC.

Here are a few tasters (comment on them if you wish but please be aware they are testers, not serious shots - more serious stuff later.

The camera + 16-80mm lens






Village main street early Sunday morning:





Neighbour's son's bike


[/url]



Do not eat!




Cheers


Bill

[Manfred M]

I'm happy to see you in the middle of the learning curve.

I have read that the XT-5 is one of the Fujifilm cameras with some autofocus problem. Fujifilm has announced that there will be a firmware update to fix the issue, likely in November 2024.

[billtils]

Thanks Manfred. I've not noticed any auto focus issues but then I've not really done enough to make that a reliable comment

[Chataignier]

There are lots of hints and tips for the Fuji, but if I have to pick one that I use and you might not have found yet, it's the Dynamic range control that can be set to apply a modest or quite large measure of compression of highlights to avoid (reduce) burn out when photographing high contrast scenes.

Paltotech has a useful youtube video explaining how to get the most from it.

[billtils]

Thanks David - I'll take a look at it.

[Chataignier]

Here's the link :

https://www.google.com/search?client...jCa73XxsY,st:0

David