Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fujifilm announcements ...
#11
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
Quote:The E3 however - if someone has a better idea than my "yaawwwn", please let it out Smile
 

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

 
#13
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
Quote: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 gallery
#15
Quote: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 Smile
 

 

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 gallery
#16
Quote:...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 gallery
#17
Quote: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 gallery
#18
Quote: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  Wink
#19
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 gallery
#20
Quote: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.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)