Jump to content

The 4K Fuji X-T2 is here


Mattias Burling
 Share

Recommended Posts

I would be glad to give the medals if he had not brought the discussion to this topic. My point was that people are very critical of Sony (sometimes with a good amount of reason) but when I see Fuji putting that huge battery grip to make the camera record proper 4k (and to have a headphone jack), I feel impressed by what Sony did with their A7 cameras. Same size, full frame and very controlled overheating after they updated the firmware.  

Don't get me wrong. I find their film emulation great and their cameras beautiful, however as I am not rich, I cannot justify buying a Fuji camera when one has the a7 around. And you can even bring your lenses to a proper video camera, like a fs5 or fs7 if you want to step up in the future. Or just buy a $550 a6000 if you want a very good, second body photo camera that Fuji could only catch up in some aspects with the $1700 x-pro2. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an A7rII/A7s/a5100 owner I'm seriously considering the XT2 - mostly because Sony has completely abandoned APS-c outside of the a6xxx and a5xxx bodies and the new FF lenses are obnoxiously huge. It would help if E-mount had one decent standard zoom outside of the monster 24-70GM, the 24-70 and 16-70/4's are average at best with some copies being incredibly mediocre. There hasn't been a new crop lens in years, and since the FE line was introduced with the 35/55 combo there have only been two small FF lenses, the 28/2 and the crappy 50/1.8. Sony is chasing the top end and crazy margins on $1500+ lenses, I get it, they're out to make money and don't care about what anyone thinks as long as we're buying product. Yes you can shoot crop with FF lenses, but you're also paying for FF coverage and if you want larger apertures you're carrying more weight. 

Its nice to see them producing high grade glass, but they're also all over the map. We have G, GM and Zeiss being released simultaneously in addition to the less special no name FE lenses. G used to be top grade, till is wasn't. Now its GM. Unless its Zeiss. Seriously - four different lens lines on a three year old system. Want to have the Zeiss look? Great as long as you only want to shoot 35 and 50, otherwise buy a G or a GM or a no-name. Sure adapted glass works, mostly, but that has its own issues and marquee AF features like eye AF still needs a native lens to really work. Then there's Sony's abysmal QC - despite getting a little certificate saying they pass inspection, decentering is common.

At least with Fuji you get a consistent look across the board, have numerous options for fast/larger (though still pretty compact) F/1.2-1.4's lenses or smaller F/2-2.8's. All three constant aperture zooms are really good and the smaller 18-55/2.8-4 is also really good. I shoot stills and video at events on occasion so I use the UWA, standard and tele zooms a lot. I use Canon because they're so much better - and the FE 70-200/4 is really only a 70-170-ish compared to the Canon.

I don't know, I love the image out of the A7rII, but I really don't like Sony's scatterbrained approach. At this point its IBIS and 4k internal that's really keeping me from moving on, the XT2 checks one of those boxes, stabilized lenses may check the other.

Looking forward to tests from real shooters instead of Fuji honks so we can get a real look at what the camera can do. Better 4k rolling shutter performance could seal the deal for me.

I live in Florida and the a6300's rampant overheating makes it a non-starter for me. If the damn thing could shoot 4k or just sit on my tripod in the sun without shutting down, I'd probably own two. Oh well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, Sony's lens development could be much better. The 55, 35 and 28 are great for the system. The good zooms are heavy and expensive. However, as I do not use zooms (the last one I bought came with my Chinon film camera), I use 35mm and 50mm equivalents for 95% of what I do, it makes easier for me to go with a Sony.

I bought my A7rii used (500 clicks) with a 3-month seller warranty for $2600. This is $670 more than a XT2 with the battery grip (which you need to shoot proper 4k). I bought my zeiss 55mm 1.8 for $700 (grey market, 1 year warrant), which is $100 more than a new fuji 35mm 1.4. Of course, I can buy a grey market fuji lens and wait a few months for a used XT2 and get the different back to the $1000 gap. However, I will not trade those $1000 plus film profiles for 42mp, unlimited video recording (with the open memories app), usable full frame 4k in some situations, and image stabilization on my prime. Besides, I found out that I can get beautiful jpegs straight out of the A7rii with some tweaking, and the grading of the video footage is not so bad as you are made to believe, perhaps the A7rii has better colors than the A7sii.  

It would be wonderful if Fuji makes a video camera. Which sensor will they put on the camera though? I don't believe that Sony would allow Fuji to use its sensors in video cameras. But who knows...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Ok, if that's true, then a light meter has a setting for film/sensor size. But it doesn't. So no sensor size does not affect lowlight.

If true, a printed magazine cover gets darker when you cut it with scissors.

Depth of field stays the same. Exposure stays the same. Focal length stays the same.

A crop is a crop is a crop is a crop.

Take your camera and test/see for yourself.

I'm out of the discussion because I know how religious people get over it. Its like talking evolution with the Pope. Science from me and magic from the opponent.

DOF between the two staying the same, I guess sounds reasonable, but the low-light, I've always read that the bigger the megapixels the lower the light sensitivity the camera is because the bigger pixel gathers more light. So a bigger sensor with bigger mega pixels equates to a lower-light sensitive camera. At least that's what was explained to me by a Shane Hurlbut in one of his Canon 5D MarkII talks! Although, I may have misunderstood his explanation!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, frontfocus said:

Does the A7RII record full sensor readout yet? 

I don't know what exactly "same size" means to you...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#679.408,624.395,ha,t

Full sensor readout doesn't count for jack in my book unless the rolling shutter is decent. I always use the FF mode on my A7r2 because while it's slightly softer the RS is much better than the S35 mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@veraguth, everyone's needs are different, I can cover most events with a 35/85 and a UWA, problem for me is in most cases I'm using FF for stills and s35 for video. So I'm carrying aps-c and FF lenses. I don't want to buy another A7rII + grip because Sony bodies lose their value so fast and the a6300 is not made for the hot Florida sun, making an all aps-c kit impossible. I don't shoot long continuous takes, so the 10 minute limit without the grip is no big deal, but the grip is almost always on my a7rII, that cost is a wash. New lens prices are a non issue for me, I buy all my lenses used and Fuji's can be found for about 25% below new easily.

Like I said, I shoot events with zooms, while the GM's are impressive, after dumping Canon I'm not going back to carrying that much weight for hours on end anymore. Again, this is my own thing, but I'm getting ready to take a year off to travel the globe with my wife, so a smaller kit with better JPEG options is appealing to me.

Looking forward to overheating tests and rolling shutter results. 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DP Review posted some footage shot with a couple of the film simulations and it looked very videoy to me. Maybe it's because I had just watched a video where Matias included some 16mm footage he shot or recently watched this interview with Ed Lachman but you know, in my mind film just blows away anything, especially at the lower end. Anyway, not particularly impressed with the video out of this camera. It's not that it looks bad, but none of the cameras at this level look particularly good.

http://youtu.be/qHKkfQxieM4

 

Ed Lachman on shooting Carol:

We opted to shoot in 16mm. We wanted to reference the photographic representation of a different era. They can recreate grain digitally now, but it's pixel-fixated. It doesn't have this anthropomorphic quality in which the grain structure in each frame is changing. The actual physical grain of film adds another expressive layer that is impacting the surface of the characters' emotional being. It has to do with how film captures movement and exposure in the frame - finer grain for highlights and larger grain for lower light areas - that gives a certain emotionality to the image that feels more human. I really believe with "Carol" that people would feel something different than if I had shot it digitally. The other important thing for me with film over the digital is the way color is portrayed. For example, if I have a cool window and warmer lights inside in the digital world they don't mix the way they do in film. With film grain, there's a crossover and contamination between warm and cool colors that I don't find digitally. Digital lacks a sense of depth in color separation the way it does in film. In film, there's these three layers, R,G,B. For me, it's almost like an etching where the light is eating into the negative when it's developed, and even though it is microscopic, it gives a depth to the image that I always feel is lacking digitally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Flynn said:

DP Review posted some footage shot with a couple of the film simulations and it looked very videoy to me. Maybe it's because I had just watched a video where Matias included some 16mm footage he shot or recently watched this interview with Ed Lachman but you know, in my mind film just blows away anything, especially at the lower end. Anyway, not particularly impressed with the video out of this camera. It's not that it looks bad, but none of the cameras at this level look particularly good.

http://youtu.be/qHKkfQxieM4

 

 

After all, it IS video! But, I know what you mean. Personally, I'm impressed with the Xpro2's image, at this price point, expectations should be a given. Something better would fall into the arena of RED, or ARRI cameras, and their price points reflects that image quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2016 at 5:50 PM, Steve M. said:

After all, it IS video! But, I know what you mean. Personally, I'm impressed with the Xpro2's image, at this price point, expectations should be a given. Something better would fall into the arena of RED, or ARRI cameras, and their price points reflects that image quality.

Yeah, my comment was probably overly harsh. The image looks good, this camera is clearly a big step forward for Fuji. And I really want to see what they can do with log. That is exciting. I just suddenly find film much more appealing. Not sure why. But the image seems much more pleasing to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a lot more impressed by the potential than the demo videos. I know they are probably meant to show off the film simulation and that's fine, it even looks good at times.
But they seem to lack that cinematic planning, like careful shutter speed to give smooth motion. and ND to keep with that and still get desired DOF. Unless you want the sharp shutter creatively, I think there is a famous movie for that.

From my limited experience it's easier to remove some saturation than add it. For the Hobbit they painted Mirkwood Forest in psychedelic colors then toned them down in post to have more options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nikkor said:

Haha, disappointed. Nice to see a speedbooster for those dependant on NX mount.

Nobody is depending on it. Being the best apsc camera (and sensor) around, possibly for years to come, it's nice to see a speedbooster for it. Especially when many were uncorrectly reporting that it was not feasible. Biases are bad things ;-) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good lord, more useless NX1 chatter in a Fuji thread, aren't there NX1 threads for this? Fuji has speedboosters too. Let it go.

Rico posted a comprehensive look at the XT2, mostly from the stills side, but he goes in depth into a lot of the AF adjustments and other features. http://www.fujirumors.com/first-look-review-fujifilm-x-t2/

Fuji has the NX1 beat, larger BSI sensors are noisy at higher ISO's, as we've seen with the A7r/A7rII.

Enjoy your NX1 instead of trolling other threads telling everyone how great it is compared to the thread topic, its so tired and so pathetic.

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 9.39.52 AM.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah...im really not interested in Hearing about the NX1 in this thread :\

I cant wait to see what people do with it. its undeniable the Fuji bodies produce some incredible still images if the video quality holds the same potential its a dream camera in my book

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Chris said:

Good lord, more useless NX1 chatter in a Fuji thread, aren't there NX1 threads for this? Fuji has speedboosters too. Let it go.

Rico posted a comprehensive look at the XT2, mostly from the stills side, but he goes in depth into a lot of the AF adjustments and other features. http://www.fujirumors.com/first-look-review-fujifilm-x-t2/

Fuji has the NX1 beat, larger BSI sensors are noisy at higher ISO's, as we've seen with the A7r/A7rII.

Enjoy your NX1 instead of trolling other threads telling everyone how great it is compared to the thread topic, its so tired and so pathetic.

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 9.39.52 AM.png

First, I was replying to One of the many posts full of ignorant statements about speedbooster not being possibile with nx mount.

 

Second, you are the pathetic One, if you are trying to demonstrate how an older and inferiore tech, out two years later, can stand in One specific field against a product which is now selling for half its price.

 

Third, nx1 has t-x2 beaten in so many fields that is not easy to sum them up.

Last...I still prefer the output from nx1 at 3200,when compare at the same smaller 24mp size (more detail and better luma noise):

 

https://***URL removed***/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=samsung_nx1&attr13_1=fujifilm_xt2&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&normalization=compare&widget=13&x=0.20928967921850483&y=0.9773114415699851

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...