[ruggiex]

X-A1/A2 are the only Bayer-type sensors. All the others are Fuji X-Trans.

You are right, my bad.

[atomx]

Ive just switched back to the K3 after using the XT1 for about 10months. The initial appeal of the XT1 was the EVF, smaller size and fast primes. The Fuji lenses are amazing. After waiting patiently for the new 50-140mm to be released after getting it and using it for a month i discovered the XT1 was not going to work for me.

There are several reasons for moving back to the K3:

1. Size - initially the small size of the XT1 was one of the reasons i got the XT1. Even with the extension grip with the new telephoto lense (50-140) on such a small body the camera body it becomes very unbalanced and awkward. Having the larger grip of the dslr with long lenses and the extra weight for balance is what i prefer.

2. Work flow - RAW file processing in lightroom with x-trans files is not optimal as you often miss out on much of the detail contained in the RAW files. LR's sharpening if used correctly can do a reasonable job (requires you to use the details slider and radius more than the amount slider), but the results fall short of what can be achieve if you use Iridient (MAC only) , PhotoNinja or Capture One. It got to be a real pain having to use Iridient and jump back into LR for cataloging.

3. tracking moving subjects - One of XT1 weak areas - does an ok job but there can be a significant delay on pressing the shutter to getting the initial lock (even in release priority). The delay can be 0.5s+ and thats a long time if your shooting action, the moment has often passed. Whilst the K3 is no D4s i found it worked well enough for my purposes...

4. EVF - Delay in updates/refreshing during continuous shooting - difficult to track subjects.

5. Video - Just terrible. I don't do much video but I'm starting to do more and the XT1 video is full of artifacts. Again, the K3 doesn't have class leading video but its way ahead of the XT1.

6. Interface/buttons - the buttons are pretty much flat to the body, making it hard to press and locate them when the cameras to your eye. Trying to locate the AF and AE buttons is difficult even after using the camera for 10mths.

If you have any questions Ill do my best to answer them...

[LeRolls]

Ive just switched back to the K3 after using the XT1 for about 10months. The initial appeal of the XT1 was the EVF, smaller size and fast primes. The Fuji lenses are amazing. After waiting patiently for the new 50-140mm to be released after getting it and using it for a month i discovered the XT1 was not going to work for me.

There are several reasons for moving back to the K3:

1. Size - initially the small size of the XT1 was one of the reasons i got the XT1. Even with the extension grip with the new telephoto lense (50-140) on such a small body the camera body it becomes very unbalanced and awkward. Having the larger grip of the dslr with long lenses and the extra weight for balance is what i prefer.

2. Work flow - RAW file processing in lightroom with x-trans files is not optimal as you often miss out on much of the detail contained in the RAW files. LR's sharpening if used correctly can do a reasonable job (requires you to use the details slider and radius more than the amount slider), but the results fall short of what can be achieve if you use Iridient (MAC only) , PhotoNinja or Capture One. It got to be a real pain having to use Iridient and jump back into LR for cataloging.

3. tracking moving subjects - One of XT1 weak areas - does an ok job but there can be a significant delay on pressing the shutter to getting the initial lock (even in release priority). The delay can be 0.5s+ and thats a long time if your shooting action, the moment has often passed. Whilst the K3 is no D4s i found it worked well enough for my purposes...

4. EVF - Delay in updates/refreshing during continuous shooting - difficult to track subjects.

5. Video - Just terrible. I don't do much video but I'm starting to do more and the XT1 video is full of artifacts. Again, the K3 doesn't have class leading video but its way ahead of the XT1.

6. Interface/buttons - the buttons are pretty much flat to the body, making it hard to press and locate them when the cameras to your eye. Trying to locate the AF and AE buttons is difficult even after using the camera for 10mths.

If you have any questions Ill do my best to answer them...

Very informative post! I have often lusted after Fuji gear (almost picked up an XE2 last year) but after reading your thoughts in this thread and one other along with the announcement of the FF I think I will concentrate my efforts and funds in Pentax land.

[chiane]

Ive just switched back to the K3 after using the XT1 for about 10months. The initial appeal of the XT1 was the EVF, smaller size and fast primes. The Fuji lenses are amazing. After waiting patiently for the new 50-140mm to be released after getting it and using it for a month i discovered the XT1 was not going to work for me.

There are several reasons for moving back to the K3:

1. Size - initially the small size of the XT1 was one of the reasons i got the XT1. Even with the extension grip with the new telephoto lense (50-140) on such a small body the camera body it becomes very unbalanced and awkward. Having the larger grip of the dslr with long lenses and the extra weight for balance is what i prefer.

2. Work flow - RAW file processing in lightroom with x-trans files is not optimal as you often miss out on much of the detail contained in the RAW files. LR's sharpening if used correctly can do a reasonable job (requires you to use the details slider and radius more than the amount slider), but the results fall short of what can be achieve if you use Iridient (MAC only) , PhotoNinja or Capture One. It got to be a real pain having to use Iridient and jump back into LR for cataloging.

3. tracking moving subjects - One of XT1 weak areas - does an ok job but there can be a significant delay on pressing the shutter to getting the initial lock (even in release priority). The delay can be 0.5s+ and thats a long time if your shooting action, the moment has often passed. Whilst the K3 is no D4s i found it worked well enough for my purposes...

4. EVF - Delay in updates/refreshing during continuous shooting - difficult to track subjects.

5. Video - Just terrible. I don't do much video but I'm starting to do more and the XT1 video is full of artifacts. Again, the K3 doesn't have class leading video but its way ahead of the XT1.

6. Interface/buttons - the buttons are pretty much flat to the body, making it hard to press and locate them when the cameras to your eye. Trying to locate the AF and AE buttons is difficult even after using the camera for 10mths.

If you have any questions Ill do my best to answer them...

Thanks so much for your thoughts. Your comments about getting good results in LR may kill my Fuji thoughts, as that would drive me nuts. I use LR and photoshop as my workflow and am not dying to add a completely new program into the mix.

I wanted to ask you about if you used LV and if you could compare the two. As I mentioned in my op, I end up using LV instead of a viewfinder for most of my shooting. If you had to shoot people moving, which cameras AF works best now?

Which camera is quieter in operation, from lens noise while focusing, to shutter sound?

Which of the two cameras would you say allowed the most access to functions without menu diving or excessive button pressing? Visually the Fuji looks like it would operate more like the lx100 and be more fun than your standard dslr, but I've never used a dslr with the K3's level of control, so the k3 may trump it?

My requirements are a little different I think than the normal dslr shooter, so I am really having a hard time translating pros and cons into how I would use each camera.

[Wolfeye]

Well, I'm a SLR person for the flexibility it offers. While a specialist camera might have some benefits in certain spheres, a generalist can be used everywhere. Like street shooting. Some folks prefer a rangefinder because they are quiet. The rangefinder has the drawbacks of parallax and shooting with the lens cap left on. I bought the Fuji to use old lenses on and for that, it works very well. But some of my old lenses are Pentax, and they go on the Pentax body.

With regard to tracking AF, if you really need that you need a specialist camera; this is one area where the generalist fails pretty badly. In my experience neither the K-3 nor the X-T1 can keep up with my dog running towards me. I have no camera that can, not even my Canon 7D. I have read that the Nikon 1 series are the fastest AF cameras in the world so I plan to test out my under-used J1 this weekend to see what keeper rates I get.

[audiobomber]

High ISO shooting (1600+) is IMO two stops better than the Pentax K-5.

Fuji fans, livin' in the fantasy.

Fuji's XTrans colour array is less efficient than Bayer. To compensate Fuji understates ISO, which means you need 2/3 of a stop longer shutter speed to compare with Pentax, who are probably the most honest of all manufacturers with stated ISO values. In addition, Fuji applies heavy noise reduction to raw files at the expense of detail. Pentax also uses raw NR with most bodies (not with the K-3), but not nearly as aggressively as Fuji.

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

See how dark the Fuji files are here? Where do you see even a fraction of a stop of this fictional Fuji noise superiority? Behind the Fuji colour filter array is the same dated 16mp Sony sensor as used in Sony, Nikon and Pentax bodies. The whole point of the X-Trans design was to get rid the blur filter. That need is gone now that the rest of the APS-C world has moved on to 24mp.

[Qwntm]

In my experience, going form a K-3 to a Fuji XT-1, XE-2 and X100s, was kinda like going from a Canon 1Dx or Nikon D4 to a K-3. Does that make sense?
(Though the K-3 is more of match for the Canon and Nikon than the Fuji's are for the K-3.)


IF you need a smaller and lighter camera, then yes, maybe. But there are issues. Raw is a pain. The menus are horrible. The Q menu on the Fujis is cryptic compared to Pentax, etc.


The Xtrans sensor is a long way around the barn to solve the moire issue that Pentax did with the simulation SR filter that no one uses anyway...


AND I hated the EVF.


I still have the X100s and like it a lot. But it has the hybrid OVF/EVF. The menu's still stink the Q menu is annoying and the I only shoot Jpeg, but I like the camera.

---------- Post added 02-12-15 at 12:56 PM ----------

Fuji fans, livin' in the fantasy.

Fuji's XTrans colour array is less efficient than Bayer. To compensate Fuji understates ISO, which means you need 2/3 of a stop longer shutter speed to compare with Pentax, who are probably the most honest of all manufacturers with stated ISO values. In addition, Fuji applies heavy noise reduction to raw files at the expense of detail. Pentax also uses raw NR with most bodies (not with the K-3), but not nearly as aggressively as Fuji.

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

See how dark the Fuji files are here? Where do you see even a fraction of a stop of this fictional Fuji noise superiority? Behind the Fuji colour filter array is the same dated 16mp Sony sensor as used in Sony, Nikon and Pentax bodies. The whole point of the X-Trans design was to get rid the blur filter. That need is gone now that the rest of the APS-C world has moved on to 24mp.

Yea and this too..

[atomx]

The screen on the K3 is bigger and easier to view in sunlight. The XT1 has the advantage of the tilt screen which is very handy at times and would love to see this feature come to the next K3. The battery life on the XT1 is poor and it gets worse if using LV. You will be lucky to get 200 shots using LV.. If you turn of the camera between shots you can extend this number marginally.

AF on both cameras depends on the lens used. The early XF lenses i.e. 35mm and 60mm are slow compared to the new lenses. There AF speed has been improved with firmware updates but are still behind the newer lens e.g. 23, 56 ,50-140. The fastest focusing fuji lens is the new 50-140mm competing with other brands best offering. The Fuji allows you to control the size of the focus point, using it at its largest setting, with lens wide open or near to wide open will increase focus speed, but due to the narrow DOF you can find it focusing on something behind or infront of the intended target. Using the smaller focus points improves accuracy significantly but at the price of speed and hunting in some cases. As far as shooting moving people I can't really comment as I used the LV for still subjects i.e. landscapes and macro. With all that being said, I think the XT1 AF is in LV is generally faster than the K3 and having the tilt screen is a big plus.

XT1 is quieter but not significantly so, unless you use the electronic shutter then it is silent accept for lens noise. Note the electric shutter can't be used when shooting moving subjects as you get the rolling shutter effect you see in video, distorting your image. The shutter sound of the XT1 has a slightly duller sound to the K3. If you are in a church both would be heard. Lens noise, Fuji lenses are definitely quieter than pentax screw drive lenses. The older Fuji lenses are noisy too i.e. 35mm and 60mm.. The newer lenses make "noise" but you need to be standing right next to the camera to hear. In a church hall, it wouldn't be noticeable.. Also, be aware that Fuji OIS can be heard when enabled, this does annoy some users but again its not going to be heard unless you next to the camera in a relative quiet environment.

Outside of the basic exposure adjustments and basic drive modes (CH,CL, bracketing...etc) which are available as dials on the XT1, the rest of the time you will most likely be menu diving or if your lucky the setting might be available on the limits Q menu. I find the K3 Info. menu has many more useful settings that I would like to change compared to the Fuji Q menu. K3 has the user program modes attached to the mode dial , allowing you to avoid menu diving if you have setup preset modes. Fuji requires you to use the quirky Q menu which most users hate, myself included, requiring you to use a menu and scroll through to find your preset. The Fuji presets allow you to save minimal settings too. Even with its larger feature set, the K3 is easier to navigate and get to the function you want.


I was seduced by the dials and retro look. Initially I thought the dials and aperture ring would make shooting "simpler" but in reality all it did was move my aperture control to the lens (i.e left hand). Even though I normally shoot in Auto ISO, I do shoot a lot in manual, with the XT1, ISO changes require me to take the camera away from shooting position as the ISO dial is on the left and is locked. On the K3, i can change the ISO with camera to my eye using my right hand. One of the main reasons I like the K3 so much over Nikon and Canons is its interface being all on the right side. I like to keep the camera steady with my left and change settings with my right..

If your going to move away from Pentax, for LV shooting I would look at the GH4 as it has the full articulating screen and very good LV tracking from all reports.

I wanted to ask you about if you used LV and if you could compare the two. As I mentioned in my op, I end up using LV instead of a viewfinder for most of my shooting. If you had to shoot people moving, which cameras AF works best now?

Which camera is quieter in operation, from lens noise while focusing, to shutter sound?

Which of the two cameras would you say allowed the most access to functions without menu diving or excessive button pressing? Visually the Fuji looks like it would operate more like the lx100 and be more fun than your standard dslr, but I've never used a dslr with the K3's level of control, so the k3 may trump it?

My requirements are a little different I think than the normal dslr shooter, so I am really having a hard time translating pros and cons into how I would use each camera.

[chiane]

The screen on the K3 is bigger and easier to view in sunlight. The XT1 has the advantage of the tilt screen which is very handy at times and would love to see this feature come to the next K3. The battery life on the XT1 is poor and it gets worse if using LV. You will be lucky to get 200 shots using LV.. If you turn of the camera between shots you can extend this number marginally.

AF on both cameras depends on the lens used. The early XF lenses i.e. 35mm and 60mm are slow compared to the new lenses. There AF speed has been improved with firmware updates but are still behind the newer lens e.g. 23, 56 ,50-140. The fastest focusing fuji lens is the new 50-140mm competing with other brands best offering. The Fuji allows you to control the size of the focus point, using it at its largest setting, with lens wide open or near to wide open will increase focus speed, but due to the narrow DOF you can find it focusing on something behind or infront of the intended target. Using the smaller focus points improves accuracy significantly but at the price of speed and hunting in some cases. As far as shooting moving people I can't really comment as I used the LV for still subjects i.e. landscapes and macro. With all that being said, I think the XT1 AF is in LV is generally faster than the K3 and having the tilt screen is a big plus.

XT1 is quieter but not significantly so, unless you use the electronic shutter then it is silent accept for lens noise. Note the electric shutter can't be used when shooting moving subjects as you get the rolling shutter effect you see in video, distorting your image. The shutter sound of the XT1 has a slightly duller sound to the K3. If you are in a church both would be heard. Lens noise, Fuji lenses are definitely quieter than pentax screw drive lenses. The older Fuji lenses are noisy too i.e. 35mm and 60mm.. The newer lenses make "noise" but you need to be standing right next to the camera to hear. In a church hall, it wouldn't be noticeable.. Also, be aware that Fuji OIS can be heard when enabled, this does annoy some users but again its not going to be heard unless you next to the camera in a relative quiet environment.

Outside of the basic exposure adjustments and basic drive modes (CH,CL, bracketing...etc) which are available as dials on the XT1, the rest of the time you will most likely be menu diving or if your lucky the setting might be available on the limits Q menu. I find the K3 Info. menu has many more useful settings that I would like to change compared to the Fuji Q menu. K3 has the user program modes attached to the mode dial , allowing you to avoid menu diving if you have setup preset modes. Fuji requires you to use the quirky Q menu which most users hate, myself included, requiring you to use a menu and scroll through to find your preset. The Fuji presets allow you to save minimal settings too. Even with its larger feature set, the K3 is easier to navigate and get to the function you want.


I was seduced by the dials and retro look. Initially I thought the dials and aperture ring would make shooting "simpler" but in reality all it did was move my aperture control to the lens (i.e left hand). Even though I normally shoot in Auto ISO, I do shoot a lot in manual, with the XT1, ISO changes require me to take the camera away from shooting position as the ISO dial is on the left and is locked. On the K3, i can change the ISO with camera to my eye using my right hand. One of the main reasons I like the K3 so much over Nikon and Canons is its interface being all on the right side. I like to keep the camera steady with my left and change settings with my right..

If your going to move away from Pentax, for LV shooting I would look at the GH4 as it has the full articulating screen and very good LV tracking from all reports.

Thanks so much for taking the time. Thanks to everyone else as well. This kind of rubs the luster off the fuji. Very useful thread. It really helped me.

[carpents]

Fuji fans, livin' in the fantasy.

Fuji's XTrans colour array is less efficient than Bayer. To compensate Fuji understates ISO, which means you need 2/3 of a stop longer shutter speed to compare with Pentax, who are probably the most honest of all manufacturers with stated ISO values. In addition, Fuji applies heavy noise reduction to raw files at the expense of detail. Pentax also uses raw NR with most bodies (not with the K-3), but not nearly as aggressively as Fuji.

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

See how dark the Fuji files are here? Where do you see even a fraction of a stop of this fictional Fuji noise superiority? Behind the Fuji colour filter array is the same dated 16mp Sony sensor as used in Sony, Nikon and Pentax bodies. The whole point of the X-Trans design was to get rid the blur filter. That need is gone now that the rest of the APS-C world has moved on to 24mp.

Okay, one stop then. 😉

[audiobomber]

Okay, one stop then. ��

Prove it...

"By our tests, the X-T1's measured sensitivities are around 1/2 - 2/3EV lower than marked, which is unusual for a modern camera. This means that for any given light level, the X-T1 has to use a significantly slower shutter speed, brighter aperture or higher ISO to get an image of the same brightness as an accurately-rated camera.

It's unusual to see this sort of discrepancy and we're disappointed that Fujifilm persists with a system that, while technically compliant with the ISO standard, ends up appearing rather disingenuous."

"Even bearing this in mind, the X-T1 performs very well when its Raw images are converted with ACR. There's essentially no chroma noise, and luminance noise is suppressed until around ISO 3200, at which point you start to notice some hints of noise reduction artefacts - something not normally seen in Raw files. But again, it's very important to understand that the X-T1 looks artificially good in comparison to the other cameras here."

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t1/16

[carpents]

Prove it...

"By our tests, the X-T1's measured sensitivities are around 1/2 - 2/3EV lower than marked, which is unusual for a modern camera. This means that for any given light level, the X-T1 has to use a significantly slower shutter speed, brighter aperture or higher ISO to get an image of the same brightness as an accurately-rated camera.

It's unusual to see this sort of discrepancy and we're disappointed that Fujifilm persists with a system that, while technically compliant with the ISO standard, ends up appearing rather disingenuous."

"Even bearing this in mind, the X-T1 performs very well when its Raw images are converted with ACR. There's essentially no chroma noise, and luminance noise is suppressed until around ISO 3200, at which point you start to notice some hints of noise reduction artefacts - something not normally seen in Raw files. But again, it's very important to understand that the X-T1 looks artificially good in comparison to the other cameras here."

Fujifilm X-T1 Review: Digital Photography Review

I haven't gone to Dpreview in about a decade, and I don't think I'm missing much.

Here's what I did: Set up a scene in low light with various colors, took back-to-back images with tripod-mounted Fuji X-E2 and Pentax K-5 IIs. Both used the same (exact) lens - a DA 70mm Limited.

Shooting at ISO 3200, the X-E2 metered at 1/45s @ f/2.4. The K-5 IIs metered 1/50s @ f/2.4.

At ISO 6400, both cameras metered exactly the same at 1/100s @ f/2.4.

I attached a resized version of the scene taken at ISO 6400: Fuji top, Pentax bottom. (You can see the white balance differences.)

Here are the crops, taken from the left (DA 15), middle (business card), and right (water bottle).

[ruggiex]

How about do one where Fuji's image is boosted by 1/2 - 2/3 EV? The exposure isn't the same even though the indicated ISO/Shutter are identical. That's kind of the point.

[Rondec]

I haven't gone to Dpreview in about a decade, and I don't think I'm missing much.

Here's what I did: Set up a scene in low light with various colors, took back-to-back images with tripod-mounted Fuji X-E2 and Pentax K-5 IIs. Both used the same (exact) lens - a DA 70mm Limited.

Shooting at ISO 3200, the X-E2 metered at 1/45s @ f/2.4. The K-5 IIs metered 1/50s @ f/2.4.

At ISO 6400, both cameras metered exactly the same at 1/100s @ f/2.4.

I attached a resized version of the scene taken at ISO 6400: Fuji top, Pentax bottom. (You can see the white balance differences.)

Here are the crops, taken from the left (DA 15), middle (business card), and right (water bottle).

I don't particularly care, but your images demonstrate Audiobomber's point. They show darker exposures than the K5 II files and they also show smoothing indicative of noise reduction, even though it was apparently turned off. If you boosted exposure on the Fuji files, I think they would look pretty similar.

[carpents]

How about do one where Fuji's image is boosted by 1/2 - 2/3 EV? The exposure isn't the same even though the indicated ISO/Shutter are identical. That's kind of the point.

I don't particularly care, but your images demonstrate Audiobomber's point. They show darker exposures than the K5 II files and they also show smoothing indicative of noise reduction, even though it was apparently turned off. If you boosted exposure on the Fuji files, I think they would look pretty similar.

I think the cooler white balance on the Pentax makes it look that way, but is it really brighter? I normalized both by selecting a white balance based on the inside of the 'D' of the lens in the photo. Then looking at crops and histograms:



I'll agree that there is some noise reduction happening on the Fuji (these were both shot raw, by the way).