Originally posted by Jonathan Mac I have experience of the older 16MP and the newer 24MP X-trans sensors and have to say I've not seen any of the problems that I've read about - mushy results especially of greens. Both sensors are superb, as is the Fujifilm jpeg engine.
The system as a whole is the most complete APS-C line-up in the mirrorless world, as Fuji have decided not to use FF (I don't think the mount is large enough for it) so they haven't had to compromise like Sony. I would thoroughly recommend it.
I also agree with LeRolls - Fujifilm produces the results most like film in rendering, which can't be a bad thing.
Originally posted by luftfluss Early on, Adobe and Fuji couldn't get Adobe RAW Converter to optimally develop Fuji files, and that's where much of the to-do about X-Trans problems came from. Things have improved more recently, and in my own experience with Capture One Fuji files did not lack detail compared with Pentax.
Basically, anyone who brings up so-called problems with Fuji files are just being trolls.
Originally posted by Winder Fuji has the best APS-C system on the market it my opinion. There does seem to be a slight softness to many of the images that portrait shooters like. People say the softness is more organic or film-like. If you aren't into post processing and just want to enjoy photography, then the Fuji film simulations are a great option. The big questions are - what will you be shooting and will you be printing or just sharing pictures on social media or flickr? For social media or Flickr just about any camera will be fine. I would look at Olympus m4/3 as a starting point but Fuji has some crazy good deals going on and if you want an XH-1 you can get into the Fuji ecosystem for less money than m4/3. If this is something you are really serious about, rent a couple of bodies and lenses from different companies. Take some pictures and make some prints. If you are looking for a camera that is going to perform well in natural light then FF has the performance advantage. Fuji AF is still not as quick or dependable as some of the FF options and I think Olympus has better AF. If you are going to be shaping and controlling light and 8x10 prints are as big as you need then it really doesn't matter if you buy FF, APS-C, or m4/3. The modern sensors in all of them are more than adequate. I would say the advantage of Fuji is the user experience and friends who shoot with Fuji always come back to that.
I shoot Sony and I hear some people complain that some images are too sharp or too digital and that is often a matter of processing and once you print that digital file to an analogue print that digital look is going to go away.
Thanks for the detailed responses. Agreed, the Fuji output looks nice, almost film like it some aspects. It's got a certain 'je ne sais quoi' to my eye, which is what drew me to Fuji for smaller backup camera body. Moreover, I don't have time to spend hours in post converting RAW files for everyday family photos, so usable OOC jpeg's is appealing. How it the headroom in Fuji's jpegs compared to Pentax for editing?
The X-H1 looks awesome. The only Fuji camera with in-body stabilization and has great build/features. I don't think could buy a camera without IBS in 2019, so not really interested in the other bodies. However, the X-H1 is BIG for a mirrorless. In fact, almost the same size as the Pentax KP, which is spec'd pretty much the same and cheaper......
Too many choices in the market these days. Good time to be an enthusiast I suppose.