[pakinjapan]

I have a Canon fullframe friend go for Fuji apsc another one go for Sony for street and walk around shooting too.
From what he said. Fuji is a good lowlights and heightISO performer, weather sealed in a very small package, goodlooking lenses and body design, very comfortable in-hand, using with a camera grip because he is a big guy. They also have a lot of fast prime. And FF DSLR systems are too big and heavy for street and walk around. I totally agree with them. Another guy doesn't switch yet but will do soon. He looking at both Canon and sony FF Mirrorless and likely go with sony because Canon refused to put the shake reduction system in body.

We walk a lot each shooting trip, usually weekend, having lighter equipments helps a lot. K3and 2primes is my upper limit too. I would rather walk 6-8hours and shoot more with lighter system than spend my energy carry big heavy equipments and go less shoot less.

---

Last edited by pakinjapan; 10-06-2018 at 05:59 PM.

[mecrox]

I’d guess many folks now own more than one brand of camera, so it doesn’t have to be either/or unless circumstances make it so. Fuji are clearly very good at some things but then so are Pentax, Nikon et al. One camera rarely does it all. Some folks do change systems but imho it’s best to do so for very clear reasons. A typical example would be veteran FF photographers changing down to Fuji APS-C or say M43 because weight and size issues have simply become too much and smaller formats are fine for the more casual photography they do these days.

That said, some folks do change because they just prefer the features mirrorless cameras offer, while others prefer the opposite. TBH, had we not had a self-serving Canon-Nikon duopoly which deliberately held everything back for many years, these conversations would not be taking place to the same degree. There would already be a much broader choice of camera types and abilities. These sharp distinctions would not be so important. We are only just starting down that road.

There’s little reason why someone should not be very happy with Fuji, or Nikon or ... but as always, imho, best to research, test, handle etc first. Your camera is a constant companion. Best to make sure it’s a compatiible partner.

[LeRolls]

I am most likely picking up an X-T3 in the very near future and maybe a couple of lenses. It is mostly for video and sports/action shooting since I shoot for a surfing/beach clothing brand and they are requesting more action shots. The video features are really nice and I am thinking of adapting some vintage lenses for certain looks for video. I plan to keep shooting Pentax for my portraits and occasional landscapes.

[pinholecam]

I am at the point where I don't need any more stuff and feel that camera development wrt essential elements to photography has largely slowed down or stopped.
More MP is irrelevant and high ISO is generally adequate in most normal situations.
Neither has ISO performance really progressed that far from the time of the K5 when it comes to normal presentation and uses (ie. not pixel peeping but actual viewing on a screen or up to A4 print)
DR has improved up to the point of being really very good with less need for HDR, but I have not seen big improvements for the past 3yrs at least.

I keep a K1 (for the AF lenses) and a modded A7 for MF lenses.
Fuji does not interest me at all.
The system is not FF (until recently), don't fancy the X-trans, no need for its new lenses.
Don't even find its colors that great as regularly touted.

If my A7 breaks down, I'd certainly research on the next FF MILC that best caters for my legacy lenses (esp RF lenses) as the filter stack on most of the MILC so far has been rather thick and these degrade off center IQ (esp RF lenses).
I sure hope that by then, I'd give that money to a Pentax MILC, but if that is not going to happen, then the good thing is that there are plenty of choices now to choose from.

All said, I don't see any attraction with getting a Fuji.

[Winder]

For the past few years I've been surprised at how Fuji mirrorless cameras have established themselves in the market place. Back in the day of film, Fuji were known for producing good point and shooters mostly and lenses for view cameras...also very good film. They had 'credentials' as it were in photography. But they weren't at the same level in product, as Canikon, Pentax, Minolta, etc...long time stalwarts in the SLR field...and with the unfortunate exception of Minolta...the others are still going strong.

Fuji was one of the forerunners of the mirrorless technology and they had a 'good look'...ie; the Leica Rangefinder look. Fuji isn't alone in using Leica design cues, even my little Canon G 12 has some of that Leica look about it, IMHO.

Anyways...over the last while two buddies who are avid amateur photographers (like me) have ditched or plan to ditch their equipment to go Fuji mirrorless. One was a Nikon full frame guy with the 24-70,70-200, 14-24 Nikkors, etc...the other who hasn't done it just yet....has Canon ASP-C top of the line equipment (L Lenses, etc.).

I don't understand why they and others would change from these two fine systems and go Fuji mirrorless ASP-C ?

What are the advantages over top of the line Nikon, Pentax, Canon DSLR's that would sway those owners to go Fuji ?

BTW, I'm not being critical of Fuji, think they make very good photographic equipment...but so do Canon, Nikon, Pentax.

If I were going to shoot with APS-C exclusively I would select Fuji. Fuji has done an excellent job developing some great APS-C lenses and people seem to love using the cameras. If Fuji had a FF body like the the XT-3 or XH-1 I would consider dropping Sony for it. Canon and Nikon don't make a lot of really good APS-C glass. They have some good stuff, but not like Fuji. At one point Pentax was the system to beat for a dedicated APS-C format shooter, but Fuji has pass surpassed Ricoh in every way except build quality. I know there are people who get hung up on the OVF vs EVF argument, but that is purely subjective. Given the sale numbers that Fuji is putting up, it doesn't look like most people care about the OVF/EVF.

[lesmore49]

If I were going to shoot with APS-C exclusively I would select Fuji. Fuji has done an excellent job developing some great APS-C lenses and people seem to love using the cameras. If Fuji had a FF body like the the XT-3 or XH-1 I would consider dropping Sony for it. Canon and Nikon don't make a lot of really good APS-C glass. They have some good stuff, but not like Fuji. At one point Pentax was the system to beat for a dedicated APS-C format shooter, but Fuji has pass surpassed Ricoh in every way except build quality. I know there are people who get hung up on the OVF vs EVF argument, but that is purely subjective. Given the sale numbers that Fuji is putting up, it doesn't look like most people care about the OVF/EVF.

I have a Sigma 150-500 lens for my ASP-C\Full frame Pentax...gives me the 35mm equivalent of 750mm on my K5 ASP-C. I've wondered over the years if Fuji has an equivalent super telephoto or maybe if there is an aftermarket firm like Sigma/Tamron that provides a lens of this long focal length ?

I use my 150-500 for both wildlife, birds etc. , old abandoned machinery in the country and also at the dragstrip...I can take shots well away from the race cars...but still up close up.

I also like having both good viewfinder systems, like I have on the K1. I generally prefer to use the eye level finder, but also use the monitor viewer for special angles.

[surfar]

I have a Sigma 150-500 lens for my ASP-C\Full frame Pentax...gives me the 35mm equivalent of 750mm on my K5 ASP-C. I've wondered over the years if Fuji has an equivalent super telephoto or maybe if there is an aftermarket firm like Sigma/Tamron that provides a lens of this long focal length ?

Native 100-400 with 1.4TC is longest OR Fringer AF adapter EF mount for Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm.

With Sigma announcing the 60-600mm bigger Bigma recently,Fringer will update their firmware for that one as well.

[lesmore49]

Native 100-400 with 1.4TC is longest OR Fringer AF adapter EF mount for Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm.

With Sigma announcing the 60-600mm bigger Bigma recently,Fringer will update their firmware for that one as well.

Thx for the info.

[BigMackCam]

With Sigma announcing the 60-600mm bigger Bigma recently,Fringer will update their firmware for that one as well.

I'm just off to apply for copyright protection on the term "Biggerma"

[surfar]

If I were going to shoot with APS-C exclusively I would select Fuji. Fuji has done an excellent job developing some great APS-C lenses

With the release of the XT3,they have raised the bar,$$$ony will have something to compete very soon though!

If Fuji had a FF body like the the XT-3 or XH-1

Their FF is included in the GFX bodies 30+ mp,the 50R costs less than a top end Dslr.It hasnt the speed but the resolution makes it BANG for $$$$$$$$$$$.

[BigMackCam]

Their FF is included in the GFX bodies 30+ mp,the 50R costs less than a top end Dslr.It hasnt the speed but the resolution makes it BANG for $$$$$$$$$$$.

But if your main interest is in 35mm format, you're buying a medium format camera and only using part of the sensor, along with medium format AF glass where you only use a fraction of the image circle. It'll work, sure, but it doesn't seem to make sense financially. Plus, wouldn't it make the AF lens choices rather odd from a focal length perspective (not to mention cost)? You could shoot adapted 35mm glass, of course, but again - it doesn't really feel like a 35mm full frame solution; more like using a bigger (and pricier) setup than necessary to achieve that... I mean, who buys a K-1 primarily to shoot APS-C glass?

[Rondec]

With the release of the XT3,they have raised the bar,$$$ony will have something to compete very soon though!



Their FF is included in the GFX bodies 30+ mp,the 50R costs less than a top end Dslr.It hasnt the speed but the resolution makes it BANG for $$$$$$$$$$$.

This "full frame" option isn't what most folks are looking for. If you just want to adapt lenses and use them manually then you are far cheaper going with an A7r II. You'll spend over a thousand dollars less, get more megapixels and have better video options. In addition, if you would happen to want to have lenses that actually auto focus, they won't break the bank the way Fuji MF lenses will.

To me it is like saying you are buying a K-1 to shoot DA lenses on. In fact, there would be more functionality with the DA lenses on the K-1 since you would have auto focus and auto aperture, but it still kind of defeats the purpose of buying a larger sensor camera.

[surfar]

But if your main interest is in 35mm format, you're buying a medium format camera and only using part of the sensor,

This "full frame" option isn't what most folks are looking for.

Yes, however consider.

Canons huge user base,that are used to paying Canon prices...there will be some who take this option.Of course MF resolution is their major priority,the bonus is the FF option that is similar resolution to the 5Dmk4.The speed isnt quite the same(as I said).

[BigMackCam]

Yes, however consider.

Canons huge user base,that are used to paying Canon prices...there will be some who take this option.Of course MF resolution is their major priority,the bonus is the FF option that is similar resolution to the 5Dmk4.The speed isnt quite the same(as I said).

What about AF lenses at appropriate focal lengths?

Especially for those who want 35mm full frame wide angle or longer tele, not to mention faster apertures...

[surfar]

What about AF lenses at appropriate focal lengths?

TechArt Pro.It works with "most" Canon and Sigma lenses.

As well as Steelsring,Kipon,Fotodiox.