So, for most of us there is no one right answer to all of this stuff about online sales versus local brick and mortar sales. In my situation, living in a pretty large metropolitan area:
1. If I know what I want, don't need advice from sales people before buying, don't need to handle the gear before purchase... I'll typically buy from online retailers. There is one exception in this scenario...
2. ... though it is less available to me than it used to be. If I wanted the thing really soon I would go to a local shop and ask if they were willing to sell the item for the same cost that I could get from the online retailer. I'd explain that I'd rather buy from them if they could do this, even though it doesn't save me anything. I've had three kinds of reactions from local shops. In a number of cases they said "yes." Sometimes the answer was a polite "no." In once case the salesman wanted to take my head off! Fortunately, I _can_ be diplomatic...
3. If I really do need to try before buying and/or hold the item first and/or get direct advice, I will buy from the local place even if it costs a bit more. My thinking is that they are offering added value, and that if it is important to me to have access to this... I'm willing to pay for it.
That's me. But I can see how it would be different if you live far from photography stores that are likely to have the gear you need to obtain it quickly. If you are dealing online with a "mom and pop" brick-and-mortar store because you want to help them survive... and ordering stuff just to try it out...
... you probably should tell them that's what you plan to do upfront, right?
Fuji by launching three new APS-C camera models imply they assume buyers will quickly figure out what they want. X-H2S with 26mp hybrid action camera which rules out 40mp sensor. X-T5 appears to justify its high price but only when compared to new XH cameras. We Fuji buyers chasing white rabbits going through loops. Obviously there is no perfect camera so we settle for second best to save money sometimes. That is until forced to decide on XH and XT type cameras. X-H2S as the star attraction with stacked sensor; eventually in every camera. The expensive stacked sensor price will come down in the near future with falling chip prices in 2023. Thus Fuji returns with new wave of advanced cameras. Fuji need new XT camera with all the trimmings. New X-T5 will sell for all the wrong reasons. X-T4 owners may be in a quandary. Fuji may have over-committed themselves promising too much. Time will tell.
It seems like that with each new Fuji model it is becoming more difficult to find the perfect camera. They muck up some aspect, such as the type of screen or lack of dials, that ruins an otherwise desirable "upgrade." The ideal XT5 would have had a 26mp sensor that killed the competition on noise, but Fuji chose to go with its 40mp XH2 sensor, which just does not appeal to me. There will always be better high-resolution options from Sony, Nikon and Canon if money is not an issue. The 40mp sensor seems to be an effort by Fuji to simply show that it can be done. The camera does not do much for the fanbase, who are street and event photographers. Wildlife and bird photography seems to be where the money is these days; the people who can afford the long lenses and the exotic location vacations have the dough to constantly upgrade bodies. Fuji is going where the money is, I suppose. Fortunately, there is a ton used stuff out there that still has a lot of life in it and gets the job done. I decided to keep my XH1 after being underwhelmed by the XT5. I did upgrade to the XH2s for the video only, but on photos I see very little upgrade in quality from the two XH1s I had to sell, along with three lenses and another $1500 in cash. That's a lot of money for minimal upgrades, but the darn XH1 totally failed on the video promises and the battery issue. That's the camera I wish I had returned, especially since it cost $1800 at the time--another reason not to jump on any new model.
cfeather54 wrote:
It seems like that with each new Fuji model it is becoming more difficult to find the perfect camera.
.
"Perfect cameras" do not exist, never have existed, and never will. All cameras are compromises.
1. If there was a perfect camera, by definition there would be no possibility of producing a later "better than perfect" model. That's obviously not realistic.
2. Even the concept of a "better" or a "best" camera depends a whole lot on how the photographer intends to use it. A "perfect" camera for, say, photographing birds would not be perfect for doing street photography, and a perfect landscape camera system would not be perfect for portraits. Since no camera can even be perfect for one of those or a myriad of other genre shadings, no camera company can create a camera that is perfect for all or even many of them.
3. Beyond that we get into all kinds of personal subjectivity. Some would demand a PASM interface in their version of camera perfection, which for others that would be disqualifying.
The questions is not "what is the perfect camera?". It is, "what features are ideal for my photography and which camera does the best job of getting me there?"
I do think that the case for upgrading from the X-T4 to the X-T5 may not be very compelling, much like the X-T2 to X-T3 transition years back. But I do think the X-T5 is a significant upgrade over my X-T3 in several ways import to me, e.g.
* Very effective IBIS system for primes and my 16-55
* Much better battery for all day shooting
* Many small improvements to features and menus I use, like sticky timer settings, 3D bubble level, much improved focus bracketing (based on choosing the foreground and background instead of guesswork), more customizable focus lever settings, etc, etc
* (Apparently) faster ES read-out that supports using flash (at 1/125 sync speed)
* Small but significant improvement in EVF magnification and sharpness for glasses wearers
* Smoother, quieter control wheels, firmer shutter button, and nicer rear button placements compared to the X-T3 (particularly AF-ON)
Other model differences have pluses/minues for me, e.g.
* 40 mpix sensor that can provide resolution improvements, but only when good lenses are used at optimal apertures, focus accuracy, and lower ISOs (same can be said for all high res sensors IMO)
* Larger files for printing, but noticeable increases in processing time and storage needed for event work
* More compact size which makes it easier to pack along, but requires a grip for optimal comfort with my largish hands
But price-wise it's about what I paid for the X-T2 and X-T3 when they first came out, and it's a heck of a camera for the money in my estimation.
i also did not upgrade from x-t3 to x-t4, even though if felt good in the hand and it had ibis but it wasn't that of an upgrade for me. this time i went with x-h2
cfeather54 wrote:
There will always be better high-resolution options from Sony, Nikon and Canon if money is not an issue. The 40mp sensor seems to be an effort by Fuji to simply show that it can be done. The camera does not do much for the fanbase, who are street and event photographers.
But money is an issue for most people. The high resolution options from Sony, Nikon and Canon are normally double the price of an XT4/XT5.
mdude85 wrote:
But money is an issue for most people. The high resolution options from Sony, Nikon and Canon are normally double the price of an XT4/XT5.
Indeed. I was able to shoot multiple 90 minute panels back to back in 8k with the X-H2. Maybe an A1 or Z9 could do that, but the price delta is significant.
I dunno maybe it's me but in Europe the XT-5 is priced like a full frame camera. Not being funny here but why would anyone buy an APS-C camera for full frame prices?
Looking at the lens line up too, it's pretty expensive I mean wow expensive. That 33mm F1.4 is way more than any 50mm full frame lens at equivalent speed.
I can see some appeal for X mount in the styling and design, but wow you sure pay a premium for that
The flagships are but you can still get a new Z7 for 1700 and and a new A7R3 for $2000ish on sale and the IQ of each smokes Fuji.
Anybody buying a 40 megapixel Fuji camera for landscape/non action applications would be far better off buying either of those instead.
mdude85 wrote:
But money is an issue for most people. The high resolution options from Sony, Nikon and Canon are normally double the price of an XT4/XT5.
Watched this last night and found it pretty interesting. I did some comparo shots with my X-H2 and X-S10 and the 35mm F2 (it's on the list, ) and pretty much got the same results. Yes the files are bigger in the H2 but the images coming out of the 26 MP sensor look crisper and just better. I will be keeping the X-H2 because of all the other reasons but it is interesting that the gains in image quality don't seem to be that apparent.
I now have a XT5. (I posted a bit about initial impressions in another thread in the Fujifilm forum.)
I'm liking it a lot. There are quite a few places it will be useful in my own photography.
1. Street photography: mostly using small primes but occasionally using f/1.4 primes for night street work. Here, particularly, IBIS is going to be useful.
2. Travel photography: The camera is essentially as small as my XPro2 (less wide, a bit thicker and the "hump" makes it slightly taller), so it will fit in my under-seat bag on airlines along with my lenses and other non-photo stuff I want to keep with me.
3. Event photography: Here I'll use it most often with the f/1.4 primes and the 90mm f/2, along with the 16-55 f/2.8. and the 50-140 f/2.8.
4. Macro: While I have a great macro lens for my FF system, I do most of my macro photography handheld on Fujifilm with the 80mm f/2.8. The design of the rear screen is perfect for this.
5. Hiking/backpacking; I'll continue to do most of my landscape photography with my FF system, but I've used APS-C for landscape when hiking/backpacking on a few occasions when I wanted to keep my load lighter and there results are reliably good for 20" x 30" prints.
I have now done just a bit of real-world photograph with the camera using the 27mm f/2.8 WR my standard street photo lens. Results look great. Have done some test shots (as differentiated from "real" photography) with the 16-55 and the 50-140, and they seem good, too.
I'll likely be retiring the XPro2 shortly it has been a great camera, but this is going to do a fine job of replacing it.
RoamingScott wrote:
The flagships are but you can still get a new Z7 for 1700 and and a new A7R3 for $2000ish on sale and the IQ of each smokes Fuji.
Anybody buying a 40 megapixel Fuji camera for landscape/non action applications would be far better off buying either of those instead.
This is pretty much what that video shows as well as from my limited test shot of a close up of my cars wheel. Yes the file size is bigger but I prefer the image of the X-S10 for several reasons. Again, I'll be keeping the X-H2 for various other reasons but if IQ is the number one priority and you want to stay in Fuji, you're going to GFX, IMO.
JustShootMe wrote:
I bet the 35 F2 isn't up to the task , seeing images with the 33 1.4 are sharp and crisp in my experience. He should try a better lens for such tests.
Let's try to refrain from just making things up. The 35/2 is on the 40mp "approved" list from Fuji.
Anyone shocked that cramming 40mp into an APSC sensor has middling returns hasn't been paying much attention. The new stacked sensor is definitely the winner of this new gen, and it's not obvious that the new 40mp sensor has much practical benefit over the X Trans 4 gen sensor, short of AF speed on the bodies it's in.
Anyone shocked that cramming 40mp into an APSC sensor has middling returns hasn't been paying much attention. The new stacked sensor is definitely the winner of this new gen, and it's not obvious that the new 40mp sensor has much practical benefit over the X Trans 4 gen sensor, short of AF speed on the bodies it's in.
Sorry dude, having used that lens.. it's the worst of the bunch ... try it then comment
JustShootMe wrote:
Sorry dude, having used that lens.. it's the worst of the bunch ... try it then comment
I'll go grab my 90mm that just arrived and give it another try. My prediction is it won't matter. In my opinion the 35mm F2 is outstanding optically and very sharp. I mean, it looks fantastic from the X-S10 image of the comparison I made this morning.
gunmetal wrote:
I'll go grab my 90mm that just arrived and give it another try. My prediction is it won't matter. In my opinion the 35mm F2 is outstanding optically and very sharp. I mean, it looks fantastic from the X-S10 image of the comparison I made this morning.
that's a better test , please don't shoot everything wide open , stop it down a bit and lets see the results.
My 35 F2 is fantastic as well. I personally can't proclaim it's a bad lens.
gunmetal wrote:
In my opinion the 35mm F2 is outstanding optically and very sharp. I mean, it looks fantastic from the X-S10 image of the comparison I made this morning.
) and pretty much got the same results. Yes the files are bigger in the H2 but the images coming out of the 26 MP sensor look crisper and just better. I will be keeping the X-H2 because of all the other reasons but it is interesting that the gains in image quality don't seem to be that apparent. 