jojib wrote:
Yeah for sure. One thing I miss with the X100VI is the lack of 24mm. Even though I added stuff to improve ergo and protection I am hesitant to buy a wide angle converter. I might as well just take the A6700 and 15/1.4 G which is excellent for environmental portraits.
I wouldn't even consider the wide angle converter.. I'm in the same boat. At that point, I am better off with my current setup of the A7C + 24mm G.
itzjere wrote:
I think there is a parallel that we can draw from this comparison.. Both the Viltrox and GR are small in size, a good price (Maybe not that GR, but in comparison to the X100), but have limitation and trade offs that outweigh the value it can bring.
How about 7Artisans 28/5.6 with A7c? Not quite as small, but at least one can stop it down for hyperfocal focusing.
Just an idea. Sample pictures in Flickr looked quite ok.
itzjere wrote:
I wouldn't even consider the wide angle converter.. I'm in the same boat. At that point, I am better off with my current setup of the A7C + 24mm G.
I can always move further back or try to mimic as if I shot with 24mm FF equivalent (last two images) with my X100VI using Photoshop Generative Expand thus I can leave the Sony home :-)
jojib wrote:
I can always move further back or try to mimic as if I shot with 24mm FF equivalent (last two images) with my X100VI using Photoshop Generative Expand thus I can leave the Sony home :-)
The sky is the limit once we start to get onto the computer with generative features.. At that point, we can even leave the X100VI at home since you have a phone
itzjere wrote:
The sky is the limit once we start to get onto the computer with generative features.. At that point, we can even leave the X100VI at home since you have a phone
Yeah to each their own. I love to edit my pictures and since I have the big three software I bought my last FF camera in the R6MKII. I plan to continue to support the X100 franchise from here on in.
Wanted to update the thread here for those that might be interested - I have made my decision. I spent the morning with a friend who has the X100VI and the GR3. It was great to handle everything in person, and take some photos to see how the AF compares side by side. The X100VI is hands down the winner. The GR leaves a lot to be desired, and while the pocketable size is hard to ignore, I feel like the next GR might be the one to consider. I can see a world where both of these exist side by side in my kit.
Wanted to say THANK YOU to everyone that chimed into this thread. The feedback, experience, and suggestions were of great help in fortifying my thoughts around these two systems.
I haven't read all 5 pages, but I'll very quickly interject that IMO a fixed 35mm lens is NOT the best way to go for daily carry/family shots. The added flexibility of a 28mm goes a lot farther in making it easier to live with. On the XE4, it was the 18/2 for me. I've got a beat up old 1st-gen GR now and it gives me very similar photos, but actually fits in my pocket and was only $400.
EDIT-
Lol, read through more of the thread now. If autofocus is super critical, then don't buy a Fuji. Point blank. They simply aren't as reliable as Sony or Canon, or prob Nikon either. Yeah it might be fast, and have subject detection, but that doesn't mean it hits where it should. If you're ok with that, then you might actually be just fine with a GR in actual use. I love the photos out of my GR, and enjoy the jpgs from it just as much (if not more) than my previous Fujis.
ISO1600 wrote:
I haven't read all 5 pages, but I'll very quickly interject that IMO a fixed 35mm lens is NOT the best way to go for daily carry/family shots. The added flexibility of a 28mm goes a lot farther in making it easier to live with. On the XE4, it was the 18/2 for me. I've got a beat up old 1st-gen GR now and it gives me very similar photos, but actually fits in my pocket and was only $400.
EDIT-
Lol, read through more of the thread now. If autofocus is super critical, then don't buy a Fuji. Point blank. They simply aren't as reliable as Sony or Canon, or prob Nikon either. Yeah it might be fast, and have subject detection, but that doesn't mean it hits where it should. If you're ok with that, then you might actually be just fine with a GR in actual use. I love the photos out of my GR, and enjoy the jpgs from it just as much (if not more) than my previous Fujis. ...Show more →
Thanks for your feedback. I can see where the GR can excel with the 28mm. As for AF, I realize it will be hard to match the hit rate from my Sony. When I went hands on, side by side with my friend that has both, I found the Fuji to be acceptable.. both in focal length and AF. I'm going to give it a try.
ISO1600 wrote:
If autofocus is super critical, then don't buy a Fuji. Point blank. They simply aren't as reliable as Sony or Canon, or prob Nikon either. Yeah it might be fast, and have subject detection, but that doesn't mean it hits where it should.
I think a bit of nuance is in order when it comes to Fujifilm AF.
If you are pushing the outer edges of the capabilities of AF on modern cameras and that is critical to your work, then it is true that canon. Sony, Nikon lead these days. (Which one is incrementally “at the top?” It depends who you ask.)
But Fujifilm’s AF is not incompetent, which seems to be the alternative that some want us to believe. “Don’t buy a Fuji. Point blank.” is simply nonsense.
Fujifilm cameras, while not having AF performance equal to the very best state-of-the-art cameras, are more than competent. Heck, I manage ot use one successfully for street photography, often at night, at it works fine.
- - -
More generally, all of the options discussed in this thread — from Fujifilm and others — fit various use cases. It depends on a bunch of things: does one have a brand affinity? how small is small enough? What are you willing to give up? (And you will have to give up something to get the smallest size/weight.)
gdanmitchell wrote:
I think a bit of nuance is in order when it comes to Fujifilm AF.
If you are pushing the outer edges of the capabilities of AF on modern cameras and that is critical to your work, then it is true that canon. Sony, Nikon lead these days. (Which one is incrementally “at the top?” It depends who you ask.)
But Fujifilm’s AF is not incompetent, which seems to be the alternative that some want us to believe. “Don’t buy a Fuji. Point blank.” is simply nonsense.
Fujifilm cameras, while not having AF performance equal to the very best state-of-the-art cameras, are more than competent. Heck, I manage ot use one successfully for street photography, often at night, at it works fine.
- - -
More generally, all of the options discussed in this thread — from Fujifilm and others — fit various use cases. It depends on a bunch of things: does one have a brand affinity? how small is small enough? What are you willing to give up? (And you will have to give up something to get the smallest size/weight.)...Show more →
I agree. Fuji AF is not the best and it's not the worst. It depends on your use case. For street, landscape, and portrait photography it is excellent. If you are a sport or wildlife photographer you should look elsewhere. Curiously, no one here mentions the capability of the OM-D cameras, probably because they are 'only' micro 4/3.
A lot of topnotch street and street portrait photographers use 28 mm lenses. Paul Reid uses a 28mm Q2 Monochrome and his work is superb. Gary Lashmar does close up street portraits and he often uses an 18 mm Fuji lens (27 mm equivalent). I don't think anyone would look at their work and fault it for their lens choice. https://www.youtube.com/@paulreidphotography/featured https://www.youtube.com/@LASHMAR/featured
I wouldn't use such a wide lens for a studio portrait, however. Even 35 mm is too wide for that use. 85 mm seems to be the sweet spot for that purpose.
I've gotten quite a few portraits I love with the original GR (APS-C). 28mm isn't a conventional choice for portraiture, and probably wouldn't be anyone's first choice, but it can work in the right circumstances.
I love a good 35mm as much as the next guy, but time and time again if given a few choices (28, 35, ~40, 50) I am happiest with a 28 as a "single lens" option, and especially if i can have two lenses, a 28/50 combo works great for me.
I never intended to say that the Fuji cameras don't have good enough AF for most uses, just emphasizing that if the OP feels stellar AF is an absolute requirement, then Fuji is not the best choice. I get far more AF keepers with Canon or Sony than I ever did with Fuji. I'm not saying that critical focus makes or breaks every photo, but some photographers sure think so.
I may be a bit of an outlier but 35mm is the magical photo length for me and all my favorite photos I've shot over the years are with this focal length. Either on a crop frame or full frame camera. This makes the Fuji X100 series acceptable for me. I'll always have my phone in my pocket if I find myself needing a different focal length. In fact, my default on my iPhone is set to 35mm equivalent as well.
There is no right or wrong focal length. 28mm is great for more documentary style and environmental portraits, but if normal or telephoto range portraits are your thing then you'll be unhappy. Fixed lens cameras are inherently a compromise solution.
Regarding AF, I'd definitely place Fuji way ahead of Ricoh. Still behind Sony, but usable enough in most situations. I wouldn't pick it for shooting fast moving action with subject tracking, but that's not really what an X100 is suitable for anyway.
TENOG wrote:
A lot of topnotch street and street portrait photographers use...
… a wide range of different cameras and lenses and approaches.
Some may use a fixed focal length camera. Others prefer to put primes on an ILC. Some like zooms. A few might use all of those.
Some like tiny 1” cameras, some like MFT, others use APS-C, a number prefer FF, and a smaller number like larger formats.
Some stick to film while many others prefer digital.
Among those who like to work with one focal length, you’ll find folks using everything from about 28mm up to a bit longer than 50mm. For “street portraits” some will go even longer.
Some think street should be monochromatic. Some prefer color. There are vast difference in street/portrait photographers approach to post-processing.
Some think you should chat up your subjects. Some think you should observe without personally affecting what happens. Some think “street” is all about photographing people. Some think that it is about the “street landscape.”
A preference is just a preference, and there’s no right way to do this.
I have the X100V and the Ricoh GRIII and GRIIIx. I hardly use either. When I do take a small camera with me, I generally take the Leica D-Lux 8 (nice zoom, nice menus) or the Olympus Pen f (endless lens choices).
Looking at each camera separately: I like the ergonomics (with added thumb grip) and the fact that it has an EVF on the Fuji, but I'm not really a 35mm shooter. I've previously sold earlier editions of the camera, but always end up buying the next one, partly because it's such a beautiful camera (and now weatherproof with the extra filter). I like the files coming out of the Ricoh(s), but miss a viewfinder. Maybe when I didn't need glasses yet, the latter would have been okay, but nowadays I need different strength glasses for normal vision and the LCD, so I'm largely shooting blind. But it's the only truly small high-quality camera of the two. I most likely sell both Ricohs soon.
johnvanr wrote:
I have the X100V and the Ricoh GRIII and GRIIIx. I hardly use either. When I do take a small camera with me, I generally take the Leica D-Lux 8 (nice zoom, nice menus) or the Olympus Pen f (endless lens choices).
Looking at each camera separately: I like the ergonomics (with added thumb grip) and the fact that it has an EVF on the Fuji, but I'm not really a 35mm shooter. I've previously sold earlier editions of the camera, but always end up buying the next one, partly because it's such a beautiful camera (and now weatherproof with the extra filter). I like the files coming out of the Ricoh(s), but miss a viewfinder. Maybe when I didn't need glasses yet, the latter would have been okay, but nowadays I need different strength glasses for normal vision and the LCD, so I'm largely shooting blind. But it's the only truly small high-quality camera of the two. I most likely sell both Ricohs soon....Show more →
