You can have a lot of Fuji gear for the price of Nikon full frame and lenses. Although I don’t own any of the pro lenses but I could own pro Fuji lenses for very cheap.
Yes I agree. I feel the X-T5 is the best camera body in the X mount range… In fact for me, the Best overall designed mirrorless camera I’ve had since getting into mirrorless back in 2002 with the D100 (Nikon shooter since mid 80's) and this includes the 18 different bodies I owned since from Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, OM and Sony.
The X-T5 has everything I want: a 3 way tilting screen (not flippy), a high MP sensor, dual card slots, 1/8000 mechanical shutter, AF joystick, ISO and SS dials with buttons for shortcuts, a full magnesium build, an excellent battery, and is WR. Yet it is very compact and easy to use. Though I always shoot Raw, the film simulations are a great feature, more so that I thought. And I only paid $1,599 new for it last year, what a buy, as my D800 and A7RIV cost close to double that new back in 2012 and 2019.
I use Lightroom. I’ve heard there’s an issue with Fuji on there. I used to shoot Fuji but I was brand new to photography and didn’t know the difference
I prefer smaller camera bodies and buy them because they fell good in hand and are fun to shoot, The X-T50 was/is almost perfect for me, but I did break down and spent $40 on a Small Rig grip. I like being able to keep the camera small or add the grip when using bigger primes.
Sal Baker wrote:
I prefer smaller camera bodies and buy them because they fell good in hand and are fun to shoot, The X-T50 was/is almost perfect for me, but I did break down and spent $40 on a Small Rig grip. I like being able to keep the camera small or add the grip when using bigger primes.
Sal
No, Sal, you have to buy a bigger camera because Dan said so. He's very smart and important, please don't deviate from his biases or he'll write another dozen paragraphs about you.
Sal Baker wrote:
I prefer smaller camera bodies and buy them because they fell good in hand and are fun to shoot, The X-T50 was/is almost perfect for me, but I did break down and spent $40 on a Small Rig grip. I like being able to keep the camera small or add the grip when using bigger primes.
Sal
Makes sense to me. Although I've never been a fan of grips, personally, if you need a larger camera at times that is one way to get both large and small in one package.
gdanmitchell wrote:
That brings up something I’ve observed and wondered about. I see people buying hte smallest body available… and then adding grips, cases, thumb rests, etc. because the small body isn’t comfortable for them.
In many cases I think they might have been better off just getting a slightly larger camera with a body that is easier to handle and then foregoing the add-ons.
Is the 16-55 ii and/or 50-140 getting a bit front heavy and funky on the xt5? Is that more of a xh2 pairing? Or is it still striking a good balance on the xt5?
newyork wrote:
Is the 16-55 ii and/or 50-140 getting a bit front heavy and funky on the xt5? Is that more of a xh2 pairing? Or is it still striking a good balance on the xt5?
I use it on my XT5. It is not a small lens but I never think about it being “front heavy” when I use it — that perception doesn’t cross my mind.
(I also use hte 50-140 and the 100-400 at times on the XT5 and it isn’t an issue for me. In some ways, it may be even less of an issue with the larger lenses given how we hold a camera when using them. We don’t hold it the same way that we would with smaller lenses. With small lenses we hold the body and may not touch the lenses at all, unless we need to move an aperture ring or focus manually. But with big lenses — on any system, even large FF bodies — when using larger lenses we typically have one hand under the lens and one on the body, with the lens hand naturally supporting most of the weight.)
For me, the main issue with the 16-55 and other larger lenses would be its physical bulk, on two counts. One is that it takes more space in the bag. (Though if it replaces, say, three primes the overall weight/bulk comparison is different.) The other is that the one might feel that shooting with the bigger zoom could attract more attention if you are shooting street or similar. (I think of it as “big lens syndrome” — people around you may have a tendency to react differently to someone holding a camera with a large lens than to someone with a small-sh prime on a small camera.
Get yourself an X-E3 and the 16f2.8, 23,35,50f2 and you are done searching for excellent and small. Available at very reasonable prices. Unless you need 40MP (which you most likely don't), the old 24/26 sensors are all excellent. The Fujicrons perform better in terms of resolution that the old 1.4 lenses (except for the 16f1.4 which, however, is very large and heavy), and are almost on par with the the new 1.4 lenses (but much smaller and less expensive).
Thinking more about this it’s convoluted in my mind. Do I really want to start collecting lenses for a 2nd system?!
And also thought maybe just 1 or 2 lenses. I do love the idea of all the smaller sized lenses that are 1.4-2 aperture and my mind wanders which is the issue.
Another option to avoid all that is the x100.
I shoot a zf and z8
gdanmitchell wrote:
I use it on my XT5. It is not a small lens but I never think about it being “front heavy” when I use it — that perception doesn’t cross my mind.
(I also use hte 50-140 and the 100-400 at times on the XT5 and it isn’t an issue for me. In some ways, it may be even less of an issue with the larger lenses given how we hold a camera when using them. We don’t hold it the same way that we would with smaller lenses. With small lenses we hold the body and may not touch the lenses at all, unless we need to move an aperture ring or focus manually. But with big lenses — on any system, even large FF bodies — when using larger lenses we typically have one hand under the lens and one on the body, with the lens hand naturally supporting most of the weight.)
For me, the main issue with the 16-55 and other larger lenses would be its physical bulk, on two counts. One is that it takes more space in the bag. (Though if it replaces, say, three primes the overall weight/bulk comparison is different.) The other is that the one might feel that shooting with the bigger zoom could attract more attention if you are shooting street or similar. (I think of it as “big lens syndrome” — people around you may have a tendency to react differently to someone holding a camera with a large lens than to someone with a small9sh prime on a small camera.
Thinking more about this it’s convoluted in my mind. Do I really want to start collecting lenses for a 2nd system?!
And also thought maybe just 1 or 2 lenses. I do love the idea of all the smaller sized lenses that are 1.4-2 aperture and my mind wanders which is the issue.
Another option to avoid all that is the x100.
I shoot a zf and z8
It is true that one alternative is to just use a XT100vi or similar for the “small system” stuff if you are sure that its 23mm focal length will always do the trick. It is an appealing camera.
For me, one attraction of the XT5 is that it can be small… and large.
I run two systems. One is a large Canon FF system that it mainly designed for tripod-based landscape photography, but which i also use for wildlife and occasionally (though much less often these days) a few other things.
The primary purpose of my Fujifilm system is street and travel photography, so the great majority of the time I have the 27mm f/2.8 on the camera. (That is my “always with me” system that I carry almost everywhere.) For street and travel I often augment that lens with the 14mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/2, which provides a compact, flexible, and light system.
But the XT is a very flexible camera and it does other things well, too. For example:
1. It is my backup system for landscape photography adventures. As such it lets me have different focal length lenses installed on the Canon and Fujifilm systems. For this I usually carry the 16-55, 60-140, and 100-400. The Fujifilm system is often my go-to when I need to reduce size and weight a bit, for example when backpacking or hiking. Depending on the situation I’ll either take the 16-55 and the 50-140 or even just the former. (I have a second, slighlty less humongous Gitzo tripod that I use with this system, too, instead of my very large RSS setup.)
2. These days I tend to use the Fujifilm system for most of my “people photography,” which ranges from (obviously) street photography through individual and group portraits.
3. Although I occasionally use the Canon system for macro photography, these days I’m more likely to use the XT5 with the 80mm f/2.8 macro.
So, as you can see, the XT5 is a very flexible system. It can be small and light when outfitted with something like the 23mm f/2.8 or 27mm f/2.8 pancake lenses. Yet it can do a whole lot of other stuff quite well with differen and likely larger lenses, too.)
That’s very appealing.
My z8 is usually used with a 28-75 and 70-180 for events and concerts or my dog and local landscape.
Zf usually has the compact 40/2 or one of my 2 Voigtlander. One of those is a 35 apo. My most used lens. That’s usually my walk around and take it in the work van set up. It also serves as back up or 2nd camera when I use both together at concerts.
Zf and 24-120 is my knife product photography setup too
gdanmitchell wrote:
It is true that one alternative is to just use a XT100vi or similar for the “small system” stuff if you are sure that its 23mm focal length will always do the trick. It is an appealing camera.
For me, one attraction of the XT5 is that it can be small… and large.
I run two systems. One is a large Canon FF system that it mainly designed for tripod-based landscape photography, but which i also use for wildlife and occasionally (though much less often these days) a few other things.
The primary purpose of my Fujifilm system is street and travel photography, so the great majority of the time I have the 27mm f/2.8 on the camera. (That is my “always with me” system that I carry almost everywhere.) For street and travel I often augment that lens with the 14mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/2, which provides a compact, flexible, and light system.
But the XT is a very flexible camera and it does other things well, too. For example:
1. It is my backup system for landscape photography adventures. As such it lets me have different focal length lenses installed on the Canon and Fujifilm systems. For this I usually carry the 16-55, 60-140, and 100-400. The Fujifilm system is often my go-to when I need to reduce size and weight a bit, for example when backpacking or hiking. Depending on the situation I’ll either take the 16-55 and the 50-140 or even just the former. (I have a second, slighlty less humongous Gitzo tripod that I use with this system, too, instead of my very large RSS setup.)
2. These days I tend to use the Fujifilm system for most of my “people photography,” which ranges from (obviously) street photography through individual and group portraits.
3. Although I occasionally use the Canon system for macro photography, these days I’m more likely to use the XT5 with the 80mm f/2.8 macro.
So, as you can see, the XT5 is a very flexible system. It can be small and light when outfitted with something like the 23mm f/2.8 or 27mm f/2.8 pancake lenses. Yet it can do a whole lot of other stuff quite well with differen and likely larger lenses, too.)...Show more →
Hey OP,
I'm quite fond of trading my lenses and cameras because curiosity gets the best of me, and I get intrigued too often. In the last two years, I went from an X-T5 (silver) to an X-T50, to a Zf, and back to an X-T5 again last week (black).
There is a significant difference between the Zf and the X-T5 in terms of size and weight. The Zf is long and feels like a heavier, longer X-Pro. I'd say there is less of a difference going from an X-T5 to an X-T50 than from a Zf to an X-T5. The Zf also feels more solid in terms of build quality. Compared to the Zf, the X-T5 almost feels plasticky.
On the other hand, I feel that the build quality of XF lenses is more solid than that of Z lenses. There's something about the build design of Z lenses that I don't like. However, in my opinion, Z lenses (not the Nikon-badged Tamrons) offer some of the best optical glass in the game.
newyork wrote:
Thank you! Great advice. I adore Voigtlander. One of those and a couple small Fuji would be great.
I have a ZF and adore it. Worried the xt5 is too close in size so I thought xe5 then saw the price and kept looking at the lineup.
Definitely not against the older models. I just knew the newer ones had reala ace and a couple other sims.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Get yourself an X-E3 and the 16f2.8, 23,35,50f2 and you are done searching for excellent and small. Available at very reasonable prices. Unless you need 40MP (which you most likely don't), the old 24/26 sensors are all excellent. The Fujicrons perform better in terms of resolution that the old 1.4 lenses (except for the 16f1.4 which, however, is very large and heavy), and are almost on par with the the new 1.4 lenses (but much smaller and less expensive).
I used to own the X-E3 and normally used the 18mm f/2 and 27mm f/2.8. I liked the size, but I had too many focus misses and the lack of IBIS. For what I need my X-E5 is much better. I agree the 24/26mp sensor are great and all most people need, but the 40mp sensor allows for a 1.4-2x crop and still have enough size to be useful. That way you can make your lenses act as a second focal length. I shoot raw and do sometimes use the 1.4 zoom in camera and then re-crop as needed in Lightroom.
On both I found a half case helps a lot with the grip.
Interesting. I pretty much expected the xt5 to be less sturdy but still fine.
Are the nicer Fuji lenses more akin to Voigtlander?
I have 2 of the Nikon 1.8 lenses. They’re sweet in their output but agree they aren’t inspiring on the feel department like a Voigtlander. Be cool to have an aperture ring too.
I have a couple of the Tamrons but they’re the g2 models.
Towncaptain wrote:
Hey OP,
I'm quite fond of trading my lenses and cameras because curiosity gets the best of me, and I get intrigued too often. In the last two years, I went from an X-T5 (silver) to an X-T50, to a Zf, and back to an X-T5 again last week (black).
There is a significant difference between the Zf and the X-T5 in terms of size and weight. The Zf is long and feels like a heavier, longer X-Pro. I'd say there is less of a difference going from an X-T5 to an X-T50 than from a Zf to an X-T5. The Zf also feels more solid in terms of build quality. Compared to the Zf, the X-T5 almost feels plasticky.
On the other hand, I feel that the build quality of XF lenses is more solid than that of Z lenses. There's something about the build design of Z lenses that I don't like. However, in my opinion, Z lenses (not the Nikon-badged Tamrons) offer some of the best optical glass in the game.
newyork wrote:
Interesting. I pretty much expected the xt5 to be less sturdy but still fine.
Are the nicer Fuji lenses more akin to Voigtlander?
I have 2 of the Nikon 1.8 lenses. They’re sweet in their output but agree they aren’t inspiring on the feel department like a Voigtlander. Be cool to have an aperture ring too.
I have a couple of the Tamrons but they’re the g2 models.
I agree with the sentiment that the X-T5 feels a tad plasticky compared to the Zf, but mostly only in the knobs and dials (they're not brass). Still quite solid.
I have the XF 33mm f/1.4 and the Z 50mm f/1.8 S (pretty comparable lenses IMO). The XF feels like there's more metal than the Z. Plus the aperture ring... Voigtlanders are probably on par with the latest XF lenses.
