Wait. A few days ago it was Sony with the terrible, awful, no good menus.?And now it is Fujifilm? Next up, Canon? Then Nikon? Oh, right, not Nikon... ;-)
More seriously on this topic, does anyone think that any modern camera menus are actually "good?" My theory is that there's simply a fundamental problem with the type of nested menu structure that they use when there are so many adjustable parameters and when it is very difficult to categorize them logically into just a few top level divisions.
In the end, while I think that brands exhibit more or fewer good/poor practices in menu design, and while personal preferences vary quite a bit, I think that the problem is bigger than any single brand and more about the challenges of using the common approach to menus with systems that are so complicated and which have so many variables.
RoamingScott wrote:
Oh God, Fuji's got arguably the worst menus in all of cameras. They have dragged a decade of new features and stuffed them into incomprehensible corners of the UI, all with an extra layer of translation confusion requiring more than looking up the feature in the user manual to understand exactly what they do.
Different strokes for different folks. In my case, I found Fuji’s menu system pretty intuitive, rarely needing to google something to set it properly. Nikon was just okay here, I needed google a few times. However, setting up a custom set for the Z’s was a pita compared to Fuji. Sony is a bit better here, but has its own cluges and I’ve used google a fair bit. At least with Sony, I’ve been able to program function buttons to assist in faster access to regularly changed settings. Perhaps the best feature of the Fuji cams *for me* was the dedicated Q menu button, allowing multiple things I wanted to quickly access at a button press. Sony has a less direct version of this, much like Fujis My Menu, which I never needed because of their Q menu utility.
As Dan noted, nothing is perfect. And in the end as long as I can get there is what matters *to me.* I respect that others mileage will vary on this…
RoamingScott wrote:
Oh God, Fuji's got arguably the worst menus in all of cameras. They have dragged a decade of new features and stuffed them into incomprehensible corners of the UI, all with an extra layer of translation confusion requiring more than looking up the feature in the user manual to understand exactly what they do.
The current Sony menu system is bad, no question. But then again: Most functions I don't need after an initial set-up anyway. Those I need I can access through the Fn or other function buttons. Same for Fuji.
Jack Flesher wrote: RoamingScott wroteOh God, Fuji's got arguably the worst menus in all of cameras. They have dragged a decade of new features and stuffed them into incomprehensible corners of the UI, all with an extra layer of translation confusion requiring more than looking up the feature in the user manual to understand exactly what they do.Different strokes for different folks. In my case, I found Fuji’s menu system pretty intuitive, rarely needing to google something to set it properly. Nikon was just okay here, I needed google a few times. However, setting up a custom set for the Z’s was a pita compared to Fuji. Sony is a bit better here, but has its own cluges and I’ve used google a fair bit. At least with Sony, I’ve been able to program function buttons to assist in faster access to regularly changed settings. Perhaps the best feature of the Fuji cams *for me* was the dedicated Q menu button, allowing multiple things I wanted to quickly access at a button press. Sony has a less direct version of this, much like Fujis My Menu, which I never needed because of their Q menu utility.
As Dan noted, nothing is perfect. And in the end as long as I can get there is what matters *to me.* I respect that others mileage will vary on this…...Show more →
Amen regarding the Fujifilm Q button. I use it a lot in the field.
RoamingScott wrote:
Oh God, Fuji's got arguably the worst menus in all of cameras. They have dragged a decade of new features and stuffed them into incomprehensible corners of the UI, all with an extra layer of translation confusion requiring more than looking up the feature in the user manual to understand exactly what they do.
Maybe it's because I've used Fuji on and off for 5 years, but my experience with Sony make Fuji look easy.
Jack Flesher wrote: Driften wroteJack Flesher wroteI’ve tried to love fixed-lens cams and just can’t get there. My solution is small lenses on a small body. Current solution is a Sony A7Cii with either a Viltrox 26mm pancake EVO or 50/2 AIR. Advantage is either lens fits in a coat pocket and the cam with lens on it fits in the other—yes biggish, but it fits.I really liked the Sony G 2.5 lenses. Not as cheep as a Viltrox but enjoyed them. I just can't stand Sony cameras user interfaces so sold my A7CII. Great it works for you.Clearly Sony could take a lesson from Fuji on menu UI design, no disagreement. But they’ve come a long way since early mirrorless in both ergos and UI, to the point now I can happily manage with them for the various ways I shoot. I also really appreciate having a full frame sensor in a small camera, along with lenses that interchange with my bigger body. It’s for these reasons I made the switch.
For someone with more sony experience the A7CII/R is a great set up. For full frame in this size I'm using a Lumix S9 now. Much easier to operate and has better IBIS and less high ISO noise than the A7CII. There are some light lenses like the Lumux 40mm f/2 that I enjoy. But it lacks the mechanical shutter and EVF of the Sony, which is a deal killer for many. I do enjoy the S9 for photography, but it makes me value the EVF more on my other cameras.
Driften wrote: Jack Flesher wroteDriften wroteJack Flesher wroteI’ve tried to love fixed-lens cams and just can’t get there. My solution is small lenses on a small body. Current solution is a Sony A7Cii with either a Viltrox 26mm pancake EVO or 50/2 AIR. Advantage is either lens fits in a coat pocket and the cam with lens on it fits in the other—yes biggish, but it fits.I really liked the Sony G 2.5 lenses. Not as cheep as a Viltrox but enjoyed them. I just can't stand Sony cameras user interfaces so sold my A7CII. Great it works for you.Clearly Sony could take a lesson from Fuji on menu UI design, no disagreement. But they’ve come a long way since early mirrorless in both ergos and UI, to the point now I can happily manage with them for the various ways I shoot. I also really appreciate having a full frame sensor in a small camera, along with lenses that interchange with my bigger body. It’s for these reasons I made the switch.For someone with more sony experience the A7CII/R is a great set up. For full frame in this size I'm using a Lumix S9 now. Much easier to operate and has better IBIS and less high ISO noise than the A7CII. There are some light lenses like the Lumux 40mm f/2 that I enjoy. But it lacks the mechanical shutter and EVF of the Sony, which is a deal killer for many. I do enjoy the S9 for photography, but it makes me value the EVF more on my other cameras.
The S9 is a great option for sure, but in my case I wanted the extra MP of the A7C2 and lens compatibility with the larger Sony body.
Since this has seemed to veer off topic anyway - I hear people liking the S9 but when I tried it a while ago I thought the back image was so dim I wasn't sure how it would cope with a sunny day. Have they improved this?
jmmaher wrote:
Since this has seemed to veer off topic anyway - I hear people liking the S9 but when I tried it a while ago I thought the back image was so dim I wasn't sure how it would cope with a sunny day. Have they improved this?
You can turn the display brightness up on the s9. With an anti glair screen protector I can use mine in bright sun, but it is somewhat challenging. I do like the s9, but never as an only camera.
jmmaher wrote:
Since this has seemed to veer off topic anyway - I hear people liking the S9 but when I tried it a while ago I thought the back image was so dim I wasn't sure how it would cope with a sunny day. Have they improved this?
The X-E5 is great with those lenses. I did find that with a SmallRig leather half case my X-E5 was only 2oz lighter than a X-T5. I ended up selling mine and went back to the X-T5 for the much better viewfinder and rear screen.
It's funny the X100VI is calling me again. I sold mine last October and am back on the waiting list to buy it again. Back when I owned it I had sold all of my other fuji cameras and lenses and had gone to Nikon and then after buying a Sony A7CII sold the x100vi. My problem was I kept trying to make the X100VI into something it wasn't. Hauling around the WCL and TCL and not just embracing the built in lens. After owning the X-E5 with the 23mm f/2,8 I leaned into enjoying the focal length. I think just having the other lenses on the shelf to give me the freedom of choice made the difference. If I expect I will need something wider or longer I can bring my X-T5, otherwise I can enjoy the constraint of the 23mm and not be anal about cropping when I have to. I did the same with the Leica Q series. On the original Q 28mm was too constraining, but later with the Q2 I had the headroom for cropping I found I enjoyed the 28mm and hardly ever cropped.
I think sometimes when GAS hits, we look for little things as reasons to change and not enjoy what we have.
I have never owned a X100 but did have a Q2. The Q2 was a wonderful camera with fairly terrible autofocus.. I have a Sony 6400 but can not seem to gel with t. I just use my A7RV instead. Just wondering if an X100VI would scratch my itch for a walk around camera.
jmmaher wrote:
I have never owned a X100 but did have a Q2. The Q2 was a wonderful camera with fairly terrible autofocus.. I have a Sony 6400 but can not seem to gel with t. I just use my A7RV instead. Just wondering if an X100VI would scratch my itch for a walk around camera.
I agree about the Q2 AF. Loved a lot about the camera, but my X-T5 had much better autofocus and with a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 it was about the same size and weight. I ended up deciding it was more pride of ownership than performance so I sold it.
jmmaher wrote:
I have never owned a X100 but did have a Q2. The Q2 was a wonderful camera with fairly terrible autofocus.. I have a Sony 6400 but can not seem to gel with t. I just use my A7RV instead. Just wondering if an X100VI would scratch my itch for a walk around camera.
If your beef is with the Q2's autofocus, I don't think you'll find the X100VI to be a good fit, either. It might be marginally better than the Q2 in some limited circumstances, but they're both terrible by contemporary standards. Get an X100 if you care a lot about the aesthetics of the camera itself, the built in flash + ND, and getting some cool jpegs (this is the camp I'm in, and I love my 100V). Do not get an X100 if you want a good camera.
nightnight wrote: jmmaher wroteI have never owned a X100 but did have a Q2. The Q2 was a wonderful camera with fairly terrible autofocus.. I have a Sony 6400 but can not seem to gel with t. I just use my A7RV instead. Just wondering if an X100VI would scratch my itch for a walk around camera.If your beef is with the Q2's autofocus, I don't think you'll find the X100VI to be a good fit, either. It might be marginally better than the Q2 in some limited circumstances, but they're both terrible by contemporary standards. Get an X100 if you care a lot about the aesthetics of the camera itself, the built in flash + ND, and getting some cool jpegs (this is the camp I'm in, and I love my 100V). Do not get an X100 if you want a good camera.
I've had no focus issues with my X-T5, X-E5, and X100VI. I don't shoot sports and wildlife, but the Q2 I had wouldn't do well at that either. I think part of my Q2 issue was as much OIS vs IBIS as it was focus. The Q2 is contrast based not phase detect and that also caused focus issues in rare conditions. I understand the Q3 with its hybrid autofocus and patches is much better than my Q2 was. It came down to situations where I would use the Q2 over another system was for places like automotive and aircraft museums and the Q2 on static subjects produced soft images and my fuji cameras didn't.
jmmaher wrote:
Interesting - my Q2 was sharp when it was in focus but the lack of phase detect made people photos hit or miss if there was movement.
I've had lots of sharp pics with the Q2 and loved the good images out of it. I think my problem was OIS not being good enough for lower light interior pictures from low angles when I couldn't shoot faster than f/4 to have enough depth of field. With my Fuji models I could hold at 1/20-1/15th of a second with no blur. I couldn't do that with the Q2. But I think I wasn't going less than 1/30th and still had issues. I did have issues with the Q2 just not getting focus at times that the Fuji's could as well, If all I cared about was landscape photos the Q2 would have been fine. I almost bought the Q3 on launch but the 9mo waiting list for people on day 2 was too much for me. I bought the X-T5 for the difference in price between what I could sell the Q2 Reporter for and the Q3. So kept them both for the next year or so. The Q2 just didn't perform as well as my other cameras so it ended up going.
Driften wrote:
I've had no focus issues with my X-T5, X-E5, and X100VI.
I guess I should clarify: when I talk about autofocus issues, I don't mean on static subjects. Every camera from the last 20 years can reliably take sharp photos of landscapes, museum exhibits, and architecture, all else being equal (enough light to support a reasonable shutter speed, high quality glass, etc.) If that's what someone cares most about, a DSLR in live view mode will adequately meet their needs.
What I, and I suspect most people, mean when we talk about autofocus is AF tracking performance on subjects in motion. This doesn't have to be sports and wildlife, it can be something as simple as a group of friends around a dinner table swaying in and out of a plane of focus as they talk. The X100V routinely fails to do this well. Yes, in continuous AF mode, you can get a reasonable number of photos in kinda-sorta-I-can-maybe-talk-myself-into-it focus, but if what you're after is a truly sharp photo, the success rate on a moving target is abysmally low. I treat mine as if it doesn't have continuous AF; it's single point, single lock only and I pick my spots accordingly. It is an order of magnitude worse than a Canon R8 or a Nikon Z5II with each company's respective cheap kit lens.
For me, the size, the flash, the ND, the aesthetic, and the "here, now you try!" factor of the X100V so far outweighs the awful autofocus that it's a complete non-issue. But if autofocus is something you really care about, I highly doubt the X100 line will satisfy you.
nightnight wrote: Driften wroteI've had no focus issues with my X-T5, X-E5, and X100VI.I guess I should clarify: when I talk about autofocus issues, I don't mean on static subjects. Every camera from the last 20 years can reliably take sharp photos of landscapes, museum exhibits, and architecture, all else being equal (enough light to support a reasonable shutter speed, high quality glass, etc.) If that's what someone cares most about, a DSLR in live view mode will adequately meet their needs.
What I, and I suspect most people, mean when we talk about autofocus is AF tracking performance on subjects in motion. This doesn't have to be sports and wildlife, it can be something as simple as a group of friends around a dinner table swaying in and out of a plane of focus as they talk. The X100V routinely fails to do this well. Yes, in continuous AF mode, you can get a reasonable number of photos in kinda-sorta-I-can-maybe-talk-myself-into-it focus, but if what you're after is a truly sharp photo, the success rate on a moving target is abysmally low. I treat mine as if it doesn't have continuous AF; it's single point, single lock only and I pick my spots accordingly. It is an order of magnitude worse than a Canon R8 or a Nikon Z5II with each company's respective cheap kit lens.
For me, the size, the flash, the ND, the aesthetic, and the "here, now you try!" factor of the X100V so far outweighs the awful autofocus that it's a complete non-issue. But if autofocus is something you really care about, I highly doubt the X100 line will satisfy you. ...Show more →
Notice the models I talked about are the current generation that have subject detection autofocus. I haven't had issue there with AF-C, is its as good as Canon, Sony, and Nikon? No it's not. When I first got them I compared the X-T5 on some birds in flight and had some success, but not as much as with my Canon r7. But even the Nikon z5II wasn't as good as the r7. I know the r7 was better than the fuji x-h2s for me, but others here have had good success with the X-H2s. I never got a chance to test the Sony A7CII on birds but it had a great lock on for dogs and I was able to do dolphins on a whale watching tour.
For my needs and maybe none one else I don't have problems with the X-T5. I did sometime have issues with the Leica Q2 that like you said any camera should have made.