My Fuji X-T1 has been sold... what now?

Discussion in 'Other Systems' started by mesmerized, Dec 19, 2015.

  1. mesmerized

    mesmerized Mu-43 Veteran

    344
    Jun 18, 2012
    Dear Users,

    I've come here once again seeking your advice. I've just sold my X-T1 (with my mind full of doubts and my heart full of sadness) and I'm standing at a crossroads. No doubt, you'll ask 'why did you sell X-T1 then?' There's no clear answer to this question, but in a nutshell... every single picture I took with X-T1 seemed to be a bit... blurred. Especially trees or large masses of greenery. Perhaps it was me being unable to take good pictures, but I simply couldn't afford in X-T1 more than I had... And now with X-T2 on the horizon I think it'd be foolish to invest in another X-T1.

    I've had my eyes on E-M5 mk1 for a while, but I'm not sure if that's a smart choice either. I'd go for Sony Alpha A7ii, but is going full-frame a wise choice?

    Any comments would be appreciated.

    Thanks
     
  2. 50orsohours

    50orsohours Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 13, 2013
    Portland Oregon
    Only you know what you'd like to use on a regular bases, but since you are asking, I'd skip APS-C and go for FF or stick to M4/3 What do you normally shoot?
     
  3. jimr.pdx

    jimr.pdx Mu-43 Veteran

    342
    Dec 5, 2010
    near Longview ~1hr from PDX
    Jim R
    So many options -- but very few bad ones, so look ahead and not back! :cool:
    Definitely consider the features you need (weather seals? body stabilization? video choices?) and maybe toss in a few you might learn to like (4k?). Sure you'll see the little IQ steps from :mu43: to APSc to 36x24, but you'll also feel the steps from 1-pound bag to 5-pound :shakehead: so don't let sensors drive you mad. Pick a brand/style, wander down their list of lenses/flashes/&c - and stop if they fail you more than once. Try again with a different one. At last you know.. until it's in your hand, so be sure to find a good return policy.

    I was very happy with my Pentax gear but financial issues forced me to sell down to the bare bones. No better time to seek alternatives and the G7 felt right to me, but I cannot be sure until I hold it and use it. No weather seals, so the K-50 will hang out until I'm sure this is the right setup for what I do. Love the size and possibilities so far.

    I hope your journey goes well - mine too! :D
     
  4. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    Get whichever is easiest on your wallet and has an appealing feature set. All cameras take good pictures nowadays!
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. mesmerized

    mesmerized Mu-43 Veteran

    344
    Jun 18, 2012
    Thanks for your bazing-fast replies.

    I don't need 4K, but I do need weather sealed body/lenses plus image stabilization in one form or another... I loved my Fuji for its "feel" and manual knobs. I just don't want to splash out too much cash for a system that I might have to replace in a few years. Sony cameras are appealing, I admit, although the FF series leaves me a bit perplexed when it comes to the variety of models.

    EDIT: I'm mostly interested in street photography; taking pictures of daily life of ordinary people in small rural areas; landscapes and macro photography.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2015
  6. bigboysdad

    bigboysdad Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 25, 2013
    Sydney/ London
    There are a myriad of reasons why that may have been happening but I suspect there may be less possibility of that happening if you have image stabilised equipment which is what you'll have if you invest in m43 or the latest A7. The cheaper and smaller form factor obviously comes with m43. Given your issue with the X-T1, you're probably better off switching to m43 then upgrading to Full Frame when your technique deals with issues such as blurring.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. MoonMind

    MoonMind Mu-43 Top Veteran

    628
    Oct 25, 2014
    Switzerland
    Matt
    In principle, I agree with the notion that you'd probably prefer the combination of compactness and stabilisation you'll find with mFT. From what you say about your favourite subjects, I'd choose the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II with a set of primes or the 12-40mm zoom.

    However, I'm quite aware that I might be completely on the wrong track with that kind of recommendation. What I'd really like to see are some of the shots you were unhappy with in order to understand what the actual problem might be.

    If it's just a problem of shot discipline and/or hand holding the gear properly, Olympus I.B.I.S. will make the problems dissappear. That doesn't mean it's solved - but you won't realise that it's there anymore.

    If resolution is lacking, the lastest APS-C DSLRs, Samsung and Sony mirrorless and, of course, FF cameras will appeal a lot more; the more you crave resolution, the more pixels you'll want - but beware: This means you have to own the glass to go with it, which means considerably higher prices and more size and weight.

    If you want a "best of everything" solution, the Sony A7R II should appeal, though that's not a simple camera to shoot well (though simpler than a Nikon D810 or Canon 5DS R), and good glass, while available, will cost you.

    And now comes the odd one out: I recently found out about the tiny Nikon D5500 - now that's a body that punches way above its weight! Pair it with the impressive (but also huge) Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 zoom, and you have a fantastic combination. The camera itself isn't a lot bigger (and no heavier) than an mFT body, it's almost as capable, and the IQ is clearly better. And the best thing for me personally: It feels absolutely fine in the hand with big and heavy lenses attached - of which I own a couple. The fly in the ointment is the limited availability of dedicated APS-C primes - but the Sigma zoom solves this problem at least for street shooters. The combo beats everything that's available for mFT when it comes to image quality - but, of course, with no image stabilisation whatsoever, so it's not for everyone! I myself don't own the Sigma zoom - because I've got the wonderful and reliable Olympus 12-40mm; I use it on the E-M10 (with additional grip) and that setup is almost as compact as the D5500 with a single small prime ... The D5500 itself stays, though - combined with the Nikon 35mm f/1.8, it means I get about 90% of the IQ of my FF gear in a package that's smaller and lighter than my favourite mFT combo! Here's a quick and dirty shot to show this:

    full.

    M.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2015
    • Like Like x 2
  8. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Blurred greenery is a speciality of Fuji Xtrans! As per other replies, there are so many great camera systems around it's hard to go wrong. I came from Canon FF and I occasionally look to the A7 for a reprise of FF but with mirrorless features and smaller size. But you know, whenever I look at prints that I make from my Oly u43 gear, I'm always completely satisfied and the E-M1 is just a pleasure to use - by far the best camera I've ever had. Add the great range of compact and absolutely top-grade lenses to the mix and I really can't see a huge compelling reason to look elsewhere.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. bigboysdad

    bigboysdad Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 25, 2013
    Sydney/ London
    Hey Matt, would you mind expanding on what you mean by IQ? I had the chance to get a D5500 (which is the same as a D5300 bar a few extra features here and there?) and noted it's relatively small size but spurned the opportunity on the basis that it would be a significant change from m43 which I've invested in and wasn't FF. I also wanted those FF lenses to be native which of course they wouldn't be, well not in a FF sense anyway. You seem to be saying that the change to the D5500 would result in images significantly better, is that correct? I'm not going to make that change now, but it would be useful to know in terms of future buying decisions and in addition to pdk42's comment above.
     
  10. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Yes Matt - come on, show us IQ that is "far, far better". I'm personally a bit skeptical that Nikon APSC will be significantly better (but I accept it's probably got a stop advantage on noise).
     
  11. MoonMind

    MoonMind Mu-43 Top Veteran

    628
    Oct 25, 2014
    Switzerland
    Matt
    bigboysdad: First, let me make it absolutely clear that I love my mFT gear and the results I get from it - so nothing I write here is intended to depreciate mFT! However, what I state is what I see the way I see it. I simply compare the images I have taken so far, and yes, the Nikon D5500 gives me sharper, contrastier images and more versatile files than the mFT gear does. And that's not even using top-of-the-line glass! To be completely honest, the images that actually caused me to comment the way I did were taken with the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 AF-S - a lens that I know to be very good indeed, but it's also reasonably priced and quite compact, plus I own comparable equivalents (in terms of focal length and quality) for mFT, so the comparison is sufficiently fair. I do think that some of the impressions are due to different DoF handling - but that's a given. The main aspects, though, are added clarity, more crispness and better contrast - the overall difference isn't huge, but it's there, and persistently so. If all this actually decisive will depend on one's personal preferences and needs - to me, the differences are actually subtle, but nevertheless noticeable, and very pleasing indeed, especially in print. Will I let go of my mFT gear because of all this? Definitely not - it offers so many advantages that it would be foolish to do so, and the images I get from it are definitely very, very good. Plus, I can take a whole kit (one body, two zooms, three primes) in a bag that wouldn't hold more than the Nikon with a pretty mediocre APS-C zoom and a single small prime! Thus, I treat the D5500 as a welcome addition to my Nikon kit, adding to my personal options in a surprisingly satisfying way, and not at all as a competition to mFT (though I admit that this has crossed my mind in the past - so someone else might come to a different conclusion).

    pdk42: No, I won't do that. Not on this board. I've corrected my original post, though: "far, far" has been replaced by "clearly". Yet I *still* find the IQ "far, far" better because it's more to *my* taste and caters very convincingly to *my* wishes and needs. But I am neither willing nor able to prove this to anyone, especially not someone who doubts it on general principle. I'm no zealot or advocat, nor am I out to convince anyone. To satisfy your demands, you really should use the studio comparison tool on dpreview, not someone's actual images. I'm just a guy who happens to love taking pictures. But most importantly, I'm not prepared to play the intended game of "shoot the messenger".

    M.
     
    • Like Like x 7
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. bigboysdad

    bigboysdad Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 25, 2013
    Sydney/ London
    Matt, it's perfectly ok for the "other" camera/system to be better, I've no problem with that. Personally, m43 fits my needs, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give proper consideration to what's out there. In that regard, I really do like the helpful way you discuss cameras/systems generally, as well as m43. If I choose a D550, it'll be because it's better than anything similar I can get for similar money, that's how I approach it. If it means m43 being depreciated, so be it. I was just interested to see if, in this particular instance, that was the case and that's why I asked - thanks for the response. Certainly something to consider.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  13. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Well, I respect your position, but I really think bold claims needs bold evidence. Personally I've done a lot of comparisons between Oly u43 gear and the FF Canon 5dii - in some cases direct A/B comparisons of the same subject taken at the same time. At low ISO the differences are vanishingly small. Things change at higher ISO, but even then the Oly files have some advantages in that when pushing shadows there's no banding - something that can't be said for the 5dii. Now I know the 5dii is getting a bit long in the tooth these days, but it's still a very competent FF camera and I've seen some absolutely spectacular prints from it - as indeed I have from u43.

    So, I'm not an "in principle" doubter - if something is genuinely better then I'm definitely prepared to eat humble pie - but I've yet to see "far, far" or "clearly" better performance from APSC over u43 - especially when printed.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Canada
    David
    Actually Matt does have a point. I've also played with the Nikon D5500 myself for a brief period of time and can confirm Matt's observations. And that is, the D5500 APS-C sensor does perform quiet similar to the Sony A7 full frame camera, possessing up to 14 stops DR and 9 bits tonal range at ISO 100 as opposed to 13 stops DR and 8bits tonal range at ISO 200. Now coupled that with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, which is essentially a 28-56mm lens @ f/2, it gives another 1 stop performance advantage against an E-M1 or an E-M10 with the Olympus 12-40 @ f/2.8 and thus a full 2 stops of dynamic range, noise and tonal range which may give the "WOW" experience that you couldn't get with m43 cameras. The full frame experience without the full frame price. There is currently no f/1.8 constant zooms for m43 system. But for general photography though, the differences between the D5500 and m43 cameras are slight, unless you want to use the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 lens which is a very spectacular lens!

    But for me. If I am to buy an APS-C camera, I would get the Pentax K3 II instead of the Nikon D5500. Better build, weather sealed like an OMD plus it has features of the OMD-E-M5 Mark II like pixel shift to increase resolving power and reduce noise plus an Astrotracer (you don't need a tracker for the Milky Way and stars) which the D5500 does not have. And the Sigma 18-35 is available for Pentax K mount as well!
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  15. MoonMind

    MoonMind Mu-43 Top Veteran

    628
    Oct 25, 2014
    Switzerland
    Matt
    Thanks for the clarification as far as your own position is concerned - so it seems I have to apologise for my somewhat brisk reaction. Still, please note that there's really nothing bold whatsoever about my statements, though I still stand by them - they're just my honest opinion, based on personal perception and preference. I have the prints I was referring to here in front of me, same printer, same paper, same workflow, same me - yet visible differences in terms of technical quality - of actual results! And I will add that I did work considerably more careful and considerate with the mFT gear and the files from start to finish; the D5500 shots were a lot more casual and quickly executed - I didn't even chimp once. Post processing the images was very rewarding, too - just a lot of leeway, yet very little need for intense manipulation. And that's coming from someone who really, really likes working with mFT files!

    I will say the following, though: The lenses on offer for mFT are actually superior to just about everything dedicated for Nikon DX - especially the primes, maybe with the exception of macro (Nikon 40mm, 85mm, Tamron 60mm (f/2.0!)). There's only a handful of really good zooms to be had for DX (from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina - plus Nikon, though those are way overpriced), and they're all really heavy and bulky, the Sigma being the most obvious example, but also the most desirable by some margin. Apart from that, there's the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX - period. So you'll either have to shoot FF lenses (which is what I do - because I already have them) or choose another system. I sometimes wonder how Nikon could put themselves into this kind of position - they had years and years to innovate and add useful lenses to their lineup.

    M.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Canada
    David
    It's hard to give you an answer if you don't know what the question is. And that question is; why are all your pictures you took seemed a bit blurry? If you can answer this question, then you can answer which camera fits you.

    No camera in the world can fix a user problem. It can provide a temporary reprieve in a form of added technology to address some user issues, but eventually a user issue will always effect any camera system no matter how good the camera technology will try to mask. It's there. Eliminate user issues and any camera will allow you to take great photos and save a ton of change for you to travel abroad and take even better photos!
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2015
  17. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Canada
    David
    The root of any camera performance success is the combination of a good body and most importantly a great lens, but most people seemed to have forgotten that. I met people in meetup groups that own m43 systems (E-M5 and E-M10) with kit lenses )14-42R or 12-50 and when they took pictures with them and compare them with their APS-C and full frame main bodies and lenses matched with pro-grade 1.8 and 2.8 lenses, they automatically claimed m43 is crap and inferior. Worst DR and worst noise (well if you shoot @f/4 and f/6.3 and stuck with them because your zoom lenses are too slow!). I asked them if they had tried pro-grade lenses with their m43? Their answers were almost unilaterally a resounding "NO" and they said they won't waste anymore money period. They and most "tech" inspired photographers always assumed the body does all the heavy lifting and that DXO Mark does not lie. No it doesn't. You need both the lens and body to do the equal lifting. Without a good lens, the body can do absolutely nothing.

    The best investment in any camera kit is a set of good, sharp and fast prime and zoom lenses. It doesn't matter if the body is mediocre because all cameras today can take good pictures. The only difference left is that, a good sharp and pro-grade lens can make a difference of a few stops DR/Noise and tonal range compared to a cheaper slower zoom. And it is the best upgrade your money can buy. But again; few people want to make that investment and hence never full realize the power of their own camera body. Seen it too often enough that they upgrade sideways. Buy the next better body and shoot with the same crappy consumer zoom lens and wonder why I ain't getting the benefits of the new 36Mp sensor or higher DR/better noise when my zoom is stuck at f/5.6 as being the fastest aperture.

    Lastly, I disagree that m43 isn't a great platform. Again, this stems from the notion that m43 is about 1 stop behind APS-C and 2 stops behind full frame. m43 provides some of the most widest ranges of lenses available with the best possible price performance ratios. The lenses alone can take the camera to its fullest potential, whereas other platforms may not because due to lack of lenses available or they are simply too expensive. I found that if I shoot with pro-grade lenses with my m43 system, I get quality images that can rival the best APS-C and full frame systems today. Can those APS-C and full frame bodies provide better image quality? Sure they can, but only if combined with the best pro-grade lenses. m43 provides that best mix of performance at a reasonable cost we mortals can afford.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  18. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Well, I guess it depends on how blurry the OP's images are. What I will say is that X-trans images are kinda soft - esp at higher ISO due to baked-in NR. Greens are also a problem for X-trans due to the way that green pixels are distributed in the chip. It's a well documented issue - just google for it. I'm inferring from the OP's first post that it's not camera shake that's the issue but an artefact of X-trans. Of course all this is relative - there a lots of very happy Fujii users, but if you're uber-critical then there is softness to be found.
     
  19. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Canada
    David
    It also depends on which RAW converter you use as well. I've seen some Fuji X-trans shots myself and I don't see the softness as being that bad as it seemed. Go to this site -- bigheadtaco.com and this guy is a Fuji XT shooter and reviewer. I know him because I had shot with him along side with the Fuji and with my m43 E-P5 and his results are quite stunning and sharp. But then, he's got pro-grade primes and zooms while not all Fuji users have.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. amphibulous

    amphibulous Mu-43 Regular

    71
    Dec 16, 2015
    This sounds like user induced camera shake to some degree - a lot of people have it but don't look closely enough to notice it. Buy a camera with good stills stabilization.