Fuji XT10 Is this the future?

<p>I recently bought the new Fuji XT10 as a replacement for my Canon G1X. The Fuji XT10; is a class act by Fujifilm. Mine was came in a kit with a 18-50 Zoom (more later). It’s a similar weight to a G1X with interchangeable lenses and an EVF for less than the price of a G1X2 + EVF. The retro looks with lots of knobs and buttons, harks back to the Fuji film SLR I had in the mid 1970s.<br /> The innovative Xtrans sensor is used on the XT1. With 16mp it might seem to some to be under specified; but IQ is very good indeed with vibrant colours and plenty of detail. IQ goes well beyond the point and shoot market and well into the full size DSLR league. Fuji's were never strong on AF or shooting speed; but this has a sophisticated multi-point AF system and a fast 8 frames per sec shooting speed.<br /> Low light performance is good, 6400 ISO is achievable when needed. There is surprisingly low noise at that point. Shadow noise is well controlled too even in JPEG mode. I did see some highlight burnout under high contrast lighting conditions; but to be fair Canons have never excelled in that area either. Its just disappointing that the new Xtrans sensor does not appear to have the Dynamic range of Fuji’s Nikon based DSLRs like the X5 Pro that I owned nearly a decade ago.<br /> The Kit lens 16-50 F 3.5 F5.6 is good for landscape and general photography. It had no shortcomings other than speed. Image Stabilization cannot make up for the lack of sensitivity in low light; but at least the XT10 can give acceptable results at 6400 ISO, so its some compensation.<br /> Lens choices from Fuji consist of some good fast primes and an expensive Fujinon 50-150 F2.8. Leica M series lenses can be used with an adapter. I'll probably expand my lens selection; to a smaller prime as the 16-50 is too bulky to put in pocket.<br /> The shutter is unusual in that it offers both focal plane and electric stutters. I’m not too convinced of the need for the Focal Plane shutter as the electronic works well and silently, at speeds in excess of 1/4000^{th sec}<br /> The Electronic Viewfinder was what finally sold the camera to me. It’s the best EVF I’ve ever come across. The resolution is so high that the dots are invisible and no lag if the camera is moved. The comprehensive viewfinder info can be set to rotate for a portrait shot and all settings; exposure comp and White Balance etc can be seen at eye level. It has the Eye Sensor option of auto selection of EVF and the tilting LCD display or either if required.<br /> The camera has an almost bewildering selection of menu options, with the Fuji Film Simulation modes and numerous Auto Modes.<br /> There is a small pop up flash which can only be used when Single Shot mode is enabled. That caught me out for a while as I shoot in Continuous Mode 90% of the time. With the 16-50 lens , the lens hood causes a shadow if not removed. It has wireless connectivity which I was unable to get to work with my aging Galaxy Tab; but its not important to me. A more disappointing omission is the lack of GPS Apparently it could work with the latest smartphones; but I’d willingly have paid more for GPS in camera.<br /> Video is possible and unlike conventional DSLRs you can use the EVF instead of the LCD. This does mean a more ergonomic way of shooting casual videos. The lightness of the camera makes camera shake when turning off the button. The audio quality is not great so it is an annoyance that the mic input will only accept a tiny 2.5 mm jack meaning that I cannot try it with my Rode Pro Shotgun mics, which have the standard 3.5mm jack.<br /> Overall having used the camera for several weeks I have grown to like the image quality and lightweight body. The retro controls and excellent EVF make it fun to use and there are Auto modes if required. I just wish that Canon would produce a decent mirrorless DLC camera to compete with this. <br /> With cameras like the Fuji’s and high end offerings from Sony, the days must be numbered by the old fashioned DSLRs which are heavy and have that ancient mirror box, optical Viewfinder and old world shutter. <br /> Dave Perkes<br /> 15^th Oct 2015</p>

<blockquote>

<p>With cameras like the Fuji’s and high end offerings from Sony, the days must be numbered by the old fashioned DSLRs which are heavy and have that ancient mirror box, optical Viewfinder and old world shutter. <br>

<br>

Old-fashioned eh? Ancient eh? How good of you to share your vision of the future. Now run along and play.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Old-fashioned eh? Ancient eh? How good of you to share your vision of the future. Now run along and play."<br>

A little heavy handed Patrick.</p>

<p>Yikes Patrick. He really got under your skin. It's just a camera when all's said and done. I think it's good to see someone so enthused about new gear. And you shouldn't interpret anything there as an attack on you.</p>

<p>I'm not in the least bit offended nor threatened by the OP's post. My reply simply restates the OP's message and agenda. I own both the X-T10 and a DSLR and they both take nice pictures. It doesn't matter whether the technology is old or new, it's the results that count. </p>

<p>Some people have an innate desire to be "on the winning team" and that's all there is to his post.</p>

<p>You have purchased an excellent camera. The Fuji X-T10 has many excellent features and an highly ergonomic user interface. Together with a wide selection of outstanding lenses, you should get a lot of enjoyment from it, and your back will appreciate the lightened load as well.</p>

<p>If I'm not mistaken, the X-T10 is reasonably sealed against moisture and dust. If you do need to clean the sensor, it is easily accessible, not buried deeply like in a DSLR.</p>

<p>Glad that you are enjoying your X-T10. I have its cousin, the X-E2,and would agree that image quality is superb. I enjoy using it for most everything, except for any kind of fast action. Then it's time to grab my trusty Nikon DSLR. ;-)</p>

<p>Fuji makes great digital cameras! I almost bought the XE2 when I was looking to replace my Sony NEX-6 but ended up staying with Sony and got the a6000 due to its smaller size/weight plus the fact that I could use my Sony lenses on it. I am very happy with my a6000 but have to admit that I love the look and feel of the Fuji's and their kit lens is much better than the Sony.<br>

I hope that liking Fuji and Sony is not too "winning team"</p>

<p>Congratz on the Fuji Dave. Many times I have often thought of moving from my a7 over to an X-T1, but there are several things (which I wont go into now) that are holding me back. I am quite envious of the native lenses available for your camera tho. There is a bit of jealousy on my part wishing Sony had such a well thought out and comprehensive lens lineup.</p>

<p>And Patrick, I don't think it is so much about being 'on the winning team'. These are exciting times for photography with lots of new technology being dumped into cameras at a frightening pace. I get excited about new mirrorless tech and I am one of those who sees mirrorless eventually supplanting DSLR tech for the majority of users, especially after Canon and Nikon weigh in with serious contenders.</p>

<p>I liken it to the time in the 80s when autofocus was first released. Every camera up until that point was manually focused. All the pros did it that way and all the amateurs. When AF started to debut it had an uphill battle as a new and, in many cases, experimental tech as companies tried to figure out the best way to make it work. You had people who swore back in the old day that AF would never be as good as a photographer with a lifetime experience doing it by hand.</p>

<p>Its sorta the same today. Mirrorless is new and exciting, offering photographic opportunities that sometimes weren't there before. Like my photography, which is all manual focus film lenses on a great full frame digital sensor. I get completey stoked about what Sony has done that lets me shoot with the freedom, ease and creativity that I shoot with now. Back when I was doing it on Canon it was a <em>chore.</em><em><br /></em><br /> <br /> But you are completely right....DSLR, mirrorless, it really doesn't matter what you prefer or what you believe. It's all about the image right? As long as we are shooting who cares whats in our hands. :)</p>

<p>Dave, heads up. Anytime you bring up this "mirrorless gonna whup up on DSLR" thing on forums get ready for some type of flaming. There is a lot of ongoing debate and strong feelings on both sides on the subject right now. Just know that there are plenty of people who feel the way you do. I am one of them. :)</p>

<p>David-you're so right about autofocus; I was one of those skeptics who felt that they'd never use it.<br>

In a word.....WRONG!<br>

cb :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6493596">David Smith</a> , Oct 20, 2015; 01:57 p.m.</p>

 

<p>I liken it to the time in the 80s when autofocus was first released. Every camera up until that point was manually focused. All the pros did it that way and all the amateurs. When AF started to debut it had an uphill battle as a new and, in many cases, experimental tech as companies tried to figure out the best way to make it work. You had people who swore back in the old day that AF would never be as good as a photographer with a lifetime experience doing it by hand.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The fallacy, along that line of thinking, is that camera companies do things to make photography better. They don't. They simply want to make more money. When a new technology comes along like autofocus, the camera company will completely abandon the earlier technology only if consumers buy into it. AF was a slow sell; even Minolta itself kept their MD line of lenses going long after AF became the norm. So did Nikon. Canon abandoned their manual focus line, while Olympus stuck its head in the sand and said "AF? Never gonna catch on." and got in the game so late they had no chance to be competitive. Yet, on every SLR made today there is a provision to manually focus the lens. Mirrorless versus mirror is an either-or thing, you either have it or you don't. An EVF will never be able to be real time because the light has to be processed. Maybe, some day, the processing will be so fast it won't make much difference. That day has not yet come.</p>

<p>Why have so many companies invested in mirrorless? Look at the big 3, Olympus, Sony, and Fuji. Olympus was among the first and the best at touting the small size of its micro-4/3 cameras. Fuji saw it as a chance to get competitive because they had no SLR of their own (only a partnership with Nikon), and Sony had to do something, ANYTHING, to distinguish themselves from Canon and Nikon b/c their A-mount cameras weren't selling. Their SLT cameras were a sidestep along the way, but there's little doubt they are fully investing in mirrorless only now.</p>

<p>Canon and Nikon both have mirrorless cameras. They're researching ways to make them better, just like everyone else. But unlike the mirrorless big 3, they don't have to. Their cameras with their ancient, obsolete mirror boxes sell and perform quite well. If there's a big market shift to mirrorless it won't be because the technology from the 1950's is bad, it'll be because that's what is selling. </p>

<p>The strong debate on mirrorless versus DSLR is typically not just because people feel strong about their toy, but because of posts like these who seem to imply that the future can only have one or the other. Mirrorless is the end of DSLR! No, DSLR's age-old lead will never give mirrorless a chance! Yes! No! I am right! No, me! Like there is only one right answer. Well, there isn't, and there does not need to be.<br>

Sure, Fuji has some excellent cameras, as does Sony. The m4/3rd makers have some fine options, and fine optics too. The dispute is not whether this is the case - it's obvious. But saying unequivocally that brand A or camera X is better than brand B or camera Y, because <em>you</em> like it better <em>for your needs</em>, that's what heats up the arguments. We do not all have the same needs and wants. Personally, I do not find a smaller camera an advantage, for example, so any posting telling me "we all want a smaller camera" ..... Uhm. No. It happens on either end - there are DSLR fanboys as much as there are mirrorless fanboys. It's the silliness of thinking one has to be superior over the other for all of us, that makes these discussions so heated, sad and utterly annoying.</p>

<p>There is no need to make a choice between a mirror, or no mirror. Not today, not in the future. The market is big enough to have both types of cameras in healthy systems, sufficient buyers etc. Find the camera that suits you. Let others do the same. Let there please be versatility and choice, and be glad that we all have different needs, wants and wishes - it is what drives innovation and what drives everything forward. So, no, the future does not need to be all mirrorless. Yes, mirrorless will continue to grow and possibly dominate. But alongside, there'll be place for a couple of good old DSLRs. Also in Medium Format. Large Format cameras too. Rangefinders. Film cameras, and of course the occassional minivan transformed into a collodion wet plate camera. And indeed, in the end, it's the photo that counts.</p>

Cameras sell because they offer something that users want or think they want. Mirrorless real live view has multiple advantages and a saving in size and weight from my perspective. I think the " debate" is mostly in on line forums by older generations who have formed useful habits. When Canon changed its lenses from FD to EOS there was a valid rage among users. Economic angst. Real stuff. NIkon was never that abrupt. Yet there were real technical reasons to have electronic connectivity and a different mount from the company view. I am not persuaded the change was pure money motivated. And now with mirrorless, those old but good lenses can be used by the manual focus leaning. If we did not have these debates, what is really left to argue about. Drone photography? Virtual reality? Why Foveon has not taken over the industry? The value of WiFi vs Blutooth connectivity? Best place to store photos on line? And yes Wouter, it is the photo that counts, but mostly on places like Facebook where some dare not to tread. I understand perfectly.

Incidentally, apropos of nothing special I am amused when we say " Congratulations on your new camera." Like Hosteen I would think it more appropriate to say " Glad you enjoy the Fuji.." Or one could adopt something like " Use it in good health.." "Enjoy your new X because I am sure you will." I mean that 'congratulations' are for the groom, as Emily Post would advise. 'Best wishes " for the bride and so on.. Just a tidbit. Congratulations are in order that you now have worked to achieve the wealth to afford a Leica M9, -- perhaps that is what is meant. I know, a reflexive remark..we seek to say something but what. . No reply needed:-) a semi rant-thing I suppose, so who cares.:-).

<p>And speaking of mirrorless cameras, Leica anyone?<br>

http://petapixel.com/2015/10/20/leica-sl-a-new-24mp-full-frame-camera-to-compete-in-the-mirrorless-war/</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I'm not mistaken, the X-T10 is reasonably sealed against moisture and dust. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>i'm pretty sure that the XT10 doesnt have the weather-sealing of the XT1; also the kit lens isnt weather-sealed. the XT1 also has a bigger viewfinder and more dials, but the XT10 seems to be winning some converts.<br>

<br>

to the OP, congrats on your purchase. IMO one of the best parts of the Fuji system is the primes, so hopefully you will get to experience them. the difficult part is deciding between the 14,16,18,23,27, 35,56, and 90.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is no need to make a choice between a mirror, or no mirror. Not today, not in the future. The market is big enough to have both types of cameras in healthy systems, sufficient buyers etc.-</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actualy there is a need to make a choice. The main is that a mirrorless camera gives an EVF. There are many photographers, myself included, that have decided an EVF is necessary for the type of photography they do. Consequently, there are plenty who need an optical view path to effectively shoot. So for some shooters there is a real choice involved. But I understand the point you are trying to make and I agree wholeheartedly with it Wouter. There will be mirrorless and DSLR's on the market for a very long time to come. But I believe wholeheartedly what I wrote...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I get excited about new mirrorless tech and I am one of those who sees mirrorless <strong>eventually supplanting DSLR tech for the majority of users</strong>, especially after Canon and Nikon weigh in with serious contenders.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mirrorless isn't goint to kill DSLR's. They will remain on the scene the same way rangefinders, medium formats, and view cameras have just as you describe. But I do believe, <em>and I am NOT trying to convince any one of this</em>, that as the younger generations of photographers mature over the next decade or two they will prefer looking into a camera and seeing a little TV screen. Especially since they have grown up in the internet age with a smartphone or tablet in their hands. In those next two decades mirrorless tech will mature in ways we cant even begin to comprehend because it has an undefined and unmapped technical potential that the DSLR, currently at the end of its development cycle, simply does not possess.*</p>

<p>Technology never, ever, ever goes back in the box.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>An EVF will never be able to be real time because the light has to be processed. Maybe, some day, the processing will be so fast it won't make much difference. That day has not yet come.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If history has taught us anything is should be to never gauge future advancements on our current technological limits or understandings. I think it slightly prophetic that this was on my windows 10 start page when I logged on this morning concerning the best and worst tech predictions of all time. When I read the one from Telsa (15 of 16) from back in the 20's I knew he was the MAN.</p>

<p>http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/connectedworld/the-best-and-worst-technology-predictions-of-all-time/ss-BBlSoez?ocid=spartandhp#image=1</p>

<p>*Unless you are Canon, then you just keep cramming more resolution in...like, a hundred and pixie megafipples... :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>David, I did not mean "no choice to make" in the personal sense, but in the sense of the marketplace having to maintain only a single approach. Indeed not the most fortunate phrasing I ever churned out. I guess bottomline, we say the same thing ;-)</p>

<p>Ah, my bad Wouter. I misread you there. :)</p>

<p>Congrats on the new camera Dave. You'll enjoy using it. I've been using the Fuji's for a while now, and really like them.</p>

<p>A couple of things though: <br>

- As someone else noted, the X-T10 is not listed as weatherproofed. That would be the X-T1.<br>

- Check out the manual with regard to the electronic shutter. It will produce banding under certain artificial light sources, and some pretty weird distortions with moving subjects. Depending on what you are shooting you may in fact find that you are going to use the mechanical shutter most of the time. I do find the electronic shutter to be very handy though in places where silence is good to have.</p>

<p>Try one of the smaller Fuji primes when you have a chance. The 18 and 35 are particularly nice.</p>

<p>Patrick, what you stated @02:47 may or may not be true, but at the end of the day so what? Is there something wrong with a manufacturer wanting to make money? I don't see the problem. There's usually an interplay between market driven forces and development. Its not a bad thing.<br>

One other point. EVF is getting very good now, IMO you're wrong about it not being instantaneously enough. Just depends on what camera you are using. Maybe I've unconsciously adjusted to it, but I don't have a problem missing shots with an evf.</p>

 

<p>I have used many camera systems over the last decades; I have been based towards Fuji for the Dynamic Range, the S2 and S5 Pro based on Nikon bodies were good in their time. If I compare the usability of the XT10 there is no question of the superiority of the latter. <br>

I'm using Canon DSLRs as well and looked upon the XT10 as a neat light compact with the versatility of changing lenses. When I bought it I never thought of the XT-10 as an alternative to a Full Frame DSLR; however its the one I tend to pick up first for casual use. I like the discrete size and I can see good possibilities using both XT1 and XT-10 when on the move.<br>

<br />I had an interesting discussion to day with a photojournalist friend who shoots Nikon and is keen to go the mirrorless route, like a lot of PJs who are now converting to Sony's. I know of a few Pros who are using X series cameras too. So I do see the demise of mirrored DSLRS as mainstream coming very quickly. Nikon and Canon will need to wake up for this very soon or they will lose out.</p>

 

<p>DSLRs aren't going away at all.<br /><br />But I'm not using them anymore.<br /><br />You want to shoot action and sports, they're really hard (impossible?) to beat.</p>

 

<p>I also recently purchased a Xt10 and bunch of decent lenses including the 56mm f1.2, the 18mm f2 and 35mm f1.4.<br>

I do my wedding work with two DSLRs. I used to have two D600 bodies, but i always struggled with getting the AF to be perfect on the eyeball at 200mm f2.8 with the D600 bodies, hence replaced one of the bodies with a D750- which does the job nicely. The AF is now spot on!<br>

The Xt10 was purchased as a "private" camera for family and just to carry one in the backpack- as they had a massive cashback in Australia. After getting the $500 cash back on the bundle and selling the unwanted zooms and 27mm lens. I got the Xt10 for really cheap. Then bought the 56mm f1.2 on ebay (my first X lens). Once I got that combo and tested a few portraits- I was absolutely shocked by the quality of the optics, the AF accuracy (I was using face detect AF) and the stunning JPG I was getting (I only use classic chrome colour profile). I am so impressed by the amazing quality, I bought the 18mm f2 secondhand for $200 and 35mm f1.4 new for $350 after the cashback.<br>

The 18mm f2 is the most underrated lens in history. Its beautiful! The 56mm and 35mm are almost perfect, but 18mm f2 isn't that far behind. Its fast, focuses close, its pretty sharp, good contrast and great colours.<br>

I have used canons for 8 years, them used Nikons for last 3 years- have basically owned every good optics made by them plus some of the best glass made of M43 (including the 75mm zuiko). The 75mm Zuiko and the Fuji 56mm 1.2 are the best two lenses I know of under $2000. <br>

Even for paid weddings, I shoot JPGs(actually I always shoot JPG+RAW to be safe), but I haven't even opened the RAW image once! the JPGs are almost perfect out of the camera. Factory default classic chrome is pretty sweet. Very little levels and contrast correction here and there......and the images are crisp and beautiful. Compare that with Nikon files - JPGs are flat and dull. RAW needs a lot of work to make them shine. Fuji saves me many many hours of lightroom time - and time is money.<br>

I am tempted to sell my Nikon system but I just can't. DSLRs are still not replaceable (at least to me). I must have its super quick AF, simpler and direct UI, reliability and the flash system especially when the weddings finish at 11PM. I don't care about Video, but the super reliable flash system of DSLRs is one important thing that sets them apart for pros who must have super reliable TTL flash system.<br>

So while I shoot the bride and groom getting ready with the Fuji, the candids, the details and daylight ceremony with the Fuji, even bridal portraits and couple shots. But when the going gets tough- the DSLR comes out to save the day. I can't imagine how to shoot dance photos with the mirrorless ...the EVF isn't efficient anymore....and the delay in viewing and locking the AF is just too much. DLSRs don't have problems there, even the D600 can autofocus without a hiccup in total darkness with a flash on the top. </p>

<p>After several months using my XT-10, I have been impressed and disappointed as well.<br />The Good Stuff.<br>

Now I have Lightroom and Photoshop updated I can now use the RAF files. These have a better dynamic range in the the Highlights and significantly less shadow noise if pushed 2 or more stops as compared to my Canons. Even when shooting white birds against a dark background in harsh Australian light, a modest amount of highlight correction gave results that would be hard to achieve with my 6D.<br>

The Fuji 35mm 1.4 lens is superb, lightweight and discrete. I also picked up a cheap 50-230 lens. Its plastic build did not give much confidence and the 6.7 max aperture hardly impressive; but the IQ is sharp. Its a very light travel lens for daylight and no major shortcomings in sharpness. <br />An XT-10, 16-50, 50-230 and 35 F1.4, makes for a useful lightweight travel kit for much the same weight as a 6D and 24-105 lens on its own.<br>

Battery life is a good for the battery size. I managed to get 325 jpegs over 6 hours the other day trying out the Interval shooting facility. Thats a nice trick! <br /><br />The Not so Good<br />I have had problems with the main switch jamming and odd glitches with the camera locking up. This was fixed by Fuji Australia. I had no proof of purchase as I was traveling but they fixed the switch. Days after I received it the camera started to lock up and after a week the camera failed again. Fuji Sent it to Sydney and I collected it there 2 weeks later. The Shutter was fixed I had my Canons with me so I could shoot).<br />Although the XT10 can shoot at 8FPS the Buffer is poor with at best a 1 second burst on a fast SD Card.<br />Good as the AF is in good light; its disappointing in very low light. Even with my 35mm F 1.4 wide Open I had a very low hit rate shooting musicians last week.</p>

<p>So The XT-10 is a good travel camera but its not yet there, so far as low light AF and shooting speed is concerned. It will be interesting to see whether the XT-1 performs better.<br /><br /></p>

<p> </p>