Fuji bias?

<p>I've noticed there are a LOT of Fuji users on here, and they seem to make up a wildly disproportionate amount of enthusiast users who post a lot on forums. <br>

Can someone help me understand the love for the 16mp X-TRANS sensor and the cameras it's on? Every studio scene I see where the a6000 and XT-1 are compared, for example, the a6000 wins. I get that this isn't "real life" photography, but frankly - if you can't make it sharp in the studio, how are you supposed to make it sharp in the field?<br>

The other thing people seem to constantly fawn over is Fuji color. There's zero doubt that Fuji makes what are perhaps the most beautiful in-camera JPGs of any brand. But - who cares, when you've got Lightroom and VSCO presets to use after shooting RAW? I honestly cannot tell the difference between VSCO Astia/Provia presets and Classic Chrome.<br>

I also understand that Fuji makes ridiculously well-built and traditional-feeling cameras at reasonable prices - they're also probably the best looking mass-market camera out there.<br>

Lastly, the traditional complaint against Sony is the lack of lenses. Although this gap has narrowed significantly, especially considering the very high quality Sigma lenses for sale, Fuji still has the edge here. This is the only complaint that I can really agree with.<br>

Maybe I just don't understand the appeal of Fuji - help me! :)</p>

Don't get me wrong, Sony has some damn fine mirrorless products, especially considering these second generation A7

series and the Zeiss glad that's becoming available. If those options had been around when I was seriously choosing

between mirrorless systems, and if the ratio of the cost of those items to the amount I wanted to spend were more

advantageous I might be carrying a Sony right now.

 

But with Fuji you get your choice of ergonomics, from the consumer X-A series to the X-T1's dials for everything. You get

a great selection of primes - I'm carrying an 18/35/56 combo right now that Sony can't match. You also have real pro

grade f/2.8 weather sealed zooms. An A6000 isn't weather sealed and there aren't any really, really good zooms for it.

<p>Possibly Fuji got to the market earlier, or the appeal of the X-Pro-1 before the XT-1 was enough to convince buyers that Fuji had an advance in technology until the flagship Sonys arrived (A7 series full frame). The camera is weather proof, has a near 100% VF, two things which which might have had some extra appeal and it apparently has better dynamic range (with less high MP sensor 16 vs. 24) and high ISO performance. The A6000 seems to have other attributes including somewhat higher IQ in terms of resolution.</p>

<p>You are not comparing two very different cameras in terms of performance, so one might think the A6000 would have more appeal that the Fuji owing to its lower price. I wonder whether Fuji might not have more presence in the mass marketing outlets or offer the dealer more profit margin and thereby increasing dealer interest in selling it? Lenses are becoming more available for the Sonys this year which might improve the A6000 sales.</p>

<p>Given the relatively small or moderate differences between the two cameras you mention, the major factor for performance comes down to the ability of the photographer to optimize in practice whatever system happens to be in hand.</p>

The A6000 is a wonderful little camera, but so far, no new high performance APSc flagship camera has shown up and don't see much additional development of high performance (fast primes and pro zooms) native APSc Sony lenses.

 

Seems like the Sony FF A series has taken all the love and admiration away from its lowly APSc siblings. It appears to me as if Sony is concentrating on mirrorless FF and far less on APSc.

<p>It has become a cult favorite, much like a Leica or Mac computer. Expect to start hearing about "Fuji Glow" when the lenses start to age and acquire mold.</p>

<p>I don't see any bias. I compared the Sony and Fuji models with equivalent features and prices and preferred the Fuji. Last year the X-A1 was arguably the best value around in any P&S camera with full manual override, mostly because of Fuji's aggressive pricing with this particular Bayer sensor model.</p>

<p>Raw image quality was a wash. That includes comparing all available full rez 16mp raw files on dpreview from Fuji, including the X-Trans, Nikon, Sony, etc. Not enough difference to argue over, but some folks could make a life or death argument over barely perceptible differences.</p>

<p>I was sold primarily by Fuji's in-camera raw converter, which is quick and easy. I archive the raw files but mostly use the JPEGs straight from the X-A1. They look great, although I could pick a few nits:</p>

<ul>

<li>Auto WB tends to be a bit too cool.</li>

<li>I'd like a few more options for b&w conversions, such as yellow/green/orange/red filter emulations.</li>

<li>Red saturation tends to be a bit too much in all the color modes. Reducing overall saturation doesn't quite fix it.</li>

</ul>

<p>But overall everything is good. It's tough to do significantly better from the raw files in Lightroom, Photo Ninja, Silkypix or others I've tried. Occasionally I'll soup a tricky high ISO RAF, but most of the time the in-camera JPEGs are fine.</p>

<p>My only gripe is that I'd like a 23mm f/2 or f/2.8 pancake. The 23/1.4 is much too large and heavy for one-handed use with the lightweight X-A1, and I mostly use these compact cameras one-handed for candid snaps. The 18/2 is wider than I'd like, and the 27/2.8 is longer than I want. With an 18mm on an APS sensor camera I usually end up cropping to the equivalent of a 35mm on full frame/35mm film. Neither Fuji nor Nikon with the 1 System has the small, reasonably fast prime I want (I'd prefer a 13mm f/1.8 or faster for the V1). Ricoh and Nikon went with the 18mm for the GR and Coolpix A. I guess there isn't enough interest in the particular focal length I'd prefer, so I just stick with the kit zoom and set them where I want.</p>

<p>Another difference is in web savvy marketing and customer response. Fuji wooed and won over some influential social media mavens, starting with the X100. And Fuji has responded to customer feedback with firmware upgrades to improve existing models. The combination made a huge difference in the perception of Fuji as being the hot alternative to other mirrorless models, and to Canikon APS sensor dSLRs.</p>

<p>In contrast Sony has seemed a bit diffident, not quite winning the social media battle with their APS sensor dSLRs or mirrorless models, most of which seemed rather generic and unremarkable. Where Sony shined was with the snazzy RX100, possibly the best 1-inch sensor around (and which should be the new normal in P&S cameras); and the full frame cameras.</p>

<p>there's a huge aesthetic difference. Fuji is a traditional optics maker and film maker who got into cameras. Sony is a massive tech giant with a lot of R&D money to throw around at numerous projects, not all of which are completely thought out in terms of product lines. Fuji has cultivated its core user as someone who actually cares about the art of photography, not the art of technology. they've made the right moves with their product line, but then again, as a small company, they dont have to make Blue-Ray players and home theater speakers and headphones and TVs. so it could be a bit of more of a laser focus on core competency. but mainly i think Fuji has a better-defined identity. Sony has some cool toys they make, but you cant address the pro or even advanced enthusiast market that deeply without 2.8 zooms, for example. and their UIs have been... interesting. the A6k is probably the best mirrorless crop camera theyve made yet, but the fact that you dont see forum users rushing out to dump their fuji gear to buy one is a sign that those users are relatively happy with their Fuji products. or maybe it's just that Fuji IS better than Sony. j/k. </p>

<p>as far as Fuji cameras not being sharp in the field, i dont think that would fly with Fuji owners. also, your argument about Sony not being so bad in lens selection loses steam when you have to mention 3rd party manufacturers filling in gaps. Ironically, Fuji has absorbed some of the Nikon/Canon leakers by doing just that -- offering products, particularly lenses, that the Big Two cant or wont make. the 16/1.4 and 56/1.2 being perfect examples. Nikon doesnt even offer a single pancake for its DX line, and its one pro-spec DX zoom is 12 years old. are lenses important on interchangeable lens cameras? well, duh. so that's a big reason Fuji wins. but their bodies are fun to use in actual use. i would consider an a6000 for combination stills and video, or an RX10 for run and gun video, but for stills-only, no reason not to like Fuji. i guess if you dont think too much about what lens goes on the camera, Sonys are ok. but even the Fuji 18-55 kit lens is an awesome lens. it's 1/3rd the weight of my pro nikon 24-70. and stabilized.</p><div></div>

<p>*meant to say, XE1.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My only gripe is that I'd like a 23mm f/2 or f/2.8 pancake. The 23/1.4 is much too large and heavy for one-handed use with the lightweight X-A1, and I mostly use these compact cameras one-handed for candid snaps. The 18/2 is wider than I'd like, and the 27/2.8 is longer than I want. With an 18mm on an APS sensor camera <strong>I usually end up cropping to the equivalent of a 35mm on full frame</strong>/35mm film.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you realize you're describing an x100 series camera, right, Lex? that's probably why Fuji doesnt make a 23mm pancake. </p>

<p>I just purchased the XT1 with the 18-135 kit lens. My decision was based on the manual controls and the weather sealing. I almost purchased the a6000 but when I went to the store to hold it, it felt plasticky, and cheap. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"you realize you're describing an x100 series camera, right, Lex? that's probably why Fuji doesnt make a 23mm pancake."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup. Just hoping, since I already have the X-A1 and like it pretty well for the tilt screen. But I may have to consider an X100 since I still crave an optical finder for candid snaps.</p>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I almost purchased the a6000 but when I went to the store to hold it, it felt plasticky, and cheap."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I got the same impression from the Sony NEX models I tried that were in the same price range as the Fuji X-A1/X-M1. And the menus seemed non-intuitive. But those weren't really deal-breakers. The low end Fuji feels cheap and plasticky too - the body flexes enough around the lens mount to make it a challenge to use long or heavy manual focus Nikkors with the cheaper adapters. The X-A1 is best with the lightweight kit zoom or maybe one of the Fuji pancake lenses.<br>

<br>

The main advantages to the Fuji were the excellent in-camera JPEGs and raw converter. Very quick and easy. I liked the idea of not having to rely on tweaking raw files in Lightroom or other editors to get good results. With my Nikons I usually feel dissatisfied with the in-camera JPEGs, so it takes a bit longer to get the desired results. With the Fuji I'm comfortable plugging the media card into a printer or DIY kiosk at the store and getting good enough prints to give to family or friends, or sharing directly via email or Facebook.<br>

<br>

One factor that could persuade me even more would be a more seamless interface between camera and mobile devices. I like the idea of being able to share candid and casual snaps quickly with family and friends, without having to burn CDs, make prints, etc. But I'm not comfortable with smartphone camera ergonomics. Samsung may have the edge in wireless integration, but the reviews of their P&S style cameras don't seem appealing. I'd rather have that sort of seamless wireless integration along with the image quality of the Fuji and ergonomics of the Ricoh GR. Me, picky? Nah...</p>

<p>Eric, Fuji is not a small company. Like Kyocera of Contax/Yashica fame, their camera business is just a small but important part of their overall (ceramic and other) businesses. Sony is quite innovative when it comes to cameras, and the highest resolution Nikons use their sensors.</p>

<p>Unlike Leica, which can be described as being very small. Sony and Fuji have significant varied resources and products, many of which provide added strength to their camera designs and offerings. </p>

<p>Do not discount the enthusiasm that Fujifilm camera users have for the traditional controls featured on many of the X cameras. The shutter speed dial, f stop ring, etc did not need to be replaced, and the various wheels and other controls that replaced them were not superior in any way.</p>

<p>Do not discount the enthusiasm that Fujifilm camera users have for the traditional controls featured on many of the X cameras. The shutter speed dial, f stop ring, etc did not need to be replaced, and the various wheels and other controls that replaced them were not superior in any way.</p>

<p>To the OP: The only question I have is why does it bother you? If you don't like Fuji don't buy 'em.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fuji makes ridiculously well-built and traditional-feeling cameras at reasonable prices.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactely. Myself I do not even own a single fuji lens. All lenses I use on my X-E1 are old manual focus, 1950-70, many single coated - I'm not looking for sharpness in studio scenes I should say. </p>

<p>A most appreciated feature, all X cameras use the SAME battery.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe I just don't understand the appeal of Fuji - help me! :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe you don't even need to understand - if a Sony (or any other brand, really) works perfectly fine for you, and you like using it and get the results you are happy with, who cares what the rest of the world is using?<br>

If I'd move to a mirrorless system, it would probably be Fuji for the handling, as quite some noticed, and the high quality primes. I like the layout of controls and buttons, it makes sense to me. The times I tried a NEX I didn't like the way it felt in my hand, and the controls (too much menu, too small buttons). Highly personal preferences, but I think Fuji managed to come close to what I like. But for now, I'm still fine with a slapping mirror instead; in time, we'll see who gets it right when the time comes.<br>

I think the launch of the X100, and next the X-Pro1 with first high quality primes (at focal lengths that made a lot of sense) was a stroke of genius. They put themselves straight on the map by not coming with "yet another new consumer camera with 18-55 f3.5-5.6 bla bla bla" and with solutions to problems photographers were really having (the hybrid viewfinder is still a great solution, in my view). They basically showed they understood their market, and next addressed issues reported in firmwares to show continued commitment to that market. Very smart moves, and great way to build customer loyalty. Sony doesn't seem as clever, though launching the A7RII with adapters to use 3rd party lenses comes close in "cunning marketing messages".</p>

<p>One of Fuji's big "mistakes" in the mirrorless game was their decision not to use sensor-shift image stabilization. Both Olympus, and later, Sony, go this right from the start. You may very well be able to buy very nice I.S. lenses from Fuji but if you're poor, you won't get many for your dollars spent. Any and all adapted lenses on the Olympus OM-D line have I.S. but you have a smaller sensor. Great for enhancing the "reach" of your telephoto lenses. </p>

<p>Count me among Fuji's users, but less than an admirer. I sold my X-T1 but might reinvest with the new X-T10 for a much lower price. I'm definitely in the poor camp.</p>

<p>I went with Olympus µ43 for the small size, but the Fuji stuff also has fantastic fantastic lenses, probably much better assortment than Sony.</p>

<p>As a Sony mirrorless camera user (NEX-6), I am finding this post very interesting. I'm in the market to upgrade and I like the Sony a-6000 but I keep hearing about a delayed NEX-7 replacement (a7000) or updated a6000 (a6100) the delay supposedly due to the 4K video overheating. The kit lens (16-50) is just ok for my 16MP camera but I have doubts about its performance on a 24MP camera.<br>

I have checked out the Fuji XE-2 with the 18-55mm lens and am very impressed/tempted. The lens seems to be a quite good quality kit lens and, as we all know, kit lenses are rarely anything to write home about.<br>

The Fuji is heavier than the Sony but there are good reasons for that.<br>

Decisions, decisions!</p>

<p>cb :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, Fuji is not a small company. Like Kyocera of Contax/Yashica fame, their camera business is just a small but important part of their overall (ceramic and other) businesses. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Compared to Canon, Nikon, and Sony, Fuji is small. and in case you missed it, my point was that they have a well-iterated product line which has avoided the issues Sony has incurred--namely trying to be all over the map between high-end compacts, APS-C crop frame, APS-C mirrorless, and FF mirrorless. By not having to iterate lenses for three different mounts, Fuji has been able to roll out lenses in a timely fashion which fit the actual needs of actual photographers. That means less compromises. it also means there's a nice symmetry between high-end and low-end bodies, as the same lenses can be used on all without adapters. in real terms, that means you can easily configure a body for street shooting with the 27 or 18 pancakes, for low-light with the 16/23/35/56 primes, for events with the 16-55 and 50-140 2.8 zooms, for landscape with the 10-24 and 55-200, or for travel with the 18-135. you can also do a two-body configuration--small, compact primes on the smaller body like an XE-series or XT10, and longer lenses on an XT1--requiring less bag space than a comparable DSLR. it's a big plus when using two bodies to have manual controls on both; also, the Fuji lenses are so good, you actually <em>want</em> to carry two bodies so you dont have to keep switching lenses. and as earlier pointed out, all the Fuji x-bodies share the same battery. that's an awful lot of versatility and user-oriented convenience right there which both FE and E mount offerings would be hard-pressed to match for still shooters. (as indicated before, its a slightly different picture for video shooters, where the advantage is clearly Sony's.) </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sony is quite innovative when it comes to cameras, and the highest resolution Nikons use their sensors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No one is saying Sony isn't innovative, but the fact that Nikon uses Sony sensors is completely irrelevant to this discussion, especially since the sensor on its own isnt able to inspire the same level of investment and enthusiasm that the 16mp x-trans bodies have. so maybe (sensor) size isn't everything.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One of Fuji's big "mistakes" in the mirrorless game was their decision not to use sensor-shift image stabilization. Both Olympus, and later, Sony, go this right from the start.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>uh, not exactly. this comment doesnt really make sense since we are talking about the relative merits of the A6000, which does NOT have in-body stabilization. i realize this might be a reason for some people to go to olympus or the A7 series, but each of those choices comes with its own set of issues and concerns. for instance, with a full-frame camera, comparable lenses are always going to be larger in physical size than a crop-body camera. so you lose some of the advantage of a compact system the minute you start putting longer lenses on it. that has implications once you get to 2.8 lenses, which might be one of the reasons the FE 16-70 and 70-200 are f/4. so if we're counting mistakes, you have to mark that against Sony. and if Olympus got IBIS right, i cant help but think that their biggest mistake was in committing to m4/3 in the first place. the concept makes sense with entry-level cameras, but is at an inherent disadvantage once you start talking about mid-level and high-end bodies, because its competing against larger sensors which have an inherent advantage as far as noise at high ISOs. that makes any m4/3 body a poor choice for concert photography, for instance. OTOH, it can be argued that Fuji nailed the sweet spot of size/performance/price with its offerings. and there's always the possibility they could add in-body stabilization down the line. ultimately, stabilization is nice to have, but it's not a dealbreaking feature for most shooters, obviously.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also understand that Fuji makes ridiculously well-built and traditional-feeling cameras at reasonable prices - they're also probably the best looking mass-market camera out there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That pretty well sums it up. People chat on the internet about the things they like. Some people like Fuji cameras, me included.<br>

<br />Cameras are a luxury. I only "need" one camera, and any old 35mm SLR or camera phone would probably work. But I choose to have nicer cameras, so my choices are going to be emotional.</p>

<p>I actually wanted to like the Sony products. But in person, the A6000 felt like an old cellphone. The A7 looked cool, and full frame mirrorless sounds like a dream for adapted lenses. But the camera didn't feel good in my hands, and didn't have the traditional controls of the Fuji.</p>

<p>As for sharpness, I'm not sure what you mean. The xTrans seems very sharp, every pixel is usable (good thing with only 16mp.) It also yields nice color JPEGs and makes great B&W conversions. But I'm not surprised, I've really liked Fuji output since the S2 Pro.</p>

Seems like mirrorless camp is getting better and better as time passes. Some of us camp followers of micro four thirds will even come to the party, says Sheldon . :-)

Hey, I love the Fuji design and optics. Also give my heart to Sony style. Have an off an on crush for Panasonic. Lumix lenses. And Olympus is near and dear and full of surprises for a stumble along outfit. Fickle and not so particle. I fear. Take any two camera brands and I can add a couple more in the game.

 

To illustrate. This guy on a FB forum posts a sweet night scene he made with an Olympus EM-1 ad a zoom lens. Not half bad to my eyes. Learn the gear and enjoy what you have. And do not heed forum dogma too much...But there are differences for sure. Not limitations, just differences. And the beat goes on.

 

 

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=480355905461546&set=gm.933339886705268&type=1&t