Lens Rental article on Fuji X-T3

In a World of Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras, Does the Fuji X-T3 Still Hold Up?

 

FYI: Because they rent and maintain cameras and lenses, this is one site I've come to trust.

 

As you will see in the comments, not everybody liked this article.

"In a World of Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras, Does the Fuji X-T3 Still Hold Up?"

 

Just think all those great photos taken on film and 6m digital cameras.

 

Do they hold up?

 

You have to ask the old master for an answer to that question.

There are LensRentals blog posts that are useful and others that are not so useful, this is one of the latter. “I love Fuji, but suddenly someone told me it’s not this thing called “full frame”, apparently this means my Fuji must be bad, but zut alors I find it is not. Incredible, no?”

Agreed with Robin Smith. Summary of the article: "Its cute & compact, takes pictures (incl nice JPEGs), lacks IBIS but that doesn't matter, since AF fails in the dark, before the ISO settings have to get maxed out. + Good for video" (From a tripod?)

As one of the replies to the blog says, it really doesn't answer its own question.

 

I get the impression that the 'reviewer' is just another Fuji fanboy that doesn't want the sacred X-trans sensor put under too much scrutiny.

 

I must admit to having a slight anti Fuji bias; after they downright lied about the megapixel count of the first digital camera I ever bought. Yes, it was many moons ago, and in the era when a slack-handful of megapixels was heady stuff, but us elephants have long memories for a grudge!

I've seen beautiful 24x36 prints from the XT3 that give up nothing to so called fullframe bodies in the same MP range. One thing I do notice is that it is less prone to moire because of XTrans....and even like my X-Pro1, the higher iso noise is more pleasing to the eye when I've asked people to compare. XTrans does a good job.

Looks like Dave and I are the only Fuji shooters in this thread so far, so why post if you're not? Hater frothing aside, it's a great system whose intelligent design and quality are tough to dismiss. Very happy with an X100T, two X-T1s and the 23/35/50 "Fujicrons." Zero interest in video. Tonnage doesn't axiomatically equal quality.

To hell with full frame and megapixels. You stick an excellent lens that focuses finely in front of a good APSC sensor these days and it’s as good as you could want. My XPro2 regularly makes me better images than my D800. It’s the best mirrorless system out there.

so why post if you're not?

Errr, because the forum heading is "Mirrorless Digital Cameras" not "Fuji Mirrorless Cameras", and the blog might have had some general interest, or convinced non-Fuji shooters of the X-trans merits. But it didn't do any of those things, because there was no comparison, and only a handful of yawnworthy examples shown.

So, shooting any current Fujifilm mirrorless products now, Joe? No? Edited May 19, 2019 by c_watson|1

The blog was silly because he never demonstrated anything about the Fuji vs FF. Personally I don't care, as I am moving from FF to MFT. I like Fuji. but there was not enough size advantage over FF for me, and rather to my surprise, I found all the analog dials which Fuji push as such a great feature were no big deal. Pretty well all cameras made for advanced amateurs are really good these days. As an APS system, Fuji is top of the heap. You pick a sensor size and you make it work.

So, shooting any current Fujifilm mirrorless products now, Joe? No?

That's totally beside the point. And I really don't get the point you're trying to make either. Apart from confirming that Fuji fanboys might be oblivious or allergic to any slight criticism of the brand.

 

The question posed by the blog still stands unanswered - "In a World of Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras, Does the Fuji X-T3 Still Hold Up?"

 

A couple of non-boring comparison pics against a full-frame camera, and shot in reasonable light, would have gone at least some way to answering that.

That's totally beside the point. And I really don't get the point you're trying to make either. Apart from confirming that Fuji fanboys might be oblivious or allergic to any slight criticism of the brand.

 

The question posed by the blog still stands unanswered - "In a World of Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras, Does the Fuji X-T3 Still Hold Up?"

 

A couple of non-boring comparison pics against a full-frame camera, and shot in reasonable light, would have gone at least some way to answering that.

 

Afraid not, since you have no basis for comparison--precisely what your beef seems to be with the blog author. Besides, the one-man editorial board/submission referee schtick is tiresome. He wrote an op-ed piece. Live with it. Neither Lens Rental or PN is a juried submission publication. And no, I'm guessing your unfamiliarity with Fuji is quite relevant but not to you.

I don't understand all this rant, Fuji has best range of bright lenses available for APS-C format and they make nice cameras. Other than that, different formats have different appeal for different applications, for portrait shooters FF or Medium format providing opportunity to isolate subject, with MFT everything is in focus, APS-C in the middle of the pack.Everything depend on application, DSLR better than mirrorless for night or very low-light situations, mirrorless better for those who want to combine photo and video in one camera, like wedding photographers. Everything in this world is trade off , pick what you need most.

When photographing using digital I use the Fuji X-T 1,2&3 cameras. For street photography they are fine cameras. If I want full frame or depth of field blur I use my film cameras. The fuji lenses are quite fine especially the 23 F2, it is a superb lens.

Fuji are fine cameras for any application.

 

The lenses are special.

 

Fuji fan boy with a photograph rare on PN.

Its getting a poor reception mostly because its on the Lens Rentals site, where Roger's incredible lens teardowns and other contributions are a big draw for people who never look at the rest of it. If all you've ever perused are links to Roger's pieces from other sites, having this meh blog post pop up could be a disappointment (as in "yes, Lens Rentals hosts mediocre content just like any other photography forum").

 

Posted anywhere else, it would have been just another user review, and not gotten a significant reaction one way or the other. The guy means well, but he sets up a premise, then doesn't deliver on it. This would be fine if his review was otherwise intriguing, but it just isn't: random comments on Fuji Rumors have more insight, and his example photos are the literal embodiment of what you'd use an iPhone to shoot (Allen Hebert's pics above illustrate the Fuji potential far better). One of the comments printed below his review nailed it: the title is annoying clickbait. Better he should have titled it "Veteran Fuji XT-1 User Auditions An XT-3 On The Worst Possible Day To Shoot A Camera In NYC, Using A Dull Film Simulation Setting Intended For Grading Video".

 

The Fuji system is phenomenal kit for those who can exploit it properly. It isn't for everyone, but neither is a Canon R, Nikon Z , Sony A7, Panasonic S1 or Leica SL: horses for courses. Given the post premise, the author might have delved into that aspect a bit more clearly. He didn't need to actually use one of those full frame options for comparison, just give more emphasis to testing the limits of the XT-3 (for his type of photography) vs his own XT-1, then say if there was any parameter where he felt the latest Fuji APS-C sensor significantly let him down. If yes, did he think full frame might have performed dramatically better, slightly better or about the same? And was it relevant enough to his own typical work to make auditioning full frame worthwhile?

Edited May 23, 2019 by orsetto