# X-T10? X-M1?



## dasminimalist

So, my ultimate question is this. Is mirrorless too advanced/simple for a beginner like myself to learn photography? Is it cost-effective? Too specialized for first camera? 

After shooting with my cell phone camera for the past few years, I have finally decided to pick up a bigger camera and start investing more time and money into photography.

 Long story short, total beginner, likes to take pictures of landscapes, structures, people, close-up of foods/plants, very interested in mirroless system(the idea of lightweight camera you can bring anywhere), budget is at $500~800 which means I will end up spending $900. Current equipment is a samsung Note4, Gopro Hero4 Silver, and an iPod touch if that matters at all. 

I want to take better versions of these.


----------



## cherylynne1

dasminimalist said:


> So, my ultimate question is this. Is mirrorless too advanced/simple for a beginner like myself to learn photography? Is it cost-effective? Too specialized for first camera?
> 
> After shooting with my cell phone camera for the past few years, I have finally decided to pick up a bigger camera and start investing more time and money into photography.
> 
> Long story short, total beginner, likes to take pictures of landscapes, structures, people, close-up of foods/plants, very interested in mirroless system(the idea of lightweight camera you can bring anywhere), budget is at $500~800 which means I will end up spending $900. Current equipment is a samsung Note4, Gopro Hero4 Silver, and an iPod touch if that matters at all.
> 
> I want to take better versions of these.



I definitely wouldn't say mirrorless is too advanced for a beginner. In fact, it can be really helpful in learning how to expose properly because you can see the effect you have on the picture in real time on the viewfinder. 

Here's my favorite site for gear reviews: 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-900 They're comparing all ILCs in that price range, but you can just read the reviews on mirrorless. They're very thorough and fair.


----------



## Derrel

You will have a lot of fun with a nice MILC. The deep depth of field shots thart the iPhone can captue will be much harder, but low-light shots will be better due to the larger sensor and better higher-ISO performance of the MILC versus the iPhone. You've got this.


----------



## Gary A.

Fuji makes a very high quality camera.  I own a number of them.  Both cameras use the same 16mp sensor.  The X-T10 comes with a viewfinder and a better kit lens.  The XF 18-55 kit lens is a wonderful sharp kit lens and is an f/2.8 which means you can capture images in less light than with the XC 16-50 kit lens that comes with the X-M1 and is a F/3.5.


----------



## dasminimalist

cherylynne1 said:


> I definitely wouldn't say mirrorless is too advanced for a beginner. In fact, it can be really helpful in learning how to expose properly because you can see the effect you have on the picture in real time on the viewfinder.
> 
> Here's my favorite site for gear reviews: 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-900 They're comparing all ILCs in that price range, but you can just read the reviews on mirrorless. They're very thorough and fair.


Wow, now I feel like I didn't do my homework well. Thank you so much for a great info. 



Derrel said:


> You will have a lot of fun with a nice MILC. The deep depth of field shots thart the iPhone can captue will be much harder, but low-light shots will be better due to the larger sensor and better higher-ISO performance of the MILC versus the iPhone. You've got this.


Do you need a specific set of equipments for the iphone-like deep depth of field shots or is it all about the knowledge and experience? That confidence boost though 



Gary A. said:


> Fuji makes a very high quality camera.  I own a number of them.  Both cameras use the same 16mp sensor.  The X-T10 comes with a viewfinder and a better kit lens.  The XF 18-55 kit lens is a wonderful sharp kit lens and is an f/2.8 which means you can capture images in less light than with the XC 16-50 kit lens that comes with the X-M1 and is a F/3.5.


Honestly, they are very eye-catching. I love the way they look and feel in the hands. 

Have you done much of video recording on those? I know I probably will not be doing much of video, but is it SO bad that every article that I read about the Fuji mirrorless system have to mention that?


----------



## jcdeboever

Those are very nice cell phone images. You seem to have a good eye. I can't speak to the video and I don't have a MILC yet. As far as image makers and the vast research I have done (looking to buy one) @Gary A. seems to hit it on the head. Having the ability to interchange lens is a good thing and that 18-55 is a darn nice lens that would fit perfect for your shooting genre. Little over your budget but well worth it IMO. Might be able to snag a Sony a6000 with a lens around your budget too. Keep in mind they also make adapters for these cameras that are reasonable and give you frugal lens options (older, manual focus lens).


----------



## dasminimalist

jcdeboever said:


> Those are very nice cell phone images. You seem to have a good eye. I can't speak to the video and I don't have a MILC yet. As far as image makers and the vast research I have done (looking to buy one) @Gary A. seems to hit it on the head. Having the ability to interchange lens is a good thing and that 18-55 is a darn nice lens that would fit perfect for your shooting genre. Little over your budget but well worth it IMO. Might be able to snag a Sony a6000 with a lens around your budget too. Keep in mind they also make adapters for these cameras that are reasonable and give you frugal lens options (older, manual focus lens).


I started shopping for the 18-55 and the price of any lens is jaw-dropping. It definitely is over my budget, but then I started to thinking if I bought an X-M1 instead of an X-T10 then I should be able to afford it. Would I be cheaping out and regret it in a few months? The only big difference I can see is the 51,000 ISO vs 6,400 ISO.

I am even considering of buying a second-hand body as well, but even a used body+new lens seems to end up in the similar price range. May be it's time to hit a blackjack table.


----------



## jcdeboever

dasminimalist said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are very nice cell phone images. You seem to have a good eye. I can't speak to the video and I don't have a MILC yet. As far as image makers and the vast research I have done (looking to buy one) @Gary A. seems to hit it on the head. Having the ability to interchange lens is a good thing and that 18-55 is a darn nice lens that would fit perfect for your shooting genre. Little over your budget but well worth it IMO. Might be able to snag a Sony a6000 with a lens around your budget too. Keep in mind they also make adapters for these cameras that are reasonable and give you frugal lens options (older, manual focus lens).
> 
> 
> 
> I started shopping for the 18-55 and the price of any lens is jaw-dropping. It definitely is over my budget, but then I started to thinking if I bought an X-M1 instead of an X-T10 then I should be able to afford it. Would I be cheaping out and regret it in a few months? The only big difference I can see is the 51,000 ISO vs 6,400 ISO.
> 
> I am even considering of buying a second-hand body as well, but even a used body+new lens seems to end up in the similar price range. May be it's time to hit a blackjack table.
Click to expand...


Still great image quality but no viewfinder, so if that is not a problem for you, it's a good choice.


----------



## cherylynne1

dasminimalist said:


> cherylynne1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely wouldn't say mirrorless is too advanced for a beginner. In fact, it can be really helpful in learning how to expose properly because you can see the effect you have on the picture in real time on the viewfinder.
> 
> Here's my favorite site for gear reviews: 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-900 They're comparing all ILCs in that price range, but you can just read the reviews on mirrorless. They're very thorough and fair.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, now I feel like I didn't do my homework well. Thank you so much for a great info.
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will have a lot of fun with a nice MILC. The deep depth of field shots thart the iPhone can captue will be much harder, but low-light shots will be better due to the larger sensor and better higher-ISO performance of the MILC versus the iPhone. You've got this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you need a specific set of equipments for the iphone-like deep depth of field shots or is it all about the knowledge and experience? That confidence boost though
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuji makes a very high quality camera.  I own a number of them.  Both cameras use the same 16mp sensor.  The X-T10 comes with a viewfinder and a better kit lens.  The XF 18-55 kit lens is a wonderful sharp kit lens and is an f/2.8 which means you can capture images in less light than with the XC 16-50 kit lens that comes with the X-M1 and is a F/3.5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honestly, they are very eye-catching. I love the way they look and feel in the hands.
> 
> Have you done much of video recording on those? I know I probably will not be doing much of video, but is it SO bad that every article that I read about the Fuji mirrorless system have to mention that?
Click to expand...


Haha, I'm sure you've done your homework, it's just a matter of knowing which websites you can trust and which ones are being paid to advertise products. There are always biases, of course, but a few websites tend to be more reliable than others. 

As for depth of field, in most cases, yes, nearly any set-up can stop down to the same depth of field as a phone. The only time you might need specialized equipment is for macro shots. It's easy for a phone camera to get really close to an object. Not all lenses will focus when they're too close, unless they're a designated macro lens. But that's probably not something you'll need to worry about for awhile. 

As for video...well, honestly, yes. Fuji video on those older cameras is pretty bad. Moire, noise in the shadows, autofocus hunting, inability to change ISO or aperture, the list goes on and on. It has improved in their newer cameras, though, so if it's only a stepping stone until later, then it's no big deal. 

My biggest problem with Fuji is the incompatibility of their RAW files with Lightroom. I do a lot of post processing, and I usually start in LR, switch to Photoshop for any composites or layer work, then swing back into LR to finish up and keep my folders organized. With any other camera, this is no big deal. But with Fuji, you have to either work with a DNG file or use something other than Lightroom. Not using Lightroom means that to switch into Photoshop you have to save, export, open, etc. It would ruin my workflow. 

That being said, Fuji probably has the best jpeg files of anybody, so most people that use it probably do so because they don't like processing pictures themselves and want the camera to do it for them. 

Looking at your photos, you definitely have an eye for composition and seem to understand the importance of good light. I wish there were raw files of those photos, though, because some post processing could take them from "nice" to "wow." 

Here's my take: If you don't want to spend any of your time in front of the computer, Fuji is your best bet. They have amazing lenses, they're just more expensive and heavier than other mirrorless choices. If a small form factor is your highest priority, look at micro four thirds camera from Panasonic and Olympus (Olympus has the edge in stills, Panasonic has the edge in video.) If you want maximum post processing power (both in dynamic range and high ISOs) then look at Sony.


----------



## Ysarex

cherylynne1 said:


> My biggest problem with Fuji is the incompatibility of their RAW files with Lightroom. I do a lot of post processing, and I usually start in LR, switch to Photoshop for any composites or layer work, then swing back into LR to finish up and keep my folders organized. With any other camera, this is no big deal. But with Fuji, you have to either work with a DNG file or use something other than Lightroom. Not using Lightroom means that to switch into Photoshop you have to save, export, open, etc. It would ruin my workflow.



Adobe fully supports Fuji raw (RAF) files in both Photoshop (ACR) and Lightroom.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex

cherylynne1 said:


> If you want maximum post processing power (both in dynamic range and high ISOs) then look at Sony.



The Fuji cameras use the same Sony sensors as Sony uses in the a6xxx series cameras. The sensor is the primary determinant of dynamic range and low-light performance. If anything the Fuji X-Trans CFA tips a slight low-light advantage to the Fujis.

Joe


----------



## cherylynne1

Ysarex said:


> cherylynne1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My biggest problem with Fuji is the incompatibility of their RAW files with Lightroom. I do a lot of post processing, and I usually start in LR, switch to Photoshop for any composites or layer work, then swing back into LR to finish up and keep my folders organized. With any other camera, this is no big deal. But with Fuji, you have to either work with a DNG file or use something other than Lightroom. Not using Lightroom means that to switch into Photoshop you have to save, export, open, etc. It would ruin my workflow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adobe fully supports Fuji raw (RAF) files in both Photoshop (ACR) and Lightroom.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


Yeah, it looks like I had outdated information on that. The person I was talking to a few weeks ago had an outdated version of Lightroom, not CC. It looks like they have fixed that in the newer versions. 

As far as dynamic range, I meant that more in comparison to m43s. Fuji and Sony are very similar because they both use Sony sensors, as you said.


----------



## dasminimalist

cherylynne1 said:


> dasminimalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cherylynne1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely wouldn't say mirrorless is too advanced for a beginner. In fact, it can be really helpful in learning how to expose properly because you can see the effect you have on the picture in real time on the viewfinder.
> 
> Here's my favorite site for gear reviews: 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-900 They're comparing all ILCs in that price range, but you can just read the reviews on mirrorless. They're very thorough and fair.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, now I feel like I didn't do my homework well. Thank you so much for a great info.
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will have a lot of fun with a nice MILC. The deep depth of field shots thart the iPhone can captue will be much harder, but low-light shots will be better due to the larger sensor and better higher-ISO performance of the MILC versus the iPhone. You've got this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you need a specific set of equipments for the iphone-like deep depth of field shots or is it all about the knowledge and experience? That confidence boost though
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuji makes a very high quality camera.  I own a number of them.  Both cameras use the same 16mp sensor.  The X-T10 comes with a viewfinder and a better kit lens.  The XF 18-55 kit lens is a wonderful sharp kit lens and is an f/2.8 which means you can capture images in less light than with the XC 16-50 kit lens that comes with the X-M1 and is a F/3.5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honestly, they are very eye-catching. I love the way they look and feel in the hands.
> 
> Have you done much of video recording on those? I know I probably will not be doing much of video, but is it SO bad that every article that I read about the Fuji mirrorless system have to mention that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha, I'm sure you've done your homework, it's just a matter of knowing which websites you can trust and which ones are being paid to advertise products. There are always biases, of course, but a few websites tend to be more reliable than others.
> 
> As for depth of field, in most cases, yes, nearly any set-up can stop down to the same depth of field as a phone. The only time you might need specialized equipment is for macro shots. It's easy for a phone camera to get really close to an object. Not all lenses will focus when they're too close, unless they're a designated macro lens. But that's probably not something you'll need to worry about for awhile.
> 
> As for video...well, honestly, yes. Fuji video on those older cameras is pretty bad. Moire, noise in the shadows, autofocus hunting, inability to change ISO or aperture, the list goes on and on. It has improved in their newer cameras, though, so if it's only a stepping stone until later, then it's no big deal.
> 
> My biggest problem with Fuji is the incompatibility of their RAW files with Lightroom. I do a lot of post processing, and I usually start in LR, switch to Photoshop for any composites or layer work, then swing back into LR to finish up and keep my folders organized. With any other camera, this is no big deal. But with Fuji, you have to either work with a DNG file or use something other than Lightroom. Not using Lightroom means that to switch into Photoshop you have to save, export, open, etc. It would ruin my workflow.
> 
> That being said, Fuji probably has the best jpeg files of anybody, so most people that use it probably do so because they don't like processing pictures themselves and want the camera to do it for them.
> 
> Looking at your photos, you definitely have an eye for composition and seem to understand the importance of good light. I wish there were raw files of those photos, though, because some post processing could take them from "nice" to "wow."
> 
> Here's my take: If you don't want to spend any of your time in front of the computer, Fuji is your best bet. They have amazing lenses, they're just more expensive and heavier than other mirrorless choices. If a small form factor is your highest priority, look at micro four thirds camera from Panasonic and Olympus (Olympus has the edge in stills, Panasonic has the edge in video.) If you want maximum post processing power (both in dynamic range and high ISOs) then look at Sony.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I wanted to hear. Thank you very much for your detailed answer.

Ok, so then I shouldn't be expecting much video from Fujifilm, but since you mentioned older cameras, how old are we talking about here?

Here is where I am a little bit confused. If you don't have to touch the picture afterwards, doesn't that mean that the camera is really good? Or does that mean that the camera 'does the job' digitally for me?

Except for the attachments 'd' and 'e', all photos are straight from my phone->facebook->tpf without any filtering. But I am assuming that already means that they are not raw files right? If you pull out the file directly from the phone/ipod, is that a raw file then?


----------



## dasminimalist

jcdeboever said:


> Still great image quality but no viewfinder, so if that is not a problem for you, it's a good choice.


I will most likely go with the X-M1, unless I find other alternatives or reasons not to get the M1. Thank you!


----------



## cherylynne1

dasminimalist said:


> cherylynne1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dasminimalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cherylynne1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely wouldn't say mirrorless is too advanced for a beginner. In fact, it can be really helpful in learning how to expose properly because you can see the effect you have on the picture in real time on the viewfinder.
> 
> Here's my favorite site for gear reviews: 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-900 They're comparing all ILCs in that price range, but you can just read the reviews on mirrorless. They're very thorough and fair.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, now I feel like I didn't do my homework well. Thank you so much for a great info.
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will have a lot of fun with a nice MILC. The deep depth of field shots thart the iPhone can captue will be much harder, but low-light shots will be better due to the larger sensor and better higher-ISO performance of the MILC versus the iPhone. You've got this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you need a specific set of equipments for the iphone-like deep depth of field shots or is it all about the knowledge and experience? That confidence boost though
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuji makes a very high quality camera.  I own a number of them.  Both cameras use the same 16mp sensor.  The X-T10 comes with a viewfinder and a better kit lens.  The XF 18-55 kit lens is a wonderful sharp kit lens and is an f/2.8 which means you can capture images in less light than with the XC 16-50 kit lens that comes with the X-M1 and is a F/3.5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honestly, they are very eye-catching. I love the way they look and feel in the hands.
> 
> Have you done much of video recording on those? I know I probably will not be doing much of video, but is it SO bad that every article that I read about the Fuji mirrorless system have to mention that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha, I'm sure you've done your homework, it's just a matter of knowing which websites you can trust and which ones are being paid to advertise products. There are always biases, of course, but a few websites tend to be more reliable than others.
> 
> As for depth of field, in most cases, yes, nearly any set-up can stop down to the same depth of field as a phone. The only time you might need specialized equipment is for macro shots. It's easy for a phone camera to get really close to an object. Not all lenses will focus when they're too close, unless they're a designated macro lens. But that's probably not something you'll need to worry about for awhile.
> 
> As for video...well, honestly, yes. Fuji video on those older cameras is pretty bad. Moire, noise in the shadows, autofocus hunting, inability to change ISO or aperture, the list goes on and on. It has improved in their newer cameras, though, so if it's only a stepping stone until later, then it's no big deal.
> 
> My biggest problem with Fuji is the incompatibility of their RAW files with Lightroom. I do a lot of post processing, and I usually start in LR, switch to Photoshop for any composites or layer work, then swing back into LR to finish up and keep my folders organized. With any other camera, this is no big deal. But with Fuji, you have to either work with a DNG file or use something other than Lightroom. Not using Lightroom means that to switch into Photoshop you have to save, export, open, etc. It would ruin my workflow.
> 
> That being said, Fuji probably has the best jpeg files of anybody, so most people that use it probably do so because they don't like processing pictures themselves and want the camera to do it for them.
> 
> Looking at your photos, you definitely have an eye for composition and seem to understand the importance of good light. I wish there were raw files of those photos, though, because some post processing could take them from "nice" to "wow."
> 
> Here's my take: If you don't want to spend any of your time in front of the computer, Fuji is your best bet. They have amazing lenses, they're just more expensive and heavier than other mirrorless choices. If a small form factor is your highest priority, look at micro four thirds camera from Panasonic and Olympus (Olympus has the edge in stills, Panasonic has the edge in video.) If you want maximum post processing power (both in dynamic range and high ISOs) then look at Sony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is exactly what I wanted to hear. Thank you very much for your detailed answer.
> 
> Ok, so then I shouldn't be expecting much video from Fujifilm, but since you mentioned older cameras, how old are we talking about here?
> 
> Here is where I am a little bit confused. If you don't have to touch the picture afterwards, doesn't that mean that the camera is really good? Or does that mean that the camera 'does the job' digitally for me?
> 
> Except for the attachments 'd' and 'e', all photos are straight from my phone->facebook->tpf without any filtering. But I am assuming that already means that they are not raw files right? If you pull out the file directly from the phone/ipod, is that a raw file then?
Click to expand...


I think the x-t2 has good video reviews, I'm not sure I've seen any others with good ones. Maybe the upcoming x-t20. 

No, there aren't raw files on iPhone/iPod. Here's how that works: When you take a picture, the camera records all the available light that it's able to. How much it can record depends on the lens, setting, sensor, etc. Now, if you want to keep all of that information, you tell the camera to give you the raw file. You can then decide if you want to lift the shadows, drop the highlights, add more or less contrast, etc. Because you have all the information, you have a lot of options. Then when you get it the way you like it, you convert it to jpeg for use on the web or to print or whatever. 

When you tell the camera to provide jpegs instead of raw files, the camera makes all those decisions for you. It looks at the picture and decides how bright/dark/contrasty things should be. Then it deletes the rest of the information and gives you a finished jpeg file. Now, this is great if you always like the way the camera renders the image. But if you don't like something and want to change it, the raw file is gone. You can still edit the jpeg, but there is much less information available to work with than in the raw file. 

You could get around this by always shooting in raw+jpeg, that way you get the jpegs and have the raw file in case the jpeg isn't the way you like it. But it takes up more space on your memory card, if that matters to you. 

A lot of people really like the way Fuji renders jpegs, and if you feel that way, then great! It's a great system, and most Fuji users are very happy.


----------



## Ysarex

dasminimalist said:


> Here is where I am a little bit confused. If you don't have to touch the picture afterwards, doesn't that mean that the camera is really good? Or does that mean that the camera 'does the job' digitally for me?
> 
> Except for the attachments 'd' and 'e', all photos are straight from my phone->facebook->tpf without any filtering. But I am assuming that already means that they are not raw files right? If you pull out the file directly from the phone/ipod, is that a raw file then?



Some reading for you: how it works

As you seem to be settling on Fuji (as noted I'm a Fuji user as well), you want to be fully informed and understand that Fuji in a pretty substantial way is an odd-out camera and departs from mainstream camera design. Fuji calls the sensors in their cameras X-Trans. You're considering a 2nd generation X-Trans camera given your budget constraints. Current cameras are generation III. Fuji opted for a radical departure with the X-Trans design. The CFA (color filter array) in the Fuji cameras is not a standard Bayer array. If you opt to only shoot JPEGs with the camera (read link above) you can ignore this issue. If however you decide to get more involved and start saving and processing raw files then this will become at least a minor factor.







Fuji of course thinks this is a big advantage. I'm inclined to agree but with some reservations. Notice the pattern simplicity of the Bayer array. You've seen this: every once in awhile a TV news reporter will wear an article of clothing that will shimmer and seem to move over it's surface. This is called moire interference -- pattern frequencies in the fabric interacting with the pattern frequency of the CFA in the camera or the raster pattern in your TV. To counter this nearly all camera manufactures also include with their sensors what we call an AA (anti-aliasing) filter to defeat moire interference. The AA filter actually blurs the image ever so slightly. This is called a compromise -- accepting a not-too-bad thing to avoid something worse. The increased pattern complexity of the Fuji X-Trans CFA makes the AA filter unnecessary and Fuji has removed it. In theory then sharper more detailed photographs. You'll also notice that the Fuji CFA has more green proportionately than the Bayer array. This gives the Fuji cameras a slight advantage taking photos in very low light conditions.

The catch is that if you save a raw file then your raw processing software has to interpolate off the X-Trans CFA rather than a customary Bayer array. The process of interpolating the CFA into a full color photo we call demosaicing (see link above). Fuji made that process much more complicated and fraught with pitfalls by increasing the CFA pattern complexity. During the first years of the generation I X-Trans cameras things were pretty wild as many of the raw processing vendors didn't support the X-Trans CFA and those that did were tripping into those pitfalls. Things are much better now but there's still some substantial differences between working with raw files and a Bayer array versus raw files and an X-Trans array. For example DX0 still refuses to touch the X-Trans array leaving the Fuji user with reduced choice. Otherwise there's more variation in the output results from the various brand raw conversion software titles when dealing with Fuji RAF files. There's an adequate amount of choice now but the choice is more complicated by the performance variations that are otherwise not apparent if you have a Bayer array camera.

This could all be meaningless to you if you go about happily shooting JPEGs in the camera and are satisfied with the results -- very good chance you will be. This would be a down-the-road issue should you really enjoy taking photos and decide to explore photography in greater detail and by then you may have a new camera anyway.

Joe


----------



## jcdeboever

Ysarex said:


> dasminimalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is where I am a little bit confused. If you don't have to touch the picture afterwards, doesn't that mean that the camera is really good? Or does that mean that the camera 'does the job' digitally for me?
> 
> Except for the attachments 'd' and 'e', all photos are straight from my phone->facebook->tpf without any filtering. But I am assuming that already means that they are not raw files right? If you pull out the file directly from the phone/ipod, is that a raw file then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some reading for you: how it works
> 
> As you seem to be settling on Fuji (as noted I'm a Fuji user as well), you want to be fully informed and understand that Fuji in a pretty substantial way is an odd-out camera and departs from mainstream camera design. Fuji calls the sensors in their cameras X-Trans. You're considering a 2nd generation X-Trans camera given your budget constraints. Current cameras are generation III. Fuji opted for a radical departure with the X-Trans design. The CFA (color filter array) in the Fuji cameras is not a standard Bayer array. If you opt to only shoot JPEGs with the camera (read link above) you can ignore this issue. If however you decide to get more involved and start saving and processing raw files then this will become at least a minor factor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuji of course thinks this is a big advantage. I'm inclined to agree but with some reservations. Notice the pattern simplicity of the Bayer array. You've seen this: every once in awhile a TV news reporter will wear an article of clothing that will shimmer and seem to move over it's surface. This is called moire interference -- pattern frequencies in the fabric interacting with the pattern frequency of the CFA in the camera or the raster pattern in your TV. To counter this nearly all camera manufactures also include with their sensors what we call an AA (anti-aliasing) filter to defeat moire interference. The AA filter actually blurs the image ever so slightly. This is called a compromise -- accepting a not-too-bad thing to avoid something worse. The increased pattern complexity of the Fuji X-Trans CFA makes the AA filter unnecessary and Fuji has removed it. In theory then sharper more detailed photographs. You'll also notice that the Fuji CFA has more green proportionately than the Bayer array. This gives the Fuji cameras a slight advantage taking photos in very low light conditions.
> 
> The catch is that if you save a raw file then your raw processing software has to interpolate off the X-Trans CFA rather than a customary Bayer array. The process of interpolating the CFA into a full color photo we call demosaicing (see link above). Fuji made that process much more complicated and fraught with pitfalls by increasing the CFA pattern complexity. During the first years of the generation I X-Trans cameras things were pretty wild as many of the raw processing vendors didn't support the X-Trans CFA and those that did were tripping into those pitfalls. Things are much better now but there's still some substantial differences between working with raw files and a Bayer array versus raw files and an X-Trans array. For example DX0 still refuses to touch the X-Trans array leaving the Fuji user with reduced choice. Otherwise there's more variation in the output results from the various brand raw conversion software titles when dealing with Fuji RAF files. There's an adequate amount of choice now but the choice is more complicated by the performance variations that are otherwise not apparent if you have a Bayer array camera.
> 
> This could all be meaningless to you if you go about happily shooting JPEGs in the camera and are satisfied with the results -- very good chance you will be. This would be a down-the-road issue should you really enjoy taking photos and decide to explore photography in greater detail and by then you may have a new camera anyway.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


Impressive Joe. You explain it wonderfully. Big Kudo's to you for sorting my confusion, based on what I have read up to this point.


----------



## pixmedic

Ysarex said:


> dasminimalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is where I am a little bit confused. If you don't have to touch the picture afterwards, doesn't that mean that the camera is really good? Or does that mean that the camera 'does the job' digitally for me?
> 
> Except for the attachments 'd' and 'e', all photos are straight from my phone->facebook->tpf without any filtering. But I am assuming that already means that they are not raw files right? If you pull out the file directly from the phone/ipod, is that a raw file then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some reading for you: how it works
> 
> As you seem to be settling on Fuji (as noted I'm a Fuji user as well), you want to be fully informed and understand that Fuji in a pretty substantial way is an odd-out camera and departs from mainstream camera design. Fuji calls the sensors in their cameras X-Trans. You're considering a 2nd generation X-Trans camera given your budget constraints. Current cameras are generation III. Fuji opted for a radical departure with the X-Trans design. The CFA (color filter array) in the Fuji cameras is not a standard Bayer array. If you opt to only shoot JPEGs with the camera (read link above) you can ignore this issue. If however you decide to get more involved and start saving and processing raw files then this will become at least a minor factor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuji of course thinks this is a big advantage. I'm inclined to agree but with some reservations. Notice the pattern simplicity of the Bayer array. You've seen this: every once in awhile a TV news reporter will wear an article of clothing that will shimmer and seem to move over it's surface. This is called moire interference -- pattern frequencies in the fabric interacting with the pattern frequency of the CFA in the camera or the raster pattern in your TV. To counter this nearly all camera manufactures also include with their sensors what we call an AA (anti-aliasing) filter to defeat moire interference. The AA filter actually blurs the image ever so slightly. This is called a compromise -- accepting a not-too-bad thing to avoid something worse. The increased pattern complexity of the Fuji X-Trans CFA makes the AA filter unnecessary and Fuji has removed it. In theory then sharper more detailed photographs. You'll also notice that the Fuji CFA has more green proportionately than the Bayer array. This gives the Fuji cameras a slight advantage taking photos in very low light conditions.
> 
> The catch is that if you save a raw file then your raw processing software has to interpolate off the X-Trans CFA rather than a customary Bayer array. The process of interpolating the CFA into a full color photo we call demosaicing (see link above). Fuji made that process much more complicated and fraught with pitfalls by increasing the CFA pattern complexity. During the first years of the generation I X-Trans cameras things were pretty wild as many of the raw processing vendors didn't support the X-Trans CFA and those that did were tripping into those pitfalls. Things are much better now but there's still some substantial differences between working with raw files and a Bayer array versus raw files and an X-Trans array. For example DX0 still refuses to touch the X-Trans array leaving the Fuji user with reduced choice. Otherwise there's more variation in the output results from the various brand raw conversion software titles when dealing with Fuji RAF files. There's an adequate amount of choice now but the choice is more complicated by the performance variations that are otherwise not apparent if you have a Bayer array camera.
> 
> This could all be meaningless to you if you go about happily shooting JPEGs in the camera and are satisfied with the results -- very good chance you will be. This would be a down-the-road issue should you really enjoy taking photos and decide to explore photography in greater detail and by then you may have a new camera anyway.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


you can still go fuji and not get an x-trans sensor. 
the fuji a1, a2, and a3 dont have the x-trans sensor, but a regular bayer sensor. 
I have an x-a1 and, except for NOT having a viewfinder, really like it. 
ive been very pleased with its low light performance and overall handling. 
I would imagine the A2 or A3 would be even better. 

on the flip side of that coin, I also have an x-e2 (with the x-trans sensor) and really love it. im partial to the x-e2 because it has a viewfinder. 
my wife and her less-than-stellar eyesight likes live view, so the x-a2 works really well for her.


----------



## jcdeboever

pixmedic said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dasminimalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is where I am a little bit confused. If you don't have to touch the picture afterwards, doesn't that mean that the camera is really good? Or does that mean that the camera 'does the job' digitally for me?
> 
> Except for the attachments 'd' and 'e', all photos are straight from my phone->facebook->tpf without any filtering. But I am assuming that already means that they are not raw files right? If you pull out the file directly from the phone/ipod, is that a raw file then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some reading for you: how it works
> 
> As you seem to be settling on Fuji (as noted I'm a Fuji user as well), you want to be fully informed and understand that Fuji in a pretty substantial way is an odd-out camera and departs from mainstream camera design. Fuji calls the sensors in their cameras X-Trans. You're considering a 2nd generation X-Trans camera given your budget constraints. Current cameras are generation III. Fuji opted for a radical departure with the X-Trans design. The CFA (color filter array) in the Fuji cameras is not a standard Bayer array. If you opt to only shoot JPEGs with the camera (read link above) you can ignore this issue. If however you decide to get more involved and start saving and processing raw files then this will become at least a minor factor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuji of course thinks this is a big advantage. I'm inclined to agree but with some reservations. Notice the pattern simplicity of the Bayer array. You've seen this: every once in awhile a TV news reporter will wear an article of clothing that will shimmer and seem to move over it's surface. This is called moire interference -- pattern frequencies in the fabric interacting with the pattern frequency of the CFA in the camera or the raster pattern in your TV. To counter this nearly all camera manufactures also include with their sensors what we call an AA (anti-aliasing) filter to defeat moire interference. The AA filter actually blurs the image ever so slightly. This is called a compromise -- accepting a not-too-bad thing to avoid something worse. The increased pattern complexity of the Fuji X-Trans CFA makes the AA filter unnecessary and Fuji has removed it. In theory then sharper more detailed photographs. You'll also notice that the Fuji CFA has more green proportionately than the Bayer array. This gives the Fuji cameras a slight advantage taking photos in very low light conditions.
> 
> The catch is that if you save a raw file then your raw processing software has to interpolate off the X-Trans CFA rather than a customary Bayer array. The process of interpolating the CFA into a full color photo we call demosaicing (see link above). Fuji made that process much more complicated and fraught with pitfalls by increasing the CFA pattern complexity. During the first years of the generation I X-Trans cameras things were pretty wild as many of the raw processing vendors didn't support the X-Trans CFA and those that did were tripping into those pitfalls. Things are much better now but there's still some substantial differences between working with raw files and a Bayer array versus raw files and an X-Trans array. For example DX0 still refuses to touch the X-Trans array leaving the Fuji user with reduced choice. Otherwise there's more variation in the output results from the various brand raw conversion software titles when dealing with Fuji RAF files. There's an adequate amount of choice now but the choice is more complicated by the performance variations that are otherwise not apparent if you have a Bayer array camera.
> 
> This could all be meaningless to you if you go about happily shooting JPEGs in the camera and are satisfied with the results -- very good chance you will be. This would be a down-the-road issue should you really enjoy taking photos and decide to explore photography in greater detail and by then you may have a new camera anyway.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can still go fuji and not get an x-trans sensor.
> the fuji a1, a2, and a3 dont have the x-trans sensor, but a regular bayer sensor.
> I have an x-a1 and, except for NOT having a viewfinder, really like it.
> ive been very pleased with its low light performance and overall handling.
> I would imagine the A2 or A3 would be even better.
> 
> on the flip side of that coin, I also have an x-e2 (with the x-trans sensor) and really love it. im partial to the x-e2 because it has a viewfinder.
> my wife and her less-than-stellar eyesight likes live view, so the x-a2 works really well for her.
Click to expand...


They have too many cool camera's, makes it a hard decision.


----------



## Gary A.

Go with the expensive lens and a cheaper body, if you're on a tight budget.  Digital bodies tend to be replaced/upgraded every few years lens last much longer, some can last decades.


----------



## pixmedic

Gary A. said:


> Go with the expensive lens and a cheaper body, if you're on a tight budget.  Digital bodies tend to be replaced/upgraded every few years lens last much longer, some can last decades.



with fuji, they are all expensive lenses.


----------



## dasminimalist

Ysarex said:


> dasminimalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is where I am a little bit confused. If you don't have to touch the picture afterwards, doesn't that mean that the camera is really good? Or does that mean that the camera 'does the job' digitally for me?
> 
> Except for the attachments 'd' and 'e', all photos are straight from my phone->facebook->tpf without any filtering. But I am assuming that already means that they are not raw files right? If you pull out the file directly from the phone/ipod, is that a raw file then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some reading for you: how it works
> 
> As you seem to be settling on Fuji (as noted I'm a Fuji user as well), you want to be fully informed and understand that Fuji in a pretty substantial way is an odd-out camera and departs from mainstream camera design. Fuji calls the sensors in their cameras X-Trans. You're considering a 2nd generation X-Trans camera given your budget constraints. Current cameras are generation III. Fuji opted for a radical departure with the X-Trans design. The CFA (color filter array) in the Fuji cameras is not a standard Bayer array. If you opt to only shoot JPEGs with the camera (read link above) you can ignore this issue. If however you decide to get more involved and start saving and processing raw files then this will become at least a minor factor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuji of course thinks this is a big advantage. I'm inclined to agree but with some reservations. Notice the pattern simplicity of the Bayer array. You've seen this: every once in awhile a TV news reporter will wear an article of clothing that will shimmer and seem to move over it's surface. This is called moire interference -- pattern frequencies in the fabric interacting with the pattern frequency of the CFA in the camera or the raster pattern in your TV. To counter this nearly all camera manufactures also include with their sensors what we call an AA (anti-aliasing) filter to defeat moire interference. The AA filter actually blurs the image ever so slightly. This is called a compromise -- accepting a not-too-bad thing to avoid something worse. The increased pattern complexity of the Fuji X-Trans CFA makes the AA filter unnecessary and Fuji has removed it. In theory then sharper more detailed photographs. You'll also notice that the Fuji CFA has more green proportionately than the Bayer array. This gives the Fuji cameras a slight advantage taking photos in very low light conditions.
> 
> The catch is that if you save a raw file then your raw processing software has to interpolate off the X-Trans CFA rather than a customary Bayer array. The process of interpolating the CFA into a full color photo we call demosaicing (see link above). Fuji made that process much more complicated and fraught with pitfalls by increasing the CFA pattern complexity. During the first years of the generation I X-Trans cameras things were pretty wild as many of the raw processing vendors didn't support the X-Trans CFA and those that did were tripping into those pitfalls. Things are much better now but there's still some substantial differences between working with raw files and a Bayer array versus raw files and an X-Trans array. For example DX0 still refuses to touch the X-Trans array leaving the Fuji user with reduced choice. Otherwise there's more variation in the output results from the various brand raw conversion software titles when dealing with Fuji RAF files. There's an adequate amount of choice now but the choice is more complicated by the performance variations that are otherwise not apparent if you have a Bayer array camera.
> 
> This could all be meaningless to you if you go about happily shooting JPEGs in the camera and are satisfied with the results -- very good chance you will be. This would be a down-the-road issue should you really enjoy taking photos and decide to explore photography in greater detail and by then you may have a new camera anyway.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...

Thank you so much Joe, I will indeed be happier without having to do much work afterwards. I am looking forward to the next step!


pixmedic said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dasminimalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is where I am a little bit confused. If you don't have to touch the picture afterwards, doesn't that mean that the camera is really good? Or does that mean that the camera 'does the job' digitally for me?
> 
> Except for the attachments 'd' and 'e', all photos are straight from my phone->facebook->tpf without any filtering. But I am assuming that already means that they are not raw files right? If you pull out the file directly from the phone/ipod, is that a raw file then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some reading for you: how it works
> 
> As you seem to be settling on Fuji (as noted I'm a Fuji user as well), you want to be fully informed and understand that Fuji in a pretty substantial way is an odd-out camera and departs from mainstream camera design. Fuji calls the sensors in their cameras X-Trans. You're considering a 2nd generation X-Trans camera given your budget constraints. Current cameras are generation III. Fuji opted for a radical departure with the X-Trans design. The CFA (color filter array) in the Fuji cameras is not a standard Bayer array. If you opt to only shoot JPEGs with the camera (read link above) you can ignore this issue. If however you decide to get more involved and start saving and processing raw files then this will become at least a minor factor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuji of course thinks this is a big advantage. I'm inclined to agree but with some reservations. Notice the pattern simplicity of the Bayer array. You've seen this: every once in awhile a TV news reporter will wear an article of clothing that will shimmer and seem to move over it's surface. This is called moire interference -- pattern frequencies in the fabric interacting with the pattern frequency of the CFA in the camera or the raster pattern in your TV. To counter this nearly all camera manufactures also include with their sensors what we call an AA (anti-aliasing) filter to defeat moire interference. The AA filter actually blurs the image ever so slightly. This is called a compromise -- accepting a not-too-bad thing to avoid something worse. The increased pattern complexity of the Fuji X-Trans CFA makes the AA filter unnecessary and Fuji has removed it. In theory then sharper more detailed photographs. You'll also notice that the Fuji CFA has more green proportionately than the Bayer array. This gives the Fuji cameras a slight advantage taking photos in very low light conditions.
> 
> The catch is that if you save a raw file then your raw processing software has to interpolate off the X-Trans CFA rather than a customary Bayer array. The process of interpolating the CFA into a full color photo we call demosaicing (see link above). Fuji made that process much more complicated and fraught with pitfalls by increasing the CFA pattern complexity. During the first years of the generation I X-Trans cameras things were pretty wild as many of the raw processing vendors didn't support the X-Trans CFA and those that did were tripping into those pitfalls. Things are much better now but there's still some substantial differences between working with raw files and a Bayer array versus raw files and an X-Trans array. For example DX0 still refuses to touch the X-Trans array leaving the Fuji user with reduced choice. Otherwise there's more variation in the output results from the various brand raw conversion software titles when dealing with Fuji RAF files. There's an adequate amount of choice now but the choice is more complicated by the performance variations that are otherwise not apparent if you have a Bayer array camera.
> 
> This could all be meaningless to you if you go about happily shooting JPEGs in the camera and are satisfied with the results -- very good chance you will be. This would be a down-the-road issue should you really enjoy taking photos and decide to explore photography in greater detail and by then you may have a new camera anyway.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can still go fuji and not get an x-trans sensor.
> the fuji a1, a2, and a3 dont have the x-trans sensor, but a regular bayer sensor.
> I have an x-a1 and, except for NOT having a viewfinder, really like it.
> ive been very pleased with its low light performance and overall handling.
> I would imagine the A2 or A3 would be even better.
> 
> on the flip side of that coin, I also have an x-e2 (with the x-trans sensor) and really love it. im partial to the x-e2 because it has a viewfinder.
> my wife and her less-than-stellar eyesight likes live view, so the x-a2 works really well for her.
Click to expand...

I like how the x-trans sensor works, although I would love to have both the A2 and the E2 so that I can compared every shot. Soon...if I get deeper into photography, then I will definitely need one with a bayer sensor, right?


Gary A. said:


> Go with the expensive lens and a cheaper body, if you're on a tight budget.  Digital bodies tend to be replaced/upgraded every few years lens last much longer, some can last decades.


Thank you, I believe I am heading into that direction.


----------



## Ysarex

dasminimalist said:


> I like how the x-trans sensor works, although I would love to have both the A2 and the E2 so that I can compared every shot. Soon...if I get deeper into photography, then I will definitely need one with a bayer sensor, right?



No. You don't need a Bayer array camera unless you want one. I'm quite happy using Fuji X cameras as my primary camera and I prefer the X-Trans sensor. Not everyone does and just noted that to make sure you have full information.

Joe


----------



## Ruk

Nice pics. If you don't see yourself changing lenses try a X70. Small enough to put in the jeans pocket and capable enough to take on my D7000

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk


----------



## pixmedic

I have a fuji x-e2 and x-a1. I think they both produce really good photos. I don't think I notice any huge differences between the bayer and x-trans sensors.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


----------



## dasminimalist

Ruk said:


> Nice pics. If you don't see yourself changing lenses try a X70. Small enough to put in the jeans pocket and capable enough to take on my D7000
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk


I got the X-E2 with 18-55 and I've been taking pictures non stop with it. It is amazing.


----------

