# Thinking about switching to Fujifilm X-E2...



## gryffinwings (Aug 30, 2015)

So I am thinking about switching from Nikon D7100 to a Fujifilm X-E2. I'm not completely sure about it yet, but I tried one for a minute at the store and was loving the ergonomics, cause I'm not completely liking smashing my nose on my Nikon screen and I wear glasses. Would like some thoughts on this. I've been looking at some of the lens and I like the selection so far. Especially the idea of the 56mm f1.2, which Nikon does't even have for APS-C. I don't have a huge investment into the Nikon system, just kit lens.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 30, 2015)

I've been shooting the X-E2 for nearly two years -- I'm very happy with the camera and plan to stick with it for the time being.
EVF has some advantages one being very accurate focusing but if I had to identify the one thing I miss having made the switch it's a nice clear OVF. Speed of continuous auto focus is another concern -- not for fast action photography.

Fuji Lenses! When I switched I was looking for a smaller camera. What made me finally choose Fuji was the glass. Fuji is making superb lenses. The 14mm f/2.8 is one of the best lenses I have ever used.

For what it's worth a lot of people like the JPEGs that the Fuji X cameras produce. I wouldn't know. Caveat: The Fuji X cameras use a unique color filter array -- X-Trans. I like it but there are issues. It is not a conventional Bayer array. I think it's better but it requires special handling during raw conversion. DXO doesn't support it so you can't use DXO's raw converter. Adobe's support of the X-Trans sensor is controversial and many photographers are unhappy with it. So if you're a confirmed LR or ACR user make sure you'll be happy with the X-Trans/Adobe combination.

DR is exceptional -- a little better than your D7100 and really only beat by leading edge FF sensors; as a result low light performance is class leading among APS cameras.

Another caveat: This applies to all mirrorless cameras -- EVFs require power so think extra batteries.

Great camera and fabulous glass.


----------



## gryffinwings (Aug 30, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> I've been shooting the X-E2 for nearly two years -- I'm very happy with the camera and plan to stick with it for the time being.
> EVF has some advantages one being very accurate focusing but if I had to identify the one thing I miss having made the switch it's a nice clear OVF. Speed of continuous auto focus is another concern -- not for fast action photography.
> 
> Fuji Lenses! When I switched I was looking for a smaller camera. What made me finally choose Fuji was the glass. Fuji is making superb lenses. The 14mm f/2.8 is one of the best lenses I have ever used.
> ...



I'm not overly concerned about continuous autofocus, since I don't do fast action photography all that often or at all. I do use Lightroom and now I'm wondering what you mean people are unhappy with Adobe support???


----------



## unpopular (Aug 30, 2015)

I haven't touched my a700 since I boughtmy XE-1. My only complaint is EVF lag, which is supposed to be better in the XE-2.

I've been OK with Adobe LR, it's processes the files kinda "meh". Silky does a better job.


----------



## Ido (Aug 31, 2015)

If you prefer this placement of the viewfinder rather than in the middle, then the X-E2 is a great option—otherwise I'd pick the X-T10. You may also consider the Panasonic GX7 or GX8, and the Sony α6000, but you won't get the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 with either of them … though Panasonic has a pricier 42.5mm f/1.2 which, due to the shorter focal length (that gives the same field of view), you won't be able to get quite as shallow depth of field as with the Fuji. And did I mention the Panasonic is pricier? About a $600 difference … unless you want the APD version of the Fuji, which costs just about as much as the Panasonic.

As for the Adobe raw conversion, I've read that many Fuji users don't like Adobe's conversion of Fuji's raw files. It took Adobe quite a while to even support those files, which are apparently very different from other manufacturers' raw files, because of Fuji's proprietary X-Trans sensor. The most respected alternative is Phase One's Capture One.
Either way, you should always try before you buy. If you already have Lightroom/Photoshop, try it and see for yourself. If you don't like it, download the free trial for Capture One (I think they offer 60 days for free) to see if the results are any better, enough to make a difference.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 31, 2015)

gryffinwings said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > I've been shooting the X-E2 for nearly two years -- I'm very happy with the camera and plan to stick with it for the time being.
> ...



Nearly all digital cameras use a conventional Bayer CFA which is a 2x2 pixel repeating pattern. The X-Trans sensor uses a 3x3 pixel rotating pattern: FUJIFILM X-Pro1 | Features -  APS-C 16M “X-Trans CMOS” | Fujifilm USA
Because the Bayer pattern is so regular it is prone to moire patterns. To counter that problem nearly all Bayer array cameras use a AA filter in front of the sensor to blur the image slightly (like your Nikon). Fuji's X-Trans CFA beats the moire problem without the need for the AA filter and that results in sharper images.

Furthermore, a Bayer array is 50% green pixels and 25% each red and blue. In the X-Trans sensor the green pixel density is increased to 56%. That extra 6% green pixel density boosts the X-Trans sensor's stellar low-light performance.

BUT (BIG BUT): When a raw file is processed the CFA has to be interpolated into RGB pixels. Demosaicing the X-Trans CFA is far more complicated than demosaicing a Bayer array. Therefore raw converter choice is a much bigger deal when dealing with X-Trans -- there's considerably more variability in the results one converter to the next compared with Bayer CFAs. Problems include fine detail smudging, color blooms, edge halos and artifacts galore. The general consensus is that Adobe (LR/ACR) does a poor job rendering fine detail compared with the competition. To make the issue more maddening the problems tend to be variable or at least content variable -- you don't see it in every photo.

We're not talking about huge differences -- this is a pixel peeper issue that may only matter if you're after maximum IQ and large prints. Here's an RAF file of mine that does a good job illustrating the issue. Load it into LR and see what you think: DSCF4196.RAF

It's a secure FTP site so you'll need username: Fuji and password: XF-14mm

I encountered the problem right away with my X-E2. For me the camera is worth it and I just stopped using Adobe to process my RAF files. For further reading do a search on; Fuji X-Trans watercolor effect.

Joe


----------



## gryffinwings (Aug 31, 2015)

So basically I really need to research which RAW converter I will use to process my files.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 31, 2015)

gryffinwings said:


> So basically I really need to research which RAW converter I will use to process my files.



It is an important factor -- I love the camera and endorse it as one of the best APS class cameras you can buy. But don't get surprised by the X-Trans raw conversion issue. Remember that the X-Trans sensor has positives as well. You have to expect that new and different may also mean handle with care.

A lot of folks are happy with LR. There's a compromise option as well where you can use LR for everything but raw conversion -- folks who do that ship the RAF off to something like Photo Ninja or Iridient for conversion and then continue processing back in LR -- works well but requires the extra expense of the 2nd converter.

Joe


----------



## sashbar (Sep 8, 2015)

CaptureOne Pro 8 does a stellar job with X-Trans files. 
FUJI 56 mm 1.2 lense is great, but very different compared you your Nikon 50 1.8. 
It is much more analytical and less romantic in its color and contrast rendition.


----------



## Benjo255 (Sep 15, 2015)

I'm happy after switching from Nikon D90 to Xe2. And I would never go back.
Using Lightroom has never been an issue with Fuji Raw, especially after I tried Iridient Devoloper (which is claimed to be the best RAF converter). I found out that yes, files were sharper and richer in details...but that was because Iridient had a sharpness preset applied to all the opening raws. So...after resetting to flat all the sharpening commands on iridient I found the file quiet the same (if not better in Lightroom).
Lenses are grat.
EVF is great (I wonder how can be possibile, in the 21st century, to shoot digital without it).
SOOC jpg are great.
High iso pics are great.

If you like the way of shooting...that's your system. You won't regret.

ps: I had a friend who regret about his Xpro1. But that's easily explained: he never really applied to the learning curve in using a mirrorless camera. The way of shooting is quite different. He has the expectation of shooting fast action street from the hips getting image on focus with continuos AF. That's not how it works. If you jump on board with fuji and want speed it's better to point and shoot using the EVF. Or zone-focus. Or work in hyperfocal.


----------



## Solarflare (Sep 18, 2015)

FYI: as somebody with above average large hands, when I recently tried to hold the X-E2 in a shop my sensation was: instant pain. With a single hand alone, I couldnt hold the camera straight and I was in great danger of actually dropping it. There was only one spot on which I could place my thumb, and only carefully, since everything else was plastered with buttons. So I couldnt get a good grip at all and with a lens on, the X-E2 actually had quite a lot of weight.

So yeah, before getting a camera like that, make sure you actually can hold it comfortably.


----------

