Fuji X-T2 or X-T20

[cgw]

Take Kayo is among the more grounded Fuji shooters online. His lens reviews are worth a look.

bigheadtaco.com: fujifilm

 

[Fujidave]

X-T20 came today. Even after playing with it in the store I was still amazed at just how small it was when I unboxed it. I think it’s definitely going to be better to backpack with.

But I don’t have the lens here yet. It’s really hard to have a new camera to play with and no lens to mount on it lol.

Congrats from me too, I am sure you will grow to love the X-T20 and I might even ask you for some landscape tips too.

I haven’t taken a single photo with it yet and it already has me considering selling all my Nikon gear.

Damnit this wasn’t supposed to happen.

Hang in there. Use the Fuji for at least 6 months. Then the enthusiasm of the new camera will wear off, and reality of what the camera can and cannot do, will then set in. At that point you can make a better decision.

To me each camera system has its strengths and weaknesses. If you cull down to only one camera, then it becomes a "jack of all trades." Then the issue is, will it be "a master of none." Well maybe a master of only one, and a compromise on the other.
This is why to me, I will have a P&S, a m43, and a dslr. Each system is able to do a task that the other cannot do, or cannot do well.

You could migrate the Fuji to be your primary camera and make the D810 your secondary camera.
Or keep the Fuji as your secondary hiking system.

BTW, that "new camera/toy" effect has hit me as well. I am toying with getting more Olympus m43 lenses, to flesh out that system. But, I am going slowly, because I know I am going through a "new camera/toy" syndrome. And I don't know if the Olympus will be promoted to be my primary system, or stay as my secondary system.

Yeah I’m definitely taking it slow.

I’ve got a few weddings booked this summer that I’m definitely still using the 810 for as my main body, I won’t use a new camera format for critical work for a long time. I’ve gotta be super familiar with it first.

But I am already planning to get some more lenses for it.

The 10-24 actually just came today (arrived early) and I’m loving it, but definitely need a more standard focal length to really evaluate the camera as well.

The 35 f/2 is super fast and light would make a great complement to your 10-24. It’s fairly cheap too.

I’m going to order another lens today. I’m debating between the 35 f/2 and the 50 f/2. I know the 50 is a little long for a walk around lens, but I never really used the 50mm focal length on my full frame because it was a little wider than I like.

In all honesty, I really want both of them. And the 16. And the 55-200. But my wallet isn’t a fan of that idea.

The XF 35mm f2 is just a fantastic little lens, well it is for me.

 

[SquarePeg]

The XF 35mm f2 is just a fantastic little lens, well it is for me.

It’s so fast! The first couple of times I used it I thought the AF wasn’t working because there was no hesitation for focus. I had to point the lens at something much further away and then focus then bring it back to my subject and focus again to believe it was working.

 

[ac12]

I’m going to order another lens today. I’m debating between the 35 f/2 and the 50 f/2. I know the 50 is a little long for a walk around lens, but I never really used the 50mm focal length on my full frame because it was a little wider than I like.

In all honesty, I really want both of them. And the 16. And the 55-200. But my wallet isn’t a fan of that idea.

Think about how you plan to use it.
For my f/1.8 prime, the planned use was low light. And I figured it would be used indoor where space might be an issue. So with that logic, I decided that a wider 35mm equivalent would be better than a 50mm normal lens equivalent.

On my DX D7200, I have the normal lens equivalent DX 35mm f/1.8, cuz Nikon does not make a DX 24mm f/1.8. And I did not want to pay $700 for the FX 24mm f/1.8. I don't use the lens enough to justify spending a lot for it.

 

[Derrel]

I can simply not imagine anyone serious about landscapes going to a Fuji camera for high detail work in the small camera size. The lack of detail is very apparent on many scenes. A Nikon or Canon or Sony full frame cannot be beaten for detail Nand crop-capability in a smallish and affordable camera. Fuji' small sensor cameras are just nowhere near the right tool for landscape work. I personally think they are also kind of lacking in macro work as well, but then I prefer high detail rather than pretty colors straight out of camera. In the past I've owned four different Fuji DSLR cameras, and every single one of them suffered from the Fuji problem of beautiful color but lower than class resolving power for its era of production.

U see online a lot of people saying "oh my Fuji is just as good as a big Sony or big Nikon!" For landscape work? No, it's not. But it is small and light and nimble, and there is that benefit.

 

[jcdeboever]

I can simply not imagine anyone serious about landscapes going to a Fuji camera for high detail work in the small camera size. The lack of detail is very apparent on many scenes. A Nikon or Canon or Sony full frame cannot be beaten for detail Nand crop-capability in a smallish and affordable camera. Fuji' small sensor cameras are just nowhere near the right tool for landscape work. I personally think they are also kind of lacking in macro work as well, but then I prefer high detail rather than pretty colors straight out of camera. In the past I've owned four different Fuji DSLR cameras, and every single one of them suffered from the Fuji problem of beautiful color but lower than class resolving power for its era of production.

U see online a lot of people saying "oh my Fuji is just as good as a big Sony or big Nikon!" For landscape work? No, it's not. But it is small and light and nimble, and there is that benefit.

I agree for the most part. I don't shoot landscapes and if I was into it, I would go with the larger format sensor, AKA Fujifilm gfx. Far as macro, the new 80 mm macro was long overdue for the system, and it appears to have incredible resolution. However, the professional macro work definitely benefits from a larger sensor, AKA gfx. In my opinion, Fuji X is a great all-around camera, good at just about everything but a master of none, like my work.

 

[Fujidave]

I`ve seen some pretty fantastic landscapes taken with either the X-T2 and X-T20, so imo if the camera is in the right hands then your good to go. On macro shots I think the same too.

 

[cgw]

The 23/2 WR is supposed to be a touch faster. There's just so little mass to move around inside the f2 Fujicrons.

 

[cgw]

I can simply not imagine anyone serious about landscapes going to a Fuji camera for high detail work in the small camera size. The lack of detail is very apparent on many scenes. A Nikon or Canon or Sony full frame cannot be beaten for detail Nand crop-capability in a smallish and affordable camera. Fuji' small sensor cameras are just nowhere near the right tool for landscape work. I personally think they are also kind of lacking in macro work as well, but then I prefer high detail rather than pretty colors straight out of camera. In the past I've owned four different Fuji DSLR cameras, and every single one of them suffered from the Fuji problem of beautiful color but lower than class resolving power for its era of production.

U see online a lot of people saying "oh my Fuji is just as good as a big Sony or big Nikon!" For landscape work? No, it's not. But it is small and light and nimble, and there is that benefit.

I'm guessing pro landscape shooters were among the markets Fuji targeted for their big sensor GFX system.

 

[Derrel]

I think that for many types of people-centric pictures (portraiture, figure studies, nudes, events,weddings, whatever 'people' might be doing) there's not a lot of need for high resolution or a tremendous amount of fine detail...plenty of good pictures can be made with an iPhone, or a 6-,8-,10,or 12-megapixel camera, or a 16-megapixel camera let's say...but I really think that when huge expanses of real estate are imaged, that pixel-level detail becomes a very "big deal", and that's where high-resolution,high-megapixel sensors give the photographer some genuine opportunities to reveal details with 36- or 45- or even 50-megapixel or higher sensors that have solid, proven demosaic routines from software developers like Adobe, and where there are well-perfected, well-optimized routines that preserve details in the raw file data that users capture.

When one looks at tree limbs and flower stalks and strong outlines and edges and there's jagged, extrapolated, "predicted" data that shows up as jaggies...I'm not sold on building a landscape or high-detail imaging setup around that kind of a sensor. I went through it with the Fuji S2 Pro d-slr; 6 MP sensor, data up-rezzd to 12-megapixel, jaggies, badly-optimized software from Adobe, bad raw conversion software options, but GREAT color! I dunno...

But still, for "people pictures", I think resolution is not the highest priority for most users....color and tone response are easily seen, and Fuji'd done well with its SOOC JPEG routines, yet still...I see a lot of excessive saturation and too-dense shadows in a lot of their SOOC pictures.

The Fuji GFX camera is interesting--I was a member of the GFX Facebook group for about a year, saw a few thousand images made with it; it's real strength is its adaptability to THOUSANDS of legacy 35mm and medium format system lenses! Lenses,lenses,lenses. However, the image quality is about what a D810 can do, and the D850 offers as good or better IQ. It's really about a wash, a tie, between the mezzo-format, pseudo-medium-format big-sensor cams from Fuji and Pentax and the new crop of the highest-MP Canon and Sony and Nikon cameras.

 

[Derrel]

I can simply not imagine anyone serious about landscapes going to a Fuji camera for high detail work in the small camera size. The lack of detail is very apparent on many scenes. A Nikon or Canon or Sony full frame cannot be beaten for detail Nand crop-capability in a smallish and affordable camera. Fuji' small sensor cameras are just nowhere near the right tool for landscape work. I personally think they are also kind of lacking in macro work as well, but then I prefer high detail rather than pretty colors straight out of camera. In the past I've owned four different Fuji DSLR cameras, and every single one of them suffered from the Fuji problem of beautiful color but lower than class resolving power for its era of production.

U see online a lot of people saying "oh my Fuji is just as good as a big Sony or big Nikon!" For landscape work? No, it's not. But it is small and light and nimble, and there is that benefit.

I'm guessing pro landscape shooters were among the markets Fuji targeted for their big sensor GFX system.

Lots of enthusiastic glamour/portrait/boudoir shooters also went for the GFX. The GFX Facebook groups showcased the work of users from all over the world. The KEY to the GFX is/was its adaptability to so,so,so many legacy 35mm lenses, and Medium-format legacy lenses. Since the GFX is a "mezzo-format" sized sensor, the 35mm system lenses from Canon,.Nikon,Pentax,Yashica/Contax,etc.etc have plenty large of an image circle to cover that sensor, so...

From what I saw, the majority of GFX users were enthusiasts,as opposed to "pro" shooters. There was a LOT of interest in the GFX from Japan and from Europe, and also North America. it did very well with so many classic 35mm system lenses, as well as MF stuff from various makers. What hurt the GFX's sales the most were the 36-MP Sony sensors in Nikon and Sony bodies at thousands of dollars less, and then the 50-MP Canon option.

 

[cgw]

Well-heeled enthusiasts, indeed. I bummed around some of the GFX coming-out parties and follow-up studio sessions around Toronto and saw mainly pros and established agency depts. getting buttered up. Fuji made no bones about this being a "pro" system. It's easy here to kiss good-bye just shy of 20 large for a basic rig though incentives have eased the pain.

I keep hearing that Fuji wasn't bowled over by GFX sales. They still appear to be keen to bring out a "stripped" GFX and branded adapters now that they've a better sense of who buys what around that price-point.

Agree that the sensor size is curious but if they make it cheaper and/or cook-up a truly big sensor and killer supporting chippery, they may just dominate a small but lucrative market. Lord knows, they work hard enough for the money.

 

[ac12]

I think they have that big sensor in the current Hasselblad.
But $$$$$

 

[jcdeboever]

Supposedly, they're coming out with an over oversized X-Pro body with the medium sized sensor, around the D850 price range next year.

 

[paul'dee'dowling]

Derrel-
Interesting point about high resolution for landscapes etc compared to portraits and , in my case architecture , cars and houses .
It's the colours from an old Ccd Sony A290 / 35mm and Fuji XT-1 18-55mm and X-Pro1 27mm which attract me , resolution and the intricacies of menu etc are less important.
I actually paid less than less than £800 for the ex-dem Fujis , so a no brainer for me .