mjroe
pfm Member
This could have been tacked on to the X-T2 thread, but it's not exactly related, although the X-T2 started the whole thought process...
We all have preconceived ideas and perceptions on how things should be, myself included. Having just changed camera system and sensor format I have realised that many common held truths are not truths at all, just commonly believed hogwash
So I used to believe the following, but not anymore:
a) Full Frame is better than Crop Frame
So yes, a larger sensor will give you a shallower depth of field. However most people don't really just want a shallower DOF - this can be annoying when focusing, really it is all about the quality of the out of focus areas, some simply refer to as bokah (focus fall off is just as important). However the sensor doesn't define the quality of the bokah, the lens does.
It's easy to get confused by the wrong things when comparing FF to Crop.
I started digital photography with a Nikon D80 and for the most part used a 18-135 then a 18-105 lens. They had a variable aperture f3.5 - 5.6. I then bought a Nikon D3 at the start of 2009, and had no FX (Nikon Full Frame) medium zoom lens to go with it so bought the 24-70 f2.8. I had changed 2 things, sensor size and lens - I'll add a third - sensor (image) quality. I got better images but I had a much better lens on the front of the camera.
The out of focus quality would have been improved as much by the larger constant aperture of f2.8 + glass quality as to the increased sensor size.Thing is, I never thought to use or try out the 24-70 on the D80, why would I, I had the D3, the King of the Nikons. I expect the D80 would have seen a image quality jump if I did.
With Nikon the best lenses are always for FX cameras not DX ones (crop frame). Usually people are like me and when they upgrade to better glass they upgrade to an FX sensor or vice versa. So it's easy to think that going FF was the magic ticket - and it works for the camera manufacturers too - they want you to upgrade to their more expensive full frame cameras. There always has to be an upgrade path.
Now this is where Fuji messes with things.
The X series of lenses are fantastic, and have made me realise (or re-realise) that glass is king. Fuji have designed an optical system from the ground up, with a clean sheet of paper. They obviously chose the sensor size they did for a reason, it obviously worked best or was the best compromise for their optical equations. The lenses I have now are sharper and out resolve the Nikon lenses I had previously. Sure the depth of field may have changed slightly, but they still gather as much light as the old Nikkors and I'd say the bokeh is just as good - I don't feel like I'm missing out - and the pictures don't look poorer for it.
b) RAW is better than JPEG
Sure, RAW is better if in camera JPEG sucks, but what if the in camera JPEGs are great?
When I first started with digital my instinct was to get the post processing sorted, and I've always used LR and shot RAW. I think this stems from my days as a school boy and processing film in the school darkroom - the processing was part of the photo taking process!
However, again Fuji have messed with this assumption - the film simulation and camera RAW processing is very good, this youtube video says it best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHvCkRTK4_g
So what if the post processing and photo taking can now be combined with digital photography? You had to post process in the film days because you had no way to view your recorded image at capture time. I think the post processing in this digital age is a hangover from that - what seems natural - and mainly guided by the fact that we still don't get a live preview of an image with a DSLR, we only get to review the image we have just taken (let's ignore Live View!).
I'll admit it, I'm a Velvia guy - I love colour positive / slide film and always made my photos look that way before I knew what slide film was! So Fujis with the Velvia simulation suit me right down the ground, but Classic Chrome gives a nice alternative look and the Arcos is great. Being able to alter the various parameters allows me to personalise each 'look' as well - so you are not stuck with the standard.
c) OVF is better than EVF
This was one of my major concerns in switching to mirrorless: that I would lose the straight optical path between my eye and the subject. However with a good EVF there are more advantages than disadvantages. As I have alluded to earlier - you can preview your processed image just before you take it.
With my DSLRs I would always be making a judgement as to if I needed to push or pull exposure, if the meter would read the scene correctly etc. Now I can see if I am correct with exposure and even have a live histogram to help. I can also switch to whatever film simulation I like and shot in that too. Being able to shot in B&W or a specific colour rendition is really great for creativity!
The X-T2 is lightning fast as others have said - so there is basically no blackout - it feels like a DSLR, and the Live View 5fps Continuous Low is great (coupled with the fact that you can basically shoot forever with fast cards) - it's easy to track motion. I'm sure in time this technology will advance and sensor readout rates will improve. As soon as Live View Continuous improves to 10fps+ then the EVF will have won.
There are plenty of other advantages too - like focus preview, reviewing image and changing settings through the EVF, and being able to have an infinitely adjustable/customisable viewfinder and one that can be altered/updated/improved by a simple firmware update - no hardware change required!
---
This rethink has made me come to a couple conclusions/statements:
1) Glass is King
Lenses are really what make camera system - I knew that before but the switch to Fuji has really reinforced this. I loved my Nikkor 70-200, but the 50-140 is truly amazing and deserves all the praise it gets. The other lenses are fantastic too, and I had a real revelation of when I tried the lenses for the first time. Until that point I had just the X-T10 with the 18-55, but using all the new glass made the X-T10 like a different camera, it seemed much more enjoyable to use.
They say you don't need to buy more or new hifi, you just need to buy more music. I'd say the same for cameras - just buy more or better lenses.
2) Different isn't always worse (or better).
When I first got my D3 I struggled to take images that were as good as I did with my D80. Many things had changed however: I needed to master a new RAW process and also get to grips with a new lens. Previously my cheap 18-105 had always centred around f4.5 - this enabled me to get a nice 'look' but with the right things in focus. Now I had reduced DOF because of the FF sensor and a wider f2.8 aperture - lots of adjustment/learning was required. The D3 images far outshone the D80 images once I had figured out what I was doing!
The same is true in ways I will find out with the switch to Fuji. The focusing system is different, this can make me assume that it may be worse - but as Lefty has experimented - sometimes different is better. I've gotten used to Nikons way of autofocus tracking - so the Fuji way will take time to adjust to, but no doubt will provide comparable results. For starters static focus is better as it is easier to check!
Who'd have thought I'd be saying this a month ago - certainly not me!
Bit of a long post - but hopefully an interesting one to open up for discussion...
We all have preconceived ideas and perceptions on how things should be, myself included. Having just changed camera system and sensor format I have realised that many common held truths are not truths at all, just commonly believed hogwash
So I used to believe the following, but not anymore:
a) Full Frame is better than Crop Frame
So yes, a larger sensor will give you a shallower depth of field. However most people don't really just want a shallower DOF - this can be annoying when focusing, really it is all about the quality of the out of focus areas, some simply refer to as bokah (focus fall off is just as important). However the sensor doesn't define the quality of the bokah, the lens does.
It's easy to get confused by the wrong things when comparing FF to Crop.
I started digital photography with a Nikon D80 and for the most part used a 18-135 then a 18-105 lens. They had a variable aperture f3.5 - 5.6. I then bought a Nikon D3 at the start of 2009, and had no FX (Nikon Full Frame) medium zoom lens to go with it so bought the 24-70 f2.8. I had changed 2 things, sensor size and lens - I'll add a third - sensor (image) quality. I got better images but I had a much better lens on the front of the camera.
The out of focus quality would have been improved as much by the larger constant aperture of f2.8 + glass quality as to the increased sensor size.Thing is, I never thought to use or try out the 24-70 on the D80, why would I, I had the D3, the King of the Nikons. I expect the D80 would have seen a image quality jump if I did.
With Nikon the best lenses are always for FX cameras not DX ones (crop frame). Usually people are like me and when they upgrade to better glass they upgrade to an FX sensor or vice versa. So it's easy to think that going FF was the magic ticket - and it works for the camera manufacturers too - they want you to upgrade to their more expensive full frame cameras. There always has to be an upgrade path.
Now this is where Fuji messes with things.
The X series of lenses are fantastic, and have made me realise (or re-realise) that glass is king. Fuji have designed an optical system from the ground up, with a clean sheet of paper. They obviously chose the sensor size they did for a reason, it obviously worked best or was the best compromise for their optical equations. The lenses I have now are sharper and out resolve the Nikon lenses I had previously. Sure the depth of field may have changed slightly, but they still gather as much light as the old Nikkors and I'd say the bokeh is just as good - I don't feel like I'm missing out - and the pictures don't look poorer for it.
b) RAW is better than JPEG
Sure, RAW is better if in camera JPEG sucks, but what if the in camera JPEGs are great?
When I first started with digital my instinct was to get the post processing sorted, and I've always used LR and shot RAW. I think this stems from my days as a school boy and processing film in the school darkroom - the processing was part of the photo taking process!
However, again Fuji have messed with this assumption - the film simulation and camera RAW processing is very good, this youtube video says it best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHvCkRTK4_g
So what if the post processing and photo taking can now be combined with digital photography? You had to post process in the film days because you had no way to view your recorded image at capture time. I think the post processing in this digital age is a hangover from that - what seems natural - and mainly guided by the fact that we still don't get a live preview of an image with a DSLR, we only get to review the image we have just taken (let's ignore Live View!).
I'll admit it, I'm a Velvia guy - I love colour positive / slide film and always made my photos look that way before I knew what slide film was! So Fujis with the Velvia simulation suit me right down the ground, but Classic Chrome gives a nice alternative look and the Arcos is great. Being able to alter the various parameters allows me to personalise each 'look' as well - so you are not stuck with the standard.
c) OVF is better than EVF
This was one of my major concerns in switching to mirrorless: that I would lose the straight optical path between my eye and the subject. However with a good EVF there are more advantages than disadvantages. As I have alluded to earlier - you can preview your processed image just before you take it.
With my DSLRs I would always be making a judgement as to if I needed to push or pull exposure, if the meter would read the scene correctly etc. Now I can see if I am correct with exposure and even have a live histogram to help. I can also switch to whatever film simulation I like and shot in that too. Being able to shot in B&W or a specific colour rendition is really great for creativity!
The X-T2 is lightning fast as others have said - so there is basically no blackout - it feels like a DSLR, and the Live View 5fps Continuous Low is great (coupled with the fact that you can basically shoot forever with fast cards) - it's easy to track motion. I'm sure in time this technology will advance and sensor readout rates will improve. As soon as Live View Continuous improves to 10fps+ then the EVF will have won.
There are plenty of other advantages too - like focus preview, reviewing image and changing settings through the EVF, and being able to have an infinitely adjustable/customisable viewfinder and one that can be altered/updated/improved by a simple firmware update - no hardware change required!
---
This rethink has made me come to a couple conclusions/statements:
1) Glass is King
Lenses are really what make camera system - I knew that before but the switch to Fuji has really reinforced this. I loved my Nikkor 70-200, but the 50-140 is truly amazing and deserves all the praise it gets. The other lenses are fantastic too, and I had a real revelation of when I tried the lenses for the first time. Until that point I had just the X-T10 with the 18-55, but using all the new glass made the X-T10 like a different camera, it seemed much more enjoyable to use.
They say you don't need to buy more or new hifi, you just need to buy more music. I'd say the same for cameras - just buy more or better lenses.
2) Different isn't always worse (or better).
When I first got my D3 I struggled to take images that were as good as I did with my D80. Many things had changed however: I needed to master a new RAW process and also get to grips with a new lens. Previously my cheap 18-105 had always centred around f4.5 - this enabled me to get a nice 'look' but with the right things in focus. Now I had reduced DOF because of the FF sensor and a wider f2.8 aperture - lots of adjustment/learning was required. The D3 images far outshone the D80 images once I had figured out what I was doing!
The same is true in ways I will find out with the switch to Fuji. The focusing system is different, this can make me assume that it may be worse - but as Lefty has experimented - sometimes different is better. I've gotten used to Nikons way of autofocus tracking - so the Fuji way will take time to adjust to, but no doubt will provide comparable results. For starters static focus is better as it is easier to check!
Who'd have thought I'd be saying this a month ago - certainly not me!
Bit of a long post - but hopefully an interesting one to open up for discussion...
