Home

Transition to Fuji – Part 2

Posted on 30th December 2016 by Admin under Comment, Equipment

The Candidates Assemble

At times my quest to find a new camera system has felt something akin to a series of “The Apprentice”.  I cannot take that analogy too far, though.  At the start of each series of the TV programme there are always the no hopers and braggarts.  The former get weeded out quite quickly, while Lord Sugar usually delays the departure of the latter.  No doubt that is due to their entertainment value.  In contrast, all the cameras on sale today are capable of good results and would repay any investment.  Not that I am looking to spend £250,000, it must be said.

Poor Pentax

Essentially, I had seven candidates.  For a while there were eight, but one voluntarily opted to leave the process.  Three of the contenders stood no chance simply because they were DSLRs.  Of these, I have some sympathy for the weakest, Pentax.  It has a great history and still continues to make some excellent lenses.  Even its latest camera, the full frame K-1, has been getting good reviews.  Lacking the resources of Canon or Nikon, Pentax simply could not compete in the digital age.  Its recent history has also been chequered.  Sold to Hoya, which has no interest in the camera business, Ricoh has now stepped in.  Maybe Pentax will see a reversal in its fortunes one day.

No Nikon

Nikon was never in the hunt.  I have been using Canon cameras for around 25 years, but could easily have switched when I migrated to digital.  After that any potential upsides to Nikon were limited and dwarfed by the cost of changing.  True, there is the 1 system, but I have never felt that Nikon was really serious about it.  It always seemed that Nikon knew it needed a mirrorless system, but did not want to produce anything which competed with its lucrative DSLR models.  Prices were high and my suspicion about Nikon’s longer term intentions appear borne out by the lack of any recent product announcements.

Canon Fails to Fire

Canon, though, was in the hunt.  Primarily for the upgrade to full frame which I had long assumed was my ultimate goal.  And if not full frame, then a replacement for my 7D.  The trouble is that Canon hung back.  The last DSLR I bought was the 7D in 2010, partly because full frame aside, it had a better specification than the 5D II of the time.  Had the 5D III been available, it would have been a more difficult decision.  Similarly, I was interested in a 100-400 lens, but not the original “dust sucker” trombone zoom design of the original lens.  The new 100-400 is everything I wanted.  Long anticipated by many, I had moved on by the time it eventually appeared.

Maybe Canon’s new range of mirrorless M cameras could become an option at some future stage.  The latest model, the M5 with an electronic viewfinder, looks promising.  It also looks overpriced at present and it is not yet clear what Canon’s eventual plans are for its mirrorless models.  The system shows potential, but once again Canon appears to be in no great hurry to develop it, especially while DSLRs are still selling well.

Samsung Leaves

As I described in my previous post, I have experimented with micro 4/3 and still use it for some of my photography.  Yet I have never felt fully committed to the system, partly as I have been waiting to see how the autofocus systems will develop.  Samsung briefly showed a lot of promise with the remarkable NX1, especially where autofocus was concerned.  I can only speculate how much time, effort and money went into developing such a capable camera.  Yet within months of the launch, Samsung had walked away from the photography business.

Fuji Fizzles

On “The Apprentice”, there is invariably one candidate who goes largely unnoticed until suddenly they are in the final.  Quite possibly they have an uncertain start, but use the opportunity to develop their skills and demonstrate their commitment.  Before you know it, they are the eventual winner.  For me, Fuji has been the photographic equivalent.

The X100 was launched to much acclaim and a friend bought one, only to find that focus was slow and inaccurate.  Then the X-Pro1 came out, with Fuji’s newly developed X-Trans sensor.  Once again autofocus was a weakness.  I tried one at launch and a year or so later used one with the original firmware for an afternoon.  In terms of outright speed, tectonic drift has to be faster.  Seriously.  Aeons would seemingly pass after pressing the shutter release before the camera acquired focus and fired.  It was frustrating to see a shot which had gone by the time the camera had reacted.  Yet all the time Fuji was working away and gradually improving the firmware of all its models as well as adding new features.

Bargain Fuji

During 2015, with the X-Pro2 about to come to market, Fuji had a remarkable offer. An outgoing, but still current, X-Pro1 with two lenses and leather case for less than the cost of the lenses.  (In fact, had I waited three or four months, I could have had the same deal for £150 less than I paid.)  I reckoned that this was a good time to try Fuji.  If it did not work out, I could probably recover my outlay if I sold the items individually.  Possibly make a small profit, even.

The two lenses were the 18 F/2 and 27 f/2.8.  With Fuji’s APS-C sensor and 1.5 crop factor, the full frame equivalents are 27 and 40 respectively.  The 18 f/2 was one of the original lenses for Fuji’s X-Trans system and has an uncertain reputation.  Essentially, it is sharp in the centre, but the edges never really catch up.  It is emminently usable and not the complete fail which some would have you believe.  The 27, on the other hand, is incredibly sharp across the frame.  With the latest firmware, the X-Pro1 was transformed compared to my previous experience.  While still not quick, autofocus was sufficiently responsive to be usable with static subjects.  The real kicker, though, was the image quality.

A couple of months later, I attended a Fuji event where discounts were available on its gear.  In conjunction with one of the company’s frequent cashback offers, I picked up the XF 18-55 f/2.8-f/4 “kit” zoom at a very attractive price.  Calling it a kit lens belies its capabilities as it is far more than that, to which numerous reviews attest.  It transformed my Fuji experience.  I find the X-Pro1 to be the right size for my hands.  With the 18-55, it is a versatile and not too heavy combination which became my normal walkabout camera.

Canon 7D v Fuji X-Pro1 camera

Canon 7D and Fuji X-Pro1 cameras side by side, both with standard zooms. Even the Fuji’s lens hood is smaller.

 

As the illustration above shows, the X-Pro1 and the 18-55 is much smaller than my Canon 7D with a 17-55 f/2.8 zoom attached.  True, the Fuji lens at the long end has a slightly shorter reach and is a stop slower tha the Canon.  I am also losing 2 megapixels in resolution, although that is neither here nor there.  It makes very little difference to the largest size at which prints can be produced.  Overall, they are small penalties in return for overall performance and convenience.

Yet there was still something missing.  The Fuji XF 18-55 lens covers the focal lengths which I use most frequently, but I continued to use my Canon system for much of my output.  Change was afoot, though.  That will be the subject of my next post in this series.

Part 1 of this series of articles can be read here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *