Fuji X-T1 vs Sony RX10? David?

[Betty LaRue]

I would be interested to know what David Kilpatrick thinks is the better camera.  Not price, but image quality, low light ability, and such.  David, if you could have one camera, which of these would you choose?

 

The Fuji weight is a lot less.  I'd be interested in all of the viewpoints of the forum.  I do realize the RX10 is a 20mp against a 16mp.

 

Betty

[Martin P Wilson]

I love my X-E1 its light weight has rejuvenated my photography; it goes everywhere with me. I am waiting for supplies to settle down before buying an X-T1 in next few weeks. I chose the Fuji because of the lenses, both quality and specifications. I considered Sony but saw mixed reviews of the lenses and was not impressed with the build of many; also Sony has been very confused about mount strategy as well, hopefully settling down now. Similarly with Olympus/Panasonic  micro 4/3, most of the faster lenses were still full 4/3 and needed an adapter (changing now); I also had reservations about an even smaller sensor than APS-C. I will be hanging on to the X-E1 as a backup/ second body.

 

I have not been disappointed and can see it replacing my Pro Canon kit in due course (when some longer fast lenses available) and AF is fast enough for sport (X-T1 may be almost there with appropriate technique). For high ISO I use the Fuji as above 800-1000 noise is better than my FF Canon 1Ds3.

[Ed Endicott]

I purchased an XT-1 and it will be arriving tomorrow.  I weighed either that or the Sony with the goal of having something small, light, unobtrusive with great functionality and image quality.  My deciding factor was previous experience with my X-Pro1 and my x100s and image comparisons for iso performance on the Sony that I reviewed on the web (at 100%).  I've shot the Canon 5D III and the other two Fuji cameras together and against each other at various newsworthy functions/events/happenings and both the XPro and the x100s were VERY comparable from image quality and the Fuji bodies (I felt) excelled in low light. 

 

I plan to replace my Canon 5D MK III bodies and accompanying lenses with an XT-1 kit.  I will be purchasing the 16-55 f/2.8 and the 50-140 f/2.8 when they are released later this year to replace my Canon 24-70 and 70-200 (I don't shoot sports).  In the meantime, I am going to be using the Fuji 18-55 and the 55-200.

 

I'll be using the XT-1 at newsworthy events this weekend and I'm looking forward to using the XT-1 with the 18-55 and a x100s to document travels to Memphis in April.

[Betty LaRue]

I have the Sony RX100, and it is a super tiny camera I've called my spy camera.  I do wish the Fuji was 20mp, I love that size.  In reviews and comparisons, the Fuji sensor itself is larger than the Sony, so the pixels gather more light.

 

I'm leaning toward the Fuji.  Lighter weight, better and more lenses, as you mentioned, Martin, and also great reviews.  Nits, some of the buttons are not optimal and hard to maneuver.

 

I'm not planning on giving up my D800 anytime soon, because there are times when I want and need all those megapixels. Plus I do shoot birds and landscapes, and the D800 is great for those.   I also do work for Fine Art America and the larger the image size, the more choice in canvas size for buyers.

 

 I can see myself eventually (maybe) giving up the Nikon like your plan to give up your Canon, Ed, but dang, I have the 24-70 Nikon lens, the newest 80-400 Nikon lens and a great Sigma 85mm f1.8 portrait lens.  No real wide-angle, I had one once and found I was always shooting at the 24 end and hated the 12 end, lol! (different strokes and all that)

 

I shoot such a mixed bag of images that I'm not sure if the Sony or Fuji can replace all of my needs.  I do portraits, landscapes, product in a light tent, wildlife, flowers & insects, and I do like bokah with everything I like to shoot with the exception of landscapes.  Maybe I need to get one of the small systems and try out all of those things, except there are no lenses with Fuji that can give me the reach of an 80-400.

Linda, sounds to me like you've found your soulmate!  Each of us have different needs, don't we?  Trouble with me is my needs are so broad.  It may be that I will always have use for two cameras.  I have a D7000 I can sell to help fund the Fuji, if that's the way I go.

Still want David to weigh in.

 

Betty

[Martin P Wilson]

Betty,

 

I, too, would have preferred a few more pixels from the Fuji, 18Mp or so as some libraries want 4900 on longest side which is marginal with the Fuji - no crop room. However I can get over 17Mp (around 5100px long side) using Capture 1 Pro to convert raws - it makes the marginal pixels available that in-camera jpegs and other converters don't (but of course they don't show in the viewfinder).

 

But I would not have wanted to sacrifice the high ISO performance.

[Duncan_Andison]

I've had the X-T1 for about a week and half now.

 

1. The AF is much improved over the X-Pro1 & X-E1

2. The EVF is really very nice, you have to see/use it to appreciate it.

3. Build quality is DSLR like. Solid Magnesium Alloy frame with good rubberised grip (both camera and the vertical grip)

4. Flip screen is really good, nice solid feel to it.

5. Full control via tethering. For a first revision, the phone/ipad app is very mature.

6. Vertical grip makes a massive difference. Really comfortable to hold and operate. There is also the benefit of an extra battery, good for 6-700 shots. Camera uses the VGrip battery first, then the one in the camera. With the V Grip and the 56mm f/1.2 lens, the whole lot weighs about 950gr. & the 56mm is a lot of glass!

7. Love the full control via dials. ISO, Drive, Metering etc are all nice additions.

8. Manual focus is a breeze now with the dual screen capability inside the EVF with splitscreen/focus peaking in an enlarged 2nd screen.

9. Very quiet operation, even at 8fps in continuos mode.

 

I have the RX100, I like it, very handy as a carry around but it is a 1inch sensor and doesn't really compete with the APSC sensor in the Fuji, even if the Sony is 20mp. I have no knowledge of the image quality of the RX10. I would recommend going in and trying both.

 

What ever you do, don't make a decision based on online reviews with jpg images. Most people do not dial down the noise reduction/sharpening etc which has a negative impact on the image quality.

 

EDIT: Just spotted that you do portraits. The X-T1 is worth getting just to use the 56 f/1.2 (85mm FF equivalent). It is a beautiful lens, incredible OOF rendering.

[Duncan_Andison]

Betty,

 

I, too, would have preferred a few more pixels from the Fuji, 18Mp or so as some libraries want 4900 on longest side which is marginal with the Fuji - no crop room. However I can get over 17Mp (around 5100px long side) using Capture 1 Pro to convert raws - it makes the marginal pixels available that in-camera jpegs and other converters don't (but of course they don't show in the viewfinder).

 

But I would not have wanted to sacrifice the high ISO performance.

 

I agree, 18-20mp would be nice, a little room for cropping. Corbis need 50mb tiff files, they will let them through a little under but they also allow 5-10% up-scaling which covers it. You could increase it a lot more to be honest without any loss in IQ.

[Martin P Wilson]

 

Betty,

 

I, too, would have preferred a few more pixels from the Fuji, 18Mp or so as some libraries want 4900 on longest side which is marginal with the Fuji - no crop room. However I can get over 17Mp (around 5100px long side) using Capture 1 Pro to convert raws - it makes the marginal pixels available that in-camera jpegs and other converters don't (but of course they don't show in the viewfinder).

 

But I would not have wanted to sacrifice the high ISO performance.

 

I agree, 18-20mp would be nice, a little room for cropping. Corbis need 50mb tiff files, they will let them through a little under but they also allow 5-10% up-scaling which covers it. You could increase it a lot more to be honest without any loss in IQ.

 

 

 

That's useful, Thanks Duncan. With the high pixel counts of modern cameras I have got out of the way of even considering upscaling.

[Ed Endicott]

I shoot such a mixed bag of images that I'm not sure if the Sony or Fuji can replace all of my needs.  I do portraits, landscapes, product in a light tent, wildlife, flowers & insects, and I do like bokah with everything I like to shoot with the exception of landscapes.  Maybe I need to get one of the small systems and try out all of those things, except there are no lenses with Fuji that can give me the reach of an 80-400.

 

 

There is a Fuji lens roadmap

 

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/xf_lens/roadmap/

 

There's a super telephoto zoom scheduled to be released end of 2014/beginning of 2015 and I'm willing to bet it will give you 80-400 or something equivalent.

 

I absolutely LOVE my Canon kit...but it's SO heavy.  I'm not that old at 42 and my shoulders are bothering me from carrying a camera bag on a shoulder, a body with a 70-200 on one shoulder, and a body with a 24-70 on the other shoulder.  What convinced me is a few months ago I was at a press conference and I ran across an older gentleman (older than me) credentialed by the Village Voice - he was shooting with a mirrorless camera paired with a 24-70 type lens with a flip out screen.  We were both standing on a chair (actually sharing and taking turns on the chair) and both shooting over our heads.  I would say he was much more comfortable than I was LOL.  The following evening I attended a prayer vigil at night in a park.  I had both Canon bodies - one with an 85 f/1.8 and the other with a 50 f/1.4 plus I had the x100s with me.  This was a great test in image quality and focusing in low light and the Fuji absolutely kept up.

 

This was a 5D MK III with a 50 f/1.4

 

 

This was taken with the x100s (shot being held over my head)

 

 

 

I'll be shooting St. Patrick's Day events over the weekend.  I'm going to take the XT-1 for a final test run.

[Ed Rooney]

I had been shooting with NEX cameras for about two years, using a small set of primes. Sony kept dragging their feet with lenses, and then along came the RX10. DavidK and a number of others were very impressed with the Zeiss zoom. I bought the RX10 for the lens . . . and I got a super-sophisticated body with it as an extra.  

 

It's been a long time since I've carried a camera around my neck (Using two Nikons and a Leica M, the M would be around my neck). I carry the RX10 around my neck. 

 

This zoom has an f/2.8 macro at every point plus image stability. 

[Betty LaRue]

I'll check them out, Linda.  I can't carry anything around my neck.  I had to return a vintage rhinestone necklace yesterday because it was too heavy for my ailing neck.  I do remember David being impressed with the RX10.  Ed, I've not heard you saying much about your camera until now, after your initial comments, so didn't know how it was working out for you.

 

I'm leaning toward the Fuji...reason being I have the excellent Sony RX100 for a "with me" camera.  I shot with it a lot on my St. Croix trip and it did very well, sometimes standing up to my D800.  Who woulda figured!  If I bought the RX10, the reach would basically be the same as the 100.

 

The Fuji, on the other hand, has a lineup of great lenses, with a super zoom on the horizon. (Yippee!) If that lens does what my Nikon 80-400 does, I'm covered, but with a smaller, lighter kit.  Of course, the Fuji will be more expensive, especially with adding lenses.  But if the IQ is great, I could sell off Nikon to finance it.

 

So I would end up with a great little pocket Sony and a Fuji with interchangeable lenses, which makes more sense for the range of things I shoot.  But I've not set anything in stone, yet.  The only thing that bothers me about the Fuji is the smaller 16mp.  The other button nits can be gotten used to.

Edited to add, I can't forget my 3rd option, my 13mp smart phone!!

 

Betty

[Ed Rooney]

I know I mentioned in passing a few times that I was not doing much shooting this past winter due to the bad weather and a very involving project that had nothing to do with photography, but I did comment about the RX10 in the first few weeks I had it, and it was almost all positive.

 

I'm not taking a position on either side of the Fuji-Sony battle. Fuji had their lenses together far earlier than Sony, but I had already gotten into the NEX system . . . and I thought that any minute Sony would catch up. And the Fuji lenses are lower priced; let's not forget that. Personally, 16mp seems enough for stock, but if I were coming from a D800 I would probably not feel that way. For birds alone, I would be tempted the hang onto the D800 or another DSLR. Using a very small camera with a very long lens seems like a foolish approach. But I don't shoot birds (is a pigeon a bird?) 

 

The only advantage I can see in stock photography is that it gives me something to do. The money, for me, is coffee money. I'm moving towards the exit. I will not involve myself with News or Stockamo . . . although I do wish you all the best of luck with these things and I totally wish the best for Alamy in the future.

 

As far as my gear goes: I'll be trying to sell all my Nikon and Leica gear--everything I own except the RX10, with its 24-200 zoom, the NEX-6 and NEX-3, with the Sony-Zeiss 24 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.8. I will be selling the NEX-7, the Sony 16 and 30 macro. I may buy the Sony 10-18 f/4 OSS. 

[Betty LaRue]

I know I mentioned in passing a few times that I was not doing much shooting this past winter due to the bad weather and a very involving project that had nothing to do with photography, but I did comment about the RX10 in the first few weeks I had it, and it was almost all positive.

 

I'm not taking a position on either side of the Fuji-Sony battle. Fuji had their lenses together far earlier than Sony, but I had already gotten into the NEX system . . . and I thought that any minute Sony would catch up. And the Fuji lenses are lower priced; let's not forget that. Personally, 16mp seems enough for stock, but if I were coming from a D800 I would probably not feel that way. For birds alone, I would be tempted the hang onto the D800 or another DSLR. Using a very small camera with a very long lens seems like a foolish approach. But I don't shoot birds (is a pigeon a bird?) 

 

The only advantage I can see in stock photography is that it gives me something to do. The money, for me, is coffee money. I'm moving towards the exit. I will not involve myself with News or Stockamo . . . although I do wish you all the best of luck with these things and I totally wish the best for Alamy in the future.

 

As far as my gear goes: I'll be trying to sell all my Nikon and Leica gear--everything I own except the RX10, with its 24-200 zoom, the NEX-6 and NEX-3, with the Sony-Zeiss 24 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.8. I will be selling the NEX-7, the Sony 16 and 30 macro. I may buy the Sony 10-18 f/4 OSS. 

 

Yes, I remembered your mentioning the weather being an obstacle.  I had been eagerly awaiting your comments on image IQ.

 

As far as the Fuji tele that is expected, if I were carrying it around on the Fuji, the weight would still be considerably less stress on my older body.  But I agree that it would look funny to have such a small camera with a large lens.  That said, I wouldn't expect the super tele to be very heavy since Fuji is making them to go with the X cameras.  I'll bet it would weigh half or less what the Nikon weighs.  

 

And you are right, 16mp is OK for stock.  I tend crop a lot with birds, though.  I like using the center spot on the bird's eye, and using the center gives me wiggle room if the bird moves.  Then I crop to leave more room in front of the bird and so it doesn't appear so boring.  Other images where I can carefully compose, 16mp works.  That's what my D7000 has, and I liked it fine.  I've been moving away from bird shooting a bit, though, shock, shock.  And yes, a pigeon is a bird, also known as a Mall Rat.  We have them all over our back yard.  Yard Rat?

[Martin P Wilson]

I am looking forward to Fuji super-zoom, there is a patent out for a 85-300 (125-45- FF equivalent) F2.7-3.7 so it will be biggish as it is fast. Hopefully on the X-T1 it will be fast enough for sport then I can think about getting rid of my Canon gear, especially if they did a good matched 1.4x teleconverter - a 630mm f5.6 FF equivalent and I would definitely be fully covered!

[Ed Rooney]

"I had been eagerly awaiting your comments on image IQ." -- Betty

 

​I don't see how the lens quality of the 24-200 f/4 could be better. I would have bought and paid the $1,200 for that zoom without a body attached. And the body is light enough and easy  enough to handle to make that a plus. And this body has so many amazing tricks. DavidK was very impressed by his lens tests. 

 

​Remember that I never was impressive by the "pocket camera" concept. I just want a light, easy to manage, smaller camera, and I have a few of those now. I'm keep the 24mp NEX-7 . . . but I just don't use it much since getting the 16mp NEX-6. 

 

Would I like to have an RX100, too? Sure, I like stuff. But it looks alarmingly like a cell phone, doesn't it?

[Betty LaRue]

I am looking forward to Fuji super-zoom, there is a patent out for a 85-300 (125-45- FF equivalent) F2.7-3.7 so it will be biggish as it is fast. Hopefully on the X-T1 it will be fast enough for sport then I can think about getting rid of my Canon gear, especially if they did a good matched 1.4x teleconverter - a 630mm f5.6 FF equivalent and I would definitely be fully covered!

 

 

 I like the sound of that, Martin. I would like to have only 3 lenses if I go Fuji.  I prefer zooms to fixed, except one of the lenses would be the 60mm 2.4 macro. So...if I wait on the 85-300, buy the 60mm, what other zoom would be best?  I loved my Nikon 18-200 as a great walk around vacation lens, so I'm thinking the 18-135.  Would like to hear your thoughts.  What I read on the "roadmap" is that the Fuji lenses have great bokeh, do you find that so?  That was a failing of the Nikon 18-200, great for vacation pics but not closeups with OOF backgrounds.

[Betty LaRue]

"I had been eagerly awaiting your comments on image IQ." -- Betty

 

​I don't see how the lens quality of the 24-200 f/4 could be better. I would have bought and paid the $1,200 for that zoom without a body attached. And the body is light enough and easy  enough to handle to make that a plus. And this body has so many amazing tricks. DavidK was very impressed by his lens tests. 

 

​Remember that I never was impressive by the "pocket camera" concept. I just want a light, easy to manage, smaller camera, and I have a few of those now. I'm keep the 24mp NEX-7 . . . but I just don't use it much since getting the 16mp NEX-6. 

 

Would I like to have an RX100, too? Sure, I like stuff. But it looks alarmingly like a cell phone, doesn't it?

 

No!  It doesn't look like a cell phone!  Although it's not much bigger, just thicker.  I like it because I can carry it in a purse with very little added weight.  On vacation, I bought this little tiny purse just big enough to hold the Sony, my phone, a tissue, lipstick and a zippered small thing with cards & money.  Slung the strap across my body and could wear it all day with no pain.  Perfect.

 

What I don't like?  No optical viewfinder.  I never have gotten used to using the LCD, but I manage.  If I have to only have a LCD, then I would prefer a flip one, even if it thickened the camera a bit.

I have trouble holding the tiny camera straight. I use the grid lines, but in bright sunlight they are hard to see. I tend to tilt up or down, mainly.  Somehow with an optical viewfinder that doesn't happen. Maybe my nose serves a purpose besides breathing.

[David Kilpatrick]

The point about the RX10 is that you may just not trust it, and be completely wrong. I don't use mine much as I have such a selection of things to use (on loan for review, or owned). But I decided to use it to shoot exhibition stands and stuff happening last week, and of course, it was far better than any single zoom on any of my other cameras would have been. The real dilemma for me is that the RX10 actually does everything I need, including super-smooth video with full control over excellent sound. I just need to take the step of leaving everything else behind and using it.

[wiskerke]

<snip>

I have trouble holding the tiny camera straight. I use the grid lines, but in bright sunlight they are hard to see. I tend to tilt up or down, mainly.  Somehow with an optical viewfinder that doesn't happen. Maybe my nose serves a purpose besides breathing.

 

 

Have you tried the level display?

It's under DISP Button (Monitor) in the third tab # 1 (the wheel #1) of the Menu.

I wish it could beep. ;-)

 

wim

[Ed Rooney]

David: “I'm shocked, shocked to find that 'agreement' is going on here!" 

 

It is an amazing camera that continues to amaze me. Mostly I shoot RAW, but, boy, are some of those SCENE selections amazingly effective. I found that there is some unexpected noise occasionally, even in moderate ISO . . . but a quick adjustment of the Luminance slide in LR5 and all is well. I have never had an image fail QC for noise . . . have any of you? 

 

"I have trouble holding the tiny camera straight." -- Betty  We should really stay away from Bourbon or beer when using this little camera, you know, the camera that looks like a fat cell phone. 

[wiskerke]

<>

Would I like to have an RX100, too? Sure, I like stuff. But it looks alarmingly like a cell phone, doesn't it?

 

Just add some Leica style leatherette; a 49 or 52mm filter ring and a vented Leica style lens hood : a matchbox  CL ;-)

 

wim

[Ed Rooney]

But, Wim . . . a pocket camera? I already have a half a tuna-salad sandwich in my pocket. 

[wiskerke]

 

Ed, you know these bumper stickers: my other car is a Porsche?

;-)

 

This one is on the inside of my Sinar case. (My Sinar and it's case sit inside a locker.)

 

wim

[Ed Endicott]

Just received the XT-1 and the dog is already tired of me chasing it around the house.  I'm impressed so far.  The thing I found that I didn't like is the RAW files are not yet supported in Lightroom.  You can download Adobe Camera RAW release candidate 8.4 but for some reason the release candidate doesn't work in Lightroom (only in Photoshop).

 

I'm going to have fun this weekend

[Duncan_Andison]

Just received the XT-1 and the dog is already tired of me chasing it around the house.  I'm impressed so far.  The thing I found that I didn't like is the RAW files are not yet supported in Lightroom.  You can download Adobe Camera RAW release candidate 8.4 but for some reason the release candidate doesn't work in Lightroom (only in Photoshop).

 

I'm going to have fun this weekend

 

I'm sure you'll enjoy it. By the way, the film simulations are in ACR 8.4 so you can apply them there as well as the camera.

 

2 things I've stumbled on.

 

1. While reviewing an image, Focus Assist button toggles between 100%/max view and fit in screen. Nice time saver.

2. When in manual mode, a long press on the same Focus Assist button will toggle between Split Screen, Focus Peaking & Standard. I like using the dual screen in manual mode (change via Disp Back while looking through the view finder)