Inchiquin Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 There's a lot I like about it. And quite a bit I'm disappointed with. I like the viewfinder - biggest and brightest I've ever seen. However (and I don't know whether this applies to all electronic viewfinders) I don't like the fact that it's very contrasty and adjusts the sensitivity as you move the camera around the scene, which makes it more difficult to assess how the scene as a whole will look. I like the size and weight. I don't have large hands so it's very easy to operate and feels just right. I can't remember the sizes of some of my earlier SLRs but I guess the X-T1 is not far from the Canon AE1 or T70. The way it's all laid out seems logical. I much prefer dials and buttons to menus. I like the fact that the metering seems to handle dynamic range much better than my 5D2. Out of my initial batch of 50 shots there were only a couple that needed an exposure adjustment in Lightroom, and only one that needed shadows lightening, whereas with the 5D2 it's not unusual for me to have to manipulate the exposure, shadows or highlights (and sometimes all three) in about two thirds of the shots. However, the time saved by this is offset by the fact that it interprets colour temperature differently from all other digital cameras I've owned. I always thought colour temperature values were absolute, but apparently not because whereas the Canon images usually look right at 4800 or above, the Fuji (on Auto WB) produces distinctly cold Kodachromey pics and the minimum needs to be upped to around 5200 (Daylight WB is way too high for most). It's slightly irritating that it's too easy to inadvertently change the aperture when using aperture priority, which for me seems to negate the point of using it in the first place. The aperture ring is exactly where the zoom ring would be on my Canon 24-105 so every time I go to zoom I end up changing the aperture, and as it shows in the viewfinder as blue rather than white I simply can't read what I've just set it to without pointing the camera at something with a contrasting background, thus losing the shot I've just carefully framed. The specifications are very misleading in one aspect. While wavering over whether to get it, one of the features that swayed me was multiple exposures as I've always wanted to play with in-camera multiple exposure but never had a camera that would do it. But it doesn't do it at all - it does double exposure and nothing more. So I'm a bit annoyed about the deceptive marketing. Finally, the thing which has stopped me being enthusiastic over my new purchase is that I can't see the much-vaunted super sharpness. On a carefully controlled tripod test the sharpness from the Fuji 18-55 was exactly the same as from the Canon 24-105. But in real-life use, hand-held, I've struggled to get any higher proportion of my shots QC-sharp than I did with the Canon, and when the Canon was sharp it was really sharp whereas the Fuji sharpness almost looks 'forced', rather like the effect I used to get when upsizing my 300D pics for Alamy with Genuine Fractals. OK, my first batch has just passed QC but I was very apprehensive about submitting them, which is not usually the case with the Canon. So I now have two systems neither of which I'm entirely happy with, but unlike some of you I can't afford to keep both. I will probably keep the Fuji, mainly because of the much better ISO capability, but instead of cheerfully waving goodbye to my Canon as I take a step into a bright new future, it will be with a tear in my eye as I mark time until the right camera for me comes along. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.