Open Mike: Why I Chose Fuji

In the Comments a few days ago, Tim Bray asked:

I read most of your stuff but don’t recall ever seeing a piece about why, among all the different sizes and shapes and provenances of cameras that pass through your hands, you adopted the Fujifilm, in an era when there are so many alternatives, all good. If you didn’t write such a thing, perhaps you should.

The first thing to say is that I don't really think it's important what I choose. It's common on the Internet for people to make a big deal when they switch systems, as though their allegiance was somehow globally important. As a reviewer, I don't care what you use and I don't think you should really care what I use—the point is for each of us to use what suits our own taste and what's best for our own work.

Naturally we like what we use...that's why we chose it; and sometimes that extends to results that are distinctive. So when we see other people using the same equipment, we might tend to like their results a little more. In that way, say, large-format photographers might prefer looking at other large-format work, and so on like that.

But I'm mainly in favor of people finding the right camera for themselves. I'm especially enthusiastic about helping people find cameras that they'll enjoy using and owning and that will enhance their enjoyment of photography. (I get pleasure out of photography and I like it when others do too.) But whether that camera is a Sigma Foveon, a 4x5 view camera, a full-frame professional Canon DSLR, or a small-sensor bridge camera that goes to 1200mm-e doesn't matter so much to me.

In the old days when people would ask, "Should I use a Nikon or a Canon?" I'd say, "sure."

That is, pick one or the other. Which you would choose is up to you and really makes no difference to anyone else.

So, with that caveat in mind....

I backed into Fuji in an odd way. As with most camera types and brands, I was originally accused of not caring about Fuji or paying any attention to them. (Also in the old days, I would get accused, simultaneously, of being a Leica partisan and also of being anti-Leica.) When Sony's NEX cameras came out I was accused of ignoring them, and yet in due course I ended up using one as my main camera. Same with Fuji. Why didn't I ever pay attention to Fuji?

Mine's black. I just wish it were silver. I'm going to try to snag one of these
as a second body once they're discontinued.

So I figured I'd give one a try, and asked B&H Photo to send me one of the then-new X-T1's ($1,149) and a 23mm ƒ/1.4 lens ($749) (35mm-e being my "home" or "normal" focal length).

This next bit is quite embarrassing, but hey, to quote David Vestal, "I'm in the disclosure business." Gotta be honest, even if it makes me look foolish.

I forgot to return it.

And forgot again.

This got so embarrassing that when I was about a month late getting the X-T1 and 23mm back to them, I decided it would be easier to pay for it. I figured I'd use it for a while, write about it, and sell it on. I'd be out some money, but I can justify that if it's something I write about.

And then I just fell more and more in love with the thing. To the point that it now ranks with the Contax 139Q (1979) and the Olympus OM-4Ti (1986) as one of my favorite cameras ever.

Perfection!
...Not. Nothing's perfect. But some things fit us. The X-T1 hasn't pushed Ken Tanaka's buttons, and Michael Reichmann wrote (astutely) about the camera's shortcomings in his "Further Thoughts" article. Without hitting a laundry list of features, I can summarize what I like about the Fuji easily by naming the top five things I like best about it. (Keep that opening caveat in mind; not everyone agrees with me on all points.)

• The way the files convert to B&W. Tonal properties in B&W are poorly understood in the camera and photo communities of the Internet. But it's something I'm very sensitive to and that I discuss often with fellow mavens of the subject such as my friend Oren Grad. It's one of those things that's difficult to write about; if people are going to challenge your statements, articles on the subject would have to be strongly supported with experimental evidence and technical background. (I could write a great article on the subject if I had a month of time free.) But I both know more about B&W tonality than most people, and also have strong tastes of my own. As you might understand, I'm very particular about what I like. X-Trans sensor files converted to B&W using Silver Efex Pro 2 are the holy grail I've been waiting for for many years in digital, or close enough.

• The dynamic range (DR) of the X-Trans sensor. Some opinionators dislike the X-Trans sensor and others dislike using Adobe Camera Raw with its files; can't say I agree. I love the way you can drag the highlights back down and crank open the shadows with these files without making them look like heavy HDR. Traditional film B&W technique was mainly the art of controlling contrast, and early digital was as bad as transparency film...it sure is liberating to have such freedom. (DR is related to tonality.)

  Scott and Tatiana at the Harvard Arts Museum, uncorrected

Scott and Tatiana, quick correction for sharing by email

One further thing I'll say about the sensor and the resulting image files is that the quality is plenty good enough for my work. I shot 35mm and medium format in film, and was happy with the tradeoff; and I've owned a Sony A900 and Nikon D800 full-frame DSLRs, and I'm also just fine with the 16-MP X-Trans APS-C sensor in comparison to bigger dawgs in the digital world. It's not a compromise for me. YMMV.

• The viewfinder. The baseline for me is that I've gotta see things, and I've always liked big, beautiful viewfinders. The way that any particular camera "finds the view" is an essential part of how it allows you to interact and respond visually to the look of the world around you. What each of us likes depends on what we're accustomed to, what best suits to way we tend to conceive of what we see, and whether the viewfinding mechanism or method offered by the camera is technically good. Optical viewfinders (OVFs) are superior in some ways and electronic viewfinders (EVFs) are superior in others; my preference now tilts toward EVFs. Fujifilm obviously put some serious work into the X-T1's wonderful viewfinder—it's one of the nicest available with today's technology.

• The lens lineup. I've often mentioned that my lens hobby is separate from my photography hobby, but so far I love what I've seen from the Fujifilm XF lenses. I only own two so far, but I've looked at a lot of work made with them. Moreover, I like Fuji's choices; the whole lineup has a sensible, through-designed feel to it, in contrast with the "evolving motley" approach of some other systems, which fill gaps haphazardly and press odd bedfellows into service to make up sensible lens sets. I seldom get the luxury to build up a lens arsenal in one system like other dedicated amateurs naturally do. I'm strongly considering doing so this time around.

The 23mm, which I use as a normal, is a beautiful lens in just about every way except its lack of weatherproofing: it's small and compact, fast, performs well wide open, has perfectly fine, unobtrusive out-of-DOF blur (bokeh), and great resistance to flare. And I'm besotted with my new distortion-free 14mm, which is a special lens I'm enjoying greatly so far. I'm very happy to be in this lens line right now.

  Garden Buddha and young maple, 14mm ƒ/2.8 XF

• The layout, design, and specs of the camera. Funny thing is, camera bodies are now a less important aspect of choosing a system than they used to be. We used to keep bodies for an average of eight or ten years, up to 30 or more; now we keep bodies for two or three years, up till, what, seven maybe? With Fujifilm in particular you have a wide range of body style choices. Fuji does a great job of updating firmware, which, as much as any brand or marque, usefully updates camera bodies you already own (new X-T1 firmware is due out soon). And if you don't like a particular body, the next generation will be along before you know it. They change like the seasons.

All that said, the X-T1 really suits me—I like the traditional dials 'n' buttons arrangements, the flip-out viewing screen, the lack of a built-in flash, the weatherproofing...and the size and weight hit sweet spots that I settled on as being ideal long before the X-T1 itself was a gleam in its designers' eyes.

More caveats
I acknowledge that camera choice is now a big part of the photo hobby...much bigger than it was when I first got into photography seriously in 1980. Still, it doesn't matter objectively as much as most people might think it does.

A little story: years ago I encountered a salesman at a golf shop. I mentioned at one point that I hardly needed fitted clubs because I was a rank beginner, and he told me something very interesting. He said that fitted clubs are most important for beginners. he said he'd been playing golf since childhood and was a scratch golfer (i.e., expected to play par golf—very good), and that he could play with just about anything; he had the skill to adjust to any clubs. He mentioned that Lee Trevino used to win putting wagers putting with a Coke bottle on a stick. In a perfect world, he said, it would be beginners who played with expertly fitted clubs. This wasn't salesmanship because he had never sold a set of fitted clubs to a beginner.

Similarly, it's beginners who really should make sure they have nice camera equipment that fits them. Longtime photographers can shoot with lots of things and make do, as long as the equipment is up to the tasks they need to use it for. Do you really think it matters whether Peter Turnley shoots with a Nikon or a Canon? He just masters whatever he's using and gets on with it. The pictures are what matter. So I'm sure I could use an Olympus E-M1 ($1,299) (or E-M10, $449) without any trouble. I know I could be happy with a Sony A6000 ($548) and that great 24mm lens ($1,098). I'd be delighted to shoot with a Sony RX1 ($2,798) or Sony Alpha A7 Mark II ($1,698). I could work for years with a Nikon D750 ($1,997) and not suffer a bit. I could even shoot with a Leica M ($6,380) if I had to. (I'm kidding. Don't kill me.*)

So please don't think I'm saying that the Fuji is "best" in each of these five parameters, or that other cameras can't be just as good or better.

All I'm saying is that these are the reasons why I'm so happy with Fuji right now, and looking forward to more explorations, in several senses of the term, with the X system.

Mike
(Thanks to Tim)

*Although just for myself, I wouldn't trade my Fuji gear for the equivalent Leica M gear straight up. The rangefinder way is not my way. (See the caveat in the intro please!)

"Open Mike" is the sometimes-off-topic Editorial Page of TOP. It usually appears on Sundays and is sometimes a day late, especially when I'm away from home as I am this week.

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Joe Holmes: "The first time I saw the output of my wife's Fuji X-E2 and its 23mm lens I was shocked at the gorgeous quality of the images. Wasn't this just a film company until lately? It took me a minute to remember that I've got an old Fujinon 90mm lens here in my closet for my long-gone 5x7 camera. They've been building lenses since the 1940s. No wonder they're good at it."

Bill Pierce: "I don’t know how much time you have to experiment, but I really prefer to 'develop' my Fuji files in Iridient Developer or PhotoNinja. They’re not standalone programs. You’ll still have to send their TIFFs back to Photoshop or Lightroom for printing and maybe some final tweaking. But, for the black-and-white shooter, Iridient offers a variety of quick adjustment possibilities in terms of color conversion and some sharpening effects set just for B&W. PhotoNinja’s controls are less obvious initially, but offer six different B&W presets that are quite beautiful. I try to keep my digital darkroom pretty simple and adding more programs to it is not something I normally favor. But I do think these two programs are worth examining for Fuji files."

[Pierce, a photojournalist himself, is renowned as a New York city printer for some of the world's top B&W photographers. —Ed.]

BWJones: "Fuji has a long history of making camera lenses that are found in everything from cell phones to satellites. I came to the X-mount Fuji system in 2013 and I've been smitten ever since. Last year was an experiment of sorts in trying to return to Leica, but I've since concluded that I'm much happier with the Fuji. It is an amazing system that tells me Fuji 'gets it.' I am also seriously happy with their color management. At times if you look at the white point that the Fuji camera selected, it looks weird...but the color mapping is right on."

Robert Murphy: "I am old, I admit it, but Fujifilm cameras were back in the grand old days of film known as Fujica [from 'Fuji Camera' —Ed.]. The old cameras had an M42 screwmount (for those who remember those), and the Fujinon lenses were excellent.

"What killed Fuji was they were late to change to a bayonet mount. One the plus side those older cameras could mount almost any M42 screwmount lens made, even though some would not meter. Many of us in Japan in the 1970s either used a Fujica, or had friends who did (I was a Konica T3 user). Those old cameras were rugged, the lenses were sharp, and one did not need to be embarrassed by using one. So I, for one am not caught off guard by the renaissance of Fuji."

Mike replies: My third camera, a gift from my father on my 16th birthday, was a Konica T3.

Earl Dunbar: "Decades ago I was in a small camera shop in the Midwest and one of the salesmen told me the story of someone who came in multiple times, and just couldn't make up his mind on which camera to buy. My memory is fuzzy, but I think the choice was between Canon and Minolta. However it transpired, the customer actually called Ansel Adams' house to get instruction from On High. Amazingly, Ansel himself came on the line after Virginia answered. Conflicted customer: 'I can't decide between Canon and Nikon...' Ansel: 'Which one do you like?' Conflicted customer: 'I kind of like the Minolta.' Ansel: 'That's a good camera!' Conflicted customer happily bought the Minolta. To this day he probably tells people it was Ansel's choice."

David Zalaznik: "In 1977, I loved taking photographs. I used a Kodak Pocket Instamatic 20 (I think). I was a painter in a hospital in Dubuque, Iowa and was quitting my job to take a three-month backpacking trip in Europe. Before leaving, I stopped in the local camera store because I convinced myself I should upgrade to the Pocket Instamatic 40, or 60, I can't remember. The salesman convinced me to consider a 35mm camera instead. This was something that I never considered a possibility in the realm of my abilities.

"So, a Fujica ST605 and instruction book in hand, I boarded Icelandic Airlines and that camera changed my life. I returned from the trip, worked three more years, went back to college and have enjoyed an almost 30-year career in photojournalism, including having a book of my photographs, Life Along the Illinois River, published by the University of Illinois Press in 2008.

"If not for that Fujica, I might be refinishing a chair right now."

Comments

[Bryan Willman]

A different path to Fuji...
Tried X100 as "Leica like but smaller lighter sometimes faster cheaper" - worked well.
Happy results caused me to try X-T1.
As Fuji lens line expands, Leica lenses are being sold....

[Nicholas Condon]

Perhaps I am not knowledgeable or skilled enough to even venture an opinion here, but with cameras (perhaps unlike golf clubs), isn't the biggest issue for beginning photographers familiarity rather than "fit"? Once I developed the muscle memory for the controls on my camera, it seemed natural and obvious and comfortable. I've changed cameras a few times in the last few years (although not systems), and each time, there was an adjustment period followed by comfort. Perhaps (and I appreciate that I'm just speculating) you could give a beginner any competent camera and (with good instructions and, perhaps, good teaching) they could develop a comfortable familiarity with it?

[Andrew]

I recently converted to the Fuji system - best equipment change I've ever made since I bought my first Ricoh GRD years ago. I've now sold off almost everything else.

With the XT1 and the Fuji lens lineup everything just, um, clicked into place in what and how I like to shoot. It is fun to shoot with and truly allows me to focus on the subject. I could not be happier, and as you say Mike, it's not perfect, but the overall balance is just right. I will also concur on the dynamic range (I'm flabbergasted) and the B&W conversions. I use Iridient Developer for my extras RAW conversion.

As for lenses, I have the Fuji 14mm, 23mm, 16-55mm, 50-140mm and the Zeiss 32mm and 50mm macro. I may not keep all of those, but for now they cover a wide range of uses and all are of very high quality. I think the Zeiss 32mm is my favorite.

[Dogman]

"The pictures are what matter."

Couldn't agree more. It has always been true but, in my opinion, it matters even less what equipment you use these days. Digital electronics has (have) been the great equalizer in cameras.

[Gijs Langelaan]

Mike, your reasons for liking the Fuji are the reasons I tell anyone who asks me what camera they should get: the one THEY find easy to use. That's what will help them take better pictures.

cheers

Gijs

[jim r]

People do love to make photography a science, do they not? Measurements, technical data, sensor size, equivalence & &c.. but all that science creates art where 'eye of beholder' rules still apply.

Even if I had your exact kit my images would still be different - and that's OK by both of us. Enjoy your Fuji gear while I go make something with my Pentax stuff!

[Patrick Dodds]

I want to get on with building a Fuji system (mainly for the pictures - which are, SOOC, so much more seductive than anything I can get with my Nikons), but having had my fingers burnt in the past I am waiting for a focusing system that works and a menu set-up I can remember and use on the fly. Fuji cameras are objects of beauty and the fact that gorgeous pictures can be had from such a small form factor gives me high hopes for the X-Pro II, should such a thing ever appear.

[Andrew Lamb]

One mischievous thought: why was that photo, of Scott and Tatiana, so badly under-exposed in the first place or was it done on purpose?

Either way, pleased you're so happy with the Fuji.

[Ranjit Grover]

The last film camera I bought was an old, used, low end one. That was in 1987 January. I still have that camera with me and I have nothing to grumble about that. Had the digital camera not appeared on the scene I would have continued to use that camera happily. I would not have found a reason to change that old camera. Unfortunately I do not have that sort of confidence in the present day cameras, with all the bells and whistles but no knobs or rings. I use the camera I have presently, because a better camera (in terms of design) is just not available at a price I can afford and not because I like my present camera. So I cannot agree with you when you say that we like the camera that we use. We use them because we are forced by circumstances to use them. At best we are indifferent to them. Barring the top of the line cameras no single present day camera can attract (my) loyalty. They are all unimaginatively designed and lack basic physical controls that we need for every day use. I have not used or even seen all the brands of cameras available here, but, the ones I have seen in the market are not very inspiring or attractive. To give you an example a very expensive DSLR camera one of my friends has does not have an exposure compensation dial/button. That has to be done through layers of menu. All the SLRs of the yesteryears came with a decent standard lens. That is just a dream now. One of these days somebody is going to bring out a camera with no shutter button. I would not be amazed. Sometimes I wonder where the camera makers are taking us, the ordinary camera users. To add insult to injury they talk of "Entry Level Camera", as if one has to go step by step through all the ranges of models, if one has to come to a good camera. The camera manufacturers are losing sight of real user and that is telling on their sales. One day the DSLR is going to be as bad as a cell phone camera.

[Mark Kinsman]

Well stated Mike. I too, have chosen Fuji, although I still have my Canon 5DmkII and an Olympus OM-D E-M5. I find the Fuji is what I grab first. For me, Fuji, just gets it. This is the only Digital camera that I've ever considered using the internal film simulation jpgs , instead of RAW. I still shoot RAW +jpg , but often the jpgs are so good, that I find no need to process further for color and only a little tweak for B&W. (Although I'll still use RAW + Silver Effects Pro for "serious" work).
My internal debate of late is whether to sell the Canon kit or not, as I seldom find a need for it anymore. Great time to be a photographer.

[Stephen Scharf]

Your comment about liking the cameras we choose to end up with, is a compelling one, I think. So much of the discourse in forums about this camera or that camera is focused on 1) requirements and 2) functionality. Cold, objective data. Effective, but it can be, I'm afraid, boring.

What's usually missing from all this back-and-forth discourse is how we feel when using these products. Interestingly, Fuji really understands the emotional connection to using beautifully designed and executed cameras and lenses, possibly more than any other manufacturer, with the possible exception of Leica.

Personally, I've found using them more emotionally resonant than anything I've used in the last 30 years, back to when I used an OM-1 to learn photography in the first place. I admit it, I was jaded using all that pro Canon gear for over a decade; I no longer had interest in shooting, or more importantly, making compelling images. Fuji turned that all around for me, and the principal reason was that the emotional experience of using them brought joy back to making images.

Call me a fan person, but for that, I am very, very grateful.

[scott kirkpatrick]

The magic ability to pull up pleasing tonality out of what looks at first as lost in the shadows is pretty general now that 12-14 bit chips are in wide use (Sony's or similar). I expose to protect the highlights and use the "shadow" slider in Capture One to bring up the shadow parts. A nice example of this is at http://www.pbase.com/skirkp/image/160077970/large.jpg .

scott

[Stan B.]

I've only had the opportunity to handle this camera, but I must say- the XT1 seems to be the fruition of what digital always seemed to promise: greater flexibility, increased image quality, smaller size. The EVF is not just some OVF substitute, but an actual visual asset, the form factor, build and lenses superb, and I'll just take your word that the B&W conversions are more than adequate. Had I the money, would gladly gobble one of these up- along with a: 14mm, 18mm and 27mm.

[Tom Kwas]

...anybody else think the new Fuji body looks like the Zeiss Icarex 35?

[Phil Stiles]

Mike, I have two wildly different photographic arenas. The first is sports photography, mostly on a high school level. The second is jazz musicians, often in dimly lit clubs. I just moved from Sony to Olympus for the sports work, and really love it. Fast focus and tremendous reach with small lenses. I also have a Fuji system, and it is perfect for the music scene. The dead silent electronic shutter is wonderful for small venues, and the glass is fast and sharp, the files rich. The 56mm f/1.2 is perhaps my favorite lens of all time. You should try one.

[Andrew Middleton]

Mike, how about additional discussion of what makes for 'good' B & W tonality? Would love to hear your thoughts on this as I admire several of the shots you've posted from the XT-1. I find that my digital color-->B & W conversions are terrible. I freely admit I'm a rank beginner (and horrible with LR & PS) but I'd love a bit of education re: what makes for good B & W. Hopefully, armed with that knowledge, even I could make a passable attempt at converting digital color-->B & W......

[D B]

Mike,

Typo alert.

>> Nikon D750 ($1,1997)

[Chris Y.]

Read a comment somewhere that said Fuji was not so much a camera company as a color company. Seemed about right.

[David B]

The cost of the D750 sure shot up. You have it at $11997. I think I would prefer the EM1 at that price:)

[Bruce K]

I considered a Fuji, but then found that the pushed ISO images were limited to JPG output. That didn't make any sense to me and the camera went back. Oh well...

[Hnriot]

While fit and all these reasons are true for some, there are some very basic problems with the Fuji digital cameras and lenses - auto focus. It's intolerably slow compared to practically everything else. The other problems like plastic skin and cropped sensor ISO & DOF performance I could overlook but not the auto focus issue. The skin issues are flattering to the people in the photos but unrealistic. I found that my iPhone 6 is about on par with the x100s (except the iPhone focuses faster) in good light and the Fuji wins in low light.

Maybe the xpro-2 will be better.

[I don't know what you're used to, but the AF of the X-T1 seems very fast to me. Certainly as good as other premium mirrorless cameras I've used and probably better than the Nikon D800. I've only used the two lenses I own, however. Maybe other users could comment further. --Mike]

[Willam Lewis]

Reminds me of why I like the Oly m4/3 cameras:

I like their in camera B&W jpg for my needs.

I like the multiple aspect ratios: I shoot a lot of 1x1 to mimic my old 6x6 cameras.

With an external VF, it handles much like a film rangefinder did, especially with hyperfocal distance preset on the lens.

Olympus, and m4/3 in general, has a wonderful and diverse lens line up. Combined with the ability to even use my old FD glass it's just a lens abusers delight :D

In the end, I still have a Canon 7 & Rolleicord III to remind me of where I am from but I only shoot digital and LF any more thanks to Olympus.

[John Camp]

I recently spoke behind your back to a friend of yours who's a famous bearded photographic printer from the San Francisco area (I won't mention any names to protect his privacy) and asked whether the Fuji files were really as good as people claimed. He said that he thought he could probably take a Fuji file and a file from another good camera, and make them pretty close to identical; that the key thing about the Fujis might possibly be the out-of-camera file, rather than a thoroughly processed one. But, he said, I should really ask Mike, because you have the experience. So now I'm asking: Is it particularly the out-of-camera files you like (or perhaps, very lightly processed files) or is there something special about Fuji files that you just can't get any other way? Or is it just the Fuji B&W files, and you find the color to be ordinary? I'm not a processing guru like our hirsute friend; I'm willing to spend a little time with Lightroom, but too much, and extended processing efforts are beyond both my skills and my interests.

[Robert Hudyma]

The Graphite/Silver edition X-T1 is $200 more than the basic Black. Seems like a lot of money to pay for a different color. I doubt that the manufacturing cost is significantly different.

Given a choice I'll go with the lowest cost product. At the end of the day the images I make will look the same regardless of the color of the camera body.

[The silver color is not so much a regular option as a deluxe edition. I remember seeing an account of how the graphite color is applied that makes it seem like maybe it does justify the extra cost, but as I look for it now I can't seem to find it. --Mike]

[Christopher Lane]

"I don't really think it's important what I choose."

Oh yes it is!

[Roger]

I can wait if you want to take a month to write up your methods for creating that wonderful monochrome tonality of yours.

I bought an X-Pro1 and the 35mm when Amazon first stocked them and haven't looked back. It's been replaced by the X-T1. I have an X-E2 with the 27mm and 18mm lenses as my "short trip out of town" kit. Put both of those lenses on your list. They won't disappoint.

Fuji lenses are something of a bargain considering their quality. Most of my lenses were purchased used; none are a disappointment.

Between the sensor, the camera ergonomics (dials and knobs!), and the outstanding, and growing, lens lineup I can't fathom owning any other brand of digital camera. My D600 just departed and the last of my Nikon glass is on eBay.

[G Dan Mitchell]

I'd like to offer a counter-thought to the following: " it's beginners who really should make sure they have nice camera equipment that fits them. Longtime photographers can shoot with lots of things and make do, as long as the equipment is up to the tasks they need to use it for."

One problem is that beginners don't yet have the preferences that allow photographers like you and me to make smart choices about "what fits." I liken this to musical instruments, where it is fine to start with a decent and inexpensive beginner instrument and to then outgrow it as you get better and as you develop specific preferences as to style and so forth.

So I still feel that a decent rather general purpose first camera is fine staring point. You learn with it — you figure out where it fits you (and what the means) and where it doesn't, and you start to understand what things might better fit your evolving preferences.

[psu]

I used the earlier Fuji X bodies (rented) and found their handling to be a bit clunky to my taste, so I went with the Olympus.

The AF for me was about average to slower than average for the time (2013?).

The main place where the mirrorless AF systems really fall down is tracking anything that moves. My D700 from circa 2010 with a slow zoom lens (F5.6 at 300mm) will track motion in a dim gym better than any mirrorless camera I've tried will track any motion anywhere.

When things are standing still pretty much all the AF systems these days are fast, except maybe when it's dark. But I still think the D700 and systems like it are a bit more reliable. My E-M5 is good enough though, especially given the size and the great lenses.

[Rob L.]

The 'flip the aperture to A and the shutter to A and it's auto, set one or the other if you want' operation of the Fujis makes me happy. I do have different cameras for different moods, but the x100s makes getting a good shot easier. The amazing jpegs are a godsend on vacation, the last thing i wanna deal with is processing RAW when i'm just trying to sort the memories of the day.

[Ken James]

I like this review. I have been reading you for a long time now and know what matters, to you, as well as is possible for a reader, and so I like to know your response to this and any product. The usual reviews are pretty useless because one has no idea what the reviewer wants or cares about in a camera. It is helpful to know what someone you respect thinks about various aspect of any product. I have tried some of your suggestions about coffee, speakers, music, I have not stuck to all, but I tried them. Not very articulate this, but I like to know what you think about things. Thank You. By the way, I like the $499 of the Olympus M10 the most, other than that it is too fiddly.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

Gee Mike, I knew you liked the X-T1 but I didn't expect you to go Elizabeth Barrett Browning on us!

Just to clarify, I really do like Fuji's X-System very much, as evidenced by owning each of its bodies and a generous collection of its lenses. I don't think any company is more devoted to creating, establishing, and supporting a true photographer's system than Fujifilm.

But, yes, as I've previously noted the X-System and the X-T1 hasn't quite garnered that special place for me that it seems to have landed with you. I agree with nearly all of the strengths you listed in your "let me count the ways" essay. And I've been using my X-T1 and X-E2 much more frequently than ever during the past months. But when I'm faced with a challenging job a full-frame camera will likely get the call for me.

I am, however, eager to experience the X-T1's new auto-focus system that the reported June firmware update will bring.

[Bob Johnston]

In reply to Hnriot, I have an XT-1 and a friend has an XPRO-1. So I know that the focusing problem is down to the XPRO-1, which is indeed very slow compared to the much newer XT-1. Having said that, if you take sports or birds in flight etc the Fuji would be the wrong choice as it doesn't perform well with moving subjects. The new firmware due to be released next month is said to improve this.

I have only seen the 'plastic' skin tones on high ISO jpegs, which is probably due to over enthusiastic in-camera noise reduction. In which case why not use raw, which will give you a better result with any camera at high ISO.

Many people seem to think that the dynamic range is exceptionally good but all I can say is my big heavy (groan) Sony A99 seems to have about a stop more DR than the XT-1. However I enjoy the XT-1 so much that I am going to be forced to sell the Sony system to afford more Fuji lenses.

[Gildas]

I have a broken Fuji E900...
I got it during a fire sale as a carry around camera.
It gave images way above it's pay grade, you could see the first "sparks" that would lead to the current brilliant Fuji premium system.
Even the charger was really well made, and became my travel AA solution.
The two nails in it's coffin was firstly the lens pop out motor was started to weaken (why Oh why do camera makers even bother, a manual pop out lens is a 1000 times better, cooler and is far more reliable) and secondly I got run over, throwing the lens out of alignment (and breaking my leg, but that's secondary).

I still regret my ol'E900...

[Frank P]

Kool-Aid.

[Kodachromeguy]

I agree with Bill Pierce (featured comment); Photo Ninja does a really nice job with black and white conversion. The results look rich and full, as if you had used medium format film. Also speaking of black and white, you wrote, "Tonal properties in B&W are poorly understood in the camera and photo communities of the Internet." I have noticed odd hatred of B&W among internet photo "experts." Whenever someone writes about the Leica Monochrom or speculates whether Fuji will make a monochrome camera, the hate rants come out, accusations that only hipsters would be interested, that they can make better conversions with software package XYZ, etc. Are they threatened by B&W? It is bizarre.

[It IS bizarre, yes it is. --Mike]

[Bryce Lee]

Suspect "we"are all different in our expectations of anything manufactured, including cameras. For me who purchased the Fuji with the kit lens (and sold same two weeks later at a loss) could not get around the mechanicals. The camera is tiny and has too many button and dials to touch and go wrong (have enormous hands) and I missed the sound of the mirror moving (and I might add there was no real noise of anything happening).

One other point is perception, to me
a lens that is marked 50 mm had damn well better deliver a 50 mm view "and" results, nothing more, nothing less.
So for me that physically smaller Fuji (or in Nikon terms DX) sensor doesn't deliver to me; at least, reality.

Somebody gave me his old D7000 and kit lens to play with a few weeks ago. It was a camera. I keep coming back to the following which sort of sums things up, for me at present:

Photographically, the gear and the result is no longer is of interest. One must have a reason to do one's photography. If the reason does not exist, why bother?

For me, that reason has gradually disappeared; as has the good gear, for me.

[Kenneth Wajda]

I'm a huge fan of the X100. I use one for street documentary work. It's the only camera I have that can shoot completely silently with its stealth leaf shutter. Fuji is certainly doing things right.

[Eli Burakian]

About 10 years ago I got the Fuji S5 Pro. Nikon mount in a D200 body, but man were the dynamic range and colors from that camera special. Looking back at my older work, I'm always drawn to those images more than my traditional Bayer sensor cameras.

Glad to see Fuji is still making people very happy.

[Stephen Scharf]

I'll "third" Bill Pearce's comment about using Iridient Developer for processing Fuji RAF (RAW) files. Brian Griffith has really improved the slickness of this wonderful conversion app in-use, and now it is quite seamless to use it as a plug-in in LR or PS to get wonderful conversions, as good as Capture One 8, which previously set the bar for me.

Also, have to respectfully disagree with Bob Johnston about using the X-T1 for fast moving subjects. I've shooting motorsports racing action with my X-T1 with the wonderful 55-140/2.8 lens (with triple AF motors) and getting superb results.

http://photos.imageevent.com/puma_cat/exoticcars/458-Duel.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/puma_cat/exoticcars/BusStop169.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/puma_cat/generalfujixphotos/_DSF8271.jpg

[Adam Maas]

I converted to Fuji last year, bounced back out and have now come back to Fuji.

A couple notes.

AF on the X Pro1 and X-E1 ranges from Awful (early FW revisions) to just slow. The X-A1 and X-M1 are acceptable. The X-E2 and later bodies range from decent to almost speedy (depending on FW revision). If you liked the cameras but hated the AF, try a newer body (and skip the slow focusing 35 and 60, the original lenses are not fast focusers although the 18 has such a short throw that it's acceptable)

Personally, I greatly prefer the files from the X-A1 to any of the X-Trans bodies. All the good of X-Trans is in the X-A1 files too (lovely colour, great DR, incredible OOC JPEGs, good B&W conversions) but none of the problems (conversion issues & artifacts, poor chroma resolution at low ISO, occasional files which just hate every RAW converter). I've owned 2 X-A1's and an X-E1 so far and really wish Fuji would give me the X-A1/2 sensor in the X-T10 body.

Unlike most Fuji shooters I just love the 18/2. It's arguably the worst of the primes, but it's simply a perfect street wide IMHO. I've always found 35 a little tight and 24 a little loose when walking around with a single lens in the city, and the 277mm-e of the 18, fast f2 aperture and tiny size more than make up for corner performance which is only unnacceptable in today's 'must be technically perfect' world.

I'll be picking up either an X-T1 or X-T10 in the fall to round out my system and hopefully will stay there for a long time (I'm a notorious system switcher for digital, but have been chasing an FM2n replacement, which the X-T bodies looke to be ideal as).

[Keith B]

Andrew Lamb wrote:
"One mischievous thought: why was that photo, of Scott and Tatiana, so badly under-exposed in the first place or was it done on purpose?"

Assuming the photographer's goal was to preserve detail in all areas of the image, it was correctly exposed.

[BH]

"Naturally we like what we use...that's why we chose it; and sometimes that extends to results that are distinctive."

Actually "Liking" a particularly piece of photo equipment is something that's often overlooked in all the discussion of specs and whatnot.

I'm currently using two digital cameras, a D750 and a E-M5ii. All the specs tell me the D750 is the better tool. Hell, I look at the images on screen myself and KNOW the quality of the images are better. But the little Olympus is on my shoulder when I'm walking out the door in the morning. It's fun, and I like using it.

This isn't the only time I've forsaken specs for enjoyment. Most of the time I'll gladly take an f/2 lens over what is usually a much larger f/1.4 counterpart. And sometimes I simply use lenses because I like the way they feel in my hand, specs be damned.

If you own a piece of equipment you don't Like, sell it.

[Gordon Cahill]

Of course the best Fujifilm camera of all time was the XPan. Somewhere deep down I dream that the often rumoured "full frame Fuji" is actually a digital Xpan.

Gordon

p.s. whatever you do, don't even look at the 56mm f1.2 if your wallet is nearby.

[Chris Crowe]

Unfortunately I haven't had a play with a Fuji yet, but it sounds like it would be ideal if I were to start a new system from scratch (hopefully I never need to but...)

From what I am seeing elsewhere, PhotoNinja is the way to go for conversion.

And if you really want to go all the way with B&W, try a Sigma.

Oh, and a rumour floating around - no not a 35mm "full frame" X-Trans camera - they are aiming for something bigger!! Something like a 6x6 X-Trans.

[William]

I abandoned three Nikon bodies and about a dozen F-mount lenses for the the Fujifilm X system. This switch started when the X100 arrived and was completed about a year ago after using the X-T1 on gigs.

This is one of the few TOP posts where I can honestly say I agree with every single sentence.

The Fujinon lenses (quality-to-price ratio) slaughter almost all the Nikkors, and third-party F mount lenses I owned.

I miss only one aspect of the Nikon system. For some incomprehensible reason Fujifilm still does not support automatic bracketing of more than three shots.

[Bob Johnston]

Stephen,

Great pictures. I reckon that what I need is that lovely f2.8 lens you have with the three motors. I have the 55-200 f3.5-4.8. It's sharp and remarkably flare free but not in the same league with focusing I suspect.

Bob

[NancyP]

Hey, David Zalaznick, I am going to look for your book. Every once in a while I contemplate retiring to Calhoun County IL (for non-locals, that is the thin and rocky sliver of land at the Illinois - Mississippi confluence, which is approximately 30 miles north of downtown St. Louis MO where I work).

[Ragnarok]

That silver version reminds me of one of the -for me- most beautiful film cameras ever:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/S2B_1.jpg

[Tim Bray]

Uh, thanks.

Might want to mention the oodles of fun you can have strapping funky old Pentax & Leica lenses to the Fuji, especially because of the excellent manual focus-assist stuff. For example, https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2014/12/08/Thirty-year-camera-gap

[Bradley]

Great post Mike and I agree with all your points. I started shooting in the early 70's and have gone through most makes and formats. The reason I am currently with Fuji is I wanted good glass, autofocus, and real manual controls (lens and body). I can't stand thumb wheeling for aperture or having one control change its function if I am in a different mode. I would still be shooting Leica if they had autofocus... but I'd be broke lol