View Single Post
Old 12-02-2014, 12:01 AM   #4
blair kooistra
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11
Default

Mr. Pick,
I'm to blame for turning Freericks on to going the Fuji Route--he bought his X20 from me last year.

It was the X10 that got me going down the mirrorless road, and I bought it for the same reasons you are thinking about: compact, very easy to travel with, and incredible images. After a year with the X10 and then the X20, I soon found I'd much rather take the little camera out than haul the big bag of Canon gear around, and I decided a year ago to ditch my big heavy bag of Canon DSLR gear and go the mirrorless route. While for high-end, critical situations at this point the mirrorless is not equal to the DSLR (namely, very long, bright telephotos and very hyper critical auto focus, as you'd find would be needed by a Sports Illustrated photographer shooting football, etc. with a VERY tight crop), I have no doubt that the images I can produce with my 16mp Xtrans sensor X-E2 can equal that of a full-frame Canon or Nikon shooting equivalent glass. Certainly for publication on the internet or magazines/books.

Let's face it--most of move to full-frame sensors by rail photographers has been done to "keep up with the joneses"--much like the audiophile craze for stereos in the early 1970s. Most of the photographers with FF cameras out there will never approach needing the capability of their $3K bodies. How many photographers lately have whipped out 20 X 30" prints to show you? How many railfan photographers take advantage of the shallow depth of field to isolate subjects that the full-frame sensors excel at?

I now have two X-E2 bodies, three zooms (10-24, 18-55, 55-200) and three primes (18, 23, 27). All of these are well built, rugged, all metal--not a bit of cheap plastic found on the lenses (you can't say that about Canikon). And these lenses are every bit the match optically for the best Nikon and Canon produce--many have said that some of the Fuji lenses exceed those of Leica/Leitz.

It's a learning curve, for sure, to move from a DSLR to a mirrorless system. . . it's a different experience shooting thru a digital viewfinder. But I've found that while I have to think a bit more when making a photograph than I did with an essentially point-and-shoot DSLR, that's been a good thing for me: it's taken what had become a rote exercise in raising camera and pushing button into a creative experience. I'm not the only one out there thinking such--I know Scott Lothes, Richard Scott Marsh and Michael "Mad Dog" Sawyer are among those who have added Fuji X series cameras to their arsenal.

I think the camera industry is moving towards Mirrorless as the future. Fewer moving parts (cheaper to own vs. cost of repairs), cheaper to manufacturer, smaller, lighter. We're in the early generation of mirrorless right now; consider 2014 the equivalent of 2003 when folks were first facing the option of dumping film to go DSLR. . . it's the same thing today with Mirrorless vs. DSLR.

While I'd a die-hard Fuji advocate, I'd also advise you to examine the systems produced by Olympus (with the mirco 4/3 format) and Sony. I think if you look at Oly, Sony and Fuji, you'll find THESE are the camera manufacturers who are really on the cutting edge of future innovation. The lack of responsiveness in innovation of Canon and Nikon is well known. I think they're getting the message, though

Last edited by blair kooistra; 12-02-2014 at 12:04 AM.
blair kooistra is offline   Reply With Quote