Carlitrosmn

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jul 21, 2017
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
My fellow photographers,

recently I've been feeling the urge to change my gear. It's not GAS, it's back pain. Even though my camera isn't the heaviest, it's quite heavy (around 3kg with lens mounted) and I think it's starting to hurt my lower back. That's why I want to switch from a heavy Nikon DSLR with big ol' lenses to something lighter and easier to carry.

I've been researching a lot lately and so far, given my budget (please don't recommend Leicas even though it's my dream), it has caught my eye the Fuji X-E3. It's a quite small camera, very portable and with exchangeable lenses. My problem is that I've seen that the ergonomics with this camera aren't the best and I normally like to shoot travel and street photography, were I enjoy having a zoom lens to carry the less luggage possible.

Fuji cameras look amazing with prime lenses, but what about zoom ones? I'm not a pro photographer but I'm pretty serious about it, selling some photos to agencies and such.
So, all in all, my requirement is a good image quality camera with light weight and size. Is there something else that you'd advise me to look into? Maybe Olympus?

PS: my reason to prioritize the X-E3 over the X-Pro2 is that the specifics are pretty much the same and the price is almost half. Which would cut my finances some slack and make me able to invest in more lenses.
 
I shoot Fuji and I’ve owned a XE2. I had a lot of good luck with the XE2, is was a very capable camera. The XP2 is larger with a hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder. The XP2 is also built like a tank. Fujinon lenses are wonderful and the 24mp sensor is a significant upgrade to the older 16mp sensor. The non-buyer Fuji CFA produces an image, to my eye, which is close to film. I’ve also shot Oly MFT. The MFT footprint is smaller than APS-C, especially the lenses which are much much smaller than APS-C lenses. But, to my eye, MFT images look a lot more digital than the film-sequence Fuji images. But this is all a matter of taste and an an objective call. I found Fuji a very good compromise between the IQ of FF and the small footprint of MFT.
 
Recently I've been using the Fuji X100F and with a fixed lens of 23mm (35mm FF Equiv) it's like going back to the olden days when I got into photography. Love it.

Anyway, to your point about the Fuji zoom lenses - I've only tried the cheaper zooms and they SUCKED! The one I did love, more expensive 16-55 f/2.8 is wonderful. Heavy but wonderful.
The 50-140 is heavier still, and the 100-400 a beast - I only held them, did not shoot with them.

Personally, I would avoid the cheaper zooms if you can from Fuji. I love their primes and bodies, but meh on the zooms. But then you start getting into the weight of DSLR sized lenses.
 
Disagree with the above about the “cheap” Fuji zooms. I have the 18-55 kit and it’s tack sharp. I also have the 50-230 and it weighs next to nothing, is the size of a can of soda and I’ve gotten many great sports and nature shots with it. Of course it won’t compare to the 50-140 but for the price and weight, I don’t consider it to suck.


 
I have to agree with @SquarePeg the XF 18-55mm is pin sharp, and imo it`s the best kit lens going. Yes both the XC 16-50mm and XC 50-230mm are only cheap because they are plastic and not metal, are both lenses good NO, are they great YES. In the right hands both these will give you great images that you will really like.
 
I have yet to meet a Fujinon XF lens that was not sharp:

#1
_DSF0860b%26w.jpg

XF 55-230 @ 200mm
ISO 1600
XP1

#2
_DSF3347.jpg

XF 10-24 @ 24mm
1600 ISO
XT1

#3
_GA17698-XL.jpg

XF 16-55 @ 55mm
1600 ISO
XT1

#4
_GA11019.jpg

XF 50-140 @ 140mm
3200 ISO
XT2

#5
DSCF8039.jpg

XF 100-400 @ 323mm
400 ISO
XT2
 
Last edited:

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top