UKC

I see that there are a number of Fuji X-T2 users on here. I have an X-T10 and have been slightly lusting after the X-T2 for some time but have been deterred by the cost, even second hand. I'm now hoping that, with the arrival of the X-T3, second hand prices might drop. The main practical attraction for me is the dual SD slots which would go a long way towards mitigating the fear of a corrupted or lost card on long trips. The weather proofing also appeals. The slight extra weight seems neither here nor there. But would I also notice significant benefits from the upgraded sensor and autofocus (although I would mostly be taking landscape shots, I also enjoy trying to photograph wildlife)? I rarely use the Fuji for actual technical climbing (that's what my compact's for). Any useful insights welcome.

Short answer.

I went from X-T10 to X-T2.  Has been a worthy upgrade for me.  Just does everything a bit better/easier.

Dual slots way down on the list for me though.

It did highlight the optical shortcomings (especially away from centre) of the 18-135mm though.  Now use the 16-55mm f2.8 (but no OS, which I miss). 

Thanks. I presume OS is Optical Stabilisation in the lens, not the camera?

Yes & Yes

The Fuji X-H1 has in-body stabilisation.

I agree about weight: once committed to a quality mirrorless, the relatively few grams are not significant if one also has a compact (a luxury, I know!).

I'm still happily using my X-E1 (thanks, Chris!) but, having a bit of spare cash, have toyed with getting a new body. I looked at X-T20s and X-T2s and, apart from the difference in cost, I was impressed by the superiority of the viewfinder on the T2 and by the feel in my hand: the buttons felt better placed and better under my fingers, and give more immediate control of the camera.

Weatherproofing? Well, *how* weatherproof is it? And how weatherproof do I need a camera to be? (I say that having half-drowned a Canon G10 and learned a lesson.) And am I going to be deterred from using my non-weatherproof lenses, and have to buy new ones?

Improved autofocus of the T2 definitely appeals, especially for fast sports and wildlife shots. On the down-side, I rarely use flash, but would I miss it if I were considering your options?

In the end, I was persuaded by the "invest in glass" argument and bought a Fuji refurbished 10-24 f4, which I have been very pleased with. I have also seen some arguments, on DPreview, irrc, that the 16 mp sensor is superior to the 24 mp one in *some* more recent bodies.

Anyway, let us know how things progress. 

Sounds good - I might try fondling one then (good for killing time in airports!). I particularly like the sound of the ISO dial.

Yes, seems of limited value, when only one of my lenses is weatherproof and it would cost silly amounts to upgrade the others.

This does appeal, especially if a possible return climbing trip to Namibia happens next year where wildlife will be important and the dual SD slots would give peace of mind. I think I'll hold out in the meantime and see what second hand prices look like then.

Yes, a fantastic lens for big landscapes!

Your mentioning Namibia (envy!) reminds me that one of the things I'd wondered about with weatherproofness is whether it adds effective dustproofness.

Definitely dustproof. Just checked on lenses too: https://photographylife.com/reviews/fuji-xf-100-400mm. With my predilection for deserts, probably more useful for me than damp proofing. I splashed out on this lens for Namibia last year (worth every penny - and that was an awful lot of them......... ). This review says it is particularly well matched with the X-T2 for continuous shooting - which makes the X-T2 even more tempting........

I bought an X-T2 last year and I love it. The weight advantage over my Canon DSLR was what initially drew me to a mirrorless system but that meant nothing eventually. I looked at several systems and went for the Fuji for several reasons. I knew a couple of professional action/adventure photographers who use it. It felt good in my hand. I love the layout. The buttons feel good to use. Way back when I had hair I used to love Velvia film and the X-T2 has a velvia film simulation. It has others that are useful but I adore the look of Velvia. Then there are the lenses. The XF10-24mm lens is very good but I more often than not reach for the XF16-55mm instead as I love the images it produces. For telephoto use the XF50-140mm gets taken out on most outings. I got the XF100-400mm with 1.4x teleconverter as my job allows me lots of time to sit around waiting on wildlife (ecologist). Its also excellent for compressing landscapes. But the weight advantage never really materialised as to get the full functionality that the camera is capable of you need the VRB grip with two extra batteries. That ups the weight. And anyway obsessing over grams when I could stand to lose several kilos myself is pretty daft!

Picked up an X-T3 last week. The autofocus is much better than the X-T2 and the video capabilities are way better too. Unfortunately since I got it I've been laid up with the flu. Its just sitting there waiting. Patiently.

I only sometimes use the Velvia for flowers and wildlife - it seems a bit garish to me for landscapes.

By all accounts the 16-55 sounds superb, but I just love the width of the 10-24 for landscapes, and I couldn't justify the cost of upgrading from my 18-55!

As standard I carry the XF 10-24, XF 18-55 and the remarkably light XC 50-230 with my X-T10,  which really doesn't seem heavy for a day on the hills if photography is intended. The XF 100-400 with the x1.4 pretty much doubles the weight!

Just about the only thing that bugs me about my Fuji is the rate at which it gets through batteries - I usually carry at least three for a day and 8 or 10 for a trip where car or even solar recharging is necessary.

Yes, it sounds amazing, but not cheap!

I share your love of deserts, as you know, but at present it's the cold variety that have me in their maw.

From the link you posted, re weather-/dust-proofing: "The lens is exceptionally well weather sealed. Fuji states that the lens has 13 water and dust resistant seals at 12 points. I can personally attest to the fact that these seals are very effective! After getting caught in a downpour for over 30 minutes, the lens continued to function flawlessly."

That lens looks fantastic for sports and wild-life photography, and it's OIS, which'd go well with the T2. Just wish my pockets were deep enough.

Message to self: stop contributing to this sub-forum: doing so presents too many reasons to be envious!

Interesting. I used Velvia film a lot, back in the day, but I found that the simulation in my X-E1 was way too vivid, but that could just be that particular JPEG engine.

I went for the 16-55 over the 18-55 as I had read it was much better. However I can't make a comparison as I've never actually used an 18-55. The 100-400 is heavy I grant you that but its also a bloody good lens. Went to a seabird colony on Orkney in Spring and got some lovely shots. 

I got the X-T3 as I want to explore video a lot more. I won't be buying any more lenses or bodies until I've regrown the kidneys I needed to sell to get the X-T3.

I can pack both cameras and all my lenses into my Lowepro and have room in the top pocket for my drone. I'm covered for whatever takes my fancy. But its heavy! I'm thinking of writing to Uphill Athlete and recommending mountain photography as an excellent way to train endurance!

Well yes Solaris it could be the JPEG engine or it could be both you and Robert are right and I'm out here on my tod thinking 'Velvia is awesome' and everybody else is looking at my photos thinking 'Jeez those are garish!' Given the state of my eyes its probably not far from the truth!  

The OIS is awesome. Even at 560 with the x1.4 it is mostly fine hand held.

One word: Wow! I'd say "unbelievable", but I know how good Fuji image stabilisation is, and what you said adds another layer of confirmation.

It's an interesting thing, Velvia. I remember when I first used the film version, I thought the colours were too rich and vivid, but then I looked again at the slides and at what I'd been photographing and thought, "Well, Yes, the colours really were like that."

I think it's something to do with the way our brains and eyes work together. (Painters know all about this.) I had a similar experience of not believing the colours in some of my Iceland digital shots, and then looked carefully at what I had been photographing and realized that in that instance at least, the camera hadn't been lying. So maybe something similar in brain/eye/camera processing is at work with digital Velvia...

Are the dials (exposure compensation, metering mode and drive dial) on the X-T2 and 3 less easy to knock out of place than on the X-T1? I see the exposure compensation dial has been moved on the X-T3, but my only real annoyance with the X-T1 is the ease with which the metering and drive dials can be pushed around accidentally.

I don't know, but would be interested. I've not had a problem with this on my X-T10 but it was an annoying problem with the exposure compensation dial on the X-E1 which they sorted out.

On the X T2 the exposure comp dial feels a bit stiffer (maybe) but otherwise it’s the same as the XT1, just as easy to knock the other two out of place. Doesn’t happen much to me but it has been annoying now and then. 

Any issues with compensation dial (i.e. render the dial ineffective) are easily sorted by shooting in manual mode and using 'Preview Exp in Manual Mode'. 

This enables you to nail a 'right' exposure (your desired  choice/combo of aperture, shutter and ISO) much easier/quicker using the viewfinder combined with the in-screen histogram (this is indicative at best, but does help when combined with the overall viewfinder brightness etc).  

You can then quickly review any view test/final shots in viewfinder (set it to automatically preview image after taking) to see how the selected choice/combo of aperture, shutter and ISO works for the shot.  You learn over time how the image in viewfinder compares to final RAW images imported into PC - ie whether you think you can recover highlight detail and expand shadows etc and how'll you process the RAW.

This is my standard mode of using Fuji X cameras. 

Mine somehow got a fragment of dust stuck between the sensor and its protective glass so it's been away to Fuji getting fixed, a couple of months out of warranty too. All very annoying particularly as I didn't have it for my month in the Pyrenees so had to revert to the much bigger and heavier Canon. I should get it back this week, if you are in Edinburgh at all give me a shout, you'd be welcome to borrow it and see how you get on with it.

Thanks!

No, you can't go back in time, but you can see that (eg) the greens really are like that, and the light at the horizon is blue.

On the other hand, the (drone) image you linked to is accurate as to the light and the very yellowy greens in the foreground, but the snow-dusted background (Barmur and Jokulgil) looks a bit too tweaked to me. But, I expect the photographer will be along in a minute to tell me that it is shot just as God saw it!

So are you saying the histogram is indicative at best or that the viewfinder/histogram combination is indicative at best? I tend to use aperture priority, then use exposure compensation to get everything central as possible in the histogram. I've sort of trained myself to ignore what I see in the viewfinder in favour of trusting the histogram, because the ambient light tends to make the viewfinder seem relatively brighter or darker than it really is. I then increase the ISO if I want a faster shutter speed.  But maybe this is a terrible method..............

I mainly rely on the viewfinder brightness with 'Preview Exp in Manual Mode' combined with preview of a test image or the 'taken' image. 

The histogram is sometimes useful to check highlights (move camera around the scene or zoom in to a bright bit) but I don't rely on it, I use my eyes on LCD and on taken image and think about how it can be processed.  I don't use the camera's 'traditional' metering system(s) or compensation dial at all.

My usual approach (which is usually pretty quick) is.

- Set shutter speed I want and 'guess' the ISO I'm likely to need.

- Initial compose

- Adjust f-stop (great to have the f-stop ring on Fuji lenses) to get a 'right' exposure (for me) using viewfinder (helped by histo if needed)

- If happy with f-stop, take shot, else

- Quick bit of fiddling with speed/f-stop/ISO combo to get something I'm happy with, then take shot

- Quick review of shot in viewfinder (automatically comes up)

- If happy, move on. Else have another go!

The great thing about this is that the exposure settings then stays fixed as you move onto the next shot (as its in manual), so you maintain control and you are not at the mercy of the camera's metering system (inc auto-ISO, which I also avoid).

For me, the viewfinder LCD + immediate Image review has been the biggest step forward in metering over a traditional DSLR.

Just to add.

As I take a lot of hand-held panos, shooting in Manual Mode is essential for me (I may adjust exposure as I go round if part of the pano is lit (very) differently), and then balance up exposure and match WB in LR.

Thanks!  I might have more of a play with manual.

Ha! Well, I take your points, but I have spent several weeks in that specific area at different times of the year – including autumn, when the shot in question was taken, and I know that I have doubted that yellowy green myself but have on a later trip confirmed that it is accurate - and adjusted my own images back to what the camera (RAW) images said! And in a sense, that response to your comment is little different from someone looking at a crammed, long lens city scape of an unfamiliar city and saying, "but it isn't like that."  Which I think you acknowldge when you're not sparring!

And, Yes, it was seeing the other "imaginatively processed" images in the gallery that made me think the Landmannalaugar one had been similarly tweaked. There's a separate question, of course, as to whether one likes them or thinks that they are well-made images. I don't but others are welcome to disagree, and I don't think we can do any more than listen, learn, and try to appreciate others' points of view - which may or may not be God's!

I don't think it is really the colours in the three photos that I'm uneasy with; more their overall painting like quality that just doesn't look "real" to me, particularly in the latest of the three which, If I hadn't been told it was a photo, I would probably have put down as an actual painting!

Indeed.

Anyway, having only spent a few days there in the past en route to Greenland, I've definitely got Iceland down for a future trip, probably August 2026 to coincide with a total solar eclipse (I sort of have my retirement mapped out around seeing at least one in a spectacular landscape in my lifetime). So I'll maybe report back my further thoughts on the veracity of the photos in eight years time!

Yes. Agreed.

We were there when there was a partial solar eclipse a few years ago: got to bed at ca. 03.00 after watching the Northern Lights, then up again early to see the eclipse. Two entirely different but equally spooky lights within a few hours was a highly memorable treat.

Have you used the 18-55 with the XT2 at all, (or has anyone), and if so how was it? I had a 18-55 with a XE1 and while it was a very good lens it wasn't perfect. I'd happily have one on a XT1 as a travel/backpacking camera but I wonder if it can keep its head above water on a XT2.

XT2 prices have crashed over the past couple of weeks. Wex in Edinburgh told me today that they've lost c.£200 of trade-in value and from what I saw of their used stock, you can get a good one for as "little" as £600. A month ago you wouldn't have got one under 4 figures. 

No, sorry.