Jimmy Moore as "David" in David Sedaris' cynical, hilarious, one man holiday play, "Santaland Diaries." At Zach Theatre.
I photographed a previous rehearsal of this play (with no audience in attendance) last Saturday. We felt like we needed the energy that having an audience would bring to Jimmy's performance and so we added a second shoot to the schedule for this past Tuesday. I like to switch cameras in order to compare the handling and the actual output of each. On Sunday (see blogpost here) I used several Panasonic G9 cameras and (mostly) the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 Pro zoom. On Tuesday I relied exclusively on the Fujifilm X-T3 and the "pedestrian" Fuji 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 zoom. These are my observations about the latter system; the Fuji.
There are trade-offs between the two camera systems. Let me get those out of the way first. The G9 is much better designed to hold and to operate. The grip is bigger, the body more solid and the controls logical. The feedback loop is also better. I never worry, with that camera, if what I'm focusing on will be what the camera focuses on. I never worry about the image in the viewfinder matching the image I anticipate seeing on my monitor when I get back to the office. And I know that my raw file will be better than my Jpeg file (although that's certainly a mixed blessing...). The G9 has a sensor that's smaller than the X-T3 and so, shoots like this one that happen mostly with the lens on each camera used wide open and both camera set to ISO 1600 (+ or -) show up the technical differences between the sensors. Since the Fuji lens is at least a stop slower (it's variable) I give up one stop of technical difference in sensor performance between the two....But...
The Fuji files are a bit softer, or less contrasty, right out of the camera, either in raw or in Jpeg. This makes them easier to do small (and large) corrections on. The Fujis dig into the shadows a bit better than the Panasonic files but in both cases the almost pure black of the background causes both camera to show small, white, noise dots in the black when I dial back the noise reduction in order to get more details in the overall files. They are both about the same in terms of producing the little dots but since the Fuji has a bit more resolution its files don't get enlarged as much so the dots are a bit less obvious. If I were looking for one perfect image and had infinite time to do post processing to the one "keeper" image, I'd select my main object (Jimmy) and invert my selection and then hit the background with noise reduction --- just in case --- with either camera (no real winners here). But... I need to deliver many files and so I compromise and split the difference between the ultimate sharpness and detail with a pleasing "calming" of the edgy shadow noise. Both cameras do well with noise in the mid tones and in the highlights.
The Fuji files have a smoother roll off in the highlights which means having to take less care to avoid clipping. Both the Fuji and the Panasonic have highlight and shadow controls which allow one to change the characteristic curve of each parameter separately; which is an advantage over cameras which only provide a "contrast" control which affects both sides of the curve equally.
If you provide the right input to the camera, vis-a-vis white balance, both cameras look very similar in their final files, color-wise.
The Fuji is less sure footed in a shoot than the Panasonic which means I trust it just a bit less. When you switch from S-af to C-af the X-T3 finder brightens as you make exposures. It's disconcerting in that I want the finder image to constantly display the preview image that reflects exposure (and color) settings. You have to wait until you finish with a continuous burst to review the final image in the burst to be sure that the camera really did hit your intended exposure.
The Fuji grip is smaller which makes handling the camera for two hour straight through is less comfortable and secure than is the G9.
But the bottom line is this: The Fuji makes better image files. The files at ISO 1600 are more robust. There is less pixel whiffle to see when you inspect and image at 100%. The roll off in the highlights is a very positive thing when shooting under stage lights. And this is inspire of me using a variable aperture zoom lens on the Fuji which is less than half the cost of the Olympus 40/150mm Pro. I'll eventually get the Fuji 50-140mm f2.8 to use for theatre work and switch to the X-T3 to do stage photography with. Also portraits.
I've yet to compare video to video but I think handling issues in that arena would supersede any visual quality difference in that arena.
But now, on to the unexpected takeaway:
I am starting to distrust online reviewers and data-driven reviewers of cameras, and especially lenses, more and more. I bought the Fuji 55-200mm as more or less a placeholder to use while I was introducing myself to the system. I wasn't sure I'd stick around to play with their more expensive glass and I was mostly interested in seeing how the bodies would perform. The 55-200mm, I thought, would do a decent job under bright studio lights and out in the bright parts of the world but after reading various reviews (with one exception) I came away expecting that: A. the lens would not be very sharp when used wide open. B. the lens would be even less sharp at any focal length longer than 150mm and that, C. overall the lens's ability to resolve detail with enough contrast would be much lower than a more expensive, professional lens.
Interestingly (to me) I used the long end of the Fuji lens for many (most) of the images I'm showing here. Go down three images from here and click on the image to see it larger. The detail and then the almost three dimensional differentiation between Jimmy's arms and hands and the background is so amazing. Even more so when you consider that the frame was shot of a moving target by a moving camera (not on a tripod) at 1/125th of a second at a wide open aperture. In every parameter this is where the reviews online led me to believe that I'd be met with abject failure. But it's plain to see that this is not the case. Going further down in the stream of images are two profile shots of Jimmy. Clicking in on these to 100% showed me good detail in the skin on his face, the stubble on his chin, the fabric of his costume and each individual strand of hair. This is the kind of sharpness I would only expect if I was shooting with flash. It's not what I would expect in a fast moving show with a handheld camera at ISO 800-1600.
The one person who had the spot-on review of this lens, and insight into its potential was good, old Ken Rockwell. He basically nailed it. The lens is sharp at every aperture and focal length until it hits the point where it is diffraction limited (different f-stops at different focal lengths). Hammering home once again the importance of taking the time to test this stuff instead of believing pundits on the web who may have pulled the lens out of a box in their poorly lit living room, handheld it at 1/4 of a second while trying to snap a photo of their escaping cat, and then pronouncing the lens's performance as ........ soft.
So, as of now, having used Canon, Sony, Nikon full frame cameras extensively I would say that if I was starting over from scratch and wanted to put together ONE system that could do the best job in video and stills (instead of one or the other exclusively) I'm afraid I'd have to go with the Fuji X-T3.
Caveat: If you don't need to blow stuff up big, or work at the edge of some strange performance envelope (shooting everything at ISO 6400), you'll be able to get as close as most of us need to with your current m4:3 camera or equivalent. You won't see much difference (or any at all) jumping up to a full frame camera from the Fuji either. Right now, with the exception of ergonomics, I declare the Fuji X-T3 to be the sweet spot.
Final Thought: I was so happy to see the Fuji combo do so well that I rushed over to Precision Camera to pick up a X-Pro-2 I'd seen on the used shelf. The price was right and the camera was in good shape but when I spent half an hour operating it and holding it I had my sales guy put it right back in the case. It's not really a Leica for modern times. It's too big and clunky and the operational manner of the camera isn't my cup of tea (or, being from Texas, not my Big Gulp Cup of Dr. Pepper). It went right back onto the shelf. Not every camera that is insanely well reviewed is that great either. Your mile will vary. Until you put a camera in your own hands and bring it up to your eye level it's all just fiction. Test em. Reject them. Embrace them. But understand WHY it's right or wrong for you.
It's not physics or optics or anything esoteric. It's like cars, girlfriends and pizza --- people like what they like and you may not like their choices.
I did pick up a very clean, used X-E2 to use in tandem with my X-E3 when I'm doing the prime lens shuffle (a different lens on each body...). It's cute and set me back less than $300, with a natty leather strap (that is too spindly to use). It felt much better laid out than the X-Pro-2. Sad, on paper I always wanted to own an X-Pro-2. Having spent time with it in my own hands I'm happy to move on.
11 comments:
I recall a few years ago you learned a similar lesson with regards to lens reviews and online comments. You bought an Olympus 12-50mm (used?) and posted it was a lot better than you had been led to believe. I take internet comments and review with a big grain of salt.
Like HR (above) I also remembered your summary of the Olympus 12-50: “TuckTested and found to be more than acceptable”. Bought one, also used, from a seller on the Fred Miranda site when I started fooling about with video. I actually wanted the motorized zoom feature, thinking it might be of use. The lens is far better than all the disparaging reviews proclaimed. I didn’t really understand the effect of the changing aperture during zooming....the jump from lighter to darker...until experience suggested it always be set at f/6.3 for zooms. Other than that, it’s been a perfectly usable lens. Even beyond the low resolution needed for 1080p video. Maybe licensing “Tuck Tested” to lens manufacturers could bring in a few bucks as a symbol of real-world validation.
Kirk, you might consider adding the Fuji MHG-XT3 Metal Hand Grip to get the better handling you desire. The grip is stupid expensive at $129, but fits the camera beautifully and is almost the exact size and feel of your G9 grip.
As we all know, "de gustibus non est disputandum." Or, in internet-speak, YMMV. For me personally, I have found the ergonomics of my Fuji X-T1 make it the "friendliest" camera I've used since the Olympus OM2n.
I first handled an X-Pro camera several years ago and did not like it at the time. However, I bought an X-Pro1 in 2017 because I was switching to Fuji anyway, and the price was too good to resist. Now, I absolutely love it, and in combination with the 27mm f2.8 it's my daily carry-camera. However, I find I don't like it as much for fast-moving assignment work. That's where the X-T series cameras rule. However, that may be because I used SLRs for 48 years, so there's a lot of muscle-memory at work here.
When I got my X-T20, I was surprised to find that it is actually too small -- even smaller than an Oly E-M5. However, the addition of a nifty, little, black half-case from Amazon made it handle very much like the X-T1.
Oh ... forgot to mention that the grip includes an integral Arc Swiss plate across the bottom, which you might really like depending upon your tripod head setup.
Hi Kirk,
I've been closely following your on-going analysis of the XT3. I'm a recent XT3 user as well. I bought in for the video specs and have been very, very happy so far. Enjoying the very nice files and accurate face and eye detect as well. But like you, I do wish the grip was larger and think this is the one less than perfect ergonomic quirk. My large hands want something more substantial, smaller hands may not agree.... I'm thinking this will be temporary, as the XT4 will most likely have a larger battery encased in a larger grip. Two short-comings resolved (although I don't see the current battery life being detrimental; I've snapped over 400 photos or 30 minutes of video per charge, and keep extra batteries on stand-by). What this means to me is it's safe to invest in good glass going forward. I'm perfectly content with the single lens I have at the moment (a 16-55 f/2.8), but if I divest myself from my other system to use the Fuji system exclusively, additional lenses may be in order. And you just explained the qualities I noticed with the Fuji x-trans sensor when describing the roll-off of highlights. There is a softness to the images which I've come to appreciate. The images are sharp where needed, but then taper to soft beyond the edges in a very pleasing manner.
One of the reasons I've been particularly interested in your evaluation of the Fuji system is due to exactly what you discuss in this post, i.e., too many irrelevant and/or baseless performance evaluations. I don't photograph brick walls or lens charts, and find no interest in the pointless arguing over finite detail differences "discovered" by these investigative geniuses doing the good work for us otherwise clueless consumers. The detail argued over is typically not seen by the end-user, yet is a "deal breaker" for the "experts" engaging in the post article responses. Far too often the biases are thick enough to suffocate. And when two different "reviewers" using the same equipment have different outcomes, I'm immediately put off and begin to suspect these are people who do not have a true understand of the equipment being used. And while you probably do not see yourself as a reviewer, being in the professional arena and, using equipment accordingly, your opinion carries merit. You learn the equipment, its strengths and weaknesses, and work with and around those qualities. This, of course, makes you the highest caliber of evaluator. Now, if we could only convince you to snap photos of brick walls and argue the aesthetic qualities of how the mortar is rendered......
Always enjoy and appreciate your insight, Kirk.
~ Ron
Another option is the Smallrig 2228 cage for the XT3. Less than $100, and hugs the camera body very tightly and includes a deeper grip. I bought one to mount some audio accessories for video work, but found the deeper grip very nice even when doing stills.
~Ron
Kirk, I appreciate the real world viewpoint on the more "pedestrian" 55-200 Fuji. Opinions on this lens seem to vary widely, however your post is one of a precious few that have actually provided pics under the types of conditions I often shoot. Like you, I see nothing to really fault this relatively affordable telezoom on. Thanks for the post and the photos!
The handling of the X-Pro 2 was a big disappointment to me too, I wanted to like it, but bought an X-E3 instead.
The Fuji metal handgrip for the X-E3 is good, ridiculously priced, but it improves the handling and (the reason I bought it) adds an Arca-Swiss mount dovetail to the body.
David Du Chemin is using the cheaper zooms with good success, the 10-24, 18-55, and 55-200, he seems to make great photos with them.
Interesting that you just didn't like the X-Pro2. I used one for a while, and liked it but only with one lens, the 35/2.0. I also had an X-T2 and like the way it handles with the 16/1.4, but I had to send one copy back because of those little white spots in the shadows that you seen to also be seeing. I found them everywhere. Do they increase with heavy usage, or rising temperatures?
Post a Comment