Toying with the idea of a new camera for general use – landscape, travel, people etc. Anyone got anything to say about the XT10 or any of its obvious rivals? Coming from a Canon G9 – anyone got experience of both and know how an XT10 would compare? Want something smaller than a DSLR, robust, easy to use, enough control if I want it (but not too techy) and with great image quality. Ta for any tips.

Quality-wise the XT10 should be better, as it has a larger, newer sensor. At the same time, it is a larger camera, with interchangeable lenses.

I own a Fuji X-E1 (slightly smaller than XT10) and a Sony RX100 Mk I, and I found myself using the RX100 more often simply because it is pocketable. Both are great cameras, but the X-E1 is more of a… “stuck with it on your neck” kind of camera.
I think one of the newer RX100s (Mk II-III-IV) would be a good choice for general use.

Very pleased with my Panasonic LX100 – lots of external controls, good image quality – probably worth a look.

Quality is noticeably better than my old G10 and Oly XZ-1.

Sounds daft but its a nice camera to use too … easy to change what you want and just the right size (works OK with gloves, still fits in a case on the shoulder strap of my pack).

In terms of the way the camera produces images and the quality of those images, the XT-10 is the same camera as the XT-1 and the XE-2, which is to say that it/they, are all brilliant.

Even though I do not own one currently, I am a big fan of the way Fuji cameras, in general, render their images. They have fabulous colour and can produce some lovely grain like qualities to their image – see here:

and

Though these were taken with an X-Pro 1, this camera has the same sensor (slightly different processing engine but the one in the XT-10 will be better).

You can see the grain in the out of focus elements.

I’ve also owned a Canon G10, which was more or less the same as the G9. The Fuji is a totally diffent camera and it would be churlish to compare the two. The Canon is a point and shoot small sensor compact (as is the RX100 and the LX100 referenced above). Both those are good cameras but it would be like trying to compare the fuji to a pro level DSLR.

The biggest question for you is whether you go for the XT-10 and a better lens choice, or put a bit more money into the XT-1 and perhaps only have one good lens or two mediocre kit lenses.

I’m personally a big fan of prime lenses so I would be looking to get the XF-35 f/2, which is lovely and compact, and the XF-18 f/2. That will give you a standard equivalent and a wide angle for landscape.

The XT-1 has a larger EVF and it’s quite a stunner. That won’t make any difference to the image quality, but it will go some way to helping you frame and compose your shots better. There are some other differences between the two, but I’m not sure what they are.

You will not be disappointed with the Fuji, I am pretty sure of that. You’re other options would be something like a Sony A6000 which will work just as well and will give as good IQ but perhaps the aesthetics of the final image won’t be quite as appealing. The lens choice for both will be as good. Also don’t discount the idea of using adapters to mount old fashioned manual focus lenses for a super cheap way of getting amazing results.

Cheers all, useful info.

Geetee – nice pics. I’m not technically minded and I prefer to do as little editing as possible (I’m a lazy luddite, basically), but I do enjoy taking and looking at photos. The overall ‘appeal’ of the finished shot is really important to me, and I know this is something that’s hard to define and which varies from camera to camera even if a group of them are very similar on paper in terms of spec etc. Lots of technically brilliant shots actually leave me cold. I like the sound of the Fuji in this respect, although I know it’s personal taste, of course. Cheers for your tips.

I’m also wanting an X-T10 quite badly, and will get one soon. From the many reviews i’ve read, it seems to produce very good images straight from the camera, with lovely colour rendering and very good quality jpegs. I’m in the same boat in that I have very little interest in editing software, and the fuji X range seems to be good at getting good images from the off. It’s also meant to be a nice camera to handle and shoot images with, which is an important factor. The film simulation of classic fuji stock is a nice touch too. I’ve had a decent enough pocketable camera for a few years, but I miss the feel of a ‘proper’ camera with a focus/aperture ring I can hold. I think it’s worth having a less pocketable camera if it gets you taking more pictures and enjoying photography more.

I loved my Canon G12 until I crushed it. I’d definitely look at the G16 or whatever it’s up to now.

Fuji X-T1 here – amazing bit of kit, feels like an old 70/80s manual film SLR. Sold my Nikon D80 and lenses and originally bought a X-E1 love fuji colours and the end image looks amazing, great high ISO too happy use 3200. Only thing i didn’t like with the X-E1 was the EVF, awful compared to the nikons OVF and the autofocus. Now have the X-T1 and its like a dream, fast AF now and the EVF has changed my mind about them, its soon good you forget its an EVF.

The kit 18-55mm is the best ‘kit’ lens on the market. Its very very good. I mainly use the 10-24 which is great sharp lens for landscapes, 18mm if traveling light (its very underrated and cheap) and the 23mm f1.4 which is a lovely lovely lens and so nice to use esp. at f1.4. Sold my 35mm f1.4 to by the 23mm, wish i hadn’t really so i’m back on the look out for a cheap s/h 35mm f1.4 again as the images from that lens have so much pop and 3d look.

I am a total convert to Fuji, backed up with a Ricoh GR if i’m traveling ultra light.

I was looking at the X-T10, until they had a special on the X-T1 with 18-135mm. Weather sealing is the main reason I the extra.
Wait for Fujis cash back offers if you can.

I would say brilliant camera in all ways but

Although its smaller than a DSLR then lenses aren’t that much smaller. So its still quite big

You migh also consider a Microfourthirds camera for a camera that is a bit smaller. Or has been suggested a LX100 for a lot smaller….

Although its smaller than a DSLR then lenses aren’t that much smaller. So its still quite big

While it’s true that some of the XF lenses are pretty big (the XF56mm f/1.2 springs to mind and the XF35mm f/1.4 is also quite chunky) the new XF35mm f/2 is really compact. It’s about the same size as a Leica Summicron and makes for a very neat package.

also take a look at the fuji refurbs

fuji uk

Fuji make excellent cameras and some of the best lenses available today. I use an xt10 on the bike with a 27mm or 35mm. The 27mm is tiny but you lose the aperture ring off the lens. It’s very pocketable with this lens too.

The Xpro1 are(were?) on sale with 2 lenses and a leather case,slightly older tech but fantastic cameras, I use 2 at work. they also do infrared with a hoye fitted.

I also own the xt1, brilliant with the weather sealing but I’ve had the door on it repaired twice now! Most of my lenses also aren’t weather sealed.

Not long to wait for the xpro2 now, hope I love it as much as the xpro1:D

Xpro1, Xe1 and XT1 user here, totally converted to this system, hardly ever touch my Nikons these days unless its action shots or wildlife, also SonyRX100 for on the bike stuff

I used the XT1 and 18-135 lens extensively on a bike tour in New Zealand, primarily for its waterproofness but was very pleased and surprised at how good the results were

I also have the fast primes which are used for paid work, very happy with these also

Biggest plus is that my bag weighs less than half than when it contains the Nikon kit

never used a fuji but the xt10 looks like a great camera.
I’m hooked into m43 myself and currently use the tiny gm1 but loads to choose from that might suit like gm5 em10mk2 em5mk2 em1.

I also use a ricoh gr as a compact backup or rx100

I originally bought an X100S because of the good stuff I had heard and dragging / imposing a DSLR wasn’t always appropriate. It took about 10 shots for me to decide to sell out of Nikon; once I saw what the X100S could do and how I enjoyed using it, I really couldn’t be bothered with my D7000.

I’m like you and dislike all the PP stuff and I really felt I had to faff with RAW when I had a DSLR. I just couldn’t appreciate the JPG / get it to do what I wanted as easily as I would have liked.

The killer thing with the Fujis in terms of use are the electronic view finders. People may be sniffy about them but I bet most will not have played with them. The XT-1 is amazing and I expect the XT-10, as a later camera, to be (as?) good too. The thing the EVF gives you is the real time view of what you’re capturing.

The real reason for getting a Fuji though is what it spits out. Believe everything you read. Whatever voodoo Fuji do is fantastic. I’ve taken more photos I want to show people and enjoy again in the last couple of years than in the 10 years before.

As an aside, the other thing Fuji do is regularly release upgraded firmware. They don’t just bug-fix, they add capability to the cameras. They are the only mainstream vendor, perhaps the only camera vendor, who add profoundly new and excellent stuff after they’ve got your cash in the bank.

Go and look up Kevin Mullins, Zach Arias Bert Stephani and Eric Kim. You’ll find good examples and they neatly show what each body type and lens might typically be a good fit for.

Oh and you mentioned size as an issue. The laws of physics mean the Fuji lenses can still be pretty big (big sensor needs big glass), especially the zooms and long fast primes. If you can I’d go with primes for short work. As mentioned already, 18mm for landscape and 35mm for people (though I would go for the 1.4 because it’s just a beautiful lens) and get a zoom for long; I’d look at the 55-200 because its the smallest of the bunch.

(big sensor needs big glass)

Not quite (though I agree with everything else you’ve posted). The sensor size doesn’t mean the lens has to be huge. Leica use FF sensors and their lenses are tiny. Voigtlander make this for the similarly FF Sony A7 range:

What makes the difference in terms of size is apperture and auto focus. The Leica lenses are small because they have no autofocus. Lenses get larger in diameter for the same f-stop value as their focal length increases (because apperture equals focal length over diameter).

Both these lenses are 35mm autofocus but one is f/2.8 and the other is f/1.4 (and they are both for the Sony A7).

My girlfriend just bought a Sony a 6000 which takes really nice pictures. The lenses seem quite expensive for it though (Sony e-mount).

My girlfriend just bought a Sony a 6000 which takes really nice pictures. The lenses seem quite expensive for it though (Sony e-mount).

You often see this comment made on STW. There are some pricey lenses for the e-mount system but there are plenty that are (what I would call) cheap, i.e. between £100 and £200. Everything is relative I suppose.

@geetee. You are quite right of course but I’m not sure that many people will be wanting or be able to make the rather brave leap to Leica or Voitgtlander or ditch auto-focus.

(big sensor needs big glass)

Amended to “big sensors often mean bigger lenses”.

@wl the photo of the Sony lens size difference is revealing. The Fuji 35s aren’t quite so startling though… f1.4 on the left, f2 on the right:

Well quite about Leica glass. Eye wateringly expensive. I had a 35mm Summicron for about a week before I realised it didn’t actually work all that well with the Sony A7s. I managed to find it, only about three years old and in pristine condition in a shop, pre-owned and paid £1400 for it. Even though that made it a bargain, I couldn’t quite get my head around what I’d just paid for a small bit of glass. And then ironically it just didn’t work; below f/8 it was just a smeary horrible mess from the corners to about 25% into the frame. The shop took it back quite happily and now someone else owns it!

Voigtlander lenses are much more accesssible though; you can put their new Ultron 35mm f/1.7 and 50mm f/1.5 lenses on most mirrorless cameras. I have the 50 and it works really well on the A7 range. The lack of autofocus is sometimes a good thing though. It’s certanly taught me to think more and how to use zone focusing.

I’ve been thinking I might get an X-Pro 2 at some point after they’ve come down a little in price but I would be really torn between those two 35mm lenses. How do you decide which to go for?

Fuji 35mm f1.4 is a must have lens regardless of cost, the fact that you can buy them s/h for less than £250 in mint condition makes them a huge bargain.

Focus speed if fine now on newer Fuji camera, gorgeous bokeh and loads of micro contrast. I sold mine due to not really liking a 50mm equivalent lens and bought the equally good (but lot heavier) 23mm (35mm equivalent) but I had to buy another 35mm f1.4 as its that good. Packaged with the very underrated 18mm f2.0 you have a tiny low light package that covers most bases.