#170

I don’t think a XT4 setup is going to be much smaller:


even with a slightly smaller lens.

How about switching to a small prime lens? Manual focus even better.
Or a truly pocket sized camera like a GR?

1 Like
#171

Thanks for the link! I see. I wonder if the lenses trend any smaller b/c APS-C?

I’ve rented a handful of Sony primes but didn’t gel with them so much. I shoot 35mm on a Minolta X-570 and got an MD adapter for the A7III which I enjoy, but I do like to take advantage of the good auto focus.

#172

Looks like the XF 18-155 is about an inch shorter than your lens and 100g lighter. So yes but not much.

1 Like
#173

Just to throw another option in there (as you mention “smaller crop sensor setup”) if you consider micro four thirds, an Olympus OMD EM5 mk iii with one of the 1.8 primes (I could live with either the 25mm or 17mm) could be the start of a small and powerful system or a viable lightweight fun standalone camera.

2 Likes
#174

Thanks for y’all’s input! I’m pretty sure I’m just being a princess about the situation haha but I’m used to shooting tiny film cameras or large format film, not much in-between so I don’t know what to do with myself. I think maybe some rentals are in order

#175

yeah i’d say if you can rent some lenses or bodies that’s the right idea. i’ve always liked the zeiss 35/2.8 for full frame E-mount which is about as small as those lenses get without getting to “plastic…fantastic?” zones, but there are a couple of those available too.

definitely the X mount primes seem to have a lower profile than the E-mount.

1 Like
#176

In general I think you’d find the fuji-branded lenses to be lighter than their typical sony counterparts, but not necessarily much smaller (at equivalent focal lengths) in volume. I shoot a fuji x-t3 and really really like it; the colors I find to be more pleasing, hit rate is pretty high (despite inferior autofocus, but I’m a manual focus person in general anyways), and (I know this is horribly subjective) I appreciate that it feels like a camera that was designed for people who want to explore the artistic/creative aspects of photography, rather than a gadget designed by a tech firm. There’s not a bad fuji lens in the whole lineup, too (although as with most companies there’s a bit of quality variability in the zooms I’ve heard—mine have been just fine).

2 Likes
#177

Jumping on this – Micro Four Thirds has a slew of super compact, light, tiny lenses.

If you want a standard zoom, I love the silly pancake-like Panasonic 12-32mm f3.5-5.6 kit zoom. Even though it lacks a focus ring, and is slow, it is tiny, and a superbly fun set of focal lengths for someone coming from decade old point-and-shoots. It weighs 70 grams and retracts to virtually nothing when not in use.

And there are other small lenses as well, the Olympus 45mm f1.8 is a shockingly diminutive portrait lens with nifty bokeh, and the manual focus only Laowa 7.5mm f2 is probably one of the smallest rectilinear ultrawide angels you can get.

(It’s fun over here!)

3 Likes
#178

Exactly what I do w/ my Sony A7’s.
I got a Leica M to Sony adapter so I can use my tiny primes with it. They make adapters for everything now. You can find beautiful old Minolta lenses that are super sharp, fast and really inexpensive.

3 Likes
#179

i’m a big cheerleader for manual primes on my sony, especially the vintage route (which at the more affordable level requires a more sizeable adapter -Leica adapter is much smaller) but there are also some E-mount native lenses from Voigtlander that I really really really would love some time with

2 Likes
#180

Yeah old Russian LTM primes or other rangefinder lenses are amazing on the Sony’s.
So small and can make some really dreamy images.

2 Likes
#181

ya, the voigtlanders are fun. Most of the camera systems we’ve discussed have workable adapters, tho - I have a m39 adapter for the fuji and use some very old leica glass on it sometimes (from my uncle’s 1950s-era leica system), gives a lovely dreamy quality to the image!

2 Likes
#182

I have m42, K, and MD adapters (the <$20 kind) and they add enough depth to the lens that the lens+mount are not significantly smaller than my APS-C E-mount primes. smaller than the 24-105mm G OSS in @jdrew’s situation, but not nearly pocketable.

1 Like
#183

Just for a brief update, I rented an XT4 and X100v for a period of time, and found the system to be quite enjoyable. Full Frame vs. APS-C arguments aside, there really is something to be said about Fuji color rendering. While the size of the XT4 vs the A7III bodies is pretty similar, I found that the XF primes are pretty compact though it’s definitely still a commitment to carry either around.

Still not sure if a trade would be worth it – the grass is always greener of course – but it’s worth thinking about. Also the X100v is super enjoyable, I wish it wasn’t as expensive as it is.

1 Like
#185

I’ve often read that Fujis are optimized for taking pictures of people, leading to pictures of other things lacking color and detail. Does that track with people here’s experiences?

#186

I only use a Fuji X100T but haven’t noticed anything like that and I often use the jpegs with Fuji’s film simulations straight out of camera.
The claim in itself sounds a bit strange, I can understand that color profiles maybe optimised for skin tones but shouldn’t details/sharpness be the same regardless of the subject?

#187

i use my fuji cameras for taking non-people photos 99% of the time and would say that the colors,
the detail, and flexibility you have with all of that in camera as well as out of camera is really amazing and would absolutely work for any kind of photo… no way better or worse for anything. i used to have an a7riii camera and much prefer the experience of the fuji xpro3. haven’t missed any of the sony color science or dynamic range.

3 Likes
#188

this does not match my experience with Fuji over the last many years… if feels very much like one of those internet gear forum claims … “oh, you want to take pictures of landscapes? then you need this specific set of equipment or you may as well give up photography for ever”

#189

most of the fuji cameras have a unique color array compared to the rest of the camera world, something that has some advantages and disadvantages.

earlier in the introduction of the x-trans sensor, there was real problems with 3rd-party software failing to translate that color array well. this is would usually manifest in the odd rendering of distant green foliage (small green details were being slightly scrambled). the issue was always less pronounced to nonexistent using the Fuji jpg engine (which is excellent for a bunch of reasons).

over time, I think this has gotten better. I know that adobe has updated their processing algorithm for the fujis several times to some effect. the increased resolution of the cameras has also helped mitigate some issues. I think people still claim they run into the problem occasionally, but I don’t think it’s a big aspect of owning fuji cameras anymore.

edit - I should add that if you’re willing to deal with on-camera jpeg processing, fuji cameras have I think the class-leading color processing and white balance, so long as their color profiles (film simulations) appeal to you. the only instance I wouldn’t recommend them is if you have a robust and complex raw processing flow that demands the most flexible and neutral raw at the start of processing.

4 Likes
#190

I’ve seen comments on the colors in several reviews. This from Ken Rockwell’s review of the X100v:

Like all Fujifilm digital cameras, the X100V’s as-shot JPG color palette and contrasts are quite sedate; optimized strongly for outstanding people photos. (The VELVIA film simulation modes don’t look any better; certainly not like real VELVIA). Even with COLOR turned up all the way as for all these images, the X100V’s rendering is much quieter than I prefer for most of my images. To get wild colors, you really need to go out of your way to find colorful subjects; the X100V won’t amp-up colors if they aren’t strong to begin with. Of course if you shoot raw, then the colors and look you get depends just as much on your choice of software used to decode the raw files.

This is in the context of otherwise glowing reviews, so I was just wondering if this was something other had noticed. I’m debating between a Fuji and a Panasonic, so I’m looking for reasons to pick one over the other!