This is getting out of hand.

>>4435110 (OP)
Yep. But I bought one anyways. Hope I don't regret it.

They have GOT to be baiting at this point

>>4435110 (OP)
>f/2.8
Ahahahahhahaahaha

cute
maybe i'll get that lens to replace my 27mm pancake. although i am increasingly content to simply use the 18mm for any wide angle shooting purposes... i suppose the main lens upgrade i want from fuji is a wr version of that

>>4435110 (OP)
>dedicated gimmicky scene mode dial
Literally who asked for this?

>>4435121
You have to remember that Fuji is influenced primarily by Japanese women and Japanese homosexuals, when you realize that a lot of what they do starts to make more sense. Still stupid, but makes sense.

What if it will make me a better photographer?

>>4435133
How?

>>4435134
>more motivation to go out and shoot
>light enough to always keep with you
>enough mp to crop and experiment with aspect ratios
>better understanding of color science by trying different film sims, tweeking them, etc.
>not fastest af so need to learn to adapt

We will never get an Xpro4

>>4435137
Cope.
Just use the camera in any modern day phone.

I have a feeling this is a product targeted at woman and homosexuals because it costs more than some vastly superior cameras, including vastly superior point and shoots (like the canon m6ii, which has a better sensor that is closer to the real resolution of film. wormtrans is completely different and much more digital looking.)

>>4435156
my man they turned the brightness up and said it was proof the phone was good
how stupid are these bugmen

>>4435110 (OP)
Fuji wastes too much effort, time and money into making too many camera model lines.

The 3 gfx models are okay probably: one flagship, one "cheap"er, one fixed lens as a gimmick. But on the smaller than FF there are now a bazillion models

(In the youtube comment section this is a provocative hottake)

>>4435156
"chinese phone camera better than ILC" has as much truth to it as "china's average IQ is 105+" (it's 83)

Buy this or wait for Ricoh GRIV? Some years ago I compared the X100V with my ex GRIII and the Ricoh was much sharper. It's like a tiny full frame camera with a slow lens. Are the newer lenses with the 40mp sensor finally as sharp as the GR?

>>4435158
>m6ii
Viewfinder.

>>4435244
GR will actually fit in a pocket
GR uses a proper sensor (bayer) which is literally close to how film and your eyeballs work
GR will use a modern AF motor (which is not a huge challenge, a phone uses a modern AF motor)

Fuji will not fit in a pocket
Fuji uses xtrans, which is as physically far from film a digital camera can get without being unusably bad
Fuji uses dated noisy and slow AF motors that lag behind phones from 2020
The 40mp sensor is much softer, you need to resize the output to about 20mp because xtrans has an inherent blurring effect, and the raw files take forever to process unless you bought the nicest macbook pro. Sadly you'd want to process the raw files because despite all the film sims fuji uses a CPU off a motorola flip phone to turn all those gorillions of pixels into a jpeg, so the results are blurry and dully.

>>4435121
Fuji shooters like film simulations

>>4435247
they also like woman simulations, food simulations, life simulations, and property ownership simulations

>>4435246
Thanks for explaining. Then I wait for the GR

>>4435248
why are you so upset?

>>4435251
>woman moment

>>4435253
*simulated woman moment
He’s set to nostalgic nancy

>>4435246
how then fuji's pics are always better?

>>4435244
just get x-m5 if you want Fuji
half the price and smaller

>>4435257
fuji pics are always awful

its a shitty orange and teal vsco preset on an asian street sign or back of someones head every time

fuji is more synonymous with bad amateur photography than sony

>>4435110 (OP)
No need for 40mp, yet so much winning!

>>4435167
>>4435243
No, the ancient Zony 24mm really is that bad. And they never made anything to replace it. Even an iphone camera outperforms it.

>>4435273
>"bad"
They are the exact same picture of black and white lines with different brightness levels. I guarantee you in real photos with shit like foliage and skin the difference between phoneslop and even a micro four thirds camera with a kit lens is noticeable unless you go full "STOP NOTICING THINGS!"

>>4435268
Xtrans needs 40mp to keep up with a basic bitch a6000+2 min in lightroom

>>4435110 (OP)
>the most popular pre-ordered camera ever
/p/ wrong again as usual

>>4435280
The vast majority of fuji sales come from china just like the majority of olympus and nikon sales come from japan

Afaik despite every fuji fanboy hype article the top selling cameras remain canon and sony aps-c. I guarantee you that very few real people are lining up to spend $2k on this. Its all scalpers and childless middle class chinese (who always buy 2-3 to scalp).

>>4435273
Just get the Sigma 23/1.4. Problem solved. Snoy always had subpar optics known to be soft.

>>4435121
i am neck deep in the fuji system and really dislike these little gimmick knobs and dials that control software parameters beyond basic exposure control. x-e is meant to be minimal so why clutter it up? if they try this bs with the xpro4 i'm out

>>4435121
So, basically, Fuji made the Pen-F.
It only took them nine years.

>>4435290
Except the fuji is larger.

>>4435287
if you use fuji and dont like those dials, you’re either a nikon person or a leica person. sorry!

>>4435110 (OP)
X-E4 chad here. Fake apsc rangefinders are fun. You tend to pick them up and actually snap some. Big plus over them ff pro bodies.

>>4435260
so you are saying this is a bad picture?

>>4435260
so are you saying this is a bad picture?

>>4435302
>orange
>blue
>underexposed
Many such cases.

Could be a fuji, could be a sony
We just cant tell without more rocks/leaves/dog fur to really stress the sensor

>>4435310
pre 2016 tourist rush trolling was an art

>>4435309
>fake grain contrasted with chunky digital fake sharpness
>honey i made the sky teal
>the black level goes down there
>lets drop the saturation on everything but this guy, make him oranger than trump
Really terrible editing

>>4435290
Holy fucking shit.
This is actually hilarious when you think about it.

>>4435313
please understand this is a company that put the cheapest, slowest, loudest autofocus motors available in medium format lenses that cost $4k and discontinued all of their actual film just as film took off again

I don't understand the appeal of these cameras

>>4435312
post a better pic than this made by apsc sensors

>>4435316
They are the same size as a sony a7c but slightly less likely to break and they turn skies green instead of skin

also the bad autofocus lets you claim you need less help when actually you take shots 20 times and delete 19 photos

>>4435310
>underexposed
you are a fucking moron

>>4435253
So you admit you're having irrational and uncontrollable emotions?

>>4435317
Have you considered for a moment how many magnum photographers use m43/1"?
That pic is just badly edited. Probably a fuji jpeg.

>>4435321
About tree fiddy?

>>4435312
i think you are color blind G
>>4435321
just post a 1 good m43 pic equivalent to to this >>4435309

>>4435134
Quite obviously. More expensive - better camera - better photos - better photographer.

>>4435110 (OP)
Some people spend more on dildos anon.
Many people will spend more on buying new phones over 4 years.
You're getting 4.5 MP of information from this trans sensor and that's about 4,500,000 pixels for just $1900, and it includes the lens.
Why are you complaining?
This is at least 50% more than a flagship phone. Phones usually only give us 3MP.

If these prices bother you perhaps consider not buying NEW luxury cameras?
There are plenty of budget options.

>>4435251
>why are you so upset?
Hes a malding nophoto snoy cuck

>>4435328
>Some people spend more on dildos
gm saaar

>>4435310
just because its dark doesnt mean its underexposed. such a bad way of looking at art

>>4435332
>art
Anon crushed blacks and sharpening halos around cables aren't art.
This is garbage.

>>4435333
post a better pic made with m4turds

>>4435334
What?
4turds can't take good photos, I'm just pointing out that that image is shit.
Looks like smartphone slop.

>>4435328
Absolute cuck take. The X-E5 isnt even a luxury camera. You fell for the marketing lmao.

>>4435341
>The X-E5 isnt even a luxury camera. You fell for the marketing lmao.
No. I understand this.
It's a tranny sensor for starters, which is why it has crippled resolution.
My point is that any "real" camera these days is basically a luxury niche product now that everyone has a phone with a usable camera for day to day snapshitting.

$1900 with a lens included is quite cheap all things considered, especially with inflation. If OP doesn't like this value he can stick with his phone or pay a little more to get something with much MUCH better specs, and without it being a mangled tranny sensor.

>>4435301
no i'm definitely a fuji guy but they are starting to test my patience. sure i'm a also nikon guy and was briefly a leica guy and can easily return to leica guydom. but fuji is doing too much in the controls department. i was actually interested in the premise of the gfx 100rf but the homely ergos they stapled onto it instead of an ovf or just letting it be simple and minimal really soured me. also i'm not a fan of the diamond knurling they are putting on every dial rather than the straight square knurling of the x-t series. it just feels like they had the winning formula and now are adding too much wacky nonsense

8NJ0Y

>>4435345
$1900? Are you destitute? $11k isn't much for a hobby purchase.

t. average height of 6'4", with an average 8" dick

>>4435370
>sticking with feica like a battered wife
>when you actually want a leica
m8s arent even expensive

>>4435328
>>4435380
>Spending tens of thousands of dollars on outdated tech.. and thats a good thing!
Good goyims!

As the resident fujifag here, this is a very disappointing release, and the pricing makes no sense
The fact they couldn't make the 23 f2.8 a better internal focusing motor either, is another disappointment
Why would they not at least put in a better EVF? Why would I get this over an X-T5 which offers more or T50 which offers similar for less or M5 which is half the cost and smaller?
Fuji should've dropped the OVF on X100 (since no one uses it apparently), then merged with X-E line and just had a smaller "rangefinder style" ILC option, and the X-Pro with OVF for better "rf style"

>>4435301
or you like fuji but aren't a beginner stuck on jpg and also already shoot nikon + leica

>>4435310
>>orange
>>blue
>>underexposed
All photos posted on the fuji subreddit. Leicafags do the same thing though.

>>4435385
>Nooo it's not the newest snoy autofocus!
That is unironically why leica is expensive. People pay a premium to get away from techno-bricks with 300 shot battery life.

Imagine DSLR faggotry, but less blob, and manual focus is actually nice.

>>4435390
https://www.reddit.com/r/leicaphotos/
holy shit they do

>>4435290
Tbh I think I'd rather a Pen-F. I find it difficult to take a crop sensor with me when I have full frame / medium format cameras, so if I'm going to shoot crop I might as well get something out of it that I otherwise can't. That being a small and stylish camera. Until that sigma comes out, we live in a world without stylish 35mm format digitals.

>>4435309
>>4435324
It's not that it's a bad picture. The subject matter could have been taken of a filp phone and it would still be an interesting subject matter. But when you are a photographer there is somewhat of an expectation that even you nail the composition, you photos should not look like phone pictures (in the past they should not have looked like point and shoot pictures). This looks like a phone picture.

>>4435309
>>4435324
It's not that it's a bad picture. The subject matter could have been taken with a filp phone and it would still be interesting. But when you are a photographer there is somewhat of an expectation that even when you nail the composition, your photos should not look like phone pictures (in the past the standard for this was that they should not have looked like point and shoot pictures). This photo looks like a phone photo.

>>4435110 (OP)
Another hint for fake apsc rangefinders is concerts. No one gives a shit if you bring them and you'll have a good time center stage.

>>4435429
Literally looks like any modern phone took this pic.

>>4435430
Except for the AI artifact mess, denoise pattern, motion blur and bad color science.

Please post a modern phone live gig pic.

>>4435412
>stylish
The fuck outta here with your fashion sensitive bullshit.

>>4435431
>bad color science
Any snoy aps-c body already has that problem tho

>>4435287
>really dislike these little gimmick knobs and dials that control software parameters beyond basic exposure control
Why did you buy a Fuji then, that's one of their selling points

>>4435443
No it isnt. Fuji's selling point has always been aperture/speed/iso dials. Not fucking scene mode dials.

>>4435414
gr8 b8

>>4435452
I mean if you have no real argument you could have just said nothing rather than drawing attention to the fact you just got trvked

>>4435381
if i get another leica it'll be m4, m6, or m10. a leica would be nice but i can have two bessas for the price of one m6 and i don't have much use for a digital rangefinder atm
>>4435389
i think ovf makes sense on the x100. i do think they are getting lost in the weeds with too many product lines. maybe they should have just merged the xtxx line with xm as the vlogger body and left xe as the cheap, compact barebones stills body.
>>4435443
this >>4435446
i'm tilted that they had the perfect chance to finally have an iso dial and squandered it on picture modes

Just buy the XT5 instead

>>4435110 (OP)
Hm. Yeah. It's a nice effort but I'm going to go pick up an R6 II on sale and use it for the next 10+ years and enjoy perfect auto focus and a back catalog of 40 years of boomer lenses.

>>4435455
you need to work more on your trolling skills

>>4435463
> enjoy perfect auto focus and a back catalog of 40 years of boomer lenses
Trust me bro (no really), it's pretty good. Slapping on old cheap lenses that hold up remarkably well is a dream. Grab the control ring version of the RF-EF adapter and you won't miss native lenses one bit.

>>4435463

>>4435466
did it take you 9 months to take a third pic of the same woman? Does your sister know you're uploading pics of her here?

>>4435472

>ITT
>Snoyfaggots BTFO that Fuji users actually go outside with their cameras instead of shooting calibration sheets and test targets

Sony can't even dream of Fuji glass elements.

>>4435474
this sort of aimless creepshot is peak fujiredditor. You can hear his mom
>Steven get in the car already
>did you take a picture of those girls without asking!?
>no moooooom the restaurant
>You better behave young man or you won’t be going to your cartoon werewolf convention in your dog costume with your a aunt pearl (formerly paul). Dont think i dont remember what i found on your camera after the beach!

>>4435486
Enough projection to open a cinema anon. But keep photographing your anime dolls and test charts.

>>4435491
thats rich from the guy creepshotting abbo women before his mom made him get in the car

Fujifags are always stuck up for the dumbest things
>AFRAID TO PHOTOGRAPH PEOPLE?
>creepshot taken from afar
>I DONT NEED AUTOFOCUS AND $2000 ISNT A LOT OF MONEY
>*filenames skip from dscf069 to dscf420 from chimping and deleting focus misses* *lives with mom*

snoyfag btfo by actually leaving the house instead of demanding more doritos and can't comprehend people actually leaving home.

SAD!

many such cases

>>4435496
Sir, you took a creepshot of some random women after your mom forced you to leave the house but before she made you get back in the car.

>The snoyfag, angry and confused that nobody has asked about his camera's burst rate, continues to project whilst still unable to actually produce a photograph

>>4435499
you are a nophoto jeet, you don't own any cameras.

>seething poorfags
many such cases on 4channel.gov/r/photography

>>4435474
This is what you cop an attitude over? You creeped a picture of tits while leaving a restaurant with your parents?

>>4435110 (OP)
why would I buy this when I can get a good quality GR I off Craigslist for $500

>>4435514
are you capable of conceptualising literally any human interaction that does not involve being out with your parents? time to grow up, anon. really.

and more to the point you still can't make any rational criticisms about the camera or lens even after two whole hours of projection

>>4435524
Don't make us call your mom.

>>4435524
>Two whole hours
I woke up 45 minutes ago. Damn kid you're really coping here.

A hazy and accidental looking creepshot of a chubby goblina getting into a prius from a "walking back to moms car" POV is not a good photo and even though you paid $2000 to make a 2mp snapshit it looks like micro four thirds. Tell your mom to drive you somewhere pretty and try taking photos on purpose.

>>4435527
>still has no technical arguments about why that image does not hold up to his snoybox
>still projecting instead of a cogent counter argument
>still too insecure to post a photo

You’ve told on yourself, anon

>>4435532
>technical arguments
It's 2mp and it still has shitty looking digital static/blurryness and jaggy blown highlights. 35mm film can do better than that digishit. Next time use a real camera instead of an asian electronic toy that "simulates" real cameras, kid.

And take a photo on purpose instead of trying to sneak creepshots of prius goblinas.

>>4435536
you are that canon fag aren't you? with that heavy ass gear
Your wedding shots are shit btw, 0 taste 0 artistic spin, just plain ol' corporate headshots with flat lighting

>>4435555
>Your wedding shots are shit btw, 0 taste 0 artistic spin, just plain ol' corporate headshots with flat lighting
Obviously NTA, but isn't that exactly what most people getting married want? Something stylish but predictable to frame on the wall? If that's what's paying the bills then what exactly do you expect?

>>4435555
>Your wedding shots are shit btw,
Who posted wedding shots? Where can I see them?

>>4435555
Buddy you think goblina getting into a prius is artistic spin and have random wedding photographers living rent free in your head

If fuji has fans like you, sony doesn't need shills

>>4435557
I've seen one of your corporate pics, shitty composition with an ass tonne of noise, a mushy ugly mess with un ugly filter on top, idk how they paid you for that shit.
>stylish
boomer don't make me laugh
>>4435558
don't bother, they are total shit although he has a 8000$ camera/lens/speedlight combo, he bought rf 24-105 f2.8 but his pics are still shit, that's why he isn't posting anything.
Tell him you slept with one of your models, he will flip the fuck out lmao
>>4435559
I'm not even that dude, but ur mad because he took a pic of goblina with in his mom prius for some reason, where are your goblina pics? or u just shoot rocks and leaves?

>>4435110 (OP)
Fuji actually read the memo and finally gives a rangefinder camera when everyone, especially Panasonic and OM, are sleeping. I'm jealous.

Why does a picture of a fuji camera generate so much rage?

>>4435567
>I'm not even that dude
Of course not, and you're not >>4435579 either?

>>4435567
was it this one?

>>4435585
nah

>>4435581
nope

>>4435567
>or u just shoot rocks and leaves?
Is that supposed to be an insult? Creepshots of ugly women are better than shooting beautiful landscapes and glorifying the creation of the Lord God and his Son Jesus Christ? I'll have you know my wife and 2 children love my landscape photography because it reminds them of how wonderful God's creation is and helps them keep Him in their hearts.

Meanwhile you think people getting angry at your sinful promiscuous behavior is a "win". Sad! If you don't repent, you'll burn in hell, you know that right? Please let Christ into your heart, beg Him for forgiveness and live a wholesome life before it is too late.

>>4435586
damn i remember someone posting this in a thread a while back and then it reverse searched back to a post the bride made complaining about them lol

>>4435567
That was a phonefag

>>4435585
Everyone knows canon RF cameras are junk with weird colors. Every pro shoots sony or nikon for work and nikon or OM system for fun.

>>4435593
kek

>>4435592
go back to trolling school, you failed

>>4435110 (OP)
I am new to this, I know a few things and I want a fully manual camera. I did some digging and I liked the x100v but apparently it wasnt even near worth of price, and after another research I found nikon zfc I dont really care about a fixated lens I want something compact and everyday use but I can work around either way.

What to do?

>>4435620
Are you primarily gonna shoot only rocks and leaves? then just use your phone.
If fimale models then buy used DSLR.
If you wanna be a hipster and shoot city hobos then buy a Ricoh griii

>>4435620
Most every camera can be controlled manually

>>4435620
Your falling for looks rather than functionality get a nikon d200 or sony alpha 100

What the fuck ;_;

>>4435637
looks matter more than anything, and experience is a close second.

>>4435620
the zfc is a janky product, the zf (and z5ii) is definitely worth the price, you can use leica M lenses with auto-manual focus where the camera runs subject detection and shoots for you whenever you get the lens in focus, use every nikon Z lens, most nikon F lenses, and every sony FE lens with native performance.

the x-e5 would be worth the price if the price ever came down but because of fuji's decision to produce in china, it's not going to. i recommend you buy the x-m5 instead, it's still easy to find for about $800 which is a fair price for a modernized camera and has the updated autofocus the x-e5 should also be getting. the only downside is you would only get stabilziation with zooms but that matters less than you think, especially when your gear is small enough to work fine with pic related

>>4435594
Rfbros not like this

>>4435650
>looks matter more than anything,
yes the look of your photographs. If you can't make a good photo you're a poser. You are mogged by a dslr blob user if you can't take a good picture

>>4435656
>t-the look of the photos
Oh that's funny I'm looking at your post history and finding a lot of sharpness doesnt matter, clinical, pixlepeep, etc talk.

The look of the camera matters more than minute photometrics because it determines if you'll even have it with you. Sorry. You lose on this one. Yes, full frame cameras are better, but only if you have them with you, so DSLRs are out unless you're an incel. Sorry.

>>4435657
>I'm looking at your post history
you are inventing fantasies in your head. You don't take good photos

I will buy an X-E5 in a year's time to replace my X-E3
I want that IBIS and higher res sensor

>>4435466
>Snoyfags think their shitty color science being as bad as canon is a win
Also canon still looks better lol

>>4435677
you don't need canon, you can shoot rocks and leaves just fine with you phone.

>>4435626
>Ricoh
I do consider getting a gr but I am still not sure
I will mostly shoot "memories" but I do almost everything with my phone so I can say I want a capable tool jack of all trades
>>4435629
I liked the way of having dials for EV or shutter speed and since I am hyper autistic I want absolute full control over everything
>>4435637
>Your falling for looks rather than functionality
I kinda do but I wouldnt regret it, like you could get a mercedes and a bimmer would give more feeling but youd enjoy driving merc more; this is all a hysterical argument honestly as >>4435650
said

>>4435650
>the x-e5 would be worth the price
true but I like the viewfinder and thats the whole reason why I dont get a ricoh

thanks for replies guys but apparently nothing can change my mind and I'll succumb into influencer hype, my consolation is that its the "bettermost" everyday carry WITH a viewfinder

also
>>4435657
>Yes, full frame cameras are better, but only if you have them with you
doesnt this argument apply to phones

>>4435758
>doesnt this argument apply to phones
If you have a $1000 phone then sure. I have a Fairphone (which was widely advertised and in relative terms is as overpriced as any big brand) and the camera is very bad.

>>4435797
>880 CHF in ebay

>>4435758
>doesnt this argument apply to phones
No, the only phones worth using are iphones and they have terrible cameras. Sure, if you buy a chinkphone you can get a 1" sensor on one of the lenses, which is almost as good as micro four thirds, but then you have an insecure android shitter that can't make full use of imessage or facetime and compromised chinese 5g radios give the CCP a 24/7 back door into your phone, which they intend to use to run a meshnet for their military hardware.

>Phones are essential communication devices
>They can even use satellite comms now
>better drain the battery dicking around with photography
>also keep it in my pocket so the constant radiation microwaves my balls and generates free radicals in my bloodstream
I keep my phone in my backpack and my camera in my pocket

I'm not at work. Your call can wait. I will not be texting you back until I sit down for a drink.

I do not and will never own a "smart" watch either.

>>4435156
>Phone cameras were the ultimate end game after all
>Boomers still carrying big outdated dedicated mirrorless equipment seething
Based.

>>4435811
>chinese shill replying to himself
even with a line chart, literally the least demanding subject for AI sharpenng, and you can already see computational photography fucking up the line thickness

"china phone betta because i turn exposa comp on sonee to negative wan" - tai nee dik chang, before cutting into a roast golden retriever, taken from a crying child to add more tasty suffering flavor and balance out wughangxiajua type qi

>>4435811
>a dead center crop of a test chart at an incredibly easy FL to nail optically versus the exact same but we made it darker to simulate the idea that it's worse than what we made
Woah. My brother in Christ that's the same tier of argument you see when Ching chongs compare 4k to full HD and they give it 30 pixels to simulate how much worse it is than what they're selling, despite not making any fucking real sense.

>>4435798
> Pay 1000 Euro for a shit phone and a shit camera all in one package.

Bros, i want to get into photography and someone is selling their Fuji XE3 for 300 € (body) with 3k photos taken..should i pull the trigger? I assume the lens will cost me another 200 so it will come down to 500 for the whole set

>>4435871
wow, a fuji for a fair price. a fair american price. in eurostan. buy it, if for nothing else, to double your money and afford a nicer camera. GO! QUICK!

>>4435657
Did you forget that you're not on Reddit? Are you fucking retarded?

>>4435757
>Mercades BMW
those cars are expected to drive well. A better analogy would be something that looks like a ferrari and costs as much but all the internals are a base model honda civic

>>4435882
and just like that, someone snatched it up before me, wtf. shouldnt have posted it here first, im a ritard.

>>4435127
I would take the fuji pill and start training my gag reflex if they would just release a camera that wasn't garbage
unfortunately that hasn't happened yet so I remain straight
I see people STILL convinced that fuji worms existed when they didn't, but they just can't accept that the trans color filter is garbage

Imagine if fuji did the trans sensor and it wasn't transgarbagesexual but transitiontogreatness and had infrared capabilities and could also work like a thermal camera at a fraction of its res by ignoring RGB
I'd never buy a snoycannot or a niCON again

>only company to devicate from bayer
>offers nothing of value and just delivers even less resolution and worse colors
It could have been so fucking cool
but they fucked up

>>4435905
What cameras do you use now?

>>4435905
fuji doesnt have creative people on staff. you need people with artistic autistic personalities to create things and have wild ideas. what fuji does and always has done is hire very conservative and calculating "experts" and talented businesspeople, and so through the power of committees, consultants, and focus groups, they create very safe generic products (often somewhat ripped off from japans best camera designers: leica, nikon, or olympus) with carefully chosen gimmicks.

xtrans was created when the brand direction committee decided the image sensor had to be nonstandard to lend credence to their film simulation claims, and the consultants and experts determined a slightly rearranged bayer pattern would be the most cost effective way to meet that demand.

at no point did a passionate, creative person wave their hands and talk about all the ways they could ACTUALLY simulate film. it was all business strategy. and it worked, because only really passionate and obsessed people (admittedly, a rarity, and a hard market to capture when you have leica and abundant classic cameras to compete with) would be able to both notice and care

when you wonder why they didnt push foveon or try superccd again or make a digitally coupled optical rangefinder with arbitrary framelines and AF integration off the main sensor its because of this. no passion goes into fujifilm cameras. none.

>>4435813
>>4435820
Gm saars!

>>4435907
Just my iphone.

>>4435913
Neat

>>4435911
>japans best
*the best camera designers
im surprised they didnt pull a bronica and rip off hasselblad for gfx
but, again, no passion. the gfx came out extra soulless and a child of pure business strategy. they dont want to excel and shake things up, they don’t push things forward. they track the market and cut costs. fuji will never, ever even try to set a new standard if they can be good enough to consistently make as much money as possible.

believe it or not this is not the best way to run a company so they lag behind risk takers who invest heavily in r&d and arent afraid to outcompete their own products

>>4435911
>>4435915
damn, after reading this i now have a "guilty" feeling for wanting a fujifilm. whats your favorite camera manufacturer and camera then?

>>4435917
sigma
sd quattro

>>4435911
Yeah that's pretty much it
>Passionate camera companies: What if we-
>Fujifilm: What if we did the minimum to remain a viable option in an oversaturated market and worked on our brand image instead? It would be cheaper.
>Passionate camera companies: Yeah but imagine-
>Fujifilm: If, according to the engineer department reports, we only need to offer the bare minimum of technological development to offer an alternative to hasselblad's products. My accountant senses are tingling!
>Passionate camera companies ie olympus, sigma, pentax, minolta: *goes out of business*

It felt like X-E4 came out last month and cost like €799
Pretty sure they discontinued it even before a single one hit the shelves because it was too good value compared to their other offerings

>>4435942
Saw the X-E4 for around $700usd equiv after cashback in my country. I shouldve just picked one up. I love this formfactor. Ofc I want IBIS, but the X-E5 RRP is a joke. RIP Fuji.

>>4435943
I have no idea why I didn't get one myself. Thought I could just wait a year or so and then buy one but it was just randomly axed right after launch.

At this point I will just keep shooting my X-T2 untill the heat death of the universe.

What happened to /fag/ anyway? Did that obsessed snoy tard get it banned? It was one of the most active generals here and despite all the butthurt it attracted actual photos were being posted.

>>4435947
all of the biggest fujifags moved on to better cameras and it merged with /rpt/

its like how /m43/ has no m43 photos, because everyone who ever used it has upgraded to full frame already. the very last active m43 photo taker upgraded to a fuji GFX.

x100v + ef-x20, sub 1k shots for 820 bucks, if i can haggle him down to 750 surely thats a good deal?

Should I consider buying one if I already own an a7c?

I'm quite happy with the jpg colour for portraits but I wish I had something with more diversity for street or landscapes like a Fuji

>>4435968
well, uh, no. it basically does the same thing with a film sim dial and worse low light. the a7c's jpegs are actually pretty good once configured if you don't insist on a vibrant nikon look and stay the fuck away from shitty sony lenses and their mushy, flat, low contrast rendering.

>>4435968
40mp apsc xtrans has the same real life resolution as 24mp ff bayer and fuji has worse af, same build quality reputation, a worse/smaller lens selection, the same grade of color rendition before preset fuckery, and here’s the plus

fake leica controls and looks

basically no reason to ditch sony but /p/ memes made for fanboys to cope with, and pretending to own a much nicer camera
have you considered a film leica and a summilux 35?

>>4435963
>buy it for 750
>sell the flash for 250 on ebay
>???
>profit
congrats, you just got yourself a top tier travel camera for 500 quids

>>4435968
Absolutely. Fuji color science mogs Snoy. Worth it for that alone.

how do you guys feel about fuji's film sims in general? I like some of them but some part of me feels as though I'm screwing myself if I want to edit them later.

>>4436004
Fanboy cope. Did sony fuck your dog or something?

>>4436008
Most of them are really bad at look more like what gen Z would describe film as than what film actually looked like. If you want a slick rangefinder and the film look pick up a minolta CLE and 40mm. Price of x100v, much better quality.

>>4436008
They're pretty good and fun to experiment with. Ignore the seething blind snoycuck.

>>4436008
>I like some of them but some part of me feels as though I'm screwing myself if I want to edit them later.
Just shoot jpg and RAW.

>>4436011
Sony outsells foolji for a reason no matter how much you lie and cope on the internet lil bro

They're just better cameras. Nicer colors, sharper raw files, better autofocus, more to work with, WAY bigger selection of soulful lenses for actual fair prices while fuji charges G master $$$$ for olympus mft quality.

>>4436013
I do, but the filters are applied to raws too. maybe this isn't a problem tho

>>4436019
Film sims do not apply to raws
If you open a raw file in a supported program it can apply it's version of a film sim as a profile, but you can always change it, as you should be if you are shooting raw

>>4436032
oh sweet. I guess that makes sense. I was confused because the previews on my x-t5 have the profile applied so I assumed they edited the raws directly somehow but I see now it's just stored as metadata.

>>4435889
I mean between a w206 and g20, I wouldnt expect driving feel from merc but its a great car and I enjoy dailying it overall with all the tech, a g20 however gives a lot more feeling but I dont deem it as practical, the its quite more aggressive and zf is more performance oriented

>>4435947
i was posting about a third to a half of the photos in /fag/ for like the last several iterations. and on the last one, it was me and maybe one other posting photos. i mostly switched to film and digital leica for street photography which was the bulk of my shareable pictures. nowadays i still use film for street more often than digital and most of my fuji pics are for gigs or friends/family which i will not be posting. half of the good posters are still around and post threads or in rpt occasionally. the other half probably left for some different social media platforms.

>>4435985
Yea I actually love the a7c JPGs for portraits

It's just shooting things street the Sony presets always look a little boring, so I end up using black and white more unless it's golden hour

>>4436072
look anon my point is the camera is not good. It just looks good. If you want to spend that much on it fine but your getting something that performs worse for the same money

>>4435907
Z8 and used to use cannot aps-c

>>4436042
Yeah the only Fuji setting that bakes into RAW is he DR100-400

>>4436077
Just fuck up a picture profile with a raised black level and fucky colors (lots of teal and orange, blue and red, desaturate the rest) and slap fake grain on in post same thing

>>4436162
Maybe one day you'll learn how to edit and then you don't have to worry about that stuff

>>4436162
it looks the same

>>4436194
you just trolled yourself and now your gonna get trolled again

having to edit is a sign of a bad camera.

>>4436195
And not being able to edit is the sign of a bad photographer

>>4436162
Sick 350 pixel wide example photos bro.
Also, classic "the woman looks happier when using the camera we're paying her to talk up" approach.
>>4436194
You can't edit out snoygron. It's like a fungusy metadata that you'll never remove. The grubby green glow.
>>4436195
>having to edit is a sign of a bad camera.
That's an actually retarded take.

>>4436195
>he doesn’t understand that metaphysically it is impossible to capture reality without any form of “editing”
May as well just end it in mincedraft at this point kiddo if editing chaps you so bad

>>4436197
Then how come people here couldn't see Sony with edited photos?

>be sony shooter
>have to manually adjust every photo you take because it cant capture colors correctly
>somehow convince yourself this is a good thing

>>4436219
the world is actually greenish
you're just color blind

>Sony colors are bad
>That's why they're #1 in marekt share for FF cameras only, and canon doesn't get their cherished #1 spot without APS-C and smaller (NOTE: sony's cheapest good camera is the $1300 a6700 and is mail order only for anyone without a dedicated camera store, canon sells decent sub-$800 kit at walmart)
>That's why they outsell nikon by a factor of three
>That's why they outsell fuji by a factor of five
>That's why they outsell panasonic by a factor ten
>They're totally bad
Sony makes the best cameras on the market. Sorry, but this is the truth.

Anyone saying otherwise is just mad that sony is literally murdering their favorite brand. Olympus and pentax already went out of business due to Sony mogging them too hard. Panasonic is next. Fuji is hanging on for dear life, and Nikon is constantly courting bankruptcy.

>>4436219
>never learn to edit and always rely on sooc jpg
>thinking this is a good thing
you're a button presser, not a photographer

>>4436162
nice try

>>4436222
This board hates sony because it's too popular

>>4436314
Same for Fuji

>>4436315
Fuji is kind of bad. The x100vi takes very blurry photos, their autofocus is still lagging behind sony, and their prices are not getting better.

>>4436300
i, too, can go into the camera's white balance settings and add a green tint

>>4435912
I'm Australian, cunt. Yes the white kind.

>>4436316
skill issue

>>4436332
Anyone can use a shitty camera, but it takes a certain kind of cope to pay $2000 for one. Like dude, I would just set that money aside for shooting real film instead of "simulating" it by using a wormy digital camera with a blurry lens and built i vsco presets. Also, the manual focus experience on film cameras helps me be way more accurate than I would be with janky fujifilm autofocus that just totally fucks up half the time.

>>4436340
lmao these grapes taste fucking great and you'll never know

>>4436341
>it's premium shit. can't afford it huh?

>>4436332
Normally I'd agree but it's just not a good sensor

>>4436348
>om3
>m4shits
>2000$
as soon i saw that x400 crop instantly knew some faggot tried to sneak an micro4fags in that chart lol

>>4436391
It's a direct competitor to the fuji. There's also a Nikon FF in there that costs less. You people really foam at the mouth and are incapable of understanding reason when you see olympus don't you

>>4436392
that little bit of sharpness at x400 crop is irrelevant once you upload your snaps to Instagram

>>4436222
Imagine typing this out and posting this unironically

>>4436348
sensor is fine, that's just a bad example

>>4435473
Anon has been uploading pics of this woman for years now. Nobody knows what’s wrong with him. Anyone with this level of autism obviously doesn’t have a gf. Therefore it must be his sister.

>>4436447
>projecting this hard

>>4435156
In fairness, this phone has a 35mm lens instead of the pleb 28mm. I would be tempted if it wasn't Android and Chinese.

>>4436421
>controlled test that has been used on dozens of cameras is actually secretly wrong.
Sorry anon the sensor is shit

>>4436402
>just spend $2300 on a camera that's bad instead of one that's good

>>4436535
>adobe LR defaults work just fine for xtrans

>>4436569
>no we didn’t make the phone with a flaw you’re just holding it wrong

>>4436537
excuse me mr. troon faggot you are comparing om3 with 1200$ lens with a fixed lens x100v, it's not exactly apples to apples.

>>4436584
>om3
Literally same camera as the $5000 em5iii
>with a $1200 lens
Doesn't matter, m43 normal photography performance peaks with a $250 lens, a $1200 lens just makes pixel shift look almost as good as a single shot from full frame

>>4436461
No phone has a 28mm or a 35mm. They're like 6mm or 10mm with smaller sensors and these are the equivalents. They just write blatant lies in the metadata of the files

>>4436590
People also don't have green colored skin

>>4436589
lens does matter, a macro lens mounted on a potato shooting a chart in a studio will always produce a sharper image, even with your 250$ lens a m4/3 camera makes ugly pictures, go to Flickr and look at them, every pic is an ugly oversharpened iPhone tier snap, no feel, no vibe, just a picture.jpg, that's it.

Compare m4/3's pics with Sean Fryxell and Guille Lbanes, look how their Fujis produce art.

Yes if you are a rocks and leaves kind of guy i understand the logic behind buying m4/3, you don't shoot people with m4/3 m8

>>4436610
>fujis produce art
street photography isnt art

it's memes, usually stillborn.

>>4435251
Can't justify to his wife spending the money.

Artists create art
No tool will accomplish that for you

I like my X-T2 and my f2 primes, but I don't care for Fuji as a 'system.'

>>4435110 (OP)
rather, this is getting in hand, if you know what i'm saying

>>4436348
>people will say the bottom right is just a glitch
>but when every photo from cameras that do this on the dpreview test do it in real shots, it's not a glitch
>they are just in denial
Honestly it's very very bad. Very bad.
So bad, it's very bad. Like very bad. Much so.
You have to realize that cameras don't even capture color. When you see color, it's post-processed. The fact that all the other cameras capture data that can be post-processed well enough to give okay looking colors but these types can't is a very telling sign that SOMETHING IS FUCKED at the sensor level.
This is a common thing for 4turds cameras and a bunch of newer budget CMOS sensors.

DP Review's studio comparison always has the color checker in the scene and anyone can download the RAWs for themselves and use that on the RAW capture to try and fix the colors.
When you try correcting colors with sensors that do this shit, you'll see the deltas are way into the crazy territory (sometimes even fucking 8+, when ~1 is "ideal" and ~3 is "good").

Not all 4turds suffer from this greenwashing.
Most cameras overall haven't.
It's kind of a new phenomenon, and typically affects newer high megapixel sensors because they don't separate colors well enough either from weak filters or just too high of a noise floor compared to older equipment.

Even Fuji's bayer GFX 100 is objectively bad at color separation. With good exposure it gives a clean enough image to be corrected, but it's actual RAW unprofiled uncorrected bayer capture is basically as colorblind as 4turds shit.
BUYER BEWARE
If you don't like green tints, you should see if there are any signs of one showing up for the camera on DPreview. It's not fool proof, but it does expose the obviously bad offenders quite well.

>>4435917
Not him.
If you were aiming for a x100VI or something similar, get a Ricoh GR instead.
Pocket sized, much cheaper, has customizable film simulations, sharper lens, magnesium body, ND filter, IBIS, APSC sensor, doesn't alert people.
The focus is slow but you can learn to use the snap focus to make up for that. Video is dogshit.

>>4435113
narrator: he regretted it

>>4444189
>If you were aiming for a x100VI or something similar, get a Ricoh GR instead
nta but i use the ovf

>>4435110 (OP)
buy used or stop being poor

>>4444710
>a low quality, poorly made product is overpriced
>"stop being poor"
Poorly made, low quality shit like fujifilm cameras are meant to be cheaper, not more expensive. Its late stage capitalist hubris. And thinking people should work harder to buy worse products is pure capitalist hubris. No wonder zoomers are voting for communist iranians.

>>4444559
tthe x100 series viewfinder is actually really cool imo its the one thing i miss from thatt camera. really liked the hybrid display over the OVF, and being able to pop a tiny preview LCD up if needed, or when confirming focus. shame it's paired with a turd of a body. yes, i have tried three different times and it never sticks. "make the newer model better" is apparently something that doesn't exist in salaryman boardrooms because aside from adding more bing bing wahoo whistles, the autofocus was bad and the lens seemed like itt was smeared in vaseline, on the og, the T, and the V. haven't tried the VI but three strikes and all that.

>>4444189
I switched from Fuji to Ricoh and can confirm all of these. It also outputs regular DNGs that plays nicely with any software or app, and the mobile transfer app actually works seamlessly unlike Fuji. The battery life is bad though and the JPG engine is mediocre, but I shoot raw only anyway.

>>4444734
i use the x-pro with a manual lens with zone focusing and the ovf simply makes a nice frameline

>>4444813
is it possible to use the ricoh without any of the lcd screens turning on? to save battery, in case you have an optical finder mounted on top

>>4445166
Probably, it has a highlight metering mode so you could ensure you never lose the highlights, and there are two snap focus settings, one of which I believe is depth of field priority. I wouldn’t trust the AF without the LCD though. It’s fine most of the time but eeeevery once in awhile it’ll just completely whiff if you aren’t paying attention.

Just buy some Wasabi batteries though, for $20 you get two spare batteries and a dual usb charger hub thing. I carry my camera with two spare batteries, usb charger, mega power bank and usb cables in a small fanny pack. The whole bag weighs less than a x100v or x-t4.

The battery life isn’t great but you can still get probably 200-300 shots off a battery.

>>4445174
There is also an infinity focus mode, so you could just use that.

>>4445166
reading manuals helps, people.

>>4445166
Yes, simply by pressing the DISP button multiple times. With the screen disabled, the screen can still turn on for the instant image review if one wishes.

The battery issue is way overstated in my opinion though.
I went an entire day, shooting over 400 images, using up 1 charge and one third of the second battery, with the screen turned to max brightness due to the good weather.

>>4445179
>>4445180
>Yes, simply by pressing the DISP button multiple times. With the screen disabled, the screen can still turn on for the instant image review if one wishes.
does the setting persist when powering the camera off/on?

>>4445192
yeah.

>>4445180
Mirrorless battery life is basically the rated screen time because CIPA's tests operate the camera often enough to prevent sleep mode, and menu usage and image review seem to suck more power than live view on basically everything.

If you allow a camera to enter sleep mode or turn it off when its not being used and never chimp/menu dive, even a mirrorless with shit battery life like the nikon zf or sony a7cii is good for over 1000 shots

>>4445195
sick. i guess its this, or a fuji x100* with uhhh the giant wide angle adapter screwed onto it

>>4445371
why did ricoh removed the fill flash?

>>4445374
yes because they want the fuji x100 series to be better in as many ways as possible

holy fucking shit the wide angle adapter is huge. may as well buy an x-pro with an 18mm instead

>>4445384
small compact camera becomes the most gigantic 28mm equivalent setup available

I'm new to /p/ but not 4chan and lmfao the fact that there are nerds out there fighting over sony vs fuji is so funny, its just like /v/ but with photos. Fuji is obviously better btw

>>4445397
>Fuji is obviously better btw

>>4445179

>>4445374
IBIS

>>4436340
>>4436343
Based.
>>4436341
You're defending a fucking Fuji, slug. Inferior ewaste for a price that can get you high quality stuff instead. Performance isn't why someone buys a Fuji, pretending to have a Leica without ponying up the money is why.

>>4445412
>skin tones will look healthy
Oh no no no sonysisters, our response?

>>4445371
Get the Ricoh.
The GRIII is 28mm. FF equivalent from the get go and has both a wide and tele conversion lens. Same goes for the GRIIIx.
I will maybe get the Tele lens for my 3X to have 75mm. FF equivalent.

>>4445410
Nice try Prajesh. Fuji colors mog Sony. Always have.

>>4435110 (OP)
>This is getting out of hand.
Looks like it, on account of the lack of grip on this body LMFAO

>>4445620
>Lets make our already bigger than average compact travel camera even bigger!
Retard

>>4445623
>prioritizing insignificant increases in volume over essential ergonomics

>>4445629
>essential ergonomics
Much like ramps are "objectively easier than stairs", the relevance of ergonomic faggotry depends on how weak/disabled you are, or if you're doing hard labor like a cuck

>>4445632
I can spot your nose from here

>>4445634
Don't you have 8 hours of standing around at someone elses wedding and holding a 24-70 and 70-200 to commence or smth

>>4445639
Lenses aren't the kind of glass I hold at weddings, Chaim.

>>4444326
Well, I'll find out at the end of August (if they ship on time.) Let ya know.

>>4445629
>giant grip on a body thats not supposed to be gripped like that
Yeah, you're retarded

>>4445700
>there are rules to gripping a camera body

Whats next, rules to gripping womens bodies? Sheesh

>>4445779
>>there are rules to gripping a camera body
Kinda, yeah. If the camera has the shutter button on the top of the body like a rangefinder style, you dont need a big grip.
You only need a big grip if the shutter button is sticking out in front, like a DSLR style body, and the grip also helps with bigger lenses that a larger than the body. The fixed lens x100 body has neither. Whats the point of adding a bigger grip when the body is already oversized?
>>4445796
Yes? You wouldn't hold a woman like you hold your tranny men.

>>4445779
I'm gonna grip your body