View Single Post

Old 02-04-2018   #13
Registered User
willie_901's Avatar
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,362
Originally Posted by Igor.Burshteyn View Post
"So I am choosing between X-T1 with 23mm f2, X-Pro1 with 23mm f2 or X100T. I know differences by specs, I am more intersected in your opinion and advise on ergonomics and speed."
I owned a X-T1 and now own the X-Pro 2 and X00T. I use the X-Pro 2 for planned projects with the 14, 18, 23/2, 27, and 35/2 XF lenses. I use the X100T as my daily carry. I always use raw files.
  • The X-Pro 2 is the quickest.
  • The X-Pro 2 uses has a dual conversion-gain sensor. The analog dynamic range and low-light signal-to-noise ratio is better than with the X-T1 or X100T. The X-Pro 2 raw files are more versatile.
  • I prefer the rendering of the X-Pro 2 sensor. I don't use JPEGS, so I can't comment on those differences.
  • The X-T1 is easier to learn because there is only one finder system to master, the EVF
  • The OVF lets you use the X-Pro 2 and the X100T as you would use an analog, optical RF. The electronic rangefinder implementation of the X-Pro 2 is a bit better than the X100T's.
  • The X-T1's articulating LCD screen makes it possible to use it as one would use a waist-level finder film camera. This can be very useful for tripod work. The LCD mechanism is robust.
  • In my experience AF performance is best for the X-Pro 2; next best for the X100T.
  • With the newest Fujinon XF lenses, fly-by-wire MF with the X-Pro 2 using the lens barrel ring is fast, smooth and practical. The X100T is almost as good and X-T1 is least enjoyable.
  • The X-Pro 2 changes the focus region using a short joy stick. This is quicker than the four-pad method of the other two cameras
  • The X100T is much lighter. But the controls are more cramped.
  • I prefer the X-Pro 2 ergonomics over the X-T1's.
  • The X-Pro 2 menu system is easier to navigate and more customizable than the other two cameras'.
The 23mm lenses are quite different. Overall, I prefer The XF 23/2 rendering. However the X100T lens is also very good. The X100T (and S I think) have less inherent flare artifacts than the original X100 lens. The X100T lens is similar to having two lenses. Below f 4 the rendering is a bit different compared to narrower apertures. The X100T lens was not designed/intended for close up work at f 4 and below. I find the XF 23/2 to be an excellent close up lens. The X100's micro-lens array uses different lenses as from the center to the frame edge. This means same amount of light reaches the all the photo-diode detectors. Automatic post-production corrections are not required (although there is a lens correction set in LR).

Some of these differences depend directly on the CPU speed differences and these are more subtle than others.

I used the X-T1 for interior photography gigs and was very pleased.

Now I use the X-Pro 2 for personal projects as I used my Zeiss Ikon M and Canonet G-III 17. I very much enjoy using the OVF.
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
  Reply With Quote