That speaks to the decreasing usefulness of most reviewers in a technologically solved category of consumer product. Fine if you really want to see the invisible micro distinctions in autofocus performance of different flagship cameras, absolute balls if you want to know what people are going to enjoy and buy. It’s like people who said the iPod was just another MP3 player or the iPad was just a big iPhone.
5 Likes
They have to start doing their reviews differently. The current crop mostly made their name during the spec wars and are slow or incapable to adapt. It becomes more like a movie review, and deeper photography knowledge is required, when other more intangible things become the core of the review
2 Likes
It’s quite a leap to make. I think some do try to bridge the gap and think about the market for the camera, tbf. I also wonder if the buyers are watching these kinds of videos at all or just influencers doing more “wow-wee” marketing.
Both things are true, cameras are tools, and they are toys. They need to function well, and be fun. A professional photographer might lean more on the tool aspect, while a hobbyist (like myself) might focus more on the fun instead.
For a good number of years, the technical advances and differences between cameras were so big that the “better tool” narrative clearly dominated. But now that all brands have caught up to an astounding level of proficiency, the technical differences fade in importance.
Let’s be frank, all current cameras can now capture images of such amazing resolution that they can be printed or viewed at any size. Autofocus nails almost all shots. Even manual prime lenses are stabilized better than the ground we’re standing on . Sensors accurately capture light down to a handful of photons . Sensor differences can no longer be discerned from the finished images. Image capture is a solved problem, and very close to the theoretical optimum.
With that settled, we can instead focus on the toy aspects. How do the cameras feel in your hand? Do they look good? Do they make you look good? Are they quick to operate? Are they fun to operate?
I’m sure there are still bats-in-flight photographers for whom every pixel and microsecond counts. But for the vast majority of us, cameras now just work. We can now choose them based on much more human criteria instead. I think that’s a very very good thing. I want more fun things in my life.
9 Likes
It’s amazing how often headline writers appear to have not even read the article they are adding a headline to. This isn’t just a problem for photography.
I will say that, from a technical standpoint, the X-T30 III and other recent Fuji X-mount cameras are doing something stupid by dumping the drive dial in favor of a film sim dial.
Why?
To be clear, I’m criticizing the film sim dial, not the film sims themselves.
Dials are a scarce commodity, especially on a camera with a small body.
In the case of the X-T30 III, there are 20 film sims built in. The dial has 10 positions, six of which are hard-coded; three of the remaining positions can be assigned to other sims from the list, or to custom recipes. The final position is for a custom recipe accessed in a different way.
Fuji has also been known to introduce additional film sims to existing cameras via firmware updates.
So:
- If you shoot raw, all you are getting is an integer that identifies what film sim was used. It’s up to your editor of choice to implement an approximation of that film sim (if your editor of choice decides to do that).
- If you prefer more than 3-4 of the film sims that are not hard-coded on the dial, you’re kinda screwed.
It would have made much more sense (technically) to expose film sim choices via a menu item and a command dial. The list could grow as film sims get added. The list could be re-ordered to make the preferred choices easy to get to.
But it seems that it’s marketing genius. There must be a ton of people out there who want something better than their camera’s phone, shoot JPEG, don’t want to be bothered with editing their photos, and are willing to drop over a grand to have that.
LOL yeah, what do we know?
3 Likes
The film sims seem to be very popular, so i don’t think its a mistake. I don’t think people using the X-T30 are changing the drive mode all that often. I think that dial is a waste, actually.
The quick menu is boss. Press Q, and a few thumb wheels later, you change what you want. I’ve been liking it a lot on the GFX, my most changed menu settings area all in there now.
3 Likes
Yeah, when we change the drive, we often keep it for a good while, so it makes no sense to have it in an easily accessible button. IMO the most valuable thing to put in there is probably metering
Mine is set to single on all my cameras and has never changed 
1 Like
I use the drive mode dial on my X-T5 to change from single to burst mode occasionally. When the need arises, it often happens fast, so the direct dial is convenient.
There’s never a time critical need to change film sims urgently. So I’ll happily live without that. But we’re in a raw development forum. Of course we see things this way.
For what it’s worth, the X-Half would make a great camera for my kid. On the other hand, “her” X-M5 at least allows me to fix her mistakes in raw development.
2 Likes
Absolutely!
Nice demonstration of headline writer’s syndrome! By omitting
you changed what I said from a technical argument to a general argument. Later in the post, I actually agreed with you from a marketing point of view.
Well played!
I use single, low and high speed bursts, and both bracketing settings in various circumstances. But it’s not usually a matter of having to do so urgently, and you’re right that a drive setting change will be used for a while. Having something under the Q menu or the My menu would be fine. What I really wish was on a dial is ISO.
These days they tend to be SEO-driven. The editor literally keeps running variations through an application until they get a smiley face.
2 Likes
Ah yes… I commented without looking at the camera 
Was thinking of my X-T3
1 Like
Like the X-T5? I thought I really wanted that but it turns out I use Auto-ISO almost all the time, so it pretty much stays in the Automatic position.
With my X-S10, I did program the left-hand dial to be ISO because the default was the film sims, which I rarely changed.
1 Like
I have been thinking about my travel setup. When I go light, I like to have a 24–120mm (equivalent) for daylight photos, does not need very wide aperture, so anything narrower than f/4 is fine, which I complement with a wider aperture prime for dawn/dusk/night photos.
What’s the smallest/lightest way to have this? On micro 4/3, the Panasonic 12-60mm f/2.8–5 is 320g, 86mm long, it is an excellent lens. On X-mount, the famous Fujifilm XF 16–80 f/4 is 440g, 89mm long.
Do other mounts have this focal range? On Sony I can only find the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8, which is getting a bit large/heavy. On Nikon/Canon I could not find this kind of lens for their crop sensor lines. Of course Nikon has the FF 24–120mm, which is a 630g beast.
1 Like
I have gone through exactly the same questions as you!
My main everyday lens for the last 5 years or so has been the 16-80mm F4 Fuji, and it’s such a great focal range. The F4 is fine most of the time during the day, so that has never really held me back. If anything, I sometimes just wished for longer reach, but then you’re into superzoom territory, and image quality and/or weight then becomes a compromise. And already I find the weight just a bit too much for my everyday/travel. That sounds crazy when it’s 440g, but paired with my X-T5, I definitely could feel it bothering my shoulder after a few hours.
So, when I was looking at M4/3, I hoped to find the same focal range but in a lighter package. As you point out, the only lens that really fits is the Panasonic 12-60mm. It’s definitely one that I’m considering. However, it surprised me that there weren’t more choices, and I have also been forced to consider either shortening the focal range, such as the 12-45 F4, to save weight; or increasing the focal range but then not getting any weight savings (e.g. 12-100 F4). For now, I have the 14-150 superzoom, which is light and has incredible focal range, but it’s what I call a “snapshot” lens because it’s lacking a bit in the quality and rendering department.
And because I’m still eventually going to have a “non-travel kit” for more serious, planned shoots, I’m also looking at larger formats to see what they offer. From what I’ve found so far, it’s hard to find that 24-120mm focal range with other brands. Perhaps the thinking is that it’s better to have a narrower focal range to minimize size/weight and maximize image quality.
I’m still pondering whether it’s best to have a 1-lens solution or whether to make my peace with 2 lenses to cover the focal range I want. The obvious issue of course is that carrying 2 lighter lenses usually puts you over the weight of that 1 heavier lens!
Maybe one day I’ll have a 65MP beast, which I can then use in crop mode with a smaller lens to gain that additional reach without increasing the weight.
2 Likes
What do you mean by f/4? Are you actually talking about that aperture specifically, or a given amount of light captured, or a given depth of field? If it’s the second two, you’ll have to convert along with the crop factor.
When you have all the kit, you’ll want to carry all the kit. This is a problem I have.
4 Likes
It’s a fair point, and I’ve actually thought about that, i.e. will I just have a favourite and always want to use it?
I currently have an X-T5 and OM-5. The former is a more high-end camera, and I have better lenses for it. But I’m only taking out the OM-5 at the moment, simply because it’s newer and I’m enjoying getting to know it. The question is what I’ll do when the novelty has worn off.
My current thinking is that APS-C is the ideal compromise system: it sits in the middle in terms of image quality and size/weight. The trouble is that it isn’t the best in either department, and that means I’m always a little dissatisfied (relatively speaking because I’m a hobbyist, and I enjoy it regardless).
So, I’m seeing the value in more of a min/max solution, where I maximize image quality with one kit and minimize size/weight for my other. For travel and everyday walks, I’d just use the smaller kit. But when I really want to concentrate on my photography and aim for portfolio images, I want the best I can afford. This may turn out to be full frame or even medium format, but it’s a question for the future and what my future budget will look like. (I wouldn’t rule out staying with smaller formats of course, because I don’t think you compromise much on image quality anyway).
So, if I stay with this plan, and let’s say I have a GFX and an OM-5 one day, for example, will I just want to take the GFX out as often as I can? Probably, at first when it’s shiny and new, but I can definitely envisage days where I don’t want to lug the heft around and I’ll be happy to just take out the OM-5, especially when travelling, which I have to do quite regularly.
Can you tell I’m bored at work?
4 Likes
Optimization is good, and its fun to think about and plan out. At the end of the day, when the newness and novelty has gone, you’ll come to the conclusion that your portfolio images come from the moment and the intent, and not so much the hardware.
I have images that I love from every camera I’ve ever owned. Sure each camera has a look and some character of its own, but that is secondary to the moment itself and how you capture it.
In the last three or so years, my most used camera is the GR. I have wonderful photos from it. But it goes everywhere 
5 Likes