xe3 amazing little camera

Requin said:
My concern is colour reproduction compared to DSLR cameras like Canon or Nikon with a 24 MP sensor.
Click to expand...

One of FUJIFILM's business groups develops and manufactures color-filter array film materials (link). I assume they use the highest quality materials in their cameras and fully leverage their technical expertise to optimize in-camera JPEG color rendering algorithms.

This could be why in-camera JPEG color rendering is perceived as one of FUJIFILM's strengths. Comparison with other brands is highly subjective. I don't use in-camera JPEGs, so I can't say anything else.

The potential for raw-file color rendering is high. I find the raw files to be flexible. Specifics depend highly on the software platform use to render the images. While I happen to be pleased with the 24 MP, Trans-III's raw-file color rendering. However, my post-production color rendering workflow and parameter choices are very different than I used with Nikon.
 
Dogman said:
Actually it's the EVF of the X100 and XPro that are redundant for me. I never use it.

I've grown to like EVF in other Fuji models for some purposes but the OVFs of the X100 and XPro models is the reason I own and use those cameras.

Why buy a camera with an OVF when you want an EVF? There are Fujis with EVFs that have the same image quality and almost the same handling characteristics.
Click to expand...

"Why buy a camera with an OVF when you want an EVF?" That's an excellent question. Personally - it's because I didn't know. Having shot with rangefinders for years and had never used a (modern) EVF before, I went without hesitation for the cameras that have the OVF, and found instead the EVF do work well after all.

The same question applies to the maker. Why MAKE the camera that have BOTH if you only want one, so we end up with redundant features like the EVF (in your case) or the OVF (in my case)? Like I said before, I'd happily buy a X100 with only the EVF (and had bought the Q, the closest thing); I'd also buy maybe two copies if they'd ever make a X100 with only the OVF. Knowing it's not gonna happen any time sooner, I ended up with some M and a Hexar - no complain on those whatsoever.

I wish (vainly, I know) as the X100 and X-Pro cameras carry the defining character of the X series, they could come with more characteristics, be more eccentric, and focused. Like how the Nikon Df should have been - a real digital FM, not just the styling. Not the hybrid something (hats off to their effort though) that couldn't decide which way it should go. I mean Fuji already have the do-it-all X-T for the working pros right?
 
Ok, I’ve done a 180 on this camera. I think I will sell my X-T2 and get one. All in with RF shaped bodies.
 
^on the fence of jumping back to Fuji again, especially the X-E3.
have a XC 16-50 II on its way and Joe's X-E1.

Debating on selling my Loxia 21mm to fund a X-E3 and maybe a XF 23mm for my digital need, will be keeping the A7 for my FF need with my legacy lenses.
 
X-e3

X-e3

I had a chance to handle one in the store a couple weeks back, with the grip. I was thoroughly impressed with it in hand.
 
tbhv55 said:
Interesting... care to explain why? Is it only the RF shape, or is there something more to it than that?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, nothing more than emotional feelings really. I prefer the X-Pro2 and X100F to the X-T2 ... the 3 cameras I currently use. I'd like a small ICL body, so that leaves me with the X-T20 or X-E3. The X-T20 just feels like a smaller X-T2 and I kind of fell in love with the simplicity of the X-E3 back. I just prefer my cameras to be shaped like a bar of soap... I hate grips. The X-H1 is the wrong direction for me... its release made me realize what I want from Fuji even more.
 
I have a question for those who have the X-E3 as well as the XT models--X-T1 and/or X-T2. Please advise on the size of the image and brightness and sharpness of the image in the EVF of the X-E3 in comparison. Has the EVF improved over the previous cameras in the XE series?

I was never very hot on EVFs until I bought an X-T1. The size, the sharpness, the brightness and the overall look of things through it sold me on EVF utility. I have an X-E2S that I keep as a backup for my main X-Pro1 cameras. I don't use the X-E2S much because the EVF is nowhere nearly as bright and sharp as that in the X-T1 and I prefer the X-T1 for that reason.
 
jsrockit said:
Hmmm, nothing more than emotional feelings really. I prefer the X-Pro2 and X100F to the X-T2 ... the 3 cameras I currently use. I'd like a small ICL body, so that leaves me with the X-T20 or X-E3. The X-T20 just feels like a smaller X-T2 and I kind of fell in love with the simplicity of the X-E3 back. I just prefer my cameras to be shaped like a bar of soap... I hate grips. The X-H1 is the wrong direction for me... its release made me realize what I want from Fuji even more.
Click to expand...

Thanks - I agree. I'm finding that the "simplicity" thing is playing an increasing role in my approach.

However, it seems that many (most?) manufacturers are stuck on the track of more-and-more features. I presume that they see it as the best - perhaps, only - way to grab their share of the market. :(
 
Dogman said:
I have a question for those who have the X-E3 as well as the XT models--X-T1 and/or X-T2. Please advise on the size of the image and brightness and sharpness of the image in the EVF of the X-E3 in comparison. Has the EVF improved over the previous cameras in the XE series?

I was never very hot on EVFs until I bought an X-T1. The size, the sharpness, the brightness and the overall look of things through it sold me on EVF utility. I have an X-E2S that I keep as a backup for my main X-Pro1 cameras. I don't use the X-E2S much because the EVF is nowhere nearly as bright and sharp as that in the X-T1 and I prefer the X-T1 for that reason.
Click to expand...

I'm curious to hear feedback on this topic as well.

The Xt1/2 has that higher VF magnification which really can't be beat if that's what one is looking for.
If only XE3 had it as well !
 
tbhv55 said:
However, it seems that many (most?) manufacturers are stuck on the track of more-and-more features. I presume that they see it as the best - perhaps, only - way to grab their share of the market. :(
Click to expand...

Yeah, there is a huge segment of the market who want pure specs even if they do not use them... if they don't have them, they feel that the purchase is inadequate. Go to a forum like dpreview and its full of people upset that a particular camera doesn't have a particular little feature. Also, they compare every camera to the perceived king of the mountain (which changes every time a new high end camera is released)...it is tiring. As if photography couldn't have been done with equipment from 5 years ago, now people NEED 42mp and F1.2 lenses that are SHARP. :bang:

The other side of the coin is those that are upset that last years model is no longer the king of cameras and has depreciated by half. Makes you wonder if they use the camera...or just talk about it.
 
jsrockit said:
Yeah, there is a huge segment of the market who want pure specs even if they do not use them... if they don't have them, they feel that the purchase is inadequate. Go to a forum like dpreview and its full of people upset that a particular camera doesn't have a particular little feature. Also, they compare every camera to the perceived king of the mountain (which changes every time a new high end camera is released)...it is tiring. As if photography couldn't have been done with equipment from 5 years ago, now people NEED 42mp and F1.2 lenses that are SHARP. :bang:
Click to expand...

I completely agree... and "tiring" is a good word to describe dpreview. I'd had enough of it, a long time ago, and I'd almost forgotten that it exists. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom