No you would not be crazy, you’d be smart. As a pro shooting for magazines I changed from FF Nikon to the Fuji X series and never regretted it. The XT-2 with the smaller f/2 primes will perform beautifully in low light, and they are weather sealed. Even ISO 6400 images will be very usable in most cases. While I own almost all of the Fuji lenses, I highly recommend the 55-200 for traveling in addition to your primes. It’s relatively small and light and surprisingly sharp for its price. I print and sell 17x25” fine art images of my travel assignments and never feel that my Fuji X series is a compromise. In fact I find it much more enjoyable to use than my Nikon gear. (Although my Nikon gear delivered excellent results.) Anyone who compares today’s mirrorless cameras to cell phones doesn’t have a clue of how far the industry has come in recent years. Check out Dan Bailey’s book, “Fujifilm’s X Series Unlimited” for further proof.
My first DSLR was a Fuji s3 pro which was basically Fuji guts with a Nikon f mount. I’ve always been a fan of both Nikon and Fuji because of it. I have a Nikon D810 but I also acquired a Fujifilm XT10 used. I shoot the d810 most of the time but on a long hike the xt10 is more than adequate the x mount lenses are wonderful.
Ched49 wrote:
Ha, ha, that was a good one! thanks for posting this juvenile comment. Let's try to be serious for a minute, a professional photographer who's been in the business for a number of years, isn't going to sell his/her DSLR equipment all of a sudden so they can buy mirrorles. Most high-end mirrorless cameras can keep up with DSLR's in the photo quality dept. It's not a matter of getting anybody "riled up." It's a matter of knowing the different types of cameras out there and what they can do.
Ha, ha, that was a good one! thanks for posting th... (
show quote)
Are there any situations that a mirrorless camera would be better than a DSLR?
Hal81 wrote:
I think mirrorless cameras were invented for those who were used to taken photos with their phones. I never see real pros using them.
You’re not looking in the right places!
And you will have a lot fun with the XT2
traderjohn wrote:
Are there any situations that a mirrorless camera would be better than a DSLR?
Hundreds! But to understand why,
A) You need to have used SLRs and dSLRs for a long time.
B) You need to do some research into the mirrorless gear from Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony, to understand the unique advantages of each.
Mirrorless isn’t for everyone. It’s not a panacea, but neither is any camera type or brand.
Here’s a sample. For others, search “Burkphoto mirrorless camera” and read what I don’t have time to rewrite here.
A mirrorless is perfect for working silently and inconspicuously. A dSLR used in a dark, crowded theater is loud and/or bright. A mirrorless has BOTH an electronic shutter AND an electronic viewfinder, so no one knows I’m there. It’s perfect for a wedding ceremony, for the same reasons.
I have seen professional photographers using Sony FF mirrorless cameras
I am not familiar with Fuji mirrorless cameras since I use the Olympus system. Confronted with low light situations we all know that a fast lens and raising the ISO is standard. Exposing to the right will bring back lots of details and minimize noise if shooting RAW.
I have not used a D850 but I have used the 24-70 f2.8 original version. You are talking about a heavy combination right there so it is now up to you to make the decision. If you want to travel light bring the Fuji and consider how often you will be shooting in dark places because as you know that will influence your choice.
Hal81 wrote:
I think mirrorless cameras were invented for those who were used to taken photos with their phones. I never see real pros using them.
Then you are obviously blind.
Those concerned about the weight of today's very capable dslr/lens combos either are too young to know of, or don't remember when top image quality required a medium format camera and before that, assorted 4x5 Graphics or their clones. None of them suitable for hanging around the neck.
xt2
Loc: British Columbia, Canada
maria_36 wrote:
Would I be crazy to take a Fuji XT-2 (with f/2 prime lenses) on a trip where I will be predominantly shooting indoors in low light instead of my Nikon D850 with 24-70? I will be backpacking through mountains to some remote villages in Romania so I’m really conscious of weight but also really conscious of image quality. I have never used mirrorless so sorry if the question is naive!
XT2 will easily “fill the bill”, whether you like its light weight or form factor or not. It simply works. Maybe try a 23mm F2 or, 35MM F2 and even the excellent 56mm F1.2 lenses. The first two can be had in a F 1.4 as well but are not waterproof and are bigger. The first two lenses are small and light. The latter, 56mm F1.2 is larger, however, it is absolutely superb for portrait photography and in applying some great compression to landscape shots. I bet if you take the 23mm F2 you may not remove it from your camera body. Now, on to something you may find interesting.
The Fuji X line-up, including the marvellously useful X100F are fabulous in two particular areas. One is they are light and very travel worthy (especially the X100F) and secondly, you will not find a better sensor and film simulations that are proprietary to Fuji, for capturing people. Skin renditions are spectacularly accurate!
You might consider the X100F as your camera of choice for travel, as it has the same sensor as the XT2 and is so small and light. Yes, it has a fixed 23mm F2 lens, however, it has built-in 50mm and 70mm capabilities that are fully compensated in camera crops that are “restored” to a full 24 megapixel format in camera, making the camera a wonderful travel partner.
Hope this helps. Enjoy Romania!
maria_36 wrote:
Would I be crazy to take a Fuji XT-2 (with f/2 prime lenses) on a trip where I will be predominantly shooting indoors in low light instead of my Nikon D850 with 24-70? I will be backpacking through mountains to some remote villages in Romania so I’m really conscious of weight but also really conscious of image quality. I have never used mirrorless so sorry if the question is naive!
The only problem I would ever see with a mirror less is that of not having a true viewfinder. if they give you one it is like using an old 35mm where the view finder has some parallax errors especially up close. Viewing the screen on the back is like shooting movies and sometimes you need your reading glasses to see that it is in focus. I like the ability to see what my lens actually sees. That includes when I forget to take off the lens cap as was usually done back when the rangefinder 35mm knew I did not take it off while I did not notice that it was still on. Range finder camera is all a mirror less is.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.