Fuji shooters have had a binary choice between two standard zooms – the XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 OIS (my review here) and the XF 16-55mm F2.8 (my review here). One offered image stabilization, the other offered a weather-sealed build and larger maximum aperture. But now there is a third choice – the Fujinon XF 16-80mm F4 OIS which gives photographers the option of having both weather sealing and (incredibly good) OIS along with a broader zoom range, though at the price of a smaller maximum aperture. The XF 16-80mm F4 fills the lane often occupied by a 24-105mm lens in full frame, with an equivalent aperture of 24-120mm. Here’s what 16mm looks like:
and then same scene at 80mm:
That’s a very useful focal range that will encompass the vast majority of photography subjects. The 16-80XF will be the kind of lens that people stick on their cameras and leave it there because it can do everything with a fair degree of competence.
This is a compelling option if the lens bears out in real life. Stay tuned for my verdict of how well Fuji has done with executing this 5x zoom range lens. If you would like to watch your reviews, you can choose either my short format or long format video reviews below:
I’ve done this review on a Fujfilm X-T3 camera body. Thanks to Fujifilm Canada for the loaner of lens and camera!
In many ways the 16-80XF takes the “Goldilocks” approach; not too big, not too small. Not too heavy, not too light. Just right. It slots nicely between the 18-55 and 16-55 lenses in terms of size and weight:
In the real world then means a lens that strikes a nice balance between build quality, performance, and size constraints, and is a very nice match for the Fujifilm X-T3 body I did the review on:
At 2.08″ (78.3mm) in diameter (with a 72mm front filter thread) and with a 3.5″ (88.9mm) in length, the 16-80XF is a moderately sized lens. The 15.52 oz (440g) weight is also moderate, and certainly shouldn’t be a deal-breaker for anyone, particularly when you consider that you are getting a nice degree of weather sealing. This includes a gasket at the lens mount along with internal seals throughout the lens (at 10 different points).
The 16-80XF employs Fuji’s hybrid approach to aperture where one has the option of utilizing a ring (with one-third stop detents) or putting the ring into A (automatic) where either the camera controls aperture or you control it via the camera.
There are nine rounded blades in the aperture, which is the same as the 16-55mm but higher than the seven blades of the 18-55mm.
The zoom ring is fair wide and nicely damped. The single inner barrel zooms out smoothly and without any wobble. The barrel extends a fair bit when the lens is fully zoomed out.
There are no switches on the barrel of the lens. Fuji handles the switch to MF in camera, and the OIS is “smart”, which means that it will detect what mode to use or whether to turn off altogether (if on a tripod). More impressive to me is the performance. It is rated by CIPA at 6 stops, which is the highest I’ve seen. I was able to routinely get shots at very low shutter speeds (the one below is 1/3rd second) without any evidence of camera shake (with a static subject, obviously!)
The focus ring is located nearest the front of the lens. Each of the three rings on the lens have a different texture and feel to them, so with a little familiarity it is easy to distinguish between them by feel. As all mirrorless lenses, this is a focus-by-wire system where input from the ring is routed through the focus motor rather than a direct coupling with the lens elements. If you are accustomed to quality manual focus action, you probably won’t be impressed by the action here. The weight feels fine, but there is little to no tactile feedback, and with the focus action set to “linear” within the the body the focus “throw” is extremely small on the wide end. You jump from minimum to infinity within no more than 90 degrees, so precision focus is difficult. The focus throw is longer (and a little easier to use) at 80mm. If you want amazing manual focus action, buy a manual focus lens!
One area of real strength is that the lens can focus down to 1.15′ (35cm) and has a very useful 0.25x magnification figure there. Image quality is fairly decent there, too, for casual work.
The 16-80XF has a constant aperture of F4, which is one stop slower than the F2.8 of the 16-55mm. The 18-55mm has an aperture advantage on the wide end (f2.8), though the F4 maximum aperture is shared over a lot of the zoom range. It’s that smaller maximum aperture that allowed Fuji to deliver this focal range in such a compact body, however.
The materials here are a mix of metals and engineered plastics. The body strikes a nice balance between weight, quality of build, and compactness. My overall score for the build of the 16-80XF is high.
Autofocus and Video Performance
The 16-80XF employs Fuji’s linear focus motors, which get the job done with speed and in silence. Real world (typical) focus changes will take place so quickly that you won’t really notice them happening. Even full “racks” from minimum to infinity are so fast as to be nearly undetectable. High marks here!
When filming, I saw similar high end performance in focus pulls at the wider end of the focal range. They were fast, smooth, and quiet. When shooting at the same distances at the telephoto end of the range I saw a bit more of the “stepping” that can be more obvious with Fuji camera/lens combinations. Overall, however, this is one of the better performances I’ve seen from a Fuji lens.
Focus accuracy in many situations was quite good. I was able to quickly and simply grab focus on objects even with a busier background beyond a foreground subject.
While Fuji doesn’t have an equivalent of Sony’s “Pet Eye AF”, I could get good results by just moving a focus point over the appropriate area:
Where I have to offer some criticism, however, is when employing Eye AF for portrait subjects. On a mild front, I noted that eye detect would sometimes have a little better focus on the eyebrow than the eye/lashes.
More troubling, however, is that when I had my son take photos of me (with good quality lighting and at various focus distances), Eye AF did not produce accurate results every time. Yes, the photographer was less experienced, and yes, I probably could have/would have gotten better results if I were behind the camera, but the point of Eye AF is to automate the process and take the guesswork out of it. Eye AF is not about the skill of the photographer; it is about the intuitiveness of the focus system, and the 16-80XF/X-T3 combination didn’t always pass the test.
If you look through those photos, you will find that while most of them are well focused, there are a few where focus is completely missed. That’s disappointing, as I’ve become accustomed to Sony and Canon mirrorless cameras almost never producing misses when Eye AF is employed. There were four misses out the twelve images in the little series, which is disappointing. With a more skillful photographer who is attentive to when focus is and is not right, this won’t be nearly as much a problem, though I pointed this out simply because I’ve found recently that I can hand off one of my Sony cameras in a similar situation and great pretty great results. Outside of this setting, however, my personal focus results were good.
Video footage looks very nice from the lens. The sharpness and contrast don’t wow you, per se, but the global look (which is what matters in video) of the footage is excellent. There is good color, saturation, and detail in the footage.
Even with the misstep with Eye AF, I would rate the focus performance I saw here among the top tier of what I’ve seen from the various Fuji lenses that I’ve reviewed.
16-80XF Image Quality
I will preface this section by noting the fact that a lens with a 5x zoom range that moves from wide to telephoto is going to have a few compromises, particularly in such a compact form. There are superzoom lenses with a much wider zoom range, but those lenses tend to be severely compromised optically. I’ve found that a 24-105mm lens on full frame represents about the limit of what a lens maker can do while still retaining what I would characterize is good image quality. Fuji has stretched that just a little here, and ironically the only real weakness in the optical performance is found in that extra 15mm!
The second note that I want to make is that it is essentially impossible to fully defeat the digital corrections to Fuji files, be they JPEG or RAW. It’s thus very hard to parse out what is optical performance and what is the result of digital corrections. I’m not sure that it matters at the end of the day, as you will only see the end result either way, and I feel like Fuji does one of the best jobs I’ve ever seen with those digital profile corrections. Everything looks pretty flawless in the vignette/distortion department. Here’s a quick look at what I saw with my test charts at both 16mm and 80mm:
The resolution profile is fairly typical, with good center and early mid-frame performance, but a noticeable drop off in contrast and resolution towards the outer edges of the frame.
There is a very obvious improvement when stopping the lens down to F5.6. Contrast vastly improves, and there is some additional resolution.
There isn’t a lot of additional sharpness to be realized by stopping the lens on down, so F5.6-8 represents the strongest edge to edge resolution for landscape purposes. Landscape images look good with excellent color, good contrast, and good sharpness (though corners aren’t as strong as the center).
The next marked area on the focal range is 22mm. The pattern is somewhat similar as before, though the lens is a little sharper in the middle part of the zoom range. Here are the center, mid-frame, and edge crops:
Stopping down to F5.6 shows a notable improvement:
The performance at 35mm is very similar, though you will spot some improved contrast and a bit more sharpness here. Here are the center, mid-frame, and edge crops:
A similar improvement is found at F5.6:
Likewise at 50mm, where performance is very similar to 35mm. Here are the center, mid-frame, and edge crops:
Once again, you can see some improvement at F5.6:
We’ve seen a pattern of consistent optical performance until this point, but at 80mm there is notable drop-off. You can see that while the center performance has less contrast, the mid-frame and edge results are fairly weak:
Stopping down to even F8 doesn’t make a radical difference.
80mm is never really sharp at any aperture, and you can tell that from real world results. Here’s an image and crop at 80mm, F8:
More typical compositions with the subject in the middle of the frame show better, though you can still tell there isn’t great acuity.
Something had to give, and in this case it was the resolution at 80mm.
Fortunately there aren’t really any other objections. One strong area is flare resistance, which is not typically a strength for a zoom lens like this. Even when panning across the sun and shooting video, I didn’t see too much ghosting. Performance is better on the wide end than on the telephoto end, though the result still wasn’t bad there.
I also didn’t really see an chromatic aberrations of either the lateral or longitudinal variety. Areas of high contrast are handled quite well.
Finally, I also felt like color rendition was very good from the lens. Colors are nicely saturated and have good contrast/punch. This will be a great travel companion, giving travelers many framing options without asking them to change lenses or pack very heavily.
If you’d like to see more images from the lens, check out the image gallery here. Overall I think Fuji has done what they needed to with this lens.
Conclusion
The winner here is consumers, as Fuji has now given the market three credible options for a general purpose zoom lens. While I personally find the 18-55mm somewhat overrated, many people love it. I did like the 16-55mm F2.8 quite a bit, however, though some will find it over-large and too expensive. The Fujinon XF 16-80mm F4 OIS strikes a nice balance that I think many photographers will appreciate. It is between the other two options in size, weight, and price, while offering up a bigger zoom range, weather sealing, and the more premium linear focus motors. It also has perhaps the best image stabilizer I’ve ever used, which is a huge asset for a general purpose lens.
Add to that the fact that the 16-80XF gives solid performance results, and you’ve got a formula that should be “just right” for a lot of shooters. At $799 USD, it isn’t cheap, but it’s only $100 more (at least in terms of MSRP) than the XF 18-55mm, though that lens is frequently discounted and is much less expensive when purchased in kit with a camera body. Optical performance at 80mm isn’t exceptional, and there were a few more misses than what I would like when using Eye AF, but I think the XF 16-80mm F4 OIS is a lens that will satisfy a lot of shooters. Once it goes on their cameras, it will probably rarely come off (particularly when traveling)…which is just what this kind of lens is designed for.
Pros:
Well built lens with 10 seal points
Good size and weight relative to zoom range
Quiet, fast focus via linear motors
Fantastic OIS with 6 stops of rated assistance
Good center sharpness through much of the zoom range
Well corrected aberrations – including vignette, distortion, and chromatic aberrations
Good flare resistance
Excellent color
Good maximum magnification figure
Cons:
Degraded performance at 80mm
Eye AF can deliver inconsistent results on X-T3 for portraits
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Fuji shooters have had a binary choice between two standard zooms – the XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 OIS (my review here) and the XF 16-55mm F2.8 (my review here). One offered image stabilization, the other offered a weather-sealed build and larger maximum aperture. But now there is a third choice – the Fujinon XF 16-80mm F4 OIS which gives photographers the option of having both weather sealing and (incredibly good) OIS along with a broader zoom range, though at the price of a smaller maximum aperture. The 16-80mm F4 fills the void often occupied by a 24-105mm lens in full frame, with an equivalent aperture of 24-120mm. This is a compelling option if the lens bears out in real life. Stay tuned for my verdict of how well Fuji has done with executing this 5x zoom range lens. I’ve done this review on a Fujfilm X-T3 camera body. You can get a sense of lens performance in advance of my full review by checking out the photos below.
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The Fuji X-T30 is Fujifilm’s fourth generation “bargain” mirrorless camera. It has inherited a lot of trickle-down goodness from the X-T3 that I reviewed last year, including an improved sensor, better autofocus, 4K video, and more. It has a lot packed into the compact little body that’s nearly 30% lighter than the X-T3. This may be a very tempting option for photographers looking for a compact mirrorless camera packed with great features, as while Fuji has chosen to create market separation between the X-T30 and the more-premium X-T3, they’ve done so in what I consider to be a mostly fair fashion. If you need more serious buffer depth for sports work, or value a higher resolution viewfinder along with a few more physical controls, the X-T3 might the camera for you. But if your shooting style doesn’t desperately need deep buffers and you prefer a cheaper, smaller, and lighter camera body, then read on, as the Fujifilm X-T30 may just be the camera for you.
Prefer to watch your reviews? Check out my full video review with a lot of visual support of my conclusions:
First of all, a few arguments for and against APS-C. After spending an extended period of time with the X-T3 and now with the X-T30, I feel like Fuji’s approach (along with Fuji’s robust catalog of lenses), may just be the right one if your idea of mirrorless is small, light, and compact. Sony, Canon, and Nikon have demonstrated that if you want full frame and wide aperture lenses, then mirrorless ultimately has few advantages over DSLRs when it comes to size. It seems that the reduced size of the bodies is quickly lost when you pair pro-grade lenses with them, and the proliferation of using lenses via adapters only adds to that. The size of the lenses often means that one feels the need to use a grip extender, a battery grip, or something similar to help the balance and ergonomics of using these larger lenses…which brings you right back to a larger body size.
But Fuji’s APS-C-centric focus has allowed them to both maximize the potential of an APS-C sensor and also develop lenses purposefully for that smaller sensor. And they have developed a lot of very good, very well received lenses with pro-grade features and apertures. For the most part, you can find an equivalent Fujinon APS-C lens for just about all the traditional DLSR focal length/aperture combinations. That’s simply not something you can say on every platform. Other brands focus primarily on full frame and, as a result, most of their APS-C lenses tend to be consumer-grade. If you want pro-grade lenses on, say, Sony (I own an a6500 APS-C body from them), you are often required to revert to full frame lenses, which, by nature, are larger and heavier because they have been designed to cover a full frame image circle. This quickly defeats the ideal of “smaller and lighter”. With most brands, you are buying lenses for the potential of using them on either APS-C or full frame, but Fuji’s approach is that “we are going to do APS-C”, and so they do it well. They’ve got an amazing selection of quality lenses (most at fairly reasonable price points).
For example, I reviewed the compact Fujinon XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 OIS “kit lens” along with the X-T30, and, while that lens carries a higher price tag than most other such kit lenses, it also comes with a more robust build, better autofocus, a significant maximum aperture advantage (most of these zooms are F3.5-5.6 over their zoom range), and a more sophisticated image stabilizer. It’s not really a consumer grade lens so much as a compact premium lens (though not necessarily with pro-grade optics according to my tests). Fuji has a wide lineup of well-built primes and zooms in their lineup, all specifically designed for APS-C. That’s just not something that can be said for other companies, and it might be the single most compelling reason to go Fuji…particularly if you value small, compact, and light.
Since the release of the X-T3 last year, I’ve had a chance to compare it and then the X-T30 to a number of other cameras (some released since), including the new Canon EOS R and RP, the Sony a7R3, a6500, and the new a6400. While Fuji isn’t necessarily the clear winner in all of these tests (there are still some areas of advantage for other systems), I can safely say that Fuji has really closed the gap and maximized the potential of their 26MP X-Trans Cmos sensor. The advanced autofocus system is also exceptionally good now, giving one the ability to easily get excellent action shots. The advantages that the DSLR approach have traditionally had are slowly being eroded away by advancing mirrorless technologies.
Let’s dive in a little deeper and see how this plays out.
FUJIFILM X-T30
Design and Features
I would recommend that you watch this video, as I carefully delineate all the areas that Fuji has either retained key elements from the more expensive X-T3 or chosen to differentiate the two lines.
I’ve taken the time to go through the specifications of the two cameras and compare/contrast them at a glance, highlight areas where one or the other stands out.
Note that the Fujifilm X-T30 is considerably smaller and lighter than the bigger X-T3. It weighs only 13.51 oz (383g), making it lighter than most of the lenses I reviewed…and that’s with the memory card and battery inserted. That’s significantly less than the 539g of the X-T3, and even undercuts the weight of the Sony a6400 (probably the most logical competitor) by about 20g. The body is similarly smaller, though the tradeoff here is that while the X-T3 has weather sealing, the X-T30 does not.
The Fujifilm X-T30 has fewer physical controls on the camera than does the X-T3, but at the same time has a few more than a camera like a Sony a6000 series camera. It has three dials along the top, including a mode dial, shutter dial, and exposure compensation. Unlike the X-T3, none of these dials lock, so you will have to be a little more careful about not inadvertently moving them (I personally had few issues with this).
There is one less custom function button than the X-T3, but, unlike the Sony bodies, one also gets a control wheel both on front (below the shutter button) and back of the camera, giving you an easy way to map, say, shutter speed and aperture control. I’ve always felt limited by Sony’s lack of a front wheel on the A6000 bodies, as that is nearly always the traditional spot for such a wheel.
There is one major misstep on the X-T30’s ergonomics, and that is the placement of the Q button (quick menu). It is placed right on the thumb rest, which makes it easy to inadvertently hit it. Fuji has already issued a firmware update that allows you to map the function of the Q button elsewhere to help solve this problem, though that would have been a problem better solved physically before release.
Fuji’s touchscreen performance lands in between Canon and Sony. Canon is the winner, with all menus navigable via touchscreen and the most responsive screen to touch, and Sony is the definite loser, with the least responsive touchscreen and zero menu navigation options via touch. Fuji gives you the ability to control the Q menu via touch, and, while there can be a slight input lag, it works fairly well. The main menus will require using the tiny joystick on the back to navigate them. All of these cameras give you the very beneficial option of using your thumb on the touchscreen while using the viewfinder to move an autofocus point around, which is very useful. The X-T30 shares the resolution of the X-T3’s screen (1.04 million-dot), but it’s tilting only happens on two axis rather than three on the X-T3. What this means is that while you have a good range of motion up or down, the X-T30’s screen cannot be tilted to the side, which is useful when shooting in portrait/vertical mode. This is one of the areas Fuji chose to distinguish the two lines.
Another area of differentiation is in the viewfinder, which is both smaller and lower resolution than the X-T3’s. The Fujifilm X-T30 has a 0.39″ 2.36 million-dot resolution viewfinder, which lags behind the 0.5″ 3.69 million-dot resolution of the viewfinder on the X-T3. The viewfinder is still fairly good, though, and if you aren’t familiar with the higher resolution viewfinder you may not notice.
Both cameras share the NP-W126S battery pack, though the smaller demands of the X-T30 allow one to get a rated 10 extra shots (390) per charge according to CIPA. I would estimate that I’ve beaten that estimate in my personal use. Still, getting an additional battery pack is worth thinking about. You can use USB-C to easily charge the battery in camera (even off things like power banks, which is a big bonus to me).
Another area of differentiation is in both the number of card slots and their placement. I vastly prefer the side placement of the X-T3 (and it’s two slots), as the X-T30’s single memory card slot (SD UHS-II compatible) moves down to the bottom of the camera in the battery compartment. My biggest beef with this kind of placement is that if one is videoing and using a quick release plate, it means that the compartment becomes inaccessible. You have to remove the QR plate before getting the card out, which can be a pain if you are pulling footage off the camera but plan to shoot further. Having a single card slot may also be a reason to consider the X-T3 instead, though having only a single card is standard for this class of camera.
Fuji allows one to choose whether to operate the camera in a more traditional fashion or to utilize the broader range of physical controls (including using the nifty little AF mode selector up front). The amount of physical controls will be an asset to more experienced photographers, but may be a liability for less experienced photographers who feel overwhelmed by the number of physical controls. That’s legitimate, and it might shape your perception as to whether or not the camera is for you.
I personally find this camera body a little small, and the grip is not nearly robust enough for me to feel like it fits well in my hand. I vastly prefer the shape of, say, the Canon EOS RP, but your mileage may vary. An inexpensive grip extender helps if you share this concern. That’s par for the course with a small camera like this, though, and other than areas of preference I have no real concerns over the build and design of the camera. I quickly learned how to make it do the things I wanted it to do.
FUJIFILM X-T30 Autofocus
The Fujifilm X-T30 inherits a lot of the autofocus improvements from the X-T3, which were a huge step forward for Fuji. This includes an autofocus system with an incredible 2.16 million phase detect AF points. This number is so large as to be ridiculous, but perhaps the 425 selectable AF points will make more sense to you. These cover nearly the whole sensor with points:
That makes autofocus very easy with the X-T30. Fuji says, “The number of AF phase detection pixels in the sensor have been increased to 2.16 million and now cover the entire frame (approx. 100%). This enables fast and accurate auto-focusing. Additionally, the low-light threshold for phase detection AF has been also expanded from +0.5EV in previous-generation camera systems to -3.0EV.” So, better point spread, greater sensitivity, and also much better Eye AF performance. Fuji says this, “Compared to previous models, Face and Eye Detection have had their accuracy and performance doubled. This is especially true when tracking subjects from the side or when they are coming towards the camera. For portrait photographers using shallow depths of field, Eye-detection AF can be configured to priority focus on individual eyes, or on the eye closest to the camera. Eye-detection AF is also supported in AF-C mode, which will assist in providing accurate focus for moving subjects.” I particularly like the ability to prioritize which eye to focus on, as this can be a big deal when shooting portraits.
I put the X-T3 through a more robust set of AF tests than the X-T30, mostly because of the lenses I had on hand for testing. With the X-T30 I only had the XF 18-55mm plus a few MF options that I own, so it wasn’t the same as testing the high end XF 200mm F2 OIS that I put through the paces on the X-T3. Still, this is supposed to be the same AF system, and, if that is true, I can vouch for the fact that you can do some serious tracking with this AF system and a good lens. Here’s one example of a shot I took with that combination:
Though my focus tests were less extreme with the X-T30, I got consistently good focus results and love the flexible autofocus system.
While the basic focus system is the same, there are a few differences in the execution between the two cameras. Fuji limits the maximum sync speed (for flashes) to 1/180th second rather than 1/250th second, and the maximum shutter speed is 1/4000th rather than 1/8000th. This is pretty standard for differentiating lines.
Also worth noting is that the FUJIFILM X-T30 can shoot continuously at up to 8.0fps in full resolution when using the mechanical shutter, but the X-T3 can shoot up to 11 FPS under the same conditions. The difference in buffer depth is significant too, as the X-T3 can get 42 RAW | 145 JPEGs before the buffer fills, while the X-T30 is limited to 18 RAW | 90 JPEGs. That’s not a big deal if your shooting style doesn’t involve a lot of bursts, but it is worth noting that you only have a couple of seconds of holding the shutter down before the buffer fills if you are shooting RAW with the X-T30.
You also have the option to switch to an electronic shutter where you can capture as many as 20 FPS at full resolution, though the buffer fills much faster (17 RAW | 32 JPEG). That means you have less than a second if shooting RAW, and about 1 1/2 seconds if shooting JPEG. In Sports Finder Mode, the camera will capture 16.6 Mega-Pixel images with a 1.25x crop factor and use its electronic shutter. This makes it possible for the camera to have AF/ AE-tracking, blackout-free continuous shooting of up to 30fps, and silent mode. In this case the RAW buffer stays at 17, but the JPEG buffer drops to just 26. That means you had better start holding that shutter down at the RIGHT moment!
The X-T30 is designed to do a lot of things well, but if you need more specialized performance, you might want to consider the X-T3 instead. For most photographers, however, the performance of the X-T30’s autofocus system will definitely be robust enough for everything they need to do.
FUJIFILM X-T30 Video
Modern mirrorless cameras are amazing hybrid devices. They are not only capable stills cameras, but they are often surprisingly robust video platforms. The X-T30 packs a lot of punch in this tiny body, though, as in other areas, there are a few limiting factors that keep it from the level of the X-T3. Fuji says this, “Thanks to its advanced sensor and processor combination, the FUJIFILM X-T30 is capable of recording incredible 4K (3840×2160) video by down-sampling its 6K (6240×3510) capture.
The camera also supports 4K DCI (17:9), an industry standard that gives videos an even more cinematic look.
Finally, F-Log recording with 4:2:2 10-bit output can be captured through the HDMI port, giving professional filmmakers a wonderfully capable tool to use in achieving their creative visions.”
My experience with the video is that the X-T30 is capable of producing beautiful footage either with the standard film emulations or with F-Log (minimum ISO for FLOG is 640). You can see some footage in the final video review.
The X-T30 has one significant differentiating factor from the X-T3: 4K capture is limited to 30FPS rather than the 60FPS option on the X-T3. This will be a big deal for some, not so much for others. It is worth noting that none of the competing Sony cameras offer 60FPS either to date.
On a practical level, I have only one real criticism of Fuji’s video performance, and that actually has to do with continuous autofocus while capturing video. I find that focus pulls from one subject to another are frequently not as smooth as what I see from either recent Sony bodies or Canon bodies with DPAF. Can sometimes see a visible stepping instead of a smooth transition.
Those minor criticisms aside, however, this is an amazing little video camera. It’s got a LOT of tech packed into it, and so far I haven’t run into any overheating issues.
FUJIFILM SENSOR PERFORMANCE
Since the X-T30 shares the same 26.1MP X-Trans CMOS 4 sensor and X-Processor 4 found in the X-T3, they behave fairly similarly. I tested the two cameras and found their performance nearly identical in my standard tests. I chose to focus my comparisons on what I consider the most logical competitor – the 24 MP sensor in the Sony a6000 series. The a6400 and X-T30 are probably the most natural competitors in this space.
From Fuji, “[with] a newly developed sensor, the X-T30 features an APS-C-format 26.1MP X-Trans CMOS 4 sensor, which has a back-illuminated design to afford smooth tonal rendering, improved low-light performance, and a low native ISO 160 setting. As an X-Trans sensor, it still utilizes the randomized pixel array, too, which provides a high degree of image quality and sharpness due to the omission of an optical low-pass filter. Versus conventional pixel patterns, the X-Trans design more closely mimics the organic nature of film in order to produce nuanced colors and tonal transitions, while also reducing moiré and aliasing.”
All of this sounds very good, of course, but how does it play out in real life? The best way to find out is by watching this head to head comparison video where I cover ISO, Dynamic Range, and Color Fidelity.
HIGH ISO
Here’s a quick look at ISO performance (with the X-T3 as the “stunt double”). At ISO 1600 there is virtually no difference from base ISO (160) on global examination of the image. There is no additional apparent noise, color fidelity remains the same, and global contrast looks identical.
If we zoom in to a pixel level, we see, well, pretty much the same thing. You might be able to find slightly more noise if you looked really hard, but without the two images side by side, I doubt you’d be able to spot it. This is still a very, very clean result.
If we advance two more ISO stops, to ISO 6400, we see pretty much the same thing on a global level. If I compare the ISO 1600 result (on the left) with the ISO 6400 result (on the right), they look essentially the same.
At a pixel level it is possible to see some increased noise now, though it tends to show up mostly on places that are smooth and have no texture of their own. Contrast and color fidelity remain strong, and I’m not seeing any real color banding or color casts.
At max ISO (normal range), I can’t objectively say I see much of a difference on a global level, though I know that there is additional roughness at a pixel level. Earlier cameras would often deliver a low contrast, color-tinted result at their ISO limits, but that’s not at all the case with the X-T3. The color and contrast at ISO 12,800 looks nearly identical to the ISO 6400 result.
At a pixel level we can primarily see additional roughness (noise). I would classify it as being noticeable but not destructive.
When I tested the X-T30 against the a6500, I found that up until ISO 12,800 I would call them very close but with the slightest edge for the X-T30:
Unlike the X-T3, Fuji elected to increase the limit to ISO 25,600 before going into the expanded range. Here I found the situation reversed, and gave the edge to the Sony:
I would keep ISO at 12,800 or lower as much as possible to maximize your results.
Dynamic Range
I value dynamic range within a camera in two specific areas: the ability to cleanly lift shadows without introducing noise or color banding and the ability to recover highlights without introducing “hot spots” where information has been permanently lost. There are many scenes in nature where the variance between bright areas and shadows exceeds a camera’s ability to record the whole range of light (our eyes are extraordinarily good at this). The ability to recover highlights means that a blown out sky might be recovered and add a lot of visual interest to an image, or perhaps to eliminate “hot spots” on a person’s face that has gotten overexposed by a flash. The ability to recover shadows allows you to, for example, underexpose a bit so that the sky is not blown out while still safely recovering information in the shadows. It can also be a lifesaver if a flash doesn’t fire, for example, or settings are wrong, and a crucial image that could have been lost can be saved in post. This is the real-world value of dynamic range.
Fuji has an extra trick up its sleeve to help you maximize dynamic range performance in such scenes, which we’ll get to in just a moment.
In my tests, I found that the X-T30 did an excellent job of recovering shadows very cleanly. Here we have an image that I purposefully underexposed by four stops. As you can see in the original RAW image, there is very little information left there. In post I added those four stops back into the recovered image. What we find is an image that has been recovered with very little penalty. The X-T30 does excellent with shadow recovery; roughly equal to the excellent Sony sensor. Even if we look in at a pixel level, we see very little noise introduced and no color casts or banding.
As is often the case, however, highlight recovery lags behind shadow recovery. A similar four stop overexposure and attempted recovery results in an unusable image.
Sony is about a half-stop better in this regard, but Fuji has one other trick that I previously mentioned. If you move beyond the base ISO to either ISO 400 or 640 (and beyond), two new options open up in the menu. These are DR200 and DR400. What these do is essentially split the sensor readout so that the shadow information is gathered from the current ISO setting while the highlight information comes from base ISO. At ISO 320 that gives you one additional stop in the highlights, while at ISO 640 you gain two. This allows you to overexpose the image slightly so that you have plenty of information in the shadows, but since there is one or two stops less exposure in the highlights, you have plenty of ability to recover blown out areas in post. Case in point: here is an attempt to recover a heavily overexposed image at base ISO (160):
Not very credible, is it? There are a lot of hots spots (blown out highlights), and the whole image looks…off. But if I use this technique at ISO 640 (same shutter speed), the overexposed result looks similar but the recovered result looks much, much better.
It becomes possible to actually get a slightly greater dynamic range out of these Fuji cameras by utilizing this built in “hack”.
I’ve used extreme examples, but the right way to do this is to overexpose by only one or two stops (depending on the situation), which allows you to have very clean shadows (a lot of exposure there) while also having a lot of additional latitude in the highlights. This shot, while perhaps still a little extreme, helps illustrate the point:
Very clean shadows and highlights are well managed in the end result. This is definitely a more practical approach than HDR in many situations, as there is no concern about movement of your subject in between frames.
Color
Color science is a fairly divisive topic. I’ve found that my work in comparing color science has been both popular and controversial. Here’s at least part of the reason why: people don’t all see color identically. This has become evident based on a number of photos that circulate around the Internet featuring a dress or sandals that people perceive to be very different colors. Part of this has to do with the way that people’s eyes process color (some have more red cones in the eye, others more green), but it also comes down to the reality that in the Internet age people view images on screens that vary widely in their color calibration and accuracy. Put simply: not everyone is seeing the same thing.
I use two displays in my personal desktop array. My primary display is a high-end BenQ SW271 (I reviewed it here), with my secondary display being an older Dell U2410. I calibrate both of them on a monthly basis using a Spyder5 Pro. I also view my photos regularly on the screen of my iPad Pro and my Dell XPS 13 laptop (which also has a high end 4K display). In short, I use a lot of high quality screens in my work, and, based on what I see on them (and from prints), I feel like Canon produces the best, most natural color.
A lot of people are big fans of Fuji’s color, however, particularly when it comes to the quality of the JPEGs and looks you can create in camera. It starts with selecting a color profile in camera or in post. Fuji’s approach to this is a little different, as instead of basic color profiles they instead offer film simulations with names that evoke classic film stocks (the company is called FujiFILM after all!) This includes stocks like Provia, Velvia, Astia, Classic Chrome, and more. I’m still experimenting, but I most frequently reach for Classic Chrome. It’s a little less saturated but often has a tasteful look to it. I find Velvia (which is Vivid) too intense for me. Provia is the Standard, and it is fairly neutral. Astia is “Soft”, and it’s another one I like. Your mileage may vary, and what I like for one type of image is not necessarily what I like for another.
Still, here’s a look an image with a number of different profiles applied in Lightroom. First, Adobe Standard:
Now Astia (Soft)
Now Classic Chrome
Provia
Velvia
Definitely a lot of control over how an image will look.
You’ve also got a lot of great options on the monochrome front, with classic film emulations but also the ability to go into the menus and tweak the look in several ways. For example, if I select Acros, I’ve got the added ability to select whether to apply a Yellow Filter (more contrast, darker skies), Red (slightly more extreme of yellow), or Green (for better skin tones). There is also an option to warm or cool the monochrome image in camera. You can move to near-sepia on the warm side and near-selenium on the cool side. I’ve included three different looks in this little gallery, including an Acros monochrome, an Eterna Cinema look, and a Provia Standard:
You can also control grain (if that’s your thing) in camera as well. Most of these tweaks in-camera will only matter if you are shooting JPEGs. If you are shooting RAWs you can do all of this in post. Many that have chosen Fuji have done so for their ability to shoot JPEGs and get what they like right out of camera. If that sounds like you, then the Fuji X-T30 might be a great choice. It’s certainly got a lot of customization available for influencing the output.
Here’s a few images I think show off Fuji’s colors very nicely.
I would recommend that you take a long look at the Image Galleries page to see if you like what is there – most of which has received minimal processing so you can make a fair determination.
CONCLUSION
The FUJIfilm X-T30 is a nice upgrade over previous cameras in the series, and provides a reasonably priced alternative to the more feature rich Fuji X-T3. The X-T3 certainly has some real advantages, but Fuji has kept enough of the goodness in the X-T30 to make it a very compelling option for those looking for a smaller, lighter system. I recently reviewed Sony’s a6400 and found it to also be an excellent camera with a lot of strengths. There are certainly areas where one or the other does something a little better, but truthfully they both can produce excellent stills and video.
If you are trying to choose between the two cameras, I would encourage you to base your decision on the whole systems. Sony is more open-source, with an increasing amount of third party development (including the excellent Sigma DN lenses). Fuji has relatively little third-party support, but what it does have is the most robust catalog of APS-C lenses out there…many of which are genuinely excellent. I don’t think there is a wrong choice here, but one system might be more “right” for you than the other. Choose carefully! If you choose the Fujifilm X-T30 (at $899 USD at the moment), you will be getting a lot of little camera for your money!
Pros:
Robust focus system that does a great job
Well executed physical controls
26MP X-Trans sensor produces nicely detail images
Great JPEGs with a lot of customization
Good burst speeds with a wide range of choice
Fuji’s DR modes give more creative options
Good video specs and quality footage
Fujifilm’s excellent catalog of lenses designed for APS-C
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
Keywords: Fujifilm, X-T30, Fuji X-T30, X-T30 Review, Fuji X-T30 Review, Fujinon, Fujinon 18-55mm, Fuji 18-55mm, Dustin Abbott, XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 Review, Hands On, Video Test, Sharpness, High ISO, Autofocus, Dynamic Range, XF 35mm F2, Lens, Comparison, Test, Dustinabbott.net, Sony a6400, Sony a600, Fuji X-T3
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
A few months back I reviewed the newest Fujinon lens in the Fuji “trinity” of fast, F2.8 zoom lenses. That lens (the XF 8-16mm F2.8 WR) makes up the wide end of the spectrum while the XF 50-140mm F2.8 OS WR covers the telephoto end. In between those lenses lies the most commonly used option – the jack of all trades – the XF 16-55mm F2.8 WR. For many people a standard zoom will be their most-used lens, as it can shoot everything from wide angle (24mm FF equivalent) to portraits (84mm FF equivalent). There are few subjects you can’t address with a lens like this, so it becomes one of the most important options for Fuji shooters. But it isn’t the only competent lens Fuji has to fill this need, as the Fujinon XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 OIS is also a very popular alternative due to be smaller, lighter, and cheaper while being considerably better than most kit lenses. So which is the better choice? That will vary according to your needs, but hopefully this review will help you make an educated decision.
A lot has changed in the past five years since I did this initial review. I did this initial review on the 26MP X-T3, but in subsequent cameras Fuji has increasingly standardized the use IBIS (In-Body-Image-Stabilization). This is a huge help to a lens like the XF 16-55mm, as it means the lack of lens based OIS is a no longer a factor. I used the XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 OIS side-by-side-by-side with the XF 16-55mm and Sigma 18-50mm on (ironically) a return trip to South Carolina and found no difference in stability for either photos or video in real world use. That was obviously very useful when the light started to dim! This shot was taken at 1/30th of a second in Charleston, South Carolina.
The other factor that has changed is that Fuji’s new standard of resolution is 40MP in cameras like the X-H2 that I now own and used for an updated look at the XF 16-55mm. That increase from 26MP to 40MP has been a very demanding one for older Fuji lenses like this one (it is now 9 years old). Fuji has been refreshing a number of its lenses in the past few years, and my experience is that the newer lenses are much better suited to the demands of 40MP. I was interested to see how this lens held up optically, not to mention if the improvements to autofocus on more recent bodies have helped to keep it relevant. If you would like to see my findings, check out this updated review video here.
Bottom line: this lens is showing its age in some areas and is due for an update, but I’ll also note that its color rendition and build quality are still tops in the class.
Fujinon XF 16-55mm F2.8 Build and Handling
It is rare to find lens like this one on other systems for the simple reason that most other manufacturers primarily reserve their premium lens development for full frame. By and large the APS-C development for Canon, Nikon, or Sony is consumer-grade, not premium options. Fuji has elected to focus on APS-C, which means that they actually develop professional grade APS-C lenses. This video segment will give you an up-close view of the build and design of the lens:
This actually causes some consternation from people coming from other platforms, as some of these lenses seem too large and too expensive for APS-C lenses, But for lenses like the XF 16-55mm, the comparison is not really the standard “kit lens” that people are accustomed to but rather something like full frame 24-70mm F2.8 lenses, which are universally larger, heavier, and more expensive yet than the XF 16-55. But the XF 16-55mm is big enough: it is 3.28″ (83.3mm) in diameter, carrying a 77mm filter size, and weighs in at 1.44lb (655g).
The full name of the lens is Fujinon XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR Lens. If you don’t speak Fuji, here’s what those initials mean:
XF refers to the native mount of the lens, which is Fuji’s X-mount
R refers to the fact that the lens has an aperture ring (though you can select Automatic to control the aperture from the camera or allow the camera to control the aperture
LM refers to the premium Linear Motors that drive the lens’ autofocus
WR stands for “Weather Resistant”, pointing to the superior weather sealing of the lens.
In short, the only real premium option missing here is Fuji’s OIS, or “Optical Image Stabilizer”, which would have been a great addition.
The XF 16-55mm has three rings on the barrel. The first is the aperture ring, which gives you the option to manually select aperture values (in 1/3rd stop values, i.e. F2.8, F3.2, F3.5, F4) or to select A (Auto) and control aperture from within the camera.
The second ring is the zoom ring, and it moves perfectly (it is both smooth and nicely damped). The inner barrel extends around an inch (2-3cm) when zoomed out to the 55mm position.
The final ring is the manual focus ring. Like other mirrorless lenses, the XF 16-55mm employs a focus by wire manual focus system where input is taken from the ring and then routed through the focus motor to move the lens elements. There is no direct coupling to the lens elements. This appears to be a necessary evil for mirrorless cameras, but it really diminishes the manual focus experience in terms of feel and precision. There are no hard stops, so less physical response to the limits of focus, and also the actual focus feeling itself is a bit numb. On the plus side, most Fuji bodies have a number of options for manual focus aids to make sure focus is easy to nail.
Other than that minor quibble (which is less about this individual lens and more about focus-by-wire in general), the build quality and the handling is great. The lens is heavy, but not overwhelmingly so. I have an inexpensive grip extender on my X-T3 and didn’t really notice any balance issues. I am accustomed to using a lot of heavy lenses, however, so your opinion might be different. This is a premium lens, with a premium build quality and great handling.
It has a nice degree of weather sealing, as well, with a rear gasket to seal at the mount along with internal seals at key points in the lens:
This sets it apart from the closest Canon equivalent, the aging EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM lens for APS-C. That lens lacks a lot of premium features found in the Fuji and fails to deliver nearly as compelling a performance. The XF 16-55mm feels every bit as well made as most 24-70mm full frame lenses, and handles extremely well.
It looks, handles, and acts like a premium lens…because it is.
Fuji XF 16-55mm F2.8 Autofocus
As previously noted, the XF 16-55mm sports premium linear motors in its autofocus design, and these give the lens an excellent autofocus performance. I should note that I did my review on the Fuji X-T3, which, at the time of this review, is Fuji’s newest and most sophisticated autofocusing camera. This combination delivers great focus results, with focus arriving near instantly and always silently. Even in poorer lighting I got good autofocus, though you’ll see better results if you select fewer points and help the AF know where you want it to focus. Like most mirrorless cameras, the X-T3 prefers reasonable contrast to grab quick focus, but I doubt the XF 16-55mm is hampering focus in any way. My focus accuracy over my review period was excellent.
That was true even when shooting an event in a modestly lit hotel conference room where I had ISO at 5000 to keep the shutter speed up to 1/125th second. As you can from this shot, the autofocus had no issues nailing accurately under those conditions.
This shot was taken at night where I wanted to do a long exposure. It was a 20 second exposure, but I don’t recall having any issue achieving focus under these conditions.
I also had excellent results when shooting portraits, where the lens/camera combination locked onto the eye and nailed focus.
In fact, I don’t recall a real-world photography situation where I even thought about focus, which, really, is the best endorsement I can give a lens. The AF system did it’s work quickly and quietly.
Fujinon XF 16-55mm F2.8 for Video
For video work I’m a little less bullish, though I suspect it has less to do with the lens and more to do with the nature of Fuji’s Video AF Servo focus. In Continuous AF mode, the focus transitions aren’t quite as smooth as competing systems from Canon or Sony. I find that with Fuji you can actually see some of the “steps” as focus moves rather than a smoother transition from one point to another. I also did a test (in my video review) where I compared the XF 16-55/X-T3 combination with the Sony a7R3 + Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 RXD to see how face tracking compared. The Sony/Tamron combo was definitely smoother in transition and a bit more accurate.
Outside of that (an issue I’ve noted with all Fuji lenses tested to this point), I thought the lens produced really incredible footage (you can see a lot of it in the video review). Great color, great detail, and the smooth zooming action allowed for me to zoom while recording (on a tripod) with nice results.
Fujinon XF 16-55mm F2.8 Image Quality
The Fujinon XF 16-55mm has a fantastic zoom range that covers a variety of subjects and also gives you a lot of different framing options. Here’s Niagara Falls (from my 16th floor room) at 16mm:
And now at 55mm:
Two very different perspectives, with a lot of options in between. The challenge inherit with such a broad zoom range is that engineers have to overcome the hurdles inherit in both wide angle and telephoto lenses. There are a few compromises involved, though fortunately I would say many of those challenges are mitigated. If you want the full breakdown on the image quality, watch this interactive video segment:
Here’s where I think the optical formula (17 elements in 12 groups) comes up short:
Some barrel distortion persists even after in camera corrections. In my first comparison you can see what a file looks like before further correction, with the comparison on the right being after I’ve done some manual correction in Lightroom. The lines are never quite perfect. This will mostly present as a problem if you have a straight horizon line near the edge of the frame, like in the second photo of the Atlantic Ocean. In the final photo, one of a building, I see less obvious issues other than the typical keystoning due more to perspective distortion than barrel distortion.
At 16mm the lens doesn’t quite ever get sharp in the corners. The center of the frame is fantastically sharp from f2.8 on, as is about 2/3rds of the frame, but the corners (as you can see in the second comparison) never improve very much (even when stopped down to F8). While real world images aren’t often as demanding, you can see that my final crop (at F5.6) does show softness in the crop of the corners.
The final image in the series above shows that this last criticism is probably not a huge factor for many shooters. Real world images (this one is at F4) look pretty fantastic. If you are a hard core landscape photographer, however, and don’t need a zoom, you might consider the Fujinon XF 16mm F1.4 to get better corner performance at 16mm.
The XF 16-55mm gets very high marks for great color and contrast, however, particularly when paired with a good circular polarizer (one of my favorite means of intensifying colors). Many of these photos taken using an Irix Edge Circular Polarizing filter (a filter series that I’ll soon release a review of). I was really delighted with the overall look of my images. Here’s a mini-gallery to show what I mean:
Resolution in the center of the frame is excellent at any aperture value, and the evenness of the sharpness across the frame is more consistent beyond 20mm. If you want more details at each focal length, please watch the video above.
Bokeh is also surprisingly good for a standard zoom. I felt that it had a good balance between sharpness on the subject and a nicely defocused background. Here’s a few samples at different focal lengths and focus distances:
Flare resistance, while not perfect, was fairly good, with little veiling and only a few ghosting artifacts. The sunburst is not the cleanest I’ve seen, but neither is it really objectionable. There are nine founded aperture blades that that keep the aperture shape fairly round when stopped down.
At times I could see some lateral chromatic aberrations (green and purple fringing along the edge of the frame) through the viewfinder, but the in camera profile must do an effective job of correcting for it, as I was unable to really find any notable example in my hundreds of real world images. Longitudinal chromatic aberrations are also well corrected optically. If they existed, this shot would definitely show them off.
I shot a variety of portrait shots with the lens. The only flash unit I had access to is the little EF-X8 that serves instead of a pop-up flash and has about as much punch, so I had little means of equalizing the light ratios with a strongly backlit subject. I shot some shots with the background “chimped” (slightly overexposed while still pleasing) and then also shot some with the subject underexposed (silhouetted) to allow the background to pop. I was very pleased with the global look the images. These images in this series have had next to no processing and represent essentially what came out of camera:
The minimum focus distance with the lens is right under a foot (30cm), but the maximum magnification figure (0.16x) is not overly impressive. It’s useful, but it won’t trick anyone into thinking it was a macro shot:
My images, in general, put a smile on my face…and in a lens with such versatility, I feel like that’s a great thing.
There are compromises in such a zoom lens, but I feel like they are fairly well managed here. I’ve not seen many complaints from users over the optical performance of the XF 16-55mm.
Conclusion
It is impossible to overestimate the importance of a lens like the Fujinon XF 16-55mm F2.8 LM WR. I think it would easy to argue that if you could own only one lens, it would be one must like this one. It isn’t perfect, but it is extremely competent in just about every situation and delivers beautiful images. The focal length (a full frame equivalent of 24-84mm) ably covers everything from landscapes to portrait. There are only two potential objections. The first is that the XF 16-55mm is larger and heavier than what many were looking for when they moved to the compact Fuji X system. The second is the existence of the Fujinon XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 OIS lens, which combines a much smaller size and less than half the weight and adds image stabilization, though at a loss of a constant maximum aperture and two critical millimeters on the wide end. That extra width means more than one might think, and there will be situations where wider framing will be missed by those using the 18-55mm lens. A potential third objection has been the price, which has trended near double that of the 18-55 ($699 vs $1199), but at the time of my review, that gap has closed considerably due to Fuji having an extended rebate period on their higher end lenses. Right now the XF 16-55mm is $899. At that price, I would personally spend the extra money to get the constantly maximum aperture (F2.8 definitely trumps F4 for portrait and event work!) and the extra width on the landscape end of things. If you are a video shooter, however, the OIS on the 18-55mm might sway you in the opposite direction.
Either way, we are blessed to have two solid options for a general purpose zoom lens on Fuji X-mount – just pick which one fits your needs…and happy shooting!
View more Fuji lenses for portrait, landscape, and macro photography.
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
A few months back I reviewed the newest Fujinon lens in the Fuji “trinity” of fast, F2.8 zoom lenses. That lens (the XF 8-16mm F2.8 WR) makes up the wide end of the spectrum while the XF 50-140mm F2.8 OS WR covers the telephoto end. In between those lenses lies the most commonly used option – the jack of all trades – the XF 16-55mm F2.8 WR. For many people a standard zoom will be their most-used lens, as it can shoot everything from wide angle (24mm FF equivalent) to portraits (84mm FF equivalent). There are few subjects you can’t address with a lens like this, so it becomes one of the most important options for Fuji shooters. Stay tuned for my coverage of this important lens by bookmarking this page and returning to get new photos and links to video updates.
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Fuji has taken a very different approach to mirrorless than just about everyone else. While others like Sony, Nikon, and Canon have embraced full frame and given the leftovers to APS-C, Fujifilm decided that the surest way to pursue the smaller, lighter mantra that many associated with mirrorless was to fully embrace the potential of APS-C, or a “cropped sensor”. Because of this choice, Fuji has invested far more in APS-C than anyone else, and have a far more robust catalog of lenses for APC-S than anyone else, too. This includes a wide range of prime lenses (often with multiple options at each focal length) along with a number of zoom lenses. Their most recent releases have fleshed out this lineup with a true supertelephoto (XF 200mm F2) along with the lens at hand, the Fujinon XF 8-16mm F2.8 R LM WR. The XF 8-16mm is a premium, wide aperture, ultra-wide-angle zoom lens that completes Fuji’s trinity of fast aperture zoom lenses (along with the Fuji 16-55mm F2.8 and 50-140mm F2.8 lenses). At nearly $2000 USD in price, the XF 8-16mm isn’t for everyone, but it does offer an extremely competent option for wedding, portrait, and event shooters along with those who want it for landscape/astrophotography work.
If you don’t speak Fuji, here’s what those initials mean:
XF refers to the native mount of the lens, which is Fuji’s X-mount
R refers to the fact that the lens has an aperture ring (though you can select Automatic to control the aperture from the camera or allow the camera to control the aperture
LM refers to the premium Linear Motors that drive the lens’ autofocus
WR stands for “Weather Resistant”, pointing to the superior weather sealing of the lens.
Also in the lens’ name is “Aspherical”, which refers to the fact that XF 8-16mm actually utilized four aspherical lens elements to control distortion and spherical aberrations. It also says “Nano-GI”, which refers to the special coatings applied to the rear of the of the first TWO lens elements, and the coatings are to reduce ghosting and flare. In short, the only real premium option missing here is Fuji’s OIS, or “Optical Image Stabilizer”, which would have been a great addition.
So the XF 8-16mm is a premium lens, but does it live up to its premium price? Read on to find out.
Prefer to watch your reviews? My thorough video review has the answers you’re looking for!
XF 8-16mm Build and Handling
The best way to see all the details about the build and design of the lens is by watching this video episode:
As mentioned, the XF 8-16mm is a large lens…particularly when one considers that it is an APS-C lens. It is nearly 5” in length (4.78” long/121.5mm) and weighs 1.77lb/805g. The focal length of 8-16mm plus Fuji’s crop factor of 1.5x equals a full frame (35mm) equivalent focal range of 12-24mm.
What’s different here is that while the full frame 12-24mm lenses from Sony, Sigma, and Nikon all have a maximum aperture of F4, this 8-16mm has a maximum aperture of F2.8. While some (falsely) believe that an APS-C lens with an F2.8 aperture has less light-gathering potential than a full frame lens with F2.8, that is not the case. I put my vintage SMC Takumar 50mm F1.4 lens on first the Sony a7RIII (full frame) and then the Fuji X-T3 (APS-C). I used a tripod and identical settings (1/15th of a second at ISO 800). I then cropped the Sony image so that the framing lines up. Look at the two images: is one a full stop brighter than the other?
Obviously not. The different in exposure between the two is negligible at best. That’s not to say that an APS-C sensor behaves identically to a full frame sensor (it doesn’t), but a lot of older conceptions about APS-C vs FF are simply not true any longer. My point is that the XF 8-16mm does have an advantage over the lenses I’ve mentioned, particularly when one is shooting astro or events in low light. In this comparison, for example, the two exposures (one from the Zeiss Loxia 25mm F2.4 on a Sony a7RIII and the second from the XF 8-16mm F2.8 on the X-T3) shows that two systems (at F2.8) look more similar than different, and certainly a lens with a maximum aperture of F4 on the Sony would be at a disadvantage in this situation.
More importantly than comparisons to other systems, however, is the fact that the Fuji XF 8-16mm F2.8 does have an advantage over lenses for Fuji (the Fuji XF 10-24mm F4, for example) in these kinds of situations. A lens with a maximum aperture of F2.8 will let in twice as much light as an F4 lens, and will also be able to focus more confidently because more light can hit the sensor of the camera.
The tradeoff for these advantages is the reality that the size of the lens grows exponentially, as does the cost of developing it (which raises the MSRP). Bottom line is that if you don’t need the wider focal length and bigger maximum aperture, Fuji’s XF 10-24mm F4 OIS lens costs half as much, weighs half as much, is 35mm shorter, has Optical Image Stabilization, and can use traditional filters. For those that are looking for primarily landscape shooting, it provides a great alternative. I see the XF 8-16mm F2.8 being more for wedding and event photographers.
That’s not to say the XF 8-16mm doesn’t have other advantages over the 10-24mm. It is weather sealed, for one, with a thorough weather sealing system that includes a fluorine coating on the front element, 11 internal seals, a gasket at the lens mount, and a fixed rear element (nothing moves at the rear that could let in dust or moisture). The XF 8-16mm has superior linear motors compared to the stepping motors of the 10-24mm, meaning that focus will be both faster and quieter (important for nailing focus in a dimly lit venue!) The difference in focal length should not be discounted, either, as while the 10-24mm only goes as wide as 110°, the XF 8-16mm goes as wide as a staggering 121°. Not everyone needs that extra width, but some of you shoot in venues where space is limited, and that extra 11° is significant (see below).
One downside for landscape shooters with the XF 8-16mm is that it has a curved front element and fixed front lens hood that precludes the ability to use traditional screw-in filters. You will have to employ an additional square filter system if you want to filter the lens (which means additional cost).
All of this adds up to a lens designed more for photojournalists, wedding photographers, and event photographers than those looking for a compact, lightweight option to shoot landscapes. As you can see here, the XF 8-16mm produces beautiful landscape images, but that is perhaps not its primary reason for existence.
The XF8-16mm has three rings on the barrel. The first is the aperture ring, which gives you the option to manually select aperture values (in 1/3rd stop values, i.e. F2.8, F3.2, F3.5, F4) or to select A (Auto) and control aperture from within the camera.
The second ring is the zoom ring, and it moves perfectly (it is both smooth and nicely damped). The front element does move forward and backward in the lens housing while zooming out (it is most retracted at 16mm and most fully extended at 8mm), but all of this happens within the external housing of the lens, so nothing extends and the lens length remains constant. I found this to be important when putting the lens on a gimbal for video, as it allows you to change the focal length without rebalancing.
The final ring is the manual focus ring. Like other mirrorless lenses, the XF 8-16mm employs a focus by wire manual focus system where input is taken from the ring and then routed through the focus motor to move the lens elements. There is no direct coupling to the lens elements. This appears to be a necessary evil for mirrorless cameras, but it really diminishes the manual focus experience in terms of feel and precision. There are no hard stops, so less physical response to the limits of focus, and also the actual focus feeling itself is a bit numb. On the plus side, most Fuji bodies have a number of options for manual focus aids to make sure focus is easy to nail.
Other than that minor quibble (which is less about this individual lens and more about focus-by-wire in general), the build quality and the handling is great. The lens is heavy, but not overwhelmingly so. I have a grip extender on my X-T3 and didn’t really notice any balance issues. I am accustomed to using a lot of heavy lenses, however, so your opinion might be different. This is a premium lens, with a premium build quality and great handling.
Fuji XF 8-16mm F2.8 Autofocus
As noted, the XF 8-16mm sports premium linear motors in its autofocus design, and these give the lens an excellent autofocus performance. I should note that I did my review on the Fuji X-T3, which, at the time of this review, is Fuji’s newest and most sophisticated autofocusing camera. This combination delivers great focus results, with focus arriving near instantly. Even in poorer lighting I got good autofocus, though you’ll see better results if you select fewer points and help the AF know where you want it to focus. In extreme conditions (lighting where I was getting 1/20th exposures at ISO 12,800 with F2.8), there were a few times when the lens didn’t want to lock with a low contrast subject, but that occurred during intentional torture tests and not under actual shooting conditions.
I would characterize autofocus even in low light situations as good if not exceptional. Under normal conditions the autofocus is near silent for stills. In difficult situations where the lens hunts a bit more you might hear a slight “scratchy” sounds as the focus motor moves the elements.
I had no problems with autofocus accuracy, though, to be fair, a focal length like this doesn’t put a lot of stress on a focus system. If you are at 8mm and F2.8, focusing on a subject 10 feet away, everything from 2.77 feet to infinity is in focus! Moving the subject closer (4 feet) only extends the depth of field further, as the hyperfocal distance is right under 4 feet. In other words, the lens would have to be really, really bad to miss focus at 8mm…and it isn’t. At 16mm there’s a bit more stress put on the focus system (in our previous scenario the depth of field drops from infinite to 2.24 feet), which is still fairly generous. At a 10 foot focus distance the depth of field is nearly 23 feet deep, so again, not much challenge. Still, the lack of “challenge” for the focus system is not to undermine it’s performance, which was generally excellent.
The lens can focus down to 25cm (9.84”) where it delivers a rather poor 1:10 reproduction ratio or 0.10x times magnification. A macro lens this is not. This represents minimum focus and what you can achieve there.
For video I found the lens focused quietly and quickly, though major focus throws sometimes came with a little pulse before locking focus that I didn’t love. The onboard mic picked up a slight scratching noise when the focus motor made major focus changes, but you have to be in a pretty quiet environment to hear it. I don’t find that Fuji is quite as smooth when pulling focus as either Canon’s better DPAF bodies or Sony’s more recent third gen a7 bodies. Still, I had good success with autofocus during video capture.
Since the lens is on the larger and heavier side, some of the early motorized gimbals with low payload thresholds might not love it. I did the math: 539g (X-T3) + 805g (8-16) = 1.34kg. I use the Moza Air gimbal, myself, and it had zero problems with this, as it still way under its payload limits (3.22kg). The only issue I saw is that the lens is long enough that you can’t make a full 360 degree rotation up and down, though this isn’t a significant issue at all. This is obviously a fantastic focal range for video work, and wedding videographers will love its dynamic perspective. The internally zooming nature of the lens makes it easy to change the focal length without the need to rebalance the gimbal. All in all, this will be a great tool in the videographer’s arsenal.
All in all there is little to complain about in the autofocus department. Autofocus is near instant and silent under normal conditions. I saw nothing to suggest the lens wouldn’t work well for the purpose of weddings or dimly let venues.
Image Quality
I’ll be blunt – I grade lens’ optical performance based on a curve that correlates with the cost of the lens. An expensive lens gets fewer passes than an inexpensive one. As a result, I’ve looked closely at the image quality to see what might be a red flag with the lens. To see this thorough examination, watch this video episode:
I’ll get the criticisms out of the way first, as the list is very short. At 8-10mm, while the lens is very sharp across the vast majority of the frame, the extreme corners don’t ever quite catch up. With native Fujinon lenses, even the RAW images arrive with some embedded profiles, so when you open them up in Lightroom both vignette and distortion is already corrected for. The correction can’t entirely eliminate a bit of a “mustache” distortion pattern that remains with my brick wall test. It’s mild, but visible with very straight lines.
Ummm, that’s pretty much it. And truthfully, when I look at real-world landscape shots, I can’t really find a situation where the extreme corner issue actually comes into play. This is an 8mm, F5.6 landscape shot. The second photo is a crop of the bottom left corner. Not really much to complain about, is it?
When I look at real-world interior shots, I’m not really seeing any bulges from distortion, so it’s very possible at more typical focus distances distortion is actually reduced (you rarely shoot a wall from three feet away like I did for my brick wall test!)
Some of the other key metrics, like chromatic aberrations (either lateral or longitudinal) are essentially perfectly corrected for through the combination of optics and digital profile.
The profile also perfectly corrects any vignette that might be present in the raw lens, so I didn’t see anything to note, nor did I see evidence in images that additional noise has been added to images on the edges due to correction.
The lens exhibits little to no comatic aberrations, either, so star points look quite good across the frame…even toward the edges. The first crop is from a 8mm, F2.8 shot, while the second crop is from the 16mm F2.8 shot. You’ll note that coma is very low at either extreme of the focal range:
I was very impressed with color rendition and overall contrast, too. I took the lens on a trip to Arizona, and my morning hike shots into the foothills outside of Scottsdale looked great.
Real world flare resistance seems good under most circumstances, though in a few extreme situations I saw some ghosting artifacts (mostly with the lens stopped down quite a bit). Contrast remained strong, however.
Interestingly at the wide end sharpness peaked at F4 and didn’t improve beyond that, though on the telephoto end I was able to see a bit of improvement through F5.6. From what I saw, however, there is little reason to stop the lens down further than that (unless there is some desired effect you want).
Here’s a look at the center and edge performance at 8mm, F2.8:
While you can see the drop off in the corners, if you look at the edges midframe they are actually quite good, which is actually more important in landscape images (as we saw in our real-world example above). There is some improvement comparing F2.8 to F4:
Here’s a look at 12mm, F2.8. You can see where sharpness drops off but also how sharp the lens is across most of the frame:
Stopping down to F4 extends the sharpness into the corners except the last little bit. This remains fairly consistent as you stop the lens on down.
At 16mm the image quality extends a little further into the corners at F2.8, with essentially only the very last bit showing any softness.
Stop down to F5.6 at 16mm to see essentially perfect image quality across the frame.
As you can see from these examples, contrast is excellent at essentially any aperture save the corners at 8mm, F2.8. This is a high performing lens with few real flaws. There is a little extreme corner softness, a bit of leftover distortion at 8mm, and in certain situations I saw some ghosting artifacts, but my real world images essentially universally left me pleased. Some argued after I posted my first video on the lens, “who would buy APS-C for landscapes?” I’m not sure, but I can say this: my landscape images taken with the X-T3 and XF 8-16mm F2.8 looked fantastic.
The Fujinon XF 8-16mm F2.8 R LM WR isn’t going to be for everyone. Not everyone needs either this wide a focal length or a large aperture in their wide-angle lens. Not everyone has the kind of budget that this lens requires. Those that don’t might be better served by the 10-24mm or one of the wide-angle primes. But if you value the versatility of a zoom and a large maximum aperture (and don’t mind paying for it), the XF 8-16mm is almost certain to make you happy. It produces beautiful images and just works, period.
It’s larger, heavier, and more expensive than what you would like, but outside of that there is very little to complain about. As noted in this review, I think this lens makes more sense for wedding and event photographers than it does for landscape photographers, though it works very well for that, too. The added size and weight of an F2.8 zoom is somewhat wasted for landscape photography, however, as it is rare that landscape photographers shoot at F2.8. Wedding photographers or videographers are a different story, however, and they are the ones that really should consider this lens. It’s a premium lens for a premium price, but fortunately it also delivers a premium performance.
Pros
Beautiful build quality with substantial weather sealing
Fast, quiet autofocus through the linear motors
Beautiful color rendition
Very sharp at all apertures and everywhere except extreme corners
Near perfect control of chromatic aberrations and vignette
Very little coma and wide aperture = great astrophotography
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
Keywords: Fujinon, Fuji XF, Fuji 8-16, Fujinon 38-16, XF, Fujinon XF 8-16mm, F2.8, F/2.8, Fuji, Fuji 8-16mm review, Fujinon 8-16 Review, Fujinon 8-16mm F2.8 Review, Dustin Abbott, Fujifilm, X-T3, Fuji X-T3, X-T3 Review, Fuji X-T3 Review, Fujinon, Review, Hands On, Video Test, Sharpness, Autofocus, CA, Video AF, XF 8-16mm F2.8, Lens, Comparison, Test, Dustinabbott.net, Sample Images, Sample Video
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
My next Fuji project is the brand-new Fujinon XF 8-16mm F2.8 R lens – a super wide angle zoom with a large maximum aperture. This lens one-ups the F4 competitors that Sigma, Sony, and Canon offer with an F2.8 version in a serious, pro-grade build and design. The 8-16mm F2.8 continues Fuji’s recent trend of moving even further upscale in the APS-C space with some very professional, very premium options (the most extreme example being the XF 200mm F2 OIS that I recently reviewed!) The 8-16mm F2.8 also comes with a premium price tag, so I’ll look critically at it to see if it lives up to its price. Stay tuned! In the meantime, you can see the photos I’ve taken with the lens along with some of my video clips as the review process unfolds.
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off ($15 CDN) Luminar and/or AuroraHDR
Keywords: Fujinon, Fuji XF, Fuji 8-16, Fujinon 38-16, XF, Fujinon XF 8-16mm, F2.8, F/2.8, Fuji, Fuji 8-16mm review, Fujinon 8-16 Review, Fujinon 8-16mm F2.8 Review, Dustin Abbott, Fujifilm, X-T3, Fuji X-T3, X-T3 Review, Fuji X-T3 Review, Fujinon, Review, Hands On, Video Test, Sharpness, Autofocus, CA, Video AF, XF 8-16mm F2.8, Lens, Comparison, Test, Dustinabbott.net, Sample Images, Sample Video
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
I’ve been enjoying spending time with the FUJIFILM X-T3 mirrorless camera body and the monster XF 200mm F2 OIS lens – evidence that Fuji is getting serious about sports/action photography. The X-T3 and Fujinon XF 200mm F2 OIS are a marriage that could probably only happen on Fuji, for they alone have focused their their development on APS-C (and Medium Format, to a lesser extent) and skipped over full frame altogether. That has produced perhaps the most serious APS-C (crop sensor) development that I’ve seen. Fuji has (by far) the best selection of pro-grade APS-C lenses, and, if you think that APS-C is for you (and I’ll detail a few reasons why that might be the case), then it is hard to argue against going Fuji…and the X-T3. At the same time, I don’t think the Fuji X-T3 is for everyone, and I’ll detail why in this review as well.
In this review I’ll break down the handling, image quality, sensor performance, video performance, and autofocus performance of the Fujifilm X-T3 along with a few lenses (I’ve also got the XF 35mm F2 on hand along with my favorite budget prime lens at the moment – the Kamlan 28mm F1.4). You can find photos from all three of these lenses in the image gallery and perhaps get a sense of whether or not the X-T3’s autofocus and sensor produces images that you can love.
First of all, a few arguments for and against APS-C. After spending an extended period of time with the X-T3, I feel like it (along with Fuji’s robust catalog of lenses), may just be the best approach if your idea of mirrorless is small, light, and compact. Sony, Canon, and Nikon have demonstrated that if you want full frame and wide aperture lenses, then mirrorless ultimately has few advantages over DSLRs when it comes to size. It seems that the reduced size of the bodies is quickly lost when you pair pro-grade lenses with them, and the proliferation of using lenses via adapters only adds to that. The size of the lenses often means that one feels the need to use a grip extender, a battery grip, or something similar to help the balance and ergonomics of using these larger lenses.
But Fuji’s APS-C-centric focus has allowed them to both maximize the potential of an APS-C sensor and also develop lenses purposefully for that smaller sensor. And they have developed a lot of very good, very well received lenses with pro-grade features and apertures. For the most part, you can find an equivalent Fujinon APS-C lens to just about all the traditional DLSR focal length/aperture combinations. That’s simply not something you can say on every platform. Other brands focus primarily on full frame and, as a result, most of their APS-C lenses tend to be consumer-grade. If you want pro-grade lenses on, say, Sony (I own an a6500 APS-C body from them), you are often required to revert to full frame lenses, which, by nature, are larger and heavier because they have been designed to cover a full frame image circle. This quickly defeats the ideal of “smaller and lighter”. With most brands, you are buying lenses for the potential of using them on either APS-C or full frame, but Fuji’s approach is that “we are going to do APS-C“, and so they do it well. They’ve got an amazing selection of quality lenses (most at fairly reasonable price points).
I’ve run a number of sensor tests as a part of this round of reviews, as I had the new Canon EOS R, the Sony a7R3 and a6500, and the Fuji X-T3 on hand at the same time. It allowed me to test them all at their limits, and, while I do believe that there are still a few advantages for full frame, I can safely say that Fuji has really closed the gap and maximized the potential of their 26MP X-Trans Cmos sensor. The advanced autofocus system is also exceptionally good now, giving one the ability to easily get excellent action shots. The advantages that the DSLR approach have traditionally had are slowly being eroded away by advancing mirrorless technologies. I was able to get as good of high speed tracking images in some situations as I ever have before:
What about full frame? In an absolute sense, full frame remains my favorite platform. It still has more flexibility at the limits, and I often prefer the smoother gradations of both color and noise. The performance at higher ISOs remains my favorite, and I also feel the images have more tolerance for how you will approach sharpening. But I also found my typical preconceptions challenged somewhat during this review, and, while I still maintain my position, I can also safely say that the line between the two platforms has become somewhat blurred. I would say that there are very few shots that you cannot get with the Fuji X-T3.
So let’s take a closer look if the Fuji X-T3 meets your needs for photography and/or video. If you would prefer to watch your reviews, you can see my thorough video review here:
I would recommend watching this video, as there are a lot of dials and switches on the X-T3, and this is the best way to both see them and understand what they do.
There are two things that I think will be a potential deterrent to those considering a Fuji X-T3. The first is universal, and that is that it lacks In-Body-Image-Stablization (IBIS), and optical stabilizer in the camera body that applies to all attached lenses. This has been an extremely popular feature on Sony’s mirrorless cameras (and others), and Fuji actually employs it in their FUJIFILM X-H1 camera (and one would assume that the X-H2, when it arrives, will also employ IBIS). It would seem that Fuji is using this to differentiate the X-T3 from the more expensive X-H1, though at the moment the market is complicated, as the X-T3 actually has a number of superior specs – from resolution to buffer to video modes to a superior autofocus system. One would assume that the X-H2 will help clarify the market again by embracing the upgrades to the X-T3 along with some of its own (IBIS being one of them). From my perspective, a lack of IBIS is the only thing that really holds this camera back.
But others will have a second issue with a camera. The Fujfilm X-T3 has more physical controls on it than any modern camera I’ve seen. There are dials, switches, and buttons where many of the cameras functions can be accessed without ever looking at a menu. It’s a decidedly analog approach to a very digital camera, and I personally love it. It’s a classic SLR design (particularly in the optional silver finish that I’m reviewing) that reminds me a lot of my old Pentax Spotmatic film camera. It took me a few days to discover how to do everything I wanted to do (mostly because every camera manufacturer seems to have their own names and descriptions for certain functions. Case in point: Canon calls continuous autofocus “AF Servo”, Sony calls it “AF-C (Autofocus Continuous)”, while Fuji has Continuous AF, broken down into drive modes as CH (Continuous High) and CL (Continuous Low). Know that you may need to either spend a little time in the manual to learn all the functions, or, at the least, you should watch my video above that demonstrates the function of most of those dials and switches.
There are two “two layer” dials, with a top mode dial (one for ISO, the other for Shutter Speed), with a secondary dial underneath operated by a front facing lever. Underneath the ISO dial is the drive mode dial, allowing your to quickly choose basic things like Single AF, CH, and CL, but also to switch into video mode, bracketing exposures, panoramas, and more. Underneath the TV (shutter speed) dial is a secondary dial where you can select the metering mode. In my review of the Canon EOS R, I complained that it had one dial too few. Here I’ll take the opposite tack, as I don’t find a dial for controlling shutter speed to be the most efficient approach to selecting shutter speed and thus find it unnecessary. It can only select full stops (you go straight from 125th to 250th second, for example) and bottoms out at 1 second of exposure, which means that the shutter speed that you actually need may not even be accessible via the dial. The byproduct is that I personally only the dial for three settings: A (controlling shutter speed via one of the two wheels as per usual), B (Bulb Mode, ditto on selecting the value), and T (shutter speed priority, ditto on selecting the value).
The third main control dial is for Exposure Compensation, and it’s a dial that I’m always happy to have. It’s the quickest and most logical way to bias exposure in one direction or another if you are shooting in a mode like AV mode, which I often choose if I’m in lighting conditions where visually confirming exposure is more difficult (very bright conditions, for example). The On/Off dial is located around/under the shutter button, and I personally like this location. On the EOS R, for example, it is on the left side of the camera, requiring a more intentional activation (since most of the camera operation typically is right handed). This allows for very quick access, and is more similar to the Sony A7 series.
The shutter button itself also has a very classic style, as it is threaded on the inside to allow for customization (soft touch accessories, for example). There are two other control wheels, one located beneath the shutter button and the other located at the back near the thumb rest. These are typically going to be used for shutter speed and aperture value. What’s unique about these control wheels is that they also can be clicked and serve a dual function as a button as well. The rear wheel, for example, I currently have assigned to magnify the image when I’m manually focusing.
There is one final small switch located on the front of the camera, and it is a quick access AF Mode switch, which allows you to switch between M (Manual), C (Continuous), or S (Single Shot). Perhaps the best thing about this switch is that it gives you an easy, dedicated way to access Manual Focus and replaces an AF/MF switch on the lenses themselves. It works well once your muscle memory extends to remembering that it is there. What’s also useful is that on the front of the camera near the grip and on top of the camera between the dials are two Custom Function buttons. The front one (by default) is a quick access to drive mode settings based on your current drive mode. For example, if I’m in CL (Continuous Low), it opens up the menu setting where I can choose a speed for CL (from 3-5.7FPS). If I were in CH, it would give me both the mechanical and electronic shutter burst mode options. The second button by default gives you control options for Eye detection. Some of those options include selecting a priority for which eye (right or left) that you want focused on. It’s an interesting mechanic that does give some diversity from Sony’s approach.
Other physical controls take the form of seven buttons on the back of the camera along with a four-position directional pad (each direction can also be programmed for a different function). One of these is a dedicated Q (quick menu) button. This is similar to Canon’s approach, though I prefer Canon’s method of navigation in that menu. There are a number of options there (16, typically) in the Q Menu, which is good, but when you select one of those options with the tiny joystick also located on the back, the logical (at least for me) choice is to select the option you want to change by hitting either the OK button on clicking the little joystick (clicking it in works similarly to the OK button). Instead of opening up the options for that choice, however, it okays the choice already made and closes the Q menu.
Frustrating.
What the camera actually wants you to do is to move over to the desired setting you want to change and then rotate the rear wheel to change the settings (without another dialogue box ever being opened). I don’t find this a very intuitive process even after spending more than a month with the camera and, more often than not, I’ll click either the joystick or the OK button and have to start the process over again. What’s interesting about this is that while you cannot use the touchscreen to select in the regular menus, you can tap on the icons for the various options in the Q menu and it will open up a dialogue box and allow to select the option you want (by a tap on it) in the way that you would expect the menu to work all the time.
The X-T3’s touchscreen is somewhere in between the Canon EOS R and the Sony a7R3 in functionality. It isn’t as responsive or useful as the EOS R (where all menu options can be accessed via touch), but it is much more useful than Sony’s (where no navigation can be done on the touchscreen). The X-T3 does allow for things like dragging the focus point around with a thumb when you are looking through the viewfinder, and will also allow one to tap an autofocus point and even take a photo through that means.
While Fuji does not use the fully articulating screen like the EOS R, it does improve on the tilting screen by allowing the screen to be tilted both horizontally and to be released on the left side (there’s a small release button there) and tilt vertically. This solves the problem whereby a tilting screen is useless if used in a vertical/portrait orientation. It’s a nice touch.
Fuji has a wide range of menu options, and nearly all controls can be customized to the user’s preference. Every camera maker has a different way of organizing such menus, and so expect to have to learn where everything is if you aren’t a long-time Fuji shooter, but I found the menus fairly logical once I began to learn how Fuji labels things. Everything is organized under size main groups: (Image Quality, AF/MF, Shooting Settings, Flash Settings, Movie Settings, and Setup). There is a seventh tab called “My” (My Menu) that will be populated once you select custom functions to be there. I like to task commonly used settings that I haven’t assigned to a physical control to that area.
An experienced user will probably enjoy the controls of the X-T3 (I do), but, as noted, not everyone will love the sheer number of controls. It will be intimidating to some. I view the X-T3 as being designed for those with a fairly strong grasp of camera operation, and probably not designed for beginners. You need to make a realistic evaluation of where you fall on that spectrum in evaluating if the X-T3 is the camera for you or not.
The natural grip on the X-T3 is nicely shaped, but not particularly robust. As per usual, a person with bigger hands (like myself) is going to find that their pinky finger has no natural place to go. Fuji does make a grip extender (the MHG-XT3), which helps with this. I used an inexpensive alternative from McoPlus (not yet available to the public) which I estimate will cost about a third of the price of the Fuji one and does a great job.
The McoPlus Metal Grip allowed me to have a thicker grip to hang onto along with enough length to give me a place to put my pinky finger. It is a sleek, tool-less design that mounts in seconds, and in a very useful addition, has Arca-Swiss compatible grooves along the bottom that allow it to quickly be attached to a tripod without the need of a quick-release plate. It adds a lot of functionality for very little money, and I found that it improved my ergonomic experience.
There is a little port on the front of the camera that is the flash sync port. It unscrews and pops off, but is also very small, so be careful not to lose it! On the left side of the camera is a cover that, when popped open, reveals the main connectivity ports, including a micro-HDMI, USB-C, Headphone, and Microphone port. Charging can be done via the USB-C port, and I was happy to find that even small power-banks would help to quickly charge the camera. This turned out to be a “life-saver” at an event I was shooting at, as I had put the camera in a bag with it left on, and various jostles had kept it active, so I discovered the battery was nearly dead when I went to shoot in the evening portion of the event. I ran out to my camera and grabbed the Rescue A6 that I keep in my car. Within about 20 minutes I was able to charge the camera enough to complete the event with plenty of battery to spare. Above this is a separate, smaller cover that hides the remote shutter release port.
The right side of the camera houses the card slots. The X-T3 has two UHS-II compatible SD card slots, which is something a lot of us value for a variety of reasons. This helps the camera to feel more professional grade.
On the bottom of the camera there is a battery door. The X-T3 uses the NP-W126S battery pack. CIPA has rated this battery pack at 390 shots with the X-T3, which I would call conservative. It doesn’t seem to eat batteries at the same pace as the a6500, but it would be wise to have a spare or two. There’s also a covered port where one could connect the VG-XT3 vertical battery grip if one required more battery life. It should be noted, however, that the X-T3 does not require a battery grip to enable faster burst rates like previous cameras. All of the abilities of the camera are native to it.
The X-T3 sports a OLED electronic viewfinder design with 3.69m-dot resolution and a high 0.75x magnification, specs which rival the Sony a7R3 and exceed those of the a73. Not a bad place to be for a camera that costs literally half as much as the a7R3. It has a good refresh rate (100fps) and I saw no blackout under any kind of shooting conditions. It’s just one more way that the X-T3 exceeds its apparent market position.
The camera body is made of a magnesium alloy and sports quality weather sealing. There’s a lot of great stuff happening in the build and design of the Fuji X-T3, but the sheer number of physical controls is somewhat polarizing (according to feedback from my audience thus far) and the lack of IBIS is a factor that may sway some to Sony despite Fuji’s other advantages.
Fuji X-T3 Autofocus Performance
Improved autofocus is one of the core areas of improvement with the X-T3. People’s expectation of autofocus performance of mirrorless bodies has continued to grow, but fortunately the technology seems to be rapidly improving. The X-T3 has a completely new sensor with higher resolution, and autofocus is actually part of that package. In Fuji’s words, “The sensor’s design also includes an expanded phase-detection autofocus system, which now has an impressive 2,160,000 points that cover nearly the entire sensor area. This AF system delivers faster, more accurate focusing performance along with low-light sensitivity down to EV -3. Complementing the imaging and focusing capabilities, an updated X-Processor 4 is also featured, and delivers faster focus response for subject tracking and also supports Face- and Eye-Detection AF when working in AF-C mode and when recording video.
The X-Processor 4 also utilizes four CPU units for faster image processing and it benefits overall performance with AF speeds as low as 0.06 sec. 0.17 sec shooting intervals, 0.045 sec shutter lag, and a 0.3 sec start-up time. Quick continuous shooting is possible, up to 11 fps with a mechanical shutter or 30 fps with an electronic shutter and a 1.25x crop, and internal UHD 4K60 video recording with 10-bit output is also supported.“
I had a unique opportunity to test these claims as I was simultaneously testing Fuji’s first super-telephoto lens, the XF 200mm F2 OIS (a stunning lens, by the way). In a sense, Fuji had to develop an incredible autofocusing camera to make this lens worth buying, so I think that the development of these two products had some overlap. What is certain is that the Fuji X-T3 has a remarkably robust autofocus system on a lot of levels. As noted, it has the part which frankly I consider mostly marketing, namely the 2,160,000 phase detect points. Every camera maker has different ways of disseminating this kind of information, but it’s obviously essentially impossible to either verify or debunk this claim, as all of those focus points actually boil down to 425 selectable AF points (which is about all you would ever want packed over an APS-C sensor anyway!).
The vast majority of the sensor is covered with AF points, and the improved sensitivity of those points means that many of you who have lenses that you’ve used with previous Fuji cameras will probably note a marked improvement in your low light focus. Because I don’t have a history with Fuji, I can’t tell you the difference. What I can say, however, is that I had good focus results (though some reduced focus speed, as per usual) in very low light conditions. It always helps to have an edge on your subject (a contrast point) to aid AF, but I was able to lock accurate focus in what was a 1/17th second exposure at ISO 12,800 – essentially a dark room with a little bit of light spilling in through a doorway. My focus accuracy in general was nothing short of excellent.
We might as well start with the extreme – high speed tracking.
First of all, in a camera like the X-T3 you have the opportunity to select different AF-C custom modes, though my Fuji expert (one of the Fuji Guys!) feels like the standard “Multi-Purpose” mode often does the best job. I tried a few different modes but didn’t notice a major difference in the effectiveness. Still, it’s worth taking a look and trying to match the mode to your priorities for a given sequence. The other thing that I noticed was that I got much better results when I started off a sequence with focus locked rather than trying to pick it up on a moving target while already taking photos. I think you are better served by taking a second and locking focus on the moving target before holding the shutter button down and bursting.
You have the ability to fire off a LOT of frames very quickly. The limit with a mechanical shutter is 11 FPS (with full continuous autofocus). This is obviously exceptionally fast, and represents the practical limit of what I would ever need and more. This is very close to what the Nikon D5 or Canon 5D Mark IV are producing…and at higher resolution to boot! Where the X-T3 lags behind those sports/action cameras is in the buffer, where the X-T3 can capture about 36 RAW images or 145 JPEGs. That’s still very useful, but that also means that you can fill the buffer in a little over three seconds! You can select an 8FPS option to give you a little longer sequence and still plenty of frames.
If you want to go the other direction, however, you can switch to Electronic Shutter mode and jump to 20 FPS with continuous autofocus. Be ready to nail your subject, though, as your buffer drops to 34 RAW files or 79 JPEGS. In RAW you’ve got less than 2 seconds before the buffer fills. But that’s not all! You can also switch to a Sports Crop Mode (1.25x) that gives you a bit of additional reach but also reduces the size of each file so that you can extend your buffer. You can select a 10FPS mode that will give you nearly 39 RAW (uncompressed) or 500 JPEGs. Jumping to 20FPS gives you 34 RAW and 114 JPEGs, and finally a 30FPS option (WOW!!) that gives you 33 RAW frames or 60 JPEGS. The latter mode is obviously for very unique circumstances, and it will be imperative to time things properly. Fuji’s guidelines on buffer seem to bear up in testing.
One final plus is that the camera does quite a good job of quickly clearing the buffer without the penalties a lot of Sony cameras have (sitting and waiting!) The combination of the buffer, frame rate, and an excellent focus system make this a surprisingly capable action camera.
My “torture test” has been tracking our dog (about a 23 pound King Charles Cavalier Spaniel) playing high speed fetch. It’s a fairly small subject moving at a very high rate of speed, and inferior focus systems just can’t track this combination. This is compounded in this case by the fact that a 200mm lens at F2 on an APS-C body has a depth of field at 20 feet of less than 3 inches (8 cm or so). That’s a very small margin for error, and thus it is a very, very demanding scenario. I found that when I started a sequence with focus locked, I was able to have accurate focus on a high percentage of the frames in a burst (and at 11 frames per second on the X-T3, those add up quickly!). Here’s one such sequence:
You can see that focus remained locked until the subject got too close to the camera. Here’s another favorite little sequence because of the nature of the shots with my Bengal cat chasing the dog rather than the other way around:
I also had excellent success when tracking a panning sequence, though in many ways this is less demanding as the distance between the subject and the camera changes less significantly. What this sequence shows, however, is that the focus system effectively keeps from being “distracted” away from the subject.
I’ve done a little post-processing on one of the photos from the burst and added a crop so that you can just how well focused these images actually are:
If I didn’t start off with focus lock and just started a burst, however, my success rate went way down, with the camera/lens often not picking up focus until late in the burst (if at all). With such a small margin for error (shallow DOF), even a minor miss is pretty obvious.
I don’t doubt that with more familiarity with the combination, I could get even better results. Still, what I’ve seen is enough for me to know that this will make a very effective action pairing (X-T3 + XF 200) for photographers. If I can get successful results with the scenario described above, then more typical action (larger target and lower rate of speed) should be very easy.
Moving on to more moderate subjects, I found that I experienced universally excellent autofocus consistency throughout the course of my review period. You have a number of different focus modes you can access along with multiple ways to interact with those focus points. You can use your thumb on the touchscreen to move an autofocus point or zone around, or you can use the little joystick to do something similar. Which is better for you will ultimately be a matter of preference. As this photo and crop show, however, autofocus is extremely precise.
When I was just learning the camera and the XF 200mm, I was desperate for subjects. A neighborhood cat had strayed into our yard, and I wanted a subject, so I took a few photos. There’s nothing particularly wonderful about this photo, but I was curious about the nature of the autofocus accuracy. I was pleasantly surprised by the intuitive nature of the autofocus system that locked onto the cat even though it was mostly hidden behind a little oak sapling. I felt like this was an intelligent autofocus moment, and it increased my respect for the abilities of this system.
The X-T3 has its own version of Eye AF (and mentioned in the previous section), which actually allows you to prioritize what eye you want in focus (a clever feature). While Sony’s Eye AF seems more robust in its ability to lock onto eyes and track them in real time even with exaggerated movement, I actually found the Fuji’s performance just as good for practical purposes. Let’s start with events, where I found I had a near perfect track record of locking on faces/eyes with either the very expensive XF 200 F2 but also the relatively inexpensive XF 35mm F2.
The same was true when I did portraits with the X-T3. I had essentially all perfectly-focused images from some portrait sessions with multiple lenses. The full spread of AF points means that you can essentially put focus anywhere and get accurate results.
I had very little to complain about with the autofocus performance I got from the X-T3. It handily leaves the nearest competitor that I’m familiar with – the Sony a6500 – in the dust. The AF is more sophisticated, faster, and has much better controls attached to it. My final illustration was taken in deep twilight conditions, ISO 6400, with the 200mm F2 + 1.4x TC, so a 280mm F2.8. Despite the dusk lighting conditions, in shadow, with a long lens/TC combination, autofocus accuracy is nailed.
Fuji X-T3 Sensor Performance
I had the opportunity to test the X-T3’s sensor against a number of other mirrorless competitors, including the Canon EOS R and Sony a7R3 (my stand-in for the a73, which I don’t have) and the Sony a6500. I tested a number of different metrics and came away pretty impressed with what Fuji has done. Every camera is a balance between different priorities, but I think Fuji has managed to strike a pretty good balance with its new sensor in the X-T3.
From Fuji, “[with] a newly developed sensor, the X-T3 features an APS-C-format 26.1MP X-Trans CMOS 4 sensor, which has a back-illuminated design to afford smooth tonal rendering, improved low-light performance, and a low native ISO 160 setting. As an X-Trans sensor, it still utilizes the randomized pixel array, too, which provides a high degree of image quality and sharpness due to the omission of an optical low-pass filter. Versus conventional pixel patterns, the X-Trans design more closely mimics the organic nature of film in order to produce nuanced colors and tonal transitions, while also reducing moiré and aliasing.”
All of this sounds very good, of course, but how does it play out in real life?
Fuji X-T3 ISO Performance
First of all, this is my first time testing a camera with a base ISO HIGHER than ISO 100. I’ve tested a few with a lower-than-100 base ISO, but never a higher one. This proved a little bit of a challenge for some of my comparisons, since all of my mental maths for calculating proper shutter speeds and stops is based on a base ISO of 100. Those quandaries aside, I actually didn’t find the higher base ISO affected my day to day shooting very much other than ending up with some different shutter speeds than I’m accustomed to seeing. The native ISO range of the camera is more limited than any I’ve reviewed in modern history, running from ISO 160 to 12,800, with an expanded range going doing to ISO 80 and moving up to 51,200 on the high end. I personally don’t ever use expanded ISO range, though from what I’ve heard, Fuji tends towards the conservative end of things when calculating the ISO abilities of its cameras. After running extensive tests, I will say that I believe the X-T3 to be very competent throughout its native ISO range. This shot is at ISO 6400:
The best way to see how the X-T3 performs at higher ISO values and how it compares to the other cameras is by watching this “Sensor Wars” episode.
It would be difficult to disseminate all the information covered in the video, but I’ll hit some of the highlights. At ISO 1600 there is virtually no difference from base ISO (160) on global examination of the image. There is no additional apparent noise, color fidelity remains the same, and global contrast looks identical.
If we zoom in to a pixel level, we see, well, pretty much the same thing. You might be able to find slightly more noise if you looked really hard, but without the two images side by side, I doubt you’d be able to spot it. This is still a very, very clean result.
If we advance two more ISO stops, to ISO 6400, we see pretty much the same thing on a global level. If I compare the ISO 1600 result (on the left) with the ISO 6400 result (on the right), they look essentially the same.
At a pixel level it is possible to see some increased noise now, though it tends to show up mostly on places that are smooth and have no texture of their own. Contrast and color fidelity remain strong, and I’m not seeing any real color banding or color casts.
At max ISO (normal range), I can’t objectively say I see much of a difference on a global level, though I know that there is additional roughness at a pixel level. Earlier cameras would often deliver a low contrast, color-tinted result at their ISO limits, but that’s not at all the case with the X-T3. The color and contrast at ISO 12,800 looks nearly identical to the ISO 6400 result.
At a pixel level we can primarily see additional roughness (noise). I would classify it as being noticeable but not destructive.
The most natural competitor for the X-T3 is the Sony a6500. They looked more similar than different, though I would say that I found the a6500’s noise pattern a little rougher.
Fuji says that the X-Trans sensor produces a more film-grain-like noise pattern. I’m not sure I can see much of a difference. Here’s a real world shot at maximum ISO (12,800). I’ll let you decide for yourself whether that looks like film to you or not. I’ll include a monochrome to help you pretend that it is film.
Fuji claims that they are delivering “full-frame-equivalent” results with their APS-C X-Trans sensors. Obviously the recent full frame competitors have a much greater ISO range (up to a native ISO 40,000 + expanded), though, as noted, Fuji does tend to be a little conservative on that front. When I compare the new EOS R or my Sony a7R3, I do find the size of the pixels/noise less obvious, but neither is it marked difference:
The most obvious difference would be if I downsample the resolution of the a7R3 down to the 6240 x 4160 resolution of the X-T3.
That’s not entirely fair, however, as the X-T3 actually has a great pixel density than the a7R3. A rough calculation of the pixel density on its 1.53x crop factor sensor means that you would need a full frame camera with around 60 megapixels to have a similar pixel density. The a7R3 has more megapixels in an absolute sense, but relative to sensor size it actually has less. Pixel pitch is a measurement of the distance between each individual pixel (from the center of one to the center of the next. The a7R3 has a pixel pitch of 4.5 µm; the X-T3 has a pixel pitch of 3.74 µm. To put it more clearly: the Fuji X-T3 has a tremendous number of pixels packed into a a very small areas. So, the fact that it does as well as it does in this comparison speaks well of what Fuji has accomplished. You are able to get highly detailed images with relatively low noise even at higher ISO settings. Pretty impressive, really.
Fuji X-T3 Dynamic Range Performance
I’ve got a great video episode that both teaches dynamic range and compares the X-T3 to other leading cameras in this area both at base ISO and at ISO 6400. Watching this will be the best to get the information.
I value dynamic range within a camera in two specific areas: the ability to cleanly lift shadows without introducing noise or color banding and the ability to recover highlights without introducing “hot spots” where information has been permanently lost. The current leaders in this category are the best sensors from Sony and Nikon (which may be a redundant statement). The value of good dynamic range is in the margins of photography, as eliminating shadows or recovering blown out highlights doesn’t always produce the better image. Having good dynamic range (particularly if you shoot RAW), allows you a lot more creative vision over how the final image will turn out. Take this image, for example. The original is pretty flat and lifeless. I’ve had to do this review during some rather poor conditions when the lighting has been mostly grey and flat. Still, with a few tweaks in Lightroom (perhaps 20 seconds of work), I’ve created an image that is perhaps a little too vivid. If I were sharing this image I would refine things a little further, but it does a good job of illustrating what dynamic range in a modern camera allows you to do in post. You can see much more information in both the highlights and shadows, and that’s dynamic range at work.
There are many scenes in nature where the variance between bright areas and shadows exceeds a camera’s ability to record the whole range of light (our eyes are extraordinarily good at this). The ability to recover highlights means that a blown out sky might be recovered and add a lot of visual interest to an image, or perhaps to eliminate “hot spots” on a person’s face that has gotten overexposed by a flash. The ability to recover shadows allows you to, for example, underexpose a bit so that the sky is not blown out while still safely recovering information in the shadows. It can also be a lifesaver if a flash doesn’t fire, for example, or settings are wrong, and a crucial image that could have been lost can be saved in post. This is the real-world value of dynamic range.
In my tests, I found that the X-T3 did an excellent job of recovering shadows very cleanly. Here we have an image that I purposefully underexposed by four stops. As you can see in the original RAW image, there is very little information left there. In post I added those four stops back into the recovered image. What we find is an image that has been recovered with very little penalty. The X-T3 does excellent with shadow recovery.
Even if we look in at a pixel level, we see very little noise introduced and no color casts or banding.
As is often the case, highlight recovery lags behind shadow recovery. I’ve only done a three stop overexposure here, and yet you can still see that there are a few unnaturally bright areas in the global scene where some information has been lost. This is what we call hotspots.
Taking a look at a pixel level, we can see places like the facade of the Spotmatic where some of the texture has been permanently lost. Increased dynamic range would allow that to be recovered.
Sony is class-leading in this category, and the main reason is in highlight recovery. I find other cameras (including the X-T3) competitive in shadow recovery, but where Sony pulls ahead is in highlight recovery.
Here’s a final little anecdote on this topic. I was shooting at an event, and a photographer friend was very excited to try the X-T3 and XF 200mm F2 combo. Unfortunately he didn’t know the controls, so his early shots were, well, pretty brutally underexposed as the event was over and I had been shooting for stage lighting conditions while he was randomly shooting subjects under house lighting. My first inclination was to just delete the following image, but then I thought, “What a great opportunity to show a real-world example of recovery”. Unfortunately the image itself is probably not worth recovery, but it does illustrate the point even under far less than ideal lighting conditions (and at ISO 1600 rather than base ISO). This is a 3-stop recovery and I have done nothing but add exposure and adjust the white balance – no noise reduction of any kind.
The Fujifilm X-T3 is competitive within the segment but not class-leading when it comes to dynamic range. I would estimate that it sits around 1.5 stops behind the best from Sony.
X-T3 Resolution and Detail
As I’ve previously noted, the X-T3 has a lot of pixels packed into it’s APS-C sensor. 24 MP has been the previous standard limit, though Samsung did push past that to 28 MP in the NX500. While the rumors ahead of release were that Fuji would do something similar, instead we see that they elected to split the difference at 26 MP. This is, frankly, where Fuji’s commitment to APS-C over full frame will be a challenge. We’ve already noted that this 26MP APS-C sensor has a much higher pixel density than the highest resolution full frame camera (at the moment of this release that remains to be the Canon 5DsR with its 50.6MP sensor and pixel pitch of 4.13 µm. Without some kind of breakthrough technology it will be hard to push resolution much higher on APS-C without introducing too many other compromises. In the past few camera generations we’ve seen full frame cameras jump from around 22MP to the 50MP of the 5DsR, whereas over that same period APS-C had gone from 18-20MP to as high as 28MP (and that camera is no longer being produced). Not quite the same giant leap.
All of that aside, however, the Fuji X-T3 is delivering the most detailed APS-C images I’ve personally seen. There is a tremendous amount of information packed into photos, and I’ve found the resolution perfectly suited to my own work. Look at the amount of information in the fur of our dog (and this is at F2 from that amazing XF 200mm F2).
In many ways resolution has more to do with marketing than reality, as most photographers are sharing photos that are displayed on screens with much, much lower resolution than what even the lowest end mirrorless or DSLR camera is capable of. My main display is a 4K monitor, but if you did the same calculations for “megapixels” with it’s resolution, it would be only a 8.2MP display. There are some 8K displays out there now (that’s a 33MP equivalent), but at current sizes you would have to look at them from about 12 inches away to appreciate the difference…and at the moment there aren’t really consumer graphics cards that can drive that kind of resolution.
Most photos are being viewed at much lower resolutions than what the camera that captured them is capable of producing. There are some exceptions to this rule. If you shoot commercial photography, for example, your work might need to be blown up to billboard size. If you do a lot of large format printing, a very high resolution camera might make a difference. But for most people in most situations the 26 MP resolution of the X-T3 is going to be plenty. There’s even a crop mode at 1.25x which gives you a still-useful 16.6 MP resolution but with additional reach (and also enables some of the insane frame rate options mentioned above). I found that I’m getting the most detailed APS-C images that I’ve gotten before.
I think the amount of detail in images will be very satisfying to end users. There’s one minor Fuji quirk that may be related to the X-Trans arrangement on the sensor, and that is that sharpening of images needs to be handled a little differently. When you start to push sharpening on X-T3 images, a pattern almost like tiny brush strokes starts to emerge. Now, maybe you’ll like this, but I can definitely say that it is different behavior than what I’ve seen before. I really noticed this when I compared the E-mount version of the Kamlan on the a6500 to the X-mount version on the X-T3 and shot the same sharpness test. The two images sharpen very differently in Lightroom (look closely to see the pattern).
Color science is a fairly divisive topic. I’ve found that my work in comparing color science has been both popular and controversial. Here’s at least part of the reason why: people don’t all see color identically. This has become evident based on a number of photos that circulate around the Internet featuring a dress or sandals that people perceive to be very different colors. Part of this has to do with the way that people’s eyes process color (some have more red cones in the eye, others more green), but it also comes down to the reality that in the Internet age people view images on screens that vary widely in their color calibration and accuracy. Put simply: not everyone is seeing the same thing.
I use two displays in my personal desktop array. My primary display is a high-end BenQ SW271 (I reviewed it here), with my secondary display being an older Dell U2410. I calibrate both of them on a monthly basis using a Spyder5 Pro. I also view my photos regularly on the screen of my iPad Pro and my Dell XPS 13 laptop (which also has a high end 4K display). In short, I use a lot of high quality screens in my work, and, based on what I see on them (and from prints), I feel like Canon produces the best, most natural color.
A Fuji portrait in Classic Chrome (with some tweaks).
The color from the X-T3 seems closer to Canon than Sony, from what I can tell, but it doesn’t handle identically. I find that you have to learn how to process color from each camera maker (and sometimes down to the individual camera). After nearly a year with the Sony a7R3, I find that I’m much happier with the color I can get out of it…but I had to learn how to handle the color in post. I did that by developing custom profiles over time.
Getting good color out of Fuji is less complicated, though I don’t feel that I’ve yet maximized the potential of what I will be able to do. It starts with selecting a color profile in camera or in post. Fuji’s approach to this is a little different, as instead of basic color profiles they instead offer film simulations with names that evoke classic film stocks (the company is called FujiFILM after all!) This includes stocks like Provia, Velvia, Astia, Classic Chrome, and more. I’m still experimenting, but I most frequently reach for Classic Chrome. It’s a little less saturated but often has a tasteful look to it. I find Velvia (which is Vivid) too intense for me. Provia is the Standard, and it is fairly neutral. Astia is “Soft”, and it’s another one I like. Your mileage may vary, and what I like for one type of image is not necessarily what I like for another.
Still, here’s a look an image with a number of different profiles applied in Lightroom. First, Adobe Standard:
Now Astia (Soft)
Now Classic Chrome
Provia
Velvia
I feel like I’ve been able to develop a feel from Fuji color fairly quickly, and, while I’m not as familiar with it yet as I am with Canon (and to a lesser extent, Sony), I’m very happy with the images I’ve been able to get from it.
You’ve also got a lot of great options on the monochrome front, with classic film emulations but also the ability to go into the menus and tweak the look in several ways. For example, if I select Acros, I’ve got the added ability to select whether to apply a Yellow Filter (more contrast, darker skies), Red (slightly more extreme of yellow), or Green (for better skin tones). There is also an option to warm or cool the monochrome image in camera. You can move to near-sepia on the warm side and near-selenium on the cool side. I’ve included three different looks in this little gallery, including an Acros monochrome, an Eterna Cinema look, and a Provia Standard:
You can also control grain (if that’s your thing) in camera as well. Most of these tweaks in-camera will only matter if you are shooting JPEGs. If you are shooting RAWs you can do all of this in post. Many that have chosen Fuji have done so for their ability to shoot JPEGs and get what they like right out of camera. If that sounds like you, then the Fuji X-T3 might be a great choice. It’s certainly got a lot of customization available for influencing the output.
I would recommend that you take a long look at the Image Galleries page to see if you like what is there – most of which has received minimal processing so you can make a fair determination.
Fuji X-T3 Video
If you’ve read this far, then you’ve probably figured out that the X-T3 is definitely a feature-packed camera. The same applies to the video front. Fuji says this, “More than a stills camera, the X-T3 offers an enticing array of video capabilities, including internal UHD 4K60p video recording at 4:2:0 10-bit, as well as 4K60p 4:2:2 10-bit via HDMI output, both at up to 400 Mb/s—and simultaneous external and internal recording is possible. DCI 4K30 and Full HD 1080p120 recording is also possible, and video files can be saved using either MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 or HEVC/H.265 compressions, and 4K. Greatly benefitting overall video performance, the speed of the quad-CPU X-Processor 4 enables fast read speeds of 17 ms when recording 4K60 video, which helps to reduce rolling shutter distortion when filming moving subjects.
In addition to the supported 10-bit color depth, the X-T3 also includes the F-Log gamma setting, which provides a flat picture for use in advanced color grading software during editing. This maximizes the potential dynamic range in difficult scenes and image adjustments can be made, as well, to highlight tone, shadow tone, color, and sharpness. When working in F-Log, an updated noise reduction algorithm is available along with 4K inter-frame noise reduction, and the Minimum sensitivity has been lowered to ISO 640 to suit working in a broader range of scene types.”
Bottom line is that Fuji has nailed the specifications. From the bitrates to the frame rates (4K60!) to the inclusion of F-Log, there are a host of choices here. My experience with the video is that the X-T3 is capable of producing beautiful footage either with the standard film emulations or with F-Log. You can see some footage in the final video review.
I’ve got two criticisms on the video front. One will apparently be solved via firmware update soon, according to this article. Currently the X-T3 has a 4GB file limit, after which the camera instantly starts a new file. For many people that’s not a big deal, but I use these cameras to record longer format clips for my YouTube Channel (in 4K), and I had four separate files after one of my reviews that I filmed on the X-T3. It just creates more work for me, as I synchronize audio in post, so having to do that four times rather than once creates more steps for me. The V2.0 firmware is supposed to eliminate that limitation (along with introducing some other new specs).
The second issue that I saw may or may not be related to the two lenses that I had on hand to test with. I found that focus transitions during video AF weren’t as smooth as what I would like. There was at times a visible stepping instead of a smooth transition. It appears that this is an area where Fuji lags a bit behind Canon and Sony.
Those minor criticisms aside, however, this is an amazing little video camera. It’s got a LOT of tech packed into it, and so far I haven’t run into any overheating issues.
Conclusion
The FUJIFILM X-T3 is, quite simply, the most versatile, well-rounded APS-C camera of any type that I’ve ever seen…mirrorless or otherwise. It may be the most compelling reason to NOT go full-frame out there, particularly if you value the smaller/lighter philosophy. Fuji has developed a wonderful ecosystem of lenses to support their cameras, and without question they have the best selection of higher-grade, better performing lenses designed specifically for APS-C out there. Most of these lenses are priced reasonably when compared to the full frame equivalents for other systems. The X-T3 has a great focus system, excellent image quality, strong sensor performance, and impressive frame rates both for action shooting and for filming. I’ve got only one serious complaint, and that is Fuji’s choice to not include IBIS (In-Body-Image-Stabilization) and cede that major advantage to Sony. Some may be a bit daunted by the massive amounts of physical controls, though I personally enjoy that aspect of the camera, and one always has the option to utilize the Quick or Regular menus to make changes instead. Still, I think some would fear dials and settings getting changed and then not knowing how to “fix” things.
There are very few images you can’t get with with the X-T3, as both its focus system and sensor are capable of a lot. It’s price (right under $1500 USD) makes it feel like a bargain when you consider all that it has to offer. If you want a small, light, versatile camera, look no further than the Fujfilm X-T3. It might just make you this happy:
Pros:
Beautiful build with a classic sensibility
Excellent focus system that exceeds anything from Fuji previously
Extremely fast frame rates with continuous autofocus
Tracking ability works well
26MP X-Trans sensor produces good detail, ISO performance, and dynamic range
Great video specs, including 4K60P options
Huge amounts of customization available for images and controls
Solid ergonomics
Great lens selection
Performance available without the need for any accessories
Flushes buffers quickly
Cons:
No IBIS
Some may find number of physical controls overwhelming
Battery life is average at best
Video AF transitions not as smooth as Canon or Sony
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Bluetti Handsfree 2 Portable Power Backpack Review 
Sirui Aurora 85mm F1.4 AF Gallery 
Sirui Aurora 85mm F1.4 Review 
Yongnuo YN 33mm F1.4 DA DSM WL Pro Gallery 
