Someone asked me for advice: should they sell their Fujifilm X100V (plus the wide and tele conversion lenses) and buy an X-T5 (plus some f/2 Fujinon lenses), or just keep the X100V? They really like the X100V, and it works well for their photography, but they think the X-T5 might be better. I was going to answer this question personally, but I can’t find the email or DM (sorry); instead, I will answer the question publicly, and hope they find it. Maybe it will also be helpful to some of you considering a similar scenario.
Because there is so much demand for and so little supply of the X100V, they’re selling for an inflated price right now. If a camera like the X-T5 is financially out-of-reach, yet you can get a good amount for your X100V, now the X-T5 is a possibility. But is it worth it?
I have a Fujifilm X100V. It was a birthday gift from my wife over three years ago, and it’s been my favorite camera ever since. Even though my X100V is far from new, it is still such a great camera, and I use it all of the time. I feel like it is the perfect tool 90% of the time, 8% of the time it’s not ideal but can be made to work, and 2% of the time it is just the wrong tool for the job. That’s for my photography. You might find it to be perfect 100% of the time for yours, or only 50%, or something else entirely. Each person is different. My opinion is that, while the X100V is my favorite camera, it is best when you have an interchangeable-lens option for those situations when it is not ideal.
I have a Fujifilm X-T5. I purchased it when it was announced so that I could try the new Nostalgic Neg. film simulation. The X-T5 is such a great camera, too—very wonderful! Fujifilm did an excellent job with this one. But I don’t like it nearly as much as the X100V. If I put the two models next to each other, most of the time I’d grab the X100V and not the X-T5. Let me give you five reasons for this.
Before I do—just real quick—I want to make it clear that this article is not about bashing the Fujifilm X-T5 or any other camera. I’m sure for some of you the X-T5 is your all-time favorite model, and you’ve never been happier. It could be that if you purchased it, you’d find the perfect camera for you. Each person will have their own preferences because we’re all different, and we have some excellent options to choose from. I’m simply speaking about my personal experiences and preferences.
First, the Fujifilm X-T5, while still fairly small and lightweight, is bigger and heavier than my X100V. This matters a lot to me, because the X100V rarely gets in the way, while the X-T5 can and sometimes does. After awhile of carrying around, the X-T5 gets tiring a lot quicker than the X100V. Also, I have a travel kit that I really like, and the X100V fits really well in it, while the X-T5 doesn’t.
Second, the Fujifilm X100V has some features that I find especially useful, such as the built-in fill-flash that works incredibly well (thanks to the leaf shutter and Fujifilm’s programming) and a built-in ND filter. The X-T5 has IBIS, which is also a useful feature, so this isn’t completely lopsided in favor of the X100V, but I use the fill-flash and ND filter fairly frequently, while IBIS is only occasionally useful for me—you might find the opposite to be true for you.
Third, the Fujifilm X-T5 is designed like an SLR, and the viewfinder is in the middle; the X100V is designed like a rangefinder, and the viewfinder is on the corner. When I use the X-T5, my nose gets smooshed against the rear LCD, and often leaves a smudge. With the X100V, my nose sits next to the camera completely unsmooshed (did I just make up a new word?), and the rear LCD remains smudgeless (another made-up word?).
Fourth, the X100V has more manageable file sizes than the X-T5. The 26-megapixel images from the X100V are plenty for me. I’ve printed 2′ x 3′ from straight-out-of-camera JPEGs, and they look great. I don’t print larger than that, so I don’t really need the extra resolution. If I needed to crop deeply I could with the X-T5, but since it’s an interchangeable-lens model, I’d simply change the lens as my first option. The X-T5’s 40-megapixel pictures fill up an SD card and my phone’s storage noticeably quicker. Sometimes more resolution means more problems.
Fifth, the Fujifilm X-T5 is subject to dust on the sensor. Technically, it’s possible to get a dirty sensor on the X100V (and that would be a big problem), but it would take a combination of a crazy scenario (I’m thinking haboob) and mishandling (no filter attached). I’ve never had a single dust spot (knock on wood) on my X100V, but it’s a constant battle with my X-T5 (and my other interchangeable-lens models).
So my recommendation is to keep the Fujifilm X100V, and not sell it to fund the purchase of an X-T5. That’s my advice, but it is up to each person to determine what is most appropriate for their unique situation. What’s best for me may not be what’s best for you.
With that said, I do think it makes a lot of sense to have an interchangeable-lens option to go with the X100V. I have a Fujifilm X-E4 that I especially love, and I use it more often than the X-T5. Yes, you heard that correctly: the X100V is my most used camera, the X-E4 is number two, and the X-T5 is in third place right now. They’re all wonderful options, and you should be happy with any of them. In the specific situation I was asked about, I do believe that cost is a significant consideration, and I’d look into a used Fujifilm X-E3 as a companion to the X100V, since the X-E4 might be too expensive or difficult to find.
This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.
What’s better, the Ricoh GR III or the Fujifilm X-E4 with a Fujinon 18mm f/2 lens? They’re both compact APS-C cameras that are reasonably affordable. They are both capable of producing excellent straight-out-of-camera JPEGs that don’t require editing. But which one is the best? If put head-to-head, which one will come out on top? Let’s find out!
The biggest pro for the Ricoh GR—and let’s be honest, this is the reason to own it—is its super compact size—the smallest APS-C camera, in fact. The GR III easily fits into my pants pockets or nearly anywhere. It’s perfect for travel or for just carrying around. The inconspicuous design lends itself well for street photography. The GR III has IBIS, albeit a mediocre one that’s not particular necessary with an 18mm lens (but, still, it has it). Snap focus is a pretty useful feature. Ricoh just gave it a new Image Control Effect (their version of a Film Simulation) with a Kaizen firmware update, something Fujifilm hasn’t done in a long time. Perhaps the second biggest pro to the Ricoh GR III is that you can actually buy one without too much difficulty.
The biggest con for the Ricoh GR is that it has a fixed lens. That could be good or bad, depending on your perspective, but for certain it lacks versatility—the GR III is a one-trick pony, but of course it does that one trick very well. Another big con is that it lacks a viewfinder; because the LCD doesn’t move, the camera can be hard to use in harsh light conditions. I don’t like that it has a PASM dial, as I much prefer the manual tactile controls found on most Fujifilm cameras. While the camera-made JPEGs do look good, I prefer those from the Fujifilm X-E4, as I think Fujifilm’s JPEGs are a little better than Ricoh’s. Finally, the GR III is now over four years old, and it’s perhaps beginning to feel slightly dated.
For the Fujifilm X-E4, the biggest pro is Fujifilm’s renown JPEG output and the large number of Film Simulation Recipes available for it. For straight-out-of-camera photography, it’s very hard to beat this camera! The X-E4 has an electronic viewfinder, as well as a tilting LCD. You can attach any number of different lenses to it; the Fujinon 27mm f/2.8 is my favorite. The Fujinon 18mm f/2 is a full stop brighter than the f/2.8 lens on the Ricoh GR III, which can occasionally be a big deal, but most of the time isn’t. The X-E4 has the traditional camera controls that Fujifilm cameras are known for. Fujifilm released the X-E4 two years after Ricoh released the GR III, and to a small extent you can tell.
The biggest con for the Fujifilm X-E4 is that it’s difficult to find, and, if you do, it might be at an inflated price. Due to parts shortages, Fujifilm couldn’t keep up with demand, and then they (inexplicably) discontinued the camera. Good luck finding one. While the X-E4 is small and pocketable if your pockets are large enough, it’s significantly bigger than the Ricoh GR III. It doesn’t have IBIS, although with the 18mm lens it’s not really necessary. The Fujifilm X-E4 paired with the Fujinon 18mm f/2 has an MSRP of $1,450, while the Ricoh GR III has an MSRP of only $900.
Comparing the Ricoh GR III to the Fujifilm X-E4 with the Fujinon 18mm f/2 lens isn’t really fair. They’re two different tools for two different purposes. But there are enough similarities and crossover that they do make some sense to test side-by-side. I like the Fujifilm X-E4 better—much better, in fact—than the Ricoh GR III, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best camera. Best is subjective, and it kind of depends on your goals and how you’ll use the cameras.
The Ricoh GR III is significantly cheaper and you can buy it right now without too much trouble. The Ricoh GR III is easier to carry around and is more inconspicuous. The Fujifilm X-E4 offers a more fun shooting experience and is much more versatile. I prefer the pictures from the X-E4, but those from the Ricoh GR III are still very good. Ultimately the winner is the one that makes the most sense to you. I own both cameras, and I use the Fujifilm X-E4 probably ten or maybe fifteen times more often than the Ricoh GR III, so it is my winner; however, you might prefer the GR III for various reasons, so it could be your winner. Even though I use the X-E4 much more often, there are times that the GR III is more practical to have with me, so I’m glad that I own it.
Below are some pictures that I recently captured with a Ricoh GR III and a Fujifilm X-E4 with a Fujinon 18mm f/2 lens.
Three retro-styled digital cameras go head-to-head-to-head in Sedona, Arizona, each with a different manual 35mm lens: Meike 35mm f/1.7, TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4, and TTArtisan 35mm f/0.95. Who will win? Let’s find out!
I love shooting with retro-styled digital cameras! For the most part that means Fujifilm models, but I also own a Nikon Zfc. Fujifilm, of course, is renown for this type of camera; for Nikon, this is a (mostly) divergent concept. Some other camera brands also offer rangefinder or classic-SLR styling, but lack the traditional controls (such as a manual shutter knob) that are an essential aspect to the photographic experience. Leica is well above my budget. The three cameras that I chose to shoot with are the Nikon Zfc, Fujifilm X-E4, and Fujifilm X-T5.
Why these three specific cameras? I picked the Nikon Zfc first because I don’t use it very often, and was eager to dust it off. The Fujifilm X-E4 was next because it was released just a few months before the Zfc, was just a little cheaper, and on-paper the two models are fairly comparable. I chose the Fujifilm X-T5 because it is surprisingly similar to the Zfc in size and design.
Each camera was paired with a different manual 35mm lens. I attached a TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 to the Nikon Zfc, a Meike 35mm f/1.7 to the Fujifilm X-E4, and a TTArtisan 35mm f/0.95 to the Fujifilm X-T5. Since I was using manual lenses, I shot all three cameras completely manually—no auto anything. Back when I shot a lot of film, I used a Canon AE-1 (and later a couple of Pentax models), and shot full manual for years. It’s a slower and more challenging process—especially if you don’t have much experience with it—but I find it to be more enjoyable and rewarding.
My birthday gift this year was a trip to Sedona, which is about two hours north of my home in the Phoenix area. Sedona is stunning—almost like being inside the Grand Canyon—so it was the perfect place to conduct this photographic project. Three different cameras, each with a different 35mm lens, going head-to-head-to-head, to see which is best for full manual travel photography in an incredibly beautiful location. Which one will crowned winner?
Nikon Zfc + TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4
Nikon Zfc + TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4
The Nikon Zfc is a beautiful looking camera, no doubt about it! Some curious design choices make it not nearly as good as it could have been. My experience is that this camera makes the most sense when used in manual mode with a third-party manual lens, such as the TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4. It’s bigger and heavier than it should be for its class and features, and the lack of a handgrip make it less than ideal for extended use (considering the size and weight).
I programmed my Vintage Color Film Simulation Recipe into the Zfc and shot 36 exposures (like a roll of film) with the camera while in Sedona. I chose that particular Recipe because I like the retro analog-like rendering that it produces. In general, I feel as though Nikon’s JPEG output is well behind Fujifilm’s, but the quality is still good, and I don’t think it’s necessary to shoot RAW with the Zfc to get nice results—the unedited straight-out-of-camera JPEGs are plenty good enough for most people and purposes.
Of the three cameras, the Nikon Zfc was my least favorite. Honestly, I’d prefer a nine-year-old Fujifilm X-T1, which you can probably find for half the price or less. Still, the Zfc is a good option, and if (for some unknown reason) I could no longer shoot Fujifilm, I’d be happy with the Zfc. Did I mention that it’s a beautiful looking camera? If outward appearances mattered most, the Zfc might very well be the winner. Since the insides are just as important—if not more so—than the outsides, the Nikon is not my favorite camera. With that said, the Zfc is significantly easier to find than the Fujifilm X-E4 (which was recently discontinued, inflating the price) and significantly cheaper than the Fujifilm X-T5 (a higher-end model), making it a good choice for someone buying their first retro-styled digital camera.
The TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 lens is wonderful! I love the design, particularly the clicking f-stops and smooth focus ring. The optical quality is excellent—very sharp! It has good character. The maximum aperture is quite large. The nifty-fifty-like focal length is extremely useful. The price is very affordable. My only complaints are that it has 1/2 intermediate stops (instead of the more common 1/3), those intermediate stops end at f/4, and the lens jumps straight from f/8 to f/16. Of the three 35mm lenses, this one is my favorite for design and practical use, and my second favorite for how it renders images.
Below are some of those 36 exposures that I captured in Sedona with my Nikon Zfc and TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 using the Vintage Color Recipe.
Nikon Zfc + TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 + Vintage Color Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Nikon Zfc + TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 + Vintage Color Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Nikon Zfc + TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 + Vintage Color Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Nikon Zfc + TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 + Vintage Color Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Nikon Zfc + TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 + Vintage Color Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Nikon Zfc + TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 + Vintage Color Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Nikon Zfc + TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 + Vintage Color Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Nikon Zfc + TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 + Vintage Color Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Nikon Zfc + TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 + Vintage Color Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Nikon Zfc + TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 + Vintage Color Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Nikon Zfc + TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 + Vintage Color Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Nikon Zfc + TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 + Vintage Color Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Nikon Zfc + TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 + Vintage Color Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Nikon Zfc + TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 + Vintage Color Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7
The Fujifilm X-E4 was my most-used camera in 2022. Its compact size and simplicity make it an especially excellent option for travel photography. The X-E4 was released just before the Nikon Zfc and with an MSRP a little lower, so it shouldn’t be surprising that on paper these cameras have similar specs (although the X-E4 in my opinion has the advantage in most categories), but once you hold the two cameras, you quickly see that they’re much different. First, the X-E4 is significantly smaller and lighter. The X-E4 has a rangefinder-like styling while the Zfc is SLR-shaped. For full-manual photography, the Zfc has one important advantage: an ISO knob.
Fujifilm did not give the X-E4 an ISO knob or ring. I think an ISO ring around the shutter knob like on the Fujifilm X100V would have been an excellent touch, but they didn’t do that. Normally this is no issue at all because I most commonly use Auto-ISO, and don’t often manually adjust the ISO; however, when one does want to adjust the ISO, one has to dig through the menu, or setup a shortcut. I set the front command wheel to adjust the ISO; while that’s a sufficient workaround, it’s not nearly as ideal as having a dedicated dial. For this project, I set the ISO to 1600, and only adjusted it when I absolutely had to, which worked out alright.
Of the three cameras, the Fujifilm X-E4 was my favorite during this experiment, despite the lack of an ISO dial. The small size and weight make it more pleasant for caring around on hikes or when doing touristy things. While not perfect, it’s one of my favorite cameras; however, the X-E4 has been difficult to find for some time, and even more so now that Fujifilm has discontinued it. To add insult to injury, I’ve noticed some significant price gouging lately. The Nikon Zfc is easy to find and perhaps even at a discount. The Fujifilm X-T5 is still in stock at most stores. If you don’t already own a Fujifilm X-E4, you’re not likely going to get your hands on one anytime soon, and you’ll likely pay a premium, since Fujifilm didn’t produce as many copies as there was demand for.
The Film Simulation Recipe that I programmed into my Fujifilm X-E4 was Fujicolor Natura 1600, which is one of my absolute favorites for achieving an analog aesthetic. I think this particular Recipe could trick unsuspecting viewers into believing that the pictures were actually shot on color negative film. I published this Recipe almost exactly one year ago, and it’s one of my most used. Like the Zfc, I shot 36 exposures with this Recipe while in Sedona, and it didn’t disappoint on this adventure!
The Meike 35mm f/1.7 is a lens that I really love and kind of dislike simultaneously. The aperture ring is click-less, which means that you don’t really know when you are at a particular f-stop. Mostly that’s just annoying and detracts from the experience, but sometimes it’s kind of convenient and actually better than having no intermediate stops or half-stops. The lens jumps from f/8 to f/22 rather quickly. The maximum aperture of f/1.7 is the “slowest” of these three. What I like most about the Meike 35mm lens is the quality and character of the images that it produces, which is just wonderful! This is my second favorite lens of the three for how it looks, my least favorite for the shooting experience, and my most favorite for how it renders pictures. It’s super inexpensive, so it’s very easy to recommend.
Below are some of those 36 exposures that I captured in Sedona with my Fujifilm X-E4 and Meike 35mm f/1.7 using the Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe.
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-E4 + Meike 35mm f/1.7 + Fujicolor Natura 1600 Recipe – Sedona, AZ
Fujifilm X-T5 + TTArtisan 35mm f/0.95
Fujifilm X-T5 + TTArtisan 35mm f/0.95
It might seem unfair to compare the Fujifilm X-T5 to the Fujifilm X-E4 and Nikon Zfc, because this camera is clearly in a different class than the other two. The X-T5 is a more premium model, with IBIS, weather-sealing, better build quality, and double the resolution of the Zfc (and about 55% more than the X-E4). But, aside from the handgrip, the X-T5 and the Zfc are surprisingly similar on the outside, and that’s why I included it in this experiment.
The Fujifilm X-T5 is technically the best of these three cameras, hands down; however, the one reason why I believe the Fujifilm X-E4 won this challenge is size and weight. While visiting Sedona, I enjoyed carrying around the X-E4 more than the X-T5 or Zfc. Comfort and convenience are important aspects of travel photography, and sometimes that trumps pure specs or even key features. If I were to simply choose the best camera, doubtlessly it would the Fujifilm X-T5, but, for the purpose of traveling to Sedona, I liked the X-E4 just a little bit more.
I crowned the X-E4 the winner, but it is not an easy camera to find; if you do happen to see one for sale, the price will likely be inflated. The Fujifilm X-T5 can be found fairly easily, but it is by far the most expensive of these three models. The Zfc offers a somewhat similar experience to the X-T5 when shooting in manual mode with third-party lenses, but for a lot less money. Yes, the X-T5 is significantly better overall, but if you are on a tight budget (and you can’t find an X-E4), the Zfc is not a bad camera to own. If you can find an X-E4 for a reasonable price, that’s my top recommendation. If you can afford the X-T5, that’s a close second. If neither of those are applicable to you, then the Zfc is a decent consolation prize.
The Film Simulation Recipe that I programmed into my Fujifilm X-T5 is 1970’s Summer, which uses the new Nostalgic Neg. film simulation, and produces a warm retro film-like aesthetic with similarities to some classic American New Color pictures. I shot 36 exposures with this Recipe, as if it was a roll of film.
This was my very first time using the TTArtisan 35mm f/0.95 lens, which is by far the most expensive lens of the three, but still reasonably affordable. It’s kind of ugly compared to the other two, sort of resembling a sport’s referee. Wide open it’s extremely soft (nearly unusable, unless you are purposefully seeking dreaminess), but stopped down it’s sharp, and performs especially well from about f/4 to f/8. The aperture ring clicks, which is nice, but with 1/2 intermediate stops (instead of the more common 1/3 stops); thankfully, the intermediate stops go through the whole range to f/16 (the minimum aperture). This lens has the most pronounced distortion of the three. For the most part, I like the images produced by the other two lenses better than this one (which is disappointing considering the price), but the TTArtisan 35mm f/0.95 is still a lens that I enjoyed using and produces good results.
Below are some of those 36 exposures that I captured in Sedona with my Fujifilm X-T5 and TTArtisan 35mm f/0.95 using the 1970’s Summer Recipe.
The Fujicolor Natura 1600 and 1970’s Summer Film Simulation Recipes can be found in the Fuji X Weekly App, along with nearly 300 others. Don’t have the App? Download it for free today! Consider becoming a Fuji X Weekly App Patron to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.
This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
This post is by popular demand! Ever since I started sharing pictures captured with my new-to-me Fujifilm X70, I’ve been bombarded with requests to compare the camera with the XF10 and the Ricoh GR models. And I fully understand why: there aren’t very many truly pocketable APS-C fixed-lens cameras, yet these are perfect for travel, street, and to just carry everywhere and use literally every day. There’s definitely a draw to them, and I can’t fathom why they’re not even more popular. Every photographer should want one of these, or something like them, but they often stay in a state of obscurity. I find it odd, but that’s the way it is.
We’ll start this off with a comparison of the two Fujifilm models: X70 and XF10. What’s similar and what’s different? Which one is better? Of the two, which should you buy?
At first glance you might think they’re the same camera, because they look very similar, and have nearly identical dimensions. The XF10 is lighter than the X70 because it has more plastic in its construction, and it feels like a cheaper camera (which it is). The lens is optically the same, but the X70 has an aperture ring while the XF10 doesn’t. The X70 also has a tilting rear screen, something not found on the XF10. And then there’s the dial: PASM vs Shutter Knob—regular readers of this blog know already that I don’t prefer PASM (putting it mildly), but maybe you do. The XF10 doesn’t have a hot shoe, or C1-C7 Custom Presets. The X70 has a 16-megapixel X-Trans II sensor, while the XF10 has a 24-megapixel Bayer sensor—I think, as far as image quality goes, they’re pretty similar, and I wouldn’t call one output “better” than the other. The XF10 is newer, released more than two-and-a-half years after the X70.
Fujifilm XF10
There are some things, such as Snapshot, that I like about the XF10, but there are some things, such as a generally sluggish performance, that I don’t. Between the two, it’s clear that the X70, despite being an older model released in 2016, is the more premium option, and it is the camera that I prefer of the two. The X70 is a keeper if you’ve got one; the XF10 is dispensable. With that said, the X70 can be hard to find (those who own them rarely sell them) and are often expensive. The XF10 is much easier to find, but finding a bargain on one can still be a challenge. If you are on a tight budget or don’t have much patience (and don’t mind the limitations of this model), the XF10 is a very good runner-up, but if you want the better option of these two, the X70 is the one to go with. Both models have been long discontinued, so don’t expect to find one brand-new, and if you somehow do, know that it will come with a premium price tag; otherwise, you’ll have to be satisfied with something that isn’t new but is new to you.
How does the X70 (and XF10) compare to the Ricoh GR cameras? I’m most known for my Fujifilm Film Simulation Recipes, but lesser known are my Ricoh GR Recipes; I know a thing or two about both brands. I own a GR and a GR III. The GR II is essentially the same camera as the GR (just minor improvements), so everything that I say about the GR in this discussion will apply to the GR II. The GR IIIx has a different focal-length lens, but is otherwise very similar to the GR III, so what I say about the GR III applies also to the GR IIIx. I hope this makes sense and helps to simplify things a little.
The Ricoh GR models are not as pretty as the Fujifilm models, but what they lack in beauty they make up for in compactness. While the X70 and XF10 are small, the GR cameras are really small, which makes them even easier to carry with you everywhere. The GR III is just a little smaller than the GR I & II. Functionality and feature wise, all of the GR models are more similar to the XF10 than the X70. The rear screens are fixed. There’s a PASM dial. There’s no aperture ring around the lens. The GR cameras aren’t laggy like the XF10, though, plus there’s a hot shoe.
Ricoh GR
Image quality on the GR cameras are similarly good compared to the Fujifilm models. My opinion is that the GR, which was released in 2013 and features a 16-megapixel camera, has the “worst” technical image quality of all of these cameras, but there’s some sort of pixie dust that gives it a special quality—I’m not exactly sure what it is, but there’s an unexpected appealing quality to the images (this applies also to the GR II, released in 2015). The GR III, which has a 24-megapixel sensor and was released in 2019, has superior technical image quality over the GR, but lacks a little of that pixie dust. Is technical image quality more important, or that hard-to-define special quality? Your answer will reveal which GR camera to consider. I personally like the GR III a little more than the GR.
What’s better, though: Fujifilm or Ricoh? That’s a really tough decision. I do like Fujifilm’s JPEGs a little more than Ricoh’s, but they’re both very good; the “color science” and approach to JPEG output is different, so you might prefer one over the other (I personally prefer Fujifilm’s, no surprise, but everyone is different). Between the XF10 and any of the GR models, I would go with Ricoh, but Ricoh isn’t the hands-down winner—the XF10 is nearly as good, but the GR cameras are slightly better, in my opinion. Between the X70 and Ricoh, I give the X70 the edge, because the design and shooting experience is superior. Even though the GR models are noticeably smaller and fit just a little easier into my pockets, I’d choose to take the X70 with me instead, as it’s more fun to shoot with. The GR III is the only model that you can still buy brand-new, so if you don’t want to purchase a used camera, it’s your only option.
The best case scenario is if you can own multiple cameras, because each have their advantages and disadvantages. There are times when each of the models discussed in this article could be the best choice. If you own a Fujifilm camera and a GR camera, that allows you to choose which one you think will work best for you in the situations you anticipate encountering. However, if it can only be one, I recommend the Fujifilm X70 (even though I’ve only owned it for a short time), followed very closely by the GR III, then followed very closely by the GR or GR II (get the GR II if the price is the same), then followed very closely by the XF10. Some might disagree with that ranking, but that’s my opinion. I do hope this article is helpful for those trying to decide which one to get.
None of these cameras are perfect by any means, but they are all perfect for shoving into a pocket and carrying with you everywhere. Can’t afford any of them? Don’t worry, just use your phone—if you have an iPhone, be sure to try my RitchieCam camera app! This can serve a similar purpose, and since you already have your phone on you, it’s not necessary to also carry a camera. While I have a phone with RitchieCam in my pocket, I’ll often have a Fujifilm X70 or Ricoh GR III in a pocket, too.
Download the Fuji X Weekly App for free today! AppleAndroid Download the Ricoh Recipes App for free today! AppleAndroid Download the RitchieCam App for iPhone for free today! Apple
Fujifilm North America sent me a GFX-50S medium-format camera and Fujinon 23mm lens to go with it. The camera and lens aren’t mine; I get to use them for a few weeks, then return them to Fujifilm. The camera is $5,500 (it was $6,500 when it came out four years ago), and the lens is $2,600, so just over $8,000 altogether. This is the most expensive camera and lens that I’ve ever put my hands on!
There are two questions that I want to answer: how much better is medium-format GFX over the APS-C X cameras, and which film simulation recipes, if any, are compatible with GFX. By the way, this isn’t my review of the camera. I’ll write that after I’ve had it for longer. This article is the first step towards a review. I’m simply trying to answer a couple of questions about the GFX-50S camera.
Yesterday I did a little survey on my Instagram account: can you tell the difference between pictures captured on my Fujifilm X-T30 with a Rokinon 12mm lens (a $1,200 combo) and those captured on a GFX-50S with a Fujinon 23mm lens? By far, most photographs are viewed on social media. People post their pictures on Instagram and Facebook and other platforms, and that’s how we see them. Printed photographs are far less common. That’s just the way it is. I wanted to know: on social media, is it even possible to tell the difference between pictures captured using $1,200 gear and $8,000 gear?
Before I get into the responses to that survey, I want to briefly talk about the technical stuff—the why. The reason that I chose the X-T30 is because its JPEG settings are very similar to the GFX-50S’ JPEG settings. I used the same film simulation recipes, Kodak Ultramax for color and Kodak Tri-X 400 for black-and-white, on both cameras (this also allowed me to see how similar or dissimilar recipes are rendered on these cameras). I chose the Rokinon 12mm lens because it has the same 18mm full-frame-equivalent focal length as the 23mm lens on the GFX camera. I used f/8 on the Rokinon and f/16 on the Fujinon (to better match the depth-of-field) and adjusted the shutter speed to compensate; otherwise, the settings on both cameras were identical.
Here are the pictures that I posted to Instagram, in the same order:
Fujifilm X-T30
Fujifilm GFX-50S
Fujifilm X-T30
Fujifilm GFX-50S
Fujifilm X-T30
GFX-50S
Fujifilm X-T30
Fujifilm GFX-50S
Now to that survey! The majority of the comments were something to the effect of, “I can’t tell which camera took which pictures.” There were 10 people who took a guess, and five got it right and five wrong. I was actually surprised that five people figured it out—some of you have very keen eyes! There were three sets of two pictures to allow for direct comparisons, but the final two pictures weren’t a set, and those two pictures tripped up a few people who otherwise figured out the rest. Even a couple of those who guessed correctly said that they weren’t certain on those last two. The takeaway is that, on social media, if you study the pictures carefully and can side-by-side compare, there is a barely noticeable difference between images captured on GFX cameras and those captured on X cameras, but otherwise you can’t tell.
Of course, you’re not spending $8,000 for good-looking social media pictures, but for good-looking prints. So I printed the pictures! All of the prints were 8″ x 12″, but I made some crops that would be about 16″ x 24″, 24″ x 36″, and 40″ x 60″ if the rest of the picture was there. Here are a few of those crops:
Fujifilm X-T30
Fujifilm GFX-50S
Fujifilm X-T30
Fujifilm GFX-50S
Fujifilm X-T30
Fujifilm GFX-50S
The prints!
I studied the prints, then I had my wife, Amanda, look at them. We both came to the same conclusion: printed at 8″ x 12″ it’s really difficult to tell which camera captured which picture; at 16″ x 24″ it’s a little easier to tell but still very tough; at 24″ x 36″ it’s more obvious, but the X-T30 still looks pretty good; and at 40″ x 60″ the GFX is the clear winner, but the X-T30 image isn’t awful.
The Fujifilm GFX-50S costs six times as much as the Fujifilm X-T30. Does it produce six times better image quality? No. Does it produce twice as good image quality? No. Is it a pixel-peeper’s dream? Yes! If you like to zoom into your images and admire the fine details that can only be noticed when you look closely, the GFX-50S is a great option. If you need to crop deeply and still have good-looking pictures, the GFX-50S will deliver. If you print really, really big, the GFX-50S is indeed a fine photographic tool. Outside of that, there’s not a big advantage to the medium-format camera. In fact, there might be as many disadvantages as there are advantages, but that’s a discussion for another time. Did I mention that those files look really nice when you look really close?
Forest Creek – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S – Classic Negative
I have seven different film simulation recipes programmed into the GFX-50S right now, and here’s my probably-too-soon opinion: X-Trans III recipes and X-Trans IV recipes that are compatible with the X-T3 and X-T30 are usable on the GFX-50S… but they don’t look exactly the same. One difference is that the JPEGs from the GFX-50S are slightly less saturated and a hair less warm; it’s very minor but noticeable when side-by-side comparing. The GFX-50S has a larger dynamic range, which not only gives you more latitude for highlight and shadow recovery, but also produces a more flat picture; that’s not necessarily bad, just different. The GFX-50S has Classic Negative—yea!—but not the other JPEG options, such as Clarity and Color Chrome FX Blue, that the newer X-Trans IV cameras have.
I look forward to shooting more with the GFX-50S, and I know it will be difficult to send back. Using it reaffirms that X series cameras are fantastic and that the gap between APS-C and medium-format isn’t as big as what one might think. There are people who would benefit from the larger sensor and higher resolution that the GFX-50S offers, and those people likely know who they are. If I could, I would definitely own this camera, but it’s not a big deal that I don’t because my other Fujifilm cameras are pretty darn good, too.
