Joel_O wrote:cially when shooting "as part of the group", not wanting to slow others down.Can I ask what your experience with the 11-22mm EOS M lens is? Is it any sharper than the other zooms and does it also have to be pulled out?I have to say that the EF-M 11-22mm lens is very nice and small, and quite sharp corner to corner. I've used prime lenses that produced worse results!It does have to be pulled out before use though; like I said you can leave it in your bag in the extended state and it's still not very big, I just don't know what effects that might have on durability of the lens.As someone else also said, I guess I've been somewhat underestimating the value of the small high-quality glass that Fuji makes.As it so happens, actually all my Fuji glass is in the larger lenses they produce, so far...But that is what I appreciate about the Fuji APS-C system: it can grow with the user. You can scale your own equipment up or down to suit your needs, while staying with the same lens-mount.What I also appreciate about the Fuji cameras is that compared to my Canon M5, the images just look better when shot at higher ISO. Even if all the detail isn't there that you will get when shooting at base ISO, the amount of noise isn't so disturbing as with my Canon shooting at same ISO.Although, the reviews of the sigma primes are good for Canon M mount (and Sony also supposedly has some good glass (even if they might be bigger))...I think I just need to get my hands on these other brands and try them out before I'll buy a Fuji for the next 10 years.You should definitely try things out.

nnowak wrote:You have some fantastic photos in your post and it sounds like AF speed is one of your primary concerns. Fuji's AF capabilities have improved dramatically since the launch of the X-E1. Not just small incremental improvements, but massive orders of magnitude improvements. All of the 16mp bodies are basically unusable for fast action. The 24mp bodies (X-E3, X-T2, X-T20, etc.) saw a massive jump in AF performance and were very usable for fast action. The newer 26mp bodies (X-E4, X-T30, X-S10, X-T3, etc) are even better. It is really tough to put into words just how dramatic the AF differences are between the older bodies and newer bodies.I have been using the X-T2 to successfully shoot downhill ski racing for a number of years. My keeper rate was easily over 90% and this is with subjects moving over 30mph/50kph and often in situation where they appear suddenly over a knoll. I recently upgraded to the X-T3 and my keeper rate was over 95% at the last ski race of the season. This was about 450 photos with less than 10 that weren't in focus. I shoot bursts with C-AF using a fixed single focus point. I will pre-focus on the upper gate closest to where I am expecting the racer to appear, but this is more to help me see the racer in the viewfinder than any need to assist the AF system. Any of the modern Fuji bodies would have absolutely zero problem providing rapid and reliable AF in the situations depicted in your sample images and would be largely similar to Sony and Canon AF capabilities in these same situations.As for lenses, Sony and Canon have nothing remotely comparable to your XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0. Canon only has two standard zooms for the EF-M system and they are both optically inferior to your XF 18-55mm. Sony's compact standard zooms are even worse and the good lenses are much bigger. Trying to remain compact with the A7C would mean relying almost exclusively on prime lenses and would be next to impossible in the telephoto range. Your X-E1 with 50-230mm weigh 725 grams total. The A7C with the Tamron 70-300mm weighs a total of 1054 grams and is physically much larger too. Sony's own 70-300mm is an additional 309 grams heavier.There have been a lot of rumors lately that Canon will be discontinuing the M system and focusing solely on the R system. R lenses can not be adapted the the M system and M lenses can not be adapted to the R system. Even if it is not discontinued, the M system has been largely neglected. Canon launched the M system in 2012 (the same year Fuji launched the X mount) and have only introduced 8 lenses with one of them (EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6) already discontinued. If you switched to the Canon M6 II, make absolutely sure everything you would ever want from the system is available right now as future updates are extremely unlikely.Thank you very much. You're absolutely right that the biggest reason for me to look elsewhere is the AF. However, you make a convincing case for sticking with Fuji (and the AF in the newer bodies). I think I just need to get some hands-on with the newer bodies (and a well focusing lens). Only seeing is (truly) believing.I think I might also have underestimated the uniqueness of the small and quality glass that Fuji makes. My understanding has been that in the M mount 11-22/4-5.6 zoom and the primes from Sigma (16/30/50mm) are quality stuff. The zoom doesn't have to be optically as good, so the native 55-200/4.5-6.3 would probably be enough. None of these combinations would be heavier than my current setup. But you're right course right... If (read, when) I would like something more (let's say something wider than the zoom or a >50mm prime), I would be out of luck. And I'm still skeptical about losing the EVF completely (the hot-shoe solution doesn't work for what I'm doing).The A7C is still somewhat tempting due to the (supposedly) wider dynamic range that the FF offers (and the newest tracking AF). Keeping the whole thing around 1kg could still be acceptable and that would give me some zooms; Sony Vario Tessar 16-35/4 on the wider side and Tamron 28-200/2.8-5.6, which could be enough reach. Of course, ~1kg is ~50% more than the XE1 with the 18-55 kit lens (=660g). And then all the benefits when not dragging stuff up a mountain. But OK, I'm not a 100% sure I'm in good enough shape to for 50% more weight and if I could really capitalize on the IQ benefits from the FF sensor.I also seem to be running out of arguments here, which is a good thing. Gets me closer to a decision. Might have to start by trying out the newer Fuji bodies and then look elsewhere if not satisfied (instead of the other way around).

mistercharlie wrote:Which Ortlieb bag is that in your picture? It’s exactly what I’m looking for!It's this one:https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1043847-REG/ortlieb_p9101_aqua_cam_waterproof_camera_bag.htmlBut it's discontinued! That's why I want to fit my new camera to this bag, rather than the other way around.

Joel_O wrote:The X-E1 obviously works fine, but the 16 Mpx prevents larger prints and the AF is only good for single-spot focus (a PITA when trying to catch anything fast with cold fingers).What do you do with your photos? See this thread from 2018 and remember that the photos were taken by older cameras. m4/3 cameras of the last several years can in most cases do as well or sometimes better than the cameras used to make the gallery photos from 10-20 years ago).National Geographic photo gallery big printshttps://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61682138Yesterday I was at a National Geographic photo gallery. It is very similar to the Peter Lik galleries with dim lighting, black walls, and big, beautiful, glossy, very well lit photos. Of course, they are trying to sell them so the presentation is very nice. The info for each photo was a short caption, location, year, name of photographer, and the size in meters (longest dimension) of the print. The smallest prints were 1 meter and the largest prints were 3 meters, but most were 1.5 and 2 meters. Most of the photos were taken 2004-2015, but I saw one that was in 1999 and another in 2002. A few of the photos were landscapes, but mostly animals in Africa and elsewhere. A few photos included people, but not many. I guess it is harder to sell people photos. Of course, they all looked wonderful and I think the prices are pretty high.No mention of the camera gear used, but I suspect most of them were taken with DSLRs since the bulk of the photos were 2004-2015 of animals, often in Africa. National Geographic galleries believe they have enough megapixels to print 2 and 3 meter prints from DSLRs made even 14-15 years ago.https://www.natgeofineart.com/I think all the worry by some about whether a 20mp or 16mp (or even 12mp) m4/3 file is sufficient for fairly large prints is rather ridiculous.Actually, most of the worry I see sometimes here about print size is asking about making something like 24x30 or 30x40 inch prints -- that is 0.762 meter or 1.016 meter prints. Just a very small number of the National Geographic prints were 1 meter. Almost all were 1.5 and 2 meters, but several were 3 meters. So, above where I say 'fairly large' that is not really correct. Most people asking and worrying about print sizes here are talking about the smallest or even smaller prints than what they have at the National Geographic photo gallery.If you don't remember what were the common, high end Nikon and Canon DSLRs back in 2003, 2004, 2005 era that were probably used for many of the photos from 2004, 2005, and 2006 then look back and see. Nikon was selling only APS-C models, but Canon had FF, APS-H, and APS-C. And the megapixel counts would seem modest compared to current m4/3.Later I received an email advertisement from the National Geographic Fine Art Galleries. In it there was a mention that their prints start at $4600. This 2010 one is $4900:https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63169520This 2007 one is $6750:https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64219750

Thanks! That’s why I couldn’t find it on the Ortlieb site. It looks like a fantastic bag.

Henry Richardson wrote:Joel_O wrote:The X-E1 obviously works fine, but the 16 Mpx prevents larger prints and the AF is only good for single-spot focus (a PITA when trying to catch anything fast with cold fingers).What do you do with your photos? See this thread from 2018 and remember that the photos were taken by older cameras. m4/3 cameras of the last several years can in most cases do as well or sometimes better than the cameras used to make the gallery photos from 10-20 years ago).National Geographic photo gallery big printshttps://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61682138Thank you for point me to that old thread. Interesting read!I have so far being doing up to 60x100 cm prints that I have hanging on my walls. They look OK (even if not pin sharp) from a couple of meters away, but I can only use my sharpest images and I have no room to crop. For printing this size, I've been thinking a bit more MPix would give me more flexibility to fine tune the composition and sharper end result (given all other things being equal; steady shot, good optics. etc).I don't doubt that NatGeo photographers with all the other equipment (pro-lenses, filters, tripods, monopods, IBIS or larger sensors (that enable quicker shutter speeds with higher noise free ISO)) can make even bigger good looking prints on gallery-quality paper from a 16Mpix sensor. But for me, right now, with my current skill, equipment and shooting style (usually hand-held, on the move), I think I can make use of those extra Mpix. Of course, you could argue that I don't -really- need it, since I've already been able to make myself some wall art that I enjoy, but where's the fun if not trying to make it a bit better next time, eh?In the end of the day, I -need- better AF and more MPix / IBIS would be a a nice bonus that probably contributes to a bit better sharpness and printing potential for my hand-held shots.

One more thing you might want to consider for making very large prints is to use Gigapixel AI or the new Adobe Super Resolution.  Here is an excellent video comparing them:https://youtu.be/9k8cF6yXJGE

Joel_O wrote:Henry Richardson wrote:Joel_O wrote:The X-E1 obviously works fine, but the 16 Mpx prevents larger prints and the AF is only good for single-spot focus (a PITA when trying to catch anything fast with cold fingers).What do you do with your photos? See this thread from 2018 and remember that the photos were taken by older cameras. m4/3 cameras of the last several years can in most cases do as well or sometimes better than the cameras used to make the gallery photos from 10-20 years ago).National Geographic photo gallery big printshttps://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61682138Thank you for point me to that old thread. Interesting read!I have so far being doing up to 60x100 cm prints that I have hanging on my walls. They look OK (even if not pin sharp) from a couple of meters away, but I can only use my sharpest images and I have no room to crop. For printing this size, I've been thinking a bit more MPix would give me more flexibility to fine tune the composition and sharper end result (given all other things being equal; steady shot, good optics. etc).I don't doubt that NatGeo photographers with all the other equipment (pro-lenses, filters, tripods, monopods, IBIS or larger sensors (that enable quicker shutter speeds with higher noise free ISO)) can make even bigger good looking prints on gallery-quality paper from a 16Mpix sensor. But for me, right now, with my current skill, equipment and shooting style (usually hand-held, on the move), I think I can make use of those extra Mpix. Of course, you could argue that I don't -really- need it, since I've already been able to make myself some wall art that I enjoy, but where's the fun if not trying to make it a bit better next time, eh?In the end of the day, I -need- better AF and more MPix / IBIS would be a a nice bonus that probably contributes to a bit better sharpness and printing potential for my hand-held shots.More MPix might not be necessary for printing big but it does allow you to rethink your lens selection. My plans on a mountaineering kit currently look like this:X-E3/E4 with 10-23mm(OIS) and 50mm f2 giving a FF range from 15-120mm ish due to cropability.I used to use M4/3 but the fuji equivalent isn’t noticably heavier. M4/3 has great IS but 20MP doesn’t crop too well IMO.

Joel_O wrote:Henry Richardson wrote:Joel_O wrote:The X-E1 obviously works fine, but the 16 Mpx prevents larger prints and the AF is only good for single-spot focus (a PITA when trying to catch anything fast with cold fingers).What do you do with your photos? See this thread from 2018 and remember that the photos were taken by older cameras. m4/3 cameras of the last several years can in most cases do as well or sometimes better than the cameras used to make the gallery photos from 10-20 years ago).National Geographic photo gallery big printshttps://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61682138Thank you for point me to that old thread. Interesting read!I have so far being doing up to 60x100 cm prints that I have hanging on my walls. They look OK (even if not pin sharp) from a couple of meters away, but I can only use my sharpest images and I have no room to crop. For printing this size, I've been thinking a bit more MPix would give me more flexibility to fine tune the composition and sharper end result (given all other things being equal; steady shot, good optics. etc).I don't doubt that NatGeo photographers with all the other equipment (pro-lenses, filters, tripods, monopods, IBIS or larger sensors (that enable quicker shutter speeds with higher noise free ISO)) can make even bigger good looking prints on gallery-quality paper from a 16Mpix sensor. But for me, right now, with my current skill, equipment and shooting style (usually hand-held, on the move), I think I can make use of those extra Mpix. Of course, you could argue that I don't -really- need it, since I've already been able to make myself some wall art that I enjoy, but where's the fun if not trying to make it a bit better next time, eh?In the end of the day, I -need- better AF and more MPix / IBIS would be a a nice bonus that probably contributes to a bit better sharpness and printing potential for my hand-held shots.Good luck with your camera gear choice!By the way, I did a copy and paste from a post I made some time back in the m4/3 forum so that is why m4/3 was mentioned.

I think you're overthinking this. Fuji is ideal for this sort of photography. 26 megapixels is massive, most full frame users don't need more resolution, hence the popularity of 24 megapixel full frame sensors.The M series has some good equipment, but it's never been a good system, and its future is murky. The A6000 system has made some strides in recent years with what seems a decent fast standard zoom and really good AF, but that's in a different size/weight class.As for full frame, bear in mind the extra dynamic range is only achievable either a) by having less depth of field (so using iso 800 at f2 on full frame gives you more DR than iso 800 at f2 on apsc, but with less depth of field) or b) at base iso when you have all the depth of field you want and a fast enough shutter speed to allow you to use it.In my mind, I'd consider one of these options:1. Just get the X-T30/X-E4 and use your existing gear in your existing bag. Either would seem a decent upgrade I think. The X-T30 is better value right now, IMO, but you may find the handling better on the X-E4.2. Move to an X-T3 with 16-80 and 70-300. All are WR, so you won't need a waterproof bag and will be more confident using them in the snow. In my view, the 16-80 is better than the 18-55 at shared focal lengths, and it also has top class OIS. You will add weight, but you'll also gain capabilities.

Iuvenis wrote:I think you're overthinking this. Fuji is ideal for this sort of photography. 26 megapixels is massive, most full frame users don't need more resolution, hence the popularity of 24 megapixel full frame sensors.The M series has some good equipment, but it's never been a good system, and its future is murky. The A6000 system has made some strides in recent years with what seems a decent fast standard zoom and really good AF, but that's in a different size/weight class.As for full frame, bear in mind the extra dynamic range is only achievable either a) by having less depth of field (so using iso 800 at f2 on full frame gives you more DR than iso 800 at f2 on apsc, but with less depth of field) or b) at base iso when you have all the depth of field you want and a fast enough shutter speed to allow you to use it.In my mind, I'd consider one of these options:1. Just get the X-T30/X-E4 and use your existing gear in your existing bag. Either would seem a decent upgrade I think. The X-T30 is better value right now, IMO, but you may find the handling better on the X-E4.2. Move to an X-T3 with 16-80 and 70-300. All are WR, so you won't need a waterproof bag and will be more confident using them in the snow. In my view, the 16-80 is better than the 18-55 at shared focal lengths, and it also has top class OIS. You will add weight, but you'll also gain capabilities.Buy the X-S10, 4 pre-configured settings in their entirety with the turn of the dial plus the existing settings. Ibis for the best stabilisation available and the swivel lcd. Add in the incredible grip better button and joystick placement and it eats the x-e4 for dust in the usability front!

As we have drifted off into software solutions you might think of stitching using a longer lens to get wide and big.  This (Bowfell in the English Lakes) was taken with a D200 and is 12k pixels wide.It is about eight frames taken portrait and hand held.Meanwhile I still think you need the X-E4.  You might just find one of the last E3s still new in some outlets.  Park Cameras had them when I last looked.

Lovely shots! IMO Sony APS-C and Canon M can be eliminated from consideration, based on a poor selection of lenses and questionable manufacturer commitment to APS-C. Years later, Sony still doesn't have a decent, compact zoom for APS-C, which is why I switched to Fuji.I am an avid hiker and backpacker, and my X-T20 has proven to be a very good camera for this purpose. Good battery life, which I particularly appreciate on a multi-night backpacking trip, and it fares well in cold temperatures.X-T20, 18-55 @ 40mm

I'm not a Sony fan but you could definitely put together a small A7C kit out of these.A7CTamron 20mm 2.8Sony 24mm 2.5Sony Zeiss 35mm 2.8Sony 40mm 2.5Tamron 45mm 1.8Sony 50mm 1.8Sony 50mm 2.5Samyang 75mm 1.8I thought about it, but decided it wasn't worth it.

One feature the newest Fujis have is in-camera HDR which also saves a Raw. Check to see if the competing cameras also offer that.

By this, I mean on a regular basis.  For landscapes, I’ve had no issue with even my old X-Pro1...which has the same sensor as your XE1...when printing a 16x24 print.  With the new AI super rez in Photoshop, it appears that can now be 20x30 with little issue...maybe even 24x36.

Joel_O wrote:mistercharlie wrote:Which Ortlieb bag is that in your picture? It’s exactly what I’m looking for!It's this one:https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1043847-REG/ortlieb_p9101_aqua_cam_waterproof_camera_bag.htmlBut it's discontinued! That's why I want to fit my new camera to this bag, rather than the other way around.Found one, as-new, in the local classified ads, for just €20!

mistercharlie wrote:Joel_O wrote:mistercharlie wrote:Which Ortlieb bag is that in your picture? It’s exactly what I’m looking for!It's this one:https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1043847-REG/ortlieb_p9101_aqua_cam_waterproof_camera_bag.htmlBut it's discontinued! That's why I want to fit my new camera to this bag, rather than the other way around.Found one, as-new, in the local classified ads, for just €20!Whoohoo!!! Excellent to hear. Glad to be able to give something back after all the great I got.

Henry Richardson wrote:One more thing you might want to consider for making very large prints is to use Gigapixel AI or the new Adobe Super Resolution. Here is an excellent video comparing them:https://youtu.be/9k8cF6yXJGEHuh, quite amazing. Had no idea this software existed before a_c_skinner mentioned it earlier in the thread. Have you used it yourself before printing?

jtr27 wrote:Lovely shots! IMO Sony APS-C and Canon M can be eliminated from consideration, based on a poor selection of lenses and questionable manufacturer commitment to APS-C. Years later, Sony still doesn't have a decent, compact zoom for APS-C, which is why I switched to Fuji.I am an avid hiker and backpacker, and my X-T20 has proven to be a very good camera for this purpose. Good battery life, which I particularly appreciate on a multi-night backpacking trip, and it fares well in cold temperatures.X-T20, 18-55 @ 40mmThanks and great shot yourself!After all the super helpful answers I got in this thread I'm back to having one of the Fuji bodies as my first choice. Just didn't want to pick up another Fuji body without thinking critically about it, because the biggest frustration with my current one is autofocus.