Fuji vs Canon costs

[deleted]

not sure if UK retail prices are much relevant for a wider audience ... for example in USA somebody who wants to buy regular Canon gear as a bare minimum subscribes to www.cpricewatch.com/ to monitor the deals and does not ever pay more than "street price" or better yet IMHO official Canon refurbished

Alan you are not comparing equivalent lens for example the Fuji 10-24mm F/4 would be equivalent to a 15-36mm F/5.6, the Fuji 33mm would be equivalent to approx a 50mm F/2 not the 50mm F/1.2 you compare it too the 50mm F/1.8 is about £2000 cheaper 😀 So yes you are paying more for your comparison choices but you are getting more better DOF/subject isolation and better total light gathering . Of course if you do not need this stick with what you have and save a lot of cash. If you can live with their FOR ME god awful ergonomics 😀 Sony FE mirrorless is an interesting option they have been going longer than the other makers , so have a cheaper selection of bodies going back generations and a huge selection of both their own lenses and third party

We have this website which tracks the prices for all makes and has graphs
showing prices over time . It also lists special offers cashbacks etc
www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/

example graph

The spreadsheet is valid for its intended audience…Alan. Use his research (or not) as appropriate. It has no relevance at all to me because if I jump ship I’ll be swimming (back) over to the S.S. Nikon.

I can’t speak for somebody but that’s not the way I shop for gear — particularly camera bodies and lenses. I find more value in local support and service than I do in maximum dollars saved. I’m not everyone, but I’m also not the only one. (Though perhaps there are too few of us to keep this market segment sustainable.) At any rate, you need some sort of basis for comparison and that becomes very complicated (and fixed to a very narrow moment in time) if you’re using special offers as that basis.

I think Fuji has an excellent system and if I was going with APS it would be them. The X-T5 is a cracking bit of kit. I think Canon/Nikon/Sony don't take their mirrorless APS offerings very seriously with FF being the cash cow

Looks good, but I think you can get quite nice SOOC colors out of Canon cameras as well...

Red it where credit is due... by simple.joy, auf Flickr

and this was done with a 45 year old slide projector lens, so there's certainly some room for improvement.

That being said, I've never compared any Fuji camera to a Canon camera, so any real differences in color rendition abilities are for others to discuss. 😉

Whether people realise it or not, everyone using a digital camera is actually shooting raw.

Some people are quite happy to let the camera do the raw conversion and post processing to a jpeg image according to the options and/or limitations in the camera.

Other people prefer to do the raw conversion and post processing to a jpeg image themselves where they have full control and many more options.

Comparing the colours in sooc jpegs from different cameras doesn't really prove much unless the specific settings used in each camera to output the sooc jpegs are taken into account as well.

You certainly got a point there. And besides that you would also have to make sure to shoot the exact same scene under the same lighting conditions, same WB etc. to really compare it and even then the lens isn't taken into account which (at least in my case with old manual lenses) might have a significant impact as well.

It’s not about proving anything beyond that a given camera is capable of reaching one’s individual bar. In this case it confirms, that the compromises Alan made by choosing Fujifilm — all cameras being a series of compromises — are satisfactory to him. The camera produces, or is at least capable of producing, images that please him.

In my case, satisfaction with the SOOC jpgs is a bonus bordering on necessity — and is one of the reasons I chose Fujifilm. I have little to no interest in intensive post processing (and curating huge files) for the vast bulk of my everyday/reportage images. Raw is a tool in my box, but not the first thing I reach for.

I have a lot more time on my hands these days and enjoy tinkering with images in post. However a few years back when I was shooting weddings and events which involved shooting hundreds of photos . I shot jpeg and raw having tweaked the jpeg output to my liking , the raw files were available for any difficult lighting situations where you needed to squeeze a little more from the image for 90% + the jpegs were more than enough . For my personal shooting { happily all I do now 😀} I always shoot raw as i am not shooting as a rule subjects that require hundreds of shots. The advances in process software in the last couple of years has been amazing

I was replying to simplejoy's comment and referring to the pros and cons in the way the colours of sooc jpegs between different cameras are compared.

Just continue doing what works best for you.

that the number of B&M shops is way down speaks for what most people do and most those B&M local shops who survive do that NOT because of local buyers who walk in 😀 but because they sell to non local remote buyers as well on internet, plus if you do not know the actual best price available for the gear when you shop in your local B&M then ... good for them, I assume you do not try to price match even

If you want great value for $$$, & a range of native lenses second to none in both zooms & large aperture fixed focal lengths, micro 4/3 is pretty hard to go past. I personally especially enjoy the range of fixed focal length lenses in the system. The very thing that brought me over from Canon to Panasonic. Small, light, excellent IQ & very reasonably priced. Not at all interested in the expensive monster Pro primes (relative to the format) OMD produces.