I had a Panasonic (GX85) and have since switched to Fujifilm, but I found the menu system UI and phone/app integration on the Panasonic a lot better and more usable than many other cameras I've tried (including Sony's and Fuji). The Fuji (X-T30) makes up for it on the UX front through by exposing more of the settings via external controls.
Likes it
Same, RX100-M3 is my webcam now. (X-T30 for anything else)
Likes it
Largely off-topic, but I've had so much fun and luck getting old lenses to use with my mirrorless camera[0]. I've been able to get several lenses from random brands for an average price of like $15 apiece. Mirrorless cameras work especially well with those lenses because the adapters can be made very simply and usually had for like $10. Are they gonna get you the "tack sharp" sports and wildlife photos like a high end lens of today? Hardly. But retro and lofi photography styles are pretty popular right now and are a blast! Why spend $200+ on some wacky retro-inspired lens when you can get a real vintage lens for less than 1/10th of that? Probably built better too[1]. The biggest potential drawback is a lot of these don't even have an option for auto anything (focus, aperture, etc.). Even if you get one that has it, the auto function likely won't work with any digital camera body[2]. Personally, I've actually grown to prefer manual focus in most cases and I shoot in aperture priority 99% of the time anyway. These have become my main lenses for now. Paired with Fuji's film simulations, I get decently close to aspects of the film experience but with modern benefits[3]. I'm not gonna get perfect color representation, but that's honestly what I'm aiming for anyway. If I really need autofocus[4] or want a shot without my retro "filter", I can always use my phone. [0]: A used Fujifilm X-T30 mk1 [1]: Even if it's just due to survivorship bias. [2]: A lot of the old mechanisms for…
Likes it
I have a pixel 6 with the same kind of 50 mega pixel sensor that the new iphone has (might even be the same sensor?). It's good. I also have a Fuji x-t30, which is a 26 megapixel camera from a few years ago. The Fuji is what I grab if I want to take a nice photo. The 12.5 megapixel photos that Apple and Google take by combining pixels in a 4:1 ratio from the 50 mega pixel sensor are alright and the resulting raw files that I can get from my phone are quite OK. But the Fuji raw files are way nicer. Just way more detail and dynamic range. People confuse the post processing that Apple and Google do in the phone with the quality of the camera. It's impressive what they do and the quality of the raw images is actually not as bad as it used to be on most phones. But it's still a noisy mess compared to any decent pro-sumer camera of the last ten years or so. You don't need the same trickery to make those photos look good. It's amazing what Apple and Google can do with the relatively limited form factor, sensor, lenses, etc. that phones have but when it comes to sensors, bigger is simply better and bigger requires more distance between the lens and the sensor. It's not the number of pixels that counts but their size and noise level. My Fuji is fine as an entry level camera but the real deal here is full frame sensors and expensive lenses. It makes all the difference. Some of the lenses on the market today are so good that it's pointless owning them unless you can pair them with a ver…
Likes it
As an amateur I like to use the depth of field to bring a 3d quality to my shots, sort of separate the layers a bit. Usually stopped down a bit, not wide open.
And this is currently the biggest difference I can notice between photos produced with my X-T30 and a Xiaomi mid-tier phone, the pictures don't look flat, sometimes it even feels like looking through a window into the scene.
The other two differences are field of view and the resolution, since my phone is equipped with a wide angle lens. TBH, when I shoot the wide end of my kit lens on the X-T30 and don't pixel peep, it's hard to tell apart the jpeg's from my camera and my phone.
Neutral
> As an amateur I like to use the depth of field to bring a 3d quality to my shots, sort of separate the layers a bit. Usually stopped down a bit, not wide open. To be clear what I mean is that really the "shot at f/1.4 wide open" portrait thing is an amateur phenomenon. It is just not a big part of commercial portraiture at all, outdoors or in. > TBH, when I shoot the wide end of my kit lens on the X-T30 and don't pixel peep, it's hard to tell apart the jpeg's from my camera and my phone. Right. This is what I find -- especially with black and white images (my iPhone seems to produce images that work well with, say, a Pan F thing). But this depth of field stuff what I mean about the way mobile phones force you to think about subject isolation, all of the time; even on the telephoto lens except with subjects less than a couple of feet away. My experience is that people who have never used a DSLR do not have as much trouble getting phone photos they like that are actually good. Partly because they haven't had either the scope or crutch it offers; they are used to seeing and instinctively composing without it. Also because DSLR users spend most of their time composing wide open, not at their target aperture, which ultimately warps our perception and steers us towards shooting images more like the full-time view we get from the viewfinder. There is an art to subject isolation in composition with constant front-to-back sharpness at all times, and a mobile phone will force you to…
Likes itDoesn’t say they own it
The X-T30 is US$ 800-900 and uses the same sensor and processor of the X-Pro3 so they're pretty equivalent on picture quality. Don't stick to the X-Pro3 mention as that's missing the point. The D5300 is pretty old, I had one in 2013-2014, coming from a D3200. > - I compared on my 27" screen, no difference, even in low-light scenarios and at different ISOs This might be the main difference between us, I usually do prints in A3+ sizes and the differences in picture quality between a smartphone and my cameras are very noticeable.