Fujifilm XQ2 digital camera ( f1.8 lens, 1080p60 ) £180 @ currys
77°Expired

Fujifilm XQ2 digital camera ( f1.8 lens, 1080p60 ) £180 @ currys

19
Found 29th Feb 2016
Currys have price reduced the Fujifilm XQ2 to £180. Before Christmas it was £220.

The Fuji XQ2 is a premium pocket-sized digital camera with a bright FUJINON F1.8-4.9 25-100mm equiv. lens, an advanced 2/3 X-Trans CMOS II sensor with phase detection, and the EXR Processor II that delivers the fastest autofocus speed in its category of up to 0.06 seconds. It also supports Fujifilm's Classic Chrome film mode and 1060/60p video recording, as well as offering built-in Wi-Fi.

Film simulation modes available: Provia/Standard, Velvia/Vivid, Astia/Soft, Classic Chrome, Std, Monochrome, Monochrome+Ye Filter, Monochrome+R Filter, Monochrome+G Filter, Sepia
Community Updates

Groups

18 Comments
Quite fancy the X30 at £250
f1.8 wide open just, which is likely when you need it least
not bad though
Edited by: "brilly" 29th Feb 2016
1080p at 60 frames, seems very good value to me.
bigdeal66

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv0kMtlo72w:D


Looks pretty poor and the zoom noise, deary me
Yes looks awful and noisy,both picture and audio,will stick with my Sony hx10v I have had for years...
brilly

f1.8 wide open just, which is likely when you need it leastnot bad though


That's the way optics works.
One of the things I really like about the X10 is the manual zoom, completely silent and easier to make and quick and fine adjustments. I would pay extra and go for the X30
flobbit

That's the way optics works.


its not the way they 'work' - its by simplicity of design
you can get constant aperture lenses over the full range if you design them that way
my point is that the 1.8 isn't so much of a selling point as it seems
deleted57959

Not true at all, Sigma just announced a 50-100mm lens at a constant ƒ1.8..


Yes, and it will be considerably bigger than a 50-100 f1.8 to F3.5 would be. The Sigma 18-35mm f1.9 is heavier than their 35mm f1.4, even though it is slower. The point was you cannot expect a tiny compact with a fast constant zoom. Want the aperture, the lens has to be bigger. There is a lower limit, the aperture *has* to have a certain lens area.

Edited by: "flobbit" 1st Mar 2016
brilly

its not the way they 'work' - its by simplicity of designyou can get … its not the way they 'work' - its by simplicity of designyou can get constant aperture lenses over the full range if you design them that waymy point is that the 1.8 isn't so much of a selling point as it seems


They do not just work by design, but by the laws of physics. You could not have a lens that size that was 1.8 all the range without it being bigger, and this is intended as a very compact camera.


Edited by: "flobbit" 1st Mar 2016
flobbit

They do not just work by design, but by the laws of physics. You could … They do not just work by design, but by the laws of physics. You could not have a lens that size that was 1.8 all the range without it being bigger, the aperture also means the physical area available for light to pass through, that diaphragm needs to be larger. And this is intended as a very compact camera.


flobbit

They do not just work by design, but by the laws of physics. You could … They do not just work by design, but by the laws of physics. You could not have a lens that size that was 1.8 all the range without it being bigger, and this is intended as a very compact camera.


erm you are making a different point now which i already covered, obviously the 'design' is going to obey the laws of physics

you said that being slow at telephoto was how it worked - its not
its how it works with a simple design yes but with more elements and complexity that can be overcome
sure it will be bigger generally but thats a separate issue

the time the aperture matters most is when you are shooting longer focal lengths which is why the 1.8 isn't such a big thing (and it goes up VERY quickly when zooming) and why the 4.9 is more of a big thing
brilly

erm you are making a different point now which i already covered, … erm you are making a different point now which i already covered, obviously the 'design' is going to obey the laws of physicsyou said that being slow at telephoto was how it worked - its notits how it works with a simple design yes but with more elements and complexity that can be overcomesure it will be bigger generally but thats a separate issuethe time the aperture matters most is when you are shooting longer focal lengths which is why the 1.8 isn't such a big thing (and it goes up VERY quickly when zooming) and why the 4.9 is more of a big thing


No, that was the point I was trying to make in the first place, I should have made a longer post then.
flobbit

No, that was the point I was trying to make in the first place, I should … No, that was the point I was trying to make in the first place, I should have made a longer post then.


thats the way words work
F1.8 at the wide end is better than F3.6!

Lets compare the XQ2 aperture to some of it's rivals

Olympus XZ10 F1.8-2.7
Fujfilm XQ2 F1.8-4.9
Nikon P340 F1.8-5.6
Canon S120 F1.8-5.7
Canon S200 F2.0-5.9
Panasonic LF1 F2.0-5.9
Sony RX100 F1.8-4.9
Sony WX50 F2.6-6.3
Sony WX80 F3.3-6.3
Nikon S6800 F3.3-6.3
Canon SX710 F3.2-6.9
Panasonic TZ60 F3.3-6.4
Nikon S9700 F3.7-6.4
Canon Ixus 275 F3.6-7.0

Only the Olympus XZ10 is better!

I'm not worried by the aperture, I'm more bothered by the XQ2's poor video mode and lack of PAL frame rates.
Edited by: "Show_Me_The_Money" 2nd Mar 2016
If it comes down any lower in price i might buy one as a xmas present for my son, oddly enough i bort a refubished fuji X100S midweek,its so small and compact, the pictures are great.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text