Dear oh dear.

Yeah, you want a well known brand like Onkyo.

These are great, the Fuji XF lenses are even better (if you can afford them).
Had a couple of these exact cameras, they're decent if you can cope without the viewfinder... Image quality is epic at the price.

When it comes to cameras, better to go with known brand like Canon or Nikon. Fuji film used to be good, but not sure about their cameras.

M1 is out of stock now.

There is also X-A2 with lens for £199 - a better deal

There's a review of the XC 16-55 here, it has a few advantages over the 18-55. 24mm at the wide end vs 28mm, close focusing is a lot better (on the mk2) 15cm vs 30cm, it's also a lot lighter.
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/fujifilm_xc_16_50mm_f3_5_5_6_ois_ii_review/

Had an x20 for last four years which I bought on brothers recommendation and have loved. Is this a 'step up' and would I notice the difference as an amateur but not very technical enthusiast?

It was ephotozine's analysis which I originally read, which doesn't show such a difference! There are similar sample images as well which are useful.

One thing to note, the 16-50mm isn't great at 16mm, I tend to zoom to 18mm as there's less distortion.

The 18-55mm is the best all rounder imo, I just wouldn't write off the 16-50mm as results are not that different imo. I'm stuck with it for the moment as the AF motor has failed on my 18-55.

One last point, I owned the 16-55/2.8 for a bit too and found edge performance worse than the 18-55mm, which surprised me. It was clearly better at 55mm though, throughout most of the frame.

Image quality will be much better than the x20 as the sensor is a lot bigger. Other big differences would be you can buy different lenses for this, plus as has been mentioned, there is no viewfinder, so you are just shooting from the screen.

Having used both the kit lenses, the 18-55 is miles better than the 16-50, in my opinion.
You can't really go wrong with the e2 and 1855 at 450 quid.

come on, you are getting a bit carried away here
'much smaller' 'a lot more compact' 'quite a bit' lighter
there is less than 10% difference in any dimension including weight
once you add that 6-7cm lens weighing 200-300grams its even closer

Ergonomics review comparing the X-E2 / X-T10 and X-T1.. other reviews are available I'm sure :smiley:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPJGeBq_r5I

Would have to disagree, having both of them the X-T10 is a lot more compact than the X-E2. It fits in a much smaller case and is quite a bit lighter, the XC16-55 lens is pretty good too, better than your average kit lens. Depends on the ops definition of compact?

photozone scientific enough? if so the 18-55 is much better across the frame and as the focal length increases

quite a bit smaller?!
its 11mm narrower but thicker and taller
once you put the large fuji lenses on though its not really all that relevant

Just for clarity, the 16-50/3.5-5.6 and 18-55/2.8-4 are very similar optically (check out some of the scientific tests online, plus I have both :wink:). BUT...the 18-55mm has the faster maximum aperture and does feel better built (plus has an aperture ring).

Would gave to agree but the op had mentioned mentioned compact, the X-T10 is quite a bit smaller than the X-E2. XF18-55 is a great lens, way way above your average kit lens.

For an extra £30 I think the X-E2 bundle with the XF 18-55 f2.8-f4 is a much better deal purely because of the lens that comes with it.. The XF 18-55 is regarded as one of the finest "kit" lenses going .. I haven't seen a good review of the XC lens yet.. It's not bad , just not good.
Just noticed the X-T10 bundle is out of stock so some people perhaps prefer the Dslr look of it.

https://shop.fujifilm.co.uk/fujifilm-x-e2-kit-xf18-55-lens-refurbished.html

You've got a lot of options at this price point, most mirrorless brands have an EVF-equipped option with kit lens;

Fuji X-E2(s)/Fuji X-T10 (best out-of-camera stills, genuinely great film simulations, great RAW quality. Mediocre video, pricey lenses)
Sony A6000 (great RAW quality, great 1080p video, unrivalled speed shooting and autofocus. Meh kit lens, pricey lenses)
OM-D EM-10ii (in-body image stabilisation, varied and inexpensive lenses. Poor continuous AF, image quality can't quite match Sony/Fuji)
Panasonic G7 (4K video and great for video in general, varied and inexpensive lenses. Chunky for a mirrorless camera, image quality can't quite match Sony/Fuji)

Personally I'd take the Fuji for the best image quality, Panasonic for video, and the Sony for action/wildlife shooting as well as being the most versatile overall option.

Anything you guys recommend with a viewfinder then...small and compact...ive always wanted the fuji cameras but with out the viewfinder that is indeed the deal breaker...

About £500-600 bud

Bit late .. but it's a year for warranty
https://shop.fujifilm.co.uk/what-is-refurbished

As well as the great deal for the X-E2 with the 18-55 lens they are also doing the X-T1 with a couple of "posher" lenses for a good price , getting closer to £700 but the 35mm f1.4 has some great reviews , the 18mm f2 not so brilliant reviews.I was tempted for the 35mm f1.4 when I got the X-t1 the other day but I already have the 35mm f2 and wasn't drunk enough to spend the extra :smiley:

https://shop.fujifilm.co.uk/fujifilm-x-t1-body-only-1436.html

Full 12 month warranty on Fuji refurbs.

why? he got so many of you
tempt is a serial troll - just check some previous posts

I've bought a couple of refurbished lenses from the Fuji store and recently an X-T1 camera.. all have been immaculate and as new.

X-e2 refurbished with the better xf lens for £450 is a good deal for a Fuji with viewfinder - could probably split the lens and body and sell for a profit on ebay too.

Agreed the x-e2 is a steal with the 18-55 zoom lens. The lens is worth around £300 alone used.

Not worth it.

I wouldn't be without a viewfinder myself be it an electronic or optical one. I find the rear LCD to be pretty useless on my Fuji X-E2 or Sony in bright sunlight, maybe some are better than others.The LCD on the Sony at least flips out and can be useful for low down shots.. less need for lying on the floor and struggling to get up again at my age..
The only reason I mentioned the Sony RX1R was to show that there are quite a lot of cameras some much more expensive than the Fuji in this post that do not have viewfinders.. they seem pretty popular for some reason.. not my cup of tea but they are there.

As someone who has been a semi-pro wedding/portrait photographer in the past, I have to say that I still prefer a viewfinder. Maybe it's prejudice, maybe I'm an old fogey, but I find it more comfortable - despite my glasses and big nose - to compose images in a viewfinder, so that Sony would not be my choice, though I'm sure it's a fine piece of kit; having the viewfinder as an optional extra means it would definitely be lower down a shortlist for me than anything that came with one as standard. That said, viewfinders seem to be disappearing from anything but pro-level equipment, so there can't be many of us left who prefer them.

Wot, no viewfinder at this level of camera. Sorry but that is a deal breaker.

Had three refurbished cameras from Fuji, only notable difference from new was a tiny scratch around one lens cap.

under a bridge...

Yep, silly, ignorant comment about Fuji. If you don't know that Fuji make fabulous cameras and incredible lenses, then you shouldn't really be commenting on here.

X-a2 refurbished in stock as well with same lens - £199

These are great, the Fuji XF lenses are even better (if you can afford them).
Had a couple of these exact cameras, they're decent if you can cope without the viewfinder... Image quality is epic at the price.