aceflibble

I've not experienced any moiré problems with the newest sensors and processors (Pro2/T2), but I did with the previous generations (all the 16mp models). The much bigger problem, and why I don't use Fuji for anything involving textiles, hair, fur, or feathers, is even the new sensors and processors are still no good with high-frequency detail. The area of fashion which makes up part of my work demands 20mp+ files without resizing, so clients can check details like stitching and fine texture all from one image file. This is why Fuji completely fails. Skin tones? No problem. Patterns? No problem. Moiré? Never. Colour reproduction? Absolutely fine once you've made a calibrated profile, like with any other camera. High-frequency detail? Completely smeared, even with absolutely 0 noise reduction of any kind, worse than any low-pass filter. If your fashion work is viewed in a resized form or as, for example, a full length shot, Fuji works absolutely fine. If your fashion work is viewed at full size or includes macro/detail crops, either forget Fuji, or have a different system to hand specifically for the close-ups.

Set the camera to manual focus. Now the AF-L button can be used for back-button focus. Be aware that the manual focus ring will also still be in use, so hold the camera/lens carefully and don't move the focus ring when you press AF-L. And before anyone asks why Fuji don't just put in regular back-button focus options, the answer is the same reason they don't bother to support tethered shooting properly and they prioritise .jpg over raw: these things are all more popular in the west but not popular to use in the east, and Fuji very specifically targets Asian markets first.

Lightroom works fine. It's got the most accurate colour and contrast/tonal handling. Iridient is very vaguely better for high frequency detail; if you're doing something like macro shots of fabrics or fur, that's a better pick than Lightroom. With the increased detail and less aggressive baked-in 'optimisation' on the Pro2—and therefore the T2, too—Lightroom has closed the gap quite substantially. Capture One is fantastic for every other brand, but with Fuji it's really no different from Iridient and it obviously lacks the organisation tools of Lightroom, so it's a bit pointless. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leaf, and Phase One users should all at least try Capture One. Fuji users shouldn't bother. So if you've already got Lightroom, or were planning on using Lightroom anyway for file organisation, just stick with that. There is no point opening up every file in a second piece of software. if you don't already have Lightroom and you weren't planning on using it anyway, then you might want to give Iridient a try, depending on your subject matter.

Can you give us more info on your results/other settings/environment/testing process? I've used the Cactus V6 and RF60 to sync up to 1/400th with my Mamiya system, never had problems with any of the Fuji bodies and Cactus myself—though granted I don't use the Pro2—and I've not heard of sync issues from any Cactus users I know, two of which use the Pro2 pretty much exclusively. This is the first time I've heard of there being any issue with Cactus and a Pro2. So I'm confident it is not a general system incompatibility issue. It could be user error, or it could be a technical fault; further detail on how you're using these products is needed.

More like £350. The price I was quoted by multiple Fuji reps and high street stores up until this last month was £1050, the same price the T1 launched at. The last-minute price jump has made it £1399, offset only partially by a £100 trade-in bonus in most shops. It's £1600 if you want the grip. For reference, this is now in the 5D3/D800/A7 II price range. Obviously, second hand prices for many top cameras offer even more competition for the T2. As nice as the T2 may be, the new price tag is now really hard to justify; I could buy one, but I'd feel stupid and ripped-off for doing so.

The T2. The Pro2 may as well not exist, for my purposes. Though even the T2 is basically irrelevant until the price lowers to something more reasonable for what is essentially—in terms of my work—just a resolution increase over the T1. Can't stress enough how the last-minute Brexit price hike has killed my enthusiasm for Fuji.

Not pre-ordered because balls to the UK price hike, but once I do buy one, I'll definitely get the battery grip. I'm sick of the crap battery life on mirrorless cameras, and I always appreciate a larger body. Using the T2 without the grip is bizarre, to me.

IS in a lens means adding more glass, which inherently degrads image quality. IS on a sensor means either moving the sensor, which can cause a kind of inverse camera shake effect if it's not shifted in 100% the right way (rare, because it's a very expensive way of doing it); reading off the sensor multiple times per exposure, which can effectively blur the image if the shutter speed is actually high enough to not need it (rare, because at that point you may as well just make a video file and take a frame grab); or cropping in and enlarging, which inherently degrades the image quality. (The most common method.) For medium format it's a bigger problem because you're typically talking about very large files which will be scrutinised. Medium format, these days, is where technical perfection really matters, because the only people shooting medium format now are people who are expecting to make very, very large prints, working for big name publications, doing celebrity portraits, etc. IS is also a little more pointless for medium format, because the sheer size and weight of most medium format cameras and lenses means you're most likely going to be using a tripod anyway or at least a monopod. You're also more used to using high shutter speeds, further reducing the need for IS. Of course, because of the size, putting IS on the sensor for medium format is also far more expensive than with smaller sensors. There's also battery drain, write speed, and heat to consider. So, basically, it's all just a bit pointless for medium format. It's a lot of effort and cost for something which isn't going to be used most of the time, and might degrade image quality even when it is useful.

^ See, the problem there is you said "the street at night", which isn't what these kinds of lenses are made for. 200mm f/2 or f/2.8s are made and used almost exclusively for studio portraits, or other formal portrait settings. They're headshot lenses. They rarely adapt well for macro, they're too long for most product photography, they're too long for most events and street shooting, they're too restrictive for most landscape shooters, they're too restrictive for most sports, and they're nowhere near long enough for wildlife. Basically, if you're not a professional portrait photographer, or a wedding photographer with a very particular style, a 200mm or equivalent isn't a lens you should look twice at. That doesn't mean it's useless or there is no point. It's simply a specialist lens, which is irreplaceable for the few people who do rely on them. See also: ultra-wide angle lenses, extreme macro lenses, tilt shift lenses, 400mm+ wildlife/sports lenses, etc.

Yes, the flash itself has to support HSS.

That's not what I was saying. In fact that's almost the opposite of what I said.

Always the way. The most (publicly) popular photos I've taken have been with a Canon A-1, a Canon 60D, and the X100S. Everything I take with the X-T1/T10, 7D mk II, 1Ds mk II/III, 1D X, Mamiya RZ67, Leaf Credo 50, and Rollei, are all considered perfectly satisfactory for work, but nobody ever wants to hang those pictures on their wall. None of them would ever win awards, other than in some kind of purely technical mastery contest. I can take a hundred photos with a pro 70-200 or the 56mm f/1.2 or whatever, but it'll be the one picture taken with the 18mm f/2 which people spend the most time looking at. If I let a model sit in on photo selection after a shoot, they'll love one of the ones I would throw away, and they'll hate the ten 'better' ones I would pick instead. My father's done professional photography and design work for four and a half decades, but the only photos he's printed and put on his walls are ones taken with point & shoots. Not a single one from anything else. The D800 is a helluva camera, but people judging collections of photos don't care about the lack of noise in the blue channel at 1:1 magnification on a 4K screen, or whatever. Technical gear superiority counts for nothing. Always the way.

Samyang do a 135mm f/2 for Fuji X mount, and of course you can adapt the Canon versions to Fuji, too. (Albeit stuck wide-open, unable to close the aperture.) The look is fine. It works fine. It's just a tough sell because 200mm f/2.8 has never been particularly popular as a prime lens in the SLR world, and everybody is stuck on 'converting' the lenses they're used to for SLR into mirrorless equivalents. Even if you took it to be 135mm f/1.4, so it's a proper replacement for an SLR's 200mm f/2, it'd still be a very hard sell. Those kinds of lenses are so rarely used in the SLR world that people just don't think of them. People will just query why they'd use that instead of using the 50-140, or the 90mm. Maybe fi you really stacked the deck with f/1.4, WR, OIS, and the promise of either a much better AF system or semi-macro capabilities, and you somehow got the price and weight in well under the 50-140, then I could see that gaining a small following, in the same way the Canon 200mm f/2.8 has despite the more popular 135mm and 70-200s on that system. But a straight-forward 135mm f/2 for Fuji would just die on its arse.

Pre-production X-T2s were sent out with the plain W126, and they work fine. But yeah, if you're planning on doing much 4k video, don't take the risk; stick with the W126S. Just like when Canon updates to the 'N' version of their batteries, there's no point using the old W126 now unless your W126S are all spent and you've got no other back-up. The W126S is simply better for some cameras and identical for others, so there's never a drawback to using it for everything.

It's very meh. I was excited for it, as any regular here would know. My original plan was to sell off one of my existing T10s to get a T2 right away, with the other T10 being a back-up, and then selling and upgrading to a second T2 once I was comfortable with the new body. The T2 improves on everything in every way, so it was basically a no-brainer. But with the pound falling through the floor and the price jumping up by over 50% at the last minute, suddenly I'm not that bothered. I could get one, but out of principal I object to paying so much for what is, as far as my work is concerned, merely a resolution increase. I like a lot of the T2's new and/or improved features, but when it comes down to what will actually make a critical difference to my day-to-day work, the resolution and vague possibility of better tethering are the only things which will be noticable. For video it would be a back-up at best, and likely remain untouched. For casual shooting, any of the first generation of Fuji cameras is fine as they are. Is jumping one of my mirrorless cameras from 16mp to 24mp worth £1600, when I already have a 21mp 1Ds and a 50mp Leaf Credo at my disposal? And upgrading both will mean £3200. It doesn't seem like a worthwhile use of money. Even if I wrangle a bit of a discount with one of the local stores, it's still going to be a lot of money for what is a noticable but not game-changing upgrade. For the cost of upgrading to the T2, I could buy a VR-ready PC, a new TV, and have enough left over for a nice weekend away somewhere. I know which I'd rather have. So I think I'll be waiting. I'm sure I'll buy a T2, eventually. Once one of the T10s actually breaks and the price has dropped to the £1000 mark or less. That's really what I feel is reasonable for this kind of body. But I've lasted fine without the Pro2, and I'm sure waiting for that T2 price drop isn't going to kill me, either. Depends what you're trying to print and for why. Double-page photo of anything for a big-name publication? You need 24mp. Need. Stock photography? most outlets only demand 16mp, but some do demand 20mp+; having the higher resolution helps you clean up the file even if you only need to submit a 16mp file, anyway. Exhibition client or gallery wants a full-length portrait printed to life-size which can hold up to close scrutiny? The more resolution, the better. I've had clients demand files over 36mp, just for archive purposes. But of the four photos I've taken which I've actually wanted to print out and put on my own walls myself, the biggest one came from a 9mp file, and it's printed 3' wide, and looks great. So, yeah. There are absolutely cases for larger and larger file sizes. There are also many times when it won't matter. It's quite wrong to write off either.