karin.gottschalk

I have the exact same problem. Very frustrating for a Fuji lens... Is the compoany doing anything about it? Is the Mk II the same?

I bought the X-E4 kit with the 27mm mrk II and can confirm that this issue is present in the newer model. I’m getting ready to send it to Fuji for repair or replacement. 

I recently shot a play in its entirety without emitting any light or sound using an X-Pro2 with a 56/f1.2 (and a few shots with the 35/f2), you can't do that with an X-T2.
 
The lead actors wife sitting next to me thought I quit shooting when the show started.
 
The Optical finder is necessary for this to work as is the the electronic shutter, no other camera has both. I shot ISO 400, f1.2 to f2 and around 1/200s. When the action was lit my multiple stage lamps the images were technically excellent except for motion, bad photographer etc. When lit by one or a few stage lights it would become apparent that some of the lamps had a short glow cycle where the color would change with the power net frequency but that is not the cameras fault. Long exposures is not an option when people are moving and talking and high shutter speeds would need higher ISO and have more stripes plus cause differing white balance frame to frame.
 
The X-Pro2 can do things no other camera can do so it doesn't need to be an X-T2 or participate in the specrace.
 
I am adding a link to a test video Shot in Across with the 35/f2 - HANDHELD - in a Dark Room - and it's not 4k - but I was sitting at the bar where Whisky was cold and by the 3rd set you wouldn't know that 3 of the 5 are not regular band members. I am going back tomorrow.  https://boundarylayers.smugmug.com/Music/The-Butanes-Sould-Review/A-few-test-Videos/i-sGL8XQk/A (feel free to browse my website just know that it includes a lot of family, casual and snapshots of people and places dear to me).

1. Well... that's the official line, maybe it's lame or BS, but it's what they're telling us
 
2. XT2 is smaller in some dimensions, but larger in others (like height).. it also weighs a little more, despite basically running a smaller footprint, perhaps there's some heatsinking in there...
 
3. As does the X100t (so personally I too feel the XP2 should of offered this)
 
Peter, just an observation... no daming or finger pointing on my part.
 
But you seem to to have several 'should I or shouldn't I buy one' threads about the X-Pro2 going on, and your hesitance and anti-reticence on the subject is 100% understandable
 
But the answer can only come from you.
 
IMHO the XP2 is all about the hybrid VF...
 
If that's not a big enough USP or not enough of an upgrade over the original for you then frankly the XP2 is quite likely not enough of an upgrade period... either pick one of the many other EVF MILC cameras out there or cross your fingers for a XE3 type body, if fuji/24mp/corner mounted VF is important to you.
 
It would be a big shame if a bunch of people off the internet convinced you to get a camera you didn't really like

I have both, and yes the X-T2 is newer, has basily the same sensor, has more features and so on ... in short the x-t2 is maybe slightly the better camera, BUT I enjoy shooting the X-Pro 2 way more. I cant really tell you why but its just more fun ... for me at least. Not saying the X-T is not being used, I mainly use it for street and traveling, but most of my portrait or people stuff I enjoy more with my X-Pro2.

I reckon it's part evolution and part market segmentation.
 
X-Pro 2 design probably started well before X-T2, and USB charging and 4k were not part of the brief. When working on development of the X-T2 the team added new features to the spec based on a review of competition.
 
But there's also the marketing strategy to aim the cameras at different perceived market segments, and some marketing genius thinks that a rangefinder style body should not have an articulating screen and that a dslr style body needs a mock prism housing.
 
I wish Fuji would just make the best body they can, and ignore fashion.

1. Allegedly the reason x-pro 2 has no 4K video is because of heat, yet its body is bigger than the x-t2 that does have 4K which in my world means that there is less room for heat dispersion. The hybrid viewfinder can't take up that much space, so the heat explanation seems lame.
 
2. X-pro 2 has no articulating screen as it would add weight and bulk, yet the x-t2 has it and it is still a smaller, lighter camera.
 
3. X-pro 2 does not charge via usb. X-t2 does. Why the difference?
 
I love Fujifilm, but these questions really bug me, as I really prefer the x-pro form factor, but feel I am missing out on some the cool stuff from the x-t2.

There's been many threads about faults with various Fuji cameras, and many queries where people have issues created by illogical menu options. There's also some issues with peeling rubber coatings, warped doors, hot batteries and worn paint finishes, plus the regular discussions on how to encourage our cameras to focus on anything that moves - yet we all stick with Fuji. Is that because we like our favourite lenses so much, we tolerate the unreliable bodies?
 
Yesterday evening was a good example, my X-E2 would not work properly with the flash (shutter release stopped responding, then it over exposed the shots), and Face Detection resulted in 50% of the shots with background in perfect focus. But after removing the flasgun, disabling face detection and switching to the 35mm prime, I got a shot that was just what I wanted.
 
Are other systems as problematic?
 
If it were not for your favourite Fuji lenses, would you stick with Fuji bodies?
 

It's pretty bad. There's already been some discussions in the fujirumors site. But this means that commercial photographers, who are currently the ones who use medium format the most, will not use it. They are married to C1. 
 
For GFX to succeed, Fuji has to hope medium format will penetrate other genres like wedding, street, and landscape. I think It has a great chance because of its price. 

Oh my, let's just hope DxO will support them though
 
Sent from my K016 using Tapatalk

If I have read your problem correctly its under the Development header. One Scene Development (Shortcut Ctrl+S) This gives you jpeg, tiff or other formats. Adam Bonn, a member of this forum has a fantastic four part series of articles on using RFC.
https://adambonn.com/my-love-affair-with-the-fujifilm-x-pro1/xp2-thirty-seven/
This has all the information you could need to come to grips with the software.
Good luck
Eric

After using Lightroom and Capture One for several years, I have just purchased Silkypix 7 Pro and I'm having a wonderful time with it. Each day I learn something new about it that helps me understand it a little better. For my Fuji XT2 files it is very refreshing.

SilkyPix gets a 'bad rap' amongst a lot of Fuji users,
 
But it's worth (IMHO) remembering they are Fujifilm's software partner....
 
Of course that doesn't mean it HAS to be good, but it should mean that Fuji share demosaicing info with them, and they can implement this into their products
 
FWIW, I'm glad I gave SP7 a try, and I'm please with the results in context of what I like, what I shoot etc
 
Of course YMMV
 
But I think it's worth mentioning that there are other choices out there!!
 

 

 
Oh and in case you're wondering.... NONE of these shots used a Fuji Film Simulation!!
 
Thanks for looking!

i too would love ibis in the fuji bodies .... its true one cant have everything , i dont miss touchscreens , but fast primes like the 56 1.2 etc could benefit with some ois love  if fuji persists in no ibis
 
i love fuji too but often fuji stays home and the pen f comes out to play with a nikkor w 50 1.4 or a 105 2.5 and a speedbooster xl that adds 1 1\3 stops of light and bokeh action.... with the excellent ibis of the pen   the fuji cant touch it for available light work  in darkened conditions 

I just saw the "why don't people buy Fuji" poll and didn't find any really adequate options, so I thought I'd go into more detail in the forums. This thread seems to be close enough to the same topic.
 
I was pretty hyped for the X-T2 all the way until I found out that the live feed in the viewfinder only works up to 5fps. For fast action, that effectively makes the camera no better than an entry level SLR. Apparently Sony has viewfinders that keep a lag free image in the viewfinder even at a 24fps burst.
I still want a Fuji, but I can't look at the X-T2 without feeling like it's crippled or unfinished. Fuji should continue to work on the overall user interface as well, I'm not a fan of the funky three quarters articulating screen, and it should be a touchscreen. Hopefully their next mid-range body is a well rounded device.

IBIS is a features which doesn't cost much, can be turned off, is increasingly provided by nearly all the mainstream mirrorless ILC systems.  It is one of those things that is becoming so common that it is moving from being a competitive advantage to a situation were not having it is a competitive disadvantage.
 
My hope is that for current generation cameras Fuji didn't arbitrarily decide to leave it out since there is obvious desire in the market.  That is why I choose to believe that there is a technical reason that makes it more difficult for Fuji than the other manufacturers.

I do. I just think Fuji are missing a trick here.

My current thoughts on continuing to use Fuji.

 

I have been using various Fuji cameras for a number of years professionally, however I have reached something of an impasse. The chief issue I have is the lack of in body image stabilisation (IBIS).

 

I am a great fan of Fuji cameras (with the exception of the X-pro series which I have tested extensively but decided that the X-T1 and X-E2 suit me better). I love their lenses, particularly the primes (I have an extensive set of both zooms and primes) but I cannot understand why if they won’t stabilise the prime lenses they don’t have at least one body with IBIS?

 

The argument that IBIS may result in a slight deterioration in edge image quality has been put forward by Fuji and I can see the point they make, however, if the whole shot is ruined because of camera shake nothing is gained. Those seeking ultimate quality can always switch off IBIS after-all. The 90mm is a prime candidate for inducing camera shake in my experience. When shooting in good light levels this is no problem but when using available light such as photographing a play or for candid work in the evening the problem becomes real. My solution is to use higher ISO to  allow higher shutter speeds, but this has resulted in noisier images than I like or want to accept.

 

The Fuji zoom lenses have image stabilisation but this is of no comfort to those who need the extra speed a faster prime lens allows. 2.8 zooms whilst lovely, do not compare to lenses such as the 56/1.2 for example. Also there are those who have chosen prime lenses simply because they suit their photographic style and habits better. Traditionally fast primes are the weapon of choice for the available light photographer and to have neither IBIS or lens stabilisation in prime lenses seems to be a retrograde step. Just about everything these days seems to have stabilisation of some sort, and this is a great boon, so it baffles me why Fuji persist in depriving us of this advantage.

 

As a professional I have the budget to access to other systems and have tried both the Sony A7 series and the Olympus Pen F and have found that they are both at an advantage because of IBIS.

Granted the Micro 4/3 size sensor of the Olympus may be at a disadvantage compared to the Fuji in terms of noise, dynamic range and shallow depth of field and the Sony is handicapped with a smaller lens range, but they both excel when it comes to low light photography because of IBIS.

 

I recently photographed a play professionally. I used both my Fuji cameras and also the Olympus Pen F and to Fuji’s shame the Olympus produced superior images. The reason for this was simply down to the Olympus’ IBIS. Each Fuji image was slightly softer than the Olympus versions. I noticed that the Olympus was just a tiny little noisier, but only when viewed at 100%. I did a similar thing at a wedding with the Sony A7SII and my Fuji cameras and again the Sony gave a sharper image.

 

I love Fuji colours, I love their sharpness in good light, I love the size and ergonomics of the cameras, I love their prime lenses, I love the feel of a Fuji camera and lens in my hands, I love working with the images in post-production but the lack of IBIS is killing it for me.

 

As a professional, I need to use the equipment that delivers the results that satisfy both me and my clients. Sadly I am increasingly reaching for my Sony A7 series equipment. My heart doesn’t want to do this, but I cannot sacrifice image quality for loyalty.

 

So this is a heart felt plea to Fuji, please introduce an X series camera with IBIS before it is too late.

the 18-55 is a great piece of kit, the best all purpose affordable lens for the Fuji system.

Perhaps Davinci Resolve can fit your needs.
It's free and you get a great color correction suite as well.

Does any of the other Fujinon lenses have that magic rendering the 35mm f1.4 is so loved fore?
I like my 23mm f1.4 a lot, but it has a more clinical way of seeing things. I do like sharpness, which most Fujinons offer in spades, but rendering is the most important parameter for as I do as little post as possible. I am a sucker for sooc images.

Because the 10-24 f4 OIS can do THIS and the 14 wouldn't quite make it, I'm glad the 10-24 was my choice. I found out my last outing that it ended up staying on pretty much the entire time. I had no idea I truly needed things that wide to get it done, but for ME it was the answer. Can't say enough good things about it.

This is exactly why I did choose the 27mm. The 35mm ist excellent, as is the Touit 32mm, but I don't know when to use it (except for the rare in studio situations).

don't sell a lens you love!

Least used is the 18mm. Not because the lens is bad but it somehow sits between other lenses that I use for a particular reason.
 
The 18-55 is my sight seeing/street/reportage or what ever you call it lens at day light. I like the flexibility of the zoom. In low light situations I use the 23/1.4 for the same purpose. The Samyang 12mm is used in narrow space or other situations when I want it wider. So in any situation where I could use the 18mm I have another one which I prefer.
 
And personally I believe the difference in size between the 18mm and the 18-55mm does not make any difference in inconspicuousness. Any tourist with a cheap DSLR has a zoom that is bigger than the 18-55mm. So the 18-55mm does not look more serious. And even the cheapest and smallest point and shot will be noticed if people don't like that you take a picture.
 
Another little used lens is the 56/1.2. Again nothing wrong with the lens for me but I simply do not shoot that many portraits as I thought I would.
 
Finally I am not sure if I will use the 55-200 in the future a lot since I have the 150-400.