Florian

I don't think I view it as working around the limitations as much as being in actual control of the shot - every camera I've taken shots with will often deliver automatic settings different from what I want at that moment. Maybe I am working around the limitations as well now, but if they are there I don't notice much difference in the amount of the limitations compared to other systems. I do notice the difference in the time spent changing settings , with the fuji comparing favourably. As for the lens: I mostly use adapted lenses on my x-pro1, my favourite being the nokton 40mm for m mount and only the second favourite being a fuji (23mmf1.4).

Heh, for me the selling point was precisely the option of being able to quickly override the automation so you can get the shot just fine, even with those procedures (that's what all the dials are for, after all). I hate it when my gear makes it difficult to change the settings when it thinks it knows better than me.

No complaints here on build quality and menu-logic in my x-pro1. I will get into situations the camera's automation cannot handle. What I like in fuji's cameras is that, so far, in every such case I can understand what is going wrong and quickly take control of the camera to correct this (or just take control before the camera gets a chance to get it wrong ) For example, in your shot I would have immediately used back-button focus/manual focus with focus peaking, spot metering with manual placement of the focus spot. Probably use automatic settings for shutter speed and iso at the first try and use the manual controls if it didn't immediately expose properly.

Got an x-pro1 for precisely that purpose. Once I had it set up to my liking I just ignore most buttons, only changing the film emulation once in a while. At the moment, im-notso-ho this camera (or the pro2) with a voightlander 40mm is as close as possible to what you are asking for, they fit together very well.

Your camera seems to be in spot metering mode. In my experience, the automatic settings work best with metering set to either multi-metering or average. In most situations in daylight with these metering options, the images should be properly exposed when you have aperture set to 5.6, shutter speed and ISO on auto.

From what I understand the waxy skin effect is reduced, to the point where it is no longer an issue for many people, when using the new noise reduction -4 option.

You just showed why not to use ois with high shutter speeds (on said lenses): it makes no discernible difference in image quality. However, ois will still drain the battery faster.

Which Helios lens? According to the repository of all completely correct information ( ) most helios lenses are m42 mount, but you may want to check the possibilities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_%28lens_brand%29

If Fuji wants to go this route, the most obvious thing to do would be to stick a zoom lens on the x70

Other free option is Rawtherapee or GIMP with g'mic: http://50.87.144.65/~rt/w/index.php?title=Film_Simulation Edit: In case you meant in-camera; I would be interested to know as well.

Probably right on the ball. Though, I hope they somehow manage to cram the x-t2's battery in there as well...

Have a K&F concept T2-FX adapter here, no problems getting a t-mount lens on it. If I understand correctly, with T2 you can somehow rotate the mount so that you can have the lens aligned for best viewing of the marks.

Couldn't disagree more. The design ethos for these cameras is more along the lines of using well-developed solutions in modern design. E.g. if one puts dials on the camera, look in the past how dials were put on the darn things and use that as inspiration for the new design. If you've got an evf/ovf, there's essentially three places to put it: top left, top middle, top right - and if you put it in the middle you may want to raise it - which just coincides with putting this hump on the camera. Etc., etc...

Thanks; maybe it has something to do with this huge list at the end of the post

Here you are

All excellent ideas. But tbh, if one is set on getting the x100whatever model I'd recommend just waiting for the f. The x100 series has a unique combination of features and size which simply can't be met by those other models.

Should it be possible to comment directly below the articles on your website? I can't find the usual "Leave a Reply" there.

At the moment I am even using adapted mechanical lenses almost exclusively.

You'll be missing quite a bit of cash (^_~) Seriously, though; it's great fun to try out the different lens-film simulation combinations. I love it that one moment one is taking modern fuji-pictures, the next, just changing lens and film emulation, you get an excellent approximation of the 'old photograph'-look.

1. This may be an issue with either your adapter or the lens. Though, since I say that the problem seems to be reduced with closer subjects I suspect its the lens; maybe the manufacturer assumed you use smaller aperture size for longer distances? 2. Definitely wysiwyg, if it's in focus in the viewfinder, it will be so on the resulting picture. 4. As the helios is a fully mechanical lens, you can check whether the aperture is working correctly by just taking the lens off the camera and turning the aperture ring whilst looking through the lens.

Ah, sorry about that; the files definitely look different across generations. (would classify that as a simple observation) The cause of it though; you shot down my pet theory on the noise reduction being more aggressive on the x-trans II being the cause of the clinical look, since you are talking about the RAW data files, not the jpegs.

Like I said, your theory ^_~ Thanks for clarifying!

Quite possibly . However, if increasing the content does not make the images more clinical in the step from II to III, it's rather doubtful that this was the cause of the clinical look in II as compared to the first x-trans.

Well, glad you could throw that ridiculous theory, about the clinical results of the X-trans II sensor, in the bin; I suspect the cause is something as simple as an overly aggressive noise reduction (which is more similar to throwing away information rather than increasing it).

Just seen the same banding in an X-T1 forum topic, there it was cause by combining the electronic shutter with fluorescent light. In this case I suspect the LED's were 'dimmed' - meaning that they are flickering on and off at a high frequency which would cause the banding.