bhamx2

Something to be aware of if you push your raw files to any great degree in post. A7 camera's originally employed a god awful lossy compression algorithm which took the 14 bit raw capture and discarded information to result in what is effectively an 11 bit file. Less bits = less tonal values. You won't notice the loss in tonal values in whatever output medium your using (most readily available output mediums are only going to display 8 bits of tonal information anyway and 10 bits at most for the foreseeable future) it's in the processing latitude of the raw file that you will see the difference. The 11 bit raw file will fall apart a lot sooner vs a 14 bit raw file the same way as a 14 bit raw file will fall apart a lot sooner than the 16 bit raw files being captured by high end medium format cameras in recent years. Sony has tried to address the problems with compression by offering uncompressed 14 bit raw files via firmware. This is great from a pure image quality point of view, however, there is a big but. Because the raw files are now uncompressed they are huge files which effectively cripples the A7 cameras' buffer making it slow for any sort of quick successions shooting (forget about continuous shooting unless you want to take 6 images and wait 10 minutes for the buffer to clear). In addition these huge files are going to take up a lot more space and put your computer under significantly more load and ultimately slow your processing workflow. Fuji had a similar problem with their RAF files. They employed very little compression which Lightroom found difficult to deal with quickly. This has since been addressed in recent Lightroom updates however. Top and bottom of it is that the Sony A7 series is a young product line with bugs and teething problems (much like Fuji's launch of the x series) which is to be expected. Question is, can you wait and will Sony address these issues, quickly. Fuji invested in customer feedback to improve the x series (quickly) through firmware initially and then through successive models of each camera. In addition they invested heavily in a strong and diverse lens lineup from the get go to achieve a well rounded system in a short period of time. Sony firmware updates are few and far between, whilst any updates that do come along are half baked (uncompressed raw crippling the camera for example). Also, good Sony glass is significantly more expensive (it seems) than comparable Fuji glass (which is to be expected with APS-C vs 35mm development costs) and not as diverse. See how the Sony A7 iii's turn out sometime this year / next and also see whether the lens lineup has matured by that time. It could then be worth a look but at present I would stay clear. XT2 looks like a great performer and it's got the lens lineup to boot. Image quality wise it's on par with the D500 with regards DR and noise whilst it is on par with the 5D MK4 with regards general detail rendering (the lack of aa filter effectively brings the 24 megapixel XT2 up to the 30 megapixel 5D MK4 with it's aa filter induced blur. If it's anything like my XT1 the user experience will be top notch (and even better). However, the XT2 is not without it's own flaws of course ((X-trans struggles with fine colour detail rendering - it's a fact people!)) but then every camera will have one flaw or another.

Thanks for the reply. Certain raw editors have the option to turn the distortion correction off. For example Capture One. There is no way to do this in Lightroom though. Also Lenstip talk about using Dcraw without distortion correction.

Evening, I am considering buying the Fuji 16-55mm 2.8. The only query I have which I can't seem to find the answer to is regarding distortion correction and it's impact on sharpness. Apparently at 16mm the lens has bucket loads of barrel distortion and I understand this is corrected in software. However reviews suggest that this lens is sharpest at 16mm. Does anyone know whether these reviews (or any review you know of) test sharpness before or after distortion correction. I don't want to invest in this lens if it is sharp prior to distortion but soft after correction (at least at 16mm) Advice appreciated. Cheers Bhamx2

What body will you have ? I knew what you meant but a previous poster didn't understand where I was coming from so thought if you could clarify further it would help validate my point Check out my Flickr (the earlier shots) https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/130557165@N04/ to get an idea of what you can shoot and the perspective with the 35mm 1.4. I was still able to shoot a hotch potch of travel stuff with varying subjects / scenes it's just certain types of scenes like landscapes and townscapes or tight spaces / large buildings / street scenes could have done with extra width. If you could only choose between the 27 and 35 go with the 35 for sure (whether it be the 1.4 or 2.0) they are superior optically (the 2.0 will have better corner sharpness but I love the 1.4 for creating nice out of focus areas in product / close subject shots / portraits) than the 27mm. The 27 is a pancake lens so doesn't have as much glass to focus light from acute angles therefore although it has excellent centre sharpness, sharpness towards the edges degrades quickly and this will show on wider shots of landscapes for example. The 2.8 aperture is slow for a normal focal length prime and the couple of mill extra in width isn't worth it in my opinion. If you like subject isolation go for the 1.4. If you would prefer sharpness across the frame when shooting landscapes / townscapes or whenever this is needed go with the 2.0 - especially if you plan on getting a weather resistant body.

Telling someone to pick a focal length they use the most could completely constrain other shooting opportunities and it doesn't sound like the OP shoots a specific genre of subjects / scenes. I suppose they need to clarify what they mean by 'shoot everything' for a year... At present I would interpret that as shoot anything or multiple things of a likely diverse nature that requires a versatile focal length and in some people's opinions this would be the 23mm (35mm equivelant). I do agree though that an aperture of 1.4 gives more creative freedom.

From experience, when I first entered the x system I bought the X-E1 and 35mm 1.4. i.e. a one lens system like you are planning on buying. I knew very little about photography at the time and although this combination was great for learning I would probably take a different route if I had the chance again knowing what I know now. The 35mm (52mm equivalent in full frame terms) was not versatile enough in terms of focal length, there were shots I just couldn't make. For example landscapes and townscapes whilst travelling could have benefited from a wider angle. For a one lens system which would need to adapt to various subjects and scenes I would definitely buy a 23mm (35mm equivalent in full frame terms) - either the 23 1.4 or wait for the rumoured but likely 23mm 2.0 with weather resistance. There's a reason why premium fixed focal length cameras (Fuji X100 series and Sony RX1 etc) are 35mm full frame equivalents in focal length because they are most versatile. Bide your time and you could probably pick up a used X-T1 at a reduced price (when the X-T2 comes out in the summer) and pair it with a weather resistant 23mm 2.0 lens which would give you a versatile one lens system which can deal with multiple situations as well as inclimate weather. You can then add to the system depending on whether you think you need extended width or reach.

Had an interesting day today. Went to Elan Valley in Mid Wales (landscape shooting) and took both my Canon 5D - 17-35 zoom and X-E1 - 18mm prime. I am happier with the framing of the X-E1 - 18mm F2 and felt more clinical when shooting with it (if that makes sense). During the odd situation where I thought the additional width would be useful I shot an in camera pano and in the end these helped compliment the 'normal shots' and made the photograph collection more interesting to my eye. When shooting with the zoom I found myself experimenting with different focal lengths too often with no real end benefit and it was wasted time. Conclusion for me is there is a lot to be said for shooting with fixed focal lengths (consistency and learning to 'see' with a particular length) which is going to influence my lens purchases moving forward for sure.

We are going along the east coast - Sydney to Brisbane (via car) then Brisbane to Cairns (via plane). The urban areas and coastal regions will be our main focus but we plan on making detours inland along the way to see the national parks. My interests lie in capturing the extent of urban and natural landscapes whilst being able to pick out interesting elements of each. I'm not so interested in the human element or 'street photography' as such. Essentially I want to look back at my photographs (impressive landscapes / cityscapes etc) and think wow that was an amazing place not just have a load of snaps per se.

This is a fair point about the lenses in terms of knowing how the visualize the scene with the focal lengths I already have. In terms of the camera for a while now I have been shooting manually (exposure, not focus) and the dials on the X-T1 are a big draw. I'm also looking for improvements in focus speed and accuracy (especially in low light) over the X-E1 with phase detect pixels. The larger more complex EVF is also a big draw. Building on these reasons I guess I was looking to make the most of the body with a WR zoom lens. I'm already invested in a line of prime lenses and cant afford to be carte blanche and completely adjust my line up unfortunately. In an ideal world I would have the X-T1 with a versatile 23mm 1.4 prime (preferably WR) for a compact take anywhere package and a 16-55mm 2.8 (preferably OIS) for when I could do with extra width or reach or in situations where I dont mind the heft. We've saved for this trip so money isn't really an issue, we are more time limited with only three weeks available. Cheers

Interesting stuff. How is the 16-55 in terms of handheld at the short telephoto end ? I've read OIS really makes a difference at longer focal lengths. Memories and the opportunity to create some really nice images - I suppose there's no such thing as a free lunch in terms of quality and massive zoom range. I think I'm leaning towards the 16-55 for days where I'm going out purely with photography in mind and the 35mm for days where I'm out and about and would like to keep a record of my trip. I've read rumours that there might be a 23mm WR around the corner - I think this would be perfect in terms of a flexible fixed focal length for day to day shooting and cataloging of my trip, sometimes I feel 35mm is a touch too long but love the subject isolation !

Thanks both for the comments. I don't know how much I would use the 10-17 range of 10-24. I suppose I've never felt the need to go wider than 18mm but remember instances where I wanted to capture details that were out of reach so the 18-135mm seems to be the logical purchase. The only reservation that I have is over the optical quality, as I normally shoot exclusively with primes I don't want to be left wanting - this is why I considered the 16-55mm. Cheers

Hi all, I am going to Australia for 3 weeks towards the end of 2016. By that time I will have upgraded from my Fuji X-E1 (which is getting long in the tooth) to the X-T1 (with vertical grip). I cant decide which road to go down in terms of lenses to accompany the X-T1 on my trip. Currently I have the 18mm F2 and 35mm F1.4 which served me well in Italy for the most part last summer. However, I dont want to regret missing a shot because of absent focal lengths from my kit. Therefore I was thinking of selling the 18mm and getting the 18-135mm for versatility (amongst other benefits OIS WR etc) and keep the 35mm for situations where I want to get creative with depth of field etc. Alternatively I was contemplating selling both the 18mm and 35mm to get the 16-55mm F2.8 as a do everything lens. I guess my options are; X-T1 with both 18mm and 35mm (small, light and fast but limited reach) X-T1 with both 18-135mm and 35mm (versatile and the option to go fast if needed) X-T1 with 16-55mm only (fairly versatile although will the lack of OIS affect me in low light and will 55mm give me enough reach). Thoughts ? Bhamx2