mattdm

Window in Kraków, 2016. I took several hundred pictures on this trip and this is my favorite. X-T10 straight out of camera, XF 56mm.

Agreed! There should at least be a config menu option to lock all buttons at current config, so that holding them no longer brings up the reconfiguration option. Once you've had the camera for a while and figured out how you want to use it, accidentally activating the configuration is just annoying, for any of the buttons, not just video.

In the unlikely event of a scratch that's serious enough to affect image quality, having the front element repaired or replaced isn't all that expensive. Multiply the risk by the repair cost, and compare that to the certain cost of a high-quality filter, and then subtract the increased flare and reduced resolution. It's really not worth it, unless you're in special circumstances with extra environmental dangers.

And FWIW, here's my list. Except I don't think any of these things are horrible. 1. I like the 23mm f/1.4, but it's pretty bulky. The pancakes are going too far in the other direction and compromise on image quality. I'd like a 23mm f/2.8 with weather sealing, to go with the upcoming 35mm f/2 (with weather sealing in the pictures, even if not the roadmap — fingers crossed). 2. Not enough customization options. Why can't I set the front dial to be ISO directly, without needing to push in first and then turn? 3. And, of the options that do exist, the custom modes don't remember enough stuff — only certain options can be set here. And, very minor while I'm at it, I'd love to be able to put names to configuration sets. 4. High ISO: kind of iffy. Not quite sure why this is — I understand the underlying sensor to be the 16mpix Sony which generally people rave about in Sony, Pentax, and Nikon cameras. 5. In-body stabilization. C'mon, with these nice primes, it'd be a huge win. Really missing this coming from Pentax. 6. Wait, I get six, right? The in-camera manual RAW development is incredibly primative. There should be many more adjustments available, with live preview of the effect. Pentax does it, and this is incredibly, incredibly valuable to primarily-JPEG shooters who want to take advantage of the great in-camera JPEG engine but sometimes want a little more control and the ability to make after-the-fact decisions.

This is funny. I can think of a list of things that I think Fujifilm is doing wrong, but they're none of this list. I use aperture priority mode 90% of the time (especially with the sweet, long-lost ability to actually use an aperture ring — thanks, Fujifilm!), so I don't care about detailed adjustments to shutter speed. And if I do want to set both, I'm usually fine with full stops for shutter speed. This seems like it'd be an okay enhancement, but I'm not getting the angst. There's a histogram, and you can review your photos right after — surely if you're taking landscape photographs you have a little time to prepare. a. It would be nice if they offered a 70mm lens for portraiture. I love my Pentax 70mm DA Limited lens. But the 56mm is a great portrait lens, and I'm hearing good things about the 90mm macro too. In 35mm film terms, that covers 85mm-e and 135mm-e — both traditional focal lengths! — and leaves a gap at traditional 105mm-e. But.... that's not so much "horribly wrong" as "a gap to fill inthe future. And, b, the flash sync speed: since many (all? I dunno) Fujifilm X cameras offer a hybrid electronic/physical shutter, it does seem like higher sync speeds would be possible. Eh. This has never been so important to me, but it would be nice. I use a Godox V850 (actually, the Cheetah Light variant, sold in the US with great customer service and US-based support), which is low, cost and gives very convient control right from the camera. As you mention in your #5, its lithium battery is awesome. Built-in radio would be cool, but likely to be limited to expensive branded flashes. (Incentive for third-party manufacturers to support anyone other than Canon or Nikon is very low.) And, it'd also take away some of the precious control space on the body itself... X-T10 uses the same battery as the X-T1, so this may be going in the right direction. But I really don't think Fujifilm is any worse than anyone else here!

Awesome - thanks!

I could, but it probably won't install on my Pentax K-5ii. And since the thread says "I'll test it for you...."

Here's what I want to know: does it increase the quality level at which JPEGs are saved?

You mean you know for sure that there is no change in the X-T1 new firmware, or you mean that you are not changing your prediction?

This is my plan too. I'm switching from Pentax, where I have 15mm, 40mm, 70mm. At the wide end, I find the 15mm wider than fits my style most of the time, and so going with 23mm seems like a good choice. My 40mm is my go-to lens, but I do feel like a little wider would be nicer (especially since I got it back with a 6mpix camera; now that we have a little more room to crop, I'd rather do that when necessary). And Pentax has never delivered on early rumors of a normal-range weathersealed prime, so this 35mm WR seems awesome. I'll make do with the 23mm as a wide-normal until that lens is available. I'm really happy with the 70mm as a portrait lens, and kind of wish Fujiflm had an exact match. I know there's the 60mm, but from the reviews, I think the 56mm is more appealing. I'm probably eventually going to also get the 90mm, and at that point I expect the 56mm will live at home next to my studio flash setup, and the 90mm will replace it in my camera bag most of the time. Rationale: sometimes it's nice to have a little more reach outdoors. Just came from my daughter's kung fu class, though, and 56mm would have been just about the perfect focal length — 40mm was too wide and 70mm too narrow. (I guess there's a reason people use zooms.)

I'm just waiting to see if the new X-T1 firmware enables less-compressed JPEGs. So far, that seems to be weirdly in the X-T10's favor.

I also use the Godox system, under the US-based Cheetah Light brand, which I recommend for excellent service and support, even if the prices are a bit higher (still cheap!). I do miss wireless ttl a little bit, but not as much as I thought I would; generally, for the cases where i used that, it was "put flash in a corner of the room aimed at ceiling, shoot away", and it turns out that that's really not a situation where the power level needs to change much — do a couple of test shots for the room and there you are. For strobist/studio style portraits, manual control is better anyway — especially when you have two or three lights involved.

A rumor a few months ago suggested that the new 35mm F2 lens will be weather resistant. This seems exciting to me, and one of my primary reasons for interest in the X-T1 — WR body with decently-fast normal prime? Yes please! But, on the roadmap, there's no WR indication. But... the 16mm and 90mm lenses also on that roadmap DID turn out to be WR. So, is there hope?

For many subjects, it doesn't matter. But for others, it really can. With Pentax, I generally shoot with ★★★ JPEG + RAW and use in-camera conversion to ★★★★ for situations with high-color contrast like this or for shots I think are really special. This is extra-true if you intend to do some touchup of the JPEG files. Resaving a 96% jpeg (even at the 96% level) causes significantly more damage than resaving a 100% one. (Both cause extra loss, but in the lower-compression case, it's negligable.) See illustration of effect of multiple resaves at different levels at http://photo.stackexchange.com/a/34192/1943, although note that the example compares 75% and 99%.

I know it's not lossless, but the difference still can be meaningful. Take a look at http://photo.stackexchange.com/a/21691/1943, where I compare the various Pentax compression levels. TL;DR? The summary is that there are real-world situations where ★★★★ to ★★★ is a noticable decline, and ★★★ to below definitely is. So, take this as "dare taken", Maurice.

For what it's worth, in Gimp (which uses different numbers than ImageMagic), the X-T10 files are at 98%, and the X-T1 files are 96%. Both use 4:2:2 subsampling (color channel information halved, basically). This is a definite improvement, but still not great. With Pentax cameras, the high-quality JPEG (★★★★) mode is 100%, and the next step down (★★★) is 99%. I don't understand why Fujifilm can't offer a higher-quality level; it's not like it's rocket science and if they're worried about people's reaction to the size, it doesn't have to be the default. Of course, shooting RAW is the other answer, but with Fujifilm investing so much into the in-camera JPEGs in other ways, this is a puzzle. (I sound like a Pentax fan because I am. But I'm also a Fujifilm fan. I just want the best of both. *sigh*)

I'm skeptical — dust is light except over time, I don't think gravity is a big factor. I think changing lenses quickly, in whichever orientation makes that easiest, is much more important. Anecdotally here, not as well as that on other systems? Maybe I've gotten spoiled with this on my current camera.

Any indication that the firmware update will include the less-compress JPEG option from the X-T10?