dfaye

.
I refocused the lens. With such a long distance the DOF had to ‘travel’, compared to the short working distance, moving the camera would have changed the perspective considerably (also refocusing did, but not that much).
 
 
Yes, I do like the XF80 – with caveats.
For close-up/macro work it beats the Zeiss Touit 50 Macro by a slight margin. Nothing to write home about though. Despite its size, I prefer the XF80 for its longer reach and faster AF, and for its OIS at times.
I’ve hoped for XF90 bokeh with contrasty background at farther distances though. Instead, it’s rather like the XF50-140 here. Bummer. Albeit being a tad sharper than the XF90, the XF90 would still remain my 1st choice when it comes to portrait or landscape (within this range of focal length).
 
The Sigma 180/2.8 macro I used on the D810. Sold it in favor of the Sigma 150/2.8 Macro - because of the bokeh. The 180’s rendering of strong highlights, especially in the transition zone, looks terrible to me. Heavily ring shaped and with onion patterns.
I’ve used the Sigma macros 105 OS, 150 Apo OS, 180 Apo OS and the Nikkor 105 VR (all on the D800 or D810). To my eyes, the XF80 is easily sharper, with AF only a bit slower (on X-T2 3.00).
Based on the same angle of view on sensor level (different magn. ratios), on the APS-C x-Trans X-T2, the really very sharp XF80 provides no benefit with respect to enlargeability compared to, e.g., the Sigma 150 Apo OS on full frame D810 (prints from Epson 3880). Actually, I’d clearly still give preference to my D810 shots owing to the overall clarity and tonality. Based on the same magnification ratio on sensor level, the XF80/X-T2 can beat the Sigma150/D810, when using sophisticated x-trans demosaicing. Sure the D810 can go further given the right glass (some of my old shots with the Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 135mm f/2 on D810 still wipe the floor with Fuji-X - on large prints…).
 
PS: After many years of using the D800 & D810, I must admit that I don’t like x-trans. Don’t see any advantage, only workflow hassle (from raw). I prefer the Fuji-X System as a whole over the FF bulk though (yes, XF lenses can be bulky too). Miss the DR and pushability of the D810 files but, other than that, the IQ compromises are rarely relevant (large prints), esp. with lenses like the XF90 or XF80. If I go back to a larger format than to medium format (provided I hit a jackpot…).
 
.

I agree totally. Those apparently small details make all the difference for me, too. I tried hard to love my 100S/T. Now I'm so glad I upgraded to the 100F - a perfect companion for my XPro2.

It sounds like the sticky aperture blade problem that affected some of the earlier X100 models. There are several YouTube videos, for example 
 and also other discussion online, if you Google "Fuji X100 sticky aperture blade problem". If this is the answer, your camera would have to go back to Fuji for repair (but I think it's a fairly simple repair). Good luck!

Hi Sherman, when using Auto ISO I'd recommend setting at least the aperture yourself. For example, for the kind of quick snapshots you describe, I'd have the aperture set on, say, f8.  The camera should then be able to choose a sensible shutter speed and ISO. If you expect the camera to choose ALL the exposure variables - aperture, shutter speed and ISO - it has quite a lot of options to choose from, and the camera's algorithms will tend to prioritise shutter speed, as you describe. I find that the X100F works best, and fastest, if you set at least one exposure variable yourself - and it's fun to play around to see what works best for your style of photography. But you've got a great camera there. Enjoy!

Yup it works great in all view modes. Fantastic addition....!

Hi kjgraff, the process you describe is exactly the same as I use on my iMac, and as is recommended by Fuji, so I don't think your problem is there. Have you checked to make sure that there's not a similarly-named file already in your Downloads folder (or Desktop, whichever your default folder is for downloads)? If there is, the computer will have changed the filename by adding _2 etc, and the camera will be unable to read it. Alternatively, I guess there could be a problem with the card.

dfaye, I read your email too and you hit the nail on the head.  And, milandro, I had forgotten that my computer had an SD card reader in the back of it!  Since I use mirrorless exclusively now I will definitely use that reader also.  I had forgotten about it because I mostly used compact flash cards in the past.  Once I learn to do something a certain way, I tend to forget about other options.  
 
I've never introduced myself to the forum so I plan to send an email doing so.

I signed on to this forum several months ago but then did nothing.  Recently, I had a problem with updating my X-T2's firmware and some of the members helped me resolve my issue.  Since I am still learning about my camera and really have many questions about it, I thought, why not join this forum?  
 
I have enjoyed photography for many years and primarily used Canon equipment for at least the last 30.  Several years ago I began to explore other systems, mostly because I wanted to decrease the amount of weight I was carrying.  I could have switched to lighter Canon equipment but I was curious about mirrorless systems and so I began to explore Olympus and Fujifilm.  I currently photograph with Olympus micro 4/3rds and Fujifilm equipment.  Both are lighter systems and have many excellent lenses. I'm excited that Fuji is adding an 80mm 1:1 macro lens since I enjoy macro photography.  Speaking of which, my photography interests are very broad.  I love to photograph nature, travel, sports, architecture, etc.  I love having a camera in my hands and carry one with me most of the time--another reason to use light, compact, equipment.  I look forward to reading posts in this forum, learn more about my Fuji camera, and, hopefully, also contribute to this forum.

Thank you very much, I really appreciate your kind words as it’s not my usual thing to write (thank goodness) and not what my readers expect from me
 
Normal service will return!

Thanks for sharing, Adam. What a great tribute to someone who was clearly a wonderful man. Inspirational to read it - but so sorry for your loss. Take care of yourself.

The final part of my three instalment article that compares the two XF23s (F1.4 & F2)   Today, I finish comparing the rendering differences between the two 23s and as is the custom which such things - I write a conclusion!   Enjoy!  
http://adambonn.com/my-love-affair-with-the-fujifilm-x-pro1/xp2-eighty-two/

It is a truly superb lens in terms of image quality and the way it renders images, but I suspect that many who bought it on the basis of glowing reviews are later put off by its size and weight and the lack of OIS. I use mine a lot, mostly for garden photography and with extension tubes for near-macro shots. However when the long-awaited 80mm macro becomes available I will have to decide whether to sell my 90mm and buy the new 80mm instead in order to get full macro.

The following will all disable flash:
Sound/Flash Off -- obviously, but a lot of people seem to forget to check this -- might not apply to PC Sync connector Flash Control Mode: OFF -- also obvious but easy to overlook -- might not apply to PC Sync connector ES or MS+ES shutter -- even though MS+ES will use MS at X-Sync speed, you need to select MS Burst drive modes: CH or CL Bracketing drive mode: BKT Panorama drive mode Check the settings in the Sync Terminal screen of Flash Function Setting.
 
Also, I'm not sure if the PC Sync connector will trigger if there's an active flash mounted on the hotshoe.

And speaking of the jpeg files, make sure the Lens Modulation Optimizer is turned ON (IQ Menu, second page). I guess you've already checked this, in which case, apologies - but this comment might help someone else reading this. Of course the Lens Modulation Optimizer only affects the jpegs, but with some lenses it does make a big difference in correcting any inherent faults.

I agree with drandyperry's comments. I do actually have both lenses. The f1.4 is a beautiful lens when you can work in a slow and considered way, but after numerous failed shots of my dogs running through fields on their daily walks I bought the f2, and I find it excellent for anything where fast focus is required. It is also weather resistant, which is a bonus. My f1.4, which I bought used, is now very battered and full of dust, but I can't quite bring myself to sell it (and wouldn't get much for it, anyway). Images taken with the f1.4 have a certain subtlety to them; the bokeh is a little more pleasing than with the f2 and there's perhaps slightly better micro contrast. But there's not much in it. For events work I'd definitely go with the f2.

Just one other thought: Auto white balance can do strange things to colours under certain lighting conditions. It would be worth checking to see if you get the same effect using, say, Daylight WB. (For example, I'm now looking at a green cushion using Auto WB under bright artificial light (LED bulbs): the cushion looks green in the LCD but blue in  the EVF. If I use another WB setting, the effect goes away.) Anyhow, I hope your problem is something simple like this!

Have you specifically tried the EVF and LCD *colour* settings? That is, Setup menu, then into Screen setup, then make sure that EVF Color and LCD Color are both set to the same value (I'd recommend setting both to 0 unless you find you've got good reason to do otherwise). Sorry if you've already done all this, but it's the only thing I can think of.

Wide/Tracking in Wide mode (AF-S) is pretty reasonable for scenes like landscapes where pretty much any point could be used for focusing. Also, because Fuji's contrast-detect AF prefers closer subjects, if you take a picture of, say, a person in front of a backdrop, it'll tend to focus on the person, which is usually what you want. Still, it's necessarily sloppy about exactly what it's going to focus on, so you wouldn't want to use it with a narrow depth of field. And, since it's contrast-detect AF, it can take a second or two to focus.
 
Wide/Tracking in Tracking mode (AF-C) is a somewhat different critter, because you specify which AF point to (initially) focus on, so there's little of the uncertainty that Wide mode has. The thing is, because it's contrast-detect (except in CH continuous drive mode), the lens is continually pumping in and out as the camera checks for changes in subject distance. That's ugly and annoying. Worse, because the camera can't release the shutter mid-pump, it can upset the timing of the capture.
 
Tracking mode (AF-C) with CH drive mode limits the tracking area to the PDAF sensors, which on the X-T10 is a much smaller part of the scene. If your aperture is f/8 or wider, it uses PDAF exclusively, which is a whole lot nicer, although the limited tracking zone is a nuisance. But if you stop down to f/9 or beyond, you'll be back to contrast-detect AF and still have the limited tracking zone.

I use CREST toothpaste on my Tag Heuer watches.   WORKS AMAZINGLY well.  I haven't tried it on a glass screen tho.... I'd test it on an old piece of glass.  I've also used jewelers roush to deep polish automobile glass and that works amazingly well to.

these days there are some types of toothpaste which are absolutely useless for this purpose, they are the ones which contain enamel protecting agents.
 
Because I am a diver I know that  toothpaste is recommended to remove the protective silicone layer on the glass of diving masks and also all diving shops will tell you that some toothpaste will be useless for this purpose.
 
Anyway, the right toothpaste (traditional old fashioned one) will help but it will take a long more time that auto lacquer cleaner.

No, a 24mm lens on a 24x36mm sensor will draw the same angle of view as a 16mm lens on a 16x24mm sensor. Yes, this is a very wide lens, and it is hard to control the funkiness that results from using such a wide angle of view. I remember reading about a classic street photographer (Winogrand?) who wanted the widest possible lens, but settled on a 28mm not because it was the widest but because it was as wide as he could get with a reliably appealing drawing for his purposes. So, don't assume that just because some photogs prefer 24mm means you should, too; 28mm and 35mm are also quite useful for environmental portraiture (as can be 18mm and 21mm).
 
Without seeing what you're talking about, it is hard to tell you what you're seeing. But, you might be talking about perspective distortion or areal distortion.
 
Test: take an image that shows strong distortion of the kind you're seeing. Edit it in a program that allows you to correct for distortion. Now, add barrel distortion (or tell the program that you want to correct for pincushion even when lines at the edges are already straight). This will reduce areal distortion. If this solves your issue, then you know what it is.
 
Theory overview--
 
I think there are three kinds of distortion:
 
1 - Perspective
2 - Linear
3 - Areal
 
Perspective distortion is the result of the distance between objects and the camera. Lenses do not affect perspective distortion beyond making certain things possible or in how a particular lens facilitates the use of particular types of shots.
 
Linear distortion is usually what people mean when they're thinking of lens-related distortion. Take a picture with a flat subject along one edge of the frame; if straight lines are bent, you are seeing linear distortion.
 
Areal distortion is usually what people are referring to when they say wide lenses distort people's heads. Of course, it distorts all subjects, but we're just more attuned to the way a human head naturally looks so we're more sensitive to distortion of it. Take a picture of a regular subject (say, a round sign) in the corner of the frame; if it appears like an egg shape rather than a circle, you're seeing areal distortion.
 
Linear distortion and areal distortion are directly and inversely correlated. Eliminating linear distortion means accepting areal distortion and vice versa.
 
Thought experiment: consider a brick wall of infinite length and width. Each brick is the same size. But, if you look to one side, the bricks further away appear to be smaller (due to perspective distortion). Now, try drawing an image of a brick wall where bricks toward the edges of the frame are smaller than those in the center. The accurate result is barrel distortion. The wider the angle of view, the stronger the naturally occurring linear distortion. In order to eliminate that distortion, the bricks at the edges of the frame must be drawn larger than they actually appear. This distorts the appearance of areas, creating areal distortion.
 
In my experience, wide-angle lenses that are perfectly corrected for linear distortion can be rather ugly in some scenes due to areal distortion. Adding a hint of barrel to the image makes it look better. Older, classic lenses do this intentionally: it isn't that optical design has only recently allowed for perfect rectilinear designs but that, before the rise of internet reviews and "oh, curved line, must be bad lens" comments, lens designs balanced linear and areal distortion. (This might be important if you're looking at photos taken with 24mm lenses from the 1980s or earlier, as they weren't as strictly barrel-free as today's designs.) Fortunately, some software-correct lenses offer the best of both worlds: the native image has quite a bit of distortion, an "ideal" correction for straight lines is very easy to achieve, and the photographer is able to decide where in the middle each image should fall.
 
Hope this helps,
Jon

As I explained last week - due to a mix up - Fujifilm lent me the XF56APD (it was supposed to be the 50/F2 WR)
 
So now I can take a closer look at the two fifty-sixes and the images they make
 
So, here's part two:
 
http://adambonn.com/my-love-affair-with-the-fujifilm-x-pro1/xp2-seventy-five/

Dfaye, thanks for your feedback, it makes me feels a lot better about it!

Hi. This sounds normal. My 35 f1.4 aperture ring is fairly stiff (and feels a little gritty), and my 55-200 aperture ring is much smoother and moves a little too easily for my preference. There's a lot of variation in Fuji's aperture rings, especially for the earlier lenses - just something to get used to. The more recent offerings, like the 90mm and the trio of f2s (the 23, 35 and 50 f2) have got a much better balance between smoothness and stiffness. 

Lightroom CC and Photoshop CC both handle Fuji raw and compressed raw files with ease. Some people are dissatisfied with Adobe's conversion of raw files to PSD/TIFF/JPG, especially because of smearing highly detailed areas with repeating pattern such as leaves and grass; others don't consider it a real-world problem because it shows up mostly on extreme enlargements or when "pixel-peeping" on screen. Both sides have support among very accomplished photographers, and the on-line debates use up a great deal of time which might have been spent making photographs.
 
After a year of use, my X-Pro2 continues to give me enormous pleasure, and I am rarely dissatisfied with Lightroom.