andyfromboston

Between a D750 (which I used to own) and an X-T2 (I own an X-Pro2, which is almost the same thing) it is impossible to name one as having better image quality. You have to break it down like this: -In good light you will see meaningful difference in the usual metrics like resolution, dynamic range and noise, except in extreme shadow shadow brightening. -In good light your Fuji photos will often look better because your Fuji lens is better than the Nikon lens you would have bought instead. -In very low light the Nikon will beat the Fuji's ass up and down the block. If shooting in pitch black in something you're interested in, the D750 sensor is great. The AF won't work, but the sensor will do a remarkable job recording your out of focus shot.

The Fuji has nothing over the Sony but looks? It has a $3000 lower price tag! And if you want a small kit, which is what mirrorless is good for anyway, it has more small lenses available at lower cost. Having a better spec is great, and the Sony does have a better spec, but (IMO, and this is where people will disagree) having $3000 in my bank account and smaller size is better.

I took a long trip to Europe with an X-T1, 23mm and 18-135. The 18-135 was convenient but otherwise not very good. I ended up eBaying it. I don't think I'd want to carry f/2.8 zooms on a long trip. I think I'd opt for the 18-55. It has great image quality and is small and light. Maybe add one of the small WR primes since you have a WR body.

It's the same as it's always been. A camera company comes up with a pro model that has features not found in regular models. More speed, tougher body etc. Does the fact that a Nikon D5 has features a D7200 doesn't mean that everyone should buy a D5 instead of a D7200? No. Should we ditch our Fujis because Sony has something that's better in a lot of ways? No. If we want an expensive camera with the features Sony has and can afford the Sony kit, should we buy a Fuji anyway? No. These cameras are not really each other's competition and comparing them isn't any more productive that getting into a Canon vs. Nikon flame war. It's just a bunch of talk.

Ken Rockwell isn't a pro photographer, he's a pro commentator on camera crap. He's written more than once that his technique is to set the camera to jpg small basic, P mode and the most vivid color mode and point and shoot at the most colorful thing he sees, which is why he takes more photos of trash cans than of people who aren't his kids. He has no idea how to use Fuji color modes, which is why he shoots his kids in vivid with saturation +4. He would no more be able to shoot a wedding with a couple of 5Diii's and L glass than he would with an X-A2 and the kit zoom. His web site isn't read by pros, it's for beginners. What I'm saying is that his opinion on whether an X-T2 is a "pro" camera is completely irrelevant.

Any system has its issues. If Sony had chosen to really focus on APSC mirrorless, add IBIS to that and bring its lenses available up to Fuji level, would they have had better products? I don't know, maybe. Is the A7 series a mistake for Sony? No, of course not. Pick it apart however you want, but Sony is selling a ton of these things. FF mirrorless has improved Sony's position in the market. That's how you measure success or failure in business.

So I think the practical application is, use film format basis of you are planning moderately sized prints or web images, or pixel format if you care about 100% views or huge prints.

DOF is the range of distances between which a small detail can be seen clearly. To figure this out you need to define "clearly" so you define a size for a "circle of confusion" which is the size of the detail you will see when looking at a print. Lens makers traditionally picked a print size and viewing distance (I forget what these numbers are) for this calculation. When you see a DOF scale on e.g. an old Nikkor lens, the DOF marks correspond to Nikon's calculations using those numbers. That's how "film former basis" works. When doing this for film, the amount of detail the film will capture is not accounted for in the calculation. With digital people are in the bad habit of judging sharpness based on 100% magnification on a screen. Sensor resolution becomes a factor, which is why all those people who switched from a D700 to a D800 started hating on their old lenses. Pixel basis DOF is for 100% viewing, so the circle of confusion effectively becomes much smaller. You will have much tighter tolerances because you're looking at much higher magnification (as if you were using circle of confusion based on a huge print viewed at close distance) and sensor resolution will be a factor, so your pixel basis DOF on an X-Pro2 will not be the same as on an X-T1 (if they add the feature in future firmware).

X-Trans is still there so whatever Adobe is doing wrong with the demosaic / NR / sharpening is probably still an issue. But it looks like for the camera's internal JPG processor, Fuji has been working on noise handling quite a bit, which would explain why these high ISO textures are so improved.

I bought a mint X-Pro1 recently for $350. I'm kind of loving it.

I have both of those cameras. To me, the X-Pro1 has a nicer "feel" to it - it's robust, and somehow its somewhat slower performance is charming. I use it almost exclusively with the 35mm in B&W. But honestly if you're looking for usefulness, the X-E2 wins. Especially with the new firmware, it wins on speed and the focus system is quicker and more usable. With a well thought out set of FN button settings it's more of a competitor for SLRs. The EVF is better - higher res and faster refresh than the X-Pro1. Coming from an SLR viewfinder with TTL view, EVF will make more sense to you that the X-Pro1 OVF mode. In OVF you have to do some mental correction for parallax, since the OVF view is from the corner of the camera and not through the lens, and focus is tricky because you don't necessarily know where exactly the focus point you placed falls in the field of view and you don't directly see focus in the finder. With the new firmware, the X-E2 is an extremely strong performer - it's the same an an X-T10 but with the finder on the left.

I made the opposite change because I preferred the 56 as a portrait lens, but if the large aperture is not your priority and you don't mind somewhat slower focus the 60 is a good choice and has the benefit of better close focus. The focus speed is not as big a deal as it was with previous generation cameras and earlier firmware but the difference is still noticeable.

Here is how I explain it: When calculating exposure, no correction for sensor size is necessary. The brightness of the image projected by a lens at, say, f/2 is the same regardless of sensor size. If you want to know how your image will compare to an image shot with a full frame camera, multiply both the focal length and the f number by the crop factor. A Fuji has a crop factor of 1.5, so if you are using the 56mm, multiply that by 1.5 and you get 84. The field of view will be the same as an 84mm lens on a full frame camera. (Close enough to 85 that you'll never notice the difference.) If you are at f/1.2, the depth of field will be the same as f/1.8 on full frame. The crop factor is also a good way to compensate for the fact that the smaller sensor gathers less light. At high ISO you can expect to have roughly the same image quality as a full frame camera that has its ISO set one stop lower. You need f/1.2 to get the same high ISO image quality as you would get at f/1.8 on full frame, all else being equal, so that you can set the ISO one stop lower while using the same shutter speed. Put all that together and the 56mm f/1.2 on a Fuji id's like having a very good 85mm f/1.8 on a full frame camera.

It looks to me like it's not there yet. The vertical edges still have large halos. And those foliage shots still have weird watercolor filter like effect. You get none of that at all in, say, Iridient.