webpublius

Update: Today I picked up the X-T1 body with the new skin, door and 4-way controller replaced for a total of $48. Looks brand new and the door is nice and flat.
​I suppose I could have complained to Fugi or asked for the manager before agreeing to the repair price, i think they gave me a break on the labor though because the skin and door were only $20. I choose to have the 4-way controller replaced but they told me upfront that in their opinion the difference was minimal and now that I have it: I agree. They really should have raised the 'touch buttons' a bit more. Actually I brought some SUGRU from the U.S to build up the buttons myself, but even though I kept it in my dry cabinet, the stuff was rock hard when I opened the package.
 
I am very mechanically inclined, I make a lot of my own accessories, camera straps, flash modifiers, flash arms, etc. So that and along with my dental background, it looked to me that the metal is too flat where it meets the rubber. If they would create a 'dovetail undercut' where the rubber meets the metal, it would create a 'mechanical lock' and that alone would really help prevent the rubber from peeling away from the body.
 
What they did comes with a 3 month warranty. As others have said, it is a mystery, I have thirty year old bodies and they never did anything like that. 

Cactus Announces Cross-Brand Wireless TTL Support for Fujifilm via Free Firmware Update!
 
All the details on FujIRumors here: http://www.fujirumors.com/cactus-announces-cross-brand-wireless-ttl-support-fujifilm-via-free-firmware-update/

There most definitely is a solution,  though not "cheap".
 
Roboshoot by Serene Automation.   Their MX+ units support both TTL and HSS with any combination of supported  Fuji and Nikon flashes...  and interestingly the list of supported flashes keeps growing as more people use the Roboshoot system.   For example the Yongnuo 568ex apparently works perfectly with them and it's only a $90 flash.
 
http://www.sereneautomation.com/

The needs of the working pro differ from the needs of the enthusiast.
 
Since my photography is almost 100% professional as I have other hobbies I spend my time at .... I can comment that I use the 10-24/F4 a lot when shooting a wedding ceremony to fly between the ultra wide angle for the entire scene and then back to fully zoomed in for the candid shots as I walk around perimeter of the ceremony.  I also use that lens a lot for the first dances at the reception to get the awesome ultra wide angle of the decorations and guests as they have their first dance, then I zoom in all the way to get a waste-up shot of them with a little of the background.
 
When I shot Nikon I had the same lens but it was F2.8.  I noticed the extra stop loss of F4 when I got the Fuji during the darker dance times.  To try to keep the background similar, I had to now go higher ISO or slower shutter speed (would prefer the slower shutter speed) ... it depends on the scenario.  But for the most part, it made no difference for the ceremony's having to go F4.  But that zoom range is very handy to have when doing closer, more intimate photojournalism style of work.

Hi Guys,
 
Sorry for jumping in and let me apologise in advance for the poor command of the language.
 
I know it is sad that EF-X500 does not carry R/F signal. Honestly that is a draw back, I myself gotten 1 EX-F500 since I tested between i60 and the latter, the 500 performance is crazy compared to the i60.
 
The question here is, there are currently 2 wireless triggers that support HSS/TTL for Fuji Camera series, namely by Serene Automation and Catus V6II. I wonder if anyone has used it and kindly can share with us/me which is better.
 
I do know that Serene Automation has ability to link via bluetooth and made adjustment via an app from iOS and Android devices. They are both pretty expensive that why, I am asking around because maybe it is better to get another 500 as commander.

I know the passion for which lens to put out next is often quite high due to the limited number for the Fuji mount, so it follows that this sort of lens could divide everyone into camps.  
 
I would love it but I come from a background in newspaper PJ that was arguably the birth place of both the prime and zoom "holy trinities".***   Most "normal" people also don't carry 2-3 bodies either - one over each shoulder and maybe one around the neck.  Much of that stems from never knowing what your day would bring in the way assignments - so you had to always be carrying wide, normal and tele around.
 
I agree that the wide is not useful for many folks but It is a foundational to the photojournalists tool kit for shooting environmental portraits, action in tight spaces, crowds and for remote camera setups.   Since documentary photojournalism often avoids flash photography when shooting stories - especially the ones that involve intimate access to the subject to tell the story - a fast wide is needed
 
 
The only 2 reasons I have held onto any Canon gear are I still have my EF 20-35 2.8 which even 20 years on - is one of my sharpest lenses. (The other reason is wireless TTL HSS setups.  Fuji needs to get its act together on the strobes.  It isn't event the "fancy" stuff like HSS - AF assist is something I hear folks wanting improved on the forums.)
 
 
*** There are even a couple of variations for sub-genres like sports.  35mm sports work was mostly the 16-35 wide zoom for remote cameras, to get the team huddle or "hail Mary" in the scrum, the 70/80-200 and a  300/400/600.   But the fast ultra-wide always stayed on one of your 3 bodies.

Hi,
 
Long term speaking, I will probably get 2 Cactus RF-60 with Cactus trigger to build an easy to use and portable studio kit, but now, I'm searching for a compact TTL flash that I would bring with me almost everytime, combined with the ultra compact FlashQ triggers for off camera situation.
 
I almost ordered the Meike MK-320 this week, but I noticed that the head can't turn 180 degres.... something I like, especially to be able to bounce the light where I want when using on camera flash. I know some people are using this flash on this forum....do you see an issue with this?
 
I was also looking at Nissin i40, but since we can't do firmware update by our own, it's more subject to stop working (I mean some features) when Fuji is realsing a new body or new firmware. Also, I'm in Canada and it seems difficult to find support for this brand....and it's about 400$ CAD...not cheap.
 
Finally, there is also the upcoming Metz M400 that looks promising. It will cost about the same as the Nissin, but at least, we can do firmware update, and they mention that it will support HSS for Fuji...
 
Is there any other option I'm missing? Which one would you buy? At less than 100$ CAD, the Meike sounds like a no brainer compact and light flash, but if I don't like it, it's worth nothing...
 
Note: I own a X-T1 and plans to update to X-T2 this winter...
 
Thanks

I briefly tried the Meike, but in addition to the aforementioned swivel limitations, it was very flaky in terms of having to be exactly lined up with the contacts juuuuust right. It also didn't like being used on a cable at all. Cheap flashes = pretty loose tolerances.
 
I've currently got a Metz 44 AF-2, mostly because I needed a TTL flash for a job before the m400 was shipping, otherwise the extra bit of money buys a nicer interface, slightly more flexibility in functions, a full 180 degrees in both directions (the 44 is only 120 to the right), and even smaller size. My m400 will be here Monday, and then I'll decide if I keep the 44 as a backup/second, or sell it, since I'm missing the return window by a couple weeks (sad trombone). 
 
While they do require an update for HSS, which Metz promises basically ASAP, the update can be done by you, with a USB cable, and that's worth a lot to me over the Nissin. The i60 was compelling as a more powerful, wireless option for not a whole lot more, but considering that I'd have to send it in for an update when HSS gets added to it soon, and if any new issues arise, well, Metz is getting my cash for now. Given the transient state of flash on Fuji right now, I really can't overstate the value off that USB port.

Off the top of my head:
 
4K
 
F-Log (via HDMI, also 4:2:2 via HDMI)
 
Headphone jack (in grip)
 
3.5mm mic jack
 
AF-C profiles
 
Bigger/Better EFV
 
Zebra
 
Peaking during video recording
 
Live audio monitoring that can be adjusted by assigned buttons
 
More AF points and more contrast detect AF points
 
Tilty sceen
 
Both slots are UHS-II type (only slot one is on the xpro 2)
 
Battery grip (xpro2 obviously doesn't have
 
11fps in boost mode and apparently it can go 14fps with some restrictions
 
I think the buffer is bigger

Hey Ace, you mentioned "audio ports" in plural.  
 
Does this mean there's a headphone jack?  
 
Also are they the annoying 2.5mm variety like on the X-Pro2 or the totally awesome 3.5mm variety like they should be?

When the sea is pissed off 
 
A couple weeks ago on the North Shore of Kauai.
 

Yeah, I think the only wireless TTL flash system that works with Fuji's are RoboSHOOT by Sere Automation.
 
Admittedly, slightly on the pricier side, but you really have no other options currently to do wireless TTL flash with Fuji's.  They do seem to have limited runs so getting one may take a bit of time if you miss their stock replenishment.
 
However, if not in hurry and want to see what other options. I'm also looking at these other 2 systems in addition to the RoboSHOOT for viable wireless TTL flash.. now, if any of these mentioned here offer HSS in addition, even better... but, I'm holding out high hopes on the latter option.. harder to do.. I'd be happy with wireless TTL flash for now.
 
Fuji is suppose to release a new flash system, the EF-X500, this year (2016).  It may possibly offer wireless TTL capabilities.
Check out some info here from Fujifilm.  They seem to state it offers multiple flash TTL system. Cool!
http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n160115_06.html
 
And, I think Nissin is also working on a new flash system which may also possibly offer wireless TTL flash for Fuji.. think it works with Nissin's own Air System. Check it out here.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1236473-REG/nissin_nd60a_fj_i60a_flash_for_fujifilm.html/?gclid=CjwKEAjwgbG5BRDp3oW3qdPiuCwSJAAQmoSDiHN7-NimO3jRudbdwmAZFYyKezqiqml9ggrOviYKRBoC3iHw_wcB

I think that this lens is an extremely important proof of concept design. An 8-16mm Fuji XF lens would help demonstrate that the Fuji X mount is a highly capable mount that can convincingly support a f/2.8 zoom trinity going from 8-16mm, 16-55mm up to 50-140mm. 
 
This Fuji wide angle zoom lens will be the full frame equivalent of a 12-24mm full frame lens, which would compete against the likes of the Canon 11-24mm f/4.0 lens and the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. If it performs well, the Fuji wide-angle f/2.8 zoom would constitute a resounding assertion of the ability of the X mount to cater to a full range of focal lengths required for full professional usage. Most importantly, Fuji would be throwing down the gauntlet to Sony, challenging them to come up with a comparable f/2.8 wide angle zoom for their full frame mirrorless FE mount. 
 
The trouble is that Sony would likely be unable to fire back with a full frame mirrorless wide angle fast zoom. The reason can be found in this diagram:
 

 
Fuji themselves have stated that:
 
 
https://fujifilm-blog.com/2015/06/30/interview-with-mr-takashi-ueno-from-fujifilm-tokyo-why-dont-fujifilm-make-full-frame-dslr/
 
The problem with the Sony E mount is that it was originally intended to be an APS-C mount, and it has an 18mm flange distance largely identical to that of the Fuji X mount (17.8mm), and Canon EF-M mount (18mm). What Sony did was to take an APS-C mount and use it as the basis of a full frame mount. That is the reason why the angle of incidence of light in the corners become unusually steep, as shown in the above diagram. This will likely limit the ability of engineers to develop quality lenses wider than about 18mm especially since the angle of incidence increases with ultra wide angle lenses. Here is how the mathematics of it work out:
  Where X2 = Rear element distance from sensor. Y2 = 1/2 distance of diagonal measure of sensor.  We then derive the Tangent of A°2:   Tan A°2 = Y2 / X2 Tan A°2 = ~21.63mm / 18mm flange distance = ~1.202 = ~50.2°   Therefore maximum FOV @ 18mm flange optic distance = 2 x 50.2° or ~100.4°, or, roughly, the FOV of an 18mm lens.   The reason why maximum apertures for the E mount primes are commonly limited to around f/1.8 may also be to avoid exposing acutance problems in the corners. When the maximum aperture is increased to f/1.4, the engineers need to make the lens larger to overcome the corner problems. This causes a blowout in the lens size on ultra wide aperture models without necessarily resulting in better performance compared to their DSLR peers (the 85mm f/1.4 GM lens has MTF plots similar to the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 lens, and thus by extrapolation a performance similar to the now discontinued Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM lens despite its greater size). 
 
As it stands already, the Sony Vario-Tessar T＊ FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS has severe corner problems at the 16mm end. To achieve the 16mm focal length on the FE 16-35mm f/4, Zeiss were forced to deploy a double concave lens element on the sensor-side to adequately project the image so as to cover the full surface of the sensor. If the maximum aperture were increased to f/2.8, the corner problems would become even worse. That means we may never see a decently performing 16-35mm f/2.8 E mount zoom lens, and a 12-24mm f/2.8 zoom is even less likely. Even an acceptably high performance full frame 14-24mm f/2.8 lens like the Nikon version is probably impossible to execute acceptably on the E mount. 
 
Sony fanboys will gurgle and froth at the mouth on reading this, but these are mathematical limits dictated entirely by the physics of the mount. It is a functional limit everyone has to accept when you have a full frame mirrorless system based on an APS-C dimension mount. It matters little how upset Sony fanboys get with me for pointing these inconvenient facts out. They can say what they please, but the only way these theoretical limits can be decisively disproven is by Sony producing a high-performance full frame 12-24mm f/2.8 zoom, a 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom, or at the very least, a 16-35mm f/2.8 GM zoom. Sony are welcome to go ahead and prove me wrong. I will be only to pleased if they could overcome this critical hurdle, and since I also shoot on the Sony E mount I will consider buying such a lens. But as you can see I have very good cause to be immensely sceptical.
 
So the Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8 will be an extremely important lens that will showcase what the X-mount is capable of. It will put immense pressure on Sony to show that their rival full frame E mount is a similarly professional grade lens mount. After all what kind of a lens mount would it be if it cannot support the full f/2.8 zoom trinity? It matters not in the slightest if some do not shoot at ultra wide angles. The more critical factor is the proof of concept that a mount is capable of supporting a full range of focal lens for a wide variety of applications. Although the proof is in the eating, the physics of it predicts that it is a challenge the X mount will probably pass, just as the E mount will equally likely fail—and fail dismally.
 

OK, then the next items to jump to the front of the lens "roadmap" have to be 11mm and 16mm tilt and shift optics to replace the Canon equivalents (17 and 24). I do use the 45 sometimes, so throw in a 23 TS, too. (Canon should have made that a 35.)
 
Looks like I lug big iron for a while at least to those shoots.
 
I, too, love these rugby portraits. Great lighting. Wish more clients asked for this.
 
No "on-off" errors during the sessions? I returned mine (bummed) and am waiting to see what Fuji figures out. Or what the % error rate is in real shooting.