Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  1. I wonder if/when it will come to the Fuji-ecosystem, the only info I had found is it would be available for Canon an Nikon and somewhat later (in early 2017) for Sony. Nothing about Fuji unfortunately.
  2. The Metz M400 has hit the stores around here, for a price slightly higher than that of the Nissin i40. It looks and feels nice, with a size similar to that of the i40. The M400 has a (hand-timed) recycle time of approximately 1.6s with some eneloops. (should be 1.5s according to the paperwork). But: no HSS in the first version of the firmware... and I have no idea how fast Metz will be able to deliver the update. IMHO a tempting unit.
  3. There appears to be some influence from temperature, I have shot the images again with a 'cold' camera, and noise appears to be lower. For comparison I have also added a shot with base iso of 200 (RAW processing identical) 25600 cold: 200 cold: I wonder if there are relevant differences between body samples. Probably best to compare with similat temperatures...
  4. What is a bit weird (considering the statement 'In case that you use the “ERF” and show an enlarged image in it, a camera automatically stops the live view at a short time period to carry out AE when the shutter button is pressed halfway. The AE covering an entire angle cannot be carried out with the enlarged image which is a portion of the entire angle. The camera does so during the stop behind the scene.' in the FAQ) is that using AE-L does not work around this issue, so apparently the camera still does AE while it's locked. Also this might be an explanation for the behavior of the histogram: it only represents the ERF-image currently on display. I hope Fuji will find a way to correct (?, or people actually like this and my 'correction' is unwanted?) this.
  5. I have recently received a replacement body. The camera appears to be working fine, I just cannot escape the feeling this body produces a bit more noise than the previous one... I have never done someling like this with the previous body, but I wanted to visualize the noise a bit. To do that, I made e picture with the lens cap mounted (not sure if it is 100% closed to light of course). Settings: f/16,exposure time 10s, ISO 25600, Lens modulation optimizer: off, Long exposure noise reduction: off, Raw development: +3EV, Noise reduction -4, Sharpness: -4, Highlight tone: -2, Shadow tone: -2, Color: +4, DR100, Velvia, sRGB The resulting jpeg shows a lot of noise (of course), especially toward the top left corner and bottom edge: I would like to know if other samples show a similar noise level and pattern/if this is 'normal'.
  6. AF is slower when the ERF is active and zoomed in in the OVF, when the ERF is disabled or zoomed out completely AF speed is similar to the speed with the EVF. AFAIK that was already the case before firmware 2.00 Apparently this is a frequently-asked question: http://digital-cameras.support.fujifilm.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/19546/~/af-speed-of-x-pro2-looks-slower-while-using-electronic-rangefinder-(erf).
  7. I respect that, I am just trying to warn fellow members to make sure they are not misinformed. People should make sure they know what is true for their own situation, for the Dutch: it is certainly not the case that you always have a right of return (as you can find in law and for example on the government-approved website I had linked in my previous post). There are situations where there is a legal right of return, and situation where the retailer grants a right of return (possibly with certain restraints). Also people need to be aware of the distinction between non conformity/legal warranty/gewährleistung and additional possible contracts and rights between various parties. If the retailer does not exist anymore (insolvent&liquidated for example), it can be very handy to have a (legally enforcable) right granted by a manufacturer. Edit: I do not want to add more posts to this discussion, as it is plainly offtopic in this thread, but I just want to emphasise once more that everyone, the Dutch specifically, should not believe any factual claims made in this thread, and make up their own mind or seek more counsel if they cannot. Most of the sources suggested in the posts are intereting for people with interest in this matter, for quick information i would suggest especially the civil law itself (book 7, book 6), but also Consuwijzer for information in layman's terms.
  8. milandro, as far as I see the information you have provided does not in any way contradict what I have written. There is a difference between 'legal warranty' and 'warranty', 'Gewährleistung' and 'Garantie' or '(rechten uit) non-conformiteit' and 'garantie'. (and I would alway advise people to use rights from the former, as they are much better regulated and secure certain consumer protection) If you review the relevant articles in Dutch law, you will also find that a distinction exists between rights of return in the case of 'distance selling' and 'conventional selling', of course there is freedom for shops to offer more than what they have to to do by law (and never less). I would advise Dutch consumers to not assume they have the right to return stuff they buy in the store (in a conventional one) even if the store does not offer such a right. If you believe you have information proving the contrary, I would very much appreciate the links to the relevant articles in the law. Maybe an interesting message for the Dutch: 'Hebt u spijt van een aankoop? Mag u het product dan altijd ruilen? Bij veel winkels wel, maar bij andere winkels weer niet. Ruilen is geen recht. Het is een gunst van de verkoper. Dat betekent dat een verkoper niet verplicht is om een product terug te nemen als u het toch niet wilt hebben', which would be in line with what I believe to know.
  9. milandro, there is a difference between what is common and what is obligatory. A store does not have to give a right of return to the customer, (in non-distance shopping, in distance shopping they have to), but as you have stated shops often do it nevertheless, and if they offer this, this can of course be enforced. For Dutch law, the most relevant points are made in articles 1-50 of book 7 and in articles 230g-z of book 6 of the civil law codex, The contract between seller and buyer would be, and always has been, a different one than the one between consumer and manufacturer, (the latter relationship is much less regulated by law) But I think a discussion about these matters would be outside the scope of this thread, anyway everyone should look at his/her own situation/applicable law..
  10. milandro, mandatory rights of return are usually for distance selling in the EU. For most countries in the EU (including the Netherlands), these rights are not obligatory for transactions made in a shop. Nevertheless, it is often possible to return things also when not distance-shopping. The right to a product which conforms to the description, or reasonable expectation is not touched by that of course. I am not sure about the manufacturers' statements a pixel defect in the display is to be expected, for that they are too uncommon and not advertised clearly enough I would argue. With regard to if there is a contract between consumer and manufacturer, besides the contract between consumer and retailer, multiple views exist in, even within, various countries. Sometimes it is argued a warranty by the manufacturer with associated services is an offer to the consumer, who can accept that offer, turning the whole thing into a contract with enforcable obligations. One point why I feel a pixel fault in the display is something to complain about, is the fact this will stimulate manufacturers to improve their process. Besides that, it is annoying to know there is a faulty pixel, even it is (almost) never noticed, and it might influence second-hand value. On the other hand, I feel it is a waste of resources and energy not to use a display with one or two faulty (sub)pixels (but maybe they can be recycled efficiently, I have no idea).
  11. I wonder: should people accept for example a dead/stuck pixel in the back display? I had noticed a stuck one on a X-Pro2 display, and it is so tiny it practically would not bother me a lot. On the other hand I have never accepted displays with pixel defects on any product, also it might influence second hand value. But of course on many other devices or with a computer monitor the sole purpose of the device is to display an image, for the camera the main function is (usually) not displaying, but taking pictures. Does it make sense to complain about it/return it for the sole purpose of getting some attention for this type of issue/notify Fuji they might want to improve QC for their displays. I suppose they are well aware of this kind of issue, as they leave room for this kind of defect in the specifications and manuals of their cameras (as do (afaik) most other camera manufacturers).
  12. I can confirm the WiFi-lockup. The shutter button is a bit wobbly, but for me it's no big issue. IMHO the slight misalignment between focus square and ERF and the bright line which are a bit off target on the correct parallax compensationn are more annoying. Another new bug is that after switching the magnification of the OVF manually (by long-moving the viewfinder selector lever to the right), the magnification stops to be switched automatically, it would make more sense to me if this would be reset after a lens change or if this setting would be per lens. One more thing: add an option to use 24h instead of 12h/am/pm
  • Create New...