dhananel

My current thoughts on continuing to use Fuji.

 

I have been using various Fuji cameras for a number of years professionally, however I have reached something of an impasse. The chief issue I have is the lack of in body image stabilisation (IBIS).

 

I am a great fan of Fuji cameras (with the exception of the X-pro series which I have tested extensively but decided that the X-T1 and X-E2 suit me better). I love their lenses, particularly the primes (I have an extensive set of both zooms and primes) but I cannot understand why if they won’t stabilise the prime lenses they don’t have at least one body with IBIS?

 

The argument that IBIS may result in a slight deterioration in edge image quality has been put forward by Fuji and I can see the point they make, however, if the whole shot is ruined because of camera shake nothing is gained. Those seeking ultimate quality can always switch off IBIS after-all. The 90mm is a prime candidate for inducing camera shake in my experience. When shooting in good light levels this is no problem but when using available light such as photographing a play or for candid work in the evening the problem becomes real. My solution is to use higher ISO to  allow higher shutter speeds, but this has resulted in noisier images than I like or want to accept.

 

The Fuji zoom lenses have image stabilisation but this is of no comfort to those who need the extra speed a faster prime lens allows. 2.8 zooms whilst lovely, do not compare to lenses such as the 56/1.2 for example. Also there are those who have chosen prime lenses simply because they suit their photographic style and habits better. Traditionally fast primes are the weapon of choice for the available light photographer and to have neither IBIS or lens stabilisation in prime lenses seems to be a retrograde step. Just about everything these days seems to have stabilisation of some sort, and this is a great boon, so it baffles me why Fuji persist in depriving us of this advantage.

 

As a professional I have the budget to access to other systems and have tried both the Sony A7 series and the Olympus Pen F and have found that they are both at an advantage because of IBIS.

Granted the Micro 4/3 size sensor of the Olympus may be at a disadvantage compared to the Fuji in terms of noise, dynamic range and shallow depth of field and the Sony is handicapped with a smaller lens range, but they both excel when it comes to low light photography because of IBIS.

 

I recently photographed a play professionally. I used both my Fuji cameras and also the Olympus Pen F and to Fuji’s shame the Olympus produced superior images. The reason for this was simply down to the Olympus’ IBIS. Each Fuji image was slightly softer than the Olympus versions. I noticed that the Olympus was just a tiny little noisier, but only when viewed at 100%. I did a similar thing at a wedding with the Sony A7SII and my Fuji cameras and again the Sony gave a sharper image.

 

I love Fuji colours, I love their sharpness in good light, I love the size and ergonomics of the cameras, I love their prime lenses, I love the feel of a Fuji camera and lens in my hands, I love working with the images in post-production but the lack of IBIS is killing it for me.

 

As a professional, I need to use the equipment that delivers the results that satisfy both me and my clients. Sadly I am increasingly reaching for my Sony A7 series equipment. My heart doesn’t want to do this, but I cannot sacrifice image quality for loyalty.

 

So this is a heart felt plea to Fuji, please introduce an X series camera with IBIS before it is too late.

The problem, as I understand it, is hot to compare the two.
 
The lenses of digital cameras are in fact not independent from the camera they belong to because once the camera knows which lens is on it, it performs corrections which, even though people think of raw as totally untouched files, are applied to raw files too.
 
If the lens is not electrically connected or unknown to the camera none of these corrections will be applied.
 
If you place any the two systems on their respective cameras you are testing the lens AND the camera sensor and processor at the same time so the results might be biased one way or another by the camera and not only by the intrinsic lens quality, let alone the fact that you will then maybe develop things from raw using different conversion software.
 
If you take the jpeg from the camera you are really messing up the test because the lenses might be better than their output for a software inadequacy.
 
Using the same conversion software, again, might put one sensor processor and software at an advantage over another because the result of one camera perfom better with some cornversion software than with another.
 
The only unbiased way would be to put both on a third party body and thus put them both at the same disadvantage. This would at least level the playing field 

With all the flagship talk, it makes me wonder... Does the X-Pro really have to be the flagship model? Can't it be part of the flagship lineup with the top X-T model?
 
It's not like the X-Pro is all-around better, like comparing the 1DX to the 5D. The X-T is obviously popular enough that many people prefer it over the X-Pro, and they're two completely different cameras geared towards different types of photographer.

From a technical perspective, blending raw (i.e. non-demosaiced) data is a bad idea as interpolating between pixels potentially originating in different exposures could give rise to funny artifacts.
 
And frankly, if I wanted more control over a multiple exposure I would eschew the in-camera multiple exposure mode anyway. I would rather have the camera store individual raw files and use Photoshop to enjoy full control over composition and blending.

One of the frustrating things at the moment with the X-T1 is the Multiple Exposure feature.
Great that it has it, but you can only use 2 images, it outputs as JPEG, and there is little control of the blending.
 
It would be a great Kaizen feature for Firmware 5 to have:
 
1) up to 5 or 7 images (some manufacturers do 9)
2) Output as Raw
3) Blend control
 
No idea how you submit features for consideration, but I have tried a few tweets.
 
What is slightly frustrating is that the X-E1 had Raw output, but the flagship model doesn't. I guess too that this isn't restricted to the X-T1 as X-E2 owners would benefit.

From all the excellent Fuji Primes, if you can only carry 3 in your bag, which are they?
 
Pick 3 from choices below:
14, 16, 18, 23, 27, 35, 56, 60, 90mm
 
Mine is 14 / 35 / 56.

- newer sensor, more megapixels but more importantly, more dynamic range. 

- 14-bit RAW or better

- weather/dust sealing

- same buttons as X-Pro1 or bigger, move away from small XT-1 buttons

- more responsive all around, AF, OVF/EVF, card writes, etc. to live up to its pro name

- high-speed electronic shutter up to 1/32000 of a second

- Q-menu deeper customization options, let each custom bank feel like a different camera for varied shooting scenarios, allow settings to be exported to card to set up on multiple bodies

- richer flash controls & flash synch, license Canon's flash tech and/or work with lighting manufacturers to bring off camera high-speed sync

- interval timer shooting

- if it has Wifi and other bells & whistles then have a classic/retro option to turn off everything but basic still camera functions to prolong battery life

- make a monochrome version, ideally make the sensor unit modular to swap out

My perfect x-pro 2 would have a 24mp sensor, no video, the same size, and a battery that can last 1500 to 2000 exposures. Also I would like weather sealing and built in image stabilazation.

Leica says even they couldn’t build lenses that small if these were to be equipped with state-of-the-art electronics and AF, so there you are …

I don't.
I think that the pro platform is just not the right one to have vide capabilities like this.
Pana made it also clear and split between GH and G... for good reason I think.
 
T-T2 will have 4k (if Fuji can overcome the technical issues at all) and I guess that's good.
 
Having said this: I don't mind it at all, as long as it does not compromise the still shooting of the pro2

Fuji X-E2 - 14mm f/11
 

it is really funny that so much attention has been dedicated to the fuji newborn, the 90mm, which, as it has been said by many, equals the 135mm on a FF or 35mm format camera.
 
I am old enough to remember everyone buying reflex camera with a 50mm  and then progressing to the 135mm and 28mm the holy trinity of photography when I was a kid. I too did that.
 
After buying it I found out that the 135mm was the most boring focal length that I could own. Neither fish, flesh, no good red herring!
 
Too long to be offering a good portrait lens and too short to be of any use for anything really far away.
 
Most bought it because it was affordable, small and relatively light efficient. Not many really ever used it a lot.
 
Who knows! Maybe after so many years photography has changed and now there are more and better reasons to use this kind of lens.
 
I really cannot see which though.
 
The 56 is a true portrait lens which brings you at a distance short enough to produce little “ visual compression” ( not in electronic terms but perspective ones) of the image. 
 
But, as always, to each his own!