Shadowside

I'd have to take issue with this. Almost any handheld photography would benefit from some form of stabilisation, particularly in low light situations. This is not my opinion, it is my experience. I do quite a lot of theatre, concert and candid photography and this is where IBIS is useful. Yes, I know it won't stop subject movement blur and yes I know that architectural or landscape photographers won't have much use for it. I know that some simply don't want IBIS, but for those of us who do low light, hand held photography, using prime lenses, it is essential.

+1 (But it's a big 1    )

I'd like to see XE-3

This i s deeply offensive.... Ace has gone to great lengths to not only perform an objective test but, in true scientific form, has shared his results, methodologies and rationale as well. You (Surfer) however have countered with nothing short of curt posts with nothing to back your claims other than "You Should Read My Book" which is not even available yet! One does not require an entire book to counter Ace's data!
 
Opinions can either become fact, through scientific challenge, or be disproven by the same process. You points so far are nothing more than a marketing ploy and have no place in scientific discourse regardless of the subject matter. It's too bad really, as it may very well be that your book will be a worthy purchase, but I for one will not be buying it.
 
It is not constructive to be rude, condescending, or dismissive in order to illustrate a counter point or logical argument.... just be fair and back your claims in the same manner as your colleague. I possess a degree in sensitometry, and so far I aggree with Ace. This is not to say he is correct, just that he is the only one that has produced quantifiable data.

"Point that thing at me again and you'll die in your sleep" My Wife...

The broken record returns lol
 
Fuji, PLEASE fix the view mode silliness on the E2! Focus updates are also welcome
 
What an awesome little camera and with a few tweaks will make a brilliant back up for my X-Pro2 ;-)
 
Thanks Fuji.

"Point that thing at me again and you'll die in your sleep" My Wife...

Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography
Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]
Ken Rockwell doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.
Sure, Ken Rockwell deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers.
Ken Rockwell doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.
Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.
Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him.
Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth
Ken Rockwell ordered an L-lens from Nikon, and got one.
Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.
When Ken Rockwell brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories
Before Nikon or Canon releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a Nikon sticker and the less good get a Canon sticker
Once Ken tested a camera, he said I cant even put Canon on this one,thats how Pentax was born
Rockwellian policy isn't doublethink - Ken doesn't even need to think once
Ken Rockwell doesn't use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.
Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius
Ken Rockwell wanted something to distract the lesser photographers, and lo, there were ducks.
Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you
Ken Rockwell's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure
Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.
When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.
Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes
On Ken Rockwell's desktop, the Trash Icon is really a link to National Geographic Magazine
Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"
When Ken Rockwell went digital, National Geographic nearly went out of business because he was no longer phyically discarding photos
For every 10 shots that Ken Rockwell takes, 11 are keepers.
Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.
Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his DoF
Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.
The term tripod was coined after his silhouette
Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer
A certain braind of hig-end cameras was named after people noticed the quality was a lot "like a" rockwell
Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.
Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues

via Imgflip Meme Maker

I didn't know my wife has a sister :-)

"Point that thing at me again and you'll die in your sleep" My Wife...

The quickest way to make money at photography is to sell your camera - Anonymous

"That's a great photo, you must have a really good camera" - response, "That's a great compliment, you must have a really good mouth"

This i s deeply offensive.... Ace has gone to great lengths to not only perform an objective test but, in true scientific form, has shared his results, methodologies and rationale as well. You (Surfer) however have countered with nothing short of curt posts with nothing to back your claims other than "You Should Read My Book" which is not even available yet! One does not require an entire book to counter Ace's data!
 
Opinions can either become fact, through scientific challenge, or be disproven by the same process. You points so far are nothing more than a marketing ploy and have no place in scientific discourse regardless of the subject matter. It's too bad really, as it may very well be that your book will be a worthy purchase, but I for one will not be buying it.
 
It is not constructive to be rude, condescending, or dismissive in order to illustrate a counter point or logical argument.... just be fair and back your claims in the same manner as your colleague. I possess a degree in sensitometry, and so far I aggree with Ace. This is not to say he is correct, just that he is the only one that has produced quantifiable data.

Please explain to me the personal or business connections I have with any piece of software. I'd love to know how you know more about my career than I do. You've already stated you know and did some form of work with the development of the Iridient processing, and you've a book to flog, so we know the bias you have. My connections in the photography world are strictly in hardware and marketing, so I'd love to know why and where you think I have connections and reason to push any software agenda.
 
That's the result, but not how it works as far as the actual process is concerned, though. DR underexposes the image using Fuji's misstated ISO numbers and then pushes the shadows up to match what the ISO should be. I.e., DR at 400% gives you the highlights of ISO 200 with the shadow exposure of ISO 800. In many cameras this would be somewhat hard to duplicate with software, but with Fuji it is easy since Fuji's sensor is essentially an ISO-less sensor and all exposures are pushed to simulate the ISO even in-camera, let alone in software; ISO 200 is being pushed up from the actual ISO of 140, ISO 400 is simply doubling that push again, etc. It's why the noise holds so consistently across ISO values.
What this means is that when it comes to replicating the dynamic range function, you just repeat the steps the Fuji system sets up: underexpose by 1-2 stops and push the shadows accordingly, bearing in mind that even at ISO 200, Fuji is pushing the shadows a little to fake a wider natural dynamic range.
 
 
For topic relevancy, I was walking past this old boat being used as a planter and took a quick picture with RAW+L. Classic Chrome, NR -2, sharpness -1, DR at 200% and colour, highlight and shadow all at 0. White balance set to 5600K with no tint bias. Lens is the 35mm f/1.4 at f/2.8 and I use a Tiffen Black Mist 1/4 filter always, so that's on there adding a little diffusion to the look.
Processing the raw image just now in Lightroom, all I did was simply switch the film simulation from Pro Neg. S (my LR default) to Classic Chrome. NR is at 0, sharpening at 15/0.7/25/20. WB, exposure, contrast, saturation, etc, all left at defaults/0. Highlight, white and black all left at 0, shadows at +25 to match the DR setting of the camera's file.
 
If you can tell a difference between the camera file and the raw file, your must have Superman's x-ray vision.
Dead centre

 
Corner, which vaguely shows a very, very slight difference in the shadow contrast if you really squint at it hard

 
And here is the full image, ONE and TWO. You can try and work out which is the raw and which is the in-camera .jpg yourself.
 
 
Point is, you're not going to get a better match any quicker with any other software. If you want to spend more time on it then you could match the top corner shadow exposure slightly better (though I won't say in which direction; that woudl give away which file is which) but that's a fringe case and in 99% of situations, hey look, all I had to do is select the matching film simulation and my LR defaults had everything else matched already. Import, one click, export, job done. You can't match the in-camera look any faster or easier than that, which is the point of this thread.

The broken record returns lol
 
Fuji, PLEASE fix the view mode silliness on the E2! Focus updates are also welcome
 
What an awesome little camera and with a few tweaks will make a brilliant back up for my X-Pro2 ;-)
 
Thanks Fuji.

This i s deeply offensive.... Ace has gone to great lengths to not only perform an objective test but, in true scientific form, has shared his results, methodologies and rationale as well. You (Surfer) however have countered with nothing short of curt posts with nothing to back your claims other than "You Should Read My Book" which is not even available yet! One does not require an entire book to counter Ace's data!
 
Opinions can either become fact, through scientific challenge, or be disproven by the same process. You points so far are nothing more than a marketing ploy and have no place in scientific discourse regardless of the subject matter. It's too bad really, as it may very well be that your book will be a worthy purchase, but I for one will not be buying it.
 
It is not constructive to be rude, condescending, or dismissive in order to illustrate a counter point or logical argument.... just be fair and back your claims in the same manner as your colleague. I possess a degree in sensitometry, and so far I aggree with Ace. This is not to say he is correct, just that he is the only one that has produced quantifiable data.

The broken record returns lol
 
Fuji, PLEASE fix the view mode silliness on the E2! Focus updates are also welcome
 
What an awesome little camera and with a few tweaks will make a brilliant back up for my X-Pro2 ;-)
 
Thanks Fuji.

The broken record returns lol
 
Fuji, PLEASE fix the view mode silliness on the E2! Focus updates are also welcome
 
What an awesome little camera and with a few tweaks will make a brilliant back up for my X-Pro2 ;-)
 
Thanks Fuji.

I don't really understand what you're trying to tell with those ancient pictures. 
 
 
 
You are posting pictures that could have been taken with a cell phone nowadays. Or maybe a paper-piece with a hole and some light. 
 
It's not about the gear, but the photographer who captures the photo, with the equipment he or her had at that time. 
 
This photography of human movement is great in many ways. It's great because it's creative, well composed, shows some human movements. Ahead of it's time. Imagine how good this picture could have been with todays technology. And even if you do not like it the new way, you could have made it close to this old photo-look in your software. 
 
Maybe we can agree to disagree

To reiterate, I personally am a big fan of this lens and find it incredibly sharp. But I'll be the first to admit it renders differently to most other Fuji x lenses. Not better or worst, just different. Which can be an issue when you're trying to make a multi lens shoot look consistent.
 
I'm not confusing it with the 18 either.

Well, 100 years ago, people weren't trying to shoot moody artists in sticky-floored goth metal clubs with nothing but a dying fluorescent strip light from the next room lighting the scene. 
 
But yes, to put it in a less snarky fashion, I'm never going to cripple my own shooting if a more suitable option is available. I delayed moving to digital because I preferred shooting film (and I went back to film a few years ago), and I have a lot of experience shooting medium-format and large-format film. I know what it means to have a slow system with strictly limited ASA!
It's the year 2015, though, and we have lots of advantages now which we might as well make use of. For me, that most often means using a faster lens wide open, which is where the 14mm starts to have issues. It's sharp as a wide-angle gets and f/2.8 is fast by general standards, but when even f/1.4 isn't quite giving you enough light, f/2.8 starts to feel like a real hinderance. But like I said, that's just me. It doesn't mean the 14mm is an incapable lens for most people, and it absolutely should find a place in most peoples' kit bags.
 
Now, a 14mm f/2? I'd be all over that. Gimmie gimmie gimmie. That'd be enough, I could get use out of that. That's one of those few lenses I'd really pay top whack for.

Wut?!   Once upon a time there was a fanboy post about XF 14mm titled "The best Leica lens Fuji ever made" or something like that… still true. Tack sharp, very clever construction (you don't have to worry about vignetting and internal reflections with filters), light and fast. Love this little gem.
 

(X-T1, XF 14mm, 26 seconds from tripod; air temperature is around -22F)

I'm not clear why everyone seems to think it would be to Fuji's detriment to issue one last FW for teh X-E2... There are such significant differences between it and other models the I don't really think there's any threat to sales of new or diffeerent models (T10 vs X100). The truth is it is very nearly flawless as is, the view mode thing is a quandry, and for the life of my I don't understand a company that goes to great lengths to make a high dynamic range camera and then only offers 1 stop  bracketing... seriousy? But a couple of small tweaks and add one or two new features and you keep the old and new customers happy
 
I have an X-E2 and an X-T1 and love them both, but for different shoots as they have different strengths, as does teh X-T10.
 
If Fuji has walked away from the X-En that would be sad and uneccesary frankly. I won't bail on them but I would lower my expectations, which is a shame as they are responsible for setting it so high in the first place and more than capable of maintaining it.

i use Ona Bag the Brixton antique cognac leather. perfect for my x-t1, 3 lenses, flash and others accessories.