mjh

44 x 33 mm, 45 x 30 mm, 49.1 x 36.7 mm, or 53.7 x 40.2 mm are typical sizes of medium format sensors.

How could it be without APD? If the 90 mm was less well corrected for spherical aberration it would feature a creamy bokeh, but then it wouldn’t be as sharp.

And Fuji is catering for these with JPEG output. You, on the other hand, want raw output and more control over blending. No problem either but it requires a little more work. More power and more choices = more work.

Keep in mind that the distance is the distance between subject and background, not the distance between camera and background. The graph will look different for subjects of a different size – the width of the subject can be specified. With a 35 mm lens you need to get closer to capture the same subject than with a 90 mm lens which gives a fast 35 mm lens a headstart, but as the background distance increases, the longer focal length wins out eventually. The break-even point depends on the subject size and thus the distance of the subject.

It’s not so much a change but another option. Leica photographers, for example, are accustomed to having a choice between 1:1.4 (Summilux) and 1:2.0 (Summicron) lenses.

The only models that could get the new functionality, in theory anyway, are those with an X-Trans II sensor and an EXR II processor, i.e. the X100S, X100T, and X-E2. For these models Fuji has to ponder whether spending the software development resources was worthwhile; for the others the issue doesn’t even arise.

At last week’s press conference Fuji wouldn’t commit to that; the chances of the X100T getting the new AF functionality are slimmer than those for the X-E2.

The tentative announcement of this lens was only three months ago and I think the current roadmap (placing its introduction in the second half of 2015) is the only roadmap it was on. Fuji never suggested the 35 mm/2 would be introduced before the 90 mm/2.

± 50 Euro might be enough wiggle room, if just barely. ;-)

There are different VAT rates in the EU countries and I cannot rule out that there might be a place where that 849 Euro figure is indeed correct, but definitely not where I live.

Second half of 2015, according to the current roadmap. Probably in autumn.

I am positive that it is. As the admin said: “This new Fuji X Forum is the right place to discuss everything about the Fuji X System and other cameras like the Fuji X100 / X100T / X100s.” Rumours are a part of ‘everything’ but this isn’t just a rumour forum. And by the way, this is the sister forum of the German language ‘Fuji X Forum’ (which originally was a X100-centered forum, hence its domain name fuji-x100-forum.de).

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.

It might – Fuji is considering this option but no decision has been made just yet.

Don’t trust the rumours (which is all I can say without violating the NDA). All will be revealed in a few days anyway.

Huh?

Yeah, but achieving the APD effect – excellent sharpness within the depth of field, combined with a really smooth bokeh both behind and in front of this zone – by any other means is next to impossible. An undercorrected lens (the standard choice for a smooth background bokeh) would also compromise sharpness within the depth of field and the foreground bokeh suffers as well.

Companies or their management don’t really hate each other, or at least they don’t make it appear they do. I very rarely hear representatives of camera vendors denigrating the competition. There may be the occasional quip or friendly banter but that’s about it. It is the fanboys of the various vendors that can be difficult to bear with. And it’s not just Fuji suffering from these.

An argument in favour of the non-APD version would be its support for phase-detection AF. It all boils down to the question whether an extremely pleasant bokeh is of paramount importance to you. If it is then by all means go for the APD. Otherwise the normal, non-APD version is the more versatile choice.

In general it varies a lot – and a planned shipping date may slip for unforeseen reasons – but about a month might be a good guess in this case.

Competition between models is in the mind of the prospective buyer. Someone fancys two or three cameras from different vendors and contemplates which one to choose. A vendor trying to sell a system wouldn’t necessarly care about one of their own models competing against models from other vendors. In fact they may opt to design a model that, say, neither corresponds to a competitor’s model A or B, but rather sits right between those two. Which, for example, is what Canon and Nikon often have done. A system vendor wouldn’t necessarily claim their product X was better than a competitor’s model Y, but that their system offered a better choice than the competitor’s system.

Andreas did put the question but they way I understand the answer this would be a low priority for Fuji, an update for the X-E2 being more likely.

There’s a slight problem with that assertion: If it is based on your knowledge of the full specs of the X-T10 then you are probably violating an NDA; as far as Fuji is concerned they haven’t even confirmed that there is such thing as an X-T10. And if you are just speculating then that would hardly be sufficient to motivate a split of sub-forums.

Why would there have to be a 1:1 correspondence to specific models of the competition? Just because Olympus requires you to choose between a built-in DSLR-like viewfinder above the optical axis (OM-D) and an optional EVF, also above the optical axis (PEN), that doesn’t mean that Fuji couldn’t offer a model with a built-in electronic viewfinder placed like a rangefinder.

The X-Pro1 has neither the sensor nor the CPU to support the features introduced by firmware 4.0 for the X-T1. Awesome no doubt, but also quite impossible I’m afraid.