darknj

Like everyone above me, the X-Pro2 is mostly about the OvF, the EvF on it feels small compared to the X-T1. As for does it make sense ? I don't know, I don't like Range Finder like camera, somehow it doesn't sit well enough in my hand, so if that hasn't been done yet, do try it out in your hand. Ergonomics are more important than technical specs, at least for me. If I have the best camera in the world but hate how it sits in my hand when using it, I will hate with guts every time I take it out for a shoot. I still hate the ISO dial on the X-T1 tho... And I am not liking the one on the X-Pro2 any better... but those things are mostly workflow issues. And Fuji camera's Auto ISO works well enough for my needs.

The Nikon P900 is a very impressive piece of gear, if someone has to get a a bridge camera that's definitely the one I am advising, it's rather cheap, very good IQ for the size and the ability to zoom into the moon makes it really impressive. The camera stabilisation works really well. But one needs to understand the camera to use it correctly, if someone just buys it and expect super sharp image at full electronic zoom range, they are going to face quite a let down, same goes for the AF speed, it's really not the faster among all the bridges bodies.

Really ? I think I saw in an interview that they wanted to keep the Acros film only for the X-Pro2 camera, could be wrong tho, as I have been sick for the last few days and the form is one of my few entertainment. - Ohh nice to know, I wasn't aware of the ND filter on the X100T ! - And I stand corrected, thank you for your details - Well, the X-Pro2 is about as thick as the X-T1 at the moment, and that's not enough to dissipate the heat for 4K video. Chances are, the X-T2 will be bigger and thicker too. - And that's where my issue stand with the X-T2 and Fuji, they are trying so hard to push 4k into that camera that they are willing to make sacrifice to the body and risk alienating the first buyers of the X-T system to maybe get more market share. At least that is the impression I got, the more I read about the 4k video capabilities and why it doesn't work on the X-Pro2, it doesn't take much to guesstimate there will be a size increase. - As said above, I think I read that part on one of the interview from Fuji about it, not certain if the limitation is technological or if it is something they want to keep only for the X-Pro2. If someone with better Google-Fu than me, I would love to be corrected on this.

- Not certain of wha you mean with the ND filter and 1/8000 MS, but since the X-Pro2 has it, there are good chances for the X-T2 to also get it. - They are certainly going to use the same sensor as the X-Pro2, no reasons for them not to. - The low light AF sensitivity was already corrected and upgraded to -5EV from FW 4.0 fo the X-T1. - It was already said that only the X-Pro2 will have the Arcos film simulation. - Again, since the X-Pro2 has the dual slot, there is a very good chances for the X-T2 to gifted with that feature, specially if they plan on making the X-T2 a 4K video shooting camera. - Same thing for the EvF, the X-Pro2 has a 120 Hz refresh rate, chances are the X-T2 will keep at the very least the same magnification as the X-T1 but get a bump on the refresh rate. - 4k video, I don't care either but since that is the current trend of the market and Fuji does want to increase its shares, it has to provide that feature, to my dismay... - There is a very good chance that the X-T2 will be bigger too, first of all because a lot of the same features from the X-Pro2 will be ported to the X-T2, so the size increase will also be ported, also it has often been mentioned that the X-T2's 4k video will cause heating issues, thus it will need a larger body to dissipate it.

I can only think of the Ona Union Street or the leather version of it. or maybe if you like the style, you also have the Billingham 335 or 555. But heck, they will be far above the budget of the Amazon bag. Personally I have the 335 in black and while it is currently retired for more modern looking bag, it still have served me very well for the past decade. Now it mostly holds lenses that I am not using on regular basis, ie. anything non-Fuji. But it has been under quite a few adventure with me and always ready for me, I really can not find a fault in it for all its parts are still working fine even after so many years of usage.

You have far more steadier guts than I do, I would never dare to open up a lens with that many parts, kudos to you

In 2013, the Chicago Sun Times fired all their photographers and handed out iPhones to the reporters/journalist and any person going on field as replacement. That was referred as one of the many nails in the paper journal world.

Does that mean you only have a smartphone with a Fuji logo sticker slapped on it in your bag ?

You want an even smaller 27 ?! Or did I just understood that part wrong ?

Errr... in all honesty, the D810 has a better DR than Fuji, at least better than the X-T1, I haven't been able to compare the results of the X-Pro2 yet. But anyway, same thing as always: How deep is your pocket and how much are you willing to wait ? If you have been shooting with your D810 for years, the muscle memory is going to be your main hurdle as both the X-T1 and X-Pro2 are used in very different ways than regular Canikon bodies. Also, if you haven't done so yet, go in a shop, ask to hold either one of them with a lens that you plan to get with the body and see how it feels.

It is not just the link to random photosites that bothers, but a lot of the protogs I follow around on Youtube review a product and present shots they have taken with the gear, when you have been following them for a bit, you start to know their style and framework, that gives you a baseline, for that reviewer, of how good/bad/meh that gear is. As for the Angry Photographer, I have yet to find a single shot he took while testing any gear or even referencing to. At least for the year or so I have followed him, I have never seen any of his work and that's really the parts that troubles me.

Technically, you shouldn't really compare those 2 lenses like that, they were made for different ideas. While both lenses weight the same, you are shaving quite a bit of weight away from the camera body. Also the 16-55 acts the same way as the Nikkor 24-70 F2.8 does, the 24-120 F4 sadly doesn't exist (yet?) on the XF series, which I find a shame, I would have loved a triumvirate of WR F4 zoom lenses, as the sensor technology gets better, that extra stop of light lost wouldn't be that impacting. Well who knows, maybe in the next 3-4 years when the X-T3/4 gets released maybe ?

Photokina in September maybe ? Or late Q2, early Q3 ? Who knows... it's rumors, not hardcore facts :]

You mean like the Chicago Sun Times a few years ago ?

What I don't like about that review, is he didn't took the shot he is holding in his hands when he reviewed the 16mm lens. He seems to be basing all of his review on that picture alone and is not showing us anything that he did with the lens to further argument his points. Agreeing or disagreeing with his list is a whole different debate but while his opinion does have some value, I also take what he says with a lot of salt/pepper and a dollop of extra sauce on the side. He knows his subject but does not show us anything that proves he actually gained that knowledge with on-field experience. I very frequently disagree with Tony Northrup about his view on photography but at least he puts pictures behind his words, Fro-knows is in the same basket. But Angry Photographer, almost never show us anything, or at least I still need to find a video where he does that.

In all honesty, it's not that bad at all, since the 90 is already one of the sharpest lens we have currently the extra macro tube and TC doesn't seems to be impacting the performances too much. Did you adjusted the loss of light in post or are all these SOOC Jpegs ?

Oh forgot about that one ! Yeah, it sounded super good until the price part... People are actually wondering between the RX1R/II and the Leica Q (I think it's the Q ?) of better IQ.

I also wondered the same thing but the Tamron lens but considering the vignetting issue and some less than good AF accuracy in struggling environment, I still prefer to the old non VR lens over the Tamron version. And I shoot Nikon only on non-hobby photography time, that's pretty much getting smaller and smaller as I am heavily thinking on moving away from the Nikon FF format and use a combo of Fuji and Nikon D500 depending on situation and needs.

Yes and also, the Sony A7 line looked fantastic on paper, it really got me interested in the system, then I saw the lenses and their prices, that got me to a full stop. I mean a 55mm F1.8 over 800$ ?! It's a freaking "nifty-fifty" for christ's sake plus I never saw the higher IQ that was supposed to match the price of that lens. So that was pretty much when the whole thing died for me, I still keep track of it as it does raise my curiosity on a technological perspective.

I am not very good with Canon gear but correct me if I am wrong. That lens doesn't have an aperture ring, right ? If so, you will not be able to change the setting on just the X-T1 and chances are you are going to use the auto focus. If there is any adapter that allows both features to work on a Fuji system, I do not know. Maybe someone else on the forum would be able to help ?

Lenses are needed for any camera to work, the size of it is of course fully detrimental to the whole system's size. If I am to buy the XF 23 F1.4 lens, should I complain about its size ? No, that lens is the size it needs to be for an F1.4 aperture, no matter what, you still can not bend the law of physics, the Nikkor 24-70 VR lens is doing a good job at showing that example, the non VR lens was already big, the VR version is just got larger because of the extra space needed for the stabilisation to work. Want smaller lenses ? Go to an even smaller system, m4/3 is also a very good balance of size/weight even in the lenses department, but again, F2.8 zooms are going to be large on it, it's the same thing repeating itself all over the place and the general pro-sumer market can not, or will not understand. The Nikon 1 system is another good example, I can have the heaviest of any Nikon 1 body, with 3 lenses, that covers wide angle with super zoom and "nifty fifty" all this for roughly the weight of a Nikon D800 body only. But in exchange, my IQ is taking a dip to counter balance the gain in size/weight. There will always be a trade-off somewhere, until someone figure out a way to bend our laws of physics, thing will remain as they are. In the end, buy whatever makes you feel good and don't bother too much with what happens to the sides. It's just a tool after all.

For a video editor, I can perfectly understand your need, working with 4k files are a lot easier to down sample into full HD or even lower resolution while retaining as maximum information as possible. I am still impressed by what the GH4 from Panasonic is capable in its video mode. That one is really impressive, specially since the last FW update where you can change the focus point in post. But I find that unnerving that people around are getting excited over the 4k video feature while there are other things that would need a clear immediate fixing instead of announcing the video capabilities of the X-T2.

In all honesty the sharpness issue isn't really that relevant to me, this is a shot taken at 135 with the 18-135, focus was put on the small fly: As far as I am concerned, the lens is sharp enough where I need it.

Well, the fixed lens size are fine, it's more the zooms that are having more size issues, we have the same thing with the F2.8 lenses on the XF system, both lenses are very good but very big and very heavy. But really, only NOW Sony is starting to release good to very good quality lens, it took them almost 3 years to start doing it. The previous FE Sony lenses were between okayish and "oh love of god why this monstrosity ?!". I was interested in the Sony alpha line for a long time before going for Fuji and every time I see something happen to the Sony world, I am glad happy of my choice, the only exception is that marvelous line of Batiss line of lenses for the FE mount, those lenses are gorgeous to use and work with. But for the rest, there is quite a lot of "meh" feeling to the system, at least for me. The bodies are great but severely lacking in decent quality of glass, until recently. I have also heard numerous nightmare from their after sales support, if you think we have it bad with Fuji, give it a go with Sony, you will love the Fuji support very suddenly.

I am going to advocate for the 18-135, it's really the jack-of-all-trade, it does have some IQ issues when compared to the other Fuji lenses, but not having to care too much about the weather and not having to change the lens with a focal view of 27-205mm (35mm equiv) is just way to handy to have. My light travel kit lens is the 10-24, the 18-135 and the 35mm F1.4 for low light situation, with these 3 lenses, I am covered for pretty much 95% of all situations. Now that's only if you really loathe changing lenses during your trip, if you do not mind that part, others above have all posted very good options that will have less IQ compromise than my kit.