kimballistic

A good and painful lesson to use that 2nd card slot for it's absolute best use: as a backup, duplicating all your raws and jpgs.

Bob, thanks for expounding on your thoughts. Now that I have refreshed my (basic) understanding of MTF I see your point.

Ron, enjoy the a7rIII. Always use the best tool for the job if you can afford it. But one question: why not use the GFX for landscape?

Hi Bob, we are in agreement that the lens resolution would be the limiting factor in determining the total system resolution in the situation where the sensor out-resolves the lens. We just don't agree on what constitutes "very bad" or "excellent" lenses (to use your terms). These are very subjective and somewhat emotionally laden descriptions (especially when you lead with "bull****") that fail to take into account the trade-offs inherent in the context of the entire system (i.e. APS-C sensor sizes, the resulting pixel pitch that is required to achieve these higher resolutions, and the desire to not have pixel-level sharpness limited by diffraction at larger and larger apertures as you reduce pixel size). Cheers!

The more pixels you put on a particular sensor, the smaller they become. The smaller the pixels, the better lenses you need to resolve fine detail. The smaller the pixels, the lower on the F-stop scale your sharpness becomes limited by diffraction. Have you noticed that full-frame sensors have topped out around 50mp? Well, to put things in perspective, our current 24mp fuji sensors have pixels sized equivalent to those on a 54mp full-frame sensor. Our current fuji lenses are being pushed to resolve as much fine detail as the very best full-frame lenses on the highest-resolution full-frame bodies. So while yeah, 30mp is not a whole lot on a full-frame sensor, a 30mp APS-C sensor has pixels sized the same as those on a 67mp full-frame sensor. I don't know of very many lenses that can resolve 67mp, nor do I know of very many photographers who want to be diffraction limited at f/8 or worse (except for those silly folk who shoot m4/3 ).

I'm with Hermelin. It does look like a random snapshot without any thought to composition, framing, or subject matter. If it's intended as street, I also see no decisive nor interesting moment. The stone arch looks like it would be interesting in person, as would the two tattooed characters. But a photo of interesting subjects does not necessarily make an interesting photo. Random snapshots can be fun and have lots of personal value to the photographer. But that doesn't mean they have to mean anything to the rest of us. For me, one of the most challenging aspects of learning photography was/is learning the difference between photos that have a personal, sentimental value and photos that have value to unbiased, neutral viewers. Harry-angel, by going after Hermelin's photos you might be getting a little too defensive. Criticism is OK, especially when people are directly asking for it (OP: "Do you think the photos are nice?" Hermelin: "No."). There was nothing rude or mean about Hermelin's response. Not everyone needs hand-holding or coddling. Just my two cents. Not trying to rant or offend, just stating my own opinion. Feel free to disagree.

Video quality went from unusable in the X-T1 to fantastic in the X-T2. We all have different needs and priorities. Don't forget that.

Is there a known problem with long exposure NR, or are you just guessing based on how it doubles the processing time? I personally would rather have my dark frame subtraction.

To each their own, as it should be. I'm enthusiastically upgrading from my X-T1 for the following reasons: Dual card slots High quality video USB charging Because I can afford to and already have all the Fuji lens I want These factors make a world of difference on long-distance backpacking trips: instant data backups, 1 lightweight camera that can do both stills & video, and I can recharge in the field from a USB battery pack. I am not expecting much increase in still image quality and I rarely use C-AF, so I don't care if it's not as good as hyped. I'm actually hoping that the face recognition has been improved, and I don't mind that it still used CDAF. Many others will have priorities different from mine. That's fine. Buy the camera that meets your needs. However, good luck with that Sony glass lineup. Yikes. :-)

PhotoPills has it all-- augmented reality starfield, sun/moon/galactic center rise & set times, DOF calculator, exposure calculator, timelapse calculator, astro shutter speed calculator to prevent star trails, etc.

Yes, thanks for the update! I still have hope the XT-2 & 18-55 will work. Time to rent them...

Mr. Green, thanks for the feedback. Good to know it still exists with the XT-2 and recent copies of the 18-55. Anyone else experience the wobble? Or NOT experience the wobble?

Awesome! I can tell you the 16-55 is awful for hiking. It's just so damn heavy. I use the peak designs capture clip and it's too heavy to rest on my shoulder all day. I have many Fuji lenses and it's the first I would get rid of if/when needed. The image quality isn't close enough to the primes to justify the weight of the fixed f/2.8 zoom.

Hello, I am a happy XT-1 owner considering the above combination (XT-2 + 18-55) for a through-hike of the Pacific Crest Trail next year. I will be shooting a lot more video and am interested in the 18-55 because it has OIS which will significantly help with video (plus a great focal length range in a lighter-weight package). In my research I have come across a wobble phenomenon at focal lengths beyond 35mm that ruins video: Would any new XT-2 owners be kind enough to briefly test this and report back? So far I only have one data point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJKn4_ZrjhQ I'd love to hear from more XT-2 owners so I could be more confident in my choice of gear. Thank you! (and yeah, this is still a heavy setup for long-distance backpacking, but it's frankly just more fun to shoot with compared to smaller cameras like sony's RX100 line, and that's critical to me)

From Rico's excellent First Look Review of the X-T2: Hopefully Fuji will add this to future firmware updates of the X-Pro2.

I've been wondering for years why camera makers don't implement this. With Fuji it could be another option past DR200/DR400: underexpose or overexpose as much as you need to get highlights as far to the right of the RAW histogram as possible without clipping any colors. Then push/pull the in-camera JPG until it is properly exposed, AND stick some data in the raw file so Lightroom and other raw processors can display the RAW file with the correct exposure, just like they do with DR200- and DR400-shot images. We'd really have the best of both worlds here: maximum tonal data while protecting highlights with an easy-to-use raw file that "just works". Of course I'm probably underestimating how hard this would be to pull off, but hey, we can dream, right?

I wrote that when their FAQ linked to a support page that explicitly stated it. They have now updated that support page to clarify that Photo RAW will not be based on Apple's RAW subsystem. The support page was referring to ON1's other products that use Apple's RAW subsystem, Photo 10 and Suite 9.5. https://on1help.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/206277847 So what I wrote is now incorrect, however I'm still very skeptical that they can develop a brand-new RAW processor with support for over "800 cameras" in version 1.0. Something is fishy there.

I get that error anytime a file browsing program stores image thumbnails/icons on the card. The camera won't read those tiny images. MacOS' Finder does that (especially if you're using it to move images to the card), and it's possible other systems do as well.

I imagine it's the effect from those silly filters that made the JPGs useless, not his chosen exposure. If he had the RAWs he could have hit Q and simply reprocessed them on camera without the filter applied. (That should be a thing).

No, Pierre pretty much nailed it. Unless we are misunderstanding the OP, that camera is a fraud. It does not sound like it earned its scrapes and dings through actual use.

This is no new "RAW processor". On a Mac it just uses apple's existing subsystem to de-mosaic RAW files. From a RAW standpoint it's no different than Photos or Aperture. Sure, the editing interface has more bells and whistles, but that's different. That has nothing to do with an actually new "RAW processor". They don't disclose their de-mosaic program for the PC but, given the situation on the mac, I suspect it's some open source package that they did not develop themselves. Update on 6/4: they have now clarified that Photo 10 and Suite 9.5 use Apple's RAW processing but Photo RAW will not.

Let me nitpick: the histogram should match your intention. Burb, by your definition your profile pic is very underexposed according to its histogram. However, of course it is not; the intention was to create a silhouette, which is naturally dark. Joostven, Burb is generally correct: google it. You'll find much more detailed answers than what we all can come up with here.

Any other Fuji shooters in Yosemite? I wish I had the 50-140 or even the new 100-400. I shot this with the 90 and cropped it heavily. Yes, this is SOOC. Amazing light on an amazing waterfall!

Definitely true, but much more difficult if you include landscape or other non-moving features in your shot.