dalto

There is no quality difference. It is lossless compression. Think of it like a zip file. The files are the same after you uncompress them. The DNGs are bigger than the compressed raf but smaller than uncompressed.

People are expecting to see another batch reach retailers the end of this month. I don't know how big it will be. The other question is how backordered b&h is. Because they are huge they sometimes get a lot of preorders.

Yes, that is the latest LR. Just a quick WB with the dropper tool, apply the Provia profile and cropped.

Unfortunately, I am at work and down have a monitor that is even close to calibrated but this is what it looks like with nothing but a little bit of white balance + provia/standard applied. Obviously, it could be made to look better with more adjustments.

So is the camera and the lenses

Under "Camera calibration" on the "develop" tab. Are using adobe standard or one of the Fuji profiles?

What profile are you using?

I don't think the camera meters the scene until you tell it to. With the default button settings pressing the shutter halfway should meter the scene.

Hold the delete button down for a couple of seconds and click the rear wheel

As long as you are in single point focus mode you can pick a point anywhere in the frame. When focus peaking or mf assist is enabled it zooms to your af point when enabled during manual focus. There are two levels of magnification that you can switch back and forth with the wheel but I am not sure what the magnification levels are. It pretty much works just like you describe from what I can understand. Since it is mirrorless you can even do it through the EVF if you prefer.

I use LR and have no problems with Fuji x-t2 RAW handling. It handles both the compressed and uncompressed RAW files without issue.

The most obvious reason to switch would be to shoot wider than 14mm. The 10-24 does have OIS. I am much more likely to be shooting static subjects once I get to UW so OIS is huge for me. That being said, if you prefer shooting primes and don't need to go wider than 14mm why not stick with what you have?

Pure speculation on my part but I am guessing that they stopped production because there was already enough available to carry them into next year when we will see an x-t10 replacement.

http://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm-x-t10-discontinued-well-x-e2/

How about something wide and small since it is going to be your second body. Something like the 18mm f2?

Unfortunately, we all have different, hands, faces, preferences and use our cameras differently. Personally, I don't enjoy using rangefinder style cameras. If Fuji only made RF style cameras I probably wouldn't buy them and would use another brand. Many people feel the opposite. Buy putting out two bodies based on mostly the same technology Fuji can cater to both crowds and capture more of the market. The retro styling, as you point out, is completely an aesthetic choice but there is no doubt it also impacts sales figures. While I like the styling I would not buy a camera solely based on that.

This is common among systems that were developed for digital only use. Basically, the lens designers accept optical flaws that are correctable digitally and then require the lens correction for RAW implementation. Most m4/3 lenses are the same. The lens manufacturers do not want you to be able to turn it off because they don't want you to know what the lenses really look like

Isn't it the same as having both the X-Pro2 and the X-T2? Fuji seems committed to having both rangefinder and slr styled cameras. Olympus does the same thing and it seems to be working for both companies. Honestly, I find it a little surprising that the market for rangefinder style cameras is as large as it is. A lot more people prefer them than I would have guessed.

Welcome! I am new to the system too. Seems like the hype around the x-t2 and Fuji in general is bringing a bunch of new users over.

So far my battery life has been horrific, 50 shots. However, because I am new to the camera I am spending a lot more time in the menus and lot more time reviewing pictures than I normally would. I suspect that it will get much better over time. 300 shots would be fine for me. The batteries are small and it is not a big deal to carry an extra. 50-100 per battery would be a problem.

Mine gets warm fairly quickly. I haven't much time with it yet but it doesn't seem to get too much hotter as time passes.

You have quite a few uses there. For street, landscapes and real estate I would much rather have the 23mm. For portraits the the 35mm. That being said, it is all personal preference. Depending on what kind of real estate pictures you are taking 23mm may not even be wide enough. For street photography the debate of 23mm vs 35mm(35mm/50mm equiv) has been going on forever and it really comes down to what your vision for street photography is.

It *is* lossless compressed.

Hmm...looks like both lightroom and fastrawviewer support them. EDIT: It is a pretty substantial savings on disk space. My files are mostly between 22-26MB

Is there a list floating around anywhere that shows which software currently supports the compressed raw files? I am trying to decide if I should shoot compressed or not but don't want to end up with something unsupportable down the line. Otherwise, shooting lossless compressed seems like a no-brainer.