BobJ

Interesting about Silkypix. I used to use that but it was a few years ago. At that time it gave great colour but was inferior in every other way. Have they improved the awful UI too? Can I also just mention that to compare raw converters you can't just use their defaults as they are usually (certainly in the case of Adobe) made to give a flat, conservative look for a starting point. For example you have to know how to use their sharpening and noise reduction tools in each case. I expect that you are aware of that, so sorry if I sound a bit patronising. It was just the same in the old days - constant comparisons between films, developers and enlarging lenses. Wishing you good exposures. Let's all get out and take some pictures.

I agree and disagree. I don't have PhotoNinja but I do have X-transformer. The X-Transformer conversion (I used the 'smoother' option) gives a result that is very similar to the PhotoNinja and does indeed show less 'worming' at 100%. The question is, does this matter at real sizes? I cropped a section from the two conversions that equated to a 42x28cm print at 360 ppi and printed them on glossy paper on my Epson P800. You will have to take my word for it that there is no visible difference when viewed from 12 inches. When I viewed the prints through a 2x magnifying glass I could just detect a difference. So personally I will only be using X-Transformer when I have to crop the image by a significant amount. Anyway, many thanks for the file Graflex. The comparison will be useful for all to see if they need to make a decision about which raw converter to go for. P.S. I will of course delete your file from my system now.

Hi Graflex. I am back home and with my computer now. However I just get a blank when I use your link. Can you post the file again please?

Sorry Graflex, I have been offline for a while. My daughter is recovering from an operation and I have been loking after her and my granddaughters. She is ok by the way. I will see to it today.

What do you mean it lacks profiles? All the film simulation profiles are there and all the Fuji lens profiles are applied automatically. Please elucidate. I maintain that adobe camera raw, as used in Lightroom, is perfectly capable now of good results on raf files. Also, on my machine at least, the new Classic version is definitely faster. I should add that I have no connection with Adobe. I just don't like keeping quiet when my experience differs. DNG is a matter of opinion. The idea is that years in the future there may not be any software that can open camera specific raw files. However dng has not become the widely adopted standard that Adobe intended. If you have important images make sure that are saved as tiff or jpeg is my advice.

Looks like it will be happening soon judging by Sony's two new offerings.

Lightroom has been ok with raf files for some time now. The only time you might see "worms" is if you over sharpen and look at the image at 100 percent. I regularly make 30 x 40 cm prints and I have never been bothered by it. Is there someone local to you that has lightroom classic cc so that you could judge for your self? I could do it for you if you could get a raf file to me via Dropbox or something.

I would think that with a lens as small as the 35mm f2 it wouldn't much matter for panos, if that is what you have in mind. Take a point about halfway. If you are stitching with lightroom or photoshop it is not likely to be necessary.

The A9 is not addressing the same market as the X-t2. It's comparing oranges to apples. The X-t2 is the perfect camera at a reasonable size and price for some people, including me. However it is not at all in the same league as the A9 when it comes to sports photography. Sony are trying to make a professional mirrorless camera that can compete on equal terms with the top of the range Canons and Nikons and it is priced accordingly. The new Nikon D850 has probably trumped it because of its 45.7 megabits but Sony will no doubt fix that with an A9II. Sony are clearly the innovaters in mirrorless but that doesn't mean that they make the best camera for you or me. There is no such thing as a camera that can do everything well and Fuji have addressed a market that Canikon didn't realise was important. Being an innovater doesn't necessarily lead to success either. Minolta were the chief innovaters at one time and they ended up being swallowed up by Konica and then Sony. I don't think that Fuji has any intention of designing an A9 competitor, and that is a good thing.

I have only bought one Fuji lens from a grey importer. It is the only lens I have had trouble with, and of course I had to pay to have it fixed. I guess that I was just unlucky but you have to ask if the cost saving is worth the risk.

I would recommend the 18-55 and the 55-200. They will cover all of the focal lenghts you are using and then some. The 55-200 is a sharp lens. There is nothing to stop you using a zoom in the same way as a prime. If you feel the need to zoom around too much apply some electrical tape!

Just to say that firmware upgrades were posted by Fuji on October 5th. Don't know what "shaking in peripheral part of images" means though. I can't say I ever noticed it. I have applied the upgrades and the upgrade for the X-T2 and it all went OK.

Just to say that firmware upgrades were posted by Fuji on October 5th. Don't know what "shaking in peripheral part of images" means though. I can't say I ever noticed it. I have applied the upgrades and the upgrade for the X-T2 and it all went OK.

Just a heads up that a minor firmware upgrade to 2.12 became availale on Oct 5th.. There are also upgrades for the X-Pro2, 18-55 and 10-24 lenses

Looks like a great camera, but a touch screen while taking winter landscape is about as much use as a chocolate fire guard.

I have never used a D750 so I can't make a comparison but I can say that the X-T2 low light focusing is much better than the X-T1s. I wonder if you could borrow one to try it?

Your photography is superb Boowashere. You obviously have a great talent. I think that the choice depends on whether you want lower noise at very high ISO or 36 megapixels. If so then chose the Nikon. If neither of these is important I honestly think that the X-t2 is the better camera. The Fuji lenses are generally better value than the top end Nikon too. Another possible factor is that, being a professional,you might want to hire a lens for a special job, in which case you may find that you can hire Nikon or Canon but not Fuji.

I only just noticed this thread. Be warned, several years ago I had a Minolta Dynax 7D. One day I got it very wet. The lens was ok but the camera was not. it never recovered. Last year I was on a very windy Durness beach with alternating sunshine, rain and hail. I didn't have a problem. Of course it was impossible to change lenses which cost me the loss of a great rainbow picture. I was glad though that my XT-2 had some kind of sealing. Having said that, the term "weather sealed" is too vague to really mean anything. As Monty says, It doesn't specify any standard that can tell us how effective it is. Electronics do not like moisture and it's difficult to disperse it once it's inside a camera. Even if it doesn't lead to an immediate problem in the long term corrosion can occur. Monty, that is a great picture.

Buy secondhand if money is tight. XE2s and XT-1s are particularly cheap at the moment and are fine cameras. Fuji lenses are in general cheaper than their equivalents in other makes. To get the same sort of lens performane in Sony lenses for example you will have to buy from their Zeiss or G-Master range - and that will hurt your bank account! The Fuji 18-55mm kit lens is much better than its cost would have you believe. It's a little bit soft at the long end but still very good. However there are bad copies out there. I know because I have seen one. Expect it to be evenly sharp in all four corners. If they differ significantly send it back. Olympus and Panasonic use a "micro four thirds" sensor that is smaller than the Fuji's APS-C which means that they are not quite as good at high ISOs but they are smaller and lighter. The trouble with entry level DSLRs is that generally their viewfinders are small and dim compared with their more expensive brethren and indeed with any Fuji. The viewfinder is probably the most important factor in a camera. Make sure that you get to handle a camera before you buy it. They are also invariably mostly plastic too. That might not matter to you though. Personally I prefer a solid feel, which you will get with any Fuji.

I used to use Siklypix when I had a Minolta Dynax 7D. It gave nice colour but handled noise badly and the interface was a nightmare. Of course it may be much better now for all I know.

Micro contrast has nothing to do with colour. A lens with high micro contrast can distinguish between increasingly small variations of tone at high frequencies. It is about resolution, which is not the same as sharpness. An image can look sharp but have low resolution. All lenses are optical compromises. A lens with high macro contrast and low micro contrast can appear sharp despite not being able to resolve fine detail. A lens built for high micro contrast can show fine detail but can produce dull and lifeless looking images. In practise a lens designer has to balance these two qualities together with many other lens characteristics. Leica and Minolta, who worked closely together for a while in the pre-af era, made low macro contrast lenses that could resolve fine detail and had a lovely subtle tonal reproduction. What the designers did was to boost the MTF figures at finer than 60 cycles at the expense of the 10-30 cycle range. A decade ago David Kilpatrick wrote a very illuminating article called "Historical Perspective on Minolta Lens Design Philosophy". I have a hard copy of this but I don't know if it can still be found online. In it he discusses some of this together with coating decisions made to help give contrast and colour consistency (lens colour was much more important in film days for obvious reasons). Nowadays with exotic glasses, aspherical elements and design methods that were not available in the 70s and 80s, lenses can be made with less compromise but differences are still there. A couple of years ago I was lucky enough to attend a factory tour at Cooke optics in Leicester. Their hand built lenses are used for many feature films and TV dramas and are famed for the "Cooke Look". It's difficult to explain but involves smooth tonal transitions and beautiful bokeh. Interestingly they told me that they are able to design for the look in the design software. If you have to ask how much they cost you can't afford one! The TV companies mostly hire them. The feature film people have such big budgets that they are not a significant cost to them. Have a look at their website, it's quite interesting. www.cookeoptics.com

I don't think that there is any serious issue with development in the latest CC version of Lightroom. I have Iridient X Transformer which is supposed to be better but you have to be pixel peeping to see the difference. That is my experience anyway, although I know that some others seem to have issues with Lightroom. You might like to consider whether you want the cataloguing capabilities of Lightroom and Photoshop (you get that with the CC subscription too). If not, and if you don't like the rental aspect of Lightroom CC then iridient Developer might be the way to go.

He wants to know how to stop the thumbnails showing Man. The following should do it: Open file Explorer, right click in a blank space. select "view" from the menu then choose what you want, in your case "details". Once details is set click the File tab in File Explorer . Click on "change folder and search options". The folder options window appears. click the View tab then look near the top for "Folder Views". Click on the "Apply to Folders" button. answer the question about whether you want to apply to all files with yes, click Apply and then OK.

That's strange. Glad you have tracked it down. Computers never fail to confuse do they.

I should have said different cards. Change them both and then see if you still have the problem. It might be that a bad card in one slot is affecting the write to both.