Rand47

Sorry, been off line for a while. Let me see if I can find it. Rand

Are you using AF + MF by any chance? Rand

When I first got my 100-400 I had the same impression. In fact, I rented another copy just to confirm that my copy was bad. Guess what? Both exactly the same. What I discovered is: during the hot summers in my location a photo at any distance at all was soft from atmosphereic distortion; I needed higher shutter speeds and very careful technique (even on a tripod) at 400 mm. The more I use it, the more comfortable I get and the sharper the results. IS "on" all the time also helps, but eats batteries. If you're still having troubles, rent a copy and see if yours might in fact have a mechanical problem. Rand

You might consider running the pixel mapping function? Rand

The difference in "approaching vs. departing" subjects AF accuracy was mentioned in one of the better reviews I've read on the X-T2. Rand

Yup.... and the body adjacent to the ISO ring is undamaged. Something fishy, me thinks... Rand

Low is supposedly "lower sensitivity" ergo, "tighter" focus indication. High will show "more stuff" in red, but is less precise. I agree with you that focus peaking on High doesn't seem to make much sense. I've yet to find a use-case for it. As for DOF, once you have you focus selected via peaking, use the DOF preview (I have mine mapped to the front button) to check the depth things in acceptable focus. This's actually works pretty well. Rand

I can remember how bummed out I was after retiring in 1998 and buying a nice complete medium format film system. Not long after that (a year or two?) I was introduced to digital photography with a little Olympus "something or other model" that had 4 megapixel "small" sensor. I bought one for kicks, and took a class in Photoshop at the local art institute. I bought an Epson 1280 dye-ink printer and made some 8x10 prints from the little Olympus digital point and shoot. DANG... the digital prints were sharper and more detailed than the lab prints I was getting from 645 film. I kept my mouth shut because it seemed ridiculous to say something like this. Later on, Michael Reichmann on the Luminous-Landscape published an article declaring one of the early Canon Dxx cameras ( I don't precisely remember which one, but one of the early ones ) "better than 35 mm film." I remember feeling a little "justified" in my own conclusions. I sold all my film gear. Since then things have improved markedly. In 2009 or thereabouts, I remember reading and article with sample photos Illustrating how the Sony a900 FF DSLR was superior to 6x9 film. It wasn't marginally superior, it was stunningly superior. With the advent of really high quality pigment ink printers, excellent post processing software like Lightroom and Capture One, and the ongoing increase in both resolution and dynamic range of digital sensors, it really isn't worth discussing anymore. Film is fun, the process of shooting it and developing it, and printing in a wet darkroom is satisfying. I'd done that since the 50's and remember it fondly. Watching an image appear on paper in the developing tray was truly a magical experience, and the physical / visceral process of manipulating physical chemistry and paper and film was something special that not everyone could do well. But that aside, digital is superior in every measure of image quality. Discussions of "film like"-ness are fine and things like Fuji's Classic Chrome are expressions of that. Even though I'm hugely nostalgic about my old Leica M4 and my Olympus OM-3Ti, and my Leitz and Bessler enlargers, etc., I don't kid myself into thinking they were somehow better than what I have in my hands today with my Fuji X-Pro2 and X-T2 cameras and lenses and my Epson SC P800 printer. Rand

In prints! I'm one of those people who believes a photograph isn't a photograph unless it is printed. Otherwise it is a graphic representation of 1's and 0's. :-) I do fine art printing for clients, and my own work. I print files from many different brands and models of cameras. The 24mp Fuji sensor has really impressed me more than I thought it would in comparing it with some of the heavy-hitter sensors out there today. I won't even mention some of the files I think it is "better than" because you either wouldn't believe me, and/or write me off as a Fuji fan-boy, which I'm very much "not so much." :-) Rand

Resolution-wise, there's not a great deal of difference. But that's not the only difference between the two sensors / processors. The usable DR of the 24 MP sensor (in actual shooting - I don't know that the tests say) is significantly better in terms of pulling detail out of shadow areas. Frankly, I was surprised by this. Rand

Apologies - I managed to make a duplicate post. Rand

I put the self-timer in the My Menu. It then does a fly-out where I select from off, 2, and 10 seconds with the command pad or joystick, and not the wheel. Much more positive. Rand