kimcarsons

I'm a huge fan of the electronic shutter for discretion. In quiet indoor settings I find I can get 3 or 4 shots off before being noticed with the electronic shutter vs 1 without. The XT-2 has another advantage over the X-T1 here in that the mechanical shutter is quieter. I find that in situations where people are moving, there is enough ambient noise that shutter sounds go unnoticed. If you want to readjust your boldness level, try shooting with flash for a while, then when you go back to shooting with the mechanical shutter and no flash, you'll feel like a total stealth operative...

All sensors have hot pixels. Fuji's hot pixel mapping function could use a bit of improvement. It doesn't really map out the hot pixels, just dims them (this is on the X-Pro2 and X-T2). Of course, if you're processing the RAW files this doesn't matter and AFAIK all extant RAW processing software does actually map out the hot pixels (interpolating from surrounding pixels), which produces a better result than Fuji's method. 2 is a very low number of hot pixels to have, BTW. Consider yourself lucky. If you exchange it the replacement camea might have 20...

It may be slightly better, but not enough to allow you to shoot moving subjects/with camera motion.

@synthesaur I'm not sure what your pictures are meant to illustrate. It's a very subjective comparison without using the same lens, same scene, same subject, same lighting (not to mention the same camera settings.) Doesn't have to be a studio shot. Your X-T1 shots look either a little underexposed or with SHADOW TONE > 0. Don't forget that if you like that look, SHADOW TONE goes to +4 on the X-T2. If you're upset that X-Trans III isn't better than X-Trans II, then I'm with you there, the IQ is only better at ISO 200, and only very slightly better (which is nice for cropping.) But of course you get a lot more than just a new sensor in the X-T2 (which is why I kept mine). Perhaps a more direct comparison would put your mind at ease. Do you still have the X-T1?

Noise isn't information. If you take an 8MP image, and upscale it, then add fake noise, you'll find at some point you've matched the (noisy) high ISO image of the same scene shot at 24MP, because the noise in the 24MP image was just that... noise. Not actually information from the scene. Or conversely, if you take a noisy ISO 6400 24MP image and start scaling it down, you'll reach a point where the noise becomes imperceptible (it averages out). This is why you never see noisy photos on instagram... The images there are only displayed at like 3MP. People fall into this trap every time a new, higher megapixel image sensor comes out. They look at a 16MP ISO 6400 image at 1:1 and compare it to the 24MP ISO 6400 image at 1:1. That's not a valid comparison. If you downscale the 24MP image to 16MP, then maybe you can compare. But chances are nobody but the photographer will ever see the image at 1:1 anyway, they'll see some 3-6MP downscaled version on the web. The moral of the story is: if you want to crop a lot or make a giant print (i.e. benefit from that 24 megapixels) then you're going to have to shoot at ISO 200. If you accept that you will only make smaller prints or only display on the web, then you can crank the ISO as high as you want (the higher you go, the smaller the dispaly MP you can support without the image appearing noisy).

No problem. You just taught me something too! I hadn't noticed that holding the rear command dial did anything until you mentioned it.

The best way to avoid this happening is to not have white balance bound to a function button or bind it to one of the harder to reach buttons (and to always turn the camera off when you're not shooting)

I suspect you have the WB SHIFT option set to non-zero values.

As someone who has used the X-Trans I, II and III camreas I would say there's not really any difference between the different generations of X-Trans far as the 'waxy skin tones' issue goes. However, the default noise reduction settings between the generations of camera do differ slightly. That is, if someone thinks that the X-T1 has 'waxy skin tones' , they will likely think the same of the X-Pro2 (although maybe the new NR -4 setting will be enough to placate them) and it's beyond me why they would think that the X-Pro1 doesn't (maybe it's because ISO 6400 is so unusable on the X-Pro1 that they have no point of comparison?) Maybe this is beyond the topic but I think it bears repeating that the problem is not just with SOOC JPEG images... It's also impossible to process the high ISO X-Trans RAW files in a way that preserves fine color detail (as well as one can with Bayer sensors anyway). It probably doesn't help that the auto white balance on the X-Trans III cameras tends toward a somewhat ghoulish cool/green tint (although this is easily fixed by using the WB SHIFT option.)

Not all photographs containing people are portraits.

Part of the problem is that everyone has a different definition of 'waxy skin.'. For one thing this term seems to be used exclusively in reference to Fuji. When people talk about excessive noise reduction on other brands of camera they tend to use terms like 'smearing of details'. Personally, I think that what makes the effect different on Fuji is just X-Trans (any generation). X-Trans requires a fairly heavy amount of chroma denoising/color smoothing (usually built into the demosaicking processing step) to remove false colors. Without this step, which Bayer demosaickers have historically skiped entirely (most Bayer sensors having AA filters), X-Trans images of skin would contain lots of green and magenta artifacts at texture edges. With it, skin tone is smoothed out. You'll notice that in comparisons between X-Trans and Bayer images, the veins in peoples eyes are always gray/flesh-tone in X-Trans and (correctly) red in the Bayer images. This is the kind of detail one loses with X-Trans. NR -4 brings back the luminance noise, but it doesn't really bring back the chroma detail. All of this being said, it's still a somewhat subjective matter where personal preference plays a large role. And if you're not the type of person who zooms in to 100%, you may never even notice the lack of chroma detail. Life is full of compromises, and if you want Fuji's sharpness (in lenses and sensor output), you may just have to decide to life with their sub-optimal CFA and camera ergonomics. (or wait for the Bayer medium format camera!)

Have you determined if the frequency of occurrence of the out of focus shots is related to the aperture of setting of the lenses. i.e. does the problem happen more at f/8 than wide open? I ask because, while I haven't experienced the exact problem you describe, I have noticed that the AF speed/behavior of the X-T2 varies with the aperture setting of the lenses, even though logically it shouldn't (because AF has always happened with the lenses wide open since AF was invented...)

It happens with boost mode on or off. I should have mentioned that obviously the camera has to be in the 'eye-sensor' view mode. Sequence of events is: turn camera on with it away from your body (so that LCD comes on initially), and immediately bring the EVF to your eye. It's possible that the X-Pro2 had the same behavior and I just didn't notice because of the optical viewfinder---with the X-T2 your're just staring at a black screen for several seconds so it's pretty disruptive to shooting. After the camera has already been on 4 seconds or so, switching to the EVF seems just as fast with the UHS-I cards as with UHS-II cards. I also tried disabling the shots remaining indicator from the EVF display in case the EVF was waiting on the card for that information, but that didn't make any difference.

Here's another X-T2 bug... I didn't notice this behavior on the X-Pro2 but don't have access to one anymore to confirm. Here's the problem. With a (fast=95MB/s) UHS-I card in the camera (in either slot, can be in addition to a UHS-II card), the eye sensor takes up to 4-seconds to transfer the preview from the LCD to the EVF when first turning on the camera and bringing it to your eye. UHS-II cards don't seem to have this delay. If you put the camera to your eye and THEN turn it on, there is only a half second or so delay, which is fine, but I have a decades old habit of turning on/unlocking a camera before I bring it to my eye. This means I'm having to use $40 UHS-II cards in the X-T2, even though a $12 UHS-I cards are plenty fast enough me. I've tried PNY Turbo Performance and Sandisk Ultra UHS-I cards---with either the X-T2 exhibits this bug. Is anyone using a UHS-I card with the X-T2 that doesn't cause this delay?

There's a lot of misinformation out there about this (unsurprisingly, much of it spread by Fuji's marketing) The fact is that the X-Trans pattern itself does not really prevent moire or false color any better than Bayer does. It's all about the demosaicking and noise reduction. I don't think I've ever seen moire in Fuji's JPEG output. But you may see it when processing the RAW files in other software, where steps like demosaicking, denoising, and moire removal are separate and optional (although some amount of denoising is part of X-Trans demosaicking algorithms) The bottom line is: you won't see it in the JPEGs because Fuji's in-camera processing is quite aggressive and thorough. And if you see it in your RAW processing there are many noise reduction and moire removal algorithms which will reduce it.

Well, I don't know that there's anything 'film-like' about it. Certainly lower resolution digital images are more 'film-like', so are ones shot with softer/less constrasty lenses. I do know what you mean though. I felt the same way when I made the move from 12MP to 16MP (why are my low light shots so noisy, what happened to those smooth tonal gradations?) Sony seems to be the only one that gets it (with the A7S). That being said, once you scale the images to the same output resolution, much of the difference disappears. The real improvements with the new cameras are not in image quality per se, but in things like AF and sensor read-out speed/viewfinder blackout time, etc. I still have my X-Pro1 and like it better than the X-T2 and X-Pro2 (the IQ is the same for all practical purposes). AF and write speed are slow enough to be a hindrance in many situations though, and that's what I was hoping to fix with the X-Pro2 and X-T2. Well, that and usable video. I think with the X-Pro2 and X-T2 Fuji toned down the noise reduction to deal with the 'waxy skin tones' complaint (which your flickr image does exhibit). I would suggest you try NR +1 or +2 to better match the X-T1's output. Don't forget that if you shoot RAW or RAW+JPEG you can always re-render the JPEG at different NR settings in camera from the playback Q menu.

The film simulations on the X-Pro2 and X-T2 are a bit different than previous models. The auto exposure algorithm is different too. Noise in low light is slightly worse than the X-Trans I/II cameras. However, the noise reduction in the JPEGs does appear to be better. If you think the shadows are too dark, then why not set SHADOWS to -1? Or try the Pro Neg S film simulation (I find Provia to be a bit contrasty/garish myself.) Unfortunately, for now anyway, all the new tech is bundled with the 24MP sensor. Personally, I'd love it if Fuji made a 16MP version of the X-Trans III sensor for better low light performance (actually, if I could really get what I want it'd be Bayer), but I don't think that's going to happen. As for the plastic look, I keep the NR set to -2 or -4 (it's too bad there's no way to set this based on ISO like on other camera brands). Or you may try NR 0 to 2 with the NOISE EFFECT enabled... This produces similar levels of detail but with a less objectionable appearance to the noise. (again, it sucks to have to fiddle with this every time you change ISO...) Also, don't forget the relationship between ISO and resolution. You may just need to accept that at 6400 ISO your X-T2 is an 6-8MP camera and print/display your images at the appropriate size.

The 56/1.2 is pretty similar in performance to the 50/1.4 and 55/2 Takumar (but bigger, heavier, and more expensive.) The 35/F2 is good, but isn't going to give you the same subject isolation. It's much sharper than the takumars, but has severe barrel distortion and is soft as pudding for subjects closer than 2 feet or so (the former can be corrected in software, the latter cannot.) I haven't tried the 35/1.4, but it might be a better match for you. However, you might just want to wait for the 50mm/F2... It'll be a much closer match to your 55/2.

Having used both side by side, it's hard to say one is all together better than the other. The X-Pro2's viewfinder is higher-res and less laggy (higher refresh rate). However, it is also jarringly cool (bluish). In practice, I wouldn't consider it a reason to upgrade. The LCD, however, is much better on the X-Pro2---almost at the level of a modern smartphone (it's a real shame the X-T2 didn't get an LCD or EVF upgrade...) FWIW I returned the X-Pro2. It was a bit 'meh' all around (at the price point anyway).

Here's another weird behavior which seems to make the AE-Lock feature on the X-T2 useless in many scenarios... Using AE-L locks the position of the focus frame, regardless of the value of the INTERLOCK SPOT AE&Focus Fame menu setting. What this means is that you end up being forced to use a focus-recompose type technique if you want to use AE-Lock. There's also, AFAICT, no display option for a cross hairs when using the non-interlocked AE/focus frame mode (where spot AE always uses the center of the frame). I'm going to go ahead and preempt the posts asking why I would ever want such a thing: Anyone who hasn't used a Pentax DLSR, please go out and try one to get a feel for how good camera ergonomics can be... Pentax cameras have a button called the Green Button which does many things but can be configured in manual exposure mode to apply (aperture priority) auto exposure. What this means is that you can point the center of the frame at something in your scene, hit the green button to sample that spot, freely tweak your manual exposure from that starting point, and use the AF system as you normally would. It works brilliantly and allows one to combine the benefits of manual and automatic exposure while working at a fast pace---and without having to 'chase the needle' of the meter. (I know, I know, you don't want to hear about Pentax). Fuji doesn't have anything like this. To get a similar effect you can use aperture priority mode and ride the exposure compensation dial (but that's not really the same thing as manual), or use full manual and chase the needle with the shutter speed dial (not as fast or easy.) Exposure lock SHOULD be able to do something similar, but without the ability to use the meter reading as a starting point, to tweak it you have to start from scratch, and you have to press more buttons (to unlock and relock AE). But the fact that AE-L locks the the focus frame ruins it for anyone who doesn't use the focus-recompose method of shooting.

UPDATE: This behavior seems less consistent in brighter light (in bright light focusing appears to be using the 'fast mode' with the lens set to f/2 most of the time). It's not entirely clear to me what causes the Fuji to fall back on CDAF. Low light is when you need f/2 the most, so it sucks that focus is faster with the lens set to f/4... It's like a choice is between getting a grainy shot at f/4+ or missing the moment entirely at f/2, f2.8 (because the camera takes 3 seconds to focus). The real disappointment here for me is that in the situations I most often shoot in, the X-T2 is focusing just as slow as the X-Pro1 does.

I have the 56 F1.2. I like it, but honestly it's not that much better than the 50mm f/1.8 f/1.4 from other brands which are a fraction of the cost. It's also way too heavy to be a good lens for walk-around, street photography type stuff. I'd much rather have the 50mm F2. Hopefully (because 50mm is an 'easy' lens to design) it won't have as much distortion as the 35mm F2 does (and therefore require less software correction). If we're lucky it also won't be totally soft wide open when close focusing like the 35mm and 23mm F2 are... It'll be weather sealed and have fast, silent AF. In almost every respect it'll be a better lens than the 56mm F1.2 and cost less to boot. But if you still need to get eyelashes out of focus, then the 56mm is it. Personally, I usually shoot the 56mm a minimum f number of 2 or 2.8 anyway, even for portraits.

Are you saying that Fuji's AF algorithm is enabling a faster/lower accuracy focus mode for higher aperture numbers (the speed increases dramatically at f/4 and higher)? Or, conversely, forcing a slower AF mode when the aperture number is lower (than f/4)? If this is necessary, why do you think DSLR manufacturers don't do this (AF speed is consistent no matter the aperture setting on every DSLR I've ever used...) Are you aware of any setting/option to allow users to opt out of this behavior any use the fast AF mode even at f/2?

In addition to the bizarre behavior where the X-T2 stops down the lens for the entire time focusing in AF-C, I just noticed a new weird behavior tonight. This affects AF-S mode, and it is very odd indeed. It's most obvious in zone focus mode with the largest PDAF focus area. This is with the 35mm F2. Set the lens to f/2 and try focusing on something close and then something distant. The AF slowly hunts (3 seconds in my tests--about the same as the X-Pro1, so seems to be using CDAF). Now set the lens to f/16 and try it. Boom, focusing now takes less than 1 second. Now, as I mentioned in the other thread, in AF-S mode the X-T2 focuses with the lens wide open (or nearly). This is still true in this case. The lens doesn't actually stop down to f/16 until the focusing is done. But for some bizarre reason, and even though the actual aperture during focusing is f/2ish, it's far quicker with the aperture ring on the lens set to f/16. WTF, Fuji?

I voted "other." Having now used both the X-Pro2 and the X-T2... I kind of just wish I had an X-Pro1 with all of the sensor/processor updates (exception below), focus lever, etc. PLUS a tilting LCD---this is one thing that once you've used you can't go back. I can definitely live without a touch screen, although it's nice for video (my X70 has a touch screen, but I leave it turned off because otherwise the focus point is always moving about on its own and I don't find it to be a burden to move the focus point with the d-pad.) The exception to the sensor updates is that... after shooting a lot with the new 24MP sensor, I find I'd rather go back to 16 or even 12MP and keep the new tech (BSI? Copper wiring? etc?), resulting in gaining a stop of high-ISO performance rather than just about breaking even as it does now. 24MP just isn't that much better than 16MP in practice. The 24MP raw files from any camera are enough of a hassle, but 24MP X-Trans RAW files are a bear to deal with. The X-Pro2 and X-T2 have a 12MP "M" JPEG mode (why no 16MP 3:2 mode, Fuji?), and that helps a little for stuff you want to share via smartphone without going all the way down to 3MP, but I really wish there was at least an 'M' reduced size RAW option, or better yet, give us demosaicked 16-bit TIFF (or DNG) in camera, Fuji! Of course it goes without saying that any new camera from Fuji should have those 'C' positions on all the dials like the GFX-50 does---they should have been there from the start. I'm bugged they didn't put this on the X-T2. The way the X-T2 works with the portrait grip is laughable compared to how other cameras work (i.e. on other cameras you can actually access all of the exposure settings from the grip.)