gdanmitchell

Far be it from me to argue with your actual experience "under fire" (as it were), but only getting about 100 frames per battery is very strange. I'd want to try to understand why that is happening to you. Let me start by agreeing with your assessment that more limited battery life is an issue with mirrorless cameras in general when comparing them to DSLRs, especially for photographers who aren't using power-hungry DSLR features such as Canon's Live View. (I rely on that a lot, and when shooting in that mode a lot, I get about the same number of photographs from my 5DsR as I do from my XPro2 on a single battery.) For what you do, especially when you are making a LOT of exposures, I think a DSLR is likely the best solution right now — even though there is a price to be paid in terms of larger camera body and lenses, assuming that you go with full frame. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the manufacturers of mirrorless cameras don't just bite the bullet and enlarge the already-very-small bodies (at least the "serious photography" bodies such as XT2 and A7rIII, etc) so that they will hold batteries with at least twice the capacity of the current tiny batteries. There would be a few contrary voices, but the vast majority of photographers wouldn't care about the marginally greater size and weight and they/we would be happy with double the number of exposures on a battery. Back to your inability to get more than about 100 shots per charge from the Fujifilm batteries. It is rare for me to get fewer than 200, and I often get more in less battery-intensive shooting scenarios. So something is going on in your case that is accelerating the battery drain. Possibilities include a batch of bad batteries (a serious possibility if you are using third-party batteries instead of Fujifilm versions), incomplete charging, or something about how you use the cameras: a lot of chimping or in-camera image review? Camera sleep settings set to keep the camera awake longer than usual? Something else? I don't mean any of that to question your decision — I'm just wondering what the explanation might be, since your experience is significantly different than what we typically see.

Having shot x-trans camera for something like five years now, photographing a wide range of subjects and often printing large, I'm perplexed by the various sports of some supposedly-significant "watercolor" problem. There were some issues in the early day of x-trans when non-Fujifilm vendors were trying to figure out how to process Fujifilm files, but I haven't seen a significant issue with this in several years. I certainly don't see it with the 24MP files from my XPro2. One wonders if some of the third-party companies that are desperately trying to break into the rather small market for alternative conversion apps for Fujifilm may be feeding this myth. For me, I'll continue to use by Adobe products. They work really well with my Fujifilm files. dan

The idea that a Fujifilm miniMF system would "spell the end" of development of high quality lenses for their x-trans camera line is an example of groundless speculation that defies reason... and even defies Fujifilm's own lens roadmap and common sense.

Different tools for different circumstances. I acquired the 16-55mm zoom specifically for landscape photography, for which I generally prefer to use zooms and a high MP full frame system. Typically I would not choose my XPro2 over the other system for that sort of work, but I'm anticipating a particular situation in which I will need to minimize the amount of equipment I carry and I'll want to photograph some landscapes — so my plan for this is to carry only two lenses, the 16-55 and the 50-140 only. On the other hand, my primary use for the Fujifilm system is for travel and street photography. For these purposes I much prefer the relatively small Fujinon primes — and my core lenses are the 14mm f/2.8, 23mm f/1.4, and 35mm f/1.4. (I could see replacing the latter two with the smaller f/2 versions, except that I do quite a bit of night street photography.) For me it is a question of which is better for the task at hand. If your primary need is landscape, and you like using zooms for that, I'd consider the zoom option. On the other hand, if you also photograph in situations in which the overall size of your gear makes a difference, you might want both or you might want to continue with the primes. dan

The truth of the matter is complicated. First, in the situation you describe it is likely that almost any camera's autofocus (AF) system would be challenged by the very low light. Second, AF is not a perfect thing — it does not always work perfectly nor does it always work quickly. It eventually requires some skill to operate. Third, the truth of the matter is that mirrorless cameras, despite the enormous progress they have made, still do not generally AF quite as well as DSLR systems. After using an XE1 for 3 1/2 years (and doing a lot of low light photography) I'm quite impressed by the AF ability of the XPro2. Dan

Oh, my... why is it that every time this subject (and several similar ones) come up posters manage to turn a simple concept into something that appears to be baffling and complex. First a 23mm lens is a 23mm lens is a 23mm lens. When you buy a 23mm lens from Fujifilm (on Canon or Nikon or Hasselblad or Olympus or whoever — yeah, some don't sell 23mm) it has a focal length that is 23mm. The angle of view of the image from a 23mm lens is different on every different format, not just cropped sensor cameras. A smaller sensor captures a smaller area of the image projected by a 23mm lens, so you get a narrower angle of view from this focal length on a small sensor camera. If you could put a 23mm lens on a medium format camera, with its much larger sensor of film, the projected image would extend over a larger area, and your photograph would capture a larger angle of view. What photographers are usually trying to figure out is, more or less, "I like 35mm on my full frame or 35mm film camera. What focal length will give me the same angle of view on a Fujifilm camera?" Typically starting with a full frame sensor or 35mm camera as your starting point, you can figure this out using your camera's crop factor. It is easy. 1. If you like a 35mm lens on your full frame or 35mm film camera and you would like the same angle of view on your Fujifilm 1.5x cropped sensor system, just divide the full frame focal length (35mm) by the crop factor (1.5) to get 23mm. (35mm/1.5=23.33mm) 2. It works the other way, too. If you wonder how your 14mm Fujifilm sensor's angle of view compares to full frame cameras, you just multiply the crop sensor camera's focal length by the crop factor: 14mm x 1.5=21mm. Yes, your 14mm Fujinon lens gives you the same angle of view that you would get from a 21mm lens on full frame. I understand the desire to not have to do the (simple) calculation, but a few ideas. First, you only have to do it once when you select your lens for purchase. After that, it is what it is. Second, the math is actually pretty easy once you understand it and do it a few times. Third, there is a common way of describing this: "Effective focal length" or "focal length equivalent." You'll even see it on some vendors' websites. (From one I just looked up: "The "FUJINON XF35mmF2 R WR" offers a focal length equivalent to 53mm...") Finally, if nothing else convinces you... accept that fact that this is how the world of photography refers to lenses. For decades, where referring to large format, medium format, 35mm, or whatever (each of which provides a different angle of view with a given focal length) we have simply referred to the actual focal length of the lens and photographers have learned (the relatively simple skills needed) to make sense of it. Good luck! Dan

I tend to buy cameras that exist, for the photography that I do. While I'm interested in where cameras are heading, I don't buy a camera today because its successor might someday do something it cannot do today. Dan

I think that there are a lot of questions about the Hasselblad system. Hasselblad gets a lot of credibility based on their history of being a leader in MF film and then making some fine MF digital bodies. There is lots of optimism that someone can produce a MF digital system that is priced in a range not too far above the most expensive full frame systems, but when folks think of that they are thinking of the whole package, not just a sensor. The Hasselblad has a very limited focus system, and Hasselblad suggests that it will be nearly impossible to build zoom lenses for the camera. (Check their FB page for more interesting information.) Most people desiring MF are thinking of tripod-based work, but Hasselblad seems to want to suggest this is some kind of handheld camera, perhaps even something that you might use for things like street photography. Lots of us are very interested in this camera and in what sort of system might evolve around it, but there are a ton of questions yet to be answered.

Well, now... As a person who shoots both mirrorless and DSLR cameras (the former for street and travel and the latter for landscape and wildlife and other things), I have been using Fujifilm mirrorless for about 3 1/2 years... and my first mirrorless digital camera was nearly 20 years ago. The mirrorless systems have improved a great deal in terms of EVF speed and AF speed, but the best DSLR systems are still more effective for certain kinds of photography, especially where camera motion and subject motion are an issue. I love my mirrorless cameras for many things, and in many cases I choose mirrorless over my DSLR system — but the opposite is also true: my DSLR system is much better for photographing, for example, birds in flight, etc. So, even those who have engaged in the "practice, practice, practice" process will still often find that there are advantages to both/either technology. Dan

pfffft...

So, basically it seems like there are two explanations. 1. Fujifilm XT1 and XPro2 cameras are incapable of autofocusing correctly on the targets that you used, and therefore all of the other people getting fine autofocus results are crazy or dense. Or... 2. There was something about your test that was unique that you can't understand and that none of us can figure out, given nothing more than your subjective narrative.

Frankly, for anyone going back and forth interminably between the rangefinder-style X-Pro2 body and the DSLR-like XT2 body... you are probably more of a candidate for the XT2. Dan, who has the XPro2

That is an interesting concept... ;-)

Basically, if you like to use moderate focal length primes mostly and shoot subjects where absolutely precise framing is not as important as working quickly and intuitively, the X-Pro2 is a fine bet. Fortunately, because it also has the EVF, it can double as a camera that works with longer lenses and zooms, too. However, if you always want precise framing and/or you use very long lenses a lot or zoom a lot, then you'll probably be happier waiting for the XT2.

The OVF of the X-Pro2 is pretty smart. There are two issues, actually, though they become less pronounced when your subject is not extremely close. First, the image framing is not what you think it will be — the actual framing for close images is a bit lower and to the right, with the amount depending on distance to subject. After you AF, the framing lines move to estimate where the image boundaries will actually be. Eventually you can predict their location pretty well and just shoot. The second, related issue is that the focus point is also going to be a bit down and to the right from the indicator in the center of the frame. When you Af, the X-Pro2 moves the indicator to show you the actual focus location. Again, the difference is very small with further subjects. (There are two modes. In one just the focus point moves, while in the other the whole frame and point move.) If you are very concerned about this, either switch to the EVF, which doesn't have a parallax issue, or wait for the XT2. Dan

What is possible and what is ideal are two different things. I have no doubt that I _could_ photograph birds or sports with my Fujifilm cameras, but when I photograph those things I use my DSLR because it is better with those fast-moving subjects. I also have no doubt that I could do my night street photography with my DSLRs, but I prefer to use my Fujifilm bodies because I'll get better results. I'm a big Fujifilm fan, but I'm also honest (based on a lot of experience) about where its strengths and weaknesses are. Dan

You have my sympathy regarding your eye condition. (I have had a detached retina, some retinal tears, and an ongoing retina issue in one eye that is in "watching and waiting" mode, so I can relate, at least a bit.) With that in mind, a few thoughts. One thing I have learned is that, at least with my particular issues, I sort of adapt to "see through" the problem. The visual system is amazingly adaptive, and even with vision that is not objectively great we can often see things well enough to make excellent photography. The features of my own issues — which can be annoying and interfere with my vision at times — often become less visible and annoying to me when I'm making photographs. I don't know if your issue will play out the same way, but I hope it does. As to the right/left eye issue and the X-Pro2... if you are really interested in this option, I think you should perhaps just give it a try. You could simply go to a shop and try the camera to see whether you can see well enough and/or adapt to a left eye dominant shooting style. You could also try the X-Pro1 (available very cheaply right now) or one of the X100 models. Good luck, Dan

I understand the meaning of the term "lossless compression," and recognize that there should be no difference between converted raw files whether one uses the uncompressed or the lossless compressed X-Pro2 raw files. However, recalling that there have been some stories in the past concerning other manufacturer's compressed files that turned out to not be quite identical, I wonder if anyone has actually compared image files from photographs using the two formats and, if so, what was the result? Also, does anyone know which converters do and do not currently handle the lossless compressed Fujifilm raw format? Thanks, Dan

As a Fujifilm mirrorless fan (XE1 and XPro2) who relies on these cameras a lot... I have to say that I would not choose a mirrorless system for photography that involves tracking fast-moving subjects. I still prefer my DSLRs for that. Mirrorless cameras are getting closer all the time, but for optimal AF of moving subjects the best DSLRs still outperform the best mirrorless.

Having used almost all of the 5D-series bodies extensively (up to the 5DsR), I would not say that the X-Pro2 AF achieves that level of performance. The 5DIII actually has a pretty good AF system. The X-Pro2 is quite good for a mirrorless camera though, especially with certain of the Fujifilm lenses. If you want ideal sharpening you won't shoot jpgs. (I imagine that you are, given your description of adjusting sharpening on the camera.) Just shoot raw mode and do your sharpening in post. Every camera and every lens (and even different subjects) benefit from different sharpening settings. Dan

I feel like mine gets a bit warm, but nothing that has alarmed me.

The RRS model is a two-piece device — a baseplate that can work alone and an add-on "side" plate to complete the L design. The full L-plate setup is $130. IIRC, you can get the baseplate only for $70. It seems to have been designed to not interfere with cables or access to the camera. RRS is not cheap, but it is also very well made and reliable. Others may well disagree, but I'm OK with a higher price if the quality is top-notch.

I notice the difference when I go between the OVF and EVF, but it barely registers for me. I'm not using the viewfinder to judge subtle color balance in any case, and even if I could see it "accurately" I'm at a loss to understand how that would affect my photography. I think what is going on is that it is a fact of life that EVF systems, especially when set up to do exposure simulation (so that you can see in low light), must do all sorts of convolutions in order to display an image that looks good in video format. Keep in mind that the electronic display cannot, for example, display anywhere near the dynamic range that may be present in the optical view, so it has to compress it. I suspect that the EVF is also doing some on-the-fly color compensation. In the end, it really seems like a non issue to me.

I shoot raw, where most of these settings have no effect. That way I have more control over the image quality in post, and I start out with a higher quality file.

First off, the color of an electronic display is almost never going to be exactly the same as the real world display of the EVF. You are asking the impossible of your camera. Secondly, accurate color on the EVF isn't really all that important. You aren't going to change anything about your photograph based on the nature of the color — that image isn't there to judge accurate exposure and color but rather to let you compose and time your shot.