gdanmitchell

I generally shoot a full frame system for landscape photography, working from the tripod and the whole nine yards. But I also use a Fujifilm system for other photography and occasions for landscape stuff, too. On a cropped sensor camera the supposed ideal aperture is likely to be a bit larger than on a full frame camera. On many Fujifilm lenses (including your three) I would estimate the f/5.6 is a good normal aperture when no other factors compel you to use something different. Looking at the three photographs at the link, the more distant photograph would work fine at f/5.6, especially with your two primes. Normal and wide angle lenses are a bit more forgiving in this regard, while the telephoto may tend to seem to have narrower depth of field due to its greater magnification. You can shoot at f/8 without worries. Frankly you can shoot at f/11 without much worry also. If you are particularly picky about these things, you work from the tripod, and you try to make a 16" x 24" print or larger, when you look very closely at the print you might just barely be able to detect the tiniest bit of difference at f/11... but I really would not worry about it. You are bringing a tripod — very good choice for landscape photography. Do you have a remote release for the camera? That is a better option than relying on the camera's self-timer, and releases are not all that expensive. Also, do you have a tripod plate for your camera. You really don't want to be screwing the tripods screw head directly into the base of your camera. Trust me on this!

I disagree with the notion that there is something boring or "clinical" about modern lenses. Lenses are not "interesting" — photographs are, or are not. Yes, older lenses exhibited various sorts of anomalies and technical imperfections that some nostalgically associate with photographs from an earlier era, but it doesn't follow that just because that is how things looked in the past that the older look is better. Different? Yes. Better? No. I've been doing photography for as long as those older alt lenses have been around, and I used some of that vintage stuff when it was new or almost new. I'm very happy to have the optimized equipment we have today.

For reasons I won't explain here (suffice it to say that I plan to keep only one of the two lenses) I got my X-Pro2 with the 35mm f/2 lens even though I already have the 35mm f/1.4, a lens that I like a great deal and which has been on my XE1 almost all the time for the past three years. My experience with the new camera is still too limited to speak authoritatively, but my initial impression is that the 35mm f/1.4 focuses faster on the new camera than on the old. (Not too surprising considering what my old camera is!) In most cases it focuses quite well, in fact. It also seems to me that the 35mm f/2 focuses even faster and in slightly more challenging circumstances of low light and contrast. Eventually I'll have to decide. It is going to be a tough decision. Part of my photography involves night street photography, and the f/1.4 lens has been a standby for me when I do that stuff. Yet, the f/2 is smaller and faster and the maximum aperture is not that much smaller, coupled with the fact that the XPro2 probably produces images that are as good as those from the XE1 and at least a stop higher ISO. Decisions! Dan

I can't answer that precisely, though I know that the viewfinder magnification values are out there. I won't quote what I think they are, but you can look them up. I was rather concerned about this before I got my X-Pro2 since I always keep my glasses on when I photograph with this kind of camera. In fact, it might have been the factor that concerned me most before I made my purchase. Having the camera in hand now, I can report that it isn't an issue at all for me. I was also pleasantly surprised at how good the EVF is. Now my standard is the XE1 that I've used extensively for a bit more than three years, and I'm positive that the XT1 is better. But in some ways I actually prefer an OVF image that isn't too "big and lifelike," since I really want to be able to see the entire frame more than I want to see details very large. Dan

OK, I think you are referring more to the difference between the (moved) framelines and what you see in the captured image. Is that it? I'll have to double-check that when I shoot with the X-Pro2 a lot later this week when I visit an urban environment. Are you using a Fujifilm lens? Don't be offended that I mentioned the other possibility. When responding to forum questions it isn't always easy to know the background of the photographer, or his/her experience with a particular camera, particularly a brand new one. (I think I can actually beat your 45 years of experience. I've earned the gray in my beard as seen in my profile photo... ;-) Take care, Dan

So, you never deal with large dynamic range subject or do any post-processing? That is a novel approach. I'm trying to come up with a way to respond to your, uh, ludicrous statement nicely. This is the best I can come up with...

Being used to such dials from "back in the day," I think it will seem to suck less after you get used to it.

Are you referring to the frame lines being offset downward and to the right a bit after you half-press the shutter release? If so, that is the default mode in the OVF. The camera is adjusting for the rangefinder's normal slight displacement form the actual image position, and it is doing so in a very smart way — leaving the AF point where you positioned it but showing the true frame margins. There is an option in settings — sorry, forgot the name — that changes this behavior so that the frame lines stay the same but the AF area indicator moves. Dan

Mine changes automatically... most of the time. Fortunately, on the rare occasions when it doesn't you can force it to switch with the front lever push and hold trick.

Oh, you optimist. Dream on... ;-)

salt is the salt of the earth... ;-)

The fact is that almost anything constructed by humans will be imperfect at first, and certain issues are only uncovered once the thing escapes "into the wild." This applies to cameras, automobiles, computers and other related gear, airplanes, and even space vehicles. If we waited for all things to be perfect before using them, we would never do anything. However, you can easily accommodate your individual level of concern by waiting until the thing has been out a while and some of the issues (like this one) identified and fixed.

That is a great point. I think that some newer photographers may not know how small and tightly constructed some of the older SLRs were. My experience was with the beautiful little Pentax ME and MX bodies, along with some of the small and quite good Pentax lenses of that ere. By comparison to them, many of today's DSLRs are gigantic! If Fujifilm history is any guide, you should not have to wait "a couple of years." With some early release problems in the past Fujifilm came up with fixes quite quickly. You might wait a couple of months... ... and avoid being the first to buy the brand new model in the future, whether the manufacturer is Fujifilm or someone else. Dan

You over-simplify in a few ways. The size comparison is tricky, especially since one format uses a 4:3 aspect ratio and the other uses 3:2. If you prefer the 3:2 aspect ratio and would crop the mini-MF images to get it, the comparison looks less favorable than if you prefer 4:3 and currently crop your 3:2 images — which is what I do. From the former perspective moving to 33mm x 44mm means that you would have to "throw away pixels," and that makes the option seem less appealing. However, from my point of view, I am currently throwing away pixels with FF or cropped APS-C and I would get to keep all of them with 33mm x 44mm. (From that point of view, considering the actual used pixels in the two formats the crop factor of FF compared to MF looks like 1.9x!) Sensor pixel resolution is not the only issue, so even thinking that "50MP is 50MP" is not quite the whole story. The system resolution of a larger format sensor is better than that of a smaller sensor system and can benefit more from excellent quality lenses. The effects of diffraction blur come on at different apertures as well on the two formats. There are differences in dynamic range and noise response, too, along with depth of field. While all of those are potential benefits of the larger format, there are also some minuses. For example, coverage of a given angle-of-view will require a longer — and likely heavier and more expensive — lens. Certainly types of lenses are less readily available. The entire system is larger and heavier, and it is probably pricey. The question will really come down to the preferences and needs of individual photographers. For some, the 1.5x cropped sensor Fujifilm format is ideal. For others a mini-MF system could be ideal. Dan

Perhaps you are somehow underexposing the jpg and then the camera is auto-correcting for you? It could be that the raw is showing you the real exposure.

Cheap? You can have a lens that is very good and quite inexpensive and quite good. I suspect that the 35mm f/2 is going to be one of those lenses. What you cannot have, at least not from what I've seen, is a lens that is cheap, good, small, and with a very large maximum aperture. There are trade-offs, but perhaps not quite the ones you list.

No offense meant to Turkey or Turkish people. My point was that I'd be more trusting of something that came from a source closer to Fujifilm's management.

I don't always need solid and reliable information about the release of unannounced Japanese cameras, but when I do I consult someone in Turkey.

Yes, I think you might be. The 44mm x 33mm format is not what used to be thought of as medium format. There have been various flavors of MF in film such as the 60mm x 45mm 645 format, and larger formats. Sore refer to the 44mm x 33mm format at "mini-MF," since it is so small. That said, it is significantly larger than full frame, being roughly equivalent to what you would get by stitching two overlapping full frame images. Regarding the wisdom of introducing a 50MP full frame system (which is a theory mentioned by an earlier poster), from Fujifilm's perspective that might not seem at nuts as some might think. I'm guessing that Fujifilm has thought a lot about product differentiation. Notice the effects of that with their introductions in the current x-trans system: cameras that mostly bring to mind old school rangefinder cameras and which come with complete lens systems. Basically, Fujifilm decided to zig where the market was zagging and to NOT make another DSLR, and this worked for them. I suspect that Fujifilm believes (and probably has market research to back up their reasoning) that they cannot penetrate the market for full frame cameras, either DSLR or mirrorless, at this point. They have hinted at more or less this when they have said that they don't think that full frame is that much of an advantage over their 1.5x cropped sensor systems. However, a mini medium format camera, perhaps at a price point competitive with the high end current full frame DSLR systems, is enough different from their current offerings to not impact them and it could attract folks shooting full frame who think they want even more image quality. We'll see. Perhaps. Dan

First, with a cropped sensor camera you'll generally want to avoid the smaller apertures since they can soften the image by introducing diffraction blur, which increases as you stop down. I'd generally avoid stopping down past f/8 unless you really need to, in which case f/11 is probably fine. I almost never shoot at f/16 on a cropped sensor camera like the Fujifilm X-series bodies. (With 35mm film or full frame cameras the larger format allows smaller apertures before the diffraction blur effect kicks in.) Regarding a blue cast, several things can be going on. First, I think that we are somewhat used to slightly warmed up color balance these days, so even an "accurate" image may appear to be a bit blue by comparison. You might consider just warming the color balance a bit, perhaps by pushing that yellow-blue slider in Lightroom or whatever you use a few small steps in the yellow direction. Second, midday light tends to be bluer and harsher. Third, when the subject includes a lot of white (such as the man's shirt or portions of the sign) and there is a lot of blue sky overhead, this functions like a giant blue soft box light. The effect is even stronger when your subject is in shadow (again, as in both of your photographs) since now the direct whiter light isn't playing a role and almost all of the illumination comes from that blue sky, which is, predictably, blue! There are ways to reduce this: use some fill flash if practical, perhaps try to photograph when the light is less harsh and you don't need to place the subject in shadow to soften the light, and/or make some adjustments in post to counteract the blue. Fourth, in my experience with the X-series cameras, there can be some slightly odd colorations in outdoor photographs in daytime light. I get just what I want from this system in low light, indoors, and with night street photography. However, when I shoot landscapes with it (which is not what I mostly use Fujifilm for) I can see a color quality that reminds me of old slide film that wasn't exposed quite right or which sat in the can a bit too long. I can often make it better in post — again by denaturing the blue channel a bit and by moving color balance a bit toward warmer yellow tones. You mentioned switching from Canon. I use Canon full frame cameras for my landscape and wildlife photography and a few other things and I use Fujifilm for my travel, street, and night street photography. I actually prefer the Canon colors for landscape... Good luck. Dan

I believe the specs say that the X-Pro2 does support lossless compressed raw.

"Even if you look at a FULL-FRAME 36 MP sensor, especially an early model with a low-pass filter, the real resolution is not that much higher than a great 24 MP sensor - the highest numbers for 24 MP sensors are around 3200 lines/picture height, while a D800 is around 3500 (all of these numbers need to be taken with a BIG grain of salt, as two cameras with the SAME SENSOR, both with no AA filter, can come out a few hundred lines apart)! Put Nikon's standard 24-85 FX zoom on the D800, and a 90mm f2 on the Fuji (or the 16-55 f2.8, to go zoom to zoom), and there goes the difference! Yes, the lenses are no fair, but Nikons spend a lot more time with lousy zooms on them than Fujis do, even 36 MP Nikons..." As a person who shoots Fujifilm X-trans cameras and also shoots high MP full frame DSLRs, I regard the claim that the likely-excellent 24MP X-Pro2 sensor will equal full frame 36MP sensor performances to be marketing hyperbole. Before I get into the details, I intend to get the X-Pro2 and I look forward to using the 24MP sensor camera after using a 16MP Fujifilm X-series camera for three years with outstanding results. Increasing photo site density has the potential to improve the pixel resolution of photographs, though often by less that some might imagine. For example, the 50% increase in photo sites obtained from going from 16MP to 24MP will produce a print with about 22% larger horizontal or vertical dimensions with the same original sensor resolution. I regularly print at the equivalent of 18" x 27" from 16MP Fujifilm sensor originals, so the 24MP sensor will let me print with the same source resolution at about 22" x 33". That is larger, but not hugely so. In any case, 22" x 33" is a rather big print. I occasionally print larger, but that is rare. So perhaps the Fujifilm claim could accurately reflect the reality that, all else being equal, the X-tran 24mp sensor can produce print quality that is indistinguishable from 36MP full frame originals at such sizes. That is an impressive and useful thing, but it is not the same as being equal to 36MP full frame. (With my current 51MP full frame system, I am confident of print quality at sizes such as 30" x 45" and even larger.) It is possible to come to terms with two seemingly contradictory understandings here. On one hand, 24mp cropped sensor systems are not equal to 36MP (or larger) full frame systems. The optics and physics simply don't allow that. On the other hand, for virtually all photographers shooting such camera, there is almost never going to be a visible difference in the quality of their final work based on this MP difference, and for them the two are equivalent in practical terms. I look forward to getting and using my 24mp Fujifilm system. :-) Dan

I'm an enthusiastic user of the Fujifilm system for street and travel photography, for which I typically shoot handheld using old-school primes. I also do a lot of photography using a high MP full frame system with high end zoom lenses. Horses for courses and all that. If one's photographs are "bland," it isn't the equipment that makes it so. Beautiful photographs can be made with any brand, format, or photographic medium — film or digital, full frame, large format, cropped sensor. Switching to Fujifilm (whose equipment I love for much of my work) will not make bland photographs less bland. Sorry, Dan

"Autofocus is faster with the SLR's but for many people, the difference is already insignificant and the X-Pro2 is looking like it's a solid step faster than the X-T1." I combine Fujifilm mirrorless with non-Fujifilm DSLR, using the system that is best for the particular kind of photography I'm doing. Mirrorless is getting better all the time, but there isn't any solid evidence yet that AF is as fast on mirrorless as it is on DSLRs. That's fine for the work I do with my Fujifilm systems, but when I want faster AF and a few other features where DSLRs are still ahead, I use the DSLR system. Those working with a single system have a tougher choice, since there are pluses and minuses to both types of system — you have to choose what is most important to you. Dan

I can't comment on the Sony or its files, but I've been using ACR to convert Fujifilm RAW files for about three years, and producing good size prints from the resultant images, and it works really well for me. The whole "colors thing" among aficionados of one or another camera brand always baffles me. If you understand the post-processing software, and know how to expose well, you can get great color from any current brand of digital camera. Sometimes I think that folks who are accustomed to the work-flow for one brand/model simply are more comfortable with that, and they regard a departure from their familiar settings to mean the other gear produces weaker files. I currently use two digital camera systems and I've arrived at post-processing approaches that allow me to produce excellent quality from each. (In most cases, people viewing my prints cannot tell which came from which camera.)