gdanmitchell

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.

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.

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

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

Heres a angle of view table  (Thanks to B&H)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/Angles-02z.jpg

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

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

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

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

Honestly, with Fuji, forget Capture One. It's a great program with Leaf/Mamiya products. It's great with Sony. It's pretty good with Nikon and Canon, as far as tethering goes, but it's no better for their raw files than any other program. For Fuji it's downright atrocious. Shaky raw support. No tether support. The standard controls aren't well suited to non-bayer files.

There's honestly, honestly no reason to use Capture One if you shoot Fuji. There just isn't. At best it's a little behind Lightroom, and it's not like Lightroom is particularly great, either. For every other brand, Capture One is nice. Not Fuji.

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

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.

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 

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

I work in IT and the reality is that you can do absolutely exhaustive testing and you can still miss stuff that the minute you put it out there in the real world someone will find in about 2 seconds flat.
 
The reset bug is a classic example. Most testing involves going through a set of pre designed tests, most testing is designed to be repeatable so they probably used the factory default settings as there starting point for all tests. Which meant that they were probably reseting the camera at the beginning of each test cycle. Its highly possible that they never noticed the reset issues because they never configured the cameras away from the default and they were reseting it so often themselves it would not show up.
 
I am slightly more surprised that the Beta testers (actual photographers) never picked it up. But again I suspect that it only resets if you change one or two specfic options from the default and probably in combination. Again this may not have shown up depending on whether the user 'happened' upon this combination of options by chance.
 
Sometimes the only way you are going to find these things it to let users find them (a much much higher number than you will ever be able to afford or organize at Beta level) and then respond to the issues that come out quickly and effectively with a fix.
 
That is exactly what Fuji are doing, if they did not we would never get a new camera.
G 

damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If they don’t release things they are taking too long ( remember they halted the release of the camera allegedly because the software wasn’t yet ready... and then they released the camera... bugs and all?)
 
In the olden days a watch repairer would keep the watch on his person for a few days after repairing it to make sure that both the body heat and movement wouldn’t disturb his repair and that the watch would be accurate also under those conditions. He wouldn’t trust that he had “ repaired” the watch without some extensive test.
 
Times have changed.
 
Some saxophone repairers  overhaul a saxophone quickly and give it back to the anxious customer. After all the customer wants it quick and they are anxious too... to get the reward for their skilled job which is, as far as compensation for a day or two of work a substantial amount of money fro an artisan  ( from a minimum of €300 to a an average of €500, of course the less time you spend on it the more money you make some artisans make one a day which isn’t a bad living...).
 
One of those technicians has overhauled several saxophones for me. 
 
The routine is that he gives me the sax, I go home, play-test it comfortably for a lot longer than I could do there at his workshop, find that something isn’t right then I put a light into it ( that’s the way you see if a saxophone key and its padding leaks) mark all the leaks or other mechanical problems and bring it back for him to revise his previous revision. I know about revising a saxophone. I have taken lessons to do it not so much because I want to do it or like doing (so I don’t) but because I wanted to know what I was talking about when commenting on someone’s work.
 
He knows I know.
 
So, he sees what I mean, agrees, and then works a bit longer on the horn. Sometimes I have to go back again, the most I ever had to do this was 3 times. This happened also with a clarinet technician and is not something that is unique to this particular technician.
 
I have always wondered why he doesn’t spend longer with all the saxophones and getting right the first time?
 
I, personally, would much rather appreciate a company to test and test and test things and release cameras without bugs which showed up already after one week from the release.
 
But that’s me.